[Physicist]

According to Flannery, even if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 70 percent by 2050, average global temperatures will increase between two and nine degrees by 2100. This rise could lead to the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which the March 24 issue of Science reports is already shrinking at a rate of 224 ±41 cubic kilometers a year, double the rate measured in 1996 (Los Angeles uses one cubic kilometer of water a year). If it and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet melt, sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants.

So what that means is that even extreme activism won't help, assuming the models are right.

It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.

Fool.

[cogitator]

So what that means is that even extreme activism won't help, assuming the models are right.

Flannery takes a worst-case tack. There is a decent amount of opinion in the scientific community that significantly reducing the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere would be beneficial, but to really have an effect changes in emissions need to start soon (5-10 year horizon).

[HKMk23]

...sea levels will rise five to 10 meters, displacing half a billion inhabitants.

So much for the value of ocean-front property.

Of course, the statement is made as if it will happen so quickly that it will create a massive crisis. If it takes from now until 2100 for the sea level to rise 10 meters, nobody is going to drown over it, and people living in lowlying areas have ample time to figure out where to go.

On the other side of this, what benefits might there be? All of the articles push disaster to the fore, but what might be on the other side of the balance sheet? Okay, so maybe Phoenix won't be as popular, but Anchorage stands to benefit. I see a great deal of fear-mongering, but very little exploration of any potential positive aspects of this kind of change.