Seas Rising 60 Percent Faster Than Projected, Study Shows

[News_Editor]

Seas rising 60 percent faster than projected, study shows < br />

2012-11-29 09:15:11 GMT+7 (ICT)

NEW YORK CITY (BNO NEWS) -- Global sea levels are rising as much as 60 percent faster than previously estimated by the climate panel of the United Nations (UN), indicating projections for the future may be biased low as well, according to the results of a study released on Wednesday.

The researchers, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany and the Laboratory Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography (LEGOS) in France, said satellite measurements show sea levels are rising at a rate of 3.2 millimeters (0.125 inches) per year, more than the 2 millimeters (0.078 inches) per year forecast by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"This study shows once again that the IPCC is far from alarmist, but in fact has under-estimated the problem of climate change," said Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. The findings of the research were published Wednesday in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The researchers used data from satellites which have measured the rise in sea levels by bouncing radar waves back off the sea surface. "Satellites have a much better coverage of the globe than tide gauges and are able to measure much more accurately by using radar waves and their reflection from the sea surface," said Anny Cazenave of LEGOS.

The study, which looked at data from 1993 through 2011, showed the increased rate of sea level rise is unlikely to be caused by a temporary episode of ice discharge from the ice sheets in Greenland or Antarctica or other internal variabilities in the climate system because it correlates very well with the increase in global temperature.

Rising seas could potentially affect millions of people around the world in coastal areas as well as megacities such as Tokyo. "To improve future projections it is very important to keep track of how well past projections match observational data," Rahmstorf stressed, adding that the physics of sea level rises is much more complex than global warming itself.

Also on Wednesday, during UN talks in Qatar on combating climate change, IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri warned that rising sea levels will begin to affect low-lying coastal areas with large populations by the end of the 21st century. "The cost of adaptation could amount to at least 5 to 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)," he said.

Pachauri explained that partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply meters of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines, and inundation of low-lying areas, with the greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. He said such changes are projected to occur over millennial timescales, but cautioned that more rapid sea level rise on century timescales cannot be excluded.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-11-29

[Chicog]

A climate change conference in Qatar. Yeah, OOOOOKaaaaayyyyyy.

[RickBradford]

What this alarmist article fails to mention is that this 3.2 millimeter rise is entirely an artefact of adjusted data (one of the Green movement's favourite tricks.)

The sea levels first recorded by the Topex Poseidon satellite array showed virtually no rise at all from 1993-2001 and Envisat (the European satellite) showed no rise from 2003-2011 (until it was 'adjusted'), meaning we have almost 20 years of raw satellite data showing very little rise.

The way they work is:

1) Develop a computer model showing alarming climate trends (sea-level, temperatures, droughts, etc etc)

2) Wait for their predictions to come true

3) When the prediction fails, 'adjust' the data.

4) Go back to Step 1

It sometimes takes 5 to 10 years after the measurement was made, for these scientists to “discover” that the data was wrong.

There are too many people who do not want the music to stop in the climate alarmism game (including the thousands who have just flown into Doha for another 'conference').

They all know a dripping roast when they see one .....

[GentlemanJim]

The most alarming thing about the article above is that I find Pachauri is STILL chairman of the IPCC, despite the scandal over clearly falsified claims that were exposed some two years ago now (maybe 3). the guy is a railway engineer and has somehow established himself as the worlds leading climatologist. The entire thing is a circus designed to raise hundreds of billions of dollars and to terrorise the population into submissiveness. Will people please wake up! The percentage of earths atmosphere that is carbon dioxide is 0.03% it was that 50 years ago and it is that today. It is very difficult to put a tax on things because of the amount of sun that shines, so I tell you what, lets put a tax on things that we produce.........CO2 ! The whole things is an absolute nonesense. CO2, happens to be a bi-product of breathing, maybe we should tax that also! 200 years ago there were probably only about 500 million people on the planet, now we have pushing 7 billion, thats a lot of extra breathing, but even that has not changed a thing.

