Time to head to high ground?

[jonquil]

This is a good, comprehensive article on the NY Times. Scientific consensus says that people should be prepared for a significant rise in sea levels over the next several decades, and that this rise will have a strong impact on various areas around the world.

nytimes.com/2010/11/14/scien … ml?_r=2&hp

A large majority of climate scientists argue that heat-trapping gases are almost certainly playing a role in what is happening to the world’s land ice. They add that the lack of policies to limit emissions is raising the risk that the ice will go into an irreversible decline before this century is out, a development that would eventually make a three-foot rise in the sea look trivial.

Melting ice is by no means the only sign that the earth is warming. Thermometers on land, in the sea and aboard satellites show warming. Heat waves, flash floods and other extreme weather events are increasing. Plants are blooming earlier, coral reefs are dying and many other changes are afoot that most climate scientists attribute to global warming.

Yet the rise of the sea could turn out to be the single most serious effect. While the United States is among the countries at greatest risk, neither it nor any other wealthy country has made tracking and understanding the changes in the ice a strategic national priority.

The consequence is that researchers lack elementary information. They have been unable even to measure the water temperature near some of the most important ice on the planet, much less to figure out if that water is warming over time. Vital satellites have not been replaced in a timely way, so that American scientists are losing some of their capability to watch the ice from space.

The missing information makes it impossible for scientists to be sure how serious the situation is.

“As a scientist, you have to stick to what you know and what the evidence suggests,” said Gordon Hamilton, one of the researchers in the helicopter. “But the things I’ve seen in Greenland in the last five years are alarming. We see these ice sheets changing literally overnight.”

Politically and psychologically, if you keep your priorities with corporations and the propaganda efforts of denialists who just don’t want to deal with the issue of pollution and warming, then certainly I suppose you can live in ignorant bliss until there comes a time when the consequences cannot be ignored and must be faced. This is a pretty bleak scenario for the future.

Wouldn’t it be better to put money and effort into getting good information and knowledge now, by which to measure what is to come with reasonable accuracy? I think it’s a crime that scientists and informations specialists are hindered from doing the studies and research needed to help us prepare for life on a seriously compromised planet.

[Ganapati]

If we assume that rich people tend to have access to more credible information than mass media reports, we can expect them to be clearing out from vulnerable areas. Start worrying when the values of beachfront properties like Malibu in Southern California start dropping significantly

[jonquil]

@Ganapati

If we assume that rich people tend to have access to more credible information than mass media reports, we can expect them to be clearing out from vulnerable areas. Start worrying when the values of beachfront properties like Malibu in Southern California start dropping significantly

Lol. Look for the rich to congregate on mountaintops, like the plutocratic version of Noah’s Ark.

[cheegster]

@jonquil

Politically and psychologically, if you keep your priorities with corporations and the propaganda efforts of denialists who just don’t want to deal with the issue of pollution and warming, then certainly I suppose you can live in ignorant bliss until there comes a time when the consequences cannot be ignored and must be faced. This is a pretty bleak scenario for the future.

Pffft, the future is bleak anyway, the earth won’t be like this for much longer really.

I propose a society not too dissimilar to Fallout 3 in which we can all live in a decadent land where we all just shoot each other and shit.

[jonquil]

@cheegster

@jonquil

Politically and psychologically, if you keep your priorities with corporations and the propaganda efforts of denialists who just don’t want to deal with the issue of pollution and warming, then certainly I suppose you can live in ignorant bliss until there comes a time when the consequences cannot be ignored and must be faced. This is a pretty bleak scenario for the future.

Pffft, the future is bleak anyway, the earth won’t be like this for much longer really.

I propose a society not too dissimilar to Fallout 3 in which we can all live in a decadent land where we all just shoot each other and shit.

Ever heard Mick Jagger singing, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it?

[Eran]

Is there any evidence that sea levels are actually rising?

If many practical people actually believed in rising sea levels, would that not naturally cause real-estate prices to drop in vulnerable areas? Is there any evidence of that happening?

The article suggested a recent, higher estimate of sea-level-rise - three feet by 2100 or about 1cm/year. Is anybody aware of any economic estimate of cost of sea-level rise which takes into account natural replacement of housing stock in areas where a three feet change in sea-level is likely to make a difference?

