Quantcast

Rising seas threaten 180 U.S. cities by 2100: study

By Reuters
Thursday, February 17, 2011 14:14 EDT
google plus icon
799px-Landsat_new_orleans_nfl_lrg
 
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Rising seas spurred by climate change could threaten 180 U.S. coastal cities by 2100, a new study says, with Miami, New Orleans and Virginia Beach among those most severely affected.

Previous studies have looked at where rising waters might go by the end of this century, assuming various levels of sea level rise, but this latest research focused on municipalities in the contiguous 48 states with population of 50,000 or more.

Cities along the southern Atlantic coast and the Gulf of Mexico will likely be hardest hit if global sea levels rise, as projected, by about 3 feet (1 meter) by 2100, researchers reported in the journal Climate Change Letters.

Sea level rise is expected to be one result of global warming as ice on land melts and flows toward the world’s oceans.

Using data from the U.S. Geological Survey, the scientists were able to calculate in detail how much land could be lost as seas rise, said study author Jeremy Weiss of the University of Arizona.

Rising coastal waters threaten an average of nine percent of the land in the 180 coastal cities in the study.

Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Florida, and Virginia Beach, Virginia could lose more than 10 percent of their land area by century’s end, the study found.

New York City, Washington DC and the San Francisco Bay area could face lesser impacts, according to the study.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The effects of higher seas can range from erosion to permanent inundation, and the severity of the damage depends in great measure on where the cities are, Weiss said by telephone on Wednesday.

“In Miami, it’s not just strictly along their coastal edge. They have to worry about the issue in all directions,” because much of the area around Miami is relatively flat, making it more vulnerable to encroaching waters, Weiss said.

By contrast, he said, people in the New York metropolitan area can concentrate their efforts along the shorelines because the land rises quickly away from the coast.

Sea level rise is expected as a consequence of continuing climate change, which is spurred by human activities including the burning of fossil fuels.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated global average temperature will rise by 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) by 2100. However, Weiss and his colleagues put the warming at more like 8 degrees F (4.4 degrees C).

Weiss said the lesser degree of warming projected by the IPCC reflects a moderate scenario. The study’s higher temperature estimate is based on the idea that greenhouse emissions will continue along the current trajectory through the century.

“There aren’t any national or international agreements yet on actively reducing greenhouse gas emissions and so that’s what we get at when we say 8 degrees Fahrenheit,” Weiss said.

In the centuries after 2100, he said, sea levels could rise as much as 6 yards (meters), based on the melting of giant ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica.

(Editing by Sandra Maler)

Reuters
Reuters
Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in business, politics, technology, and more.
 
 
 
 
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
 
  • Anonymous

    I wonder if you will hear about this on Fox News. Here is a real threat facing America and the world, and the righties are screaming about birth certificates, sharia law, and union pensions.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NVKAE5H6DBXJ6SO7MAHH4YUL3A CD

    There are erosion models that have been published that predict up to 150 meters of shoreline retreat for every 1 meter of sea level rise. This has potentially catastrophic consequences for gently sloping ocean bounded regions, first the inundation, then the shoreline retreat. And think beyond the U.S., how about the rest of the world too (Bangladesh anyone?), I think the number is something along the lines of 70% of the world’s population lives within 100 miles of the oceans.

    My knee-jerk reactionary hyper-conservative father-in-law doesn’t see this as a bad thing, as something of this sort will “create economic opportunity”. It’s all good so long as it is not HIS house that he has to worry about being washed away, right? Its going to be very difficult to push for change when these are the types of attitudes that prevail on the denier side of global climate change.

    What I don’t get is why do the rest of us have to wait for my father-in-law and his ilk to get on board for any serious action combating global climate change to take place. Screw them and their greed and insensitivity, they don’t care what we think, why should we care about what they think?

  • Anonymous

    I don’t see a way out, our culture can’t get past it’s selfishness. We seem to think our extravagances can go on for ever, then we want China and India to grow and consume like us. We are now 6.9 BILLION people on earth. Something will give, this can’t go on for ever. Mass extinctions no care for clean water or air. I don’t see this going well, we just keep passing the problems to the next guy and say I got mine, it looks pretty bleak.

  • Anonymous

    And it isn’t like you have 80 or 90 years before the water ” starts” to move in. If you live in these areas you will see both encroachment and sudden loss of land when beaches fail to renew themselves after big storms.

  • Anonymous

    Nothing is sure but death and taxcuts. Just remember, time is not on the side of the naysayers.

  • Anonymous

    “We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered. A nation can flounder as readily in the face of moral and spiritual bankruptcy as it can through financial bankruptcy.”

    Dr. Martin Luther King, April, 1967

  • Anonymous

    Faked numbers from agendized alarmists are always news. How can anyone take this crap seriously anymore? 3.6 – 8 degrees in 90 years? Science Anyone? (Nah, we’ll just stick with the Bible Al Gore wrote… and greatly profited from……)

    And the Man Made Global Warming Fraud rolls on…..

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OSXMYP34JVBVSJNCPX3Z6VTEPA edwardteller2000

    Keep on trying to perpetrate that fraud.

    The “hot air” coming from politicians and phony scientists is probably the root cause of “global warming”.

  • Anonymous

    Even if global warming didn’t exist (and I think it does), the other environmental issue themselves are going to place our species in peril. If we run out of resources (energy), polluted air and water and mass extinctions on land and in the sea.

    It’s not one thing that will cause the disaster but a number of them together.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lon-Warneke/1409625620 Lon Warneke

    You can shout that from your raft while floating around in the future as if your rant would make any difference about the cause…Unless of course, if you’re wrong and something can be done to slow down or prevent global warming.

  • DriveBy

    According to Fox News, we need a study to find out if the rising oceans are causing global warming….a study by scientists funded by the oil industry of course because God knows you can’t trust any other scientist.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lon-Warneke/1409625620 Lon Warneke

    You can shout that from your raft while floating around in the future as if your rant would make any difference about the cause…Unless of course, if you’re wrong and something can be done to slow down or prevent global warming.

  • Eyeball_Kid

    Fox News will scream that rising sea levels are not caused by global warming; rather, they are an indication that the Apocalypse is nigh, that God is speaking through the rising ocean levels. Beck will counter O’Reilly by connecting rising ocean levels and higher climatic temperatures to the fingernail clippings of Nostradamus and the unpublished memoirs of Billy the Kid. Anything but the Truth will do for these ass clowns.

