Source: :: Sea-level Rise :: CSIRO ACECRC ::
1. Where do you think this rise is going to stop?
2. So with you in charge you would willingly abandon NYC, Boston, Miami, Jacksonville, Sacramento and Virginia Beach? (Source: RealClimate: The inevitability of sea level rise)
Last edited by SwedishAdvocate; 2013-09-21 at 01:54 PM. Reason: Made some minor amendments.
This probably fits in the "No, duh" category, but this is an interesting study put out by Nature Climate Change.
I really hate when scientific papers are behind a paywall, especially when I want to read them
But here's a news article that summarizes the study:
News in Brief: Slashing greenhouse gas emissions could save millions of lives | Environment | Science News
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions should improve air quality and thereby save millions of people’s lives by the end of the century, new simulations find.
Burning fossil fuels emits both climate-warming gases and other air pollutants such as particulate matter. Greenhouse gases also contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, the main component of smog. Because particulate matter and ozone can cause heart and lung disease, researchers think that reducing greenhouse gases would improve public health.
J. Jason West of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and colleagues simulated climate and air quality through 2100. In a simulation with reductions in fossil fuel use, the model found 2.2 million premature deaths per year could be avoided by the beginning of the next century, compared with a simulation without climate change mitigation.
The greenhouse gas cuts also make economic sense, the researchers say. The benefit of reducing pollution-related deaths, compared with the costs of mitigation, equals $50 to $380 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, the team reports September 22 in Nature Climate Change.
Actually ground-level ozone is caused because of high temperatures in summer periods or in reasons where the average temperature is particularly high. In this sense greenhouse gases can contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone because they make average temperatures raise.
Brace yourselves: Climate denial groups are preparing a major campaign ahead of Friday's release of the IPCC report.
Ahead of IPCC report, fossil-fuel groups organize climate denial campaign | Grist
It seems like we'll never get relief from these people. But I'm fine with it. I'll spend my whole life defending science if need be. I couldn't think of a more worthy cause.
I suppose that would take a dissertation. I don't think anyone who studies agriculture can come up with a way of feeding 7 billion people without fossil fuels with today's technology. There are certain things that I/we would have to just accept. I think we can all agree that our lifestyle in the US is what it is because of fossil fuels. I think we can also agree that it is difficult to tell people with a subsistence lifestyle that they can't live like Americans because we say so.
In the rich world, we can make changes and reduce fossil fuels quite easily. In the US, we could cut carbon by 50% with a little will power (and a little taxation on carbon), and no significant change in lifestyle. But, it is a fair argument that China and India most certainly cannot. Hopefully they can develop a little less carbon intensively but it is hard to conceive of a world where we cut carbon as fast as they expend it. Our 50% cut would roughly be undone in 3-5 years by China. It is no wonder that there is little political will to make this happen.
Given this reality (ok - my reality), it maybe better to focus resources on preparing for climate change.
My only point is that reducing carbon on a global scale is very very hard. I make the argument that it is basically impossible. Even Europe hasn't really reduced carbon in any meaningful way recently and their usage line is roughly the same as the US (albeit from a much lower per capita start). Europeans generally agree that CO2 is a problem and over the last 20 years haven't cut much. The biggest reduction in both US and Europe has been from economic slowdown last 5 years. China has grown almost exponentially in the last 20 years.
We now have cheap NG in the US and we are cutting pretty quickly because of it. But fracking just means we can go along releasing more carbon for more centuries.
Whether all this means the extinction of man in 500 years is really hard to predict.
…and where do you think the sea level rise is going to stop? (See post #623 above.)
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)