Climate Change: Uninhabitable Earth Possible By 2300

Environment - The Independent:

Climate change could make much of the world uninhabitable within just three centuries, research released Tuesday showed.

Scientists from Australia's University of New South Wales and Purdue University in the United States found that rising temperatures in some places could mean humans would be unable to adapt or survive.

Read the whole story: Environment - The Independent

Comments

[dragonmaster]

05:51 AM on 06/19/2010

At the rate each year we are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere it will not be the year 2300 when the earth becomes inhabitable.

A 3 degree rise Celsius by 2050 could make the area of Iowa, Nebraska and the Midwest into a desert. The ramifications for famine, water shortages and wars to fight for these soon to be precious resources could doom us long before the planet is to hot for living things.

[Publicola]

11:43 PM on 05/28/2010

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (and 12 other national science academies), 2010:

"The IPCC 2007 Fourth Assessment of climate change science concluded that large reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases, principally CO2, are needed soon to slow the increase of atmospheric concentrations, and avoid reaching unacceptable levels. However, climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid. Feedbacks in the climate system might lead to much more rapid climate changes. The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

[fuppedup]

09:24 AM on 05/25/2010

Hurry up pass Cap and Trade. The earth is 4.5 Billion years old but passing climate change legislation and redistributing wealth from the wealthy nations to poorer nations will cure our ills. Yup i am drinking that kool-aid....

[Publicola]

05:29 PM on 05/25/2010

Yale University:
----------------------------------
Reducing Carbon Emissions Could Help, Not Harm, U.S. Economy

New Haven, Conn. –A national policy to cut carbon emissions by as much as 40 percent over the next 20 years could still result in increased economic growth, according to an interactive website reviewing 25 of the leading economic models being used to predict the economic impacts of reducing emissions.

Robert Repetto, an economics professor at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies who created the site, said, “As Congress prepares to debate new legislation to address the threat of climate change, opponents claim that the costs of adopting the leading proposals would be ruinous to the U.S. economy,” he said. “The world’s leading economists who have studied the issue say that’s wrong."
----------------------------------
http://environment.yale.edu/news/Research/5624

[TQQ]

08:11 PM on 05/17/2010

Belief in global warming is silly and misguided.

[realpolitic]

12:45 PM on 05/16/2010

I am even getting tired of insulting the science deniers. Are they worth the time and effort? They are at heart a sorry group of misanthropes.

[StephenBP]

12:51 PM on 05/16/2010

Agreed. Time to think about what to invest in going forward.

[realpolitic]

12:56 PM on 05/16/2010

They are such a tiresome group, but do tend to flee when presented with the facts.

[TQQ]

01:56 PM on 05/16/2010

Warmers are often mean spirited. Not all but many.

[realpolitic]

03:55 PM on 05/16/2010

So temperatures are not warming? It is not a position, but an observation.

[Publicola]

04:16 PM on 05/16/2010

Yeah - how dare those pro-science people observe that global warming deniers are in denial of reality - how rude of them.

[realpolitic]

12:15 PM on 05/16/2010

Science deniers quit denying or go to your rooms!!

[Dettinger]

11:21 PM on 05/15/2010

300 years left? So much for green technology and the lord-god Obama. That's simply too little time to stop the problem so here's a suggestion. All you libs show solidarity for the climate by canoing to Antartica. Hike into the interior, strip down and wait to freeze to death. You'll remove your entire carbon footprint, ease the stress of overpopulation and reduce the amount of food the world needs. The rest of us will follow you shortly.

[gallon]

12:23 AM on 05/16/2010

Do you have anything positive to contribute, perhaps?

[topo456]

01:01 AM on 05/16/2010

Yet another with his head up his ar*#

[TQQ]

02:14 AM on 05/16/2010

Warmers have a difficult time with dissenting opinion.

