The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[fukuda 351]

Originally posted by: soltangris3. Climate change won't affect only humans and our cities. It will affect wild life as well. How much of it will turn up to be unprepared to adapt to changes?quote>

It's already affecting wild species, it's been affecting them for more than 40 years(way before anyone even cared about it). Responses are mixed but better than expected, mostly because of our lack of knowledge concerning adaptation in wild animals.

For instance:

Great tit

It was once thought that the main mechanism of adaptation to rapidly changing environments was evolution, with any other kind of mechanism being secondary. Actually, most bird species are able to modify their behavior and life cycles by themselves. Great tits eat seeds and fruits, and plants naturally use light and temperature as indicators of when to produce them. Climate change caused a steady shift of the date when these were produced, and great tits must synchronize their clutch laying dates to be able to feed their offspring as much as possible.

Did great tits manage to synchronize their egg laying dates?

We can see in (A) that the laying date has been  turning earlier and earlier every year and in © that the days have been getting hotter and hotter. In (B) We see the correlation between both phenomena.

Did great tits evolve? No. Great tits also have a "thermometer" so to speak that allows them to change their egg laying time depending on the environment's temperature.

Adaptive Phenotypic Plasticity in Response to Climate Change in a Wild Bird Population

White Stork

 

There's another way to adapt to climate change that involves individual learning and culture instead of evolution: migrating or changing your migratory trends.

Europe has turned hotter and the Sahel (Africa) drier. Migrating makes less and less sense than before:

Notice that every bird uses different strategies and has different constraints, so while storks lengthen their stay in Europe, most other birds don't.

Climate change and bird phenology: a long-term study in the Iberian Peninsula

Collared flycatcher

The prior 2 examples were positive, birds managed to adapt to their new environment changing their behavior. Unluckily, this is not always the case.

Collared flycatchers in the arctic forests also suffer climate change, but they are unable to synchronize with their food source (caterpillars) because they have no plasticity and no genetic variability to adapt themselves.

The result is that fledgings become smaller and smaller over time (upper graph), while natural selection would favor bigger bodies (bottom graph) sending the bird population into extinction. There's natural selection.. but nothing to select.

This is a small recollection of examples. The effect of climate change on wild life is mixed and complex with ups and downs.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

An interesting exposition.

There has been a lot of excitement here about the possible "extinction" of polar bears.  Polar bears are simple arctic adapted brown/grizzly bears who have moved into the arctic to find a food source.  I think we can expect their coats to start to lose transparency as they migrate south into the boreal forests of the Canadian West and Russia.  They may disappear, but they won't be gone.  There will be a lot of seals who don't get eaten, and they will probably become a huge problem for the fishery.

Sorry, I don't have a source for this.  It is a nexial conclusion I have reached by collecting many bits and unrelated things, and put two and two together.  There are studies underway, but none of them seem to be conclusive at this time.

[morriswalters 16]

Interesting note about the scale of the problem about rising sea levels.  About 3 billion people live within about 200 hundred kilometers of the coastline according to this.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Interesting note about the scale of the problem about rising sea levels.  About 3 billion people live within about 200 hundred kilometers of the coastline according to this.

quote>

Fascinating.  I hope they all have water wings or can swim.  This is maybe the source of population reduction the old dirt ball needs. 

Someone said that most of the Ice in the world is on land in Antarctica, and I nearly missed it.  Most of the rest is also on land in a little Danish island called Greenland, and that is melting fast as we talk.  There are a lot of news photos around of the Greenland ice pack 'calving' bergs into Davis Strait.  When the ice hits the water, it floats, but it displaces its mass in sea-water which raises the sea level fractionally. 

The other effect is the melt water pouring off the ice pack.  This also increases the sea level, and both these events decrease the salinity of the sea.  Expect lots of ecological changes as salinity drops, and coast lines become more submerged. 

