That’s about 60% of the world’s population. Where do you think we should go and who will pay for it? Can you imagine the issues with this? What are naval/submarine bases to do? Somebody else here has suggested that coastal cities should simply move. But I don’t think he was aware of how big coastal cities are or their importance in all kinds of things
We haven’t been around for millions of years. And because we have dealt with natural disasters in the past, that gives us incentive to avoid them in the future, as much as possible.
Inland would be my best guess on where you should go. And this sounds like more alarmism. A quick search reveals this whether accurate or not::
“Presently about 40% of the world’s population lives within 100 kilometers of the coast.”
And of that 40%, I doubt a projected one foot rise in sea level over the next 30 years is going to drown them or even force most of them to move. 100 feet of shoreline (assuming 1 foot vertical) isn’t ending the world here.
“ With a sea level rise of 3 feet, locations forecast to house 4.2 million people would be at risk of inundation while a doubling of the rise would bring the number to 13.1 million.”
80 years for 4 million homes to relocate? What is the national emergency here? That’s 3 generations away.
If the ocean is in fact going to rise a few feet in the next 30-80 years and this means you have to move there is no choice in the matter. Adapt, change and survive. Isn’t that how life managed for billions of years?
Personally, I have no interest in giving up the comforts of fossil fuels on the pretense that some alarmists kids living on the ocean will have to relocate within the next 50 years.
And I don’t know who is going to pay for it. Who is footing the bill for all this climate alarmism nonsense now? If anyone wants to pay for me to relocate to the shore, I’ll take the risk. Put me as close to the beach as possible.
Maybe not anatomically modern humans. And possibly a 12 Inch rise in three decades does not fit my idea of a disaster like a hurricane, flood, a wildfire, tornado, earthquake, landslide, volcanic eruption, tsunami, etc, are natural disasters. Imagine if You saw a volcano erupting and a pyroclastic flow was heading your way and you had 50 years to get out of the way. I’d be grateful for the forewarning and plan accordingly.
It’s always nice to appeal to authority when they say what you want to hear and disagree with them when they don’t. I’ve come to learn people are experts at that. The well-funded consensus supports human induced warming. I don’t believe “climate alarmists” make up the overwhelming consensus of atmospheric scientists.
Didn’t you just claim 60% of people live near the coast? Now there is no room inland?
It is true that we cannot blame every problem on climate change. Humans have also caused many other problems and we need to keep the facts in mind to focus on the real causes of a problem.
There have been very much research going on related to climate, paleontology and geology. What kind of research is still missing?
Long-term changes in climate are something we can study and discuss without hurry because there is no risk of a new iceage during our lifetime, assuming that the planet does not jump out of its’ current orbit or that we will explode all nuclear weapons to fill the atmosphere with dust. If we explode all nuclear weapons, we have also other problems to face.
Climate changes, that is nothing new in the history of earth. The problem we are facing is that climate change is happening very fast and according to facts, is mainly caused by human actions. We have the ability to reduce suffering, economic losses and an extremely high rate of extinctions caused by the very rapid climate change and other environmental problems because we are causing the problems. It is just a matter of will. Do we accept the facts revealed by research and act, or do we claim that they are just part of a global conspiracy and >99% of the scientists participate in this conspiracy?
I admit that a crash with a huge space rock would be an even worse scenario than the current climate change. I hope we do not experience that.
Amen. But what does it mean? I do not believe we can live however we want and then accuse God when life does not feel abundant. If you hit your head repeatedly against a trunk, your head hurts and it is your own fault. If you like hitting your head against a trunk so that it hurts, then maybe it would be time to ask help, counseling or medical help?
[please note: I do not say that you need counseling or medical help, I wrote this because I have met people who liked to hurt themselves, so it is a realistic possibility that someone behaves in a destructive manner because of mental problems. Christians are not free of mental problems, so this includes also Christians]
The viewpoint you bring here and on other topics is highly appreciated. I would also add that it is better to press forward technologically with common sense stewardship of the environment, rather than trying to go back 500 years or something like that. While I’m not totally informed about this, I like what I saw Bill Gates trying to do with clean energy.
I love all kinds of meat, but not every day, and I usually only eat once or twice per day.
I’m all for being good stewards of the earth but the emotional blackmail of climate alarmists is nauseating to me. Yes, our CO2 emissions are likely warming the globe. The consensus agrees. There is less agreement on the specifics of what will happen after that. 97% of abstracts in papers that specifically address this issue (many papers do not) think humans are adding to the warming. Though in what confidence? Do they all think its incontrovertible or do some think its more probable than not? Do they all think we can stop it? Do they all think its economically worthwhile to stop it? Is it economically smarter to just let it go for 50 years as some have argued? Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that science has been known for a long time it is not a shocker that increased CO2 leads to warming. But these time scales are also small and the claim that “we don’t know of anything else” that could have led to the observed warming only means just that. That we don’t know of anything else, not that there can’t be.