[StephenBP]

04:51 PM on 05/15/2010

March 2010 was the warmest March on record for our little planet. Now this doesn't prove anything about life or the lack of it in 300 years, but if you were not aware of that fact until just now, you might ask yourself, "Why didn't I hear that on FOX news?". You might ask yourself,"Why didn't I hear this on CNN?" You might ask yourself, " Why did I not hear about this on CBS?" You might ask yourself, "Is this unusual, that there is no record of a March being this warm in over a hundred years since records have been kept?". You might wonder, "Is there something to this global warming?". You might wonder, " Are things warming up, and if so, how fast?". You might. But you can be sure that if you say something about those thoughts out loud and in public, a FOX News listener will try to group-think you into silence. Try it and see. Opinion and raw feelings trump science and fact in much of what passes for modern America. It's embarassing. Dropouts from our educational system like Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck command the attention of the numbed, telling them not to worry, we are not effecting our climate. What has America turned in to, where dropouts like these somehow command respect, and people with Ph.D.'s are treated like criminals? Not good.

[Dettinger]

11:17 PM on 05/15/2010

Group-think you into silence...You truly demonstrate what egotistical, arrogant, self-righteous cowardly bullies the liberals are. You attack anyone who listens to FOX or any of the others mentioned because you're afraid people will stop listening to you. So much for Libs liking freedom of speech. You're a phony. Try to listen, watch and read without snap judgments. It's hard but it's possible, even for you. You might learn something that will unbalance your carefully crafted view of the world. Don't worry, you'll survive. You may even find cause to question your own views. I did 36 years ago. I'm still doing it.

[TQQ]

12:29 AM on 05/16/2010

Warmers are like lemmings.

[gallon]

12:35 AM on 05/16/2010

Lots of projection in your post there Dettinger. StephenBP makes valid points. It wasn't necessary for you to attack him.

[myparentskid]

02:22 AM on 05/16/2010

I was wondering as to your source/s on March 2010, being the warmest March on record..
Where did you see/hear this?

[Adolphthegreat]

04:23 PM on 05/15/2010

That's all theory. Without all the 'social' spending we would solve these silly theories and move on to things that are really important. The only reason for all the pap about global warming is political power and money for things like algore. Climate change has always been, will always be, a part of the planet. Nothing people can/have/will do will change the natural pattern one iota.

[Publicola]

04:36 PM on 05/15/2010

Adolphthegreat: "That's all theory. "

Relativity Theory, Quantum Theory, Electromagnetic Theory, Thermodynamic Theory, and the Theory of Evolution - "that's all theory".

Adolphthegreat: "Climate change has always been, will always be, a part of the planet."

That straw man has always been, will always be, a part of the misleading global warming denier talking points.

[TQQ]

06:01 PM on 05/15/2010

Al Gore has made a small fortune spreading a myth.

[Publicola]

08:44 PM on 05/15/2010

Entrenched energy interests have made a huge fortune pushing the lie that Al Gore is spreading a myth.

[gallon]

09:24 PM on 05/15/2010

And Big Energy piles up a Vast Fortune by perpetuating the denial.

[Arcadian]

03:31 PM on 05/15/2010

for anyone to even care about what happens 300 years from now, is bull. you'll be dead.
the dead dont cry or wonder the abyss, they are dead, no soul goes toward heaven and stares down at the earth, if i was a soul why would i stay on earth for?? think about it. sheesh.
300 years you would not care. not even your children children would even care.
i hate when these so called study comes up trying to change the world by saying ANIMAL will evolve to adapt, of they will they have always adapted. NO NONSENSE Thinking like this should be killed before its grows into something worst making people worrry about the future, when they should worry ABOUT NOW!!!

Give me a break 300 years Ill be dead you'll be dead(unless you are immortal) which i doubt. so get over it.

[Publicola]

04:08 PM on 05/15/2010

Yeah - it's "bull" to care about the world we leave our descendants.

[gallon]

09:26 PM on 05/15/2010

Well, some of us (you for example) only care about our own hides. Every man for himself in your world eh? The rest of us prefer a civilized approach.

