Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Scientists to Issue Stark Warning Over Dramatic New Sea Level Figures
Rising sea levels pose a far bigger eco threat than previously thought. This week's climate change conference in Copenhagen will sound an alarm over new floodings - enough to swamp Bangladesh, Florida, the Norfolk Broads and the Thames estuary
Scientists will warn this week that rising sea levels, triggered by global warming, pose a far greater danger to the planet than previously estimated. There is now a major risk that many coastal areas around the world will be inundated by the end of the century because Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are melting faster than previously estimated.
With much of the country already below sea level, even a small rise would be devastating for the Dutch. (Photograph: Peter Dejong/AP) Low-lying areas including Bangladesh, Florida, the Maldives and the Netherlands face catastrophic flooding,
while, in Britain, large areas of the Norfolk Broads and the Thames
estuary are likely to disappear by 2100. In addition, cities including
London, Hull and Portsmouth will need new flood defences.
"It is now clear that there are going to be massive flooding disasters around the globe," said Dr David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey. "Populations are shifting to the coast, which means that more and more people are going to be threatened by sea-level rises."
The issue is set to dominate the opening sessions of the international climate change conference in Copenhagen this week, when scientists will outline their latest findings on a host of issues concerning global warming. The meeting has been organised to set the agenda for this December's international climate talks (also to be held in Copenhagen), which will draw up a treaty to replace the current Kyoto protocol for limiting carbon dioxide emissions.
And key to these deliberations will be the issue of ice-sheet melting. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - when it presented its most up-to-date report on the likely impact of global warming in 2007 - concluded that sea-level rises of between 20 and 60 centimetres would occur by 2100. These figures were derived from estimates of how much the sea will increase in volume as it heats up, a process called thermal expansion, and from projected increases in run-off water from melting glaciers in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges.
But the report contained an important caveat: that its sea-level rise estimate contained very little input from melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland. The IPCC forecast therefore tended to underestimate forthcoming changes.
"The IPCC felt the whole dynamics of polar ice-sheet melting were too poorly understood," added Vaughan. "However, we are now getting a much better idea of what is going on in Greenland and Antarctica and can make much more accurate forecasts about ice-sheet melting and its contribution to sea-level rises."
From studying satellite images, scientists have watched the sea ice that hugs the Greenland and Antarctic shores dwindle and disappear. Sea-ice melting on its own does not cause ocean levels to rise, but its disappearance has a major impact on land ice sheets. Without sea ice to prop them up, the land sheets tip into the water and disintegrate at increasing rates, a phenomenon that is now being studied in detail by researchers.
"It is becoming increasingly apparent from our studies of Greenland and Antarctica that changes to sea ice are being transmitted into the hearts of the land-ice sheets in a remarkably short time," added Vaughan. As a result, those land sheets are breaking up faster and far more melt water is being added to the oceans than was previously expected.
These revisions suggest sea-level rises could easily top a metre by 2100 - a figure that is backed by the US Geological Survey, which this year warned that they could reach as much as 1.5 metres.
In addition, in September, a team led by Tad Pfeffer at the University of Colorado at Boulder published calculations using conservative, medium and extreme glaciological assumptions for sea-level rise expected from Greenland, Antarctica and the world's smaller glaciers and ice caps. They concluded that the most plausible scenario, when factoring in thermal expansion due to warming waters, will lead to a total sea level rise of one to two metres by 2100.
Similarly, a commission of 20 international experts, called on by the Dutch government to help plan its coastal defences, recently gave a range of 55cm to 1.1 metres for sea-level rises by 2100. "Equally important, this commission has highlighted the fact that sea-level rise will not stop in the year 2100," said Professor Stefan Rahmstorf of Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. "By 2200, they estimate a rise of 1.5 to 3.5m unless we stop the warming. This would spell the end of many of our coastal cities."
This point was backed by Dr Jason Lowe of the Hadley Centre, the UK's foremost climate change research centre. "It is still not clear exactly how much the sea will rise by the end of this century, but it is certain that rises will continue for hundreds of years beyond that - even if we do manage to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions and halt the rise in atmospheric temperature. The sea will continue to heat up and expand. In addition, the Greenland ice sheets will continue to melt," he said.
