Seas Rising 60 Percent Faster Than Projected, Study Shows

[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.

<about the time oil reserves will lessen drastically>

The really sad thing is that if they put as much effort into alternative fuels ( such as hydrogen fuel cells for cars ) as they put into developing weapons, there would be no fuel shortage and no man made climate change. I guess politicians must think killing people is more fun than motor fuel- what other explanation can there be?

[RickBradford]

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.

Actually, there are 17,000 bureaucrats, activists, politicians, NGO members and so on spending two weeks in Qatar right now achieving nothing, according to the official factsheet.

And I think you've nailed it when you say the main thing they take away is a greater feeling of self-importance; that in turn ensures that there will be plenty more of these useless and expensive get-togethers, producing ever more high-flown plans for telling the rest of humanity how to behave, and ignoring the environmental problems that we could begin to solve now with a bit more attention and money.

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

Actually, there are 17,000 bureaucrats, activists, politicians, NGO members and so on spending two weeks in Qatar right now achieving nothing, according to the official factsheet.

And I think you've nailed it when you say the main thing they take away is a greater feeling of self-importance; that in turn ensures that there will be plenty more of these useless and expensive get-togethers, producing ever more high-flown plans for telling the rest of humanity how to behave, and ignoring the environmental problems that we could begin to solve now with a bit more attention and money.

<ignoring the environmental problems that we could begin to solve now with a bit more attention and money.>

Never a truer sentence written.

I wonder what they all think when they go home to their families. Unless they're delusional, they can't possibly think they achieved anything to save their children.

[RickBradford]

Unless they're delusional...

Some are delusional, but my guess is not many.

Most of them know exactly what they're doing.

They're riding the gravy train of fame, power, influence, even a little fortune, feeding their egos, pushing their preferred ideologies, acting out their rage, taking an unearned jolly ... there are so many reasons why these people are at Doha, but looking after children -- their own or anyone else's -- simply doesn't come into it..

[chuckd]

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.

Actually, there are 17,000 bureaucrats, activists, politicians, NGO members and so on spending two weeks in Qatar right now achieving nothing, according to the official factsheet.

And I think you've nailed it when you say the main thing they take away is a greater feeling of self-importance; that in turn ensures that there will be plenty more of these useless and expensive get-togethers, producing ever more high-flown plans for telling the rest of humanity how to behave, and ignoring the environmental problems that we could begin to solve now with a bit more attention and money.

It makes one wonder how large a carbon footprint there must have been to fly those 17,000 individuals to Qatar.

[Yahooka]

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.

Actually, there are 17,000 bureaucrats, activists, politicians, NGO members and so on spending two weeks in Qatar right now achieving nothing, according to the official factsheet.

And I think you've nailed it when you say the main thing they take away is a greater feeling of self-importance; that in turn ensures that there will be plenty more of these useless and expensive get-togethers, producing ever more high-flown plans for telling the rest of humanity how to behave, and ignoring the environmental problems that we could begin to solve now with a bit more attention and money.

It makes one wonder how large a carbon footprint there must have been to fly those 17,000 individuals to Qatar.

No need to wonder.........they`ll just buy some carbon quota`s from 3`rd world countries and their carbon footprint will no longer be a problem !!!

[Potosi]

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!!!!!!!

I did. Plastic is inescapable, but I try my best to avoid it. My scooter needs two gallons of gas per month, and the pushbike none. There's lots of countries where the share of renewables is 25% or more, even in Germany wich its huge manufacturing sector. It's doable. Please don't say anything silly now, like Solyndra. Subsidies for fossil fuels are six time higher globally than for renewables, and highest in the US. Foxnews doesn't mention this.

Since the GW deniers are almost always the free market, small government people, it's not so much that nuclear power is unsafe. It's so expensive that no private investor goes near them, that's why they are all taxpayer financed. A new plant with 1,100 MWH costs between $ 6 billion and $ 9 billion. The largest wind turbines with 8 MWH cost about $ 2 million each. Do the maths.

