Scientific Report: rock solid evidence for human-caused G.W.

[Guardsman Bass]

The main problem I see, aside from the mass displacement caused by the flooding of current coastal areas, is in agriculture. If we can continue to grow crops in decent numbers, then humanity will probably survive.

[wautd]

Thanks, I also found this, images simulating a 100-meter rise of sea levels for europe and the world, but more detailed ones for the US (1,3,10,30,100 meters):
http://resumbrae.com/archive/warming/index.html

That's a depressing image.

[His Divine Shadow]

Yeah but a hundred meter rise is hardly likely, 6 meter is the upper theoretical level from what I've heard and even that will hardly affect finlands coasts according to what i've seen, we'll maybe get a return to how it was in the 1950's when the sea was higher, we have constant land-height increase here and the sea has been getting smaller and smaller, I can remember the 80's being quite different, the water now is much more shallow at identical locations.

[MKSheppard]

Water World

Basically, if all the ice in the world melted, we'd only have a 66 meter rise in sea level; and this would take about 2,000 to 10,000 years to occur (all the ice melting); so we would have plenty of time to adjust to it.

[Shinova]

Six meters is probably enough to send some cities like New York in a panic but most of the world will be fine most likely.

[MKSheppard]

But it is tempered by a flat pronouncement that global warming is essentially a runaway train that cannot be stopped for centuries.

So what is the point of reducing our carbon footprint or the Kyoto Protocols?

Doing all that would cripple the industries which we will need to survive these dramatic changes in exchange for little or no effect on these temperature changes.

[His Divine Shadow]

Six meters is probably enough to send some cities like New York in a panic but most of the world will be fine most likely.

Six meters is enough to fuck the netherlands over who are already under sea level.

[Guardsman Bass]

It looks like, from the maps of the sea level generated, that the real losers, at least in the US, would be New Orleans, Florida, and the lower part of the Coastal Cities. Philadelphia looks like it would finally have a direct sea port.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I find a good way of explaining the cataclysmic nihilistic/misanthropic mindset regarding the extinction of the human race would be to think of a load of muslim fundamentalists burning effigies of fattened westerners, Fred Phelps protests the funeral of a gay man, the KKK lynch some black people, blacks raping children to get rid of their HIV in Africa, and that "king of chavs" guy that won the lottery as soon as he got out of prison for assault or whatever, flaunting the fact he is likely always going to be more rich than you. Now think of them all just gone, the mosques or streets or wherever they are are now just silent, baking, or underwater, or covered in vegetation. Humanists would say it was a worse scene, I personally wouldn't.

Exactly how I tend to look at it. You can sit there and bitch that this isn't fair, as if some grand power is arbiter over this and actually gives a shit, but it won't change anything. Just thinking of all those idiots, bigots, warmongers and chavs going bye-bye too is enough to make my ceasing to exist worth it.

Would you believe that I also saw "An Inconvenient Truth" Last night at the exact same time that you did (With time differences taken into account) .

I was going to say great minds think alike, but then I remembered you're DEATH.

Frankly the situation annoys me at the futility of it, its gone so far that we can't stop it, Barring a radical breakthrough along the lines of the proposed orbital giant "solar" mirrors or clean fallout nukes, and that it will get worse.
At least we won't push it as hard once the oil dies out (which will happen soon, what with China & India's billowing populations), but its simply impossible for me to grasp that changes on the scale that we are talking about will happen within 50-70 years, during my life-time.
"Sigh", in the words of the good agent Smith "Humans are a disease", we strip & consume, and perhaps it's for the best that we've wasted our resources on fighting each other to the point where we won't have time to escape into space or set up extra-terrestrial self sustaining colonies.
On the other hand, moving back to the UK has a certain added appeal (as does working as a physicist in NASA)

Looking at the figures, even if the whole of the US went carbon neutral with clean hydrogen burning cars, energy efficient light bulbs and ran entirely on renewable power sources, that'd only be around 40% reduction in carbon emissions. We need at least 80% to keep the status quo, far more to reduce the effects. Too bad the effects are going to carry on with the newly discovered and elucidated feedback mechanisms. Too much inertia, too little, too late.

Even assuming the absolute worst rise in temperature, and the complete melting of the polar ice, I still have my doubts about whether this would wipe out humanity. We've lived through a evolutionary bottleneck and Ice Ages before, and that was when we were hunter-gatherers with essentially no way to either plan long-term on a large scale to deal with gathering problems. And the world has seen temperatures significantly higher than now before; both the early Cretaceous Period and late Paleocene/Early Eocene had an average world temperature around 25 degrees Celsius, if I remember (ten higher than now) right, with significantly higher sea levels than normal.

Which is not to say that things will be pleasant in the new world. Assuming the worst-case scenario climatewise, you could end up with a number of very authoritarian governments (although a "help" might arrive in the fact that disease and starvation would almost certainly reduce humanity's numbers.

I think you're being far too pessimistic, Valdemar.

Your post is negated by the fact that nothing like this has happened since the dinosaurs, and even then, never with this rapidity. My history is sketchy, but I don't believe humans were around then and the only reason the dinos enjoyed equatorial weather in Siberia is because they spent a good few million years adapting to it. This is happening in under a century.