The recent volcanic eruption in New Zealand will have thrown more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in the last week than all of aviation and shipping combined in the last 30 years. Global warming is a cycle and it is all to do with that really hot yellow thing up in the sky. If we spent as much money on creating a 'cleaner planet' freeing it from the billions of tons of non degradable pollutants we litter its surface with every day then the entire worlds population would benefit, but then Al Gores carbon trading company and Goldman Sachs would not make the hundreds of billions they have done already. It really riles me that these people are getting away with this alarmist scaremongering and what riles me even more is that people who are educated would rather believe this crap wholesale than sit down and just THINK about it on their own for 30 mins. What they are saying is a LIE! Now that we have a new toy that can measure sea levels to a fraction of a millimeter how about we use it for 50 years and collect some serious data, instead of comparing the results with data that may as well have been compiled by a guy with a ruler decades ago.

Rant over! Look through the garbage and lies guys.

[cloudhopper]

The percentage of earths atmosphere that is carbon dioxide is 0.03% it was that 50 years ago and it is that today.

Rant over! Look through the garbage and lies guys.

I agree that there is some bogus science chasing money but the fact remains that measured (in the middle of the Pacific) atmospheric CO2 has increased by nearly a quarter since 1960. 315PPM to 387PPM today.

[RickBradford]

The percentage of earths atmosphere that is carbon dioxide is 0.03% it was that 50 years ago and it is that today.

Rant over! Look through the garbage and lies guys.

I agree that there is some bogus science chasing money but the fact remains that measured (in the middle of the Pacific) atmospheric CO2 has increased by nearly a quarter since 1960. 315PPM to 387PPM today.

And the earth's plants just love it....

[cloudhopper]

And the earth's plants just love it....

The diminishing numbers on land do but the increased CO2 tension is forming more carbonic acid in the sea and affecting the algae, which contribute significantly to the O2<>CO2 cycle.

[bigbamboo]

A climate change conference in Qatar. Yeah, OOOOOKaaaaayyyyyy.

They'll be holding a football World Cup there next.......

[GentlemanJim]

The percentage of earths atmosphere that is carbon dioxide is 0.03% it was that 50 years ago and it is that today.

Rant over! Look through the garbage and lies guys.

I agree that there is some bogus science chasing money but the fact remains that measured (in the middle of the Pacific) atmospheric CO2 has increased by nearly a quarter since 1960. 315PPM to 387PPM today.

So in effect what you are saying is 0.0315% of earths atmosphere to 0.0387% of earths atmosphere. This is a tiny tiny amount, but of course very easy to make it sound alarmist when you say a 25% increase in CO2. 200 Million years ago the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 500% higher than it is now or is it less alarming to say it constituted 0.15% of Earths Atmosphere. CO2 levels have been up and down like a whores drawers ever since. Scientists are still only guessing as to what causes the cycles. The growth of Algae in the oceans is crucial to the survival of our species, as algae produces more oxygen than the rain forests. During the time of the largest dinosaurs the earths Oxygen content was also at an all time high along with much higher levels of CO2 than exist today. It is the reason the animals were so large. The oxygen was partially a result of incredible oceanic plumes of Algae, yet CO2 levels were much higher. The amount of atmospheric CO2 did not produce enough increase in carbonic acid to effect the oceans, and neither would it do today. The biggest threat to the continuing plumes of Algae in the pacific ocean does NOT come from any possible increase in Carbonic acid but is from the Great Pacific Garbage Dump! This is an area that stretches from Hawai to japan, that contains hundreds of millions of tons of plastic and toxic particles that have broken down and are suspended in the oceans water. It is already affecting the entire oceanic eco system.

The Patch is characterized by exceptionally high concentrations of pelagic plastics, chemical sludge, and other debris that have been trapped by the currents of the North Pacific Gyre.^[2] Despite its size and density, the patch is not visible from satellite photography, since it consists primarily of suspended particulates in the upper water column. Since plastics break down to even smaller polymers, concentrations of submerged particles are not visible from space, nor do they appear as a continuous debris field. Instead, the patch is defined as an area in which the mass of plastic debris in the upper water column is significantly higher than average.

