Ocean Encroachment in Bangladesh
July 31st, 2008Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
My first reaction upon seeing this story was that someone was having some fun. But it doesn’t seem like benthic bacteria . . . So this article from the AFP comes as a surprise, and a reminder that forecasting the future remains a perilous business. With news like this, it seems premature to dismiss skepticism about climate science as fading away, far from it, expect skeptics of all sorts to have a bit more bounce in their steps.
DHAKA (AFP) – New data shows that Bangladesh’s landmass is increasing, contradicting forecasts that the South Asian nation will be under the waves by the end of the century, experts say.
Scientists from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) have studied 32 years of satellite images and say Bangladesh’s landmass has increased by 20 square kilometres (eight square miles) annually.
Maminul Haque Sarker, head of the department at the government-owned centre that looks at boundary changes, told AFP sediment which travelled down the big Himalayan rivers — the Ganges and the Brahmaputra — had caused the landmass to increase.
The rivers, which meet in the centre of Bangladesh, carry more than a billion tonnes of sediment every year and most of it comes to rest on the southern coastline of the country in the Bay of Bengal where new territory is forming, he said in an interview on Tuesday.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted that impoverished Bangladesh, criss-crossed by a network of more than 200 rivers, will lose 17 percent of its land by 2050 because of rising sea levels due to global warming.
The Nobel Peace Prize-winning panel says 20 million Bangladeshis will become environmental refugees by 2050 and the country will lose some 30 percent of its food production.
Director of the US-based NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, professor James Hansen, paints an even grimmer picture, predicting the entire country could be under water by the end of the century.
But Sarker said that while rising sea levels and river erosion were both claiming land in Bangladesh, many climate experts had failed to take into account new land being formed from the river sediment.
“Satellite images dating back to 1973 and old maps earlier than that show some 1,000 square kilometres of land have risen from the sea,” Sarker said.
“A rise in sea level will offset this and slow the gains made by new territories, but there will still be an increase in land. We think that in the next 50 years we may get another 1,000 square kilometres of land.”
Mahfuzur Rahman, head of Bangladesh Water Development Board’s Coastal Study and Survey Department, has also been analysing the buildup of land on the coast.
He told AFP findings by the IPCC and other climate change scientists were too general and did not explore the benefits of land accretion.
“For almost a decade we have heard experts saying Bangladesh will be under water, but so far our data has shown nothing like this,” he said.
July 30th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Wouldn’t these sediment also help local sea level to rise?
And shouldn’t they be cautious about using the land gain (I mean shouldn’t they keep these area has a buffer zone)?
Finally, if this is serious, it should give something to think to those who where quick to blame 1000 of death as a result of GW in Myanmar last spring.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:37 am
Land surface area gained by erosion in higher areas might cause some sea rise it should be very minimal considering the volume of water being displaced. With the current cooling and the contraction of the sea water due to that cooling even if a minimum might even be starting to contribute to some land area gains in low lying areas.
Just a thought,
Bill Derryberry
July 31st, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Couldn’t this be easily spun to mean that the ice in the Himalayas is melting faster than usual causing (a) more sediment to flow and (b) the entire subcontinent to rise due to the decreased weight of the disappearing ice mass? –It would not be climate-related if it could not be interpreted (spun) more than one way.
Also, I believe there are precedents. The Delmarva peninsula / Chesapeake Bay region were created by massive runoff from glacial melting during warming periods that presumably also increased sea level.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:56 am
“it seems premature to dismiss skepticism about climate science as fading away, far from it, expect skeptics of all sorts to have a bit more bounce in their steps.”
And are your steps lighter, too, Roger? While Bangladesh adding net land at sea level shouldn’t really be much of a surprise, given all of the silt it receives, how does that lessen our concern about ice sheet and sea level risks, for example? Did you see the recent Lloyd’s of London report on these? http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/16/marlo-lewis-cei-serves-up-refreshingly-distracting-climate-science-and-policy-distortions.aspx
August 1st, 2008 at 6:54 am
Tom-
Lately, you’ve deviated from your fair consistent high level comments here, absent personal attacks. Accusing me of being a climate skeptic is a bit tired, though. I am sure you can come up with something better
August 1st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I have often thought it was quite unusual that talk of sea level rise and flooding always assumes a static coast. A static coast is something that is rarely observed in the low-lying coastal areas that would be most effected by rising sea level, which this article so clearly demonstrates. Simply equating sea level rise to a loss of coastline shows a significant ignorance of coastal dynamics by the global warming community.