This latter effect could, ultimately, have a particularly destructive impact. Scientists have calculated that if industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases eventually produce a global temperature increase of around 4C, there is a risk that Greenland's ice covering could melt completely. This could take several hundred years or it might require a couple of thousand. The end result is not in doubt, however. It would add around seven metres to the planet's sea levels. The consequence would be utter devastation.
Such a scenario is distant, but real, scientists insist. However, at present, the most important issue, they argue, is that of short-term sea-level rises: probably around one metre by 2100. When that occurs, the Maldives will be submerged, along with islands like the Sunderbans in the Bay of Bengal, and Kiribati and Tuvalu in the Pacific. The US - which has roughly 12,400 miles of coastline and more than 19,900 square miles of coastal wetlands - would face a bill of around $156bn to protect this land. Cities such as London would require massive investments to provide defences against the rising waters. Others, such as Alexandria, in Egypt, would simply be inundated.
Rising oceans will also contaminate both surface and underground fresh water supplies, worsening the world's existing fresh-water shortage. Underground water sources in Thailand, Israel, China and Vietnam are already experiencing salt-water contamination.
Coastal farmland will be wiped out, triggering massive displacements of men, women and children. It is estimated that a one-metre sea-level rise could flood 17% of Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest countries, reducing its rice-farming land by 50% and leaving tens of millions without homes.
Such destruction would not be caused merely by rising sea levels, however. Other effects of global warming will also worsen the mayhem that lies ahead: in particular, the increase in major storms. "When we talk about the dangers of future sea-level rises, we are not talking about a problem akin to pouring water into a bath," added Dr Colin Brown, director of engineering at the Institution of Mechanical Engineering. "Climate-change research shows there will be significant increases in storms as global temperatures rise. These will produce more intense gales and hurricanes and these, in turn, will produce massive storm surges as they pass over the sea."
The result will be the appearance of the super-surge, a climatic double whammy that will savage low-lying regions that include Britain's south-eastern coastline, in particular East Anglia and the Thames Estuary, along with cities such as London, Portsmouth and Hull, which are rated as being particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise.
In addition to these hotspots, the country will also face massive disruption to its transport and energy systems unless it acts swiftly, according to a report - Climate Change, Adapting to the Inevitable - published last month by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Many rail lines run along river valleys that will be flooded with increased regularity while bridges carrying trains and lorries often cross shipping lanes and may have to be redesigned to accommodate rising water levels.
"Power supplies will also be affected," added Brown. "The Sizewell B nuclear plant has been built on the Suffolk coast, a site that has been earmarked for the construction of several more nuclear plants. However, Sizewell will certainly be affected by rising sea levels. Engineers say they can build concrete walls that will keep out the water throughout the working lives of these new plants. But that is not enough. Nuclear plants may operate for 50 years, but it could take hundreds of years to decommission them. By that time, who knows what sea-level rises and what kinds of inundations the country will be experiencing?"
Most scientists believe Britain remains relatively well placed to combat sea-level rises. "The government has been fairly far-sighted over this issue, with projects such as Thames Estuary 2100 being set up to prepare flooding defence projects," said Professor Robert Nicholls, of Southampton University.
This does not stop the controversy, however. In its report, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers warned that many areas would have to be abandoned because they are simply too expensive to protect. In particular, large areas of the Norfolk coastline would be left to be inundated, a massive loss of human habitat.
But this approach represents an abrogation of national duty to many people - particularly those whose homes will be destroyed, individuals such as Martin George, former chairman of the Broads Society. "A country that has the technological know-how to extract oil and coal from below the North Sea should surely be capable of finding a way to protect a concrete sea wall against the effects of climate change. We should do our damnedest to safeguard our heritage," he said.
- Additional research by Lisa Kjellsson
Why the sea is rising
- Thermal expansion. All bodies expand when they are heated, and that is true for the water that covers 70 per cent of the planet. The oceans are expanding - upwards. It is estimated this increase in volume will raise levels by 10-40 cms.
- Melting glaciers and mountain ice caps - outside Greenland and Antarctica - are also adding water to rivers that flow to the oceans. However, these remain a modest source of sea-level rise. Possibly around 10 cms.
