Global warming: to what extend will it affect us?

[ray245]

I know Global warming is very real and very dangerous, but to what extend can global warming affect human civilization as a whole?

Some people think it will be doomsday sceanrio, some people think we can solve it easily, some people think that we will only be affected to a small extend.

[Guardsman Bass]

You're asking a question that is pretty enormous in nature and speculation.

If you want a start, here is what the IPCC says about potential impacts of Global Warming.

[DarthShady]

I know Global warming is very real and very dangerous, but to what extend can global warming affect human civilization as a whole?

Some people think it will be doomsday sceanrio, some people think we can solve it easily, some people think that we will only be affected to a small extend.

If you are going to start the fucking thread perhaps you should let us know what you think.And not just some people think this and that.

[wjs7744]

I remember reading somewhere about how melting freshwater in the polar ice caps will lead to a reduction in salinity of the oceans, which could in turn affect the Gulf Stream and actually decrease temperatures here. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this to cite it properly. Has anyone else heard this before, and if so do they know if it's legit or not?

[Aaron]

I remember reading somewhere about how melting freshwater in the polar ice caps will lead to a reduction in salinity of the oceans, which could in turn affect the Gulf Stream and actually decrease temperatures here. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I read this to cite it properly. Has anyone else heard this before, and if so do they know if it's legit or not?

There was a fair bit on that in Al Gore's documentry saying that's what would happen.

[D.Turtle]

Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet would be a book worth looking at.

Here is the article on Realclimate.org about it.

[Guardsman Bass]

Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet would be a book worth looking at.

Here is the article on Realclimate.org about it.

I'll second that book (I own it and have read it). The realclimate.org endorsement is good, too, since Lynas technically isn't a climate scientist himself; he's a journalist.

There was also a fairly good television program on the National Geographic Channel, and an even cooler interactive website about it.

[ray245]

I want to ask is, if humans try to salvage the sistuation, how much of civilization can we maintain?

Will we be stuck on our technological development, or will we find more ways to work around global warming and further our technological development.

[WesFox13]

You know. The thing about global warming that I'm most afraid of is that the only way we can possibly counter it by using today's technology, is by creating a nuclear winter.

Imagine if you were the leader of one of the nuclear powers and you agreed with the other nuclear powers to launch or detonate some nuclear weapons in an uninhabited area in the hopes that it would counteract the effects of global warming.

Does my idea sound far-feched or is it possible?

[Zablorg]

Impossible. Someone in HoS asked something about nuclear winter to counter climate change years ago. I think the it wouldn't be nearly as effective as to be feasible.

[Ryan Thunder]

You know. The thing about global warming that I'm most afraid of is that the only way we can possibly counter it by using today's technology, is by creating a nuclear winter.

The resulting global dimming would be catastrophic. Droughts would worsen.

Well, according to Discovery Channel, anyways...

[Mayabird]

You could accomplish the same global dimming by injecting a lot of sulfur dioxide particles into the stratosphere, much like what a major volcanic eruption does. It would have to be constantly replenished since the particles eventually fall out of the atmosphere, but there'd be less radioactive fallout involved. Also less idiots screeching about evil nukes afterwards which could delay progress on building a nuclear infrastructure. Assuming they're not just lined up against the wall and shot. At the point where you're seriously shooting millions of tons of sulfur into the atmosphere, you really are that fucked.

[Shroom Man 777]

They say that part of the reason why the Earth is warming up is due to the increased amounts of ozone in the atmosphere. Ejecting sulfur dioxide into the air can cool the atmosphere, but also causes ozone depletion.

So, use sunscreen?

[Sikon]

The 1883 Krakatau volcanic eruption of 100 to 200 megatons caused enough enough particulates in the upper atmosphere to slightly drop observed global temperature for up to several years afterwards, an effect also observed with more recent large volcanic explosions. Giant thermonuclear bombs detonated each year in uninhabited regions could cause a greater effect, designed to be "clean" with more than 99% fusion rather than fission yield for relatively little fallout, instead of tens of percent fission yield.

Such is different from accidental effects of nuclear war because there's not a lot of small-yield devices mostly throwing up some dust to low altitude and causing fires but rather a small number of detonations so high-yield as to get a lot of dust all of the way up into the stratosphere. Large-grained and low-altitude dust promptly settles to the ground, especially when it is below the altitude of clouds causing rainstorms, but fine-grained high altitude dust lasts longer. E.g. a 0.4-megaton airburst would do little, but a 200-megaton bomb detonated right could be a little like a giant volcanic eruption.

