Another ridiculous scare tactic: 2 billion climate change refugees by 2100


From the “it didn’t work out with 50 million, so let’s go for 2 billion and date further our that can’t be verifed in our lifetime” department. Remember the “50 million climate refugees by 2010” scare, that worked out so badly that the U.N. had to “disappear it” from their website?

Well, like zombies that never die, it’s back, and stronger than ever. But, it’s from a sociologist, so take it with a grain of salt, and maybe the whole salt shaker.


Rising seas could result in 2 billion refugees by 2100

CORNELL UNIVERSITY

ITHACA, N.Y. – In the year 2100, 2 billion people – about one-fifth of the world’s population – could become climate change refugees due to rising ocean levels. Those who once lived on coastlines will face displacement and resettlement bottlenecks as they seek habitable places inland, according to Cornell University research.

“We’re going to have more people on less land and sooner that we think,” said lead author Charles Geisler, professor emeritus of development sociology at Cornell. “The future rise in global mean sea level probably won’t be gradual. Yet few policy makers are taking stock of the significant barriers to entry that coastal climate refugees, like other refugees, will encounter when they migrate to higher ground.”

Earth’s escalating population is expected to top 9 billion people by 2050 and climb to 11 billion people by 2100, according to a United Nations report. Feeding that population will require more arable land even as swelling oceans consume fertile coastal zones and river deltas, driving people to seek new places to dwell.

By 2060, about 1.4 billion people could be climate change refugees, according to the paper. Geisler extrapolated that number to 2 billion by 2100.

“The colliding forces of human fertility, submerging coastal zones, residential retreat, and impediments to inland resettlement is a huge problem. We offer preliminary estimates of the lands unlikely to support new waves of climate refugees due to the residues of war, exhausted natural resources, declining net primary productivity, desertification, urban sprawl, land concentration, ‘paving the planet’ with roads and greenhouse gas storage zones offsetting permafrost melt,” Geisler said.

The paper describes tangible solutions and proactive adaptations in places like Florida and China, which coordinate coastal and interior land-use policies in anticipation of weather-induced population shifts.

Florida has the second-longest coastline in the United States, and its state and local officials have planned for a coastal exodus, Geisler said, in the state’s Comprehensive Planning Act.

Beyond sea level rise, low-elevation coastal zones in many countries face intensifying storm surges that will push sea water further inland. Historically, humans have spent considerable effort reclaiming land from oceans, but now live with the opposite – the oceans reclaiming terrestrial spaces on the planet,” said Geisler. In their research, Geisler and Currens explore a worst-case scenario for the present century.

The authors note that the competition of reduced space that they foresee will induce land-use trade-offs and conflicts. In the United States and elsewhere, this could mean selling off public lands for human settlement.

“The pressure is on us to contain greenhouse gas emissions at present levels. It’s the best ‘future proofing’ against climate change, sea level rise and the catastrophic consequences likely to play out on coasts, as well as inland in the future,” said Geisler.

###

Source: http://mediarelations.cornell.edu/2017/06/23/rising-seas-could-result-in-2-billion-refugees-by-2100/

The paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837715301812

Impediments to inland resettlement under conditions of accelerated sea level rise

Abstract

Global mean sea level rise (GMSLR) stemming from the multiple effects of human-induced climate change has potentially dramatic effects for inland land use planning and habitability. Recent research suggests that GMSLR may endanger the low-elevation coastal zone sooner than expected, reshaping coastal geography, reducing habitable landmass, and seeding significant coastal out-migrations. Our research reviews the barriers to entry in the noncoastal hinterland. Using three organizing clusters (depletion zones, win-lose zones, and no-trespass zones), we identify principal inland impediments to relocation and provide preliminary estimates of their toll on inland resettlement space. We make the case for proactive adaptation strategies extending landward from on global coastlines and illustrate this position with land use planning responses in Florida and China.


Apparently, the sociologist is relying on projections like this one, which suggests a 6 meter rise:

Source: Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets

Reality suggests otherwise. Here is St. Petersburg, which has a 6 inch (0.1524 meter) rise in 65 years with no apparent acceleration. 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
157 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lucius von Steinkaninchen
June 26, 2017 9:37 am

2100 is the new 2000. People started to project all their pet doomsday scenarios to a new date conveniently beyond their lifetimes.

Bryan A
Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
June 26, 2017 10:02 am

Sounds to me like it is time to begin building sea walls and locks along the coast and spend those climate reparation demanded $Trillion$ protecting our own country. Start at 15′ above sea level and add a foot every other year.

Reply to  Bryan A
June 26, 2017 1:35 pm

At the typical rate of sea rise (or land sink, in many cases) – add a foot every 130 years.
Of course, if you start with the 15′ you recommend – you’ll be good until about the year 4000…

Joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  Bryan A
June 26, 2017 1:54 pm

Go over to Skeptical science (the non science website) – they frequently print articles such as
1) sea level rise 3-6 feet rise by the end of the century.
2) accellaration of Sea level rise doubling the rate of rise in 10-15 years – starting with a rate of 1mm per year in 1870 to 3.4mm today. Yet unable to comprehend the rate of increase is due to a change in measurement and not due to any real change in the rate of sea level rise

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
June 26, 2017 2:26 pm

Since most predictions do not exceed 70′ starting at 15 and adding 1 every other year will yield near the 70′ (22 meter) height by the end of the century. Then even their worst case is covered

Menicholas
Reply to  Bryan A
June 26, 2017 8:19 pm

The worst case is wasting a lot of time and money on a ridiculous theory that has no hard evidence to back it up…not one shred!
Not one cent to fight a make believe made up problem invented by scaremongers.
The fraud is coming to a conclusion very soon, with any luck at all.
Which part of “There is no acceleration of the rate of sea level rise” is unclear to those who are advocating buying into one tiny bit of this idiocy?

