The Great Lakes vary in level by a few feet over a span of decades (I grew up in Michigan). They are hundreds of feet above sea level, so direct impacts of sea level change should be minimal. There would be some amount of thermal expansion, but that might only be a millimeter or two. Changes in precipitation patterns could have a much larger affect.

As to the time dimension, science is a very conservative field. Nobody wants to risk his/her career on being the first one to predict a 50 foot sea level rise by 2050. So the observed pattern is that someone goes out on a limb and predicts a tiny rise over a century, then some other people agree, then someone says it might be an inch or two more, then someone else publishes a paper saying that it might happen by 2040, etc. The concensus advances and converges over time.

Plus, climate scientists are also people who live on this Earth, and this stuff scares the crap out of them.

I have kind of suspected that this is the direction that we are moving myself. There is no sense of urgency in the people - don't want to risk screwing up the economy, don't want to give up the car, can't live without the TV or AC, etc, etc.

I suppose it is depressing, but I guess I am resigned to it. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and reduce the amount of carbon we stick in the atmosphere - ultimately we have no choice.

The elevation of Lake Ontario is listed as 246 ft (75 m), so it's hard to see direct effects of even a substantial sea level rise. On the other hand, a substantial sea-level rise would change stream gradients and alter drainage behaviors.

I think that the great lakes region will be a good place to whether the proverbial storm. Large reservoirs of fresh water, trade can continue with sailing craft and the climate will get nicer over time.

On the other hand, where I live (the deep south) climate change and peak oil may make the place unlivable. It's getting so hot an dry in the summer a garden dies without irrigation. Then there is the problem of the fire ants. Even with chemical pesticides we can barely keep them under control. My house is build on a slap so they keep coming up threw the floor.

Then there is the whole hurricane problem.......

On a positive note, if the icecaps melt, I will have beach front property.

If I remember my early '90s undergrad physical geography correctly we should expect lower levels in the Great Lakes as a result of Climate Change. The lakes are a glacial artifact, holding far more water by volume than the watershed/drainage basin warrants. Warmer overall air temps combined with lessened/sporadic rainfall patterns were cited as the reason for the lower lake levels. My rusty recollection says about 1m decline.

The Climate Change Digest used to have worthwhile information:
http://www.cics.uvic.ca/climate/change/ccd.htm
but is now quite dated.

The new site is down at present:
http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/

P

I personally think killfiles are best for a few reasons.

• It's not censorship - there is no authority involved. People choose for themselves who they think wastes their time.
• Banned trolls will simply register a new account and resume. Killfiling is invisible to the trolls, however - the effect is the same as just ignoring them.
• There's no administration for the site operators, beyond initial setup (if necessary - it is not with GreenMan's script).

That said, I think killfiles integrated with Drupal would be better than a GreaseMonkey script, again for a few reasons.

• No need to use Firefox.
• No need to install GreaseMonkey and a script.
• The ban list follows a user, not the machine she browses from. This isn't an issue with a ban list of 3 people; it would be with 50. I have 3 "primary" machines - replicating my Adblock preferences and bookmarks is a serious hassle.

Google shows things that claim to be killfile functionality for Drupal, but I haven't investigated much.

They were banned, and do not appear in today's DrumBeat. Check yesterday's to see the script go.