Also remember that the specific gravity of ice is  about 0.9 so you only see a tenth of the ice on the surface.  The rest is waiting for an incautious sea captain to come by.  Lessons are forgotten pretty quickly and the Titanic was sunk nearly a century ago.

Some coastal cities are having freshwater problems.  If they could tow one of the bergs to their harbor and sequester it, they'd have freshwater for quite a while.  Very high purity, too.

Now that the last ice age is finally winding completely down, what now, O great adaptable H. Sapiens?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

Interesting note about the scale of the problem about rising sea levels.  About 3 billion people live within about 200 hundred kilometers of the coastline according to this.

quote>

Again with this. Why is it that every time people talk about the ramifications of sea level rise, they way overstate the size of the affected areas?

200 km from the sea is a looong way. Only a sliver of the edge of that area is actually threatened to end up underwater.

2007 IPCC estimate says that sea level may rise between 190-590 mm (7.5-23.2 in) by the year 2100. (linky) That's barely enough to get your knees wet, folks.

Taken to the theoretical extreme, the melting of all ice on earth would lead to about 80 m (260 ft) of rise (source). Now, we're not going to live to see that, but even if our far-flung descendents do.... there are still quite a few areas within 200 km of the coast higher than that.

Terrain view in Google Maps (it's under "More") is an immensely helpful tool in scoping out the damage here. Note that the contour intervals in the US are 200 feet (major), and 40 feet (minor). Everywhere else, they're 100 m (major) and 20 m (minor).

[krbe 193]

I agree with the 3bn living within 200 km is a knee jerk number, however the problem is the immense number of people living in coastal cities or along river – and the fact that most of these people are poor. National boundaries are another problem, and most often poor countries border other poor countries.

[morriswalters 16]

I posted the number as a reference. In point of fact the majority of people are clustered in cites and river estuaries. That data was updated in a link to one meter. I was down at Gulf Shores Alabama 2 or so years ago during a close brush with a hurricane and a lot of beach houses became sea houses. However I just thought it was interesting not earth shattering. Did you look at the picture of the new flood gates in the Thames. I believe that is for tidal flooding, but I may be mistaken.

[soltangris 42]

It's funny you guys minimizing the damage the water can do. Aaaaahm, maybe you missed the last news about Brisbane? Brazil? And earlier, Bangladesh and all that? You might insist that this are isolated incidents that have nothing to do with global warming. If so, they're getting pretty regular lately, and pretty wide-spread. Much more so than anything we have records for in the last centuries.  

European countries are starting to get floods pretty regularly now, and each one of them means not only people dead, but also immense property damage. Now, rich countries could rebuild, but what about poor ones?
Oh, let me guess, who cares about them...... Natural selection of the strongest.  

 

Now, we're not going to live to see that, but even if our far-flung descendents do.... there are still quite a few areas within 200 km of the coast higher than that.

 

No offence dude, but how can you say that?! So, let's wiggle our fingers and continue our destructive practices, simply because the damage won't become apparent in our time????? In other words, let's condemn our grandchildren to pay for our mistakes, a?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I am sorry for the people in Brisbane, but to a certain extent they made their own problems.  When you pave over river estuaries and swamps that would absorb a lot of extra water, you are in a funny position when you complain about flooding. 

Australia is not a poor country, and foolish municipal politicians are a disease world wide.  Chickens have come home to roost and now you complain you can't make chicken soup.  Many of the problems in Brisbane are man made.  People should not live in flood plains that should, at best, be made into parks.  You are not alone, many foolish people live in river bottom land, then complain when it floods.  Change is inevitable.  You can't always expect things to be the same from year to year, nor can we now do anything about climate change.  It will be interesting to see what Brisbane does about recovery from the unparalleled mess, the loss of life, the loss of property.  Will they go back to living in the same circumstances or is the lesson learned?