Ron
Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
June 26, 2017 11:01 am

A lot of Holland is already below sea level. They seem to have dealt with the issue.

SteveC
Reply to  Ron
June 26, 2017 12:02 pm

+1

rogerthesurf
Reply to  Ron
June 26, 2017 12:56 pm

What about Venice then? 🙂

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Ron
June 26, 2017 12:57 pm

Schiphol airport has an elevation of -3m.

Reply to  Ron
June 26, 2017 1:43 pm

@roger – Venice is a great example. Of sinking, that is. Been doing it for about 1,000 years now, in fact, ever since they founded the city on a swamp.
It has been accelerating in recent years – but not due to “climate change.” Groundwater removal for many years is the cause, no matter how much the idiots want to claim it is evil CO2. They’ve stopped pumping it out from directly beneath the city, but the water table is still being depleted “upstream,” so it is not rising either.

george e. smith
Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
June 26, 2017 3:07 pm

Well there have never been any reports of Residents of Zealandia seeking Climate Refugee Status as a result of climate caused level shifting of the Zealandia Terrain; or Aquarain.
g

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
June 26, 2017 3:18 pm

There may in fact be a rush to seek asylum in Zealandia, of former America’s Cup Racing sailors, seeking refuge from the wrath of Larry Ellison; now that Emirates Team New Zealand, have won the Auld Mug, by winning eight races to Team Oracle USA’s one win, which was actually lost in a suicidal tactical blunder by the one Australian member of the ETNZ crew.
As I recall, ETNZ lost several races in Oracle’s remarkable nine win streak in San Francisco, also entirely due to totally idiotic strategic errors by the very same Australian Tactician on the ETNZ crew.
But hey Larry. The rules is the rules, and your chaps won in SF under the rules.
And YOU personally have given all of us a terrific spectacular Regatta on at least two occasions. Thank you for that.
G

Graphite
Reply to  george e. smith
June 27, 2017 12:44 am

Next America’s Cup will have Italy’s Luna Rossa as the challenger of record and there’s a strong possibility that a nationality clause will be inserted into the rules. How stringent that rule will be won’t be known for some time but it’s sorely needed. The Bermuda semi-finals were contested by two Kiwi-helmed boats, an Aussie-helmed boat and an English-helmed boat. The Cup itself was a Kiwi-Aussie affair.
Not that victory wasn’t sweet but if the event wants to be regarded as a truly international sport then the crews need to have a dinkum connection to the country they’re sailing for. Otherwise, as Jerry Seinfeld said about baseball, you’re just cheering for the laundry.
I know that in 1992, when American Rod Davis helmed the New Zealand boat, the level of enthusiasm for the event was not far above lukewarm in these parts.
I’d be interested to know your references about the “suicidal tactical blunder by the one Australian member of the ETNZ crew”. This has to be Glenn Ashby, who’s listed as skipper and whose main task is to trim the sail. Anything I’ve gleaned about the sailing of the boat suggests that tactics were Peter Burling’s domain.

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
June 26, 2017 4:30 pm

They don’t know the difference anymore between science and science fiction.

MarkW
Reply to  I Came I Saw I Left
June 27, 2017 6:38 am

I don’t remember who said it
“Of course truth is stranger than fiction, fiction has to make sense.”

tg
June 26, 2017 9:40 am

Alice in wonderland is a much better story than Warmist – Tales from the climate crypt!

ShrNfr
Reply to  tg
June 26, 2017 12:35 pm

Cryptic comment that.

MarkW
Reply to  ShrNfr
June 27, 2017 6:39 am

You can put that in acrylic.

ron long
June 26, 2017 9:44 am

Does this mean the fishing will get better? Bring it!

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  ron long
June 26, 2017 9:45 am

good point, the Miami hi-rises would make great artificial reefs

Javert Chip
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
June 26, 2017 3:03 pm

Well, they already make good artificial investments.

Mark from the Midwest
June 26, 2017 9:44 am

By the year 2094 dogs will be able to speak rudimentary Flemish. Now someone prove me wrong!

jclarke341
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
June 26, 2017 10:31 am

Yes, but they will speak with a horrible lisp. This will cause people to make fun of them, damaging their self-esteem. In retaliation, Dogs will develop a rudimentary secret code in Flemish, coordinating a massive attack on humanity. By the year 2100, there will be 2 billion dog-attack refugees, competing with 2 billion climate change refugees for their survival. It is worse than we thought!
I guess I can now add Sociologist to my resume! Awesome!

Merovign
Reply to  jclarke341
June 26, 2017 11:01 am

The plan will go horribly awry when cats learn to fly airplanes.

jclarke341
Reply to  jclarke341
June 26, 2017 11:17 am

Cat’s flying planes? Now it is worse than I thought than when I thought it was worse than I thought! I need more money to study this.

RWturner
Reply to  jclarke341
June 26, 2017 11:20 am

The future is grim for mankind when dogs learn Flemish, and inevitably English because they learn that one cannot get by with speaking Flemish alone. My models show it will go a little something like this:

ShrNfr
Reply to  jclarke341
June 26, 2017 12:37 pm

Cats flying airplanes? Now that is truly catastrophic.

Reply to  jclarke341
June 26, 2017 1:14 pm

MY model shows that spoken language, as we know it, will become extinct by 2150, as hand waving will replace all previous forms of verbal communication. Written communications will also follow this more gestural form, as a sort of hieroglyphics becomes the norm.
After dogs do THEIR language thing, and cats learn to fly, they all will mutate into very large beasts, many times larger than the largest dinosaurs, multiplying rapidly, increasing their numbers by billions. The resulting respiratory exhalations of their large lung capacities will increase CO2 to 2000 ppm, counteracting every measure that humans tried to limit this noxious gas.
Plants will grow to gigantic size. The Venus flytrap will increase to a size large enough to eat humans, and they will tend to prefer the taste of those who have negative attitudes towards CO2 — don’t ask me how they will know — they just will — a hormonal thing, I suspect. The flytraps will sniff out the CO2 haters and ingest them in mass numbers, thereby reducing human population numbers significantly, which will be poetic justice for those haters who endorsed this all along.