[robert1776]

02:29 PM on 05/15/2010

Anyone that thinks that a slowly changing climate could create large areas of uninhabitable areas is just not thinking clearly. We already inhabit every extream area of this planet. The fact is that this planet will be uninhabitable on day but it will most likely be caused by a massive Volcano or Asteroid, than any man made climate change. Does that mean that we shouldn't be resposible with resources and always look for ways to live cleaner and more efficientaly absolutly not. However stop trying to convince me that if I don't change my light bulbs and by a hybred that get 6 miles to the gallon better fuel milage than my current car, that I am going to cause people in three hundred years to not be able to live in Central America or wherever they are claiming to not be inhabitable. Take a deep breath and realize that every day is a gift and that nothing is guranteed, not even tomorrow.

[Publicola]

02:52 PM on 05/15/2010

robert1776: "Anyone that thinks that a slowly changing climate could create large areas of uninhabitable areas is just not thinking clearly. We already inhabit every extream area of this planet."

Deserts are barely inhabitable now without water being delivered from elsewhere. Do you really think that without water from elsewhere they'll be inhabitable to any substantive degree if the earth warms another 13 degrees F, to say nothing of 20 degrees F?

-----------------
"It would begin to occur with global-mean warming of about seven degrees Celsius (13 Fahrenheit), calling the habitability of some regions into question," the researchers said in a paper.

"With 11-12 degrees Celsius warming, such regions would spread to encompass the majority of the human population as currently distributed."
-----------------
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/earth-may-be-too-hot-for-humans-by-2300-study-1970969.html

[realpolitic]

12:22 PM on 05/16/2010

Bangladesh is already under water much of the year. You are fooling yourself.

[StephenBP]

02:02 PM on 05/15/2010

"America has the opportunity to lead the world in a new industrial revolution," Chu said at an energy jobs summit in Aurora. But he warned that China's investment of $9 billion per month to diversify energy sources away from coal far exceeds America's spending.

That is in about complete disagreement with your advertisement for coal below, mr. charlie. I am doubtful about your statement.

You get bonus points from fossil fuel central for bringing up France and Al Gore, and a clever insertion of a false dichotomy. And the new obfuscation strategy is clever. Something along the lines of ' yes global warming is real, but its scaring people, and clean coal will save the day' . Yes clean coal, that wonderful mixture of thorium, uranium, cadmium, mercury and fossil fuel.
Have a lovely day.

[robert1776]

02:43 PM on 05/15/2010

But for Global warming fanatics we can't stop using fossil fuels fast enough and it is just not realistic, we will have to bridge the transition to renewables over a fairly long period of time until real solutions that make economic sense become more efficient and available. You can't solve the problem by simply saying that we have to stop using 40% less oil in the next 10 years it is just not possible, yet. and you can't even have the conversation without considering Nuke power.

[Publicola]

02:58 PM on 05/15/2010

robert1776: "But for Global warming fanatics"

By "global warming fanatics" do you mean people who understand that the scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming?

Speaking of: Do you understand that the scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming, robert1776?

[TQQ]

02:54 PM on 05/15/2010

Warmers need to relax a bit. Go to a baseball game, have dinner and a movie, and enjoy yourself. Try not to be so bleak and angry.

[Publicola]

03:02 PM on 05/15/2010

Global warming deniers need to comprehend a bit. Go to a library, read science books and peer-reviewed journal articles, and enjoy yourself. Try not to be so ironically condescending and ignorant.

[charles77]

01:38 PM on 05/15/2010

To solve Climate Change, Both sides accept the truth.

The majorities of so-called “deniers” are not really saying it is ok to put more and more CO2 into the air. The real problem is that every solution offered costs more than they can afford. They understand that the whole purpose of a “carbon tax” or “cap and trade”, just as proponents do, is to raise prices on current forms of energy so new forms can compete. They read that many of these new forms of energy are many times more expensive that coal, that means electric bills many times higher. They are hearing about a future where they cannot afford energy, that’s too hard to contemplate, hence the denial. And all the science cannot convince them the consequences of putting CO2 in the air, is worse than a future they cannot afford.