Brazil is another kettle of the same kind of fish.  These people are living downslope from a set of muddy hills that have been stripped of their vegetation cover.  Whoever benefited from this should now have to pay the piper.  This is similar to the people who are living on the slopes of Vesuvius in Italy.  In 79 A.D. that mountain destroyed two cities, including a sea port, and killed most of the population in about half an hour.  The whole area in the Bay of Naples is in constant danger, but people continue to farm the very fertile slopes of Vesuvius.  Short term gain may very well result in immediate and final pain.

When the recovery gets going, if it does, in the current disaster areas, and I include Haiti in this, who aren't very far along after a year from their earthquake, measures have to be taken to prevent or avoid a recurrence.  So dry your tears and start thinking about how you can fix this, and stop it from happening next year.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: soltangris

It's funny you guys minimizing the damage the water can do. Aaaaahm, maybe you missed the last news about Brisbane? Brazil? And earlier, Bangladesh and all that? You might insist that this are isolated incidents that have nothing to do with global warming. If so, they're getting pretty regular lately, and pretty wide-spread. Much more so than anything we have records for in the last centuries.quote>

That's inland flooding caused by heavy rains, which is a separate issue from sea level rise.

Now, we're not going to live to see that, but even if our far-flung descendents do.... there are still quite a few areas within 200 km of the coast higher than that.quote>

No offence dude, but how can you say that?! So, let's wiggle our fingers and continue our destructive practices, simply because the damage won't become apparent in our time????? In other words, let's condemn our grandchildren to pay for our mistakes, a?quote>

The situation I describe is a theoretical extreme. Somehow I doubt it will actually get that far ever.

Besides, as I pointed out before... regardless of how green we attempt to be, we're not going to stop putting carbon in the air anytime soon. And we've put an awful lot there already. Asking what we can do to prevent the damage is the wrong question. There is NOTHING we can do, it is INEVITABLE. The right question to ask is, as the climate changes, how are we going to cope with it?

As for how I can say that.... quite easily, actually. Indeed, it seems like the only logical attitude to take. If it's not my problem, it's not my problem. Why should I give a damn what happens after I'm dead? It's not like I'll be around to notice or care.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Duke87

As for how I can say that.... quite easily, actually. Indeed, it seems like the only logical attitude to take. If it's not my problem, it's not my problem. Why should I give a damn what happens after I'm dead? It's not like I'll be around to notice or care.

quote>

I take it from that you are not looking forward to having any descendants?  I am a lot older than you, I pretty much guarantee it, and I have two kids, nieces and nephews, and grandchildren and I damned well care.  Posterity carries you on in an indirect immortality.  If you won't care, who am I to adjust your Karma?  Frankly, I hope, grasshopper, that the Buddhists are right.  You will get to go around again sometime in the future, and maybe not even as a human being.

[morriswalters 16]

This is primarily an economic issue for the industrial nations. Sea level rise is a direct action but the secondary actions are just as important, tidal flooding for example. Countries like Bangladesh who are already very low in real elevation will be impacted first and there the issue will become what to do with the refugees. This problem is complicated by the fact that there are no longer any frontiers for immigrants. So we now has the burden of how to integrate immigrants into already developed societies, which is already causing problems. So the underlying issues are not so distant as we would like to believe. However I would suspect that these will be the least of the issues we might have to face.

[morriswalters 16]

This is primarily an economic issue for the industrial nations. Sea level rise is a direct action but the secondary actions are just as important, tidal flooding for example. Countries like Bangladesh who are already very low in real elevation will be impacted first and there the issue will become what to do with the refugees. This problem is complicated by the fact that there are no longer any frontiers for immigrants. So we now has the burden of how to integrate immigrants into already developed societies, which is already causing problems. So the underlying issues are not so distant as we would like to believe. However I would suspect that these will be the least of the issues we might have to face.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

With respect to attempted mass immigration, the last shipload of Tamils on the west coast caused the federal government to reconsider the refugee act in such a way that such things will no longer be possible.  Such vessels will be intercepted and turned away from Canadian waters.  We just can't handle the influx, especially into over crowded west coast cities.