As I said in my earlier post there are far more pressing things to solve than an increase in CO2 that we have no control over. IF we do not find a way of controlling and cleaning the ever increasing area of toxic pollutant in the pacific (an area some estimate as the size of the continental USA), then life on this planet is doomed. All of the crap that constitutes this oceanic dump can be controlled.......we have made it! Of course we are not talking about something as simple as cleaning up floating plastic bottles and cans, this stuff photodegrades continually down to the molecular level and remains in the upper level of water. It is already in the food chain, and that wholesome pacific salmon and Tuna you like to eat is wholesome no longer, it is full of seriously toxic nano sized particles that it ingested that we now ingest. The biggest threat to the worlds population today is from this flotsam. The point is that there is not as much money in it and Al Gore and the bankers don't give a flying fig about any period longer than they will be alive to spend the incredible wealth they are accumulating through psychological terrorism.

If you fear for the future of the planet for your grand children then ignore the man made distraction that is AGW and start googling and reading about this and subjects surrounding it.

http://en.wikipedia....c_Garbage_Patch

Ironically, perhaps one of the only ways that nature can clean the oceans will be through Global Warming. GW will melt the ice, that in turn will commence the onset of the next ice age and the freezing of the oceans would lead to conditions where the nano particles of pollution would have time to degrade completely. So as much as we try to screw the planet up, she will always win, it's just that we never will, so we need to find ways to clean up our act.

Edited November 29, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[maidu]

And the earth's plants just love it....

The diminishing numbers on land do but the increased CO2 tension is forming more carbonic acid in the sea and affecting the algae, which contribute significantly to the O2<>CO2 cycle.

Don't waste your time trying to convince warming deniers with scientific data. They're hard-wired to disbelieve every bit of evidence that the planet is warming, and a significant cause of it is people-generated.

[folium]

Kansas has its Creationism Museum, North Carolina denies the possibility of rising sea levels.......

http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782

[RickBradford]

They're hard-wired to disbelieve every bit of evidence that the planet is warming, and a significant cause of it is people-generated.

Let me see if I can correct some of your blind ignorance and prejudice.

1. Skeptics all agree that the planet is warming -- the temperature record is clear about that (even before the climate 'scientists' got at it)

2. Skeptics agree that man has an influence on climate by various mechanisms.

What we do not believe

1. That the minor temperature rise seen over the past 150 years and its probable future trend is any danger to us.

2. That it is possible to single out CO2 emissions as the major cause of the earth's warming

3. That regulatory efforts by the west to control CO2 emissions is going to achieve anything, given the rapid industrialisation of places like China, India, etc

4. That top-down regulation by bodies such as the UN is the best way to go about solving problems such as these. It never has been in the past.

5. That the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent annually on climate-related matters is worth the effort -- we would rather it went to providing true environmental protection -- clean water in the Third World, controlling malaria, cancer research, that sort of thing.

The Central England Temperature record from 1659 onwards, versus the CO2 concentration curve. Good fit. eh?

Edited December 1, 2012 by RickBradford

[Scott]

A post with confusing and changes inside quotes has been deleted. Please do not alter quotes.

[maidu]

1. Skeptics all agree that the planet is warming -- the temperature record is clear about that (even before the climate 'scientists' got at it)

2. Skeptics agree that man has an influence on climate by various mechanisms.

Not so. Can you speak for all sceptics? I've seen and heard many pontifications that deny the planet is warming. Many of the same sorts will claim claim that humans have no effect upon climate change.

I don't think any scientists are saying CO2 is the only cause. There is methane, and a host of other gases.

4. That top-down regulation by bodies such as the UN is the best way to go about solving problems such as these. It never has been in the past.

I doubt even a majority of scientists or GW believers believe top down spending is the best way to begin the healing process.

Is 'big money' being well spent? That's a good topic for debate. I will be the first to stand up and say how money (personal, gov't, do-good organizations) could be better spent.

Edited December 1, 2012 by maidu

[GentlemanJim]

And the earth's plants just love it....

The diminishing numbers on land do but the increased CO2 tension is forming more carbonic acid in the sea and affecting the algae, which contribute significantly to the O2<>CO2 cycle.

Don't waste your time trying to convince warming deniers with scientific data. They're hard-wired to disbelieve every bit of evidence that the planet is warming, and a significant cause of it is people-generated.