And for the Al Gore side who love point to France and say SEE, the French only have 1/3 the carbon footprint per person of an American, so we should do better. Then turn around and fight any new nuclear plants in the US. Obama’s DOE Head Dr. Chu, said wind and solar cannot supply over 20-25% without storage.and cost 5 times more. And unlike Al Gore, Dr Chu is a PhD in PHYSICS and a Nobel Prize winner in PHYSICS, Google Dr. Chu’s interviews. It is NOT “Coal” or “wind and solar”, it’s Coal or Nuclear, with a little wind and solar.

[Publicola]

02:17 PM on 05/15/2010

charles77: "The majorities of so-called 'deniers' are not really saying it is ok to put more and more CO2 into the air."

The majority of - of not all - global warming deniers deny that the scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.

charles77: "The real problem is that every solution offered costs more than they can afford."

Yale University:
--------------------
Reducing Carbon Emissions Could Help, Not Harm, U.S. Economy

New Haven, Conn. –A national policy to cut carbon emissions by as much as 40 percent over the next 20 years could still result in increased economic growth, according to an interactive website reviewing 25 of the leading economic models being used to predict the economic impacts of reducing emissions.
--------------------
http://environment.yale.edu/news/5624

charles77: "DOE Head Dr. Chu, said wind and solar cannot supply over 20-25% without storage.and cost 5 times more."

5 times more than what? And cite your source - thanks.

charles77: "And unlike Al Gore, Dr Chu is a PhD in PHYSICS and a Nobel Prize winner in PHYSICS, Google Dr. Chu’s interviews."

And like Al Gore, Dr Chu understands that the scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.

[Publicola]

02:24 PM on 05/15/2010

Also like Al Gore, Dr. Chu understands that to combat the very real global warming threat fossil fuel emissions need to be substantially reduced.

[Publicola]

02:18 PM on 05/15/2010

charles77: "It is NOT 'Coal' or 'wind and solar', it's Coal or Nuclear, with a little wind and solar."

Unlike Dr. Chu's thinking, your thinking is too binary here. First off, when is 20-25% "a little wind and solar"? Second, you are neglecting a major part of the solution - greater energy efficiency. Third, you are neglecting other forms of 'alternative' energy, including geothermal and glucose fuels - which not incidentally Dr. Chu is a big supporter of. To the extent that nuclear fission is *also* needed to break our fossil fuel dependency and to address global warming Dr. Chu supports it, as do I.

[StephenBP]

01:31 PM on 05/15/2010

I ain’t afraid of bigfoot, and I ain’t afraid of no flying sauciers, and I definitely ain’t afraid of no global warming! Them conspiratorialists at NASA and NOAA ain’t got no idea what they are talking about. Infa-RED. That some commie business is what it is. I ain’t never seen no infa-RED. You ever seen an Infa-RED? Ha! Carbon dioxide. I ain’t never seen no carbon dioxide. What type of trash they talking anyway? The world ain’t gettin hotter. It’s gettin dumber is what it is.
Snark off.

[Publicola]

01:42 PM on 05/15/2010

"Infa-RED. That some commie business is what it is."

Heh. Fanned.

[robert1776]

02:45 PM on 05/15/2010

I'm afraid of Bigfoot!!

[StephenBP]

01:11 PM on 05/15/2010

What do they know? They is just scientists. Now you take my boys Beck, Limbaugh, or Hannity, them what’s more smarter than any scientists, they so smart they didn’t need to finish college! Them’s the ones that I put MY money on. Those national academies of science from all them foreign countries like China, India, Russia, Sweden, and England, what do they know? They is just scientists. And we know how wrong those pointy headed scientists can be don’t we now boys? Why is those scientists always trying to scare us? I ain’t scared of no global warming. I ain’t scared of no global warming. They are all trying to SCARE us. We ain’t afraid. No way boy. We are not afraid!
Snark off.

[TQQ]

01:20 PM on 05/15/2010

Belief in global warming is akin to belief in Bigfoot and flying saucers.

[Publicola]

01:41 PM on 05/15/2010

Let me guess: you're not a scientist, are you.