- The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets represent vast reserves of frozen fresh water. The former would add 7m to sea levels if melted completely; the latter would bring a further 60m rise to the levels of the world's oceans.
- Posted in
40 Comments so far
Show All"The US - which has roughly 12,400 miles of coastline and more than 19,900 square miles of coastal wetlands - would face a bill of around $156bn to protect this land."
The U.S. seems only to have money for killers and crooks, so if we want money to "combat" climate change we're going to have to call it "The War on Water".
And is it time to have that conversation about BIRTH CONTROL yet?
I just remembered, the last time it was "the new Ice Age" is upon us.
When was that?
---USAn---
Back in the 1970's - global temps dropped a bit and they forecast a new Ice Age.
Another myth. According to Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society "a review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth's basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then."
What? I was in high school and college in the 60s when my recollection tells me that any article on topic in the major media was about the return /inception of an ice age because of human actions. Myth and ‘selective misreading’ my ass. So the AMS is trying to change our perceptions of the time with this sort of flaky analysis?
Follow the money. This is an organization first formed (according to its web page), primarily of members of the U.S. Signal Corps and U.S. Weather Bureau. You can be sure that statist flavor hasn't changed much. An award from this organization even went to James Hansen this year. I am amazed at the effrontery of such historical revision. How surprising it is to see anyone doing such strange media analysis. What is at stake here to warrant detailed attention to such a topic?
Nobody is disputing that there were stories in the media. The point is that they did not accurately reflect the view of the scientists.
And follow the money? You mean, the American Meteorological Society receives no funding from the oil industry, and therefore can't be trustworthy?
And we're allowing all this to happen because switching to alternative energy is too expensive (a myth, anyway). In other words, Exxon has to make more money.
Frank Rich writes about "Sir Robert Allen Stanford — a Texan who purchased that “Sir” by greasing palms in Antigua — poured some of his alleged $8 billion in ill-gotten gains into a castle, complete with moat, man-made cliff and pub. He later demolished it, no doubt out of boredom." It strikes me as a great metaphor for what the rich countries are doing right now - not only demolishing their own castles, but also the surrounding slums. Of course, the slums go first.
Cheers!
Both global warming and global broiling (Increasing UV-B radiation) can be most effectively mitigated by an intensive, coordinated global campaign to plant organic Cannabis in 2009. Time is the limiting factor in the equation of survival. This needs to get started as soon as humanly possible.
Biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) called "monoterpenes" -- produced in abundance by Cannabis (a.k.a. hemp, marijuana, etc.) -- reflect solar radiation and seed cloud formation to protect the Earth from the Sun's lethal wavelengths of light. The only reason this isn't being considered is because of 'marijuana' prohibition.
Carbon sequestration, oxygen production, and bio-remediation of toxic soils are also factors to be figured into the equation.
Revaluation of Cannabis agriculture, manufacture and trade in the context of present environmental, economic and social imbalances is necessary to ending Cannabis prohibition. The end of prohibition is critical to issues of food security, malnutrition, expansion and remineralization of the arable base, dis-empowerment of the toxic chemical economy and freedom for the organic agricultural market.
um... okay. Whatever you say.
I know, I know...! Too many polysyllabic words to wiki...! Just nod and smile, nod and smile...
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ................ad infinitum.........
It is hard to fathom why some people hang on to their delusions that there is no problem with the ice melting. We Americans seem to be delusional about bad news. The scientific evidence has been compiled for decades,and there have been warnings galore about the consequences. It seems unless we can actually see the catastrophe happening then we don't want to deal with it. A chunk or piece or whatever is the proper term for ice the size of Rhode Island fell into the sea. It seems to me to be a warning that our environment is continuing on a path to be non-sustaining to life on earth.The constant pressures from pollution and the shrinking state of undeveloped wilderness areas will hasten the point of no return for the environment.
It will have been a shame to pass on a legacy of not caring enough about sustaining the environment for future generations. It is difficult to harbor optimism,when one see's the constant barrage of abuse heaped upon the environment.