An absolutely ludicrous post. Why don't people stick to what they know? Anyone with any kind of scientific background is fully aware that AGW is absolute tripe. It is being used as a tactic to introduce more and more taxes and to implement an entire new trading platform across Global Markets. I find it staggering that in this day and age, with access to so much knowledge that people are totally unable to think for themselves, and those that do so are mocked by those that cannot be bothered to do so. The Earth is warming, but I bet you a pound to a pinch of rocking horse sh*t, it is nothing to do with man, and everything to do with the large yellow hot thing in the sky. People are creating entire lucrative businesses from exploiting the gullible.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Scott

[RickBradford]

1. Skeptics all agree that the planet is warming -- the temperature record is clear about that (even before the climate 'scientists' got at it)

2. Skeptics agree that man has an influence on climate by various mechanisms.

Not so. Can you speak for all sceptics? I've seen and heard many pontifications that deny the planet is warming. Many of the same sorts will claim claim that humans have no effect upon climate change.

With the label 'skeptic', I am only including people who can read a graph and see whether it goes up or down. I don't think any of them disagree with the notion that the earth has warmed gently over the last 150 years. And I don't expect that many skeptics would doubt man's potential to alter climate -- land use changes and atmospheric pollution, being just 2 examples.

I don't think any scientists are saying CO2 is the only cause. There is methane, and a host of other gases.

There are also Milankovich cycles, the PDO, the AMO, ENSO, cosmic rays, eccentricity of the earth's orbit, solar activity, the earth's albedo, and many other potential natural factors.

Skeptics believe that climate 'scientists' oversimplify the effect. Simply cranking up CO2 as the culprit is not the answer to what causes climate change.

4. That top-down regulation by bodies such as the UN is the best way to go about solving problems such as these. It never has been in the past.

I doubt even a majority of scientists or GW believers believe top down spending is the best way to begin the healing process.

Is 'big money' being well spent? That's a good topic for debate. I will be the first to stand up and say how money (personal, gov't, do-good organizations) could be better spent.

Well, please tell that to the thousands of activists and bureaucrats who are currently wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money in Doha trying to formulate exactly that -- a top-down regulatory system to fix a problem which skeptics believe has been vastly (and in some cases, deliberately) overstated.

[maidu]

I haven't read the reams of info re; 'carbon tax credits' and all that bureaucratic stuff - to have an opinion on it. I do know that bureaucracies make continual mistakes and mis-appropriate money like gangbusters (just look at the PT party and their rice-pledging policy). But to try and brand the GW issue with that one type of issue is misleading. GW has impacts on many levels.

I think we can agree man-made pollution is waaaay out of hand. To what degree it impacts weather is debatable, but finding ways to lessen pollution is paramount.

The Earth is warming, but I bet you a pound to a pinch of rocking horse sh*t, it is nothing to do with man, and everything to do with the large yellow hot thing in the sky.

G.Jim's statement above contradict's R.Bradford's statement below

And I don't expect that many skeptics would doubt man's potential to alter climate -- land use changes and atmospheric pollution, being just 2 examples.

Come on guys, you're supposed to agree with each other.

Pop Quiz: Which of the following earth moving activities contributes most to terra-forming on Earth?

>>> volcanos

>>> tides, shifting ocean sediment

>>> earthquakes, tsunamis

>>> earth moving by machines

>>> erosion

answer: earth moving by machines. Our species has a profound effect on the planet.

[Hugo6]

GW-deniers are just wondering who left the faucet running.

[RickBradford]

But to try and brand the GW issue with that one type of issue is misleading. GW has impacts on many levels.

GW has no impacts at all at the rate it is occurring now. 0.8 degrees C in 150 years? Come on. We can't even notice it. My house varies by more than 15 times that amount every day.

If there's nothing to bother about (which is the skeptic position), then the enormous wastage of time, money and resources on the CO2 boondoggle becomes the key issue. We could, perhaps, be doing something about the terrible pollution problems you refer to if we weren't p*ssing away tens of billions of dollars per year trying to demonise CO2.

Unfortunately, the gravy train is so succulent, that nobody is going to voluntarily pull the plug on it....