TheLastDemocrat
Reply to  jclarke341
June 26, 2017 6:28 pm

jclarke – not quite – you need some five-dollar words in there. I understood everything you said on the first pass.

Iain Russell
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
June 26, 2017 1:00 pm

Frisian, Mark, Frisian. Flemish is sorta Dutch and understandable to a Dutchman, but even klompjes can’t understand Fries!

Bryan A
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
June 26, 2017 2:31 pm

Considering that Dogs really already understand every spoken language on the planet
Sit
Stay
Speak
Down
No
Outside
Park
Walk
Flemish should present little problem
Many Bulldogs are already fluent in Phlemish

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
June 26, 2017 2:32 pm

Phlegmish…dang fast fingers

tim
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
June 27, 2017 6:46 am

They wont be speaking Flemish if the dogs in Wallonia have anything to say about it.

Editor
June 26, 2017 9:44 am

6 meters of additional sea level rise by 2100?comment image
You can’t even get to 1 meter without an exponential acceleration to a rate faster than the Holocene transgression:comment image

Bill Yarber
Reply to  David Middleton
June 26, 2017 11:36 am

There you go again, using data, logic and science to refute their nightmare scenarios! You’re not playing fair: reason, facts and science don’t fit their narrative! Shame on you for not following their rules!

Editor
Reply to  Bill Yarber
June 26, 2017 3:57 pm

I had a go at working out how melting ice sheets could raise sea levels by more than simple maths would suggest – ie, looking for positive feedbacks. There might indeed be some, but they aren’t that easy to find.
– Weight taken off land -> land rises. Clearly -ve feedback.
– Land exposed to erosion -> more silt in sea -> sea rises? Maybe, maybe not. Do glaciers erode more or less than weather?
– More coastal erosion -> more silt in sea -> sea rises? Could be a +ve feedback, but how big an impact could it have? The area involved would be relatively small.
And then, against all that, you need to consider that cities grow and shrink, and people move naturally. The average age of houses in the US is I think less than 30 years, and commercial facilities and infrastructure would rarely go that long without replacement or a major revamp, so the idea that some places will become uninhabitable in 100 years doesn’t seem all that terrifying. It’s like evolution – environments change and species adapt – and humankind is pretty adaptable. Isn’t it?

Thomas Homer
Reply to  David Middleton
June 26, 2017 11:52 am

[ 6 meters sea level rise – you can’t get there from here ]
I would like to see the math that’s used to arrive at six meters of sea level rise. I never see the formula for the volume of a sphere invoked, then we’d see that each additional 1/8th of an inch of sea level rise requires slightly more volume than the previous one. Also, what assumptions are used about the volume of actual existing ice that will melt to raise the sea level. That volume cannot be 100% ice. What percentage of that volume is the bubbles that are used in the ice core analysis? What percentage of that volume is crevices and/or voids?

Reply to  Thomas Homer
June 26, 2017 1:00 pm

I won’y pay to read the paper… But my guess is that they are using an RCP 8.5 model and/or assuming a Meltwater Plus 1A style collapse of the WAIS… AKA Science fiction.

Gabro
Reply to  Thomas Homer
June 26, 2017 1:21 pm

Anti-science fantasy.
Complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet would raise sea level some 7.2 meters. But it didn’t melt during the Eemian Interglacial, which was hotter and lasted longer than the Holocene. Its Southern Dome might have last perhaps 25% more mass than it has so far in the Holocene.
Complete melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would add about another 3.6 meters. The gigantic East AIS isn’t going anywhere. It has been around for 34 million years and formed under much warmer temperatures than now.

Menicholas
Reply to  David Middleton
June 26, 2017 8:30 pm

Thank you David for injecting some facts into this inanity.
It has been long since demonstrated that the sea would have to rise faster that during meltwater pulse 1A for anything remotely like these clowns are hyperventilating about.
It is not going to happen.
Period.
End of story.
Besides, the amount of land which would become habitable if the high latitudes warmed up enough to cause enough melting at a rate rapid enough to cause any sort of dislocations.
Are any of these warmista jackasses aware of the fact that land was reclaimed from the sea by the Dutch at a time where they were using shovels and pumps powered by wooden windmills to accomplish the task.
To be a warmista, you have to be completely and willfully ignorant of all of history, and to be an alarmist you have to pretend that people are incapable and lazy fools who do not know how to walk as fast as a bacteria can crawl.

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
June 26, 2017 8:31 pm

Doh!

Editor
June 26, 2017 9:47 am

Speaking of sea level nonsense, Bloomberg Gadfly even managed to find a place for it in an article about Black Swans

The Oil Glut Camouflages Some Vicious Black Swans
By Liam Denning
June 23, 2017 1:42 PM EDT
One of the more disconcerting consequences of climate change is how warmer water is quietly destabilizing large parts of Antarctica’s ice sheet — which might then in turn inflict catastrophic changes to sea levels everywhere.This is how anyone in the oil market should be looking at the Middle East today.
[…]

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-06-23/middle-east-conflict-rises-oil-market-yawns

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
June 27, 2017 6:44 am

So you have found another dolt who believes that melting sea ice will raise water levels.

Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2017 7:11 am

Actually, I think his analogy was that a collapse of the WAIS would be really bad, but is highly unlikely. And that oil traders should view potential major wars in the Middle East the same way.

June 26, 2017 9:48 am

Garbage in – Garbage out.

rocketscientist
Reply to  cognog2
June 26, 2017 10:00 am

+10
They might as well determine the refugees and social unrest caused by asteroid impacts, or extra-terrestrial invasions.
Invent a doomsday scenario and one can spin all sorts of potential effects, none of which will have any effect on the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
If they were really serious they would be determining the social upheaval caused by erroneous and false climate alarmism.

