What Happened To the Climate Refugees? 471
Attila Dimedici writes "In 2005 the UN said that by 2010 there would be 50 million climate refugees. They even provided a map of where they would come from. However since that original story was posted the UN has taken down that page. They apparently don't know about Google cache."
United Nations University, Not the UN (Score:5, Informative)
This article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with America's science reporting. If the UN had released a report claiming 50 million global warming refugees by 2010, there would be dozens of news articles on it. The supposed incriminating evidence is a Google Cache page with this map [grida.no] that doesn't itself say anything about refugees, but does highlight areas most susceptible to sea level rise. The "50 million climate refugees by 2010 [googleusercontent.com]" statement is not referenced anywhere in any UN report, it's a six words on one defunct graphic that was part of a larger report on world agriculture [grida.no] by the UN University. This 50 million by 2010 figure comes from Dr. Bogardi at the UN University in Bonn [guardian.co.uk], NOT the United Nations.
The problem with this prediction being made by any scientist is that keeping track of how many refugees there are is difficult (current estimate by the UN is 1 million a year [unep.org], a figure that the Red Cross lends support to with the statement that environmental disasters are displacing more people than war now) and the causes are debatable. The epic flooding in Pakistan created 10 million refugees [reuters.com], Hurricane Katrina added a quarter of a million refugees [www.cbc.ca], and desertification in Africa is displacing millions. Can we blame these events on Global Warming? Hurricanes and floods happen without a warming world, but a warming world increases the chances of such disasters happening.
Then there are the refugees that no one realizes. In the small coastal town where I live in North Carolina, houses have been falling into the swamp one by one for decades, but the residents blame it on people building their homes in flood zones, not realizing that sea levels in their state have risen three times the rate of rise on the rest of the Atlantic coast [sciencedaily.com]. People didn't build their homes in the water, the water rose 1.5 meters over the 50 years since they were built, but nobody realizes this because of landscape amnesia [wikipedia.org].
You can read all about the various estimates concerning environmental refugees on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. It took the author of this untruth less than an hour to post their nonsense and the deniers flooded the Internet with it quickly. It took me two hours to research and write this response, because I wanted to know what I was talking about, and I will only reach a very small audience in comparison. This is why I despair when considering how science could possibly stand a chance against the overwhelming confidence ignorance brings the unscientific masses.
News from this 'Anthony Watts' denier... (Score:0, Informative)
Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (Score:1, Informative)
This 50 million by 2010 figure comes from Dr. Bogardi at the UN University in Bonn [guardian.co.uk], NOT the United Nations.
from Wikipedia:
"The United Nations University (UNU) is an academic arm of the United Nations"
It took me two hours to research and write this response
You are either a terrible researcher or a liar.
Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (Score:5, Informative)
Looks like you didn't read either.
"Furthermore, the acceleration appears consistent with other studies from the Atlantic coast, though the magnitude of the acceleration in North Carolina is larger than at sites farther north along the U.S. and Canadian Atlantic coast and may be indicative of a latitudinal trend related to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet."
The article does state that NC's coast is creeping more quickly than at other points along the Atlantic coast.
Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (Score:5, Informative)
"It seems more than a little illogical to state that sea levels rise higher in one Atlantic coast state than the others."
Nothing illogical. 'Sea level' is an averaged value, which depends on currents and winds.
"And the primary sea level rise occurred well before the evil auto culture."
Coal was used in large quantities even before automobiles.
"But then I'm just an ignoramus according to the above post."
And here we both agree.
Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (Score:1, Informative)
Your response clearly demonstrates what's wrong with your countries science reporting. You go blasting one writer only to make mistakes yourself. Just for a start,
People didn't build their homes in the water, the water rose 1.5 meters over the 50 years since they were built, but nobody realizes this because of landscape amnesia [wikipedia.org].
Wrong. Nowhere in the article does it say the water rose 1.5 meters over 50 years. What it does say is:
The rate of relative sea-level rise, or RSLR, during the 20th century was 3 to 3.3 millimeters per year, higher than the usual rate of one per year.
Averaging to a 16.5cm rise for 50 years. Far from the 1.5 meters you claim.
Anthony Watts is a known shill (Score:4, Informative)
The author of that propaganda piece is a known shill of whatever industry pays him.
Here's a video [youtube.com] that he tried to take down unsuccessfully.
Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (Score:3, Informative)
Citing a report from the UN University, UNEP said that there were now more than 19 million people officially recognized as “persons of concern” – people who are likely to be displaced because of environmental disasters. UNEP said that figure is expected to grow to about 50 million by the end of 2010.
That article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with the UN's science reporting. You can't have it both ways -- expect us to believe what the UN says about climate when we can't prove them wrong, and expect us to ignore their claims when they have been proven wrong. Making outrageous predictions like the above is political grandstanding at its worst, and has no place in science.
Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Someone needs to read his links (Score:2, Informative)
Er... RIGHT side of the graph?
Take another look. Particularly at the x axis.
DID the UN claim that? (Score:5, Informative)
I would like to know why the UN said this in the first place
Is there any evidence that the UN made this prediction at all?
From TFA to the original paper [osce.org] there is a huge difference. For instance, TFA cites population growth in islands like Bahamas, St. Lucia, and Seychelles, which were never mentioned in the paper.