[thaibeachlovers]

The most alarming thing about the article above is that I find Pachauri is STILL chairman of the IPCC, despite the scandal over clearly falsified claims that were exposed some two years ago now (maybe 3). the guy is a railway engineer and has somehow established himself as the worlds leading climatologist. The entire thing is a circus designed to raise hundreds of billions of dollars and to terrorise the population into submissiveness. Will people please wake up! The percentage of earths atmosphere that is carbon dioxide is 0.03% it was that 50 years ago and it is that today. It is very difficult to put a tax on things because of the amount of sun that shines, so I tell you what, lets put a tax on things that we produce.........CO2 ! The whole things is an absolute nonesense. CO2, happens to be a bi-product of breathing, maybe we should tax that also! 200 years ago there were probably only about 500 million people on the planet, now we have pushing 7 billion, thats a lot of extra breathing, but even that has not changed a thing.

The recent volcanic eruption in New Zealand will have thrown more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in the last week than all of aviation and shipping combined in the last 30 years. Global warming is a cycle and it is all to do with that really hot yellow thing up in the sky. If we spent as much money on creating a 'cleaner planet' freeing it from the billions of tons of non degradable pollutants we litter its surface with every day then the entire worlds population would benefit, but then Al Gores carbon trading company and Goldman Sachs would not make the hundreds of billions they have done already. It really riles me that these people are getting away with this alarmist scaremongering and what riles me even more is that people who are educated would rather believe this crap wholesale than sit down and just THINK about it on their own for 30 mins. What they are saying is a LIE! Now that we have a new toy that can measure sea levels to a fraction of a millimeter how about we use it for 50 years and collect some serious data, instead of comparing the results with data that may as well have been compiled by a guy with a ruler decades ago.

Rant over! Look through the garbage and lies guys.

Well said.

[thaibeachlovers]

The percentage of earths atmosphere that is carbon dioxide is 0.03% it was that 50 years ago and it is that today.

Rant over! Look through the garbage and lies guys.

I agree that there is some bogus science chasing money but the fact remains that measured (in the middle of the Pacific) atmospheric CO2 has increased by nearly a quarter since 1960. 315PPM to 387PPM today.

Few would deny that the wold is warming and the seas are rising.

However, in the opinion of many, there is NOTHING we can do about it. We have as much control over the future of humanity as the dinosaurs did.

It's Gaia's way of eliminating the parasites that have destroyed the planet.

If it is as bad as they say, and if it was actually possible to do anything, don't you think the politicians would be doing something? Perhaps not burning a lot of jet fuel on the way to yet another conference would be a good start! I guess a publicly funded holiday in an exotic country beats teleconferencing any time.

[thaibeachlovers]

And the earth's plants just love it....

The diminishing numbers on land do but the increased CO2 tension is forming more carbonic acid in the sea and affecting the algae, which contribute significantly to the O2<>CO2 cycle.

Don't waste your time trying to convince warming deniers with scientific data. They're hard-wired to disbelieve every bit of evidence that the planet is warming, and a significant cause of it is people-generated.

An absolutely ludicrous post. Why don't people stick to what they know? Anyone with any kind of scientific background is fully aware that AGW is absolute tripe. It is being used as a tactic to introduce more and more taxes and to implement an entire new trading platform across Global Markets. I find it staggering that in this day and age, with access to so much knowledge that people are totally unable to think for themselves, and those that do so are mocked by those that cannot be bothered to do so. The Earth is warming, but I bet you a pound to a pinch of rocking horse sh*t, it is nothing to do with man, and everything to do with the large yellow hot thing in the sky. People are creating entire lucrative businesses from exploiting the gullible.

And, doing NOTHING in realistic terms to change anything. A few windmills won't save the world. Massive investment in nuclear power would change CO2 outputs, but of course the "people" don't want that- look at Japan. I wonder how many of the people complaining about GW have given up cars, plastic and air travel? Just a guess, but probably NIL!!!!!!!

[siampolee]

http://news.discover...ate-120629.html

An ancient Maya text has emerged from the jungles of Guatemala confirming the so-called "end date" of the Maya calendar, Dec. 21, 2012.

