# climate change in our lifetime **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 27, 2006, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737 "2006-12-27T14:25:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bushfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@Bushfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bushfan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/41 "2006-12-29T04:47:51Z")
[QUOTE=ralph124c] Suppose that due to warming, the huge empty wastelands known as tundras, begin to support forests. Would such a development tend to netralize further warmiong? larger forests would use more atmospheric CO2. Just speculating, maybe warming would not be all bad. [/QUOTE] Absolutely intriguing! I would never have thought of that. The earth is likely to counter on a massive scale anything we throw at it. Whether or not we would survive the “healing” as a technological species is another story altogether. Still, this reforestation thing is really quite thought provoking. Thanks! I have some fun research to do now. ---
**Author:** ![Bushfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@Bushfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bushfan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/42 "2006-12-29T05:01:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Or, the climate change (if there is in fact one at all) will be so gradual and insignificant that we will slowly adapt and continue to thrive, as we’ve done for millennia. Sure, take Venice for example. Talk about makin’ lemonade! ---
**Author:** ![Bushfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f19dbf/32.png) [@Bushfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bushfan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/43 "2006-12-29T05:30:54Z")
Though I appreciate your citing, most of what you’re proposing is sheer speculation that can be countered at many points such as… > [@](#): > > Remember that in the third world, most of the population is still small farmers. As extreme weather hurts their livelihood, many of them will be forced to abandon their farms and move to cities, exacerbating a trend already in progress. With this increasing influx of poor, third-world cities will be forced to house most of them in slums. It would be just as probable that as first world farmers were pushed out of business (presumably by the cost:production ratio, second and third world farmers would be able to pick up some of the slack, doing what they’ve been doing for millenia. Maybe they would eventually do for farming what the Saudis have done for oil - dole out the goodies as they see fit and grow disgustingly rich in the process, thus ending their second and third world status. It’s just speculation at this point. Right now, we hear the train whistle, but we don’t even know if the approaching train is on the same track we’re tied to. I think we’re likely to bite our nails and wait to see if it rounds the bend before we act. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/44 "2006-12-29T07:33:39Z")
> [@Bushfan](#): > > Right now, we hear the train whistle, but we don’t even know if the approaching train is on the same track we’re tied to. I think we’re likely to bite our nails and wait to see if it rounds the bend before we act. And I would see some sense in such a policy, **if there was only one train approaching**. If the only question confronting us was whether the global economy and the human environment are going to get seriously nailed by climate change due to the **current** increase in CO2 concentrations, then there would be a much stronger case for the “wait and see” approach. But the real trouble with our atmospheric CO2 levels is that **we continue to increase them with no end in sight**. As **SentientMeat** and **jshore** pointed out, CO2 concentrations of 500–600 ppm or so would be absolutely unprecedented in the history of human civilization (possibly in the history of the human species) and are almost certain to cause quite drastic changes in climate. Is that really the kind of major experiment we want to be performing on the only atmosphere we’ve got? Sure, we can **hope** that somehow the changes in climate would be only “gradual and insignificant”, but our experiences so far with the start of global warming don’t bear out that hypothesis, and it would probably be stupid to count on it. In other words, we’re not just hearing the whistle of one train; there’s an entire fleet of trains off in the distance, all headed our way, and sooner or later one of them is almost certain to be coming along the same track we’re tied to. At some point, we’re going to **have** to do something about untying ourselves from this track, and ISTM that it’s smart to start now and give ourselves as much lead time as possible. > [@Bushfan](#): > > It would be just as probable that as first world farmers were pushed out of business (presumably by the cost : production ratio, second and third world farmers would be able to pick up some of the slack, doing what they’ve been doing for millenia. Maybe they would eventually do for farming what the Saudis have done for oil - dole out the goodies as they see fit and grow disgustingly rich in the process, thus ending their second and third world status. > > It’s just speculation at this point. But some speculations are more probable than others. For one thing, we know from past history that significant disruptions in existing environmental patterns tend to inflict a lot of short-term pain on human agriculture and economies, even if in the long run everybody adjusts okay to the new situation. For another, the effects of climate change are predicted to hit tropical regions