  • Anonymous

    Please don’t mistake my intolerance of bad science for profit and fame for
    lack of awareness.

    I completely acknowledge that we are terrible stewards of the planet and
    the corporations that make both the laws and the profits have no interest in
    sustainability.

    A global tax on every element of production and consumption rationalized
    by bought-and-paid-for science is a whole different matter.

  • Eyeball_Kid

    Have you ever been characterized as one who is too quick to be dismissive? Did you know that islands are disappearing? Did you know that the ice caps are getting smaller? Do you know that the climates of the last decade, worldwide, were the warmest on record? Did you know that this is only the beginning?

  • Anonymous
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=530821179 Risa Bear

    Based on the massive rise in mostly “invest in Monsanto” articles that has been the principal response to the massive rise in crop failures, I’d say your dad has a point. Lots of money to be made … in the early going … what he’s gonna spend it on, down the line, that’s another matter. Tell him to buy you a nice small farm in a remote (and well-drained) area.

  • Anonymous

    Too bad virtually none of here now will be here in 2100 to see what the truth is about AGW.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6FSQPG5G2N5SYVOMSZ7SRXG57I Angry Liberal

    I believe you are the one spouting bad science.
    “Deal with reality, or reality will deal with you.”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6FSQPG5G2N5SYVOMSZ7SRXG57I Angry Liberal

    And you earned you climatology degree where?

  • Anonymous

    How do you know it’s a ‘real threat’? Because somebody said so? There are two sides to the issue and so far neither has ‘proved’ their position.

  • Anonymous

    Very optimistic article (2100?) – get on maps.google (satellite view) & take a look at the Louisiana coastline – 90% of those little “lakes” in the marsh weren’t there 10 years ago. They’re the results of Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, Rita, Gustav & Ike. With every “strike” – “chunks” of coastline are being pulled into the Gulf & there isn’t really anything to do about it.
    (this is due to a number of problems that started 90 years ago & yes they’re all man-made (including keeping the Mississippi River in it’s current “channel” through New Orleans).

    (BTW – the above problems I’m alluding to – don’t even include GW or the BP fiasco.)

  • Anonymous

    I think you’re on to something – we don’t live long enough to be killed by the environmental problems we create (we’re not around long enough to “collect” our “Darwin Award”)

  • Anonymous

    If you knew what “reality” was, you wouldn’t be douching here on Mr.Gore’s
    behalf.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    we haven’t proved gravity, either.. or that we can harness electrons in silicon to make computers and the internet.. oh, wait.

    it’s not because “somebody said so”, it’s because thousands of scientists have looked at the data and used their trained ability to critically think and apply logic and reason of the real world and come to a reasoned conclusion.

    how anyone alive today can deny the power and marvels of science is beyond me. If it weren’t for science and scientists, we’d still be in caves and clubbing our dinner and mates and cowering in the dark.

    Our modern world isn’t magic, you know.. just because you don’t personally understand how most technology works doesn’t mean everyone is as clueless.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    http://www.thevenusproject.com

    taxes only exist because of the monetary system. Dump money and private ownership of natural resources, and you can dump taxes. .. Watson (the IBM computer) on Jeopardy and the bionic arm story currently on Raw show that we’re 15 to 25 years away from near complete obsolescence of human labor. Who will the resource hoarders sell things to when we have a global unemployment rate of 95% or more?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    If you think scientists are in it for the money and/or fame, you don’t know anything about scientists. And the only “bought and paid for science” you’re seeing is from the deniers… just like tobacco companies had with their poison sticks.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QMPOO3PZFN7XV2XZKCGSXXR3WM Joe Somebody

    I’m pretty sure they are way off on their time lines. Every year we find out they missed a feedback process, and they modify their models and things get bleaker.

    I’m pretty sure we’ll see massive problems from AGW before I die in 30 to 40 years. It won’t be the sum total of what’s going to go to hell, but we’ll have seen a lot of destruction in 3rd world nations and 100s of millions displaced along with food and water issues and diseases and insect invasions as the tropical zones spread north.

  • Anonymous

    The only scientists who stand behind the myth are the ones who are funded by
    government grants and grants from “think tanks” assembled by the people who
    profit from your sheep-like ignorance.

  • Johnny Warbucks

    By 2100? In that case, there’s nothing to worry about. There won’t be anybody left by then. They all would have either shot each to death, drunk themselves stupid, eaten themselves into heart attacks or died from lack of health insurance.

    Neeeext?

  • Johnny Warbucks

    They only worry about the here and now, remember? God takes care of them in the here after.

  • Johnny Warbucks

    This is not a matter of two sides but, rather, one side. The ones who refuse to see the threat are genocidal idiots.

  • Johnny Warbucks

    Amerikans are about to get a real hard lesson in reality. In fact, if you ask about 10,000 state employees in Wisconsin, they already have.

  • Johnny Warbucks

    I hope Jesus does come for you. And that you qualify to be saved/raptured, of course.

  • Johnny Warbucks

    I wouldn’t bet on that if I were you. All those people in Australia or Pakistan who have drowned as a result of the floods caused by global warming didn’t have to live till 2100 to experience the results. The same with the people in the NE part of the US who died in car crashed, etc. as a result of the winter blasts.

  • Johnny Warbucks

    Not only that but you can see the effects from year to year too. Look at the NE of the US with all that snow this year. Or Europe with their frigid temps and polar blast. Or Australia & Pakistan with the floods. Or Russia last year with the fires. Anyone who can’t see that is a blatant idiot. But then, again, global warming deniers are idiots.

  • Anonymous

    Did you know that the continent of South America was once attached to the continent of Africa?! OH, MY! And man wasn’t even around to cause it!! OH, MY!! Get a grip! This planet has been changing since it came into existence. The period of time that man has been around is but a blink of an eye.

  • Roberthe

    You do know there is no data whatsoever supporting your claim, don’t you? You paint with too broad a brush with your statement. It’s not just climatologists (and 97% of them at that), it’s scientists across all disciplines including physics, chemistry and biology who support the hypothesis that the climate is changing because of human activity. To say nothing of the National Academy of Science, the Royal Society, the Max Planck Institute,the Pasteur Institute, etc. You are accusing the majority of the world’s scientific community of either being ignorant, gullible, or lying for profit. That’s an untenable position.

  • Helen Wheels

    2100 is simply too far away. I want to say “I told you so” to the baggers, biblehumpers and neocons NOW.

