posted
First, the article states how the global climate change at the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago caused a melting of the North American glaciers and a catastrophic rise in sea level.
Then the article says "It shows that we have an obligation to sort [out] this mess that we are creating at the moment with climate change."
I'm curious how one moment a person can study how naturally occurring climate change caused devastating catastrophe world-wide, and the next moment say that climate change is a "mess that we are creating".
I watched a show last night on the Sahara desert and how it was once lush and green millions of years ago.
Seems to meet that the world and its climate change whether we're on the planet or not. It makes me very curious how much is caused by human involvement and how much would be happening anyway even if we were all still living in caves.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Anywho, it's a moot point, as there are a dozen other issues having to do with problems caused by man made industry that'd be solved if we enacted measures to lower CO2 emissions. Might as well do it, and then hope that we can solve global warming in the process.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I'm curious how one moment a person can study how naturally occurring climate change caused devastating catastrophe world-wide, and the next moment say that climate change is a "mess that we are creating".
Well, it would be like me studying a naturally occurring forest fire that destroys dozens of homes and then saying "wow, a human-caused forest fire would be similarly destructive."
He never mentioned his research as a proof of human-caused climate change, but as an illustration of what could happen *given* climate change.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's more akin to saying that naturally occuring forest fires can be devastating, and that throwing fuel into naturally occuring forest fires doesn't help matters any.
Of course, *not* throwing in extra fuel may not significantly reduce the destructive power of the forest fire, either. Efforts to fight the fire may also be in vain, leaving only containment and evacuation.
I mean, there have been catastrophic (and not so catastrophic) climate changes in the planet's history, and there will be again. I think it's pretty egotistical to think that all the changes from here on out are caused by humans, though.
I do believe, though, that the loss of human life due to climate change is pretty much caused by humans building in areas geographically at risk for climate change catastrophe. We may not be able to stop the forest fire - but we can get out of its way, or build in areas that aren't prone to being destroyed by forest fires.
What was the statistic? 145 million people live within 3 feet of sea level? One way or the other, at some point in the future, be it soon or distant, human-caused or not, those people will be underwater.
It's even more bizarre why people continue to build in places like New Orleans, which *will* get hit with another hurricane and *will* suffer through flooding again in the future. It's not a matter of "if" but "when" - yet we stubbornly keep rebuilding that sandcastle in damp sand at low tide.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anywho, it's a moot point, as there are a dozen other issues having to do with problems caused by man made industry that'd be solved if we enacted measures to lower CO2 emissions.
Oh, absolutely. There are plenty of reasons to be environmentally conscious: be it in pollution reduction, water conservation, recycling, etc.
It just struck me as odd that a naturally occuring rapid climate change that happened in recent geological history (8,300 years) led to a comment about the "mess" (which I'm assuming here means climate change) that "we're creating" (which I'm assuming means humans are the root cause).
Now, my assumptions could be wrong. Perhaps the "mess that we're creating" means the overpopulation of regions that will be impacted by impending climate change. It's possible.
To me, though, climate change is an inevitability. It's as certain in my mind as the tides or the seasons or other naturally recurring changes in planetary conditions. In a hundred thousand years, all of North America could be a desert or an ice sheet - regardless of what we do.
I think we can work towards protecting ourselves better, and I think we can work towards being more environmentally responsible. I just don't have a great deal of believe that our actions can stop (or even significantly slow down) climate change.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
145 million is the tip of the iceberg (heh). You have to consider that the rising water will contaminate freshwater sources as well, and will salt some fields as a result, which means less drinking water and farm land. Also consider what areas are below sea level, it'll magnify the power of those 3 feet. Billions would be effected, even if only those 145 million were immediately displaced. A bigger problem might not be the rising water, but where it's coming from. Glacial rivers are going to disappear in the next 100 years, and billions rely on them for water, to say nothing of the importance of the Ganges in India to the religion of the people there, and the Ganges is a dying glacial river. Plenty of cities around the world, and here in the United States are build with a reliance on that water, and living without it is not going to be fun or easy.
Best we start solving these problems sooner rather than later.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Actually, I just thought it interesting that the Laurentide flood (which may be the basis for eg Spokane, Hopi, and Navaho creation mythologies) could have also been responsible for raising the sea level fast enough to cause the BlackSea flood (which may be the basis for Indo-European creation mythologies) almost simultaneously.
posted
Florida is already seeing the problem in microcosm. Too many people, too little water, and too much strain on the local ecology.
Living without that water will not be fun or easy, but it is certainly possible.
Putting on my science fiction writer cap, I can see long-term future possibilities of water desalinization plants, far better water conservation, "cool houses" for plants, sun shading being a norm of daily life (canopies, netting, etc), underground housing for natural heat insulation/protection, etc.
As a species, we've grown incredibly rapidly without real thought to future sustainability. We've taken advantage of a brief period of geological stability to leap from 275 million people a thousand years ago to 1 billion only 200 years ago to 6.6 billion today - and projections reaching 9-10 billion in the next 50 years.