@jonquil

Wouldn’t it be better to put money and effort into getting good information and knowledge now, by which to measure what is to come with reasonable accuracy? I think it’s a crime that scientists and informations specialists are hindered from doing the studies and research needed to help us prepare for life on a seriously compromised planet.

I’m confused. The NY Times article is describing a scientific exhibition designed to do just that. Obviously they are getting money. What makes you think that not enough money is being made available? How much is enough? And who is hindering scientists?

[Humpty]

The goddamn commies! And the goddamn Austrian Economists. EVERYONE’S AN ENEMY!

[jonquil]

Climate change is real, folks, and it aint nuthin nice. Not only is ice melting and threatening a serious rise in sea levels, but the Amazon is shrinking due to drought and we need those rainforests which are going to disappear. There is some relatively good news from Peru and its effort to protect biodiversity. Link here: scientistatwork.blogs.nytimes.co … ss&emc=rss

Also, check out these links pointing to efforts by scientists to communicate good information on warming and the problems we face.

Inaccurate news reports misrepresent a climate-science initiative of the American Geophysical Union
agu.org/news/press/pr_archiv … 0-37.shtml

articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/08 … s-20101108

hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/ … niers.html

[objet_petit_a]

I wouldn’t worry too much. Over here in the Netherlands there are no plans to build higher dikes yet because it isn’t necessary. A few years ago there were some panicky voices, but nothing of late. In fact there have been voices against due to the diminishing of the length of the beach that way. I must say I concur. The more beaches, the better.

NOTE:
Did you know that the climate change investigations that signal a rising of temperature are usually done near cities? And did you know that the initial climate change issue was raised because of a study on, I believe, three trees?

I do believe in climate change, believe it or not, but don’t get all hyped up over it. Climate changes have been happening since the dawn of time. We won’t perish as long as we don’t spill billions of gallons of oil in the…well…

[Eran]

I have very little confidence in the scientific evidence suggesting anthropomorphic warming. However, I think that is besides the point.

Much neglected relative to the scientific debate is the economic one. Before any policy implications for global warming can be rationally discuss, we have to weigh their cost and benefit. In other words, we have to assess the economic cost of global warming, and any reduction in that cost that can realistically be achieved by the policy under consideration.

Since most of the impact of global warming is predicted to take place after 2050, cost estimates require modelling not just of the atmosphere (a very difficult task already) but also of human society decades into the future. Such predictions are notoriously difficult even over much shorter spans of time. To pretend to be able to do that over 100 years is utter nonsense.

[jonquil]

I think the psychology around global warming denialism is very interesting and utterly amazing considering all the events and evidence that appear around us daily and have been doing so for years. It’s as though people just want to put their heads in the sand like ostriches or stick their fingers in their ears and yell lalalala.

Just looking at ice melting and breaking off into the oceans means that seas are going to rise. All you have to do is think of Archimedes in his bathtub to get this simple fact, or look at what happens when ice cubes melt in a glass of water. Sheesh.

Then look around at areas of the world that are desertifying or undergoing big flood and climate events. It’s not pretty. Not only that, but the resources of the world are more anad more so stressed that we can’t help the distressed countries like we used to. Here I’m thinking of places like Haiti and Pakistan, and I’m sure there are others. Hell, people are still waiting for aid from Hurricane Katrina, and that was five years ago.

And don’t even get me started on what deforestation means for the atmosphere and breathable air. The oceans have to be healthy too since they are also part of the cycle that makes air breathable, and one corporation alone just killed the entire Gulf of Mexico, and I’m reading of other kinds of environmental disasters almost daily.

And that’s just the way it is.

[Eran]

@jonquil

Just looking at ice melting and breaking off into the oceans means that seas are going to rise. All you have to do is think of Archimedes in his bathtub to get this simple fact, or look at what happens when ice cubes melt in a glass of water. Sheesh.

Actually, water level in a glass will not rise as floating ice cubes melt. It has to do with Archimedes

Anecdotal evidence aside, their is not serious study of the economics of climate change. The best thing we can do for “vulnerable” third world countries is allow them to develop as quickly as possible so that later in the century, if and when they need to face climate change, they are no longer third world countries.

[Humpty]

@Eran

Actually, water level in a glass will not rise as floating ice cubes melt.

Correct, liquid water is actually denser than ice, meaning that a cube of ice with a particular mass will occupy MORE volume than the same mass of liquid water.