Considered one of the most significant hieroglyphic finds in decades, the 1,300-year-old inscription contains only the second known reference to the "end date," but does not predict doomsday.

"This was a time of great political turmoil in the Maya region and this king felt compelled to allude to a larger cycle of time that happens to end in 2012," Stuart said.

The discovery is consistent with the only other reference to the 2012 date in ancient Maya inscriptions --Monument 6 from Tortuguero, Mexico.

"What this text shows us is that in times of crisis, the ancient Maya used their calendar to promote continuity and stability rather than predict apocalypse," Canuto said.

Well according to the Mayan calendar it's possibly time up for us on the 12th of this month so in the event of those expected exceptional high tides I'm going to invest in one of these contraptions so the family and I are in with a chance..

Edited December 2, 2012 by siampolee

[RickBradford]

[maidu]

For me, being aware that the atmosphere and seas are warming and rising, doesn't mean that I'm alarmist about it. I'll be compost before too long, anyway. I care more for other species than for this one alone. If half the cities located on sea coasts are innundated, including Bkk, it will get my attention, but it won't compel me to pull my hair out and jump off a cliff. I can be as nonchalant about it all as the next guy. I do, however, seek solutions - particularly low-tech types such as river energy (not dams) and tidal/wave energy and energy conservation. I'm also a tree hugger and against nuclear altogether. A severe lessening of human populations would be good for the planet as a whole. A lot of pain in the future, no matter which way the cookie crumbles. As they say; 'No pain, no gain.'

[thaibeachlovers]

For me, being aware that the atmosphere and seas are warming and rising, doesn't mean that I'm alarmist about it. I'll be compost before too long, anyway. I care more for other species than for this one alone. If half the cities located on sea coasts are innundated, including Bkk, it will get my attention, but it won't compel me to pull my hair out and jump off a cliff. I can be as nonchalant about it all as the next guy. I do, however, seek solutions - particularly low-tech types such as river energy (not dams) and tidal/wave energy and energy conservation. I'm also a tree hugger and against nuclear altogether. A severe lessening of human populations would be good for the planet as a whole. A lot of pain in the future, no matter which way the cookie crumbles. As they say; 'No pain, no gain.'

The earth can probably sustain the population levels of the year 1900 with a good standard of living and without destroying the environment. Fat chance of achieving that without a huge catastrophe such as rising sea levels drowning millions and severe drought killing millions more. Oh, isn't that what's going to happen now!

[maidu]

For me, being aware that the atmosphere and seas are warming and rising, doesn't mean that I'm alarmist about it. I'll be compost before too long, anyway. I care more for other species than for this one alone. If half the cities located on sea coasts are innundated, including Bkk, it will get my attention, but it won't compel me to pull my hair out and jump off a cliff. I can be as nonchalant about it all as the next guy. I do, however, seek solutions - particularly low-tech types such as river energy (not dams) and tidal/wave energy and energy conservation. I'm also a tree hugger and against nuclear altogether. A severe lessening of human populations would be good for the planet as a whole. A lot of pain in the future, no matter which way the cookie crumbles. As they say; 'No pain, no gain.'

The earth can probably sustain the population levels of the year 1900 with a good standard of living and without destroying the environment. Fat chance of achieving that without a huge catastrophe such as rising sea levels drowning millions and severe drought killing millions more. Oh, isn't that what's going to happen now!

It's happening now to some degree now, as you know, and it will exacerbate as time rolls on. Human populations will probably peak in 20 years, about the time oil reserves will lessen drastically. Currently and in the future, the people least able to take care of themselves will be the ones continuing to pop out the most children. The Pacific Trash vortex will grow from its current Texas size, to continental US sized, and scant few things from the oceans will be palatable without toxic effects.

[thaibeachlovers]

For me, being aware that the atmosphere and seas are warming and rising, doesn't mean that I'm alarmist about it. I'll be compost before too long, anyway. I care more for other species than for this one alone. If half the cities located on sea coasts are innundated, including Bkk, it will get my attention, but it won't compel me to pull my hair out and jump off a cliff. I can be as nonchalant about it all as the next guy. I do, however, seek solutions - particularly low-tech types such as river energy (not dams) and tidal/wave energy and energy conservation. I'm also a tree hugger and against nuclear altogether. A severe lessening of human populations would be good for the planet as a whole. A lot of pain in the future, no matter which way the cookie crumbles. As they say; 'No pain, no gain.'