I expect that the shipping of refugees will become much less profitable now with respect to us.  We will insist on the channels we have set up be used, and no queue jumping will be tolerated.

[soltangris 42]

With respect, Nonny Moose, sometimes you have no choice with regards to refugees. Can you turn down couple of million people whose homes just sank because of rising sea level? Or you're gonna start sinking their boats?

Or, in the case of internal immigration (for example, what happened in USA after Catrina), can you just leave those that didn't have means or relatives away from the disaster area? Can you simply say 'We don't have the money to help you, guys, so fend for yourselves'?

Those are not cases of refugee traffic, where some people make money out of other's desire for a better life; those are cases when people have lost all they have on this world, and they simply can't go back to ANY other way of life. Can you deny salvation to such people?

Well, you can of course, but.... is it humane?

[Duke87 1,070]

There is absolutely the capacity out there to turn refugees away. Indeed, I daresay most people aren't fond of outsiders moving into their area en masse, because it changes the face of the neighborhood and no one likes that. I would fully expect that climate refugees would be subject to a lot of "Okies go home" sort of treatment.

[mightygoose 92]

well its when the refugee problem becomes a mass exodus.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/10

it is not just water that creates climate refugees.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I am not as unfeeling as some may think.  I simply report the government's attitude.

Canada has lots of useable, unpopulated land, and refugees are welcome to it.  We did this with refugees from the Ukraine in the 19th and 20th centuries and got ourselves a new province, Saskatchewan, full of prosperous farmers.  It wasn't easy, but they did pull temselves up by their own bootstraps.

When you talk about people whose land has literally disappeared beneath the waves, you have to remember this is different times, and while we have an "empty quarter", you have the problem of people who will not or cannot live in this climate.  We can't have them turning our cities into little Koli Kutt.  The infrastructures won't stand it.

The old policy of giving a land grant to a refugee or immigrant could stand revival.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

I am not as unfeeling as some may think.  I simply report the government's attitude.

Canada has lots of useable, unpopulated land, and refugees are welcome to it.  We did this with refugees from the Ukraine in the 19th and 20th centuries and got ourselves a new province, Saskatchewan, full of prosperous farmers.  It wasn't easy, but they did pull temselves up by their own bootstraps.

When you talk about people whose land has literally disappeared beneath the waves, you have to remember this is different times, and while we have an "empty quarter", you have the problem of people who will not or cannot live in this climate.  We can't have them turning our cities into little Koli Kutt.  The infrastructures won't stand it.

The old policy of giving a land grant to a refugee or immigrant could stand revival.

quote>

As you said this is a differnt time.

these will be a different kind of refugee then those that fled famine/drougt or political unrest in the late 1800's.they were mostly farmers then.a 4th generation city/slum resident will have no clue how to grow crops and will probabaly want to live in a big city again.

you think we would see a movement back to  the midwest from the south?

 

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: soltangris

It's funny you guys minimizing the damage the water can do. Aaaaahm, maybe you missed the last news about Brisbane? Brazil? And earlier, Bangladesh and all that? You might insist that this are isolated incidents that have nothing to do with global warming. If so, they're getting pretty regular lately, and pretty wide-spread. Much more so than anything we have records for in the last centuries.quote>

That's inland flooding caused by heavy rains, which is a separate issue from sea level rise.

quote>

The Brisbane River is a tidal river at least where the city is. There was a reason the flood peaks were at the interval they were and why we had to evacuate or sandbag at particular times. Like in time for 4 am and 4 pm.

Climate change is not just sea level rise, that is but one consequence. Of more concern to non-coastal as well as coastal areas are the increase of more extreme climate effects such as extended and deeper droughts, more severe and frequent storms or greater extremes of temperature.

Cimate change is about the interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and their chemistry, not just about how much water is in them or out of them.

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

I am sorry for the people in Brisbane, but to a certain extent they made their own problems.  When you pave over river estuaries and swamps that would absorb a lot of extra water, you are in a funny position when you complain about flooding. 