  • Helen Wheels

    Yep … there are some major Darwin-styled changes a-comin’.

  • Helen Wheels

    I agree that the article is too optimistic. I think the tipping point is coming much, MUCH sooner.

  • Helen Wheels

    Exactly!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YHUR5LALBGRBDQ5VAKAL3JDKNU JustinB

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers

    I don’t know where to stand on this issue. Want to know what I think? I think we are on our way to another ice age. I’m not just saying this, I totally believe it. And obviously I can’t prove it but regardless, my gut says, ice age coming. My gut has never been wrong too bad I won’t live long enough to know the truth.

    I do think more ice will melt before the new ice age begins. There was a documentary or program on Discovery or NatGeo a while back that went into this theory that prior to the most recent ice age there was warming trend / ice melt. The theory states that there is evidence to suggest that somewhere near the US Canadian border there was a giant ice damn holding back massive amounts of fresh water. When the ice melted supposedly the fresh water mixed in with the salt water. The result? Because the physical characteristics of the salt water were altered by the fresh water it caused a disruption in the global currents that keep our earth warm and the ice in check. When those currents stopped, the theory states, a new ice age insued.

    Obviously I have no proof of this and I’m way not going to go searching for a link to a source as who knows if anyone actually reads my comments lol. Its a theory that makes sense to me. I’m not going to claim it to be fact but it does fascinate me

  • Johnny Warbucks

    Uh, huh. Any chances that we’ll get smarter? Ya think?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WHD5BGNXCZNRYLTTFTQXBZMLQI Hayduke

    Corporate media constantly bastardizes the science. “Cities along the southern Atlantic coast and the Gulf of Mexico will likely be hardest hit if global sea levels rise, as projected, by about 3 feet (1 meter) by 2100, researchers reported in the journal Climate Change Letters.”

    If… if… IF!! Doesn’t anyone read or speak English anymore? “Projected” means it’s in a computer mathematical model that is not evidence but a hypothesis to be tested against observation. Computer models are not reality, are not predictions, and are not to be taken as having any relationship to the real world outside the silicon cells of the computer.

    Corporate media has transformed a scientific possibility into a concrete reality.

  • Roberthe

    It indeed is a hypothesis to be tested against observation, the observation in question being the devastation of a significant part of the planet. In the same way an observation that one’s cancer has a 70-90% chance of being lethal is a hypothesis to be tested against observation. I doubt many of us would be particularly sanguine about such a scenario; in truth, the vast majority would be prepared to try any of a number of therapies and even quackery to avert that outcome, and failing that to delay the inevitability of our death.

    Your attack on corporate media is well taken. It repeatedly has demonstrated an inability or even a willingness to write accurately about many of the problems we have to deal with. However, that doesn’t automatically mean that the underlying science is faulty. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that in the last 150 years we have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. We know that in the past sea level has fluctuated with changes in CO2 levels. We know that around the world the majority of glaciers are receding; Greenland in particular is losing hundreds of gigatons of ice annually. Perhaps all is well, though it certainly doesn’t sound so. Perhaps all of this is a product of natural variability, but again it certainly doesn’t sound so. Again I agree that the corporate media sucks, this time maybe we ought to kill the messenger (he certainly failed in delivering the message properly), but my concern remains the implications of the science. So far, I have seen little refutation of the facts at hand.

  • Anonymous

    Tax money should be spent to protect only cities in blue states. Ayn Rand would tell those in red cities to put up their own money…if they choose.

  • realnewz
  • Guest

    Yeah, because somebody said so. Just like the bible, right?

  • Anonymous

    I have only one thing to say about this article: QUACK! And libs believe it!

  • Anonymous

    Blue-state cities have already sunk.

  • Anonymous

    “The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated global average temperature will rise by 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C) by 2100. However, Weiss and his colleagues put the warming at more like 8 degrees F (4.4 degrees C).” Pretty funny since the global temp has not even risen a degree since 1900.

  • RichWa

    Correction. We don’t KNOW that that climate change caused the floods. We do know that climate change exacerbated the flooding and devastation.

  • Wyrdless

    You are correct.

    there is no reason for people in Wisconsin to pay for dykes in San Fransisco to keep the ocean at bay. People in san fran have plenty of money to pay for it themselves.

  • Wyrdless

    According to current projections, by 2100 the world population will be around 5 billion, less than today, after peaking at around 9 billion at around 2050.

    So there will be a lot of extra room for everyone and a lot of extra unused industrial/transport capacity.

  • Anonymous

    On Mr. Gore’s behalf? Al Gore was BORN WEALTHY. The Idea that he needs to make up a fiction about climate change in order to profit from it in some convoluted way is RIDICULOUS.

  • Anonymous
  • Roberthe

    You may be referring to the UN’s 2004 study, which has a low growth estimate of 5.4 billion people in 2100. However, medium growth places the population at 9 billion and high growth at 14 billion. We currently are running somewhere between the middle and high estimates so unless the Malthusian time bomb goes off in the near future the reality for 2100 seems way more desperate than you suggest. Considering humanity’s penchant for ignoring early warnings of disaster I place little hope in our keeping world population anywhere below 10 billion. Case in point: the House is vigorously working on defunding Planned Parenthood which has always been way more than an abortion mill; the zealots would make any birth control methods, other than abstinence, illegal.

    As far as unused industrial/transport capacity, even assuming a low growth trajectory, what are you planning on using for an energy source? Don’t forget, we have several 500 pound gorillas in the room, not just population, that will be fighting amongst themselves to determine who gets to do the most damage to the human population. I’d certainly like to hear your scenario that affords such a rosy future that 5 billion people and excess infrastructure would represent just 89 years from today.

  • Roberthe

    Strange idea of humor… Pre-industrial baseline CO2 level is placed at 280 ppm. By 1900 it had soared to …wait… 295 ppm, representing a 5% increase. We currently are at 391 ppm, which is a 40% increase in CO2. Unless you live in an acausal universe, every event has consequences. CO2 (unless you don’t believe in basic physics and chemistry) is a greenhouse gas: the more CO2 the more heat is trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere. Remember, scientific reality is apolitical; there isn’t one set of governing rules for the liberals and another for the conservatives. If you’re going to disprove the conclusions you’re going to have to refute the underlying laws that drive the process.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    Yes, we HAVE proven gravity and the inner working of atoms.

    However, by very definition, we have NOT proven scientific conjecture about a prediction 100 years in the future.