What we should really be concerned about is the Ice Caps getting bigger…now THAT would cause floods.

[objet_petit_a]

Hi Jonquil,

I would like to point out that there is a big difference between global warming as a natural process and man made global warming. There is also a big difference between pollution and global warming. Although I agree that we (humans) are destroying the world in many ways, I have not seen evidence of man made global warming. I have studied the evidence in the past and, although I am by no means an expert, I must say the evidence against MAN MADE global warming is much stronger than in favor. Just use Google. Many Eskimos for instance can be found online saying there are more polar bears now than ever. Arctic ice has been on the rise and it is said the coldest winter in the last century will be this coming winter. This is significant because we don’t have any data going back much further than that. so, regardless of the case, we are not really in a good position to judge either way. Apart from that, historically speaking, there have been periods when vines were grown near London (for which it is too cold now) and other periods when people could skate on the Thames (for which it is too warm now). So, climate shifts have been happening all along. There is no reason to assume that now will be the end of all times.

However, I do agree that we (humans) should not spill oil, spray pesticides, dump toxins, etc. etc. I also agree that there are environmental disasters. I would be the last to argue in favor of deforestation. I would say that we should fight against desertification and we should stop cutting down forests and that we should stop poisoning our lands. The most effective way to do that is to buy organic foods. That way you will not support the companies that are killing our world.

My last point is that you should not take the ‘feeling’ of the press too serious. The media often takes a story and makes it into something more juicy: something that the readers will eat up: something serious: something bad. So, we see the forest fires near Athens (that have happened throughout history) suddenly presented as an effect of ‘global warming’…There are forest fires in the Yukon as well…even during winter…which is -40 there…We see the lack of aid to environmental disasters presented as a consequence of problems all over the world, but not as a consequence of certain economic issues or bad leadership…Don’t even get me started on the economic issues…
Anyway, don’t take the mainstream media too seriously. Check out what is being repeated by the media and go to the source. Check the source for yourself. You’ll see that it usually says something else entirely…although it does speak of the same subject though.

@ Eran:
Do you have a source for the models being made for the future? And how would you weigh costs like that?

@ Eran & Humpty:
But ice keeps above water for a large part though. And besides that: I think water is the densest between 0-4 degrees. The seas and oceans are generally warmer than that. So, I do not know how it breaks down. Apart from that: ‘Ice cubes’ have been breaking off of Antarctica since before recorded history. It is a source of growth for algae, which in turn produce oxygen.
Anyway, the cycle is bigger than is being discussed in public circles at the moment. The real problem concerns the streams of the oceans (conveyor belt). If the seas get too warm, the conveyor won’t flow properly and therefore disrupt the dispersal pattern of the temperatures over the world. When that happens the cold will amass near the polar regions again, creating a new ice age. That is the real climate balancer.

[Eran]

@objet petit a

Although I agree that we (humans) are destroying the world in many ways,

I’m not usually hung on semantics, but I think it is worth while to point out:

@Dictionary

de·stroy (d-stroi)
v. de·stroyed, de·stroy·ing, de·stroys
v.tr.

1. To ruin completely; spoil: The ancient manuscripts were destroyed by fire.
2. To tear down or break up; demolish. See Synonyms at ruin.
3. To do away with; put an end to: “In crowded populations, poverty destroys the possibility of cleanliness” (George Bernard Shaw).
4. To kill: destroy a rabid dog.
5. To subdue or defeat completely; crush: The rebel forces were destroyed in battle.
6. To render useless or ineffective: destroyed the testimony of the prosecution’s chief witness.

In other words, you only get to destroy something once. Then it is gone. We are not “destroying the world in many ways”.

Having gotten that out of the way, I completely agree that there is strong evidence of a significantly warmer globe in the past few centuries. “Greenland” is not just a clever name - it used to be green.

I would be the last to argue in favor of deforestation. I would say that we should fight against desertification and we should stop cutting down forests and that we should stop poisoning our lands. The most effective way to do that is to buy organic foods. That way you will not support the companies that are killing our world.

You have lost me here. Without deforestation, much of Western Europe would still be covered by forest, and able to sustain much less human life than we have now. Deforestation is a way of making a land area useful to humans. It is a bit hypocritical to go to Brazil and say - “now that we have deforsted virtually all of Europe and North America, you must not follow suite”. If people want virgin forests to stay, they should buy them.