[RickBradford]

A new plant with 1,100 MWH costs between $ 6 billion and $ 9 billion. The largest wind turbines with 8 MWH cost about $ 2 million each. Do the maths.

Certainly.

A typical turbine in the UK generates power that is worth around £150,000 a year, but attracts subsidies of more than £250,000 a year. These subsidies are added directly the bills of energy users.

Meeting Britain's target for renewable energy by 2020 would require a total investment of some £120 billion in wind turbines and back-up. The same amount of electricity could be generated by gas-fired power plants that would only cost £13 billion, that is almost 10 times cheaper.

Wind power was fine in the Netherlands 200 years ago, but their only legacy to modern consumers is the millstone, represented by massive unnecessary fuel bills for consumers.

[jbrain]

Climate has been changing since human memory.There have been at least 5 ice ages in earths history, I doubt that human involvement had anything to do with it.

[maidu]

<about the time oil reserves will lessen drastically> The really sad thing is that if they put as much effort into alternative fuels ( such as hydrogen fuel cells for cars ) as they put into developing weapons, there would be no fuel shortage and no man made climate change. I guess politicians must think killing people is more fun than motor fuel- what other explanation can there be?

I agree that alternatives must be explored and implemented. However, I'm not a fan of H fuel cells. Hydrogen has too many drawbacks and it cost more to isolate H than the rewards gotten from it. There are a slew of viable alternatives, though, and innovations are being developed week by week. A country like Thailand, though, will follow rather than be at the vanguard. There is scant little incentive, in Thailand, which encourages innovations and creative endeavors relating to science, technology, new applications, conservation, etc. Thais will continue to be 15 to 50 years behind western trends.

[maidu]

Climate has been changing since human memory.There have been at least 5 ice ages in earths history, I doubt that human involvement had anything to do with it.

Agreed. No one proposes that humans had any effect on earlier ice ages. Why do you mention that?

[jbrain]

Climate has been changing since human memory.There have been at least 5 ice ages in earths history, I doubt that human involvement had anything to do with it.

Agreed. No one proposes that humans had any effect on earlier ice ages. Why do you mention that?

Because if climate already was changing million years ago because of other reasons as human involvement, then why it can't have similar causes currently ?

[Potosi]

It's not only climate change. None of the great extinction events of the deep past compares to what is going on right now. They're nothing against the onslaught of technology, pollution, deforestation.

[RickBradford]

None of the great extinction events of the deep past compares to what is going on right now.

I think you're being rather melodramatic.

The Permian–Triassic extinction event, informally known as the Great Dying, was an extinction event that occurred 252 million years ago. It is the Earth's most severe known extinction event, with up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct. It is the only known mass extinction of insects. Some 57% of all families and 83% of all genera became extinct.

(Wikipedia)

[maidu]

Yes, evidence points to several mass extinctions in the past. Current predictions are half of species alive today will be extinct in 50 years. If it weren't for near extinction (probably due to volcanic activity) of our own species, roughly 250,000 years ago, humans would be as diverse in appearance as dogs. But because only a tiny tribe survived - that accounts for the similarity of all people, and how we can inter-breed. African pygmies with Icelanders, Australian aborigines with Andeans, Native Americans with Thais, ....you get the picture.

[RickBradford]

If it weren't for near extinction (probably due to volcanic activity) of our own species, roughly 250,000 years ago, humans would be as diverse in appearance as dogs. But because only a tiny tribe survived - that accounts for the similarity of all people, and how we can inter-breed.

All dogs can inter-breed as well - there is only one species, Canis lupus. The reason they look so different is because humans have been selectively breeding them for various purposes over the last few hundred years.

[maidu]

I know that dogs can inter-breed, yet I mentioned the word 'appearance' in my post. If there hadn't been a dire extinction which left a very small pool of humans, some quarter million years ago, there might be humans which were very tall and thin (3 meters+), and others who were quite small and squat (+/- 75 cm), with more variations on coloration and hair and features than our species now have.