Australia is not a poor country, and foolish municipal politicians are a disease world wide.  Chickens have come home to roost and now you complain you can't make chicken soup.  Many of the problems in Brisbane are man made.  People should not live in flood plains that should, at best, be made into parks.  You are not alone, many foolish people live in river bottom land, then complain when it floods.  Change is inevitable.  You can't always expect things to be the same from year to year, nor can we now do anything about climate change.  It will be interesting to see what Brisbane does about recovery from the unparalleled mess, the loss of life, the loss of property.  Will they go back to living in the same circumstances or is the lesson learned?

...

When the recovery gets going, if it does, in the current disaster areas, and I include Haiti in this, who aren't very far along after a year from their earthquake, measures have to be taken to prevent or avoid a recurrence.  So dry your tears and start thinking about how you can fix this, and stop it from happening next year.

quote>

Harsh words. I happen to live in one of the more affected areas of the city. But I doubt there is any place on this planet that humans could live that they would be guaranteed to be free of any kind of possible disaster, and most people could probably expect to see at least one in their lifetimes no matter where they live. Personally I think I prefer drought and flood to things like fire,  earthquake, avalanche or civil war. There's no good reason to make it any worse than it is though and with climate change people will likely see more disasters like floods, storms, drought and cyclones than they do now as well as other consequences like crop failure.

But many of us don't have much choice where we live. There are reasons the city is based around a river and those reasons occasionally have dire consequences. And you can't exactly up and move a city this size just because you want to. Even if you did you'd just have to put it down on another river with the same problems.

And most lives weren't lost in Brisbane. Most were in the Lockyer Valley, and again there are reasons the towns were where they were.

I think though we are one of the better prepared cities in the world, especially in flood mitigation and more capable than many of dealing with it. But there is a limit to what you can do with engineering, town planning and emergency preparedness. If I had to face this kind of disaster I think I'd prefer to be in Brisbane than anywhere else.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Brisbane, and Australia in general need to take a leaf from the book being written in New Orleans.  While the cause was somewhat different, the result is the same.  It is time for good civil engineering that should have been at least started sometime earlier.

As for harsh words, if the truth hurts you have only yourselves to blame.  Tidal cities are in some imminent danger because the climate change is putting more moisture in the atmosphere, and this is the engine that drives the big storms.  Being generally warmer gives them more energy, with the result you have seen.  Instead of wasting energy blaming this or that ocean phenomenon, assume it is a permanent seasonal condition and get on with your necessary fixes.

Far too many people in responsible positions have been dong the ostrich act for a couple of decades now.  It is time to pull out heads, and thumbs, and get going.  The going is going to be rough, so they had better be tough.

Sea level changes are inevitable, but will be gradual.  They should be included in the calculations at ten times the predicted rate, which are based on rationalized statistics.  The time for rose-colored glasses is over.

As for old Blighty, the Gulf Stream is not guaranteed, and may become a circular current in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of climate changes taking place.  If this should occur, the islands would be in the chilled soup.  Some preparations should start now.  New tidal gates at London are a start, but what else are you up to?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Sam

Climate change is not just sea level rise,quote>

Never said it was. But I was talking about that problem specifically, and how the displacement of people as a result of it is commonly exagerated.

Of more concern to non-coastal as well as coastal areas are the increase of more extreme climate effects such as extended and deeper droughts, more severe and frequent storms or greater extremes of temperature.quote>

Here's the question I have to ask, though: the way it's commonly presented, people act like the effects are all going to be dry areas getting dryer and wet areas getting wetter. Is this really realistic? What reason do we have to believe that climate change would result only in an exageration of existing weather patterns, rather than a shift in them entirely? I wouldn't be surprised if the changes in the weather aren't all bad. Why wouldn't we see some areas which are currently deserts may see more rain and suddenly become arable? Why wouldn't we see some areas which are currently very prone to huge storms and flooding suddenly become drier?