The organic food industry is largely a scam. It has no demonstrable health or environmental benefits. Pesticides save lifes. Millions of people died unnecessarily of Malaria because of the DDT scare. Spilling oil is a damaging waste. The best way to handle it is to require oil drillers to pay full compensation. No more, no less.

@ Eran:
Do you have a source for the models being made for the future? And how would you weigh costs like that?

I think the future is far too difficult for anybody to model as a whole. Instead, we get optimal response by de-centralizing the problem. Let each person or company worry about their own future. For example, oil-well owners can decide how much to oil to produce now, vs. reserving it to the future. Car companies can decide (each separately, not in compliance to regulations) whether to research for electric cars, efficient gasoline engine, or powerful SUVs. They would base their decision on future forecasts of oil prices and consumer behaviour. Insurance companies can decide how much to charge for flood insurance based on climatological models. People can decide where to buy or build their houses based, in part, on insurance premiums.

Let’'s each focus on our own future, rather than to try and plan one for all of humanity.

@ Eran & Humpty:
But ice keeps above water for a large part though. And besides that: I think water is the densest between 0-4 degrees. The seas and oceans are generally warmer than that. So, I do not know how it breaks down.

It is very straightforward. Floating ice displaces exactly as much water as it will end up melting into. Melting floating ice doesn’t change sea levels. There are two main reasons for sea level increases - melting continental ice (e.g. Greenland and Antarctica) and expansion of the volume of the oceans due to warming. As far as I know, the latter is a much greater effect this century. It is still very small and gradual.

The final point worth mentioning is that IF global warming indeed becomes a signficant problem, it is almost certainly going to be most efficiently countered through geo-engineering projects. Cooling the Earth is not that difficult, especially with the kind of wealth and technology we can continue to acquire over the next few decades.

[Ganapati]

@Eran

Since most of the impact of global warming is predicted to take place after 2050, cost estimates require modelling not just of the atmosphere (a very difficult task already) but also of human society decades into the future. Such predictions are notoriously difficult even over much shorter spans of time. To pretend to be able to do that over 100 years is utter nonsense.

So now you know why you cannot make a decision based on cost, you simply cannot estimate it. You are expected to avoid it at all costs, since you can’t predict the cost. Isn’t that clever?

The best thing we can do for “vulnerable” third world countries is allow them to develop as quickly as possible so that later in the century, if and when they need to face climate change, they are no longer third world countries.

Oh! But that would require them adding more to their carbon footprint accentuating the problem, not mitigating it.

[Eran]

@Ganapati

@Eran

Since most of the impact of global warming is predicted to take place after 2050, cost estimates require modelling not just of the atmosphere (a very difficult task already) but also of human society decades into the future. Such predictions are notoriously difficult even over much shorter spans of time. To pretend to be able to do that over 100 years is utter nonsense.

So now you know why you cannot make a decision based on cost, you simply cannot estimate it. You are expected to avoid it at all costs, since you can’t predict the cost. Isn’t that clever?

Very clever. Also works for preventing an invasion of alien flying elephants.

The best thing we can do for “vulnerable” third world countries is allow them to develop as quickly as possible so that later in the century, if and when they need to face climate change, they are no longer third world countries.

Oh! But that would require them adding more to their carbon footprint accentuating the problem, not mitigating it.

Indeed!

[objet_petit_a]

@Eran

In other words, you only get to destroy something once. Then it is gone. We are not “destroying the world in many ways”.

Good point, what I meant was that we are trying to do so in many ways, we are just not sure which is most efficient yet.

You have lost me here. Without deforestation, much of Western Europe would still be covered by forest, and able to sustain much less human life than we have now. Deforestation is a way of making a land area useful to humans. It is a bit hypocritical to go to Brazil and say - “now that we have deforsted virtually all of Europe and North America, you must not follow suite”. If people want virgin forests to stay, they should buy them.

Personally I like forests better than humans. But who am I? And why should we try to maintain a balance between the oxygen, food and population? To me it just makes more sense tan running ourselves into the ground.

The organic food industry is largely a scam. It has no demonstrable health or environmental benefits. Pesticides save lifes. Millions of people died unnecessarily of Malaria because of the DDT scare. Spilling oil is a damaging waste. The best way to handle it is to require oil drillers to pay full compensation. No more, no less.