more severely than temperate ones, concentrating the environmental and economic impacts on the less developed nations, who have fewer resources to tide them over the transition. Finally, even if your somewhat unlikely scenario played out as you suggest, where (contrary to predictions) it’s Third World agriculture that somehow stays stable while First World agriculture is devastated, the overall picture looks far from rosy. This is **global food production** we’re talking about here. If it really did become so geographically specialized that developing nations could successfully monopolize it and become “disgustingly rich” by “doling out” the product in tight supply to drive up the price, wouldn’t that mean a lot of hunger in the countries trying to buy the product, i.e., the food? Sudden drastic increases in the prices of the basic necessities of life tend to be not good for an economy. And of course, if the economy flags to the point where the currency’s devalued and an inflationary spiral sets in…hello, Argentina. IMHO it wouldn’t take long in such a situation for us to start referring to the “formerly developed nations”. (And since when has Saudi Arabia “ended its second world status” due to its oil wealth? AFAICT, they are still considered a second-world country with high levels of poverty and backwardness, even if their elites are rolling in money. I don’t see why the same sharp dichotomy between rich and poor wouldn’t be manifested in our hypothetical newly-prosperous OFEC (Organization of Food-Exporting Countries) too.) ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/45 "2006-12-29T09:02:12Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > Every person has their own standard for when action is necessary. Consider: the Netherlands has already evacuated over 500,000 acres of land due ot rising sea levels. In the United State, 400,000 acres. In the Maldives, a string of islands of the Indian Ocean, they’re in the process of evacuating several low-lying islands and building massive barriers around others. The people who’ve already had to abandon their homes and move elsewhere probably think that action should have been taken a long time ago. > > (And yes, I do have a cite.) A couple of problems with that. The cite says that Louisiana is losing 400,000 _ha_ a year, not 400,000 acres a year. Their source is not given. I do find [this](http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:tvMTzMlpdSUJ:www.epa.gov/oilspill/pdfs/d_davis_04.pdf+louisiana+400000+ha+wetlands&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&lr=lang_en) from the Environmental Protection Agency, which I suspect may be their source. > [@](#): > > These sediments are funneled through the basin and channeled off the continental shelf. They are lost to the nearshore sediment budget. As the sediments are dumped into deeper water, the coast is deprived of the material required to build new land at a rate slightly greater than subsidence. > > Land building by river-flood-flow deposition was effectively terminated with construction of the Mississippi River’s engineered levees. As a result, land building has been replaced by extensive and rapid wetland loss at a rate greater than 100 km^2/year—on average, one hectare (ha) is lost every 49 minutes, or the equivalent of about 36 ha a day, or 278 m^2 every minute. In its simplest sense, Louisiana’s coastal area is presently out-of-balance with the state’s annual marsh loss exceeding 12,000 ha. > > In the last 100 years, more than 400,000 ha have been converted to open water, adversely affecting the many interlocking subsystems that make up an estuary’s productive habitat. Note that this is not from flooding from a sea level rise, in fact, it’s from _lack of flooding_ by rivers. Next, your cite says: > [@](#): > > In Holland the battle has been lost and 500,000ha, an area more than twice the size of greater London, will be strategically flooded instead and people will move to floating homes. This is also a misrepresentation. Holland is sinking, has been for centuries. The problem exists because of the land going down, irrespective of whether the sea goes up.To deal with this, Holland has areas called “flood zones”, which are areas where it is expected to flood occasionally as the land sinks further. There has been no new building allowed in these zones, but now they are proposing that if a house can float up off its foundation when the occasional flood hits, they will allow their construction. There is an interesting [article](http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,377050,00.html) about this in the German magazine Der Spiegel. The Dutch are not going to “strategically flood” half a million hectares, that’s nonsense. They’re Dutch, they won’t flood a square metre unless they have to. Nor have any islands been “evacuated” in the Maldives, and I can find no report that they are building a “barrier” around any islands there In short, no, you don’t have a cite for your “facts”, you have a newspaper article that you haven’t bothered to check for veracity because it agreed with your preconceptions. Now that you know that the basis for your beliefs is not true, you will of course change your opinion. w. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/46 "2006-12-29T09:17:06Z")