Also, George Tobin’s post assumes a significant increase in river discharges over this time, but I saw no mention of that in the article.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Roger, you`ve made what seem to be rather puzzling remarks about how “skeptics” are likely to feel in the face of news that Pakistan nay at present be adding net land area. How are such supposed feelings by skeptics justified by the news, much less relevant to discussions of science or policy? If so, why don`t you help us by spelling out why? If not, why do you speculate on them?
Yes, I am disappointed by your level of analysis on several of your posts, for reasons that I have directly expressed. But my criticisms are not “personal attacks”, nor was my question to you about your feelings an “accusation” that you are “a climate skeptic”. I`m sorry that you took it that way, but my intention was simply to point out the lack of any apparent relevance to what seemed to be your chief analytical remarks.
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:26 am
Tom,
As a climate crisis skeptic, I am simply astounded that you do not know the answers to your own questions. Let me be very simple. AGW is a theory. Theories are tested by how well they make predictions. One of the predictions made by the AGW theory is that rising sea levels will flood low lying coastal areas. In fact, this prediction is the biggest single prediction driving the call for CO2 mitigation policy, as rising sea levels are expected to be the most costly and least adaptable results of AGW. Bangladesh is widely recognized as one, if not the most, vulnerable coastal region in the world to the effects of rising sea levels from AGW. These scientists are pointing out that what is actually happening is far from of what the AGW theory predicts, lending support to those of us who believe the theory is not correct and that calls for immediate action to avoid impending doom are unsupported by the evidence.
Are there other possible explanations that would allow the theory to still be accurate despite its failures at prediction? Sure. You can make up any explanation you want to save face and try to keep the research funds rolling in, but the more the science has to back-peddle, the less support it will have.
August 2nd, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Jim,
Rivers delatas carry soil to the sea, so unless they`re heavily dammed and their water flows diverted, they are generally expected to build up. Where does any climate change theory say that the Ganges and other rivers that feed the delta of Bangladesh are supposed to magically stop flowing to the sea?
I`m sorry, but “what is actually happening” in Bangladesh (besides is far from clear) is not at all contrary to what the AGW theory predicts – which, as far as is relevant to Bangladesh, is simply that sea levels will continue to rise generally, and may rise sharply if ice sheets disintegrate. Well, tell me what rivers in Bangladesh bringing silt to the sea tell us about either?
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Tom,
The river argument is a straw man. The theory predicts a crisis regardless of river sediment deposits. The physical evidence indicates that this ‘most vulnerable region’ is not moving towards crisis, but is in fact, moving in the opposite direction. This is good news. To think of this as anything other than positive news demonstrates cognitive dissonance.
Roger’s comments are completely rational. We should all be happy Bengladesh is not being inundated and that a theory predicting such may be in error.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Jim,
There is nothing more scarier to a true believer than an averted crisis. Nothing can be more disastrous to them than mitigation having little to no conceivable effect and adaptation saving lives of millions. How else can these people re-organize the world order to their own advantage.
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
I urge everyone to study climate-change impact reports on Bangladesh where you’ll find many grandiose predictions such as increased droughts in the dry season, increased floods in the wet season and increased storms. But to justify these claims the authors only ever use global temperature predictions from GCM’s. Not local GCM predictions which are totally inaccurate. Nor local statistics, which show no actual rising temperatures and no net change in floods, droughts, cyclones or monsoons since records began in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. Since everyone just ritually ignores the actual data it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the sea temperature and sea level there were also static. Few people will have actually bothered to check.
Furthermore it is abundantly clear that any effects from a slowly rising trend, even if it were actually evident in the real data, would be totally dwarfed by the massive inter-seasonal variations that Bangladeshis have to cope with just now. When the water can rise 3 metres in a single day who is supposed to worry about 30 mm a century?
