Global warming will see 'billions at war'

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Global_warming_will_see_billions_at_war&in_article_id=714676&in_page_id=34

Global warming will see 'billions at war'

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Billions of people will go to war as they are forced to leave areas made uninhabitable by global warming, climate change expert Lord Stern has warned.

Lord Nicholas Stern said innovative skills in maths, software, communications and business needed to be fully harnessed to find a way towards low carbon growth.

Lord Stern, author of the landmark 2006 Stern Review on the economic implications of climate change, made his prediction as he received an honorary Doctor of Science degree from the University of Brighton.

He said: "If we fail to manage climate change, we are likely to put ourselves in the position by the end of the century where temperatures will be four to five degrees higher, temperatures we have not seen for something like 10 or 30 million years.

"It will redraw the physical geography as to where we can live, and billions of people will be put into severe conflict."

…

[MercutioATC]

1. In a few thousand years, he might be right.

By 2100? Preposterous.

[spag68]

5. Is that so!!!!!

If you believe that,you should check out some pictures of Venice,Italy. Then look at satellite pics of the polar icecaps. We're in for a shit storm and to deny it is to endanger our children.

[MercutioATC]

7. Please stop using Venice as "proof".

Venice's primary problem isn't rising sea levels, it's the fact the the pilings it was built on are deteriorating.

Even if we completely halted global warming, Venice is still gonna sink into the sea.


That said, the available data can be interpreted a number of different ways. I don't see global rioting because of dislocation attributable to global warming by 2100.

[WCGreen]

8. Venice is sinking as well as being threatened by global warming...

Just so you know...

[imdjh]

14. Smith Island is also getting smaller - because it's a stinking sandbar

That's been disappearing for a long time during 400 years of occupation. I thought that no one would be stupid enough to claim that Smith Island is a victim of global warming, but I was wrong.

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/places/parks-and-nature-places/coasts-and-islands/us_smithisland.html

This is a completely irresponsible video, and it's National Geographic serving up this BS. SO much for integrity.

[wroberts189]

6. I recently saw an DU posted article that said end of the ice caps by 2010 in the summer.

I wish I could find it but it was from a msm source.

[imdjh]

15. maybe , might, if Chicken Little gets hit on the head then.....

[wroberts189]

18. Every assessment is always "worse then predicted"

Sometimes a chicken little or a Cassandra is right.


Ill save space in my life raft for you regardless.

[imdjh]

19. I will be long dead (and so will you) before Florida returns to the sea.

[wroberts189]

21. That piece of swamp land? It will be the first to go under.

I do not know when ... but it will happen and it will not take a hundred years.

[imdjh]

26. Florida is not a swamp. It has several swamps, but many states do. Florida is not a delta.

Florida is not a sandbar, though it also has several of those, and builds condos on them. And even though I think your 1.4 meter (they do this to annoy people) guess is nothing more than AGW religious dogma, a 1.4 meter rise in sea level will leave most of Clearwater Florida with about a hundred feet to spare. It also means that my house "in the swamp" will still be 12 feet above sea level.

[wroberts189]

27. Hehe ..Yea but you will be living on an island...

Ok maybe your right.. I have been all over FL and it looks to me its a swamp sandbar and going under soon ..but who the fuck knows?

But we are talking scientific dogma ..not religious.

I am just glad I am inland 130ft above sea level. Although I would love an oceanfront estate... as long as I had a backup.

[wroberts189]

22. Found it ... global warming that will result in the loss of the ice-covered polar seas by 2020

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=203532


http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland/Scientists-claim-planet-is-heading.5515749.jp


Scientists claim planet is heading for 'irreversible' climate change by 2040
Published Date: 02 August 2009
By Tom Peterkin
Scottish Political Editor

CARBON dioxide levels are rising at a faster rate than the worst-case scenario envisaged by United Nations experts, with the planet heading for "catastrophic" and "irreversible" climate change by 2040, a new report claims.

The rise of greenhouse gases will trigger an unprecedented rate of global warming that will result in the loss of the ice-covered polar seas by 2020, much of our coral reefs by 2040 and see a 1.4-metre rise in the sea level by 2100.

The apocalyptic vision has been outlined in a paper by Andrew Brierley of St Andrews University, which is likely to influence the views of UN experts gathering in Copenhagen this December to establish a new protocol that will attempt to halt global warming.

Brierley and his co-author, Michael Kingsford of the James Cook University in Australia, examined the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on ocean habitats and marine organisms.

[Nederland]

32. Ice Caps, Plural?

No. Artic perhaps. Southern Ice Cap? It's getting bigger right now so I'm not really sure how it would disappear by next year...

[DCKit]

11. Preposterous? Absolutely. I give it twenty years before DC, NY, London and other major...

cities are dealing with regular flooding. The final drowning will come later.

[imdjh]

16. Wow there's some prediction.

You're predicting that coastal cities will experience flooding in 20 years. Next you'll predict sunburn in the Kalahari.

[kristopher]

17. Flooding is a result of storm surges.

Sea level rise and increased energy transfer during storms = probable near term flooding in low lying coastal areas subject to storm activity (especially hurricanes).

[imdjh]

20. blah blah blah The only think that matters is fact. The fact is that high tide hits the sea wall...

,,, the same place it did when I was a kid.

[timeforpeace]

2. This is as opposed to the millions that are at war now in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Yes, I believe it is

Oh, and although Million and Billion rhyme, there's a big difference.

It's kind of like saying, "1,000 people were killed in an accident today? Oh, you mean, like, as opposed to the 1 who was killed yesterday?"