DDT kills daily still. Please, investigate what you are saying. Organic food is not a scam; it is the only way to go because it is the only way that will not exhaust the land and keep sustain people for a prolonged period of time…

@ Eran:
Do you have a source for the models being made for the future? And how would you weigh costs like that?

I think the future is far too difficult for anybody to model as a whole. Instead, we get optimal response by de-centralizing the problem. Let each person or company worry about their own future. For example, oil-well owners can decide how much to oil to produce now, vs. reserving it to the future. Car companies can decide (each separately, not in compliance to regulations) whether to research for electric cars, efficient gasoline engine, or powerful SUVs. They would base their decision on future forecasts of oil prices and consumer behaviour. Insurance companies can decide how much to charge for flood insurance based on climatological models. People can decide where to buy or build their houses based, in part, on insurance premiums.

Let’'s each focus on our own future, rather than to try and plan one for all of humanity.

The final point worth mentioning is that IF global warming indeed becomes a signficant problem, it is almost certainly going to be most efficiently countered through geo-engineering projects. Cooling the Earth is not that difficult, especially with the kind of wealth and technology we can continue to acquire over the next few decades.

Perhaps there is a reason why climates need to change regularly? Like the replenishment of glaciers? To make sure our rivers keep watering the land?

[jonquil]

First, what exactly are humans destroying? The list is long: other humans, many other forms of life, whole ecosystems, forests, water systems, mountaintops, and social communities. We are critically impacting the ability of nature to balance itself and to sustain life, particularly large life forms. While what is known as the “world” will continue in the event that planet earth is still around after humans leave it, then yes there will be a planet, but it will be an ugly, toxic mess, a koyaanisqatsi nightmare from which we will never awaken. Of course, this world could be seen as an edenic mecca for other forms of life which would then thrive and evolve to become god knows what. I guess beauty and health are in the eye of the beholder, then, so why worry about it all, eh?

Secondly, the forest systems on this planet are crucial to keeping the atmosphere in balance and breathable. Not only that, but they serve to help keep CO2 levels down, along with the oceans, which are now stressed, turning acidic, and toxic to life. The consequences for deforestation and oceanic toxicity are proving horrendous and harbinger dire events in the future, notwithstanding the problems and harms occurring now. This is all just basic science, by the way, something neocon and crazed fundie politicians and economists do not like to deal with.

Thirdly, corporate farming practices do a lot of harm on more than one level. Pesticides we already know about. As for the GM seeds and foods, more is becoming known about their dangers and the problems they cause. Farmers are forced out of business because of GM seeds, which are designed to be obsolescent so that farmers will have to buy them from corporations every year, and not having the money to do that, then go out of business to be taken over by corporations and forced into virtual servitude and endless poverty. Also, farmers are forced to produce the same cash crops every year, which is bad for land and agriculture. And then, GM foods themselves are not good for humans. Some animals won’t touch them.

Organic natural farming and foods really is the best way to go. Free range meats and eggs, and natural pesticide and hormone free foods provide the only healthy alternatives in an otherwise toxic food environment.

Last, global warming is already becoming a significant problem. Ice melt and desertification are proceeding apace. Certain cycles are shifting so that some areas get more rain and others less; and storms and weather events are intensifying. Sea levels have begun to rise as islands are disappearing and some coastlines changing. As land mass decreases and populations shift, life is going to be very difficult for many many people. But I also think that this will occur as life support systems start to shut down as well, and I’m not sure whether this scenario has been investigated much or not.

[Eran]

I don’t agree with the broad characterization that Earth is becoming, overall, less friendly to humans. No doubt, expansion of human life comes at the expense of other life form. I happen to prefer humans. Environmentalist agenda, conversely, is anti-human.

No serious study (nor even the government sponsored ones) claims that the effects of global warming will take place in less than decades. Weather emergencies happen all the time. Over the coming decades, humans will have plenty of time to both adapt, and develop potential remedies, including geoengineerig. The latter is already looking promising as a much more economical method to address potential warming.

I’d be curious to see any studies suggesting health or other non-economic damage from GM foods.

As for the economic aspect, as far as I know, nobody is compelllng farmers to use GM seeds. They always have the option to switch back. That they don’t is an indication that the benefits of the GM seeds exceeds their costs.