But that's not the most efficient geoengineering method. There's no need for the undesirable radiation exposure from detonating nuclear bombs.

What's vastly more efficient is to instead send fine-grained reflective dust directly to the stratosphere, using aircraft.

Particles of around a quarter-micron diameter remain airborne for an average dust lifetime of ~ 1.25 years or more, making the rate of replenishment needed relatively low. A reflective aerosol dust loading of 0.02 to 0.04 grams per square meter with 10 million to 20 million tons of dust could suffice for a 1% to 2% change in solar flux.

For example, reflecting 1.8% of sunlight could compensate for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere from preindustrial levels, a CO2 concentration not yet reached.

Although even 16-inch cannons could deliver shells with dust to the necessary altitude, aircraft can disperse dust for less cost. At around $1/kg, flight expense might be on the order of $20 billion annually. (World GDP is $70000 billion annually, PPP).

The preceding is not for use of sulfur dioxide and not for use of sulfates. Although sulfates are even more efficient than the preceding dust, requiring fewer millions of tons and reducing program costs by a few billion dollars a year, they can be more reactive. Inert dust is sufficient, which wouldn't harm the ozone layer.

The relatively small quantities involved are easy to understand. By using such fine-grained reflective dust staying airborne for so long, the efficiency is almost like an imaginary reflective sheet suspended in space of such thinness. It's the same principle as a submicron-thickness space solar sail that masses on the order of a ton per square kilometer since it is less than a millionth of a meter thick, like a million tons per million square kilometers. Except the dust doesn't cause complete reflection over any particular area but 1% to 2% average reflection over a larger area, and it doesn't have to be sent into space, just to the upper atmosphere.

References for the preceding are given within the longer discussion in the post of a year ago here.

A disadvantage is a slight reduction in the amount of sunlight received by plants, but one or two percent is barely noticeable. A countering effect is the carbon dioxide fertilization from increased levels of atmospheric CO2.

As most readers should recall from biology, plants use carbon dioxide. Indeed, some greenhouses today make use of carbon dioxide injection to increase yields, like this introduction to the commercial practice describes. Average yields for the C3 type of plants grown increase by about 1/3rd with a doubling of CO2.*

* (That's one of two photorespiratory pathways, C3 and C4; about three-fourths of crops are C3 plants like wheat and rice, while another quarter are C4 like sorghum and sugarcane).

That's only under ideal conditions, and there's far less increased growth in event of a limiting shortage in other nutrients like nitrogen, water, etc. A few percent rather than tens of percent increase is more common outside of a greenhouse. Still, the average effect can be substantially more than the tiny effect of 1% to 2% reduced sunlight from the preceding geoengineering method.

To use figures from a few years ago, as mentioned in another recent thread, measured increased in atmospheric CO2 has been less than half as much as human-caused emissions of 7.5 Gt-C/yr, because ~ 2.5 Gt-C/yr was absorbed by extra growth of new biomass (aside from another ~ 2 Gt-C/yr absorbed by the oceans). While not the only factor, a major contributing factor towards the increased growth of new biomass has been carbon fertilization.

Non-reactive reflective dust in the stratosphere could counter the current ~ 1.6 W/m^2 of radiative forcing from global warming without excessive tradeoffs.

Of course, none of the preceding changes the need to switch away from fossil fuels for future energy security as well as environmental reasons, especially oil, as discussed in previous posts. It does illustrate, though, what applied science and technology could do if there was the political will.

Nobody's going to actually do intentional geoengineering like the preceding in the near-term foreseeable future as the negative effects of global warming are not extreme enough to provide sufficient motivation to override the natural unpopularity of the concept, neither known nor understood by most of the public.

Global warming has an effect varying by region. Live in a low-lying oceanic island or some coastal areas, and it's bad to hear the IPCC's estimate of 0.09 to 0.88 meters sea level rise by the year 2100 in their 2001 report, an estimate refined to 0.19 to 0.58 meters in their 2007 report. Live in Siberia, and a little warming might not seem too bad from a human perspective.

Humans themselves tend to be relatively good at adapting, while some species are not, like some of the coral reefs can be killed if maximum near-surface water temperatures in the summer are just 2 to 3 degrees Celsius above normal values.

Another example is the north pole region.

Temperature rise around there is particularly fast. Often as thin as a fraction of a meter and not more than several meters thick, the sea ice there experiences rapid change, with a magnitude of effect occurring in years that would take centuries to millennia for the central kilometers-thick ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Although most fluctuation is seasonal, an average net decline beyond that has been observed, and a lot of the area around the north pole could become mostly ice-free later in this century.