[barley]

3. Global Warming Consequences

Lord Stern has no idea what he is talking about.

[OnlinePoker]

9. Stern isn't a climatologist

I have seen numerous times on this board as a lurker that the 30,000 "scientists" who signed the petition denying man-made climate change are not climate experts (even though many of them are and have strong qualifications which are often ignored). This is the issue I have with Stern. He is an economist. His knowledge of climate is the same as most people on DU...what they've read the "experts" say.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. On the other hand…

You may want to read what US Government "experts" have to say.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/06/17/17climatewire-us-study-projects-how-unequivocal-warming-wi-29186.html

June 17, 2009

U.S. Study Projects How 'Unequivocal Warming' Will Change Americans' Lives

By LAUREN MORELLO and CLIMATEWIRE

Climate change is already reshaping the United States, according to a new federal report that predicts global warming could have serious consequences for how Americans live and work.

Hotter temperatures, an increase in heavy downpours, and rising sea levels are among the effects of "unequivocal" warming, concludes the report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Winters are now shorter and warmer than they were 30 years ago, with the largest temperature rise -- more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit -- observed in the Midwest and northern Great Plains.

…

Earlier cuts will be more effective than comparable later cuts, the document adds. Without efforts to limit emissions, the United States could warm 7 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Cutting emissions could hold that increase to just 4 to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit.

…

"This is telling us with persuasiveness why we need to act sooner rather than later, and why action needs to include measures to reduce heat-trapping emissions and measures to adapt to unavoidable changes," said Holdren. "One has to hope it will influence how people think about particular legislative proposals."

…

Let's see, Stern said 4°-5°, and this says 7°-11° (of course Stern is using °C, while this story is using °F.)

[Viking12]

23. Stern is not making claims about climate science, he uses climate science to make claims on economic

Big difference. that you fail to see the difference tells us a lot about you.

Enjoy your stay. I'm certain it will be brief.

[OnlinePoker]

28. No need to be judgemental

My comments were directed to the article which calls him a "Climate Change Expert". He is not, no more so than a TV weatherman is a climate change expert. He is an economist who makes predictions about the future based on his interpretation of the data. Other people make predictions based on differing data that don't support man-made climate change and are dismissed as "deniers". Well, so be it...I'm a man-made climate change denier and, like 23% of Democrats in a survey released early this year believe the climate is changing due to long term planetary trends.

[Viking12]

34. Long-term planetary trends? Oh please do tell...

Perhaps you've got some evidence for these "long term planetary trends"? :wtf:

On edit: I don't care if you call yourself a Democrat or Jesus-fuckin-Christ, if you deny the human influence on the climate, you're a dumbass. period.

[Strong Atheist]

38. Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[Speck Tater]

12. Those billions will starve to death long before they go to war. nt

[wtmusic]

25. .

:thumbsup:

[excess_3]

13. delete

edit, posted in wrong place

[GliderGuider]

24. Wow, this post sure brought them out from under the baseboards!

:toast:

[stuntcat]

30. fer realz

as if the most powerful nations in the world (billions, ahem..) haven't already gone to war over resources. Frickin monkeys, we think we're GOD.

[Viking12]

35. There's been quite a bit of denier-troll activity latley

Both here and in GD. makes one wonder if there isn't some organization behind it.

[JohnWxy]

29. recommended!

[NNadir]

31. Well, let's look at the bright side...

...at least we won't have to worry a putative farmer in Nevada putatively facing a 1:100,000 risk of an extra lung cancer because um, someone who drove, drove, drove, drove to "solar will save my damn car" rallies all over Ohio, Indiana, Nebraska, California, Oregon and Timbuktu, prevented us from building more nuclear reactors.

[Nederland]

33. If that's actually true...

...it will be one of the shortest wars in history.

You see, the kind of people that can't afford to build some sea walls to protect themselves from rising seas aren't exactly going to have enough money to fight for very long.

[NickB79]

36. Sea walls won't help your withering or flooded fields

The biggest problem we face with regard to climate change is the migration of agricultural zones due to changing temperatures and rainfall patterns. Countries won't go to war because their cities are flooding; they will go to war because their people are starving while their neighbor's fields are still green.

[Nederland]

37. My point is still valid

People that are starving don't fight very long.

[NickB79]

39. The military personnal are the last to suffer hunger pangs

Look at N. Korea, or Nazi Germany, or WWII Russia for examples of what totalitarian governments do in a food crisis. The military needs are put before the needs of civilians, until the civilians grow restless. Then, you either machine-gun your own people, or get more supplies from where ever you can get them.

In a democratic nation, the impetus to go resource-grabbing will probably be reached long before starvation begins in earnest. All it takes is a populace angry about soaring food prices voting out the people in power and replacing them with politicians who promise easy fixes to their woes.

[bloom]

40. A message to those who don't get it....

The George Bush Pentagon said essentially the same thing in 2003:

The report explores how such an abrupt climate change scenario could potentially
de-stabilize the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes, battles, and even
war due to resource constraints such as:

1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production
2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted
precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts
3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess

http://www.gbn.com/consulting/article_details.php?id=53
http://www.gbn.com/articles/pdfs/Abrupt%20Climate%20Change%20February%202004.pdf


The prediction may not have been as definitive - but it was 6 years ago. People have wised up since then - as conditions have worsened.

[Viking12]

41. More links...

http://securityandclimate.cna.org/mab/

http://www.globalclimatesecurity.org/reports