And in answer to the OP’s question of what we should do, it is important to note that the forecast horrors of a warming planet are all with us today, and have been for a long, long time. Floods? We have plenty. Sea level rise? Been happening for centuries, talk to the Dutch. Droughts? Lots of those (and curiously, generally worse ones in colder periods). Cold times? See the Little Ice Age. Hurricanes? Compare Galveston, 1906. Changing climate? It has never been stable. What we should do is continue to deal with the extremes of nature as we have always done, using the best ideas and technology to insulate the people of the world from _today’s_ dangers. People are starving in Africa today. Instead of handwringing and plans about tomorrow’s dangers, let’s put our efforts into solving today’s dangers. We have plenty of those … w. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/47 "2006-12-29T09:19:05Z")
> [@intention](#): > > This is also a misrepresentation. Holland is sinking, has been for centuries. The problem exists because of the land going down, irrespective of whether the sea goes up.To deal with this, Holland has areas called “flood zones”, which are areas where it is expected to flood occasionally as the land sinks further. There has been no new building allowed in these zones, but now they are proposing that if a house can float up off its foundation when the occasional flood hits, they will allow their construction. There is an interesting article about this in the German magazine Der Spiegel. But the article in your cite **does** link the Dutch “flood zone” houses with projected comparatively rapid sea level rise due to climate change, not just to continual slow sinking of the land: > [@](#): > > The Dutch are gearing up for climate change with amphibious houses. […] > > “The columns have been driven deep into solid ground,” explains Dick van Gooswilligen from the Dura Vermeer construction company. “They are even strong enough to withstand currents you would find on the open seas.” […] “As global warming causes the sea level to rise, this is the solution,” he explains into a microphone. “Housing of this type is the future for the delta regions of the world, the ones which face the greatest danger.” […] > > Climate patterns today suggest that torrential rainfall is something we can expect plenty more of in the future. This year’s floods in the Alps or those along the River Elbe three years ago could well be warning signs of what awaits us. Climatologists predict that precipitation in The Netherlands could increase as much as 25 percent. > [@intention](#): > > The Dutch are not going to “strategically flood” half a million hectares, that’s nonsense. They’re Dutch, they won’t flood a square metre unless they have to. But your article does say that they are “designating more and more land along their rivers as flood zones. Within the next few decades, the area will compose close to 500,000 hectares”. So while the Dutch aren’t **intending** to flood that much land (nor have they “already evacuated” it), they are definitely planning to reserve that much land for **being** flooded (and hence being lost for a number of other important purposes such as agriculture). The amphibious houses do sound cool, though, and I hope other populations potentially under threat from sea level rise can copy them. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/48 "2006-12-29T09:26:25Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Changing climate? It has never been stable. True, but that doesn’t mean that particularly severe and rapid changes won’t be a problem for human societies. As **jshore** and **SentientMeat** noted, we’re currently changing the composition of our atmosphere in ways that are unprecedented in all of human experience for the past tens of thousands of years. It’s very unlikely that we can continue this experiment indefinitely without producing some pretty drastic climate effects. > [@intention](#): > > What we should do is continue to deal with the extremes of nature as we have always done, using the best ideas and technology to insulate the people of the world from today’s dangers. That’s certainly important, but ISTM that it also makes sense to use our best ideas and technology to foresee tomorrow’s dangers too, and to deflect them if we can. An ounce of prevention, as they say, is worth a pound of cure. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 9:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/49 "2006-12-29T09:34:51Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Nor have any islands been “evacuated” in the Maldives, and I can find no report that they are building a “barrier” around any islands there. I think this refers to the Japanese-funded [sea wall around the island of the Maldives’ capital, Male](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3930765.stm): > [@](#): > > […] Male, the capital, is surrounded by a 3m-high (9.8ft) wall, which took 14 years to construct at a cost of $63m. Unable to foot the bill themselves, the government happily accepted aid from Japan, which paid for 99% of the cost. > > But the wall offers protection for just one of the Maldives’ 200 inhabited islands - and then only against tidal surges rather than the rising sea level, the longer-term threat. > > In Kandholhudhoo, a densely-populated island in the north of the Maldives, 60% of residents have volunteered to evacuate over the next 15 years - those remaining behind will eventually be compelled to do the same. > > Tidal surges flood their homes every fortnight, and recently hammered a 3m (9.8ft) hole in their concrete flood defences. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/50 "2006-12-29T13:23:49Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] I think this refers to the Japanese-funded [sea wall around the island of the Maldives’ capital, Male](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3930765.stm): [/QUOTE] The problem in the Maldives is not sea level rise, it is that they have destroyed their own coral reefs which used to protect the islands. > [@](#): > > Maldivian homes were traditionally built from corals, cemented by quicklime made by burning corals in kilns fired by coconut wood. When there was an abundance of corals and few people, the impacts on the reef were minor. Now, almost all the reefs around Male, the capital island, which has 80,000 people on two square kilometers, have been mined bare of corals for construction. In 1987 and 1991 the island flooded, because there were no reefs to protect it from storm waves. The groundwater was contaminated with salt. > > Following this disaster, the Japanese Government gave the Maldives aid to build sea defenses around Male to prevent flooding. [Source](http://www.globalcoral.org/MALDIVES%20SHORELINES.%20GROWING%20A%20BEACH.htm) Coral atolls such as the Maldives “float” on the surface of the ocean, going up and down with rising and falling sea levels. They exist in a delicate balance between wind and waves. Waves break up the reef as it grows higher and higher, grinding it into sand that is thrown and blown up onto the atoll. Wind and erosion work the other way, removing the sand from the atoll and blowing it out to sea. That’s why coral atolls are never more than a few meters high – the tops are blown away if they get to tall. It is also why some atolls have survived relative sea level changes of thousands of feet – as the sea level rose, so did the coral reef, and so did the atoll. All of that, however, comes to an end when people destroy the reef. Reef fish are also an integral part of this. A school of parrot fish, grinding up the coral and excreting it, dumps about two and a half tonnes of sand per hectare every year, sand that builds up the atoll. Kill the coral, kill the fish, you’re gonna lose your island. Don’t blame the sea level … blame the people. w. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/51 "2006-12-29T13:57:15Z")
Just to duck out of the debate for a moment and look _at_ the debate here, can we all see what has happened **yet again** in a climate change thread? Yes, that’s right, actual Denial of Anthropogenic Climate Change has quietly slunk off in shame in the face of direct questions and challenges which Deniers simply refused to face. We’re now debating very specific claims which might or might not be true **given** the undeniable truth of ACC. (And what the fuck has _Mars_ got to do with anything? I know ACC deniers are on another planet, but would have thought _Venus_ was more appropriate to the “debate”, such as it is.) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/52 "2006-12-29T14:31:05Z")
Incidentally, **intention** , [last time](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=369967&page=1&pp=50) we discussed climate change:[ul][li]I, unforgivably, thought one of Africa’s largest lakes was in Fiji, while[/li][\*]You, intriguingly, proposed that some mechanism will kick in this century which will absorb all the excess CO2 we’re currently emitting, such that the increase will fall from +2.5 ppm per year to (presumably) zero and the concentration will stabilise at some level above 400 ppm. [/ul] My unforgivable ignorance is now vanquished. Do you still stick to your proposal (and if so, can we explore it again)? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/53 "2006-12-29T14:48:22Z")
[QUOTE=Leaffan] Wow. Frankly the interwoviness of all this stuff is somewhat comically surprising. I’m perplexed and amazed. [/QUOTE] [This](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8034733&postcount=31) is more amazing/amusing still. (That whole [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=398438) is worth a read, BTW.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/54 "2006-12-29T14:50:35Z")
[QUOTE=SentientMeat] And what the fuck has _Mars_ got to do with anything? [/QUOTE] Don’t you get it? Life on Mars was destroyed **for lack of a greenhouse effect!** If only those Martians had had the plain common sense to drive SUVs with no emissions restrictions, they’d still have a breathable atmosphere and a surface temperature that could sustain liquid water! ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/55 "2006-12-29T14:57:36Z")
[QUOTE=SentientMeat] …(And what the fuck has _Mars_ got to do with anything? I know ACC deniers are on another planet, but would have thought _Venus_ was more appropriate to the “debate”, such as it is.) [/QUOTE] Well, you see, Mars has polar ice caps too. And they also appear to be shrinking over the last decade, or so. Therefore perhaps “global warming” trends here on Earth correlate to increased solar activity, rather than the unproven relationship to increased CO2 levels. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/56 "2006-12-29T15:18:01Z")
If global warming exists ,then if we change our living style and cut down pollution we have a chance to help save the planet. If we reduce our use of fossil fuels we clean up the air and relieve the effects of pollution on the health of our citizens. If global warming does not exist .then if we change our living style and cut down on pollution and we aid in cleaning our air and water. We reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and help the health of the citizens. Why dont we do it?Not doing it is illogical. It is a win /win for the people and planet. Does the love of money counter the health of the planet and its population? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/57 "2006-12-29T15:44:24Z")