Melting of the Greenland icecap is the biggest threat. Let's cover the cap with insulating material. Maybe using the cap as a dumpsite for all the world's trash would cover it deeply enough to keep it cool. A layer of aluminum foil could be put over the trash to reflect the sun's rays and further cool the cap. Iceland has been building hydroelectric plants to accomodate aluminum smelters relocating to Iceland. Purchase of all that aluminum foil would help the aluminum companies, ore shipping cos. and the economy of iceland, all of which need an economic boost. If we all calm down and use our heads solutions such as these will save the day!
This isn't the worst idea. Improving the Arctic's albedo, reflecting sunlight back into space, is cost-effective if the alternative is the loss of most of the earth's species, a runaway polar methane release and the flooding of the world's lowland cities such as NYC, Washington, London, Amsterdam, perhaps Tokyo. Insulation is also possibly effective.
The cap is surrounded by mountains locking it in place. You can insulate it if you want, but it's already covered with snow, which is a good insulator. It was warmer in Greenland in the 1940's than it is today.
Actually the ice cap squirts out like slow toothpaste in gaps ground out between mountains.
One of those glacier gaps registered a glacial movement of 5 kilometers in 90 minutes a couple of years ago. The toothpaste got going for a while.
The earth has lasted 6,000 years and will last until God sez.
Just for you, God invented the weather forecast, the motorboat and the life preserver. Don't tempt God for what you yourself should have seen coming.
Good point, ezeflyer. Since the earth is only 6,000 years old, men were walking with dinosaurs back then. Some of those humongous herbivores ruminated prodigious amounts of methane-effluent plant material, resulting in flatulence that swirls to this day in our atmosphere. Since methane is many times over a more "insulating" gas than CO2, our global warming is due to.... you guessed it.... dinosaur farts.
Full documentation at
http://liberalsmustdie.com/2007/02/12/True+Cause+Of+Global+Warming+Dinosaur+Farts.aspx
Here's what you didn't read in the article above:
This committee of scientists made an extreme global warming forecast but the reporter isn't going to say what it is. As a citizen, I guess you can't handle the truth.
Nor is the reporter going to tell you how high your local storm surges can get. Katrina was a category 2 storm when it delivered a 38 foot storm surge to Mississippi. People feared Ike last summer would have a 25 foot storm surge, but the surge was only 13 feet or so. Even so, it washed an unknown number of dozens of people away, along with their homes and the land underneath.
Finally, I never hear a committee of politically influenced scientists entertain the idea of a runaway polar methane release. Do scientists have evidence in core samples that this has historically never happened? Actually, sudden upward temperature lurches are common in the historical data. Hear no evil see no evil speak no evil.
Can any of the deniers state here clearly WHY they are trying so hard to convince everybody that global warming is not happening and we shouldn't worry about it? Please?
Because it seems to me that we don't have anything to lose if we lower CO2 emissions, and, potentially, a lot to lose if we don't.
Thank you.
You articulate a very sensible approach to risk, if your area of concern is the human race, plants, animals, air, earth and water.
The effort for clean energy is moderately difficult, but the penalty for not doing it is probably catastrophic. Even if all global warming predictions were way too dire (which I do not think they are), clean energy will enhance the quality of our world's biomes. In addition to melting ice, we have ocean acidification, which is a serious concern which is already starting to do damage - and we really do not understand all the effects.
I would like to know exactly who is financing the campaigns of denial. When something doesn't make sense, there is usually some moneyed interest involved. I suspect "clean coal" and oil companies for starters.
Joe
Re: "I would like to know exactly who is financing the campaigns of denial."
Exxon for certain (among others). A quick bit of research on your part will offer you the answers you seek.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/01/heartland-climate/
Greenpeace has a pretty extensive database on climate deniers/paid prostitutes here:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php
Of course Exxon is just the most blatant of the climate denier profiteers. There's dozens of other right wing fantasists who are in love with ruining the planet... as long as they are the profiteers in the operation. Heaven help the Europeans if they actually would dare to make a buck off of smart energy systems, we Amurricans will be forced to attack them to protect the "national interest(TM)".
And that might just expose the U.S. military's global fraudulence for what it truly is: simply another way to steal wealth from honest people.
Thank you for the links. I will now have to add the automobile industry, war industry and conservative think tanks to my list of suspects.
Joe
Do you not realize that the planet has been in an ice age for 2 million years, and that for the last 600,000 years, we cyclically enter an glacial period that lasts about 100,000 years followed by a 12,000 year interglacial interval that gives us warmer temperatures. We are now 12,000 years into this interglacial.