What Dr. Myers actually said is that there were 25 million refugees in 1995 fleeing disasters caused by desertification and global warming and that number could double in ten years. This seems a perfectly reasonable claim, if one wants to discuss it the best way would be to get hold of Dr. Myers method for counting refugees and defining which ones are "environmental" and see if that prediction became true.
Now, instead of doing this, TFA says the UN has "removed" a page that they, so much smarter than the UN that they are, recovered from Google cache. Then they invent a lot of false data, but they never realized that the actual paper is readily found by googling so their lies are easily debunked.
Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (Score:5, Informative)
Original paper is NOT about global warming (Score:5, Informative)
With so many people posting their own version of facts, it helps knowing the past history of such people, so that you can disregard their claims. What made me google for this Anthony Watts was the claims he made that the UN had predicted 50 million refugees coming from Bahamas (population 330000), St. Lucia (population 173765), and Seychelles (population 84000).
With numbers like these, something looks wrong. So I googled for the original study [osce.org] to find out what it said. it was no surprise that neither Bahamas, Seychelles, or St. Lucia were mentioned there.
What it says is that there are million of refugees coming from regions affected by desertification and that number is increasing [thenewamerican.com].
And you know what's the funny thing about all this? If you take the trouble to actually read the paper Dr. Norman Myers wrote, you will notice that he does not mention global warming at all. What he calls "environmental refugees" are, in his own words, "people who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their homelands because of drought, soil erosion, desertification, deforestation and other environmental problems, together with associated problems of population pressures and profound poverty. In their desperation, these people feel they have no alternative but to seek sanctuary elsewhere, however hazardous the attempt."
In their haste to deny global warming, people like Anthony Watts do not even try to find out who they should write against...
Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (Score:5, Informative)
I am a student living in Bonn. I had never heard of the "UN university" so I looked it up. Bonn is a tiny university town and
already has one big university, the aptly-named University of Bonn, so I was suprised to discover that
it had another university hiding somewhere. As it turn out the "UN university" consists of four levels of a UN office building in the middle of the UN compound. From the website "The offices of UNU-EHS are located on the 22nd and 26th-28th floor of the Langer Eugen building on the UN Campus." It is fully funded by the UN and has nothing to do with Germany or Bonn. You made it sound like its some kind of private institute using the UN name, but its not. To call it a part of the UN is completely accurate.
Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (Score:3, Informative)
rgb
Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (Score:5, Informative)
What you're saying is true in terms of the climate lag, but your understanding of what it means is miles off. The fact that warming cycles due to orbital changes are followed by changes in atmospheric CO2 does not invalidate or in any way call into question the fact that CO2 causes additional atmospheric warming, nor that anthropogenic emissions have caused substantial warming.
A good idea in the future would be to take anything you hear about climate change and search the Skeptical Science page for it. Read this for more information:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm [skepticalscience.com]
Re:The shape of the sea surface changes (Score:2, Informative)
Believe it or not, atmospheric scientists and oceanographers know about heat capacity and thermodynamics.
Observations of ocean temperatures show:
1. The upper layers of the ocean have warmed.
2. The warming is top-down, not bottom-up (contrary to the implication in your link that the atmosphere has warmed due to the oceans).
3. The amount of ocean warming is entirely consistent with the heat flux attributable to atmospheric warming.
4. The observed ocean warming is able to explain much of the observed sea level rise (due to thermosteric expansion), with glaciers explaining most of the rest.
In short, yes, the oceans have a much larger heat capacity than the atmosphere. No, this doesn't mean that the atmosphere is unable to influence ocean temperature or sea level.
Re:So, where is the google cache link? (Score:2, Informative)
The only evidence is that we're still exiting a glacial period, and have no clue how the environment works. We've only scratched the surface of our understanding of how the interlocking segments of the entire climate move together.
As for keeping it civil? Better let the warmists know, their new civility is 'attack'.
Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is that we are now starting to get a long trail of predictions from the global warming advocates that have failed to come true. Another favourite of mine is that hurricanes were going to be rampaging across the Atlantic due to the warming. Catrina being just the start. That is why Al Gores book is covered with photoshopped hurricanes including one turning in the wrong direction. Only problem is that hurricane activity has dramatically dropped since Catrina. Yet we are expected to spent trillions with a T of dollars based on these predictions from computer models that can't be verified in any way, haven't had their code released for review or had their algorithms reviewed. This "Just take my word for it" mentality is what we are supposed to bankrupt our countries on. Just look at the disaster wind power has become for the UK and others to see what the problems are.
Link [wattsupwiththat.com]
The head of the UK power grid is saying that homes are going to have to get used to not always having power at home.
Link [wattsupwiththat.com]
Then there is the actual life expectancy of windmills. Is this really what we should be spending money on?
Link [wattsupwiththat.com]
Re:So, where is the google cache link? (Score:2, Informative)
The facts aren't contrary. This was a completely valid prediction. The election of Barack Obama prevented this.
"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." -- Barack Obama, 3 June 2008, upon winning his party nomination.
Uh no. What Obama really said was:
Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.
You only quoted part of the sentence, you left out the modifier that changed it from ridiculous to reasonable. Why do you Obama haters do that? What's the point? How can you think lying about him is a legitimate tactic when in practically the same breath you accuse climatologists of lying about global warming to advance some sort of twisted agenda?
What it says to me is that you are just another tribalist - the kind of person who is likely to say "My country, right or wrong!" because you aren't intellectually honest enough to realize that the full quotation continues with "If right to be kept right, if wrong to be set right."