What is the truth behind rising sea levels and climate change in Copenhagen?

[Andre]

It will not have escaped the attention that the world nations have gathered in Copenhagen to save the globe from climage change. The Jakarta Post narrates.

I wonder about this:

•Some 26 million people have been forced to leave their homes as a direct result of climate change and a million more are added to this figure every year due to climate-related circumstances. Communities on islands of Vanuatu, Tuvalu and the Gulf of Bengal have been forced to flee from the rising sea levels. ..

But geologists read http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1987/JB092iB06p04905.shtml:

In the central Vanuatu arc, living and recently deceased reef corals act as natural tide gauges which have allowed us to map vertical tectonic deformation patterns...We interpret four major coral emergence events as coseismic uplifts...The 1965 and 1973 events caused maximum uplifts of 120 and 60 cm...uplifts of 10 cm and 6 cm in the back arc on Pentecost and Maewo islands...and 1978–1981 there was about 5–10 cm of emergence not associated with major earthquakes, which may indicate nonseismic tectonic uplift...etc,

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114046505/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0:

By contrast, theoretical considerations, regional analysis of shoreline indicators throughout the South Pacific, and limited empirical data from Tonga (Tuvalu) itself all imply that regional sea level has declined locally by 1-2 m since a mid-Holocene highstand (ca. 6000-3000 B.P.),

A mysterious world or?

 

[hamster143]

I'd be more interested in knowing how they got the 26 million figure. Wikipedia article on Vanuatu makes no mention of global warming or rising sea levels. Total population of Tuvalu is just over 12 thousand.

 

[Coldcall]

Many mysteries appear to be unfolding at COP15.

I love it how the Danish text got leaked which shows a total stich-up concerning the balance of responsibilty between the developed and developing nations. So while all the (rich or poor) delgates at COP15 are doing their best to ignore the contents of the CRU emails, here we have more evidence of the sort of backroom manipulation that goes on at the heart of any process in which the UN is leading.

Is it any wonder many of us remain sceptical of the "consensus"?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'd be more interested in knowing how they got the 26 million figure. Wikipedia article on Vanuatu makes no mention of global warming or rising sea levels. Total population of Tuvalu is just over 12 thousand.

They likely mean 26 million world wide. Probably added Katrina victims to the list among others.

 

[Andre]

Some more information about Copenhagen.

this text is an extremely dangerous document for develloping countries

http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998

Man-made climate change atheists: COP15 is political church, not scientific.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/09/sensenbrenner-climate-fascism/

Maybe it's time to pull the brakes and rethink what we are doing?

 

[Hurkyl]

Maybe it's time to pull the brakes and rethink what we are doing?

Or at least to complain about the sensationalism...

 

[vanesch]

Nothing but hot air and some meagre commitments will come out of Copenhagen. Of course there will be showing off and promises and everything, but not much will happen apart from some taxes and maybe some incitations for more energy-effective appliances, and maybe some extra money for renewables. This is nothing more but a big show, in order to launch the next green investment speculation bubble. Don't worry.

In any case, if the Copenhagen science update is correct, there's no point in trying to commit to the drastic CO2 emission reductions that are shown there. Emissions simply can't be divided by 4 or so by 2030 (in 20 years time), with a booming economy in India and China. In fact, to me that report shows that cutting emissions is now not on the order of the day any more because of totally unrealistic goals. Climate change is unavoidable and no realistic cutting down emissions is going to change it much. So there will be some lip service, some reduction will probably be promised, and that will be it. As we don't have clear predictions yet of exactly what local climate we will have where and when, and hence as individual countries cannot yet find out what they will win or loose, no strong policy is possible yet, no manoeuvring is possible if you don't know what direction you have to take.

Where will be the new fertile grounds, what countries will become economically less viable through the climate change, where will there be abundance and where will there be poverty? How will this climate change affect power ? And in what way will manoeuvring today have any clear influence 50-100 years from now, maybe after a world war for resources ?

How are you to commit, as a politician, to strong economic disadvantage based upon such uncertain elements ?

That's why there will be a lot of talking, and almost no strong commitments. As it is not clear what commitment is in one's advantage.

Let's come back in 30 years from now, when things will be a lot clearer.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Let's come back in 30 years from now, when things will be a lot clearer.

When nobody cares?

 

[mheslep]

Let's come back in 30 years from now, when things will be a lot clearer.

Sounds good to me, but I can't see a politically viable path for any elected executive getting arriving at a point where they could say 'get back to you in 2040'. Can you? Heads would explode in http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B202R20091203"; they'd likely to be the first state to attempt secession in 150 years, at least until they needed another federal bailout.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Google unveiled a map of California's climate-changed future on Wednesday, part of the most populous U.S. state's first steps in planning to adapt to "inevitable" global warming.
[...]
On the map, the edges of San Francisco Bay appear colored to show the devastating effects of sea level rises of up to 150 cm (60 inches). All of San Francisco International Airport would be under water.

(Worst IPCC estimate is 23 inches this century).

 

[Integral]

...

Let's come back in 30 years from now, when things will be a lot clearer.

... when those responsible for decisions made, or not made, are long in the grave or have one foot in it.

 

[mheslep]

... when those responsible for decisions made, or not made, are long in the grave or have one foot in it.

On climate change maybe, but on energy shortage issues we have a much shorter time frame, so let's concentrate on those.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On climate change maybe, but on energy shortage issues we have a much shorter time frame, so let's concentrate on those.

I agree 100% that by far this should be the greatest focus. We have viable options to fossil fuels in view. Now we just need to make a dash for the finish line. That will in turn fundamentally change not only the discussion and metrics of global warming, but also the dynamics of innumerable geopolitical interests ranging from military budgets, to deforestation, poverty, and hunger.

Were it my call, we would have put 1 trillion dollars into a 10 year plan to end our dependence on fossil fuels, long ago. We once estimated that we could do this for about $1 trillion using algae farms based on estimates from the Aquatic Species program. By today's standards, that doesn't seem so outrageous any more.

One only needs to calculate the wealth lost annually to crude imports, in order to justify trillions to find alternatives. For the US, going green means keeping $500 billion a year, or so, in the national economy. That's just for starters - the easy pickings.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

$500,000,000,000 per year / $50,000 income per job per year = 10 million jobs [for perspective]

 

[mheslep]

Apparently this is a clip shown at the Copenhagen opening. Bizarre. I can't imagine this was made with the idea that it would persuade anyone, rather it is preaching only to the choir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NVGGgncVq-4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NVGGgncVq-4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

 

[DrClapeyron]

Wait, when did climate change have anything to do with energy? I must be new.

Does anyone really think wind, tidal, algae, or biofuels will be anything more than niche ideas in the age of glutonous oil supplies? The real answer: Solar panels in outerspace. And this idea has been around for a long time.

 

[mugaliens]

I am hoping the delegates had sense enough to laugh...

Nice music, though!

Ivan, I agree we need to move to nuclear, solar, and wind, without delay, if only to get the monkey off our backs. But to do it so as to forestall the oil outage looming in the 2040s, it's worth it.

 

[drankin]

I am hoping the delegates had sense enough to laugh...

Nice music, though!

Ivan, I agree we need to move to nuclear, solar, and wind, without delay, if only to get the monkey off our backs. But to do it so as to forestall the oil outage looming in the 2040s, it's worth it.

I can't wait til the oil shortage, then tyical capitalism will create the new energy course. I'm sure oil outage will be much farther out than the 2040s. We don't yet know what's available.