From a directly human perspective, such allows a northwest passage for shipping navigable year-round, of some economic value, but, of course, such is meanwhile devastating to the ecosystem previously supported by the ice. Humans manage, usually preferring warmer climates to arctic ones. Polar bears suffer.

Global warming over the next few decades will cause effects analogous to its effects over the past few decades but somewhat greater. It won't be remotely close to doomsday, but trends will be noticeable if one looks at enough statistics.

In principle, if mankind used more and more fossil fuels without mitigation, especially the astronomical amounts of methane hydrates, eventually the result after enough centuries would be converting earth's climate to be more like it was in the time of the dinosaurs.

Back then, the carbon of today's fossil fuels was in the atmosphere and vegetation. Large amounts of vegetation grew in the warm, carbon-fertilized climate, the biomass which became today's coal, oil, etc. A lot of modern ecosystems like those supporting arctic species today weren't around, and the global climate was different from that to which many more recently evolved species are adapted. Sea levels were many meters higher, like flooding today's coastal areas, although such a rise takes centuries due to the number of billions of megatons of energy involved in melting so many millions of cubic kilometers of ice often kilometers thick.

But tendencies including the diminishing supply of affordable conventional crude oil and technological progress suggest that humanity may mostly switch away from fossil fuels by the 22nd century and start seriously stopping global warming, preventing the most extreme situation from ever developing.

Direct geoengineering like stratospheric dust injection may or may not be ever used, although it remains an option if global warming became excessive enough to provide strong motivation.

The temperature increase [of 0.7 degrees Celsius in the past 100 years] is widespread over the globe, and is greater at higher northern latitudes. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans (Figures SPM.2, SPM.4). {1.1, 1.2}

Rising sea level is consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Global average sea level has risen since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm/yr and since 1993 at 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm/yr, with contributions from thermal expansion, melting glaciers and ice caps, and the polar ice sheets. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. {1.1}

Observed decreases in snow and ice extent are also consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 [2.1 to 3.3]% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 [5.0 to 9.8]% per decade. Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have declined in both hemispheres. {1.1}

From 1900 to 2005, precipitation increased significantly in eastern parts of North and South America, northern Europe and northern and central Asia but declined in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and parts of southern Asia. Globally, the area affected by drought has likely increased since the 1970s. {1.1}

It is very likely that over the past 50 years: cold days, cold nights and frosts have become less frequent over most land areas, and hot days and hot nights have become more frequent. It is likely that: heat waves have become more frequent over most land areas, the frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most areas, and since 1975 the incidence of extreme high sea level has increased worldwide. {1.1}

There is observational evidence of an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, with limited evidence of increases elsewhere. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. It is difficult to ascertain longer-term trends in cyclone activity, particularly prior to 1970. {1.1}

Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years. {1.1}

IPCC, 2007

[chitoryu12]

Global warming has an effect varying by region. Live in a low-lying oceanic island or some coastal areas, and it's bad to hear the IPCC's estimate of 0.09 to 0.88 meters sea level rise by the year 2100 in their 2001 report, an estimate refined to 0.19 to 0.58 meters in their 2007 report. Live in Siberia, and a little warming might not seem too bad from a human perspective.

Would that extend to Central Florida (literally right in the middle of the state)? Is it close enough to the sea to count as a "coastal area"? I've seen a lot of conflicting reports about what would happen here, from little to nothing to my house being underwater.

[Sikon]

Global warming has an effect varying by region. Live in a low-lying oceanic island or some coastal areas, and it's bad to hear the IPCC's estimate of 0.09 to 0.88 meters sea level rise by the year 2100 in their 2001 report, an estimate refined to 0.19 to 0.58 meters in their 2007 report. Live in Siberia, and a little warming might not seem too bad from a human perspective.

Would that extend to Central Florida (literally right in the middle of the state)? Is it close enough to the sea to count as a "coastal area"? I've seen a lot of conflicting reports about what would happen here, from little to nothing to my house being underwater.

On a personal level, most people move several or more times during their lifetimes, so one wonders if you would happen to be in the same spot anyway during the long timeframes one is talking about here. But if your house is very close to the shore, you can walk down and see if the terrain is that flat for something like another meter or so at high tide to really make a difference. Probably it isn't quite that flat. Of course, the long-term gradual rise can be locally overshadowed by transient events, like whether a particular area is hit by a hurricane.