So what is the point of reducing our carbon footprint or the Kyoto Protocols?

Doing all that would cripple the industries which we will need to survive these dramatic changes in exchange for little or no effect on these temperature changes.

Had Kyoto been ratified by all, or something even harsher, it'd have achieved something. Now it is, ironically, a load of hot air that won't change anything.

And your industry and money mean shit without a planet to live on. I've never known anyone equate survival of the species as being unworthy of investment because it may hurt the dividends of shareholders.

But then I relish in the fact that humanity is finding saving the world not worth the cost. It's delicious and makes the downfall all the more interesting. I bet those hotshots at Silicon Valley and on Wall Street won't sing this tune when their areas are under several metres of water (as predicted with even the minor 3 degree increase that is inevitable).

[K. A. Pital]

I've never known anyone equate survival of the species as being unworthy of investment because it may hurt the dividends of shareholders.

Because capitalism is extremely short-sighted, it works towards self-destruction without even realizing it. Pathetic. Of course the free market will save all, even if under a totally chaotic market you can't even plan for 5-10 years ahead, while destructive effects of capitalism form for entire centuries and will last into millenia. Funny that.

[Stark]

I love the 'if we can't stop it, there's no point taking steps to reduce, slow, or otherwise mitigate it' attitude. It's just a copout: oh, it's going to happen regardless, so I can forget about it and not allow it to inconvenience me. Indeed, let's keep making it worse, and maybe even make it worse FASTER.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I love the 'if we can't stop it, there's no point taking steps to reduce, slow, or otherwise mitigate it' attitude. It's just a copout: oh, it's going to happen regardless, so I can forget about it and not allow it to inconvenience me. Indeed, let's keep making it worse, and maybe even make it worse FASTER.

Damn right!

Though in fairness, there is a lot being done, but even if we met all our targets tomorrow and looked at new ones, it still wouldn't change our future without some bizarre other feedback mechanism kicking in and regaining equilibrium. The world is just too slow to give a shit about anything it seems.

[K. A. Pital]

Though in fairness, there is a lot being done, but even if we met all our targets tomorrow and looked at new ones, it still wouldn't change our future without some bizarre other feedback mechanism kicking in and regaining equilibrium

Like blowing the world's nuclear arsenal to cool down Eart in short term + total transition to nuclear and thermonuclear power in long term? Humanity _can_ solve the problem.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Sure we can. We could decades ago. We don't have the will, and that is what is the biggest problem. Ten thousand years of human civilisation, we've never had this problem. The only reason we have it now is because we're greedy and the only reason we're not seeing the bigger picture is because profit margins get fucked by doing the right thing.

[K. A. Pital]

We don't have the will, and that is what is the biggest problem.

If human masses are correctly educated and understand priorities, they will put in power people who will deal with the problem, by popular action. And perhaps, under a high-enough level of education, a technocracy will automatically arise, which will put an educated-enough person in power to deal with the problem.
Wishful thinking? Might be. Give humanity another 100 years and we'll see what will happen.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Stas, does Humanity even have another 100 years, or are we really that badly fucked?

[Admiral Valdemar]

If human masses are correctly educated and understand priorities, they will put in power people who will deal with the problem, by popular action. And perhaps, under a high-enough level of education, a technocracy will automatically arise, which will put an educated-enough person in power to deal with the problem.
Wishful thinking? Might be. Give humanity another 100 years and we'll see what will happen.

The world will end in 100 years. We need to do something NOW, not in some decades away utopia vision of a more moral humanity.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Would you believe that I also saw "An Inconvenient Truth" Last night at the exact same time that you did (With time differences taken into account) .

I was going to say great minds think alike, but then I remembered you're DEATH.

Bah, British minds of an unusual caliber think alike then .

Frankly the situation annoys me at the futility of it, its gone so far that we can't stop it, Barring a radical breakthrough along the lines of the proposed orbital giant "solar" mirrors or clean fallout nukes, and that it will get worse.
At least we won't push it as hard once the oil dies out (which will happen soon, what with China & India's billowing populations), but its simply impossible for me to grasp that changes on the scale that we are talking about will happen within 50-70 years, during my life-time.
"Sigh", in the words of the good agent Smith "Humans are a disease", we strip & consume, and perhaps it's for the best that we've wasted our resources on fighting each other to the point where we won't have time to escape into space or set up extra-terrestrial self sustaining colonies.
On the other hand, moving back to the UK has a certain added appeal (as does working as a physicist in NASA)

Looking at the figures, even if the whole of the US went carbon neutral with clean hydrogen burning cars, energy efficient light bulbs and ran entirely on renewable power sources, that'd only be around 40% reduction in carbon emissions.

Quick clarification, are you talking about only using currently usable mass produced technology or future technology (Not just fuel efficient hybrid or electric cars but the upcoming hydrogen cars?).

We need at least 80% to keep the status quo, far more to reduce the effects. Too bad the effects are going to carry on with the newly discovered and elucidated feedback mechanisms. Too much inertia, too little, too late.