    You talk as if anything a scientist says is absolutely true,period. May I first of all remind you that MANY, MANY scientists (who are “shills” BTW) disagree with the predictions? Secondly, If the scientists are always right, why didn’t they predict nuclear energy in the 1860s (100 years before it was viable)? Science evolves through theories being CHALLENGED, not by shuitting off the debate.

    Until the scientists can accurately predict the weather next week, I’m not going to get too worked up over what they think will happen in 100 years. I think I’ll focus a little more concern over terrorist countries developing nuclear weapons than on “9 percent of land in some coastal cities that might be affected in 100 years”.

    If you want a good laugh (or to be more informed) you might want to watch these:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&playnext=1&list=PL9AE6ACB52CD0509B

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11TAWkx8o6w&feature=related

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    I wish I could hit the “like” button for your comment about 8,000,000 times.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    In summary, it should be noted that green spirituality – the worldview supporting catastrophic climate change – continually preaches three lines:

    the world is always burning or freezing;
    there is a cultic consensus, so one must never challenge “polar bear” studies and the like; and
    the media must never – never! – remind readers of their demonstrably false “global cooling” and “global warming” reports. (Some examples below)
    1912: October 7, “Fifth Ice Age Is on the Way” (Los Angeles Times)

    1923: “Scientists Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada” (Chicago Tribune)

    1924: September 18, “Mac Millian Reports Signs of New Ice Age” (New York Times)

    1933: March 27, “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise” (New York Times)

    1952: August 10, “Our Changing Climate … the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” (New York Times)

    1954: “Climate – the Heat May be Off … Despite all you may have read, heard or imagined, it’s been growing cooler – not warmer since the Thirties” (Fortune)

    1958: September, “The Coming Ice Age” (Harper’s)

    1959: February 15, “A Warmer Earth Evident At Poles” (New York Times)

    1969: February 20, “Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be Open Sea” (New York Times)

    1970: April 22, “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age” (Washington Post)

    1975: “The Ice Age Cometh” (Science News)

    2007: February 10, “From Bad to Worse: Earth’s Warming to Accelerate” (Science News)

    2007: April 9, “Global Warming: What Now? Our feverish planet badly needs a cure …” (TIME)

    2007: May 28, “The Brooding Omnipresence of Global Warming” (Harper’s)

  • Wyrdless

    Malthus predicted a demographic disaster, he failed to take into account
    human ingenuity and was proven wrong.
    I don’t think neo-malthusianism will fair any better.

    Birth rates all over the world are dropping. The almost the entire western
    world is depopulating, becasue of affluence. Studies show that when income
    goes past $5000 a year people naturally start to have close to a replacement
    level, becasue they don’t need those kids for labor and having kids becomes
    increasingly expensive. People choose not to have kids when they have money
    and travel instead. I read in the economist that this is happening
    unexpectedly fast.

    There is plenty of energy in the world, all the alternative energy sources
    will only come around when oil is expensive enough to make it worth doing.
    Which is basically now. Populations increase leading to a boom in
    production, then population declines leaving spare capacity.

    The only time bomb effecting world population is AIDS. It is still
    spreading exponentially. It is reaching critical mass of 1% of the
    population in Russia and Ukraine. India has the largest AIDS population in
    the world at 0.3% of the population. Once it reaches 1%, it will rapidly go
    to 10% and could go to even 30% of the population. Using a pretty normal
    epidemiology model, where the rate of infection has been constant since it
    was discovered, extrapolated forward, 1 billion people will be infected by
    2050. Scary stuff.

  • Anonymous

    Does this mean we could lose some red states?

  • Anonymous

    “MANY, MANY” scientists disagree with the predictions? What predictions? Of global warming? Feel free to give us a list, even a partial list, of such scientists. Incidentally, they’d better be climatologists. Just as I wouldn’t want a physicist performing heart surgery on me, I’m not interested in hearing what a scientifically ignorant but technically adept weatherman, or someone with qualifications in a totally unrelated field, has to say.

    You clearly could benefit from a modicum of scientific education. Please go to ScienceNews at http://www.sciencenews.org and do a little reading. Get a subscription. And use your eyes and ears. Ask your local University extension about changing weather patterns in your area. Did you know that the difference of a few degrees’ rise in the ocean temperature means that, as of now, oysters are functionally extinct? They will continue to appear on our menus for a few years more, but before this decade is out, they will be gone forever from our oceans. Think about that, Mr. “predictions for 100 years in the future.”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    Oh No! Why?

  • Johnny Warbucks

    Correction. Just because YOU don’t know that doesn’t mean that I don’t either. It’s never good to either assume or speak for others, you know?

    Researchers Link Extreme Rains To Global Warming

    http://www.npr.org/2011/02/16/133806402/researchers-link-extreme-rains-to-global-warming?sc=nl&cc=totn-20110217

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    My but you are an angry little fellow aren’t you?

    If you are unaware that most credible scientists believe that the global warming hoax is just that, a hoax, then all the library cards in the world aren’t going to help you, and neither can I. I am sorry that you are so “mad at the world” that you are drawn compulsively to wish for it’s demise, but that is an issue you need to take up with your psychiatrist, not a comment board.

  • Anonymous

    Translation: I din’nt unnerstnadz wut u sed but I mock you! I mocketing mock you with my mocking words of teh stoopid, pulled straight outa mai heinie. Plus you haz boogers. Booyah. Also, I has no fax so I hates you.

    Thank you for that ever-so-erudite comment, proving my point without need for further discourse. Of course you would consider science, or fact-based reasoning evidence of teh “mad at the world.” Permit me to offer my sincere desire that global warming takes you out in a way so spectacular as to convince the other ninnies to start hitting the books.

  • Anonymous

    over 80% of the bloated population of humanity live within 25 miles of a coast… a great growth industry is teaching how to swim… 1995, greenland stable. 2010, greenland melting at 7x the rate of niagara falls. when it washes away the top of the gulf stream… ice age begins… and the cold this winter and heavy snows? is due to the breaking of what’s called ‘the arctic fence’ and is also why the north pole was 12 degrees warmer than eer in january… is that the butterfly stroke?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    I’m sorry, but it is just too much fun to poke at you angry little libs from time to time. I have tried debating people like you, but as soon as your ingnorance is exposed, you just get angry and start hurling invectives. You will never learn, and you will probably buy in to every castastrophic prediction that is ever made, right up until you are 80 years old on your death bed and NONE of them have come true. I feel sorry for you having to live that existence and I’m sorry that you let all the fearmongers control you so easily. If you ever start thinking for yourself, it will be much harder for fearmongers (or some guy on a message board) to so easily control your emotions. Just an idea for you!