Richmond
Reply to  cognog2
June 26, 2017 11:54 am

Which is also called, “The Conservation of Crap.”

JJM Gommers
Reply to  cognog2
June 26, 2017 12:18 pm

Normally “Garbage out” has a very bad smell

Tom Halla
June 26, 2017 9:48 am

“Developmental Sociology”? That sort of studies is almost certainly like Environmental Health Engineering, designed for bureaucrats wanting an “advanced degree” with as little study as possible.

Doodle
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 26, 2017 10:14 am

I was thinking a more discrete version of “propaganda minister” as that seems to be his role here.
They have officially become a mockery of themselves… Think of the mind games you’d have to play with yourself to convince yourself that people should simply obey you and fear what you’re saying because of a non-related title.

Cam_S
June 26, 2017 9:48 am

“Geisler extrapolated that number to 2 billion by 2100.”
What does “extrapolated” mean?

Reply to  Cam_S
June 26, 2017 10:07 am

Multiplied like rabbits

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Cam_S
June 26, 2017 11:21 am

Extrapolated: made up a number that lies outside the range of valid data. See also P.O.O.M.A. Number.

Bill Yarber
Reply to  Cam_S
June 26, 2017 11:39 am

In his case: pick a scary number that will get me attention and lots of funding!

Jer0me
Reply to  Cam_S
June 26, 2017 1:08 pm

What does “extrapolated” mean?

Rectal extraction

Menicholas
Reply to  Cam_S
June 26, 2017 8:41 pm

Extrapolated in this context means “made up off the top of his head”.

Max Hugoson
June 26, 2017 9:49 am

Dikes in Holland are 10 to 15 meters ( 30 to 40 feet) high.
1/3 of Holland would be under water without them.
NOT A PROBLEM. Lose Miami or build a dike. Let’s see. Say you have to spend 100 Billion to build the dikes.
Amortized 20 years, that’s 5 Billion per year. 800 Billion GDP for Florida, that’s a 0.5% tax on the economy to save the most populated areas.
NADA nothing, great employment for 10 years for construction and Civil Engineers.

Reply to  Max Hugoson
June 26, 2017 10:08 am

Miami is already spending millions in preparation for accelerated sea level rise… https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/05/miami-beach-is-spending-millions-to-hold-back-the-sea/
However, sea level rise in the Miami area is not accelerating and it is rising at a rate of about 1 foot per century.comment imagecomment imagecomment image
The satellite data indicate virtually no statistically significant secular sea level rise in the Miami area:comment image
I intentionally retained the “seasonal terms and mean” and did not smooth the data because the seasonal variability is real and at least 10 times the magnitude of any secular trends in sea level.
To the extent that there is a trend (R² = 0.0945), the rate of sea level rise in the Miami area is about 3 mm/yr.  This would lead to about 11 inches of additional sea level rise by 2100.comment image
A review of USGS topographic maps reveals very little in the way of inundation by by ~7″ of sea level rise from 1950-2012…comment imagecomment imagecomment image
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/16/alarmists-gone-wild-alarmist-co2-headlines-create-confusion-particularly-when-accompanied-by-sea-level-alarmism/

Haverwilde
Reply to  David Middleton
June 26, 2017 11:23 am

How much of the rise in sea level is due to rising water levels and how much is due to the land subsiding?
Do the same calculations for Gustavus, Alaska, and one will find that the sea levels is declining at an even more rapid rate.

Reply to  Haverwilde
June 26, 2017 12:58 pm

Miami is mostly due to actual sea level rise. The post glacial rebound (PGR) in Florida is only -0.5 to -1.0 mm/yr. Southern Alaska’s PGR is interesting because the land is rising up to 3.0 mm/yr and the local seafloor is subsiding up to 7.0 mm/yr…
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/milne_shennan_fig11.png
The net effect is a sea level fall of -10 mm/yr at Kodiak Island… https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9457292

ATheoK
Reply to  David Middleton
June 26, 2017 4:11 pm

David:
My understanding is that Miami has had flooding issues since the early 20th Century.
Exacerbated by groundwater extraction.

Reply to  ATheoK
June 26, 2017 5:01 pm

That’s part of the problem. Miami has probably had flooding problems since the end of the Pleistocene

I Came I Saw I Left
Reply to  David Middleton
June 26, 2017 4:41 pm

I believe that area where they are spending so much money to raise the streets 2′ is actually below sea level and has always flooded during king tides.

Menicholas
Reply to  David Middleton
June 26, 2017 8:47 pm

If one looks at the tide gages from the islands in the middle of the pacific, one might come to the conclusion that sea level is not rising at all.
And those are arguably the land areas that are the most isolated of any from any isostatic forces or groundwater issues.
They are the tops of large accumulations of rock anchored to the sea floor.

MarkW
Reply to  David Middleton
June 27, 2017 6:47 am

One of the reasons why coastal lands in Alaska are rising is due to stress building up. Stress that will be released in the next major quake up there.

Reply to  MarkW
June 27, 2017 7:19 am

Different forces. Part of Alaska was covered by the Cordilleran ice sheet and is experiencing crustal rebound. Crustal rebound is generally associated with lots of minor seismicity.
Alaska’s primary earthquake hazard is due to the Aleutian Megathrust Fault System…
http://jclahr.com/alaska/aeic/eq_in_ak/eq_in_ak.jpg
The Pacific Plate is subducting under the North American Plate…
http://www-udc.ig.utexas.edu/external/seminars/seminars/fall11/brown.png
This is what drives the 7-9+ magnitude quakes.