It's very possible that the world could change so that it just can't easily support 6.6 billion (or 10 billion) people. To think that it's our right to keep increasing our population (or to even maintain our current population number) is also pretty egotistical on our part. It's possible that the sustainability limit in a few hundred years might only be 4 billion, or less.
The tide is out, and we're building right down to the water's edge - and when the tide comes back in, all that will be destroyed. To blame ourselves for the tide returning doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me - though we can definitely blame ourselves for being so shortsighted that we put ourselves in a terrible position for when the tide came back.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I think it's more akin to saying that naturally occuring forest fires can be devastating, and that throwing fuel into naturally occuring forest fires doesn't help matters any.
Sure, that might be more akin to what *you're* saying, but not akin to what *he's* saying. He's assuming that climate change today is caused by humans and that climate change before was natural. Given his assumptions there is nothing odd about what he is saying.
quote: What was the statistic? 145 million people live within 3 feet of sea level? One way or the other, at some point in the future, be it soon or distant, human-caused or not, those people will be underwater.
New Orleans is an easy target though. I haven't done research on that statistic, but I wonder if a decent number of that 145 million lies in low-lying port areas such as Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore which would be economically and politically unfeasible to move.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with water desalinization plants is that they are insanely energy intensive. They make a lot of sense actually out west, because the solar power boom there is going to allow California almost limitless energy for stuff like that. But Florida needs to be a hell of a lot more responsible. They have limited undeveloped space that isn't reserved for the environment that can be used for electrical genereation that WOULDN'T pollute like crazy.
Florida needs, right now, to implement major water saving measures, including new home building rules and requirements, and incentives for people to remodel their homes. Water rates should be raised, no ridiculously, but I think a tiered system that raises rates when you hit levels of usage is perfectly fair and acceptable. There should also be a deposit on water bottles so no fresh water is trapped in them and people recycle more often. And that's just off the top of my head. If they start now, then when the crunch comes it won't be as bad.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, that might be more akin to what *you're* saying, but not akin to what *he's* saying.
Um, exactly. I think I worded it poorly. That is what *I'm* saying, not what I think he is. He does seem to be saying that in the past it was natural, but humans are now to blame.
I found that strange. "Last night it got dark because the earth rotated me away from the sun, but tonight it's going to get dark because of *me*."
quote:which would be economically and politically unfeasible to move.
I'm not saying it isn't unfeasible to move them. I'm saying they'll likely be underwater, regardless of what we do.
Taken in even smaller microcosm. Bound Brook, NJ. It has a history of flooding, being located in a bend of the Raritan River. Despite this, people pack in like sardines (much like everywhere else found on the line between NYC and Philly). In 1971, Tropical Storm Doria sent the river up 38 feet. In 1999, Hurricane Floyd sent the water level up 42 feet. In 2007, a nor'easter sent the water level up 38 feet. Several times between those events, main street has been underwater. On top of this, when it floods, the fire department can't put out fires due to lack of access to water/fire hydrants, which has caused more destruction.
The town was originally built on a flood plain of the Raritan river. Since there's been a river there, that area has flooded every few years. Yet, they keep rebuilding. And rebuilding. And rebuilding. Out of their own pocket, too, because if you try to get flood insurance they'll laugh you right out of their office.
Now they're finally building a levee, which will be done in 2012. Which, and I love this part, will protect it from everything but the cyclical 150 year floods. So, now, instead of being devastated every few years, it will get wiped out every century and a half. They should probably rename the town "Atlantis".
Yet, just about 10,000 people live on that 1.7 square mile patch of land.
It's insanity. But Bound Brook is an extreme.
The water level will rise, and low lying areas the world over will be under water. We can either accept this and buy stock in rafts, or we can try to relocate. I honestly don't feel as though we can stop it.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with water desalinization plants is that they are insanely energy intensive.
Well, in my SF world based on the billions of people affected by fresh water shortages from disappearing glaciers, people would either find the energy or die of thirst.
quote:If they start now, then when the crunch comes it won't be as bad.
Yet, when the crunch comes, it will still be bad.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, It looks like you are all going to be relocating here. 4,000 Ft above Sea Level; 2 to 3 inches of rain a year; $60,000 median home price; 1.3 persons per square mile; unlimited solar, wind and geothermal energy. Whats not to like? The only drawback is it takes all day to drive to the beach.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
FlyingCow : Hmmm, insanity is a tough call. I agree that is is insanity for Americans to rebuild in New Orleans or Bound Brook when the inhabitants could (relative to the developing world) be easily moved and absorbed in other cities.
However, for places like Shanghai, people may be working for sweatshop-like wages, but that sweatshop-like wage is still a magnitude (or so) better than what they would get in the Chinese countryside, is driving immigration toward Shanghai, and may very well mean the difference between starvation and survival for their family back home.
In that kind of context, I'm not ready to say that it is irrational for those people to live in an area where there is a chance that their great-grandchildren might be wiped out by a flood. Heck, they may never even have reached an education level where they can read about climate change.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The insanity descriptor was for Bound Brook specifically. I really don't understand that. The only argument I've heard that has made any sense as to why people still live there is that they can't afford to buy another house without selling their current house, and no one will buy their current house because... it's going to be underwater again in a few years.