The most vulnerable areas are places like this, the island nation of the Maldives:

Because storm surges are rarely over 30 cm, it is been safe to develop land that is only about 40 cm above high tide, and most of the population lives on land within two meters of sea level; virtually the entire nation is within four meters of sea level. [...]

The capital of the Maldives appears to be generally about 2 meters above sea level, although some of the reclaimed areas are somewhat lower. During storms in 1987 and 1988, the reclaimed areas were flooded by low-period waves. Although the damage was minimal, the experience was a forceful reminder of how vulnerable the Maldives can be to even a small rise in water levels, and is generally viewed as the catalyst that prompted officials to begin considering the implications of higher sea level.

From here

Oceanside erosion can sometimes be a greater concern than direct inundation. Here's one discussion:

Although erosion is more difficult than inundation to predict, applications of the Bruun (1962) rule and other simplified procedures suggest that a one foot rise in sea level would erode the shore 50-100 feet in New Jersey (Kyper and Sorensen 1985) and Maryland (Everts 1985); 100-200 feet in South Carolina (Kana et al. 1984); 200-400 feet in California (Wilcoxen 1986); and 100-1000 feet in Florida (Bruun 1962). [...]

For the first few feet of sea level rise, oceanside erosion would be a greater concern than inundation, as it is today. In many communities, the recreational beach would be the first casualty: Because floodplain regulations generally require oceanfront structures to be built on pilings sunk well into the sand, many houses and hotels would continue to stand as the beach narrowed; a stroll along the beach would require one to walk under oceanfront houses or navigate around buildings flush against the high-water mark. Eventually, the structures would become uninhabitable and have to be removed; but a few extra years of use would often justify maintaining them, at least from the perspective of the property owners.

From the social perspective, however, it probably would be better to remove oceanfront structures. The beach is a critical asset and often worth more to the community than the oceanfront houses, since a large part of the value of coastal property results from a nice beach being within walking distance. To retain this asset, communities may require structures to be removed as soon as they are seaward of the vegetation line, a policy already embodied in Texas' Open Beaches Act and Maine's Dune Rules. Even so, recreational use of the beach would be somewhat impaired in the time it took to condemn property and remove the structures.

To delay the day when erosion leaves the front row of houses standing on the beach, two approaches already being considered by coastal states may prove useful: setbacks and post-disaster plans. Nine states currently require new construction to be set back by the erosion expected over the next 30 to 60 years (OCRM 1989). In North Carolina, hotels and apartments must be set back farther than single-family houses because the latter are presumed moveable. Post-disaster plans that prohibit reconstruction of severely damaged ocean front property have long been proposed by state coastal zone officials; but such provisions have usually met stiff public opposition, and have rarely been implemented so far. [...]

Even if larger setbacks pass legal challenges, they would often be economically inefficient. The rents from oceanfront property are usually sufficient to recover the cost of the structure within five to ten years; hence it would be completely rational to build a house even if one was certain it would be destroyed ten years later. [...]

From here

But chances are you don't live in an area close enough to sea level, as such are a rather small portion of total land even in Florida, as illustrated in the following map:


U.S. EPA

If one did live in an area that close to sea level, another question would be whether it will be protected. The economic cost of protection versus the cost of letting an area be lost requires an analysis of the particular locality. The following is one example:

To gain a first order understanding of the relative costs of these options, we examined Long Beach Island, New Jersey, drawing on papers by Leatherman (1989), a coastal geologist; Weggel et al. (1989), coastal engineers; and Yohe (1989), an economist. [...]

Given that we could examine only one island in-depth, Long Beach Island seemed to be a suitable site. Densely developed with single-family houses on 50 X 100 to 100 X 200 ft lots, it typifies many islands along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts and represents a rough compromise between islands populated with high-rise buildings and the lightly developed islands of the southeast. [...]

Table 1 illustrates our estimates of the necessary quantities of sand for the island-raising and retreat scenarios. Most of the sand required for raising the island would be used to nourish the beach. Our estimate is based on the assumption that the entire beach profile extending out to the 30-foot contour (including tidal shoals) would have to be raised by the amount of sea level rise. We caution that this assumption provides an estimate of the sand that would eventually be required after the profile has a few decades to reestablish equilibrium. Leatherman (1989) notes that the profile extends only about half as far if one assumes no storm more severe than the one-year storm; hence, it would probably be possible to delay about half the dredging implied by these estimates for a decade or so. [...]