Take, as a thought experiment, the gulf stream example. If arctic ice melting pushes it south, it will certainly suck for Europe, but what about North Africa? Might all that warm water being directed at the Sahara bring it a little rain? Can't say it will, and this is just an example I'm throwing out there, but we have to at least consider these possibilities.

After all, climate and weather are very complex. We are nowhere close to having a comprehensive understanding of how they work. Can we really say that all the effects of warming changes all over the world will be nothing but harmful? That's a pretty bold claim. Bold enough that the extent of what we know does not permit us to reasonably make it. There are some pretty large gaps in our knowledge, some which we probably aren't even aware of (and it's the stuff you don't know you don't know that gets you), and the only way to fill such gaps is with reasoning that will inevitably become subjective. And in that, there is then a politically motivated desire to make the issue all doom and gloom. Beware the tendency to draw the conclusions one wants to draw.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I believe your huge inland sea on the American continent is called The Salton Sea, and for it to return you would have to destroy the land-bridge running along the California coast.  Since this is pretty much tectonic mountains now, this isn't likely, but it is worthy of note that Death Valley is still below sea level.

Looking at things from a Geological perspective, pretty much all the land we have now was once inundated by either fresh or salt water.  Core samples almost anywhere come up with sea fossils.  An exception at the moment may be found in Iceland where the Atlantic rift is on the surface and is building more new land all the time from its magma pockets, and maybe Yellowstone, which is a volcanic caldera of enormous size.

Climate change is driven by several factors and is really beyond our control.  We can only get out of the way, and survive. 

We are in the tail end of the last ice age, and ice ages are followed by a period of global warming/climate change before the next cycle.  The length of the cycle varies, but I don't think we need to worry about glaciation of the continents for several centuries.  Inundation may turn out to be out the big problem as the ice caps finally convert to water, but this will be very gradual.  On top of everything else, we have tectonic drift which is the cause of vulcanism and earthquakes.  We know a lot about plate tectonics now, and I think we probably know more about that than we do about the weather.  Pretty much anything we know about the old dirt ball comes from physical observation.

If Douglas MacArthur were alive today, he would be very worried about his beloved Philippine Islands, because in the long scheme of things, they may well become an island group with only the mountain tops visible.  Many low-lying island groups and atolls will disappear before the end of the current deglaciation, but new ones are being born along the rifts.  Iceland has picked up at least two new islands in the last few decades.

We heed to be very careful of what we may try to ameliorate the situation.  Remember that the oceans are the lungs of the world, and put out most of the oxygen we breathe.  At the same time, the oceans have billions of tons of frozen methane, and if they get warm enough for it to melt, we will become a tropical planet uninhabitable in the equatorial zone.  Of course if this happens, the permafrost will add its methane to the mix as well, and become a full scale muskeg.  Canada and Russia will lose a lot of living land because it will become a swamp.  The polar bears are good swimmers, but I don't know how they do in mud.  They will probably move south into the boreal forests near the Rockies and revert, over time, to being grizzly bears.

As the ice age has been winding down over the last hundred centuries, several peoples have become dependent on glacial melt for water.  One area of note is the Ganges basin which is watered by the melt from the nearby Himalayan cordillera.  Without the ice melt, there may not be enough precipitation run off to support the population there, and we can expect serious privation on the Hind.  It is possible that the foothills of the Himalayas may become a semi-desert, at least on one side, due to orographic effects on rainfall.  This will also have serious implications for China in that area.  Tibet may well become drier.  All this will depend on atmospheric water vapour and wind changes which are not particularly predicable at the moment.

With a warmer earth, we can expect more energetic cyclones over the oceans, which will certainly stir up the surface.  Navigation will become more perilous on the surface, so that subsurface shipping may well become practical.  Large drogue envelopes towed by submarines may become the best way to move bulk materials around the globe.  The trick will be to keep them off the surface and away from cyclonic disturbances until you are in port.  Our advanced sonar systems should make this eminently possible.  It will remain impractical to ship bulk quantities by air, and with the disappearance of cheap energy, air travel may become more restricted.  Atmospheric storms are not going to help this situation either.