ATheoK
Reply to  David Middleton
July 4, 2017 12:37 pm

David:
Apologies for the delayed response; but Ryan Maue had a picture of a ship beached in Miami from the Great Miami Hurricane 1928, in his Twitter feed.comment imagecomment imagecomment imagecomment imagecomment image
Miami has built out further with larger building; while drawing heavily upon the fresh water aquifer below.
The only thing protecting Miami at all are larger buildings along the ocean side.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Max Hugoson
June 26, 2017 11:09 am

“Amortized 20 years, that’s 5 Billion per year. 800 Billion GDP for Florida, that’s a 0.5% tax on the economy to save the most populated areas.”
You are assuming, of course, that the rest of us in Florida would want to save Miami.

Menicholas
Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 26, 2017 8:48 pm

And that it will not be wiped off the map by at least one and possibly several cat 5 hurricanes between now and then.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Max Hugoson
June 26, 2017 3:18 pm

Max Hugoson
$100B to dike 5M Miami citizens?
How ’bout we give ’em $100, a cardboard box & tell them to move 100 miles north?

BallBounces
June 26, 2017 9:49 am

Typo — two billion people s/b “lives”. Which might work if it includes bugs…

Ian Magness
June 26, 2017 9:49 am

“professor emeritus of development sociology”
I’m sorry but that title just makes me laugh. Is it a real job? Does it achieve anything (hysterical articles not based on science aside)? I very much doubt it.

Sheri
June 26, 2017 9:50 am

Science from a crystal ball. Who could have seen that one coming? (pun intended)

rocketscientist
Reply to  Sheri
June 26, 2017 10:01 am

LOL

Gonzo
June 26, 2017 9:50 am

On a happy note think of all the great scuba diving and the salvage opportunities. There’s gold in them there sunken buildings.

June 26, 2017 9:54 am

This trick has been described by Mark Twain in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/86/86-h/86-h.htm#c24
Would they like to know what the Supreme Lord of Inde was doing? Yes. He told them what the Supreme Lord of Inde was doing. Then he told them what the Sultan of Egypt was at; also what the King of the Remote Seas was about. And so on and so on; and with each new marvel the astonishment at his accuracy rose higher and higher. They thought he must surely strike an uncertain place some time; but no, he never had to hesitate, he always knew, and always with unerring precision. I saw that if this thing went on I should lose my supremacy, this fellow would capture my following, I should be left out in the cold. I must put a cog in his wheel, and do it right away, too. I said:
“If I might ask, I should very greatly like to know what a certain person is doing.”
“Speak, and freely. I will tell you.”
“It will be difficult—perhaps impossible.”
“My art knoweth not that word. The more difficult it is, the more certainly will I reveal it to you.”
You see, I was working up the interest. It was getting pretty high, too; you could see that by the craning necks all around, and the half-suspended breathing. So now I climaxed it:
“If you make no mistake—if you tell me truly what I want to know—I will give you two hundred silver pennies.”
“The fortune is mine! I will tell you what you would know.”
“Then tell me what I am doing with my right hand.”

Reply to  Curious George
June 26, 2017 1:49 pm

+2100

Eustace Cranch
June 26, 2017 9:58 am

Florida has the second-longest coastline in the United States
Actually all coastlines are (almost) infinitely long… if you zoom in close enough.

rocketscientist
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
June 26, 2017 10:08 am

Hmmm…I always had been taught that Alaska had the longest coast line, and that Maine had the second longest (due to its erose coastline). Depending on how coastline is measured CA may exceed FL.

Steve Case
Reply to  rocketscientist
June 26, 2017 10:42 am

Michigan

Gabro
Reply to  rocketscientist
June 26, 2017 1:26 pm

By whatever method you use, FL trounces CA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_coastline

Javert Chip
Reply to  rocketscientist
June 26, 2017 3:21 pm

New Mexico.
The Rio Grande is a a very winding river.

Menicholas
Reply to  rocketscientist
June 26, 2017 8:56 pm

Florida has rivers too.
And a whole lot of islands.

Menicholas
Reply to  rocketscientist
June 26, 2017 9:00 pm

The drive from Key West to Pensacola by way of Jacksonville is near a thousand miles. That 1350 mile number fro CRS looks a tad low.

June 26, 2017 10:07 am

I expect a lot of “climate change policy” refugees from Sweden: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/06/15/sweden-passes-climate-law-become-carbon-neutral-2045/

Tom O
June 26, 2017 10:09 am

Well that ought to blow the footing out from under tidal power. Why bother to invest all that money on tidal power generators if they are going to be underwater in about 80 years? Waste of money. And how about all those off shore wind mills? Storm surge will be knocking them down in no time at all! Best to start relocating those funds into something that might have a chance to survive at least until 2100! Or am I the only person that looks at things this way?

Greg Woods
Reply to  Tom O
June 26, 2017 11:22 am

not to mention offshore birdchoppers…

Tom Gelsthorpe
June 26, 2017 10:13 am

Here’s how desperately people fear heat.
Florida has gone from half a million people in 1900 to twenty million today — a forty-fold increase in little more than a century. Most of ’em are “climate refugees” from places far to the north. Even the million or so Cubans who live in Florida come from a cooler climate. Because Cuba is an island, summertime temperatures are significantly lower than Florida’s.
California has gone from 1.5 million in 1900 to forty million today — like Florida, mostly migrants from cooler states who got tired of shoveling snow. The Mexicans in California come mostly from the Valley of Mexico, a high elevation that is cooler than the most populated parts of California.
Californians leaving the state often go to Texas, which is hotter than California.
But why should anyone heed facts, when scary propaganda is more thrilling. Believe the doomsayers, and disregard your own lying eyes.

Steve Case
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
June 26, 2017 10:46 am

Getting people to believe that a warmer world will be a catastrophic disaster is the probably most successful propaganda program ever.

Menicholas
Reply to  Steve Case
June 26, 2017 9:06 pm

Indeed…it is the craziest part of the whole crock of malarkey.

Clay Sanborn
June 26, 2017 10:17 am

Return of dinosaurs “could” result in 10 Billion human T-Rex, et al. victims by 2200. I’m so certain, I’d bet money on it.