  • Anonymous

    Of course the climate science deniers screamed until they almost fainted (five years ago) that sea levels had not risen by one whit until, of course, they did. Now they claim it’s not man made but, instead, that whales are just peeing more.

  • Anonymous

    Today scientists have more data that is of better quality than in earlier crack pot eras and their are a lot more of them. Also their professional ethics and the competition of ideas is basically solid, so I think it’s likely that a lot of this stuff is going to go down. Man made? Sure. But I have to go with the red necks on the response to this one. No program is going to fix this. The Chinese are not going to stop burning coal just because we ask them nice. When the people who live in coastal China start complaining that thier land is going away the Chinese government is just going to say, “Walk up hill”.

    In they end that is all any of us can do.

    http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/when-sea-levels-attack/

  • kiboshki

    On the “MANY, MANY scientists” assertion:
    Please provide a source on that. The informed people of the world disagree with the assertion. Alot.

    On challenging scientific theory:
    While it is true that science evolves through challenge, that challenge must be made in a scientific fashion and by scientific standards. Science is not democratic; differing opinions are not automatically assumed by the PC police to be insightful and valid and deserving of a “fair” hearing. In the long run, the truth will come out one way or the other, regardless of the opinions of Rush Limbaugh, Al Gore, Big Oil or the Sierra Club.

    In other words, ignorance and an agenda do not ensure that the associated opinion is magically worth anything in the realm of science.

    On weather & climate:
    Weather is not the same as climate, and discounting climate science because of the difficulty of weather prediction is simply ignorance quacked loud and clear. This is mistake all too often made by gullible folks with limited understanding of, well, pretty much everything in the natural world.

    Consider a tire swing hangin from a tree. Push the swing. It moves back and forth, right and left, swings higher and lower, and even spins around a bit. Do this on a windy day, or with a little kid in the swing, and the swing’s behavior is even more erratic.

    This is a chaotic system. It’s exact behavior cannot be reliably predicted, though it’s more general average behavior can. When I push on it to get it swinging, I can figure out that the swing will top out at 6 feet above the ground, and return to me about 5 seconds later. What I can’t say for sure is whether it will top out at exactly 6 feet or return in exactly five secods, or if the kid will be face first or feet first, or if the swing wil be a little to my right or left.

    I can guess general characteristics of the swing– how high, how low, the rhythm, the come-to-rest time, etc– but I can’t predict the “exacts” of it.

    And this, of course, is illustrative of the weather/climate relationship. Predicting longterm climate variation deals with big-picture trends. If I push the tire swing harder, I know it will go higher and swing longer. If I dump more energy into the atmosphere, I know the overall temperature will increase. Predicting weather is akin to predicting the swing’s exact position at a specific point in time: Will the swing return to me a little to my right or to my left? Is it going to be warmer or colder, wetter or drier next week?

    Of course, the world is much more are more complicated than a tire swing, and the science correspondingly more complex. But the take away point is that unreliability in weather prediction has little to do with climate science because the questions asked by the two are on completely different levels.

    So please stop making the argument that the one indicts the other. That only serves to further the greed-head agenda of the powers that be, increases the general ignorance level of society, and makes my future more grim.

  • Anonymous

    Apparently the scientific community does agree that we are in a period of global warming and humans contribute.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

    “Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
    In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.”

    If anyone claiming there is not consensus can find a credible source of that information maybe they could post that instead of just blathering.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    WOW!!!!!!!! I have seldom run into anyone on your “side” of this debate capable of putting forth a cogent, thoughtful, logical argument, and it is much appreciated. Unfortunately, I’m in a time crunch so, for now, I’m just going to give you my clif note disagreements with your position.

    First off, let me give a link to an interesting interview with some of the scientists “including ipcc scientists) who disagree with GW:

    http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/34260/John_Stossel_Rips_Apart_Global_Warming/

    This is a brief excerpt, but you can easily find the rest of it and other, more complete studies.

    Secondly, where you and I part company is on the reliabilty of the theory. As you state, the science is much more complicated than the tire swing analogy, and therein lies the rub. The outcome predictions rely on thousands of variables, each of which are acted upon by thousand of their own variables, and so on. The permutations are virtual infinite.
    Secondly, we simply haven’t had enough time or data points to have any true observations other than anecdotal events. (Just because someone smokes and has a cough doesn’t mean they are dying of lung cancer).

    Additionally, it has proven that that much of the “science” was deliberately faked, massaged, or downright made up to support a particular theory. Why was that done? What was the motivation?

    Until we can answer that and get some REAL concensus on REAL science, it could be catastrophic to make broad, sweeping, draconian changes to our economies, food production/costs, etc.

  • dk504

    LOL,I’m praying.

    OMG your cat looks just like mine.

  • parrots_abound

    Booga Booga Booga Booga Sea Levels Booga Booga Durka Durka Al Qaeda Terror Warming Booga Run Hide Booga!!!!

  • Anonymous

    “he failed to take into account human ingenuity and was proven wrong. ”

    Many human civilizations have failed and proven him right. Tell us about what happened to the Aztecs and the Toltecs and the Easter Islanders. They ate all their food and they died. Simple as that. Why do you think we are any smarter?

  • Roberthe

    I can’t share your optimism about Malthus, though I really wish I could. Our access to cheap food, and the Malthusian growth in population caused by it, has been afforded us by petrochemicals. As they become increasingly expensive and scarcer, food costs will climb as availability decreases. 2008 saw food riots in many parts of the world (including Egypt), in part because of the surge in crude oil prices. At this point, approximately one out of every six humans in malnourished, and although this is considerably better than fifty years ago it still is abysmal. Many of these people are in a highly precarious situation and are severely impacted by the vagaries of weather. As you probably are aware several major grain producing areas of the world have been hammered in the last year. Russia lost 25% of its crop due to the record heat wave, Pakistan was devastated by the Biblical-level floods (200 inches in 60 hours-I can’t even begin to comprehend what that was like!) and most of its agriculture was destroyed. China, which is the world’s leading wheat producer, is in the middle of a severe drought and a sizable amount of its crop is in jeopardy. Australia’s grain belt has been hammered by a series of cataclysmic storms. Worldwide grain reserves are significantly decreased and with that decrease there is a concomitant rise in food prices. OF course the people most likely to suffer are the poor (I expect there to be wide-spread and under-reported famine in much of the Third World this year) but it is starting to affect Americans’ ability to purchase food as well-food prices went up by 2.1 % last year; were government price supports to be removed that amount would have been higher still. Couple this with the downturn in the economy, 19% unemployment or underemployment, and the number of people having their salaries decreased (I’m retired but my wife is facing a 15% reduction of salary) the pain is becoming noticeable middle-class America as well. In the end, I remain concerned that Malthus will be proven right.