As for Shanghai, yeah, it sucks. People can't move easily. And in a few decades/centuries, they could easily be underwater and not have any wages at all.
As individuals, I can understand the motivation to stay in a place short term - an individual can always move, or may be ignorant of the problem. But as a government, I find it shortsighted not to address the fact that your major cities might just be below sea level in the not too distant future.
quote:It also seems a bit hypocritical for us to advise them to move when we (as in the developed world) haven't really made much progress in terms of even trying to fight climate change.
Fighting climate change is like fighting the tide. It will happen whether we fight against it or not. All we can hope to impact is the rate of change, and even then only to a degree. We can, though, begin the process of preparation - and then advise others on how to prepare better.
Though this is likely to end up in an "ant and the grasshopper" scenario.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: So, It looks like you are all going to be relocating here. 4,000 Ft above Sea Level; 2 to 3 inches of rain a year; $60,000 median home price; 1.3 persons per square mile; unlimited solar, wind and geothermal energy. Whats not to like? The only drawback is it takes all day to drive to the beach.
Or you could move here. Unlimited freshwater, and no one in the state is more than 20 minutes away from a beach.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:but I wonder if a decent number of that 145 million lies in low-lying port areas such as Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Singapore which would be economically and politically unfeasible to move.
If you watch carefully you may notice that it seems China is already attempting to move the economic emphasis placed on Hong Kong to Shanghai. Shanghai is rapidly become the "be-at" place for Chinese business.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the worst-affected areas would be Bangladesh, which is also one of the poorest and most corrupt areas in the world (so it's unlikely that the Bangladesh government will be able to move the 150 million people out of harm's way). The whole country is one big delta - about 50% of the land area would be covered with a 3 ft increase in sea levels.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(For the record, the deleted portion that FlyingCow is responding to was when I made the point that the average income in Shanghai is probably about $10 per day whereas in the countryside it is probably less than $1 per day, comparing that to our use of electricity and driving for largely convenience purposes.
I deleted it since my aim was to bring perspective into the politics and economics there and not to get caught in a debate on climate change. Too late, huh? )
See thats just it though, "maybe" in a couple centuries they "could" be underwater and not have wages. When you contrast that to the certainty that moving back home could in many cases reduce their income by a magnitude and cause a death now, well, even if I was them, *I'd* be saying to hell with it.
The very fact that we could probably reduce our income by a magnitude and still survive and live relatively decent lives shows just how different our situation is from theirs.
The situation is worse for their government. Who wants to be the leader that decides to move a city, devastates the economy, drastically increasing poverty, and possibly death and then finds out...oops, the scientists were wrong?
Especially when the consensus is that there is climate change, but that it is man-made and possible to correct ... you're proposing that they simply move on your personal assertion that climate change is natural and inevitable. Well, I just don't see it happening.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: Well, yeah. There are very good political, geographical, and economic reasons to grow Shanghai rather than try to grow Hong Kong. I was referring to moving either one inland and out of port areas.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:When you contrast that to the certainty that moving back home could in many cases reduce their income by a magnitude and cause a death now, well, even if I was them, *I'd* be saying to hell with it.
Again, it makes sense on an individual level to stay - at least in an area such as what you describe. It's short term, and, on an individual level, a person is still mobile enough to move it things get bad.
It's the government's shortsightedness that doesn't make sense to me. It's not the "if" it's coming - it's "when". The government, being an entity that is not bound by a single lifespan, should look forward to the day when the low-lying areas are underwater and start taking action to limit the future problem. For instance, migrating population centers to areas with higher ground.
But, that won't happen - or, it's unlikely to, at least.
If the waters were receding, and we saw a 3 foot drop in sea level over the next 50 years, that land would be bought up and developed as soon as it was dry - and I don't see many world governments stepping in and saying "We're not going to allow you to build there."
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kinda surprised Singapore ain't screamin' in protest. Near as I can tell from the global flooding map, a 1metre/39inch rise in sea level puts 90% of the island nation underwater (during the highest tides of the year, I assume).
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: BB: Well, yeah. There are very good political, geographical, and economic reasons to grow Shanghai rather than try to grow Hong Kong. I was referring to moving either one inland and out of port areas.
Meh perhaps, it also slows down the political concessions they have to give to the rest of the country, because Hong Kong isn't throwing its' weight around. Or rather, it's losing weight.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Seems to meet that the world and its climate change whether we're on the planet or not.
Yes, the climate of the earth has changed in the past without human involvement but this is in no way evidence either for or against the current global warming being caused by human activity. People die of natural causes, but this is certainly not evidence that people are not killed by other people. People get in car wrecks when they are sober, but this is not evidence that drunk driving is no more dangerous than driving sober.
quote: It makes me very curious how much is caused by human involvement and how much would be happening anyway even if we were all still living in caves.
This is a question which has been extensively addressed by hundreds possibly thousands of scientists. The best available science indicates with a greater than 90% probability that the global warming which has been observed during the past 50 years is the due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
