The trend among scientists has been to underestimate the effects of global warming. Just about all aspects of climate change seem to be happening at least several decades before they were predicted to happen. By the end of the century, barring a population collapse which certainly is a possibility, there should be far more than 10 billion people. With high enough temperatures displacement of billions of people certainly seems possible. What is accomplished to fight climate change during the coming few decades will be critical. Who the world leaders are will be critical. Decisions are being made now which will play a large roll in what happens by 2100.
When making predictions, scientist tend to keep to the more moderate. If there is an equal probability that there will be a 3 foot rise in sea levels with a 15 foot rise, the typical scientist will publish the 3 foot rise. Only when the probable reality points to the 15 foot rise will that become an accepted prediction. More than twenty years ago I read an article in Scientific American, I think, that described a study of the ancient growth of corals through their tree like growth rings. The evidence was that in the past sea level had risen above current levels by about 10 meters and that it had occurred in about 10 years. No amount of possible ice melt could have done that. They concluded that the explanation was a rapid escape from Greenland and Antarctica of glaciers descending into the sea. The mechanism would be a lubrication of the bottom by water and the over riding of the sea bottom dikes that hold the ice rivers back. Currently the ice sheets of Antarctica are destabilizing and the ensuring freight train could rapidly raise sea levels such as is recorded in the ancient coral. That I have seen no other article regarding this record may be the result of scientific self censorship.
there seem to be no limits to human foolishness.
The refugees from Africa and the middle east are caused 99.9 % by civil war and about .1 % by climate change.
Climate change so far has only served to increase the worlds food production.
The world has NEVER produced as much food as it produces this year and all recent years.
Isolated pockets of drought have always been with us... but are generally insignificant in the grand scheme of world food production.
Of course this is about 2100. The temperature could be 4C or higher by then. Sea level could have risen by 6 feet or even more by then. There could be 30-year megadroughts. Scientists don't know what the earth will be like. Much of it might be uninhabitable.
The articles are there so you need to research, however it appears you are looking for confirmation of something happening when the time it will happen is not predictable. The other point is that they aren't undersea dikes but that the mass of ice rests on the shallower sea bottoms near shore and that they are being undermined from below by warmer seas overall. Of greatest concern is Antarctica where the surrounding ice shelves are disintegrating which then leaves room for inland glaciers to move towards the sea at a more rapid pace (exacerbated by the meltwater under ice lakes and lubrication you mention). But the when this will happen and to some extent if (at least on a catastrophic scale) is as yet undetermined. Greenland is shaped like a bowl for the most part with the densest deepest ice cap sitting within the hollow of the bowl so there is less concern except for the considerable amount of 'coastal' ice that is melting faster on the outer slopes that run pown to the sea. This is continuing at a very worrisome and perhaps soon to be catastrophic pace.
It is that politicians at the request of deep pockets lobbyists belonging to fossil fuel and energy company donors have burned scientists repeatedly by using excessive denialists attacks forcing them to have to prove that an I needs to be dotted and a t needs to be crossed before even using an I or a t. This prevention of speculation (reasoned speculation forming a large part of scientific inquiry) has been undermined for climate research. It is as if only data that has already been proven should ever be talked about. This leaves discussion of climate change restricted to what has already happened and scientists extremely hesitant about speculations of such things as a possible catastrophic rise in sea level and when of course ( your ten years?).
Nevertheless, it is equally true that while it may happen in so rapid a time scale ( recent papers by Hansen seem to confirm such a possibility is becoming imminent) it hasn't yet happened. Contrast that with the present excessively warm global temperatures that have given the northern hemisphere these winter less winters (considerably warmer than normal) that were predicted by scientists who could not publish such speculations without being attacked by denialists forces. Thus these ever warmer years snuck up on us because scientists were not allowed the common sense of exchanging their speculations among the climate science community. They knew it would happen eventually but couldn't prove exactly when it would happen until it actually had happened in other words. Now it has.
That is the fault of politics, special interests and fossil fuel lobbyists in organized denialism but not the fault of the scientists.
That statement by the French Minister for the Enviroment is a statement of the bleedin' obvious that has been obvious for the last 40 years.
Congratulations politicians; one of you has at last realised that there may be a problem.