    There indeed is plenty of energy available but when one factors in impact to the environment, such as manifested by rising sea levels, the cost of utilization starts to become prohibitive. Were we to see the writing on the wall and put our efforts into bringing clean renewable energy on-line we might be able to retain some semblance of a technological society but there is such inertia on the part of the populace, in part because they have been fed a melange of conflicting ideas, I doubt that there will be much forward motion until the Four Horsemen appear at the city limits.

    I have the highest regard for the ingenuity of our species. We repeatedly have been able to stave off disasters but at the same time I am painfully aware that we have not always been successful. I want us to be successful this time too (I know that there are those who feign disgust and opine that the world will be better off without us-my advice to them would be to find a tall cliff and take a big step) but I am concerned that we may have boxed ourselves in.

  • Anonymous

    Do you know anything about “risk management”

    Look at all of the outcomes of all of your choices. Evaluate ALL of the outcomes regardless of your personal opinion about them. This might be the hard part for you. Choose the path that involves the least risk.

    Look at your attitude in this context. The downside of your choice is a rather abrupt end of humanity. The downside of the other choices do not result in armaggedon. They may result in reduced economic activity. But as they say “half a pie is better than no pie”

    And do you stop to consider your children and their children? Do you stop for even a moment to consider the planet that you are giving to them? Future generations may read your post and hold it up as evidence that we almost made ourselves extinct through our own ignorance.

    Oh and by the way: it is also corporate media that brainwashed you into thinking the way you do. Think about that.

  • Anonymous

    I’m hoping and praying that we run out of oil very soon. I want the price to skyrocket to $10/gallon immediately and go up from there. Running out of oil, and soon, is the only hope for humanity. As long as it lasts we are just gonna use it to kill ourselves and our planet. We are addicted so the only way to stop is to run out.

  • https://twitter.com/DrMatthew Dr. Matt

    There are not two sides to this issue. There is reality backed by research, science, and data, then there are teabaggers with high school diplomas that refuse to accept the facts. Sorry….there are not two sides to this issue.

  • Anonymous

    For a person claiming to be a conservative to have the temerity to claim that his opponents are ruled by fear when Glenn Beck, the God of conservative America, is linking everything from canker sores to communism to the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Madison Wisconsin is the height of lunatic amusement.
    Global climate change caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases is a fact, demonstrated broadly over a number of data sets independently checked by limnologists, climatologists, glaciologists, and geologists.
    The results of greenhouse effect warming will be complex and difficult to predict at small scales, but I guarantee it will be interesting.

  • Anonymous

    Umm, the science where the oil companies and coal companies are paying clowns to lie about the data? Who REALLY has a dog in this fight: the people who profit from endless consumption of their monopoly controlled products or people who would like to transition to technologies and ways of life that do not depend upon oligarchs?

  • Anonymous

    So the people struggling for pennies are the bad guys and the oligarchs with trillions of dollars are the angels here? You are dumber than the average internet troll in my humble estimation.

  • Anonymous

    So you won’t mind if I dump a load of dog shit in your yard. After all, it’s natural, it has existed as long as dogs have, and you don’t seem to mind. Imagine how big dinosaur feces must have been back in those days and thank your lucky stars!
    Thank you for your enthusiastic acquiescence.

  • Anonymous

    Here in Alaska, it is beginning already. Ask the villages of Shishmaref, Newtok, and Barrow.
    http://www.adn.com/2009/04/21/v-gallery/767855/our-view-alaska-knows-well-the.html

  • Anonymous

    Ad hominem and Ad machinum! it is truly a new era.
    In the meantime, the unreality of the computer age controls every aspect of your life. Health insurance and life insurance models are very real. The computer modeling that Toyota brags about using to help measure impacts on kids’ heads playing football also determine how hurt you will be in a car accident by giving them mean death per impact statistics.

  • Anonymous

    At least, not in Fantasyland.

  • Anonymous

    So you DO believe the liberal media!

    Funny, I found greenhouse gas warning articles in 1930s Popular Mechanics magazines on Google Books. And if you look at the actual scientific literature there is a pretty clear trend that is the opposite of your oil industry think tank frippery. See here: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

    Deniers are liars who are trying to kill you. Defend yourself through knowledge.

  • Anonymous

    31,000 scientists have signed a Petition debunking anthropogenic global warming. http://www.adjunct.diodon349.com/Attack_on_USA/31000_scientists_reject_global_warming_agenda.htm

  • Anonymous

    31,000 scientists have signed a Petition debunking anthropogenic global warming. http://www.adjunct.diodon349.c

  • Anonymous

    I think you replied to the wrong comment.

  • Wyrdless

    The Aztecs and the Toltecs were both conquered by other humans, they didn’t
    die from eating all their food.

    Easter Islanders were on a small island with no industry and a thousand
    people, so i think it is very different from comparing that to the whole
    world with all it’s different areas and billions of minds. That is what
    Malthus never took into account, people will make better tools, to create
    more efficiency to get more yield to make better tools.

    I don’t think we are in danger of starving to death which is what Malthus
    predicted would happen between 1900-2000. Those happened to be the most
    productive years ever for humanity.

  • Wyrdless

    Malthus’s predictions were based on the mouth to food ratio. He lived in a
    time when over 50% of people worked in agriculture, and he was worried about
    all the arable land being used. Now only 2% of people in the US are
    farmers, because production is so much more efficient . If food prices
    continue to go up, there will be more people who want to grow food.

    Although this year is a terrible year for agriculture, I don’t think one bad
    year makes Malthus right. Especially when as you said the world has
    improved in the last 50 years.

    With regards to petrochemicals, as the availability of oil slowly decreases,
    people will invent new ways like aquaculture to make food more efficiently
    with less energy inputs.

  • Anonymous

    31,000. So that’s like, what, three percent?