Worse, Bangladeshis problems stem entirely from poverty. With more affluence they’d cope just fine – just like the Dutch in fact. The IPCC and others tacitly assume the world community should stand back and allow this disgraceful poverty to continue into 2050. In fact by making fuel more expensive they’d propose to increase poverty. The moralistic, holier-than-thou tone adopted by the warmers when talking about the impacts on the poor is not based on the actual realities. It is simply more chattering-class hypocrisy with zero thought behind it.
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Jim: What is the relevance of this? “This is good news. To think of this as anything other than positive news demonstrates cognitive dissonance.” Whose “cognitive dissonance” are you commenting on? Where on this thread (or elsewhere) is smeone suggesting that the build up of silt in Pakistan is bad news?
“We should all be happy Bengladesh is not being inundated and that a theory predicting such may be in error.” “May be”? I’m sorry, but why don’t you actually address my point and what the AGW theory predicts? As I summarized, my understand is is that the prediction, as far as is relevant to Bangladesh, is simply that sea levels will continue to rise generally, and may rise sharply if ice sheets disintegrate – with impacts expected to be noticeable some 50 – 90 years down the road. How does the latest news, if correct, at all contradict AGW theory?
Sylvain: What’s the matter, is it too challenging for you to address a real person rather than a strawman?
“Nothing can be more disastrous to them than mitigation having little to no conceivable effect and adaptation saving lives of millions.”
You show not the slightest familiarity with the IPCC reports, which stress the overriding importance (and benefit-to-cost ratio) of adaptation in low-lying regions. If it’s not too hard for you, you can find the Working Group II Report “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” here, in the language of your choice: http://www.ipcc.ch/.
“How else can these people re-organize the world order to their own advantage”? Don’t let it screw up your world-view too much, but the Working Group II Report stresses the need for greater funding – by the wealthy, developed nations – of projects to enhance adaptation in the poorer and more vulnerable nations, and this is certainly a significant post-Bali agenda item.
JamesG: “Nor local statistics, which show no actual rising temperatures” Care to actually test this against the IPCC reports, or do you too prefer to remain among the uninformed?
“it is abundantly clear that any effects from a slowly rising trend, even if it were actually evident in the real data, would be totally dwarfed by the massive inter-seasonal variations that Bangladeshis have to cope with just now. When the water can rise 3 metres in a single day who is supposed to worry about 30 mm a century?”
Excellent point. Maybe THAT’s why the Working Group II Report actually stresses ADAPTATION?
“Bangladeshis problems stem entirely from poverty. With more affluence they’d cope just fine – just like the Dutch in fact.”
The second is obvious, the first is also just as obviously an overstatement. Even if wealthy, free and well-governed people lived in Bangkadesh, they’d face problems from typhoons and river flooding.
“The IPCC and others tacitly assume the world community should stand back and allow this disgraceful poverty to continue into 2050.”
This is nonsense. I challenge you to demonstrate this, using the IPCC reports.
“In fact by making fuel more expensive they’d propose to increase poverty.”
More confusion. The wars of the “caring” caring Bush administration have greatly contributed to making fuel more expensive. It could also have something to do with increased demands from economic growth in China, India, Brazil etc. Let’s also think a little bit about the effects of direct/indirect carbon pricing in the West: a little basic economics shows that this has the effect of DAMPENING Western energy demand and thus creates a small subsidy to the developing nations in the form of prices that would otherwise be even higher. This differential is, in fact, one of the ones that is fuelling the development of poorer nations by shifting industry there.
“The moralistic, holier-than-thou tone adopted by the warmers when talking about the impacts on the poor is not based on the actual realities. It is simply more chattering-class hypocrisy with zero thought behind it.”
Thanks for showing so well that all of the strawmen, projection, lack of critical thinking and hypocrisy that you criticize among the “warmers” are also thriving among the “skeptics”.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:00 am
TT
I challenged you to look at the real data and to look at the impact reports which blithely ignore them in favour of model projections. You obviously didn’t, but here is one for you – they are all similar. Note the zero trends everywhere! Note the reliance on entirely unsuitable and clearly unrepresentative models!
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1247e/a1247e02.pdf
There are many others like that but that should do to make you realize that you are being misinformed about Bangladesh. In fact any true environmentalist should know that of the many ecological problems in Bangladesh potential global warming is very low on the list.