Greenland's melt has the potential to divert the Gulf Stream from its Europe-warming activity. Bit of a potential feed-back loop in there. I am founding a company to take investor's money not only for scuba tours in London's Underground and scuba wine-tasting in the cellars of Parliament Buildings, but also to build a ski resort on the downs above white cliffs of Dover . One could have superb ski jumps onto the ice-covered English Channel below........Maybe Donald Trump has some spare cash ................?
Anthropogenic Global Heating. Let's call it for what it is and stop using that euphemism, "climate change".
Socialists would prefer the term Capitalocene, or the “Age of Capital”. Anthropocene, or “Age of Humans” implies that humanity as an undifferentiated whole is culpable of the climate changes while the former suggests that capital, and its system of class and power relations, are the real problem, the real driving force that has altered the planet so extensively. We should understand the historical forces of capitalism that have brought us to the edge. The logic of capitalism is to grow or die, and we are all being dragged towards the die part. Socialists rightly put the blame for the environmental destruction at the doorstep of capitalism and the state.
The more things change - the more they stay the same. Of course. The first person to say that was an idiot but people hearing it thought it sounded profund even if nobody knew what he had meant. From that time until now people have continued to repeat the adage hoping someone might explain just what the hell it means?
Little did anyone know that the phrase only referred to the specific effects on Europe by a slowing of the Gulf Stream drift. Thus when the warm Gulf Stream current is slowed by a lessening of the thermalhaline circulation the effects are supposed to chill Europe but in fact Europeans need to chill not just in general but specifically because the effects are not all that dramatic and in a rapidly warming world the cooling effect would very likely be welcomed as it would keep western Europe's temps within present parameters rather than the heating expected elsewhere.
Thus the more things change ( the slowing of the Gulf Stream) the more things stay the same ( Europe enjoys relatively normal temperatures rather than excessive heating due to global warming)!
Who knew? Well that one guy who first came up with the adage knew all those years ago but nobody ever admitted that he had been right, so he died penniless and a broken man who committed suicide by regularly eating English cooking despite all the well known health warnings.
Yes but socialists smell funny and many of them are quite short which just won't do. Democratic socialists are the preferred flavor and have some excuse for having hair that is best described as an incipient comb over and not the rather grotesque uber comb over which has supposedly been responsible for the mysterious disappearance of hair stylists who are rumored to have cracked under the strain of having seen the real don Donald the Donny before his morning combing!
Capitalocene? Rippppp!!! That is the sound of a party invitation being ripped up.
Do you admit to ever having known ...
....what a Trotskyite actually is? And why if so ...are you the only person who does?
You are simply saying stuff that you assume must be true and which you want to believe rather than researching the facts to check whether the statement actually is true. Because it isn't true. Crop yields are declining because of global warming (excessive heat) and global warming associated drought as well. Refugees who are enduring extreme drought that kills their animals and causes terrible famine are not dealing with 1%.change. I am amazed that you just made up a figure out of thin air like that but of course you can easily prove me wrong and yourself correct by citing some source for your figures that people could check. Thanks.
I trade the international grain markets and have for many years.
i put my money where my mouth is almost every day.
Look at any grain production chart for any of the major grain producers in the world and you will see a steady increase in almost all countries in the world. (google corn, wheat, soybean, palmoil production )
As of today everybody has good crops.
Areas of ""poor crop" are VERY ISOLATED.
Climate change is indeed the hoax of the 21st century.
I monitor the North American grain markets very closely.... along with the weather.
Crops have never been better.
""Awareness of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom"".
Almost all the "believers" in climate change just repeat the same old crap about imminent catastrophe.....none of which ever materializes.
There is no reason to expect large reductions in grain production at this point. Most of the warming as occurred in the polar regions. The last 7 months have set record temperatures for each month but this is due to mainly to warming in the Arctic. Was is happening is dramatic, but the changes that are most dramatic are in the Arctic and in Anarctica. It is the melting of ice which is now so alarming. Here is what it is about. Global warming from greenhouse gases is amplified in the polar regions. This causes melting of polar sea ice, ice shelves, ice sheets, and glaciers, and the thawing of permafrost and frozen methane. All those these changes can kick off positive feedback loops which can further increase warming in addition to increased warming from burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests, etc and thereby further amply global warming. If your mind is closed to the science then you will remain ignorant of the science. If you delve into it a bit you will soon realize how wrong you have been and you will realizes the believers in climate change know what they are talking about.