  • kiboshki

    Actually, the scientists in that video clip don’t disagree with GW. For the most part, they don’t even seem to disagree that humans are a contributing factor. Their main disagreement seems to be with the assumption that GW is necessarily a bad thing that we should be worrying about.

    Where you and I part company is not in the reliability of the predictions (“theory” isn’t the correct word there, btw). Quite frankly, that’s an argument for the actual scientists involved, not a couple of schmucks on the internet. No, where we part company is in believing that the denier “debate” constitutes a valid debate at all. My problem with it is the conspiracy-theorist mindset; the unsubstantiated and/or easily debunked claims of bad science or faked data; the always shifting talking points and parameters of the “debate”; the constant victim-speak with respect to being “shunned by the scientific establishment”; the ties to profoundly dishonest anti-science movements; and on and on and on…

    Suffice it to say, there is much about the anti-GW position that leads me to distrust them vastly more than I distrust the scientific establishment. When they get their story straight, I may give them a second thought. Until then, however, I’ll trust my personal knowledge of science and logic; my own ability to judge character; and the anecdotal evidence of my own eyes rather than some tiresome page of questionable talking points.

  • Roberthe

    First, I want to thank you for your rationality; it’s uncommon (to say the least) on sites such as this to hold dissenting positions and yet respond civilly. That said, I understand Malthus’s position and you appear to as well. The reason only 2% of the population is needed to produce the food we eat is, of course, petrochemicals. My concern is that as they become scarcer food prices will inexorably rise. Even in this country there is a sizable underclass that has difficulty ensuring adequate food for their families; without food stamps many would be unable to do so. Initially the program evolved from a compassionate ethos but as the current situation devolves there will be a need to provide food in order to prevent large-scale unrest. We will have reached the Roman level of bread and circuses.

    Your apparent solution to the impending crisis (which you acknowledge) is that we will invent our way out of the debacle. I pray you are right but I personally am not optimistic: there’s too much denial on all levels of society, especially on the governmental level, to approach this problem in the systemic and systematic fashion it needs to be attacked. Could we solve it? I believe so, but then that is an indication of potential. Will we solve it? That is a question of will which I don’t believe we now possess as a culture. Definitely in the future there will be a tremendous push to address the catastrophe, as its reality becomes impossible to deny, but whether it will succeed to preserve what is way more fragile than most people care to acknowledge, technological society, is hard to say. I’m concerned that we will face the same dilemma that confronted the passengers on the Titanic when they tried to figure why there were fewer lifeboats than people.

    And yes, I agree that one year of bad harvests does not prove Malthus (except of course for the people who will inevitably starve because of them, of which there will be many). How about two? Three? People don’t consider it a famine until they’re starving.

    Again, thanks for the civility.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    I am amazed that you and I seem to share the same thought processes but arrive at different conclusions. Just as you see the shifting talking points of the “deniers”, I see shifting talking points from the fear mongers. The important thing is that we both look at the players with a critical mindset.

    I can honestly say that, for the first time, I am conversing with a logical, intelligent, linear thinking individual who believes in AGW. It gives me pause and will cause me to do even greater research than I have up to this point. It is truly a pleasure to be challenged you!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TX3MXXPF52BXCKGNLDNPADILPQ paul rogers

    “Defend yourself through knowledge”

    I have, and I recommend the same for you.

  • RichWa

    If I was making my comment as a generalization I would absolutely agree with you but my comment is specific to climate events.

    From the link you cite: “But pinning any particular event — such as a specific hurricane — to global warming is difficult at best.” It is pure human hubris to claim knowledge beyond that which currently one can verify using the scientific method (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Scientific_method.) It is pure nonsense befitting a religious fanatic or the likes of a Glenn Beck to claim infallible knowledgeable.

    If you do know the answer to what causes all our individual climate events, or even have a preponderance of evidence, please do share it.

  • Johnny Warbucks

    Oh, heavens! I got myself a philosopher. Woo hoo! Lucky me. Hey, do you also happen to work at a liquor store with your Ph.D in philosophy? If so, I suggest you go an philosophize with the winos, son. They’ll be a lot more fun than I am.

  • Wyrdless

    Thanks :)

    If petrochemicals suddenly disappeared it would be a catastrophic and
    billions would starve, however, I think the more likely peak oil scenario is
    that petrochemicals will gradually rise in price as supply reduces, but
    efficiency and extraction techniques will gradually reduce the need so price
    won’t up exponentially. Example: Europe where Germany produces GDP with 40%
    less oil than America becasue it slowly adjusted over time to higher oil
    prices.

    I think people could do the same with agriculture. Here is an amazing
    example where a guy fertilizes his plants with fish waste, and feeds his
    fish veg derived food in an outdoor greenhouse, year round, aquaponic
    system:
    http://www.time.com/time/video/player/0,32068,658160623001_2030619,00.html
    there are a lot of videos like this where everyone could learn how to do
    this. One was a series of hour long how-to videos

    If people go hungry they will start growing food in suburbia to save
    themselves and they will do it quickly. The government won’t need to tell
    people to do this and the internet is the far more likely savior. The
    ability for anyone anywhere to either teach or learn in a distributed
    fashion will soon make universities obsolete and that sort of innovation
    would be hard to predict in 1970, but it seems almost obvious now.
    Innovation is accelerating over time.

    I think the necessity for food stamps is caused by poor income distribution,
    which is usually caused by stealing and government cronyism. Like in
    Goldman Sachs, where they are rich becasue the government gives them
    preferential treatment and subsidies(bailouts) while other industries and
    people get a larger tax bill to pay for a transfer of wealth to them. If
    Industries and people could keep their own money, instead of having it
    diverted to the rich, we would all have more jobs and better pay.

    In Rome, the rich seantors stole all the land and slaves from the people of
    Rome who conquered it for them. Then no roman citizen could make money
    farming becasue the provinces were huge senator owned slave plantations, so
    the farmers went bankrupt en masse which created social crisis and bread and
    circus. A disturbing modern parallel would be the movement of industrial
    jobs from America to other countries. Few American citizen can make money
    manufacturing becasue the ultra-rich (as opposed to rich) people supported
    policies to export jobs. Now Detroit is bankrupt.

    The idea of a technological collapse is very intriguing. Imagine if stuxnet
    hit every power plant in America. There would be no power for the machine
    tools to make new generators. Bam! instantaneous stone age in America.
    The Amish would take over the entire country :)

    A series of bad harvests is not what Malthus’s theory was based on, so it
    wouldn’t prove him right. It would prove the climate change people’s
    theory.

