Alex deSherbinin: It’s a bit like a massive uncontrolled experiment…
That’s environmental researcher Alex deSherbinin of Columbia University, talking about the potential impacts of climate change on humans. Scientists believe climate change may force people in environmentally stressed regions to migrate.
Alex deSherbinin: We could see drying, to a degree that agriculture is no longer tenable, so people have to move out of those areas.
DeSherbinin is referring specifically to sub-Saharan Africa. But in Bangladesh, another vulnerable area, he suggested rising sea levels may be the problem.
Alex deSherbinin: I could see situations where you see people moving back from low-lying coastal areas, parts of the Ganges Delta becoming largely uninhabitable.
Still, deSherbinin’s unsure when, or if people will leave their homes. Because migration is also driven by social forces – not just environmental ones.
Alex deSherbinin: We cannot adequately model or foresee what kind of responses individual households or families or whole communities will take once situations change.
Even in the US, where drought is forecast, many may choose to stay put.
Our thanks to:
Alex deSherbinin
CIESIN, Columbia University
New York
It is already happening, since I have the urge to go to Hawaii for a couple of months, but lack of money means I will be there a week.
I wonder why theyre always posting the negatives on global warming. Thats why im not convinced. The way I see it, warmth is good. Any animal would rather want warm rather than cold. A polar bear likes -20 degree weather better than -40 degree wheather.
Global warming will be of great benefit to the species of our planet..its greatest benefit being the extinction of the human race therefore ensuring the survival of earths biodiversity
I would disagree. Polar bears like it when they have sea ice to live on. When it’s warmer, there is less sea ice, and they have trouble swimming the distance from ice floe to ice floe. They might end up drowning. I can’t speak for polar bears, but this seems like an unpleasant result of warming. The same thing may happen to human settlements. Alex spoke of the Maldives, an island nation with an elevation below sea level. The president recently started a fund for his country’s relocation.
We write about “the negatives” of global warming because that is what the scientific research reflects.
Scientists believe there will be winners and losers as climate changes. We in the U.S. are more likely to be among the winners. Those in the impoverished country of Bangladesh are more likely to be among the losers.
If you don’t care about that … no one can make you care.
I care about the truth, but its hard to find truth in this world. Yes you have some proof but alot of it is theories. There are so much variables to this that its impossible to find the right cause. Ive heard people blame it on cows for the monoxide gas they give off. Theres not enough hard data to point to the real cause or at least proove by how much each variable is increasing our planets temperature.
It is not impossible to find the right cause. The consensus of world scientific opinion (based on thousands of studies) is that human activities are the cause of recent global warming. Not every detail of possible mechanisms or outcomes is known now, or probably ever will be for something as complex as the Earth’s climate, and because we are talking about about thousands of scientists conducting thousands of investigations, they don’t all agree 100%, but that does not mean that we don’t know the basic causes or likely effects of global warming. There is solid consensus among scientists (as opposed to bloggers and newspaper reporters) that recent global warming is due primarily to human activities.
Do we know everything there is to know about the causes of cancer? Of course not, but does that mean that we should do nothing to combat it? Let me assure you, as an environmental scientist, and one who has spent a fair amount of time reading the studies by atmospheric scientists, as opposed to blogs and editorials by non-scientists, enough is known about the causes and potential impacts of global warming on both humans and other species that immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts.
BTW, the statement about animals preferring warmer climates belies serious ignorance about ecosystems and biology on the part of the writer. BTW, the concern about cows has to do with METHANE, not MONOXIDE.
Scientific fact is not a popularity contest which is what conseuus is. Remember the scientific conseus of the 14 cn. was that the world was flat and Earth was the center of the universe.
Au contraire, Bob.
There is no consensus that humans have cause d global warming. In fact, there is no consensus that there is global warming. Humans are not a pathogen.
Besides, warming might be very beneficial. However, it looks more like the earth is heading to its more commom cold cycle.
One question. What is the average temperature of the Earth supposed to be? That is, are we moving up to the right temperature, are we at it, or are we moving down to it? I’ve never heard what the temperature is supposed to be. Just a bunch of anti-capitalists screaming the sky is falling and the U.S. must be destroyed to fix it.
Bob the Scientist,
Your choice of words reflects the punitive and discounting bias that I see regularly in the ranks of climate change alarmists. The general message is if you agree with the assertion that climate change is entirely anthropogenic you are a legitimate scientist. If you disagree, you are obviously a blogger or newspaper reporter.
Science is not a popularity contest or numbers game. Rational science is not led by consensus or political agenda. It is when grant money is doled out to one side of the debate and almost entirely withheld from the other; when peer review is granted only to confirming abstracts; when debate occurs only inside appointed governmental panels, that I raise serious questions about the role consensus plays.
There is indeed a significant and growing body of climate scientists (in the thousands), among them Nobel Prize winners, who are voicing skepticism over the very weak body of evidence for anthropogenic forced climate change. Anyone who says that the debate is over and the results are in makes the claim using anything but scientific methods and ignores the growing body of evidence that sheds new light on albedo forcings almost completely ignored in UPCC reports and climate models to this day.
UPCC’s chairman, Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri’s recent comments comparing skeptics to “Flat Earthers†further underscores the strongly biased and closed mind of the UPCC towards any research findings that don’t fit with political agenda. He and others like yourself, who make such discounting remarks, do little to promote legitimacy of your message to an increasingly informed and skeptical public.
“Alex deSherbinin: We could see drying, to a degree that agriculture is no longer tenable, so people have to move out of those areas.”
Nonsense! Frank Wentz et al shows by actual measurements during a known warming period between 1986 and 2005 precipitation increased by 1.1% and 1.2% or by 6.5%/C. This is hard science people.
The only way for drought to increase is by cooling. GK