We use Weggel's assumption that sand appropriate for raising existing land and creating new land could be obtained for $5 per cubic yard. However, because the ocean side would require sand with a suitable grain size, the unit cost would probably increase as least-cost supplies are exhausted. Because no one has estimated the cost of mining all the deposits that would be necessary for a large rise in sea level, we used a cost function Leatherman had estimated for Florida, and scaled it to reflect the difference in current costs between New Jersey and Florida. [...]

These results suggest that for the first foot of sea level rise, the cost of holding back the sea would be greater than the value of structures threatened. This result does not imply, however, that it would be rational to allow homes to tumble in the sea. Instead, it reflects the fact that much of the island has a beach (and dune system) sufficiently wide to accommodate a one foot rise in sea level without threatening any structures.

For a rise of two feet or more, the cumulative cost of protection for any of the options would be less than the value of the property lost if there is no coastal protection. Moreover, comparing cumulative protection costs to lost property understates the economic viability of protection. Because a typical real-estate investment has a payback period of a decade, the viability of protection is better approximated by comparing property values with the protection costs by decade, or alternatively, annual costs with the annual rental value of property. Over the course of a century, total rental value would generally be about ten times the market value of the property, that is, $20 billion. Because protection costs would be under $1 billion even for a 5-ft rise, the only relevant question is how, not whether, to protect Long Beach Island.

By an author at the U.S. EPA

[Shroom Man 777]

And what the hell happens when this crazy reflective dust settles and falls down from the atmosphere? Will it be like inhaling silicates or asbestos or whatever, causing cancer or allergies or stuff? What are the qualities of this hypothetical (RAR!) Global Warming-killing dust? Will we be trading one form of atmospheric pollution for another one?

And doesn't sulfur in the air cause acid rain?

[/questions from the ignorant and frightened masses]

[Broomstick]

There are tons, literally tons, of dust particles in the air already, and they rain down constantly. Use something inert and relatively non-toxic and it'll be no worse than present dustfalls.

And yes, sulfur dioxide causes acid rain. And volcanic dust may work as a sunshield, but breathing it is like inhaling shards of glass which, actually, makes up a good portion of volcanic particulates.

[ray245]

Another question I want to raise is, will global warming stall our technological development?

Or will it push us forward as we seek to find ways to work around global warming?

[chitoryu12]

Thanks, Sikon. I've been waiting for a more definitive explanation.

Though I find it unlikely that I'll be moving any time soon, bar a sudden change in lifestyle, like my house burning down or a natural disaster.

[Sikon]

Another question I want to raise is, will global warming stall our technological development?

Or will it push us forward as we seek to find ways to work around global warming?

The latter, to the degree it has an effect on environmentally-friendly technology R&D.

Why on earth would global warming stall mankind's technological development?

Global warming is unfortunate, especially for some species, but its harm has very little to do with such a question.

Flooding?

Compared to the IPCC estimate of 0.2 to 0.6 meters sea level rise by the year 2100 mentioned earlier, the coastal area within 1 meter of the high water mark is about 0.004 of U.S. land area, actually also about 0.004 of Chinese land area, etc. That causes some economic harm, but one's still talking about a fraction of one percent, over generations, over a century.

The economy can vary by multiple percent in not a century but even a single year from other factors. Uncertainties other than global warming are what may most determine how the world economy does between now and the 22nd century, like the details of technological progress, politics, etc.

Although the rate is increased by human-caused global warming, gradual sea level rise is something humanity has been dealing with for long time. Look closely at the trend illustrated here and how far back the graph goes:



Sea level has been rising slowly since the last ice age, though a situation is approaching where it may change in one decade as much as what used to take a number of times longer.

The sea level rise is undesirable, but it is not remotely close to enough to stop technological development, not a civilization-destroying event.

Drought?

Climate change causes an undesirable decrease in precipitation in some areas and can cause regional droughts. But it still has limits. Rainfall actually increases in areas with a lot of the world's top countries, regions including North America, Europe, and north/central Asia.

Warmer climates frequently have a lot of precipitation, like earth had a fair amount of rainfall the last time the carbon of today's fossil fuels was in the biosphere and atmosphere, many millions of years ago during the time of the dinosaurs.

Look closely at the following graph for precipitation trends for the past 100 years, showing mostly an increase in precipitation, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere:



Although some local regions could experience an opposite trend of reduced rainfall, here's the future projection of mostly a warmer, wetter world climate:



Even WWII didn't halt technological progress, and there's no mechanism by which global warming tends to do so.