Reply to  Clay Sanborn
June 26, 2017 11:23 am

Well, there is that guy that wants to make a dinosaur out of a chicken,
It could get out of control.
More plausible than most CAGW stuff … IMHO.

markl
June 26, 2017 10:19 am

The water is rising, the sky is falling, and it’s all our fault. And there is Trump with his finger in the dike holding back Climate Change. Thank God if there is one.

June 26, 2017 10:22 am

Reality suggests otherwise! Nice work.

Duncan
June 26, 2017 10:23 am

Honey!!! Grab the credit cards and get the kids in the Land Rover, we have to evacuate the beach house immediately. No, leave the dog, there is no time. Don’t bother locking the door, go, go, go. Kids, start the car! Why am I speeding, we need to outrun this thing, the cops are probably all dead anyway. Yes, traffic does seem light………

Reply to  Duncan
June 26, 2017 10:24 am

Thank God for Land Rovers!

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Duncan
June 26, 2017 2:58 pm

Hurry, hurry, you only have 83 years to escape!

June 26, 2017 10:24 am

2 billion climate change policy refugees by 2100
–Fixed that for you.

commieBob
June 26, 2017 10:26 am

Earth’s escalating population is expected to top 9 billion people by 2050 and climb to 11 billion people by 2100, …

That’s a shock. The version I was familiar with was that the population would peak in the middle of the century and begin to decline because of increasing urbanization and improving living standards.

Jørgen Randers, one of the authors of the seminal 1972 long-term simulations in The Limits to Growth, offered an alternative scenario in a 2012 book, arguing that traditional projections insufficiently take into account the downward impact of global urbanization on fertility. Randers’ “most likely scenario” predicts a peak in the world population in the early 2040s at about 8.1 billion people, followed by decline. link

The thing that will apparently offset the decrease in fertility is extended lifespans.

By 2100, the report assumes life expectancy to be from 66 to 97 years, and by 2300 from 87 to 106 years, …

The lifespan thing is a bit of a wild card. It has been said that the first person to live to 150 has already been born. link

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  commieBob
June 26, 2017 10:35 am

2015 revisions here:
Look for page 1 table 1

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  commieBob
June 26, 2017 9:36 pm

Just take away that second oxygen atom from CO2 and then see what happens to the population!

Latitude
June 26, 2017 10:28 am

Caution….trigger warming
Anyone that can’t walk any faster than that……

J Mac
June 26, 2017 10:29 am

The boy who cried “Wolf!” parable seems to apply here.
Was this guys ‘paper’ published in the ‘Wanted’ ads of Science Direct?
“Emeritus sociologists seeks attention and funding…..”

ScienceABC123
Reply to  J Mac
June 26, 2017 10:33 am

Perfectly put.

Richard
June 26, 2017 10:29 am

There could be more than 2 billion if global cooling occurs.

John F. Hultquist
June 26, 2017 10:30 am

Meanwhile a new island (Shelly) grows off the coast of North Carolina.
I’m not paying a month’s rent to read that paper. {My rent in 1965.}
I’ll just WAG that this is based on an impossible scenario — maybe the Yellowstone Caldera will go up in a glorious explosion or, perhaps the UN’s Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 happens. About equal probability, I think, but I give the nod to Yellowstone.

Nylo
June 26, 2017 10:38 am

Amazing how the most disastrous climate calamity ever seen in this planet, with agriculture suffering the worst part and a 6th wave of mass extinction running wild in the few countries that will have survived the increase in sea level… will for some reason not be enough to prevent human population from increasing to 11 billion LOL

Joe Civis
June 26, 2017 10:48 am

aahhhhh all of these “if this.. if that” statements remind me of what my father used to say…. “if my aunt had balls, she would have been my uncle”….. though in California it seems like the balls aren’t required anymore….
Cheers,
Joe

jclarke341
June 26, 2017 11:10 am

The dynamic nature of coastlines is never addressed in these scare stories. Huge storms can cause the coast to recede inland. But in between major storms, the coastline is being built up and expanding seaward in many areas, even at the present rate of sea level rise. A natural coastline is fairly resilient against sea-level rise at the current rate, and there is no indication that the rate is increasing.
It appears that contour maps of coastal flooding are derived from matching a projected sea level rise with the equivalent contour of a current topographical map, as if the rise was instantaneous. That is not how it works. 100 years of sea level rise will have to battle it out with 100 years of coastal expansion. This is a very complex problem, but the net result will certainly be far less than projecting an instantaneous sea level rise on a given coastline.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  jclarke341
June 26, 2017 11:41 am

But, but, but think of the children!
/s

Menicholas
Reply to  jclarke341
June 26, 2017 9:12 pm

I think we can take it as a given that the buffoons responsible for this tall tale have never even heard of the science called physical geography.

Merovign
June 26, 2017 11:10 am

What if giant sea monsters begin attacking coastal cities? What if tiny sea monsters turn people into zombies? What is the sea itself becomes a giant amoeba? What if potatoes grow legs?
Give me tax money, enact my policy preferences, because potato.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Merovign
June 26, 2017 11:45 am
RWturner
June 26, 2017 11:12 am

Cornell University, where excrement takes the form of science publications.

Gary
Reply to  RWturner
June 26, 2017 11:36 am

Charles Geisler, professor emeritus of development sociology at Cornell: “The future rise in global mean sea level probably won’t be gradual.”
The rarified air far above Cayuga’s waters leads some people to make unsupported claims.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 26, 2017 11:34 am

Instead of people in the USA going to stand on the Florida peninsula thus causing it to slowly sink from their extra weight, perhaps we should ask them to go and stand and jump up and down in Alaska thus redressing the balance. This makes about as much sense as the specious alarmist claims. Indeed, perhaps we could pay to bus the alarmists backwards and forwards between Florida and Alaska to keep things evened out. The cost would probably come in under the money being spent on totally unproductive green schemes and give useful employment to bus drivers.