[Thaddeus]

If it weren't for near extinction (probably due to volcanic activity) of our own species, roughly 250,000 years ago, humans would be as diverse in appearance as dogs. But because only a tiny tribe survived - that accounts for the similarity of all people, and how we can inter-breed.

All dogs can inter-breed as well - there is only one species, Canis lupus. The reason they look so different is because humans have been selectively breeding them for various purposes over the last few hundred years.

And don't forget the Disney Effect.

[Thaddeus]

Yes, evidence points to several mass extinctions in the past. Current predictions are half of species alive today will be extinct in 50 years. If it weren't for near extinction (probably due to volcanic activity) of our own species, roughly 250,000 years ago

Excuse me but, where are you getting the 250,000 years ago from?

[thaibeachlovers]

<about the time oil reserves will lessen drastically> The really sad thing is that if they put as much effort into alternative fuels ( such as hydrogen fuel cells for cars ) as they put into developing weapons, there would be no fuel shortage and no man made climate change. I guess politicians must think killing people is more fun than motor fuel- what other explanation can there be?

I agree that alternatives must be explored and implemented. However, I'm not a fan of H fuel cells. Hydrogen has too many drawbacks and it cost more to isolate H than the rewards gotten from it. There are a slew of viable alternatives, though, and innovations are being developed week by week. A country like Thailand, though, will follow rather than be at the vanguard. There is scant little incentive, in Thailand, which encourages innovations and creative endeavors relating to science, technology, new applications, conservation, etc. Thais will continue to be 15 to 50 years behind western trends.

<it cost more to isolate H than the rewards gotten from it.> The weak spot!!!!!! However, what's more important- cost or survival?

The point I always make is that unless humanity makes the difficult decision to move away from a carbon economy as fast as possible, not at "some point in the future" whenever that may be, there may not be a humanity anymore.

So that's doing things like banning private carbon fuelled vehicles NOW and investing in mass transit schemes that actually work and are affordable, forcing people to live within walking distance of their work, banning low cost air travel to destroy the mass tourism market and make things locally, rather than importing goods from thousands of mile away, other than by non carbon powered ships. Could also ban meat consumption, because of the methane production by meat animals.

Plus reduce the population by 50% ( limiting women to 1 child with compulsory sterilisation post birth ).

While it was popular to talk about world overpopulation some years ago, no one talks about that anymore, while women pop out children at an unsustainable rate.

However, that's all assuming that mankind actually causes destructive climate change, something I don't believe. I think it's just a natural cycle, and nothing humans can do will stop their destruction.

It seems strange though, that for all the politicians wobbling on about it, nothing has happened that would actually have a real effect on greenhouse gas levels.

If cost is an issue, stopping weapon production and wars would free up trillions of $ for R and D. Think it'll happen- NO CHANCE!

[maidu]

Yes, evidence points to several mass extinctions in the past. Current predictions are half of species alive today will be extinct in 50 years. If it weren't for near extinction (probably due to volcanic activity) of our own species, roughly 250,000 years ago

Excuse me but, where are you getting the 250,000 years ago from?

It may be closer to 300,000. I don't have the precise source in front of me, but a few years ago, scientists/geneticists researching maternal genetic codes in genes, happened to trace the source for our modern type humans to an area somewhere in Chad, northern Africa. Google it and let us know what details you dig up.

As per the above post, I don't believe the fast-paced climate change we're experiencing now is divorced from human activity. Plus, I don't believe there's nothing we can do about it. Even if lessening CO2 emmissions has nothing to do with climate, it's a good thing to do, and to encourage others to do. Of course, there are myriad other factors, some natural, and some the result of sapiens' activities heavily mixed with greed and vanity. Just one tiny segment of the CO2 dilemma which is entwined with vanity: muscle cars, speedboats, pleasure boats, large motorbikes, private planes, ....all are used to enhance vanity/prowess/attracting a mate, - more so than for practical purposes of transportation.