[Mayabird]

Rainfall is also predicted to become more episodic - while more rain may be falling per year, it'll come in heavy downpours followed by days or weeks of dry weather instead of being more spread out.

Western Washington State (the good part) is known for being really rainy, even though it actually gets less rain annually than, say, Georgia (ignoring drought years in Georgia, which is probably the norm now) but because rain is usually falling lightly and continuously, it keeps things damp, whereas a hard rain that drops more water than a light rain for two weeks but then is followed by two weeks of sunny weather makes the ground dry up. This was the normal pattern in Georgia, where there'd be a thunderstorm go through dumping rain, and then things would dry out. Episodic rain also means more water simply washing off, often taking soil with it, rather than soaking in and replenishing groundwater along the way.

In some places, this could be rectified by a lot of infrastructure, like dams to retain water and irrigation from those dams, but at the same time, we're doing a shoddy job maintaining the infrastructure we already have. It'll be even harder to do with a lack of resources after peak oil.

[The Big I]

So have any of you ever read theses papers before, if so hw reliable do you think they are???


Shulmeister, J., Rodbell, D.T., Gagan, M. and G. O. Seltzer. 2006. Inter-hemispheric linkages in climate change: Paleo-perspectives for future climate change in "Paleoclimate, Environmental Sustainability and Our Future" Guest editors: Julie Brigham-Grette, Thorsten Kiefer, Pinxian Wang, and Heinz Wanner. Climate of the Past Discussion 2:79-122.



Almond, P.C., Shanhun, F.L., Rieser, U., and J. Shulmeister. Accepted subject to revisions. An OSL, radiocarbon and tephra isochron-based chronology for Birdlings Flat loess at Ahuriri Quarry, Banks Peninsula, Canterbury, New Zealand. Quaternary Geochronology.



Woodward, C. and J. Shulmeister. 2006. New Zealand chironomids as proxies for human-induced and natural environmental change: Transfer functions for temperature and lake productivity (chlorophyll a). J. Paleolimnology. Accepted.



Colhoun, E. and J. Shulmeister. Glaciation of the South West Pacific. Chapter in Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science. Editor: Scott Elias. Elsevier. Accepted.



Rother, H. Jol, H.M. and J. Shulmeister. Tectonic and climatic implications of Late Pleistocene valley fill in the lower Hope Valley, Canterbury, South Island, New Zealand. Geological Society of America, Special Publication. Accepted.



Marra, M.J., Shulmeister, J. and E.C.G. Smith. 2006. Reconstructing temperature during the Last Glacial Maximum from Lyndon Stream, South Island, New Zealand using beetle fossils and maximum likelihood envelopes. Quaternary Science Reviews Accepted.



Rother, H. and J. Shulmeister. 2005. Synoptic climate change as a driver of late Quaternary glaciations in the mid-latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere. Climate of the Past Discussions 1:231-253. 1814-9359/cpd/2005-1-1.



Woodward, C.A. and J. Shulmeister. 2005. A Holocene record of human induced and natural environmental change from Lake Forsyth (Te Wairewa), New Zealand. Journal of Paleolimnology. 34:481-501.



Shulmeister, J., Fink, D. and Augustinus, P.C. 2005. A cosmogenic nuclide chronology of the last glacial transition in North-West Nelson, New Zealand - new insights in Southern Hemisphere climate forcing during the last deglaciation. Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 233:455-466.

[Korto]

A doco I watched, ("A Crude Awakening", I believe it was called), had the opinion that due to the increased CO2 in the air, the torrential downpours would be acidic, (carbonic acid?), with pretty devestating effects.
It was seeing the nutrient run-off into the oceans, along with the extra warmth, creating vast algal blooms, which then cause oxygen depletion (I won't run through this process, it's common now), and the mass extinction of sea life.
Of course, massive torrents of acid rain wouln't be that brilliant for life on land, either.
Whether all these effects, along with the almost simultaneous Peak Oil (in a massive irony) cause the disintegration of our civilisation may just depend on how robust you think our civilisation is. Me, I suspect it isn't that robust, but that's only an uninformed opinion

[Sikon]

So have any of you ever read these papers before

Why reference such a curious assortment, e.g. can you specifically show the relationship between this discussion of worldwide climate change and the paper studying Ahuriri Quarry in New Zealand, why that would be a top choice for relevance?

Suspecting you just copy & pasted a list from somewhere on the internet, doing a momentary search finds it is from someone in a yahoo thread here.

Indeed, looking closely, I see the web board debate tactic that individual was trying...