In the light of what has been said in this blog by the vast majority of commenters, I believe it is unlikely to see people that decide not to move from coastal areas to interior -or safer, depending on your view- parts of the country.

Take this example, you advise someone to walk instead of using the car to go to work because you think that will help to protect the environment. Most people will just laugh at the idea. Or tell them to switch off the lights they do not need. They will react in the same way. What I mean is, if they don't want to change simple habits like the ones I have just mentioned, they will never change other attitudes, they will never make important decisions taking into account what impacts it may have on the environment... and a big choice to make is choosing the place you want to live.

Basically, it is ridiculous to think that people will change their area of residence because of what they call an "Al-Gore invented hype".

"The study gives no time frame for the rising lea levels, but suggests solutions may involve relocating people and building protective engineering structures. It adds nations should consider halting or reducing population growth in coastal areas."

I'm not sure what the big surprise is. Population growth in Florida has been extreme for the last 30 years. Both sides of the Florida Penninsula are at risk- this is clear by looking at 30 years of climo data. I'm sure insurance costs will reflect this. I don't think either the threat nor the attendent costs will slow the growth much, despite the well documented costs associated with the flooding from Katrina.

Enjoy the weather while you can. I live about a day upstream of you Laura, and it's been cold and stormy here since noon.

Why should the US 'go about reducing' population growth in certain areas? This isnt Soviet-era russia where the state dictates where you have to live. Let people live where they want to live. The US faces far more threat from 'Social Engineers' who think they have the right to shift people around like checkers on a checker board than from any fantasized sea-level rise.

Having found this blog just a few days ago, its RSS feed now has a permanent place in my bookmarks.
It provides an excellent overview of news concerning the global climate change that is happening right now.

I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to see the same "arguments" be brought up (and shot down) again and again, but every now and then a person "sees the light." What helped convince me that global climate change is real and was not suddenly imposed by some unknown conspiracy of scientists is this site on the American Institute of Physics web site: http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/climate/co2.htm
It depicts (in a relatively concise manner) the history of the science that lead to the current understanding of global climate change. There was (and is) constant criticism about the facts and theories involved with it, but - and that is the beauty of the scientific method - this did not mean that it was simply cast away as wrong and ignored. Instead it meant that other people became interested in filling in the holes, searching for better theories, alternate explanations, better instruments, etc. And this lead to the current situation, in which almost no respectable scientist working in that field regards global climate change as a myth. There is of course discussion of the precise effects, methods of dealing with these effects, maybe slowing them down and such - but the fact of global climate change is practically unchallenged. And to get to this point took decades of work from many, many scientists.

The only thing that is now needed is to get that information out to the people.

And this blog is part of that effort.

Keep up the good work!

>>So now I'm going to head outside and get some fresh air. I need it after reading today's comments.

Laura you seriously buy into this fictional utter nonsense? Good god, you're supposed to be better than some average boob on the street, falling for Al Gore type hyped nonsense. Even the seriously flawed UN report says the sea level will rise a minimal amount over the next 100 years.

If the sea levels go up 1 inch, do you really think all of thse population centers will have to be relocated?. Remember this: The average DAILY tide is several feet.

I've never seen any other topic make seemingly normal people loose all common sense and ability to think.

Laura,

Have a nice day and enjoy the surf, for now!

Please answer a question for me: What is the predicted change over time in the global or regional sea water temperature due to the conlicting effects of GW and melting ice, and what effect will that have on weather and climate? More and intense La Ninas?

Any data form the readers? Thanks in advance.

Is this supposed to be a serious site, with thinking, knowledgable people? Why refer/react to some complete junk science article??!!

There is no indication that sea level rise (which has been almost linearly constant for millenia) is accelerating at all. Even the IPCC in the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), 4th Assessment Report, (which has a section on sea level rise) are hard-put to find any acceleration. The best they can do is take a very short peice of a graph and calculate an almost imperceivable increase across a very short timeline to announce that the sea level rise has increased from about 2mm/year to about 3mm/year in the most recent 10 years. The report, though, refuses to support that claim very strongly, saying only that they have a "high" degree of confidence that sea-level rise accelerated from the 19th century to the 20th century, which, frankly is irrelevent to recent AGW scares. As far as the weakly calculated 2mm/year to 3mm/year recent so-called acceleration witnessed between 1993 to 2003, they say only that "is is unclear whether it is because of a long-term trend or just decadal variability".

It adds nations should consider halting or reducing population growth in coastal areas.

REPLY: I wish someone would do a study on reducing the population growth regarding illegal immigration in this country instead! But I digress. There it is again, that "reducing popultation growth" mentality again. Another manuver from the playbook (manifesto)! Did any of you Einsteins out there stop to think that these areas are heavily populated because the WEATHER IS NICER THERE? I think we need to impliment population controls on these wackos that have nothing better to do but conduct these studies, paid for by the liberal left.

Could someone please tell me exactly how much human beings are contributing to global warming? I don't want levels of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, I already know this. Of this .4 degree rise in temperature in the past 150 years, how much is directly attributed to mankind? I want a solid number, not alot or significantly or between this and this. Weed through all your data and take into consideration nature, animals, cyclical variations, solar output, etc.