[jbrain]

Yes, evidence points to several mass extinctions in the past. Current predictions are half of species alive today will be extinct in 50 years. If it weren't for near extinction (probably due to volcanic activity) of our own species, roughly 250,000 years ago

Excuse me but, where are you getting the 250,000 years ago from?

It may be closer to 300,000. I don't have the precise source in front of me, but a few years ago, scientists/geneticists researching maternal genetic codes in genes, happened to trace the source for our modern type humans to an area somewhere in Chad, northern Africa. Google it and let us know what details you dig up.

As per the above post, I don't believe the fast-paced climate change we're experiencing now is divorced from human activity. Plus, I don't believe there's nothing we can do about it. Even if lessening CO2 emmissions has nothing to do with climate, it's a good thing to do, and to encourage others to do. Of course, there are myriad other factors, some natural, and some the result of sapiens' activities heavily mixed with greed and vanity. Just one tiny segment of the CO2 dilemma which is entwined with vanity: muscle cars, speedboats, pleasure boats, large motorbikes, private planes, ....all are used to enhance vanity/prowess/attracting a mate, - more so than for practical purposes of transportation.

That would be a good start.Now keep in mind that those big wigs who are currently discussing these issues in Qatar are also the ones who own the items you just mentioned.

[RickBradford]

Even if lessening CO2 emmissions has nothing to do with climate, it's a good thing to do, and to encourage others to do.

Why?

Lessening CO2 emissions means denying or delaying Third World access to the cheapest forms of energy (i.e. fossil fuels) which have enabled the Western world to develop and improve the lives of its citizens enormously.

Who will give themselves the almighty moral right to tell Africans and Asians that they can't have cheap and efficient power plants?

I will concede, though, that your viewpoint is not a minority one -- it is shared by many, if not most, of the big Green NGOs.

[folium]

Yes, evidence points to several mass extinctions in the past. Current predictions are half of species alive today will be extinct in 50 years. If it weren't for near extinction (probably due to volcanic activity) of our own species, roughly 250,000 years ago, humans would be as diverse in appearance as dogs. But because only a tiny tribe survived - that accounts for the similarity of all people, and how we can inter-breed. African pygmies with Icelanders, Australian aborigines with Andeans, Native Americans with Thais, ....you get the picture.

Do you mean the Toba (Sumatra) super volcanic eruption 72-76,000 years ago (which is itself a highly disputed theory re near human extinction). The other volcanic player would be Taupo in NZ, the scene of the most recent super-volcanic eruption (one that emits >1000 cubic kms of material), some 26,500 years ago.

[Thaddeus]

Yes, evidence points to several mass extinctions in the past. Current predictions are half of species alive today will be extinct in 50 years. If it weren't for near extinction (probably due to volcanic activity) of our own species, roughly 250,000 years ago

Excuse me but, where are you getting the 250,000 years ago from?

It may be closer to 300,000.

Folium has pointed out Lake Toba, which as he says was around 73,000 years ago. There is little doubt that it happened, too much geological evidence says that it did. It is however disputed about it being a mass extinction event, even climate sensitive species managed to get through it.

The most believable theory is that it left pockets of humans all over the world and not just in one location. Is there any credibility in trying to say that the entire human race was almost wiped out and within a relatively short time frame managed to create Scandiweigens, Europeans, Asians, Inuits and Native Australians, no, not really.

Yes, we all share DNA, but we got that from way before Toba blew up.

Prior to Lake Toba, the newest (if you can call it that) mass extinction level event was 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The largest one was at the end of the Permian Period 250,000,000 years ago, that nearly wiped out all life on the planet.

[maidu]

Yes, evidence points to several mass extinctions in the past. Current predictions are half of species alive today will be extinct in 50 years. If it weren't for near extinction (probably due to volcanic activity) of our own species, roughly 250,000 years ago, humans would be as diverse in appearance as dogs. But because only a tiny tribe survived - that accounts for the similarity of all people, and how we can inter-breed. African pygmies with Icelanders, Australian aborigines with Andeans, Native Americans with Thais, ....you get the picture.