[soltangris 42]

I wouldn't be surprised if the changes in the weather aren't all bad. Why wouldn't we see some areas which are currently deserts may see more rain and suddenly become arable? Why wouldn't we see some areas which are currently very prone to huge storms and flooding suddenly become drier?

 

The reason I'm insisting that climate change is moslty, if not altogether bad, is that we have adapted to the current state of affairs, and the current distribution of arrable lands and mild climate. This means that most of the world's big cities are in reasonably mild climates, and not in extreme climates like polar or equatorial. Of course, there are exceptions, but what do you think will happen if general climate in Europe becomes worse in the next 50 years? How many peple will be willing to stay and live there?

On the other hand, even if it starts raining steadily in Sahara, do you know what do we have there right know? Stones, salt, sand. How's that for arable land? Even with all the rain it could get, you won't receive anything but wet sand, wet rocks and diluted salt. You can't grow crops in that. And the formation of arable land takes... I don't know, maybe several hundreds of years?

To summarize: yes, climate change doesn't mean that the weather worsening in point A excludes the weather getting better at point B. The problem comes from most of the people living in point A, not point B, and doing most of their activities also in point A.

And the further problem comes from the fact that so far there's no way to tell where exactly point B will be, where the weather becomes mild. So, we can't start migrating there already....

So, I completely agree with Nonny Moose that far too many people have played the ostrich for far too long. While they worry about their reelection and the annual GDP, the planet is gonna fall apart in our hands. They need the good old kick in the rear, so they finally wake up and dedicate serious efforts to countering, or at least preparing for climate change. As opposed to speaking big words for the public, and then proceeding as they always did....

[blade2k5 1,523]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

I believe your huge inland sea on the American continent is called The Salton Sea...quote>

Actually no, that is incorrect.  The shallow sea he was referring to covered the middle part of the US east of the Rockies.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

With a warmer earth, we can expect more energetic cyclones over the oceans, which will certainly stir up the surface.  Navigation will become more perilous on the surface, so that subsurface shipping may well become practical.  Large drogue envelopes towed by submarines may become the best way to move bulk materials around the globe.  The trick will be to keep them off the surface and away from cyclonic disturbances until you are in port.  Our advanced sonar systems should make this eminently possible.  It will remain impractical to ship bulk quantities by air, and with the disappearance of cheap energy, air travel may become more restricted.  Atmospheric storms are not going to help this situation either.

quote>

You make it sound like there will be storms all over the place to the point where the only way to effectively avoid them would be to stay under. Not so. Travelling underwater consumes a lot more energy than travelling on the surface (that much more drag from the water), and so it makes no sense to do unless necessary for tactical or safety reasons. And it doesn't take that long for a submarine to dive, so there is no need to have a habit of staying under. Ergo, even if in the future cargo vessels are designed to be submersible to avoid nasty storms, they will still be spending most of their time on the surface.

And I really don't see that anyway. Large cargo ships are not like yachts. Due to their size and mass, they are quite resilient and very capable of weathering storms just fine on the surface. And the trend is that they are getting larger.

Not to mention that with weather forecasts, one needn't be able to go under storms to avoid them. One can simply steer around them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@Duke87: It is not that long ago that an "unsinkable" bulk carrier disappeared without a squeak in the Sea of Japan.  Only the determination of a relative of one of the crew made if possible to eventually find the wreck scattered across several km. of deep sea bottom.  The final conclusion is that the forward ventilator covers had been ripped off by the storm and that the ship gradually become bow heavy and eventually put her nose into a wave and kept driving into it.  Thankfully, when she went it must have been quick.  The ship, in spite of the latest instrumentation and weather forecasts, was done in by a hyper-typhoon.