See:
http://www.eco-web.com/editorial/050307.html
“The major environmental concerns for Bangladesh are deforestation, deteriorating water quality, natural disasters, land degradation, salinity, unplanned urbanization, discharge of untreated sewage and industrial wastes, and so on.”
Yes I am aware that adaptation is much recommended but it is misguided towards rising sea levels rather than the basics mentioned above. More money in fact is being directed towards those impact assessment leeches than ever reaches the poor.
It is also difficult to demonstrate a “tacit” assumption but it is truly abundantly clear from the many statements about the poor being worst hit by global warming and Bangladesh being always the first name mentioned. It would be rather more honest to admit that the poor are also worst hit by rising fuel prices: Except that it hits them much quicker and harder.
You can blame Bush all you like about rising oil prices but isn’t that what you wanted? Yes indeed it’s capitalism that brought them but scary and unrealistic warming scenarios certainly don’t help. And now that you see the effects on the poor do you realize yet the true human cost of further hiking prices?
If current energy policy is misguided then IPCC are partly responsible. But we could agree at least on the increase in the availability of alternative fuels but clearly it has to be done without making things worse.
August 4th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I believe that many of Tokyo Tom’s “facts” may be as badlly researched as his repeated placing of Bangladesh in Pakistan, or did Pakistan finally capture all of India and the next country east of it while I was on vacation last week?
August 5th, 2008 at 5:01 am
Good catch, Larry.
You are absolutely right that I mistakenly mentioned Pakistan instead of Bangladesh (I’m guessing I transposed them because one of my sons recently visited the former, but you might be too young to remember that they were indeed once a single country). I don’t mind being corrected, so please point out if I’ve screwed up anything else, even if it doesn’t actually affect any point I was trying to make.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Tom,
I am a little bit older than you may have believed. My memories of that whole region being part of the British Empire is what prompted my reply on Bangladesh. My memories of the small natural variations of climate I have witnessed, how very little the ocean level has changed at the coasts of both my home state of North Carolina and my adopted home in Oregon, and the vast improvements in air quality that have developed in my 68 years in this beaultiful world is what prompted my insinuations that you may not have all of your gloom and doom “facts” exactly straight.
Thanks anyway for entertaining arguements.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:43 am
Larry, I envy you – Oregon’s gorgeous.
I have a son in Eugene now, and grew up myself in the Seattle area. But I now live in the land of the rapidly rising temperatures (consistent both with urbanization (heat island) and Northern Hemisphere trends) which, coupled with high humidty makes Japan increasingly miserable.
Again, sure, I screwed up Pakistan and Bangladesh, but so what? The silt that Bangladesh gets from the Himalalyas still tell us absolutely nothing about whether or not sea levels will continue to rise.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:02 am
JamesG, thanks for your response.
1. “I challenged you to look at the real data”. Actually, you charged that impact reports do not use “local statistics, which show no actual rising temperatures”, and I asked you to actually test this against the IPCC reports. If you had, you might have noticed that the AR4 impact report for Asia specifically reports: “An increasing trend of about 1°C in May and 0.5°C in November during the 14 year period from 1985 to 1998″ and “Decadal rain anomalies above long term averages since 1960s”.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter10.pdf.
Is this “zero trends everywhere!”, as you assert?
It’s possible to disagree on whether the impact reports favor model projections over data, but at least the IPPC report hardly “blithely ignore[s]” the data. Now which one of us is it who “obviously didn’t” look at the real data?
2. “you are being misinformed about Bangladesh”
Just what is it that I actually wrote that gives you so much knowledge – and striking self-confidence – as to what I am or am not informed about? Either you’re God, or you’re being a tad arrogant.
3. “any true environmentalist should know that of the many ecological problems in Bangladesh potential global warming is very low on the list.”
I am happy to agree with the other priorities you cite you, even though, unhappily, I apparently fail your test of being a “true environmentalist”.
4. So you are unable to defend your assertion that “The IPCC and others tacitly assume the world community should stand back and allow this disgraceful poverty to continue into 2050.” You grudgingly acknowledge that, indeed, adaptation IS much recommended, but assert that it is “misguided towards rising sea levels” rather than to the basics of “deforestation, deteriorating water quality, natural disasters, land degradation, salinity, unplanned urbanization, discharge of untreated sewage and industrial wastes”. I’m sorry, but the more you write the less it looks like you have even bothered to look at any of the IPPC AR4 impact reports, much less the one on Asia. These reports are replete with discussions of all of these issues – and the overriding problem of poverty – all of which discuss adaptation to climate change as an aspect of current problems, and NOT the single driving concern.
