Global warming

[watervole]

It's seriously depressing when a pessimist like me turns out to have been too optimistic...

Here's what a warmer world means in practical terms.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2211566.ece

Note that this is the range of temperature rises that we may see this century.

Here's the cruncy bits:

Main points of the IPCC report

* "Best guesses" are that the global temperature will rise by 1.8C to 4C over the next century,depending on the level of the world's population and industrial activity. These are global averages and the local figures would be higher in high latitudes, such as Britain.

* Worst-case scenario is that with high fossil fuel use and strong economic growth, rise could be 6.4C, again, with higher rises nearer the poles.

* Stabilising CO2 levels in the atmosphere at 550ppm - which some experts think the world should aim at - would itself probably mean a rise of 3C, and possibly 4.5C.

* Temperatures in the next two decades are likely to rise by 0.2C per decade.

* Sea-level rise worst case scenario is 59cm by 2100, less than predicted in 2001, but this might be much higher when climate system feedbacks are factored in, and ice discharge from Greenland and Antarctica rises.

* That global climate change is occurring is "unequivocal."

* That human beings are responsible for it is "at least a nine out of 10 chance".

Comments

[johnrw.livejournal.com]

I hate to depress you further but the IPCC report is a consensus document. That is - this is the point which all the 2500 authors and referees can agree with NO DISENT from anybody! so this must by definition be the worst case scenario of the most terminally optimistic (or bought and paid for agent of the Bush administration - See this weeks editorial in New Scientist) Climate scientist with any sort of standing.

It is not the highest probability outcome just the one which all could sign off on.

The leak mill has sggested that better than 95% would have willingly signed off on a one to one point five metre sea level rise by 2100 and a more unequivocal tone to the conclusionsin other words Bangladesh permenantly under water, the US coastline would move between 5 and 25 miles inland (bye bye Disney World) and more locally sat farewell to the Norfolk Broads, Dawlish Warren and the current esturine mudflats around the world.

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

I think this may be one of the reasons King George bought a farm in Paraguay. He figures if they didn't extradite Nazis, they might give him a pass when the world starts wanting justice (there are a vast number of us in the US ... and other places ... who wouldn't mind giving him justice right now)

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

We can only hope for sane and decent people who'll be able to administrate a humane solution that might allow for the survival of the greatest numbers of people. We're going to have to relocate populations. There's no getting around it.

In the long run, we have periodic events like the Indonesia tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. On a fairly standard basis, I'm afraid what happened in Lake County, Florida yesterday augurs the future more than not. A super cell struck in the middle of the night with very little warning. A church built to withstand 150 mph winds was turned into a debris field of sticks. So far, 19 are dead, including at least three children (one seven years old). Here's a picture of what was left after *one* tornado from the cell swept through.

http://avprogressives.com/lake.jpg

And this can all largely be laid at the door of multi-national corporations, but we all need to take some of the responsibility, too.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

"We're going to have to relocate populations. There's no getting around it."

I think the biggest disaster will be when everyone refuses to take the population of Bangladesh.

The resulting war may make Iraq look like a picnic.