Assuming we are even able to reduce CO2 levels, given that the ice core data suggests CO2 levels follow temperature, what if that has unintended consequences and plunges us into another ice age, or at least reduce crop yields that will cause famine. If you read the science, they have a lot of unknowns. Trying to mess with climate is not a good idea at our current level of understanding.
I am all for clean fuels, but CO2 is clean in my opinion, we exhale it with every breath, our plants use it as food. Have you actually looked into wind power?. Solar? Bio-fuels? These are not real solutions. Just money out of your pocket for higher electricity fees and wind power will be an environmental disaster. You know how about the metal, fiberglass, concrete, land that needs to be cleared for paved roads to nowhere, terraforming land and perhaps some deforestation or removing some hills that block wind (same as coal), transmission lines, the need to import the turbines since we do not make many (GE has a backlog in the US and outsource production to Europe), the birds that will be killed by the millions if we proceed to 20%, the cost to remove the wind farms when needed, the noise in the country side, the need for backup power that burns gas and produces CO2 even when the wind is blowing, the amount of land that will be required for only 20% of our electricity, the possibility that wind farm operators will simply walk away as the farms age and maintenance costs get too high to remain profitable and leave the land owners to clean up (of course we likely will have to bail them out). Nobody knows how long the turbines will last in operation.
Read about it.
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/clim/wind-leo.htm
You have 4 real choices for energy now. Nuclear, coal, oil and gas. It's a myth that we are running out of oil and gas anytime soon. But if that were known, oil and gas would be much cheaper, there would be no need for coal and nuclear.
Sooner or later we will run out, so I am not saying it is infinite supply, but we have been told we are running out of oil for 50 years, and our proven reserves are twice what they were 35 years ago, and there is Thomas Golds abiotic theory which makes sense and has been proven by the Russians. We only have Big Oil to tell us how much oil they have left, and the USGS which serves Big Oil, not to mention the Oil Sheiks of OPEC which are dependent on Big Oil.
One of the reasons to go into Iraq may not have been to get the oil, but to keep the oil from getting to market. Much of Iraq has never even been explored due to the constant wars and isolation over the past 30 years.
And while you question who funds the "deniers", as you so kindly put it, ask yourself where do the environmental groups get their money? Dues from members represent an average of 50 percent of the income of most groups; most of the rest of the income comes from foundation grants, corporate contributions, and especially U.S. government funds. Almost every one of today's land-trust, environmental, animal-rights, and population-control groups was created with grants from one of the elite foundations, like the Ford foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation. These "seed grants" enable the radical groups to become established and start their own fundraising operations. These grants are also a seal-of-approval for the other foundations to follow suit.
In April 1991, a newsletter of the Capital Research Center which monitors trends in corporate giving, stated that oil companies "are heavy financial supporters of the very advocacy groups which oppose activities essential to their ability to meet consumer needs". It reported, "The Nature Conservancy's 1990 report reflects contributions of over $1,000,000 from Amoco, over $135,000 from Arco, over 4,100,000 from BP Exploration and BP Oil, more than $3,200,000 (in real estate) from Chevron, over $10,000 from Conoco and Phillips Petroleum and over $260,000 from Exxon". These numbers are harder to get now since they are a bit smarter about disguising their donations.
David Rockefeller of Exxon and Chase Manhattan was the connection and influence to the Earth Charter and Maurice Strong of Canada. In 1972 Strong was Secretary General of the first Earth Summit in Stockholm.
David Rockefeller asked Exxon and Big Oil to stop funding skeptic science.
And who has the biggest stake in the wind farm project. Texas oil tycoon, T. Boone Pickens (and he gets water rights as part of the deal which he can sell).
Wind farms would never threaten oil sales to any significant extent as oil generates little electricity. Coal, gas and nuclear produce most of our electrity. And gas power plants would need to provide backup for the wind farms. Also, the land usage rights will allow them to block the land from oil and gas exploration, not to mention coal, which serves Big Oils interests. They make their real money from imported oil since the profits get booked overseas in tax havens.
It seems to me you work very hard to tire us out with a mass of jumbled factoids and O'Reilly type innuendos and assertions. Why?