5. You now imply that the proof that the IPCC and other heartless people who are concerned about climate change don’t care about the poor is that the IPCC (and these heartless warmers) focuses on climate change rather than on rising fuel prices, which hits the poor much quicker and harder than climate change. I’m sorry, but must all analysis of problems other than poverty be jetisoned by a laser focus on poverty? Why are you wasting your own time, you heartless person, by commenting on this thread when you could be out fighting poverty? You forget that the IPCC is a creature of the governments that signed the UNFCCC. Perhaps its priorities were too narrow – that’s fair to argue – but the IPCC’s reports focus on what world governments pay for the IPCC to focus on.
6. “You can blame Bush all you like about rising oil prices but isn’t that what you wanted?” What’s with this nonsense about what my desires are, and deflection of focus on what the Bush administration has wrought? Growth in the developing world has contributed yes, but also the folly of war, monetary expansion (currency devaluation and flight to commodities), huge demand by our military, filling the SPR during tight markets, corporate welfare to ADM/farmers, and ironically, policies in developing countries to encourage fuel use by artifically keeping prices down. The “scary and unrealistic warming scenarios” you mention not only “don’t help”, as you put it, they also demonstrably have nothing at all to do with the price increases.
Likewise, it’s silly to argue that “If current energy policy is misguided then IPCC are partly responsible.” Our politicians have managed to screw up domestic and foreign energy markets pretty much on our their own. It’s hard to see any basis at all for an IPCC bogeyman role in any of it. The IPCC has no armies, no resources and no regulatory authority, and besides, we’ve been doing our best to ignore the recommendations coming from other nations that support the IPCC.
7. “And now that you see the effects on the poor do you realize yet the true human cost of further hiking prices?” Again, you fail Econ 101. If the US and other developed countries were to tax GHG-generating activities, that would DAMPEN the demand for energy prices at home, leaving more supply and softer prices for poorer countries.
8. “But we could agree at least on the increase in the availability of alternative fuels but clearly it has to be done without making things worse.” At last, some potential common ground to discuss between a true environmentalist like you and a “zero thought”, poor-hating, holier-than-thou, chattering-class hypocrite like me. I vote for carbon taxes (fully rebated so the poor and middles class aren’t hurt) and nuclear power, with further deregulation of energy/power markets, semi-privatization of government energy resources and immediate amortization of energy investments, with no expnasion of government investments into alternative or “clean” energy.
James, maybe it’s too late for an olive branch, but I suspect we could have better conversations if you’d actually address me and drop all of you sweeping and emotion-laden generalizations.
TT
August 6th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
TT,
You wrote:
“As I summarized, my understand is is that the prediction, as far as is relevant to Bangladesh, is simply that sea levels will continue to rise generally, and may rise sharply if ice sheets disintegrate – with impacts expected to be noticeable some 50 – 90 years down the road. How does the latest news, if correct, at all contradict AGW theory?”
The warming of the last 30 years has been characterized as ‘unprecedented’ and mostly due to the human emission of greenhouse gases by the IPCC. The amount of CO2 in the air has increased by more than a third over pre-industrial levels. The IPCC does not suggest that it will be 50-90 years before we notice an impact from these changes. It is quite emphatic that the changes are very much underway right now, and predicts a relatively steady increase in sea level over the next 100 years that is not significantly greater than the increase in sea level over recent decades. I reject your implication that ‘impacts’ will be magically delayed.
Likewise, the lack of a noticeable decrease in the melting of the Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets over these several decades of ‘unprecedented global warming’ indicates that these land based ice sheets are not that sensitive to a few degrees warming. There is no scientific evidence supporting the ‘disintegration’ of these ice sheets that you say ‘may’ be a threat. There is little wisdom in adopting expensive policies to deal with a problem for which there is no scientific evidence.