Menicholas
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
June 26, 2017 9:14 pm

No doubt it is easier to invent nonexistent problems that to try to solve any of the real ones in the world.

June 26, 2017 11:40 am

I always take my questions about sea level rise to the nearest developmental sociologist, like
Professor Geisler. Never heard of developmental sociology, actually, but it must be good, judging by the terrific success of the other Sociological disciplines. (sac)

john
June 26, 2017 11:42 am

The way I see it, some folks are really going to be really happy with their unexpected and new found oceanfront property! I’m going into real estate now!!!!

June 26, 2017 11:51 am

File this between to the government’s plan to counter the zombie apocalypse and the war department’s scenarios for countering a planet of the apes style simian attack on human infrastructure.

richard
June 26, 2017 12:07 pm

Doesn’t make sense, I thought Climate change was going to be bad for mankind. Now they are saying the climate change is leading to an ever increasing population, so looks like beneficial to mankind.
In the past –
“5 ancient civilizations that were destroyed by climate change | MNN “

June 26, 2017 12:11 pm

Meanwhile back here on empirical planet earth, where we all empirically live:
“Scientists who mapped where land and water have shifted were surprised to find that Earth has gained more land than it has lost since 1985”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/water-land-sea-levels-shift-map/
.

Menicholas
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
June 26, 2017 9:16 pm

No room for facts in climate alarmism.
Go sit in the corner!

Joel Snider
June 26, 2017 12:18 pm

Another sociologist – a discipline that by necessity depends almost exclusively on the work done by others.

Terry Warner
June 26, 2017 12:24 pm

The proposition that sea level rise will displace 2bn people by 2100 is questionable.
Even if accepted as an actionable analysis of likely future circumstances, displacement will actually run at around 25m pa (2000m over the next 80 years). This ignores mitigation likely to be implemented over the next 80 years in existing coastal areas.
The impact on rainfall and agriculture in areas currently remote from the coast will inevitably change. The coastline wont disappear – simply change location.
It also assumes that population estimates are correct. There are already far too many homo sapiens exploiting limited resources. Political correctness and religious interest groups will not permit any tinkering the right to procreate. In truth we are like any other animals reproducing to the point of prompting an extinction event as animal numbers overwhelm sources of food and other materials.

Menicholas
Reply to  Terry Warner
June 26, 2017 9:19 pm

Well, everyone who has ever asserted that we will run out of resources has been laughably wrong, but that should not stop anyone from asserting it over and over again anyway.
In what year will people stop getting fatter?

June 26, 2017 12:42 pm

This ‘paper’ explains why the lead author is emeritus. He has clearly lost it.

Rick C PE
June 26, 2017 12:45 pm

If you want to find someone with an advanced degree in sociology or English lit in a college town, just hail a taxi.

John MacDonald
June 26, 2017 12:48 pm

“The colliding forces of human fertility,” Bjorn Lomborg, in his latest opinion piece a few days ago in the WSJ, continued his long-running theme that climate change will happen and that there is little man can do about it. In particular, he says that spending trillions of $ on CO2 reduction is a fools errand. The world would be much better off spending that money on economic development, clean water, education, war reduction and health care. I agree.
As we all know, rich societies reduce their birth rates substantially over poor ones. There-in lie the solutions to population and climate. Using free market principles, we can increase the economic well being of all and the problems of warming, food supply, and life and liberty all solve themselves. Why the greenies and the global politicians can’t see this logic is a mystery to me.

Reply to  John MacDonald
June 26, 2017 2:05 pm

+10

Paul Penrose
Reply to  John MacDonald
June 26, 2017 3:07 pm

Oh, they can see it John, but in they can also see that in this future, they are not in charge. People not under their control might do things that they don’t approve of. This frightens them, so obviously people need to be controlled (or so they think). Being morally and mentally superior, they of course must lead. But it is a burden they are oh so willing to accept.

Menicholas
Reply to  John MacDonald
June 26, 2017 9:27 pm

The big mystery is why they simultaneously promote policies that guarantee increasing numbers of people?
Like, forcing wealthy countries to accept by the millions, then feed house and clothe them for free, refugees who breed like flies?
And doing everything they can to keep the poor countries poor…when everyone knows full well that rising prosperity decreases birth rates.
The biggest factor in birthrates though, is the educational level of women in a society.
Get the girls to school, then college, if you want less people.

Michael Jankowski
June 26, 2017 12:50 pm

“…intensifying storm surge…”
Lol

Solsten
June 26, 2017 12:51 pm

Doesn’t seem to be affecting coastal housing prices.

tadchem
June 26, 2017 12:57 pm

At the current (claimed) rate of sea level rise – 3.3 mm per year [http://www.smh.com.au/environment/rate-of-global-sea-level-rise-jumps-50-per-cent-in-two-decades-20170626-gwyu52.html] – that 6 meter rise would take only 1800 years (about 90 generations) – far longer than any modern structures will last.
For the past 7000 years (since the end of the last Ice Age) the sea level has been rising 5.7 mm/decade (4m/7000y), mainly due to the greatly diminished availability of glaciers. When the glaciers are completely gone there will be no significant source of water to feed sea level rise.
Even the most panicky warmists seem ignorant of the fact that the NATURAL rate of sea level rise associated with the end of the Ice Age was about 106 meters in 8000 years (13,000 BCE to 5,000 BCE), or 132.5 mm/decade – 40 times faster than the rate that has them all soiling their undies.

Alec aka Daffy Duck
June 26, 2017 12:58 pm

the likely #1 cause of sea level rise is ground water extraction, followed by thermal expansion and glacier melt
1. From NATURE: Source found for missing water in sea-level rise
“A team of researchers reports in Nature Geoscience that land-based water storage could account for 0.77 millimetres per year, or 42%, observed sea-level rise between 1961 and 2003. Of that amount, the extraction of groundwater for irrigation and home and industrial use, with subsequent run-off to rivers and eventually to the oceans, represents the bulk of the contribution.”
http://www.nature.com/news/source-found-for-missing-water-in-sea-level-rise-1.10676
Think California, Texas, Louisiana et al will shut down wells?