When you boil down all your verbiage it is reduced to:
Oil coal gas nuclear - good
Wind, solar - bad
You may be in the pay of someone, I don't know. It seems you work too hard to be merely stupid. In either case you are threatening the world my grandchildren will have to live in.
Joe
"...One of the reasons to go into Iraq may not have been to get the oil, but to keep the oil from getting to market...."
Greg Palast might agree with you, Inconvenient Truth. As he wryly observes, the anti-war protesters' mantra of "No blood for oil!" should be simply juxtaposed: "Blood for no oil!"
Hey now, the "Progressives" called no looking behind their curtain. Any attempt to suggest that Progressive organizations have anything but the best of intentions will be selectively ignored.
Where do all of those donations to Progressive non-profits go? I wonder what is the largest single expenditure of a 501c like this one, for example...
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/203/203368194/203368194_200712_990.pdf
snydly
An oz of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The coal and oil boys have had a preety good run. Let's cut them off.
We give up war and profit, we could easily get a handle on this.
Most of us won't be around in 2100... we're just trying to figure out how to survive the next YEAR, let alone worry about the next CENTURY !!!
About two weeks ago I posted my opinion in terms of oblivion on the
Hawai'ian Islands. Called a Gem amongst the most precious locations
on Earth for good reasons. Yet, what are we looking at here and every-
where else in the world? Weapons and wars are more important of an
issue than the Well Being of the Planet we inhabitantly utilize to zoom
through empty cold space.
National Security, the dumbest argument circulating weak minds globally,
has delivered us to a status quo in which a survival of our children, lest
our grand children, becomes a remote possibility. Do we care? Maybe.
Maybe the issue is the projection of the available data into a distant future.
Still maybe You might be able to go to any shore globally and feel the
water rising. But rising it is full steam ahead.
A visionary is usually a person that has the capacity to envision the future,
much more so the Now. Out of the Now, another future is generated. Are
we aware, that every day we keep returning to the TV sets, watching all those
negative news, or those wonderfully entertaining reality/game shows, we
are removing our Selves from the 'real' world, by mutually stating 'What can
we do?' Instead of change there is resignation, instigated by a greed fueled
republican/religious world view, that punishes dissent.
There are solutions. Choke solutions. The first one ought to be the complete
abandonment of all means of violent arguments, small scale and globally. We
need all funds, up to now wasted for macho expressions, from a hand gun to
nuclear weapons, in order to preserve a habitable planetary surface that will
give Your children and grand children and their off spring the opportunity to
enjoy life as it was meant to be.
The alternatives to speedy change of course are rather simple. Learn to live
with nothing compared to what You have now and learn to be happy - no
matter what.
When I was 20, 40 was far away. When I turned 40, half of my life seemed to
be used up for attempting to get where I wanted to be with 20. Today I am
focusing on the Now as the only time we ever live.
As for the Big Island and other Hawai'ian Isles, the surfers are getting all excited.
New shore breaks, new waves at new spots. Learn to surf and the global rise
of Ocean levels becomes a promising future.
May All Beings Be Blessed.
No Restrictions Or Limitations Shall Apply.
I'm going to repeat the obvious - humans think in terms of human life-spans, while these scientists are living in geological time and worry about hundreds of years from now - no wonder people's eye glaze over! Even grandparents don't visualize their toddler grandchildren as mature adults, even if they claim to 'worry' about what kind of world they will live in. Otherwise you wouldn't see those outrageous 3-generation family photos with a hundred people squeezed into the frame - what the hell are/were they thinking? This IS a finite planet, after all. But everybody defends the right to not only have kids, but have as many as you want - they want their cake and eat it too. Ain't gonna happen. Ask the Europeans, who kept dividing inherited property until it got down to postage-stamp size. They still didn't learn - they just let the oldest son inherit everything... that sure solved overpopulation, didn't it?
-reproduced from below-
Anyone who understands even high-school physics ought to be able to figure out that this is simply unsustainable, climate change or no climate change. Even if we ignore the warnings that we have been getting for quite some time now the time is still fast approaching, for completely unrelated reasons, that this eternal growth model is going to go splat against the brick wall of our finite planet and finite resources.
Ultimately though there is one definitive argument that simply cannot be ignored, though some seem to wish to do so desperately.
The current denier argument hinges on recent trends being some kind of natural cycle that the world has experienced before. We should continue our geometric increases in consumption and population growth because it just doesn't matter in the end, we are too small to actually effect anything.
The climate models are right or they are wrong. Let's explore the various possibilities:
1). The climate models are right and we implement a severe programme of CO2 REDUCTION, new energy development, fusion research, and a large planet-wide program of making birth control freely available to all. In this case, after a period of POSSIBLY lower standard of living we enter an age of good times that could last for millenia. A stabilization of humanity until our technology allows our expansion off our own small world. (It is not clear to me, as our technology leaps forward because of this process, that standard of living drops at all actually, but I will accept this is a possibility.)
2). The climate models are wrong and we do the above anyway (because we believed them but they are wrong). In which case really, apart from the brief period of pain (30 years or so) you STILL end up with a very stable planet, the human impact upon it will be lessened and more importantly we will have obtained a sustainable system that would last.
3). The climate models are wrong and we do nothing. This will eventually not work anyway. Every scientist can see that a geometric growth of population AND living standard is wholly unsustainable on a finite planet. We are fast running up against our planet's limits and we have not had the foresight to consider alternative energy sources. As the resources run out over the next hundred years and population spirals out of control you basically get "Blade Runner".
We have already had three wars over resources, we can predict more. (Gulf War I, Iraq War, Afghanistan...anyone who thinks these were about anything OTHER than oil is an idiot. It is also why we even bother with Iran...any guesses as to where the next resource war will be?) The inevitable fall of standard of living for most people will proceed with no bottom in sight. The argument about "new technology saving us again" doesn't hold in this scenario because the very elements that killed off research in climate change or ignored it are the very same elements that kill off energy research and innovation. In this world the faith-based group holds sway, they will not give up their power merely because the planet starves. We have seen this systematically done since the Reagan administration. A bias AGAINST energy research. So no one will have laid the ground work. It won't just magically appear.
4). The climate models are right and we do nothing. Basically in that case you can fast forward scenario number 3. As the world enters a newer more deadly phase, and millions of climate refugees start to pour into countries that have more wealth, you get "Blade Runner" within the next 40 years rather than within the next two hundred years.
Only in the models where you actually do something about our climate and population do we end up with a planet and a people who are healthy and sustainable.
So even if these guys are wrong (and I do not think they are) it just doesn't make any long-term sense to continue in the manner we have continued as a species.
By the way, my own personal opinion is that we are currently on path number 4 because I am pretty sure these climate scientists actually do know what they are talking about. As time has progressed since this first showed up in the late 1980's (and I have followed it since then) the data are only getting stronger, and that includes data from history and pre-history, not just the climate since the 1980's.
I do not see a reversal in the science coming at all. Only further confirmation and better models.
The elites made us drive SUVs.
"Thames Estuary 2100"
That will keep the rabble's noses to the grindstone, and out of our hair. - the house of lords
Thank you, Inconvenient Truth. Your answer is rather . . . instructive?
I’m not going to comment on all the conspiracy theories. I’ll only notice how nicely they complement your position on the science of global warming.
Two points:
1) There is no such thing as religion of global warming. Religion, by definition, implies faith. Most people are concerned about global warming, because there is enough EVIDENCE that it's happening. And enough EVIDENCE that it might get pretty bad. So you don’t have to rely on faith.
2) God forbid we should ever be required to lower our standard of living, and die without a big screen TV or some such. (Never mind that millions of people don't have enough food, or water, and, global warming or not, they said on the radio today that 46 million people all over the world will be pushed into poverty because of the economic crisis). However, keep in mind that even if we disregard the climate change, the consequences of mining, transporting, and burning fossil fuels are not that great. They include:
-degradation of the environment;
-water, land and air pollution - I think it would be a little hard to argue that it doesn’t make people sick and die early;
- wars over resources;
Speaking of costs of fossil fuels, most of them are indirect and difficult to determine. Even if you disregard global warming, you still have acid rain, oil spills, damage to ecosystems, healthcare expenses, and national security costs related to protecting foreign sources of oil. Notice that these costs are not paid by the oil industry, but by you and me.
Copied and pasted from the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/impacts/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html
“Air Pollution
Clean air is essential to life and good health. Several important pollutants are produced by fossil fuel combustion: carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and hydrocarbons. In addition, total suspended particulates contribute to air pollution, and nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons can combine in the atmosphere to form tropospheric ozone, the major constituent of smog.
Carbon monoxide is a gas formed as a by-product during the incomplete combustion of all fossil fuels. Exposure to carbon monoxide can cause headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease. Cars and trucks are the primary source of carbon monoxide emissions.
Two oxides of nitrogen--nitrogen dioxide and nitric oxide--are formed in combustion. Nitrogen oxides appear as yellowish-brown clouds over many city skylines. They can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and decrease resistance to respiratory infections. They also lead to the formation of smog. The transportation sector is responsible for close to half of the US emissions of nitrogen oxides; power plants produce most of the rest.
Sulfur oxides are produced by the oxidization of the available sulfur in a fuel. Utilities that use coal to generate electricity produce two-thirds of the nation's sulfur dioxide emissions. Nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides are important constituents of acid rain. These gases combine with water vapor in clouds to form sulfuric and nitric acids, which become part of rain and snow. As the acids accumulate, lakes and rivers become too acidic for plant and animal life. Acid rain also affects crops and buildings.
Hydrocarbons are a broad class of pollutants made up of hundreds of specific compounds containing carbon and hydrogen. The simplest hydrocarbon, methane, does not readily react with nitrogen oxides to form smog, but most other hydrocarbons do. Hydrocarbons are emitted from human-made sources such as auto and truck exhaust, evaporation of gasoline and solvents, and petroleum refining.
The white haze that can be seen over many cities is tropospheric ozone, or smog. This gas is not emitted directly into the air; rather, it is formed when ozone precursors mainly nonmethane hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides react in the presence of heat and sunlight. Human exposure to ozone can produce shortness of breath and, over time, permanent lung damage. Research shows that ozone may be harmful at levels even lower than the current federal air standard. In addition, it can reduce crop yields.
Finally, fossil fuel use also produces particulates, including dust, soot, smoke, and other suspended matter, which are respiratory irritants. In addition, particulates may contribute to acid rain formation.”
I’m sure other sources are more comprehensive, these guys don’t even specifically mention mercury, or radiation, but you can look for more information yourself. Anyway, we’re not trying to write a book here. The point is, that if you want to talk about the standard of living, devastated environment and dirty air are not compatible with high standard of living. At least not in my book, but I guess it depends on how you define it.
“So we fight an imaginary war with Climate Change’ - we do? I was not aware of it. Imaginary, or otherwise. But last time I checked (like ... this morning) we were mired in some real wars for oil. Or were they for freedom and democracy? I am so confused!
Every society that every enacted a "social security" and "minimum wage law" in the developed countries witnessed a dramatic decline in births within two generations. That solution, on a global scale, would reduce the resource stress that triggers overproduction and that pollution attributed to global warming. With or without the "development" that triggers this "global warming" -- and independent of the impact of sunspot activity, this solution, will requires a dramatic internal and international redistribution of wealth. And, the social benefit regardless of "global warming" sanctifies life. Alas, the "sanctity of life" advocates, aligned as they are historically with those who benefit from high concentrations of wealth and income, prattle on about "natural sanctity" without supported a "reasoned view of sanctity" -- hence there will be no solution except, most likely, another dark age -- where ignorance reinforces their political and economic power. And, that of their Divine Friends. Now, you guess which will prevail based on human history.
You're right on the money - it's all about the survival instinct. If a family has real security - enough for food, shelter, education (the basics) guaranteed - then there is no reason to reproduce willy-nilly, and no instinct to do so. We saw the exact reverse after WWII - the 'baby boom' - and can observe a rise in birth rates after even 'natural' disasters (even 9-11 spurred reproduction). So the real answer is to provide adequate survival security to everyone, and then the population - and all that fighting over who-has-the-most will abate. Then the only problem left to tackle is the mentally deranged - those extreme conservatives, religious nuts, and other fascists who are paranoid and delusional, and do not respond to normal instinctive drives because the problem is in the minds only. So what do you do with the mentally ill? Surely don't elect them to office!