    I enjoy healthy debate, thank you for taking the time to write

  • Roberthe

    I’m very familiar with the Oregon Petition. If one actually analyzes it the conclusion has to be reached that the majority of the signers aren’t scientists: they’re doctors, veterinarians, engineers, mathematicians, etc. The signers represent about 3% of climatologists in this country. I’m not saying that the signers aren’t intelligent, or that they aren’t well educated. However the vast majority have absolutely no expertise (and I will guess no formal training whatsoever) in climatology. If I have a medical condition I’m not going to refer to a poll of climatologists to get their opinions on my problem, and neither are you. For that matter, if I have a malignant melanoma I’m not going to go to a cardiologist or a pediatrician for treatment or consultation, and neither (most likely) are you. I’m not saying the matter is settled scientifically; the very nature of science is that it hardly ever reaches some crystallized and immutable form. However, at this point the preponderance of data indicates that AGW is real and that it already is having serious effects on society. Attack the science if you must but don’t go showing off an absurdist document as proof of the validity of your position; it’s little more than a red herring.

  • Roberthe

    We both know petrochemicals aren’t going to disappear any time soon. Indeed, there will still be considerable amounts still in the ground long after they have stopped being pumped. The issue at hand is cost of extraction; as time goes by they will more and more be the province of the rich. Their ongoing ability to provide us with relatively cheap food for very much longer is the question that need to be addressed.

    In re agriculture: I have been involved in organics, permaculture, etc, for a considerable time and although I definitely am not a good exemplar I know the wisdom and the ultimate necessity of using integrated systems in a holistic approach, and working to become self-reliant but the issue is complex and for many of us requires some semblance of normalcy to prolong the illusion. Okay, I admit to an overarching skepticism that verges on pessimism but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. It just can’t be done for everyone. This ties in in part with your comment about growing food in suburbia, which is not just an admirable idea: it is crucial to survivability, access to quality food and the reintegration of a significant part of humanity to the actual world of which they are a part, but it isn’t a viable solution for everyone. A major limitation I see is access to water. Although that isn’t a problem in many areas of the country (and hopefully will remain that way irrespective of probable changes in climate), in my area, the West, it is of critical concern. Where I live in northern California the last rains of the season come in April of May; it doesn’t start again until October or even toward the end of November. In other words, we get our water out of sync with our growing season. Surface water is problematic and the laws governing access to it are truly byzantine. Our surface well, which we use solely for domestic use, often runs out by September and sometimes doesn’t come back on-line until December or January. Our agricultural well is reliable, but it also is 140 feet down; it requires a fair amount of electricity to get it to the surface and then to the crops. Because we are short on $$$ we don’t have solar; it will be our first major investment when the mortgage finally is paid off but until that time we are at the mercy of the power company. However, olur problem is nothing compared to the tens of millions who live in the desert Southwest, who have no surface water, meager annual precipitation (again not during the growing season) and a water table that in many instances is several thousand feet down and getting lower annually. The likelihood they will be self-sufficient is minimal at best. The above problems are multiplied for the people living in the cities; suburbia is paradise in comparison.

    I know all of the above concerns can be ameliorated but only on a case-for-case basis; I don’t see a universal panacea and therein lies my consideration for Malthus. Eating grain grown in Australia, fruit from Chile and veggies from ??? is not a formula for survivability. At this point there is no problem that can not be addressed and rectified but I believe it has to be done soon and as I mentioned before, I am concerned about the cultural inertia we manifest. People will be motivated when the food starts not being replaced on the shelves but by then it will be too late for many.

    Overall we seem to share viewpoints. Where we differ is that you are more optimistic than me that we as a society will start making the right decisions and manage to avert tragedy. Although I’m rooting for your sidde I’m betting on mine.

  • Wyrdless

    I’m not worried about oil becasue:
    Oil price goes up ~> Oil alternatives become economically viable ~>
    Increased investment in alternatives ~> lower cost for alternatives ~>
    Larger availability at lower cost ~> larger sales ~> larger investment ~> on
    into the future

    That is awesome to hear you are involved in permaculture. If SHtFan you
    will be in a great spot. DIY is all the rage in Boston among the 30
    something crowd. Some people just got a garden in an abandoned lot almost
    next to me, my next door neighbor is setting up bees, I make beer and grow
    hops, some kids I know are in knitting circles. I guess that is why I am so
    hopeful, becasue it seems like all sorts of people I meet already get it,
    and are doing some things the old school way.

    Just a thought for your permaculture system, Have you considered oyster
    mushrooms?
    They are super high in protein, easy to grow, cheap to start and sell retail
    for $12 a lb. All you need is a hand drill, oyster mushrooms dowels ($123
    or less for a thousand plugs) and a bunch of trees in a wet area like a bog
    or stream. Of course reading your post, the water might be a little
    difficult, but take a look, cause it might make you an extra 5 grand this
    summer. I’m going to be doing it :)

    As a resident of Boston, I don’t have problems with water, but I have read a
    few stories about Lake Powell, The Indian subcontinents and Australia’s
    water table being historically low due to over pumping. Las Vegas will be
    the biggest ghost town ever one day. The water issue might be able to push
    a Malthusian crisis if it got bad enough, but I think people will demand
    change if water gets to expensive, as in, no more golf courses in the desert
    and no more exporting water.

    As far as shipping food across the globe, that extravagance will disappear
    as the cost of diesel goes up. When the cost of oil spikes again, it might
    cause another economic crash, I’m looking at the end of the summer for that.

    Everyone knows they are getting screwed and the whole process will be
    gradual and that is why I’m not worried. Social change will occur as
    standards of living change. The only thing that worries me is war.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3NVQSZZC5IM66JEOCSFJUV7FCE Jacques G

    You will, but they’ll say how wonderful it is that people inland will be able to have oceanfront properties!

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3NVQSZZC5IM66JEOCSFJUV7FCE Jacques G

    They can deny all they want until the tides are washing up at their condo or trailer doorsteps in Florida.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/3NVQSZZC5IM66JEOCSFJUV7FCE Jacques G

    Because sea level rise is ALREADY occurring at a noticable rate. It’s not hard to google “sea level rise” and find some story on it. Keep that head in the sand, eventually the sea level will rise up and drown you with a higher groundwater table:-)

Google+