Do you mean the Toba (Sumatra) super volcanic eruption 72-76,000 years ago (which is itself a highly disputed theory re near human extinction). The other volcanic player would be Taupo in NZ, the scene of the most recent super-volcanic eruption (one that emits >1000 cubic kms of material), some 26,500 years ago.

Interesting topic - particularly to establish a plausible time-line. If the 300k years ago 'small tribe in Mali' is on the mark, then that would precede the volcano events mentioned above. Though, no dought, such catasclimic eruptions had far-reaching effects, on sapiens and other species.

As for denying Africans and others the use of fossil fuels. I agree they should continue to reap some benefit from fossil fuels, but they are also part of the world community and should do what they can to gear towards lessening FF use. Everyone worldwide now has access to similar data. Innovations are being developed week by week. Granted, poorer countries are not as able as rich countries to purchase certains start-up items, but there is much that can be done to steer towards saner power/energy policies. All have sunshine, which is a free power source. Many also have thermal and wind potential, but few are delving in to that, because it's still too odd in their view.

All countries, rich and poor, can do much more with passive solar, for example. Even US troops in the Middle east could benefit from passive solar. Example: how much electricity/fossil fuels is used each day to supply troops and their support staff with hot showers? ....or heating food? Just those two items, if powered by passive solar, might save millions of dollars per day in fuel costs.

The US military services are actually seriously assessing solar and other alternatives - more so as cost-saving measures, then for any sort of tree-hugging reasons. So that's good. Countries like Thailand, which are always behind on trends, won't consider any serious changes toward alternative energy solutions until many years after western countries have shown the way.

[Thaddeus]

All have sunshine, which is a free power source.

All the power our planet calls on comes from the sun.

[RickBradford]

I mentioned upthread, before all the extinction events, that the sea-level rise was basically an artefact, created as support for the UN's scare about "20 million climate refugees by 2010."

The raw satellite data:

Then, in 2003, the "consensus scientists" realised that this data didn't fit their computer models. So, in their traditional way, they did the decent thing and altered the data.

Look! It fits! Run for the hills!

As the world's premier sea-level researcher Professor Nils-Axel Mörner recalls:

At the Moscow global warming meeting in 2005, in answer to my criticisms about this “correction,” one of the persons in the British IPCC delegation said, “We had to adjust the record, otherwise there would not be any trend.”

Mörner is an unusual scientist for this day and age -- he actually goes to places and measures things, rather than sitting in his office creating computer models of what he thinks "should" happen.

In his 40-year career of measurements, some of his most recent findings are that sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.

Mörner concludes:

Since sea level is not rising, the chief ground of concern at the potential effects of anthropogenic “global warming” – that millions of shore-dwellers the world over may be displaced as the oceans expand – is baseless. We are facing a very grave, unethical “sea-level-gate”.

Coincidentally, he has a detailed new report out: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/sea_level_is_not_rising.html

[ignis]

Seas rising, Bangkok sinking, few years then Bangkok could be a new Dive site ?

[maidu]

All have sunshine, which is a free power source.

All the power our planet calls on comes from the sun.

True to some extent, yet most of that is solar power stored from millions of years ago. What about the mega-solar power which shines on our planet each day? I've set up several passive solar hw heaters. Often the water is too hot and has to be mixed with cold. If I can save a few hundred baht/month just with those few set-ups, imagine the fossil fuels and money which could be saved if similar systems were set up all over Thailand, ....all over SE Asia, .....around the world? Sure, the sun doesn't shine brightly everywhere each day, but there are way to deal with that - too much to articulate here. And as you know, solar has a lot more potential than just heating water. Yet, for every conventional power system except hydro (including nuclear), heating water is key. Concentrated solar (parabolic mirrors, etc) could pre-heat water in nearly all those scenarios, thereby saving trainloads of fossil fuels (and expense) each day.