This new scientific report from Bangladesh tells us that the rate of increase in sea level of recent decades has not been a problem for Bangladesh. In fact, the coastal lands are expanding and the prediction is made that the expanding will continue for the next 50 years! The implications are obvious. Even if the IPCC predictions of sea level rise come to pass (which is highly unlikely based on the new and more complete scientific findings of climate sensitivity to increasing CO2), Bangladesh will not likely suffer a negative impact, because the coastal area is dynamic, as all coastal areas are.
To the best of my knowledge, the models used to depict inundation of coastal areas due to sea level rise under global warming scenarios, do not take into account the dynamic nature of coastal areas and grossly over estimate the inundation that will occur. The report from Bangladesh is an example of this. I personally believe that the underestimation of natural adaptability to changing climate will prove to be one of the poorest features of the IPCC reports, but I digress.
Of all the arguments demanding immediate mitigation of CO2 emissions, sea level rise and inundation was one of the few that seemed to have merit. All other ‘impacts’ could be dealt with far more cheaply (and largely as secondary benefits) to already required adaptations. This report indicates that, even in one of the most sensitive coastal areas in the world, sea level rise is not a problem and gains in land area expected to continue for the next 50 years!
In a nutshell, evidence indicates that the projections of inundation of coastal areas from sea level rise due to man-made global warming have been grossly overestimated, and the primary argument for the immediate mitigation of CO2 emissions has been weakened considerably, if not overturned completely. Consequently, the mitigation of CO2 emissions would be the most expensive and least efficient way to deal with climate change. Or in layman’s terms…it would be insane.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:53 am
Jim, thanks for your comments.
1. I didn’t mean to suggest that any changes would be “magically delayed”, but was referring specifically to sea-level changes, which are gradual but expected to pick up speed, so the greater impacts will be later rather than sooner.
2. I disagree with your summary of the latest report: “This new scientific report from Bangladesh tells us that the rate of increase in sea level of recent decades has not been a problem for Bangladesh.” It tells us no such thing, as clearly not the whole coastline of Bangladesh has been rising. Reading on Bangladesh efforts to control floods and defend its coast points to some bright spots, but the picture is by no means clear. In any event, the IPCC report on coastal/low-lying areas is clearly calling for vigorous adaptation efforts, as mitigation cannot be expected to eliminate the existing forcing in a short period.
3. I disagree with this assessment, but it’s beside the point, that some coastal build-up in Bangladesh, while it may certainly have a bearing on the degree of impact form sea-level rises, is simply unconnected to the question of whether or not sea-levels WILL rise:
“There is no scientific evidence supporting the ‘disintegration’ of these ice sheets that you say ‘may’ be a threat. There is little wisdom in adopting expensive policies to deal with a problem for which there is no scientific evidence. ”
The wisdom of undertaking mitigation activities can of course be debated, Jim. But there is certainly grounds for concern about the disintegration of the ice sheets, particularly the WAIS. Did you take a look at my very first link, which quotes what Morlo Lewis/CEI himself says about WAIS, as well as quoting and linking to a report by those global warming fanatics, Lloyd’s of London? Here it is again: Did you see the recent Lloyd’s of London report on these? http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/16/marlo-lewis-cei-serves-up-refreshingly-distracting-climate-science-and-policy-distortions.aspx
4. It is a digression to discuss whether “the underestimation of natural adaptability to changing climate will prove to be one of the poorest features of the IPCC reports”, but I’m of course interested and don’t mind hearing more. However, I think if you take a closer look at W4 Ch.6 you’ll see that there certainly is discussion of the dynamic nature of coastal areas – but I have no clue as to whether the models take this into account. It is clear that the models do not account for the dynamics of the ice sheets, however.
5. You might be right as to what will happen to low-lying areas, but this latest report doesn’t provide a sufficient basis for such a conclusion (certainly for non-delta areas), particularly if rates of sea-level rise increase.
6. Finally, your point about mitigation is fair, although again overstated and not anything new. As I noted, if you look at AR4 Ch6, it clearly also stresses the primary importance of adaptation and improved infrastructure/wealth. But as to changes that can be avoided, it may very well be cheaper to mitigate than to adapt. McKitrick and other economists all note we’d be better off if we simply substituted carbon taxes for taxes on income and capital, and people from AEI and Am Council on Capital Formation to Rand, McKinsey and Exxon are in favor. They would strongly shift us from dirty coal towards nuclear.