[QUOTE=Leaffan] Well, you see, Mars has polar ice caps too. And they also appear to be shrinking over the last decade, or so. Therefore perhaps “global warming” trends here on Earth correlate to increased solar activity, rather than the unproven relationship to increased CO2 levels. [/QUOTE] Except that we are measuring the sun very carefully these days and there is no recent increase in solar activity. That is why, to the extent that people do try to blame the sun these days, they propose more exotic mechanisms such as itsa modulation of cosmic rays hitting the earth and the effects on these cosmic rays on cloud formation in our atmosphere. These mechanisms have their own problem (such as a lack of any significant trend in cosmic rays over the past several years) but one thing that is quite certain is that such a mechanism would not work in the very different and thinner atmosphere of Mars. As I have noted before when these subjects come up, it is strange that many of the very same people who took tons of convincing just to drag around to the conclusion that there really is global warming here on earth (and some still haven’t come to this conclusion although most have now and argue instead about what the cause is) believe that a few limited observations on Mars constitute rock-solid evidence of global warming on Mars. [Here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192) is some further discussion about Mars from realclimate. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/58 "2006-12-29T16:13:11Z")
[QUOTE=intention] The problem in the Maldives is not sea level rise, it is that they have destroyed their own coral reefs which used to protect the islands. [Source](http://www.globalcoral.org/MALDIVES%20SHORELINES.%20GROWING%20A%20BEACH.htm) [/QUOTE] Gee, that article actually says that they’re taking action in the Maldives both because of coral reef destruction and because of rising sea levels. It always helps to read your cites before you link to them, otherwise you may end up embarrassing yourself. Furthermore, it should be noted that coral reefs aren’t vanishing solely due to physical destruction. [They’re also being damaged](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1050329-5,00.html) by rising sea temperatures, a.k.a. global warming. [Here’s more](http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/163/6/729.pdf) linking global warming to the issues in the Maldives. So in short, it looks like you’ve confirmed my claim that the Maldives are already taking action, evacuating islands and building barriers because of global warming. Thank you. We should also note that it’s not just the Maldives. There’s also the nation of Tuvalu in the central Pacific. > [@](#): > > Tuvalu, in the Pacific ocean between Hawaii and Australia, with a maximum elevation of 4.6 meters (15 feet). Although the nation has fewer than 11,000 citizens, they are sufficiently convinced of its imminent disappearance that they have already begun to evacuate. New Zealand has agreed to grant “environmental refugee” status to 75 Tuvaluans per year, but according to some estimates, the nation may be entirely covered with water in as little as 50 years. [(From here.)](http://itotd.com/articles/499/disappearing-island-nations/) > [@](#): > > Nor have any islands been “evacuated” in the Maldives, and I can find no report that they are building a “barrier” around any islands there > > In short, no, you don’t have a cite for your “facts” It’s true that I don’t have a cite for my facts. I have many cites, unlike some people. I asserted that they’re in the process of evacuating some islands; we now have multiple separate cites that back that up. Do you have some evidence backing up your claim that no evacuations have taken place, or are you willing to withdraw your claim? > [@](#): > > Now that you know that the basis for your beliefs is not true, you will of course change your opinion. Incorrect. Your hypothesis in wrong. Far from knowing that the basis of my beliefs is wrong, I have proved beyond doubt that the basis of my beliefs is entirely correct. I, however, am not so naive as to believe that _you_ will change your opinion just because you’ve seen the facts. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/59 "2006-12-29T16:26:55Z")
[QUOTE=Leaffan] Well, have a look [here](http://junkscience.com/) perhaps. [/QUOTE] I had a look there, and what I saw was the site that’s been one of the internet’s most notorious frauds for many years, written by a man who gets [paid](http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html) by the ExxonMobil Corporation to trash environmentalists. What I did not see was anything related to your laughable claim that CO2 increases were caused by temperature increases rather than the other way around. CO2 started increasing around 1950. Temperatures started increasing around 1980. 1950 was earlier than 1980. Do you have any justification whatsoever for your claim that an event which occurred in 1980 caused an event in 1950. If so, cite it, or else you will suffer the eternal shame of having demonstrated your ignorance on the Straight Dope. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737/60 "2006-12-29T17:26:00Z")
Geologists tell us that New England is rising at about 2-3" per century (the land is rebounding from being compressed by the ice cap that covered NE some 25,000 years ago). The island of Trinidad appears to be sinking: but geologists aren’t sure if this is due to the ocean level rising, or the land subsiding (the theory is that the sedimants of the Orinoco delta are compressing the seabed). Greenland will begin rising, as its ice cap melts off-the immense weight of the icecap (over a mile thick) has dpressed the island. So, how are we sure what is going on? I think you can find land rising and subsiing-it is not clear which effect is the dominant one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-in-our-lifetime/385737.md?page=4)