The reason that I ask is because it has been warmer before and we were not responsible. What is your figure and please state your source. Thank you.

For those of you who can handle REAL SCIENCE by REAL SCIENTISTS...

Greenhouse Gas Effect Consistent Over 420 Million Years

New calculations show that sensitivity of Earth's climate to changes in the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) has been consistent for the last 420 million years, according to an article in Nature by geologists at Yale and Wesleyan Universities.

Rich,
It all depends who you ask. For the "offical version", refer to the Feb release of the IPCC TAR. Just google IPCC to get to thier offical site. The numbers I heard were about .6 deg C of increase since 1900. The problems with attributing this kind of number are many:

a)quality of past temperature measurments (some say they were just fins -some they the weren't).

b)There are many more surface observations sites than 50 or 100 years ago, many of these sites are now in warmer climates (Just compare North Dakota with Florida), there are many more sites in Africa and Asia now than 100 years ago. One would expect an increase in global temps just from this fact alone.

c)In order to account for these problems, organizations like GISS, HadCRU, and NOAA apply some fairly complex statistical modifcations to the raw data sets. When you are looking at temp trends, you are looking at data that has been statisticaly modified. Now, there is nothing wrong with this -as a matter of fact, it must be done in order to get a picture that makes sense. However, certain ideas such as homogenuity come into play (filling in those gridcells with data where no exists; ie North Dakota has only a few reporting stations, climate experts will use homogenuity process to extrapolate these sparse gridcells). Many of the processes used by climate experts do smooth out trends to such a point that the trends are either much smaller or gone (a good example of this is the 1930s. In the past, it was accepted that the 1930s was the warmest decade of the 20th century. Recently, I've seen this spike get smaller and smaller. Lo and Behold, the 1990s and early 2000s are now warmer).

d)There is no concrete number to the relationship that ties anthropegenic activites to temperature rises and falls. There is plenty of physical suppositions, theories, and models that make this relationship convincing. There are still many who believe that CO2 increases in the lower atmosphere behaves a lot like the Laffer curve. That is, the greatest increases in temperature will occur early on, but as time goes by, CO2 concentrations could double and the resulting rate of greenhouse temp increases gets smaller. Of course, that theory doesn't take into account other forcings, or in direct positive feedbacks, etc...

Again, the only organization that I know of that could give you that number and supporting documentation is the IPCC

Weird. I live on the beach and my water level hasn't risen at all since I moved here in 1979.

Maybe the added weight of all those people migrating are sinking the beach to make it look like the water levels are rising??? Just a thought.............

Note that the IPCC AR4 SPM stated that it could not make any projection for dynamical melting of the ice sheets since all of our knowledge of it is from the last five years, and models have not yet been developed to predict how quickly it might proceed. See here for details on the SPM discussion of sea level rise and here for concerns expressed yesterday by some very worried ice sheet experts.

Skeptic, just out of curiosity, do you read more than just headlines? In any case, that paper is indeed very important REAL SCIENCE done by very well-qualified REAL SCIENTISTS. Its main conclusion:

"This study confirms that in the Earth's past 420 million years, each doubling of atmospheric CO2 translates to an average global temperature increase of about 3? Celsius, or 5? Fahrenheit."

We can expect the same to be true now. Doubled CO2 relative to pre-industrial levels is about 560 ppm, a level we will reach by 2050 or so even given sharp reductions in emissions. The good news is that the 3? Celsius temperature increase that we will then be committed to is an equilibrium level that probably won't be reached until at least 2100. The bad news is that just for starters we can kiss the Greenland ice sheet goodbye, and very likely some and perhaps all of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. That's 30 to 40 feet of sea level rise, plus whatever other unpleasant climate surprises lay in store.

Okay. No one can give me an answer to my question. All they can do is make GW a "liberal left" fantasy, or continue to make the same tiring points using questionable and manipulated data.

And, I ask, what Mr. Gore or other AGW people gain by proposing GW being human produced, which it is by the way? Skeptic, et al act like it's some nefarious plot. To do what? Decrease the influence of the oil companies and cartels? Maybe. Clean up the air and halt coal strip mining? Maybe as well. Have you ever seen what strip mining does to the earth, terrain, and eco-systems? The Earth will not tolerate abuse forever. And remember: "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature."

Thank you JP.

People are going crazy over this GW when we still don't know exactly how much mankind is contributing to it. Don't you think that this is an important question? Exactly how much are we contributing to it? I don't like computer model projections for the same reasons you specified. Look at history. The earth has been warmer before. Why? It wasn't because of manmade gases.

I don't think that our climate is absolutely changing for the worse and to a point where it has never been before. The climate will continue to change as it always has, that's what it does. In the meantime, I'll enjoy the warmer weather, although this winter was pretty cold here in NH. We set all time cold records. I wouldn't mind an increase of .6 degree soon. Kidding. Better than global cooling, right?

David:

That is an easy question, what the AGW proponents have to gain is the downsizing of capitalism. For whatever reason, they seem to not like free markets. Look at every solution proposed, it involves either taxation or a reduction in the free market.