But we have a lot of problems on the planet facing us today and a gospel in sore need of preaching. Fossil fuels have brought tremendous comfort, technological advances and eliminated a ton of suffering from the world. As I said before, they helped end slavery (economic necessity trumps or dictates morality it seems). And science (at least truth) ultimately doesn’t work by polling. Some people can’t even conceive or entertain how a consensus could be wrong (unless they already disagree with it). But they have been very wrong in the past and there is a handful of extremely or equally well credentialed experts who disagree with the consensus. When “One Hundred Authors Against Einstein” was published against relativity in 1931 he asked why they needed 100 scientists when just one fact was needed. I don’t deny the warming consensus but I am skeptical of the alarmism. There is also a lot of money and government is involved (pumping in many billions of dollars of tax money) in this as well and a lot of the world that will never comply with any of the regulations even if they are all shown to be necessary at preventing a future crisis.
If climate alarmism is real, adaptation is the answer. Right now we are trying to take steps to stop things generations from now. There is a lot of uncertainty in these models, however. And unless we want to go to war with countries who don’t refuse their citizens the simple pleasures and economic growth fossil fuels would provide for them. Access to cheap energy has provided immeasurable benefits to the world. And doesn’t China pump out 30% of the CO2 yearly?
Depends on how big and what it hits: if it’s <5 km across and hits something non-volatile (not limestone, gypsum, anhydrite, etc.), then it might not be as bad as what’s happening now. I wouldn’t guarantee it, though.
I haven’t heard anything about this lately – does anyone have anything on it? The conclusion is that it is already happening (and no, it’s not ‘chemtrails’ ):
(A pertinent introductory quote from the NOVA transcript):
For 15 years, Travis had been researching a relatively obscure topic: whether the vapor trails left by aircraft were having a significant effect on the weather. In the aftermath of 9/11, the entire U.S. fleet was grounded, and Travis finally had a chance to find out.
There is a place for expertise in all areas of human endeavor. Heck, you aren’t even allowed to practice medicine without proper credentials.
Actually the wealthy oil companies fund climate contrarians. They use the same playbook developed by the tobacco companies who avoided regulation for so long. (See “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes)
60% is not 100% and concerns population. And land mass is not the same as population.
What big organizations and big government are doing would have you or I thrown in prison for life were we to even attempt it.
Where is their right?
Yes, they call it “cloud seeding” and it is used to manipulate the weather. Yesterday’s “conspiracy theories” are Tomorrow’s headlines, it seems of late.
Expertise and consensus change with new data. That other galaxies exist was once debated. The Big Bang was not the consensus position at one time. Relativity was rejected when it first appeared. Alfred Wegener could provide no mechanism for mobile continents.bin not convinced we have all the inner working of the climate system mapped out and limited data doesn’t give me more confidence either.
What experts believe can and does change. There is great wisdom in relying on experts, formally trained in a subject or field, as opposed to some guy who likes to explain the truth of the world to people on the Facebook page of his local diner. But expert consensus has to be based on scientific data not polling.
The consensus comes from extracts that actually address the issue (many do not), 97% believe humans are contributing to rising temperatures. The consensus says nothing more than that. Those scientists may or may not agree with alarmists or the strategies you may want to employ.
Yes, accuse all credentialed scientists who disagree with the consensus of being greedy and funded by oil money. My friends who deny human warming tell me the exact opposite. You can’t get a grant or do any research if you aren’t on the global climate change. Thus, it is self perpetuating. Everyone likes to accuse everyone else’s motives.
How about maybe the climate is complex and not perfectly mapped out, our data is very incomplete and there is much room for expert disagreement?
Deniers and alarmists… same tactics, same coin, just different sides of it.
We have been at the threshold of doom for a long while and as long as people continue dumping billions of dollars we will stay there. Headlines like this are here to stay:
A dangerous climate threshold is near, but ‘it does not mean we are doomed’ if swift action is taken, scientists say”
Reminds me of the joke about the doctor who told his patient he had 3 months to live. The patient said I won’t be able to pay my bill by then so the doctor says, “okay, I’ll give you an extra 3 months.”
No. CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm to over 400 ppm. That’s about a 40% increase.
The natural levels bounce between 180 and 280 ppm, as defined by glacial and interglacial periods. There is absolutely nothing natural about 400+ ppm.
We also know that this 40% increase is due to fossil fuels. This is because fossil fuels are rich in 12C compared to normal isotope levels in the atmosphere due to fossil fuels being the product of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis slightly favors the lighter carbon isotope, and that is seen in the fossil fuels that come from organisms that photosynthesize. Guess what? The 40% increase in CO2 is rich in 12C and low in 13C just like fossil fuels are. We did this.
In the case of climate change, consensus really is based on scientific data. And the case is getting stronger, not weaker.
Where do I do that?
That is the complaint of the Intelligent Design folks – they don’t make progress because they can get funding. But what kind of grants have your contrarian friends written?
Right out of Big Tobacco’s playbook. Peddle doubt.
And is often stopped and significantly slowed down by those with vested interest in status quo. We could all still be piling up lead in our blood from leaded gasoline usage had not a couple brave scientists been willing to sacrifice their careers to show what was really happening. The fossil fuel industry just like the tobacco industry can be counted on to keep you misinformed or uninformed about anything that might impact their bottom line negatively.
Not since about the mid- to late-Miocene, at least. Of course, conditions were a bit different then: sea level about 50-100 meters higher, no extensive glaciers in the arctic, etc. It wasn’t to having crocodiles and tree shrews on Ellesmere like the early Eocene, but still a lot warmer than now.
):