To be fair the US is not the only country with this problem, even Japan one of (If not THE) most energy efficient, "Green" western countries in the world has increased its carbon emissions by 14% rather than reducing them by 8% since the Kyoto treaty (Source: Last weeks Time magazine).

The only way to truly cut back (As I see it) is:

1)Massive population drop (Down to 1-2 billion or even less such as 800 million, I'm afraid that I haven't done the math).

2)Massive technological level & Living "standard" (Cars, factories, output, energy & fuel consumption) drop combined with a moderate population drop, Though open air fires are not clean, and untreated waste dumps and mass cattle breeding can do even more damage than a factory.

So what is the point of reducing our carbon footprint or the Kyoto Protocols?

Doing all that would cripple the industries which we will need to survive these dramatic changes in exchange for little or no effect on these temperature changes.

Had Kyoto been ratified by all, or something even harsher, it'd have achieved something. Now it is, ironically, a load of hot air that won't change anything.

A large change 10 years ago would have made that much of a difference? Did the original treaty even address China?

And your industry and money mean shit without a planet to live on.

Eh, the strongest will still survive after all the principle of private Fallout shelters loaded with supplies inside a mansion with its own orchards in a less affected area still applies. (Or even in more badly affected areas if its self sustaining due to certain crops, solar power, a water source and some access to trade).
Of course their condition will deteriorate even more rapidly than the rapidly dying "poor" due to the chances of social revolts ("Storm the mansion, take their bread!" etc all')

I've never known anyone equate survival of the species as being unworthy of investment because it may hurt the dividends of shareholders.

Which species? When the last time you worried about animals destroyed to build your house [/joke]

I bet those hotshots at Silicon Valley and on Wall Street won't sing this tune when their areas are under several metres of water (as predicted with even the minor 3 degree increase that is inevitable).

Wall street would drown along with Manhattan, but isn't Silicon valley in the middle of a desert deep in the US {/Me Is terrible at geography}

[K. A. Pital]

We need to do something NOW

And what do you propose? The current election system in capitalist countries will _never_ have environmentalists elected to such power that they can enact the required measures. The current education system will _never_ allow environmentalism to even being to appeal to the masses. And the current economic system will ensure that self-destruction of this world will continue.

If the masses aren't smart enough to see that the future brings their own demise, then so be it. We, and I mean the people who are concerned about humanity wiping out itself, will try to take action, but with the masses inert, there's no other way but to fail.

Humans have been lulled by the current system into believing that everything is OK and only a minority has realized the self-destructive course which humans have embarked on. Want to change that, try to. But donating to the WCF and giving one vote in the bullshit elections to a green party clearly are NOT working, so people need to wake the fuck up.

[wautd]

[Pick]

I feel deeply sorry for the species we'll be dragging down with us.

[Rye]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; there's just too many people. I don't see how we can expect to sruvive in relative luxury without killing off an awful lot of people. It's harsh to even consider it, but if the western countries want to keep their superiority, they might just have to start wiping out the developing world's population, could be direct, e.g.lethal viral weapons, or it could be less lethal by making them all infertile.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; there's just too many people. I don't see how we can expect to sruvive in relative luxury without killing off an awful lot of people. It's harsh to even consider it, but if the western countries want to keep their superiority, they might just have to start wiping out the developing world's population, could be direct, e.g.lethal viral weapons, or it could be less lethal by making them all infertile.

As I've said before (And have often thought of) I agree with this point, though how many people could be left to sustain a "western" standard of living?

I know that the "Ecological footprint" of someone in the US is high enough that for all "earthers" to exist at that level would require 5.5 Earths (While Saudi Arabies would require 5.9 Earths), but the US is exceptionally wasteful (Compared to Japan at the least, and in fuel/oil definetly).

Assuming that the worlds population could be "Culled" selectively (3d world countries first, and other ... types) what would be the population drop needed? Down to 3 billion? 2 billion? 650 million

[K. A. Pital]

It's harsh to even consider it, but if the western countries want to keep their superiority, they might just have to start wiping out the developing world's population, could be direct, e.g.lethal viral weapons, or it could be less lethal by making them all infertile.

Hello Mr.Rosenberg. It's self-indicting. I just hope not all of the people in the West share the same mentality (I remember some of such people were just hanged recently... 1945 IIRC)...

If the West starts this, the flames of global revolution will consume your oh-so-precious "luxury" for which you want to murder millions of people, and your demise will be much more fast and violent. So tread _very_ fucking carefully. There are still people in the developing world who want to live, who have weapons and who can stand up to it.

[Bounty]

A civilization that deliberately killed millions or billions to maintain it's standard of luxury is not one I would want to live in.

And people in this thread are overreacting, badly. This week it's global warming, last week it was peak oil, next week it'll be the Russian nuclear stockpiles - all of those are very real and very important problems, but running into the street and crying about the end of the world (or, worse, sitting here and gloating that at least the chavs'll go down with you - haw sad is that?) won't solve a goddamn thing. Boo-fucking-hoo, the bog bad guvmints don't cawe about the pwoblem ...yeah, so, what, and? That doesn't stop you from trying, now does it?