Climate shift is biggest security risk: Australia (Reuters)

[News Manager]

Reuters - Climate change, not war or terrorism, will be the century's biggest security challenge with China unlikely to be able to feed its vast and growing population as a result, Australia's top policeman has warned.



Read more...

 

[A Can of Man]

Both are threats but I also think the environmental problems may be a bigger problem.

 

[phoenix80]

How is that a threat to security?

 

[Infern0]

How is that a threat to security?

perhaps you should read the link

 

[MontyB]

perhaps you should read the link

Hehe "big boned" chance that will happen.

Anyway:
The inability to produce enough food is just a small part of the problem as a sizable proportion of the worlds industry is coastal based as well so even those nations that can absorb the loss of land will still have their economies heavily disrupted.

 

[senojekips]

Earlier, I started to answer this stupid question (climate control) by another member, but gave up in disgust realising that the effort would be completely wasted, as he displays all the learning ability of a cinder block.

 

[bulldogg]

I'm glad this copper piped up. I've made similar comments only to be dismissed as a "hateful Yank".

 

[MontyB]

Earlier, I started to answer this stupid question by our resident troll, but gave up in disgust realising that the effort would be completely wasted.

No brains, no pains. I've thought long and hard but "Vacuuous" is the most polite description that comes to mind. He still doesn't realise that there is a world beyond North America and Iraq/Iran.

Well once this kicks in he will because large areas of the USA, Iraq, Iran and oddly enough the rest of the attached world will be seriously affected by rising sea levels and associated climate change, take Florida for example:

Overpeck and his colleagues have used computer models to create a series of maps that show how susceptible coastal cities and island countries are to the sea rising at different levels. The maps show that a 1-meter (3-foot) rise would swamp cities all along the U.S. eastern seaboard. A 6-meter (20-foot) sea level rise would submerge a large part of Florida.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html

The big question left is how long this will take to happen, the longer the better as inevitably the cyclic nature of weather patterns will minimise the effects.

 

[Infern0]

you know what it is though...because it was radical lefty commie fear monger al gore preaching the message of climate change, it means it's all lies



well i can tell you right now as someone who lives close to the south pole (and who has visited it on two occasions), climate change IS real and it is the biggest threat we face.


we ALL face....no matter what colour or creed

 

[bulldogg]

It is too bad Al is the messenger on this. If someone more credible than the man who invented the internet were speaking whose family didn't own a huge coal strip mining operation Americans might give it more credence. Its a logical fallacy to discredit the message because of the messenger but it is still a strong one to overcome even when you are aware of it. Al should have bankrolled someone else to speak out, an academic with no political affiliations. If he would keep his ass size large out of the spotlight and let someone else be the frontman it would be more effective.

 

[MontyB]

Perhaps if people spent less time concentrating on assassinating the messenger and more time on the message there could actually make some progress on the issue.

This argument is on a par with two people on a sinking boat in shark infested waters but neither of them will plug the hole in case it makes the other guy look good.

 

[bulldogg]

Which hole?

 

[senojekips]

I can understand anyone being cynical when a subject with such wide reaching ramifications is broached by a political mouthpiece. To be quite honest I thought for years that climate change was overstated for similar reasons. However it certainly appears to me that the climate is changing. How much, at what speed and for how long is yet to be answered, but the frightening thing is that regardless of all of this we don't appear to have a lot of time to start making some very hard choices or we are going to really stuff up the world economy, all other considerations left aside.

Panic will get us nowhere, but I feel it is certainly deserving of some hard thought consideration and large scale government backing.

My only remaining doubt is, "to what extent is it a result of man made causes"

 

[MontyB]

I can understand anyone being cynical when a subject with such wide reaching ramifications is broached by a political mouthpiece. To be quite honest I thought for years that climate change was overstated for similar reasons. However it certainly appears to me that the climate is changing. How much, at what speed and for how long is yet to be answered, but the frightening thing is that regardless of all of this we don't appear to have a lot of time to start making some very hard choices or we are going to really stuff up the world economy, all other considerations left aside.

Panic will get us nowhere, but I feel it is certainly deserving of some hard thought consideration and large scale government backing.

My only remaining doubt is, "to what extent is it a result of man made causes"

I agree but the problem remains that as long as we are bound up in who's flag is biggest and what colour the drapes should be in the negotiating chamber we are not going to get the answers to these questions.

 

[bulldogg]

Bhutan's and royal blue with a chartreuse fringe.

 

[senojekips]

I agree but the problem remains that as long as we are bound up in who's flag is biggest and what colour the drapes should be in the negotiating chamber we are not going to get the answers to these questions.

To me that is a reflection of the people/groups involved. More worried about their point score rather than the problem at hand. (What's in it for me? people)

 

[A Can of Man]

I think the whole issue with the environment should be dealt with sooner rather than later because the environment is something that takes years to deal with. It's a large ship if you will, not a small rowboat. If you start to steer away from an ice berg too late, it's over.
The whole debate with food production however, is debatable. The areas in which food can be produced however, will change. What could happen is Canada's productive land area would in fact increase, while traditional croplands will become too hot and unsuitable for agriculture. They probably would face some kind of desertification or whatnot. Russia would actually benefit from global warming.
Climate change is the single biggest reason why the US has seen billions in damages from massive runaway hurricanes. It's not random. It's the temperature and how these form different and more extreme air pressure differences between land and sea.
Not to mention, many countries which have high population areas very close to sea level (Bangladesh, various island countries in the Pacific, the Netherlands, New Orleans... heck NYC maybe) will have serious issues.
Also a lot of countries who dump their sewage far into the ocean could in fact have the sewage slowly pushed back, causing major health hazards all along the coast.
Yeah, I'd say the environment is pretty darn important.

 

[phoenix80]

Earlier, I started to answer this stupid question (climate control) by another member, but gave up in disgust realising that the effort would be completely wasted, as he displays all the learning ability of a cinder block.

You can be worrying about the hoax of global warming. I am not!

 

[A Can of Man]

It's not a hoax.
The people in Florida whose homes were reduced to piles of toothpick can tell you that.

 

[Infern0]

i can tell you from my part of the world...when plants start to get sunburned, and when you can see icebergs from the beach near where i live*...something is up

*

dunedin icebergs

^^^
this, could be seen from shore


also most of our glaciers here in NZ are retreating at a rapid rate

pictures tell the tale IMO

larsen B ice shelf, antarctica, collapsing

The effective rate of change in glacier thickness, also known as the glaciological mass balance, is a measure of the average change in a glacier's thickness after correcting for changes in density associated with the compaction of snow and conversion to ice. The map shows the average annual rate of thinning since 1970 for the 173 glaciers that have been measured at least 5 times between 1970 and 2004 (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Larger changes are plotted as larger circles and towards the back.
All survey regions except Scandinavia show a net thinning. This widespread glacier retreat is generally regarded as a sign of global warming.
During this period, 83% of surveyed glaciers showed thinning with an average loss across all glaciers of 0.31 m/yr. The most rapidly growing glacier in the sample is Engabreen glacier in Norway with a thickening of 0.64 m/yr. The most rapidly shrinking was Ivory glacier in New Zealand[1]. which was thinning at 2.4 m/yr. Ivory glacier had totally disintegrated by circa 1988

1973
VS

2006



now, dislike the politics as much as you like, but this is REAL MEASURABLE change