The earth can probably sustain the population levels of the year 1900 with a good standard of living and without destroying the environment. Fat chance of achieving that without a huge catastrophe such as rising sea levels drowning millions and severe drought killing millions more. Oh, isn't that what's going to happen now!

It's happening now to some degree now, as you know, and it will exacerbate as time rolls on. Human populations will probably peak in 20 years, about the time oil reserves will lessen drastically. Currently and in the future, the people least able to take care of themselves will be the ones continuing to pop out the most children. The Pacific Trash vortex will grow from its current Texas size, to continental US sized, and scant few things from the oceans will be palatable without toxic effects.

You are correct, unfortunately.

I am just grateful that I was fortunate enough to live this life in the most fortunate of times for a western person, after WW2 and before the mass extinction of humanity.

I'm also really pleased not to have any children, as I would feel terribly sorry for them if I did.

[Hugo6]

For me, being aware that the atmosphere and seas are warming and rising, doesn't mean that I'm alarmist about it. I'll be compost before too long, anyway. I care more for other species than for this one alone. If half the cities located on sea coasts are innundated, including Bkk, it will get my attention, but it won't compel me to pull my hair out and jump off a cliff. I can be as nonchalant about it all as the next guy. I do, however, seek solutions - particularly low-tech types such as river energy (not dams) and tidal/wave energy and energy conservation. I'm also a tree hugger and against nuclear altogether. A severe lessening of human populations would be good for the planet as a whole. A lot of pain in the future, no matter which way the cookie crumbles. As they say; 'No pain, no gain.'

The earth can probably sustain the population levels of the year 1900 with a good standard of living and without destroying the environment. Fat chance of achieving that without a huge catastrophe such as rising sea levels drowning millions and severe drought killing millions more. Oh, isn't that what's going to happen now!

It's happening now to some degree now, as you know, and it will exacerbate as time rolls on. Human populations will probably peak in 20 years, about the time oil reserves will lessen drastically. Currently and in the future, the people least able to take care of themselves will be the ones continuing to pop out the most children. The Pacific Trash vortex will grow from its current Texas size, to continental US sized, and scant few things from the oceans will be palatable without toxic effects.

You are correct, unfortunately.

I am just grateful that I was fortunate enough to live this life in the most fortunate of times for a western person, after WW2 and before the mass extinction of humanity.

I'm also really pleased not to have any children, as I would feel terribly sorry for them if I did.

understand your point

would just add that there are about 2 billion children on the planet for whom we can all feel sorry.

[thaibeachlovers]

The earth can probably sustain the population levels of the year 1900 with a good standard of living and without destroying the environment. Fat chance of achieving that without a huge catastrophe such as rising sea levels drowning millions and severe drought killing millions more. Oh, isn't that what's going to happen now!

It's happening now to some degree now, as you know, and it will exacerbate as time rolls on. Human populations will probably peak in 20 years, about the time oil reserves will lessen drastically. Currently and in the future, the people least able to take care of themselves will be the ones continuing to pop out the most children. The Pacific Trash vortex will grow from its current Texas size, to continental US sized, and scant few things from the oceans will be palatable without toxic effects.

You are correct, unfortunately.

I am just grateful that I was fortunate enough to live this life in the most fortunate of times for a western person, after WW2 and before the mass extinction of humanity.

I'm also really pleased not to have any children, as I would feel terribly sorry for them if I did.

understand your point

would just add that there are about 2 billion children on the planet for whom we can all feel sorry.

That's correct, which is why I find it hard to understand why more is not being done to try and stop climate change. I would guess that most politicians have children, but they are doing little if anything that will actually make a difference.

Flying hundreds, if not thousands of people to a conference on climate change that will achieve nothing is not a good start. However, I guess they'll have a nice holiday, and get to feel like they're important, so that's OK then.

Modified to allow posting.