Interested in a discussion online about carbon emissions and real, science-based solutions to global warming? This comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists:

A Target for U.S. Emissions Reduction

Join Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel for free web seminar on the analysis for determining “A Target for U.S. Emissions Reductions.” Following a presentation on the findings, will be a Q&A session.

Date: February 20, 2008
Time: 2:00 pm (EST)
Click here to RSVP. Directions on how to join will be emailed to you.

Substantial scientific evidence indicates that an increase in the global average temperature of more than two degrees Celsius (°C) above pre-industrial average (i.e., prior to 1860) poses severe risks to natural systems and human health and well-being. The European Union as well as climate legislation moving through the U.S. Congress both employ 2°C as a guide for policy goals.

"The last 50 years stick out like a sore thumb... The temperature's gone up and up and up. It bears the imprint of human activity."

--Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Princeton University

"It's not something we can adapt to...we can't let it go another 10 years like this."

--Dr. James Hansen, Director NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, member National Academy of Sciences

"The weight of evidence for climate change is very strong indeed, and it has gotten stronger over the years...The rate of warming is now greater than it has been for 10,000 years; that means the rate of climate change is greater than it has been for 10,000 years."

--Sir John Houghton, Professor in atmospheric physics, University of Oxford, recipient of Royal Astronomical Society Gold Medal, Honorary Member American Meteorological Society

Sometimes when I set out to review a book, certain parts of the book inspire me to write before I am even ready to review it. I made many references to parts of what I was reading in John and Teresa Heinz Kerry's book, This Moment on Earth, before I reviewed it, for example.

Right now I am finishing up the latest book on Global Warming, titled...well, Global Warming: The Last Chance for Change, by Paul Brown, a long-time correspondent for The Guardian. I will review this book soon. It is excellent, far better than my initial expectations of it. Simply put, it is the most comprehensive and thorough discussion of the issue to date. A must read even for skeptics because if they can't address what is in this book then they have no right to be skeptics. But more on that in a later diary someday soon.

Right now I want to focus on a single chapter of this book: Chapter 13 discussing Nuclear Energy.

While researching yesterday's post on global warming and the metropolitan area, I came across a map of projected inundation levels should New York be struck by a category 3 hurricane.

Mind you, category 3 is not Katrina-strength; Katrina was a category 5. Category 3 is defined as follows:

Winds 111-130 mph (96-113 kt or 178-209 km/hr). Storm surge generally 9-12 ft above normal. Some structural damage to small residences and utility buildings with a minor amount of curtainwall failures. Damage to shrubbery and trees with foliage blown off trees and large trees blown down. Mobile homes and poorly constructed signs are destroyed. Low-lying escape routes are cut by rising water 3-5 hours before arrival of the center of the hurricane. Flooding near the coast destroys smaller structures with larger structures damaged by battering from floating debris. Terrain continuously lower than 5 ft above mean sea level may be flooded inland 8 miles (13 km) or more. Evacuation of low-lying residences with several blocks of the shoreline may be required. Hurricanes Jeanne and Ivan of 2004 were Category Three hurricanes when they made landfall in Florida and in Alabama, respectively.

Here is that map, showing a projection of how far inland water could reach in the event of such a hurricane directly hitting the City. Six category 3 hurricanes hit the Northeast in the twentieth century, the most recent, hurricane Gloria, in 1985.

Today's New York Times reports that homeowners in the metropolitan area are already losing their insurance coverage due to heightened insurance company concerns following Katrina.

Since I find out today is Global Warming Blog Action Day, I think it is appropriate to repost this. All of it still applies and, to be honest, the whole thing is still freaking me out. We are further along the global warming curve than we thought and we probably have LESS than ten years to deal with it.

Martin Frobisher in 1576 was one of the first navagators to try and find a Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. He was 431 years too early.

This year, global warming has hit the Arctic sea ice harder than ever before, and the Arctic ice has melted to record lows...opening up the Northwest Passage to navagation.

From the Guardian:

The Arctic ice cap has collapsed at an unprecedented rate this summer and levels of sea ice in the region now stand at record lows, scientists have announced.

Experts say they are "stunned" by the loss of ice, with an area almost twice as big as the UK disappearing in the last week alone.

[NOTE: Asked to clean up the language in the title. Which in this case I consider inappropriate because FUCK UPS is really what I mean, nothing less. That is EXACTLY what future generations will consider us if we don't do something. But clean up the title they say so I do it.]

Martin Frobisher in 1576 was one of the first navagators to try and find a Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. He was 431 years too early.

This year, global warming has hit the Arctic sea ice harder than ever before, and the Arctic ice has melted to record lows...opening up the Northwest Passage to navagation.

From the Guardian:

The Arctic ice cap has collapsed at an unprecedented rate this summer and levels of sea ice in the region now stand at record lows, scientists have announced.

Experts say they are "stunned" by the loss of ice, with an area almost twice as big as the UK disappearing in the last week alone.

King Coal Claims Some Democrats As it turns out, lobbyists for the coal industry solution for energy have significant support from US Senate Democrats. The plan which involves huge subsidized loans facilitate coal liquification is also reported here. Can you stand reading more about coal? The NY Times has put together a great page on the issues posed here. If, like me, you think the billions proposed to be invested in coal, would be better spent on lower or non-polluting energy consider Moveon.org's effort to stop this boondoggle. UPDATE: Perhaps because of the Moveon effort, Barak Obama is said to have backed away from his previous support of Coal-to-Liquid (Ill. is a coal state).

After the jump, a copy of Moveon's call to action:

The more optimistic global warming scientists believe we have a good 10 years to deal with global warming. After that, all bets are off. Some even say all bets are off right now, but I think we still have time. But either way, the time to act is 20 years ago...or, since we were to goddamned stupid to do that, how about right now.

My main efforts this particular year have been the preservation of forests, reforestation, and preservation of wetlands because these three things will be absolutely critical for our abilities to deal with both global warming per se (due to their carbon sequestration abilities) and in dealing with the CONSEQUENCES of global warming, including flooding, soil erosion, etc.

So, in the spirit of this particular focus, this comes from something I wrote long ago, but is still very relevant and bears repetition. We ALL need to pay attention to these things because if we don't, we are screwed, our children are screwed and our grandchildren are screwed. Beyond that I cannot predict.