On the great lakes, a similar fate overtook the bulk carrier Edmund Fitzgerald in a winter storm.  A ship that had her in sight said she just disappeared.  Turned out later that she broke her back on a shoal, was taking on water and losing freeboard running for port.

Submarines of current design are faster underwater than on the surface, by the way.  A lot has been done on reducing drag.  Latest models look like gigantic whales, and perform just as well.  Of course they are military models, but what do you do with a boomer when peace breaks out and it still has twenty or more seaworthy years in it?  Mothballing is a waste.  At New Zealand, for instance, the cargo pods would have to be transferred to non-nuclear vessels, but this is just passing a towing harness.

As for simply steering around a storm, try it sometime when you have a deadline to meet, or nowhere to go.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

It is not that long ago that an "unsinkable" bulk carrier disappeared without a squeak in the Sea of Japan.{...}The ship, in spite of the latest instrumentation and weather forecasts, was done in by a hyper-typhoon.quote>

I'm not saying that ships are unsinkable. I'm saying that they're sturdier than you give them credit for. Obviously ocasionally disaster will strike. But so long as it is a rare enough occurance, it isn't necessarily going to be cost-effective to engineer around the problem. Risk versus benefit,

Submarines of current design are faster underwater than on the surface, by the way.quote>

Because they are designed to be staying underwater pretty much all the time. A boat designed to spend more time on the surface would be designed differently and would be a different story.

Of course they are military models, but what do you do with a boomer when peace breaks out and it still has twenty or more seaworthy years in it?quote>

Hah. Keep dreaming. The need for militaries isn't going away. Ever.

At New Zealand, for instance, the cargo pods would have to be transferred to non-nuclear vessels, but this is just passing a towing harness.quote>

On that note... funny thing about non-nuclear vessels: the need for oxygen for combustion of fuel prohibits them from being able to stay underwater for very long. New Zealand's policy thus becomes rather self-detrimental if the need for submarines you predict ever arises.

As for simply steering around a storm, try it sometime when you have a deadline to meet, or nowhere to go.quote>

I'm sorry, but choosing to steer through a dangerous storm because you have a deadline to keep is just stupid. Better late than dead. As for having nowhere to go... you only end up in that position with poor planning and a lack of foresight. Weather forecasts are available days in advance. That is more than enough time to steer around or, if necessary, hunker down and wait for the storm to pass. The problem really is that schedules are given priority over safety which, as I said, is stupid.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Duke87

I'm sorry, but choosing to steer through a dangerous storm because you have a deadline to keep is just stupid. Better late than dead. As for having nowhere to go... you only end up in that position with poor planning and a lack of foresight. Weather forecasts are available days in advance. That is more than enough time to steer around or, if necessary, hunker down and wait for the storm to pass. The problem really is that schedules are given priority over safety which, as I said, is stupid.

quote>

No one should ever say that the captains of these vessels were stupid.  Sometimes, in spite of the best information available, things just overtake them.  It seems that the particular typhoon in question was predicted to dissipate, but did not.  the ship was caught in a position of having to go on.  They were well past the point of no return and expected to make port the next day.

With the Edmund Fitzgerald case the storm appeared after they had left port.  Apparently the winds were far stronger than predicted and the leeway put them on a bank, where they just touched.  with a cargo of bulk iron ore, that was enough to pop the keel and start taking on water.  The ship made for the nearest port, but didn't make it.  Upper great lakes storms often appear out of smaller disurbances that are reinforced when they encounter all the open water in Lake Superior.  This storm had hurricane force winds.

The east end of Lake Superior and the shipping lanes down Huron to the Sault is a graveyard of ships.

Going down to the sea is something man has done for millennia.  The risks are there, and you have to cope with them.  Have you ever been out in a boat in a storm, Duke?  I have, on several occastions, and I was skipper.  You don't do this deliberately, but getting chased into any convenient port is something you give thanks for if you arrive.