Meanwhile that is the grain markets but the small farmers in drought devastated areas face a different picture. There is also another increase that you probably don't ever have reason to notice when you put your money where your mouth is which is the rate that impoverished farmers in northern India are committing suicide because without any water for their crops they are literally at the end of their rope and cannot meet payments nor buy seed much less fertilizer. Lakes and reservoirs have dried up and aquifers are depleted. These are survival farmers not big exporters. There are lots of them and they are without hope.
The UN and others report that crop yields are reduced by the effects of the drought and excessive heat and while you say markets are booming? They say crop yields have lowered worldwide but then total yields produced are not markets. If only there were no poor people, the markets would be much tidier. Poor people mess up statistics constantly. Their dying is such an annoyance for everyone looking to make a buck. It is not like they provide a market for the grain they would produce but can't nor can they buy it either. Just damn annoying huh?
Have you actually been there to India.... or is this something you've recently read about.?
Even if it is true.... which i doubt, such events have absolutely NOTHING to do with climate change.
Of course there are ALWAYS small localized areas of drought, but to ascribe these events to global warming is total nonsense. Parts of the Canadian grain belt have had too much rain in recent years... These are all just normal variations in weather and have absolutely nothing to do with climate change. When one part of the world gets too much rain there are ALWAYS other parts that don't get enough. That is how the world weather systems have ALWAYS operated.
Such ignorance leads me to believe that there is no hope for mankind.
Western civilization is in rapid decline and part of the reason is the total foolishness that the "little" people espouse.
POLLUTION of our air water soils and food with insecticides, plastics and many ohter chemicals are far greater problems than minor changes in weather.
We are killing the bees the insects, the birds ... poisoning the entire eco system and the uninformed boneheads bleat and bray about climate change.....
I am an old farmer ,( with 6 years of university) likely more than twice your age , and have made a detailed study of the weather records for the Canadian prairies going back about 130 years. We now have cooler summers and warmer winters than those that existed before 1950. And all such changes have been entirely beneficial. And as near as i can tell these changes have been equally beneficial to the USA crop growing areas.
The first person that I have heard of modelling Co2-induced climate change was the Swedish Nobel prize-winning chemist, Arrhenius, who in 1894-1895 wondered how the ice ages came about so he modelled removal of CO2 and , lo and behold, he was able to create an ice age. Then he wondered what would happen if CO2 were added to the atmosphere, so he spent the next year in modelling reflectivities and assorted stuff around the world and apparently came up with a divorce and also an answer similar to what today's gurus tell us with their computers. But nobody bothered with that and his Nobel prize was for something different; he died having eaten Swedish cooking all his life, which is far far worse than anything made in England ever was, as proved by the Vikings who raped and pillaged England for several hundred years for decent food. They even went to Ireland!
There was an English meteorologist who did something similar in modelling CO2-induced climate change in the 1930s, but, as we had the dreaded baby-bayonetting Hun to once more bring to heel, his work was no doubt lost to posterity. A couple of years after the International Geophysical Year (1957), teachers at my primary school were teaching us about the possibility of CO2-induced global warming but at the time I was more concerned with avoiding the school dinners of badly mashed potato, boiled cabbage and some sort of boiled beef and gravy, plus stick-to-the ribs-puddings-and custard that were subsidised by our benevolent Tory government ( damned socialists to man by USAian standards).
Mother England lies at around 55 dgrees north. If it weren't for the Gulf Stream it might look something like one of the sub-Antarctic islands and even the cabbage would be permanently frozen. It would certainly not be a green and delightful sceptred isle set in a silvern sea from which we used to set sail to defend the world for Freedom and Democracy.
You mean Trump hasn't seen the opportunity to make Soylent Green?
Well, I' ve been there and done that in SE Asia and other parts of that area of the world and what I hear from everybody is that the climate there ain't what it was when they were a kid. Anecdotal, true; but persistent.
Given two failed monsoons in succession, Vietnam (94 million), Thailand (60 million) and India (1 billion) would be in dire straits.
Even socialists want to drive cars, use airconditioning, heat houses, smelt steel, mine for copper, and the other assorted things necessary to maintain our industrialised civilsation.
Since the first anthropoid found a box of matches, or the flint equivalent thereof, we humans have been using fire to improve our lives, including the burning of forests for access routes and for hunting. Capitlaism and socialism have nothing to do with it. They are just different ideological approaches to the all-too-human desire to keep warm and comfortable, or cool and comfortable, as the case may be.