Darren, explain how the free market will help solve this problem when it has completely failed us on safety & environmental issues in the past? I've said it once...I'll say it again -- if the free market were actually good at solving safety and environmental problems, there would be no need for government interventions.

There are some market-based regulations that work, such as the one that helped reduce acid rain. However, these are regulations too.

Darren, as hard as it is to accept, the "free market" does not magically fix every problem.

There are a well-known and much-studied class of problems, of which pollution is an excellent example, where rational individuals competing in a free market result in the worst possible outcome.

If it costs me something to control my pollution, and I'm rational, then I face one of two scenarios. If I am the only who buys the control device, then I'm a sucker and I've wasted my time -- my decision won't begin to make a dent in the problem. If everybody else but me buys the control device, then my contribution won't be enough to matter and I'm better off saving my money. Thus, there is no rational reason why I should buy a control device.

The problem is that if everybody follows this strategy, the society as a whole ends up pursuing the worst possible outcome -- nobody controls their emissions, and pollution runs away.

This happens because the true cost of my pollution is not reflected in the price I pay for whatever is polluting -- it's what an economist calls an "external" factor.

Whether by regulation, taxation, or some other mechanism, these external factors must somehow be reflected in the costs of our goods in order for the free-market mechanism to work as advertised in determining their price and supply.

It's just simple math -- neither liberal nor conservative, it's plain old arithmetic.

Mark/BT:

Excellent points on both accounts. Actually though, I never said that the free market would solve this issue, what I said is that the solutions proposed do not really address the problem, but rather the "perceived" root of the problem. Now, before you both start taping out the reply to "perceived" comment, allow me to continue. It is not intended to inflame.

The perception is that the rampant production of CO2 in the modern era is ramping up any naturally occurring changes in the heat balance of the Earth. Simple explanation, but we all know the specifics. Whether this is true or not, really is debateable. Else we would not have this blog.

Instead of offering up an idea to deal with the CO2 in place by removing and converting it somehow, the solution is to cut the CO2 by either charging a tax (to make it more costly so people do not want to use it), or eliminate the creation of CO2 (by reducing energy consumption). Both serve to effectively reduce capitalism and the free market rationale. It does nothing to address the CO2 already in the air and nothing about other possible causes. Remember, we have concentrated solely upon manmade sources, maybe there is a natural process that is accouting for the concentrations.

In fact, most of the AGW concerned groups seem to concentrate solely on CO2 production. I rarely, if ever, hear about other human activities that lead to possible warming without producing CO2 in the process. Now why do they concentrate on CO2? Because beyond natural sources such as volcanoes and transmission from the sea, it's only other source is from burning fossil fuels. Only man burns fossil fuels. When you go deeper into it, for several years all we heard about was SUV's and their poor mileage. Why SUV's? Because it was implied that the only people that could generally afford them had an "excess" of income. Nothing was ever mentioned about trucks, semis, construction equipment, farm equipment, yard equipment, vans and older sedans. Why? Because those things were seen as being used for work and the people operating them could not afford any additional changes in income.

I know, I know, simplistic approach but the point is that this issue is about socioeconomic change as much as a change in GW.

You can tell when the issue is getting away from the proponents. The results become not just annoying, but catastrophic. Obviously, annoying did not get the point across.

The point about the free market not fixing past environmental issues and safety concerns is right on the money. But, that was a different time and there is a new standard that the consumer has established through the desire to be more proactive. Note that this only was brought about through the grassroot campaigns of activists at all levels. As much as I might think it is a waste of time and money at an individual level sometimes, these issues are much more important and people now make value judgements based upon these factors. Businesses see this and have adapted. They tout there compliance and how they go the next step. See Whole Foods as a case study. Prices are out of this world but yet they continue to grow as a company.

Why did the SUV market take off? Not cause they looked "cool", not cause the suburban soccer moms and the business managers wanted to go off road, but merely because of safety. Granted, if there were a reduction in safety standards some makers would revert, but because people would probably shun them, the price would lower to the point that no money could be made and they would go out of business.

I am not saying that all regulation should be lifted cause they do serve a valuable purpose. But that there should be a better approach to deal with GW, if we need to, without imposing a vise on capitalism.

Whew. You all have a great weekend.

Darren:
Just like every solution to the "problem" in the Kyoto Protocol is to give money to third world countries.

Why did the SUV market take off? Not cause they looked "cool", not cause the suburban soccer moms and the business managers wanted to go off road, but merely because of safety.

Uh, Darren, I don't know where you came up with this, but you couldn't be more mistaken. So much so that I wonder if perhaps you are not old enough to remember it.

The SUV market took off because the federal government, under Reagan, specifically exempted "light trucks" from the mileage standards imposed by the government since the mid-70s. The GOP loved it, because they have always opposed environmental regulation (too much "big government"). GM, Ford, and Chrysler had been trying for years to avoid the mileage standards for a variety of reasons. The change in regulation let them off the hook, in a way that wasn't immediately obvious to the casual observer.

Detroit found it far easier, and far more profitable (a