Gabro
Reply to  Alec aka Daffy Duck
June 26, 2017 1:29 pm

Groundwater extraction can also lead to land subsidence.

rogerthesurf
June 26, 2017 1:00 pm

Well in my country we did have one attempt to claim refugee status o the grounds of sea level rise.
This person was from Kiribas.
The New Zealand court sensibly threw his case out and he was sent home.
Ironically, NZ has a immigration quota for Kiribas and it appears that it is rarely if ever filled.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

DonM
June 26, 2017 1:05 pm

The goal of crap like this is to create a basis for further “land planning”. What lands do we want control & in what manner. … how best to manage the masses (in a manner that makes him feel that his life is not a complete waste).
The warped psychology driving guys like this includes his desire & need to control others being at odds with his ideals of freedom that he learned in the 60’s.

DonM
Reply to  DonM
June 26, 2017 1:09 pm

He extrapolated 2 billion from the 1.4 billion that he says we will have in 2060.
He picked a date outside of his lifetime….
If he is correct I promise I will make it point to put flowers on his grave. If he is wrong no one will know.

markl
Reply to  DonM
June 26, 2017 7:10 pm

+1

RichDo
June 26, 2017 1:31 pm

Well instead of giving tax breaks to people who buy electric vehicles maybe the coastal states should give a tax credit for purchasing a mulching mower. All those grass clippings could probably keep pace with the sea level rise.

DHR
June 26, 2017 1:55 pm

The St. Petersburg tide gauge shows a rise of 2.71 mm/yr while the GPS “gauge” shows the land is sinking at a rate of 2.2 mm/yr. See http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/map.html and https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8726520 for the data.

Man Bearpig
June 26, 2017 2:18 pm

I think the final number will be closer to a trillion by 2025
/sarc

Resourceguy
June 26, 2017 2:58 pm

Make your checks out now to the New Orleans levee boards or the Democratic Party. There will be a 20 percent penalty if you are late.

fretslider
June 26, 2017 3:15 pm

Not having paid to read the paper, I’m still willing to bet it has the ‘needs further research’ caveat to make it clear that more funding is required.
I have an idea for a paper: The effects of climate change on the diurnal sleep patterns of Felis catus and the corresponding loss of interest in balls of string.

knr
June 26, 2017 3:24 pm

it’s from a sociologist, to be fair when it comes to the ability to produce BS and ignore facts climate ‘scientists’ run sociologists a close race , so claim could , has it as in the past, have easily come from them .

Matt G
June 26, 2017 4:09 pm

Sea level rate has generally not changed during at least one global cooling and global warming period. The change in climate made no difference to the rate whether warming or cooling.
The high majority sea level rise has been caused by increasing mass in the oceans specifically by volcanic activity. Volcanic eruptions under the ocean have always caused sea levels to slowly rise by consuming space that the ocean previously occupied, but this fact is not mentioned by alarmists. The planet has experienced huge changes with exception to this, but has been caused by huge glacial changes around polar and mountainous regions, with varying continental plates and ocean configurations.
The no change in rate provides evidence that any glacial changes over recent decades have made no difference to the overall rate, mainly caused by igneous rocks forming in the oceans.
The claim of any rate greater than about 3 mm per year is not supported by any scientific evidence and based on assumptions not verified by any observed data.
The GIA (glacial isostatic adjustment) is also an assumption and easily has an error 50% or greater.

June 26, 2017 5:58 pm

Nothing Wrong With doing worst case scenario studies.
Note this is not a prediction.
It is a scenario study.
[there’s PLENTY wrong with it when such scenarios are used to scare people, and this one assumes there’s no adaption or mitigation. It assumes people will lose their homes and become “refugees”. In other words, its bullshit. -Anthony]

Matt G
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 26, 2017 8:25 pm

The Greenland ice cap melting by 2100 is not a worst case scenario study, it is IMPOSSIBLE to occur.

Mike Slay
Reply to  Steven Mosher
June 26, 2017 8:49 pm

An honest worst case scenario study would have projected a 1 meter rise in sea level by the end of the century. If they’re just going to make up stuff, why pick 6 meters? Ten meters is a nice round number, no?
The plots of sea level over time show virtually no second derivative. We’re well past the point where the sea level rise was predicted to accelerate. Something’s not working out. The modelers clearly need to go back to the drawing board and figure out why their predictions missed the mark by such a wide margin.
Instead, they publish ever more inflated predictions and the only defense they can mount for this silliness is that they’re “worst case scenarios.”
Seriously?

getitright
June 26, 2017 7:53 pm

“The future rise in global mean sea level probably won’t be gradual…..
The key qualifier as the present data indicates a gradual sea level rise too insignificant to support his claims.

June 27, 2017 3:37 am

The sea level regularly goes up AND down (and up again)
In only 20 times the length of time since the Battle of Hastings:-
The Polar Ice Cap has shrunk from London to the other side of Greenland
And the English Channel has filled with sea water.
In only 100 times the length of time since the Battle of Hastings,
The Polar Ice Cap has expanded from the other side of Greenland all the way to London and then back again.
And the English Channel has emptied of sea water and then filled-up again
Evidence and detail in my blog article :-
http://steelydanswarandpeace.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/will-brighton-be-swallowed-by-sea.html

R Taylor
June 27, 2017 3:54 am

But I thought our species had already been reduced to a few breeding pairs in the Arctic.

Resourceguy
June 27, 2017 10:23 am

The Carl Sagan Award for Ludicrous Climate Predictions from Saddam’s Oil Well Fires goes to…..

June 27, 2017 10:34 pm

I’m feeling embarrassed for my alma mater.

%d bloggers like this: