How much land will remain because of sea level rise ?
There will be a great deal of land remaining (if less than before). However, 634 million people are at direct risk from the rise. Many cities and most densely populated regions are on the coast. It is the disruption that is the problem.
Begin planning the return to the Caucasus, or perhaps not.
So that's why the Dalai Lama wants to hold onto his peoples' real estate? 
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/03/three-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming
3C, whatever happened to the Paris accord 1.5C / 2C.
A good question for Republicans this November.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2017/nov/03/three-degree-world-cities-drowned-global-warming
3C, whatever happened to the Paris accord 1.5C / 2C.
So Hollywood will have to move any future television remakes of Miami Vice?
How much land will remain because of sea level rise ?
There will be a great deal of land remaining (if less than before). However, 634 million people are at direct risk from the rise. Many cities and most densely populated regions are on the coast. It is the disruption that is the problem.
Yeah. We imagine if the land countries will be disappear but Britain will not remain at half size.
Let me introduce you to this technique for increasing knowledge called reading.
So it`s about being knowledgeable from reading...now that disconnects yourself nicely from having to feel anything. Now that you have all this knowledge, most likely more than anyone else on this topic...then what?
1. Reading is one important way to improve knowledge. But you have to read the right sorts of material, both in terms of quality and in terms of being suited to your present level of knowledge.
2, Any expert in the field should know more than me about this subject.
The battle is not against the tide. It is against those people who are too foolish, lazy, greedy, avaricious and narcissistic to back change.
Do tell me if I have omitted any relevant adjectives.
There's a few other words I could use but I guess we should keep this polite.
Probably too late for parts of Florida but not too late for many urban conurbations around the world - if we make a start now.
A little good news: "in 2017 non-federal climate action and sustained investment in clean energy meant that US emissions of CO2 fell to their lowest level in 25 years".
Given that the US is precisely the only country that is not committed to the Paris Accord, and that many other countries have reacted to this by emphasising their own commitment, there is hope for the world.
On the other hand,Trump wants coal contracts to be continued even after their retirement date. And Pruit has been accepting "gifts" from coal plant owners.
@ ww you are right to post keep things polite, whilst from # 1 this has been a name calling thread, both you and elro have become even more cantankerous climatists of late.
The real name calling will be from future generations and (especially if people like you get your way) this will be seen as the era when we had a chance to change things for the better and failed.
And, once again, a changing climate does not mean it will get pleasantly warmer and then stay like that. Only a complete moron would be so naive to think like that.
@87
Of course there is a choice. We can carry on burning fossil fuels until they run out and face all the consequences that will entail. Or we can phase out fossil fuels and replace with newer clean technologies which don't give us huge problems to solve in the future.
The 'them and us' stems from the fact that fossil fuel companies are trying to protect their interests (very much like the tobacco companies refused to accept evidence their products caused cancer, heart disease and breathing problems).
People can and will enjoy a consumer lifestyle with energy supplied by renewables. Although it has to be said some aspects of that consumerism need to be curtailed.
Emission trends, western countries lower, eastern much higher.
Luckily Obhama is not EL Presidente anymore he would be dragging in the cameras to tell everyone how wonderful he is.
@ ww you are right to post keep things polite, whilst from # 1 this has been a name calling thread, both you and elro have become even more cantankerous climatists of late.
Like the governments of every country on the planet (one temporary ignorant anomaly excepted). Its REALITY, you see?
What choices? Electric trains, buses, lorries, cars, even electric aircraft in a decade or two!. Electric cookers, electronic devices, environmental systems (energy efficiency is actually an even bigger factor for buildings, reducing energy needs dramatically).
Sorry, no steam trains. No smog. Lack of that acrid pollution anyone who has visited many major cities knows so well. Very few deaths from air pollution. Lovers of exhaust fumes will weep,
It's going to be tough to those who yearn for the old days. Mostly mortuary attendants.
SDRs, (not the money), but the concept inside the UN system is the heart of the GCC political problem. Special but Differentiated Responsibilities (SDRs) are why no global agreement seems workable. Only the EU (with its Dirty Diesel scandal) pretends to abide by their SDR commitments. For all other countries (they know) it's a toothless GCC agreement. So they play along. As a result, the planet keeps getting warmer, and the weather more extreme. Hold onto your hats. There's a wild political ride coming, made only worse by the new Administration in Washington. This we all know, unfortunately.
Maybe renewable technology (AND GLOBAL COMMON SENSE) will save us. Maybe not. The politics will ultimately decide. But unlike the scenario described below by Elroch, I sure hope we don't go through that collapse first, then recover process. War and revolution might constitute the sidelines in that ugly scenario.
Not really, those who survive will use sustainable technologies in the end by definition (I do not believe there is a high probability of human extinction, and non-sustainable technologies cannot be used for a long time, by definition).
It's just a matter of whether the global climate gets wrecked and a period of high mortality. eventual population collapse and mass destruction of ecosystems precedes this sustainable future due to too many people clinging to the unsustainable fossil fuel economy.
Over thousands of years folks have needed to upsticks due to sea level rise, can't imagine very many liked doing so, perhaps some appreciated the need to find better locations. Who can we blame, ww usual scattergun approach is to target certain larger corporations and certain governments, after all we must have conspiracy theory and scapegoats.
When and where have people had to 'upsticks because of sea level rise'. Not in the last 6000 years I would say. And even if there have been instances in the past, that does not mean we should be complacent enough to contribute to it happening again.
Of the two of us, it is you who is the conspiracy theorist. All the experts agree with me but in your screwy world they don't know what they are talking about or are being controlled in some way.