In 2005 the U.N predicted 50 million climate refugees by the end of the decade.

[Alan]

From 2005

Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.

"There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations."

The current situation

It so happens that just a few of these islands and other places most at risk have since had censuses, so it should be possible for us now to get some idea of the devastating impact climate change is having on their populations. Let’s have a look at the evidence:

Bahamas:

Nassau, The Bahamas – The 2010 national statistics recorded that the population growth increased to 353,658 persons in The Bahamas. The population change figure increased by 50,047 persons during the last 10 years.

St Lucia:

The island-nation of Saint Lucia recorded an overall household population increase of 5 percent from May 2001 to May 2010 based on estimates derived from a complete enumeration of the population of Saint Lucia during the conduct of the recently completed 2010 Population and Housing Census.

Seychelles:

Population 2002, 81755

Population 2010, 88311

Solomon Islands:

The latest Solomon Islands population has surpassed half a million – that’s according to the latest census results.

It’s been a decade since the last census report, and in that time the population has leaped 100-thousand.

Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China, Shenzzen, Dongguan, Foshan, Zhuhai, Puning and Jinjiang, are absolutely smack bang within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources of climate refugees.

Similarly, many of the fastest growing cities in the United States also appear within or close to the areas identified by the UNEP as at risk of having climate refugees.

More censuses are due to come in this year, and we await the results for Bangladesh and the Maldives - said to be places most at risk - with interest.

However, a very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.

http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/2798-what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees.html

 

[Techne]

The report:
Appears in: IAASTD - International assessment of agricultural science and technology for development
Link to web-site: http://www.agassessment.org/
GLOBAL REPORT
http://www.agassessment.org/reports...e at a Crossroads_Global Report (English).pdf

From the report:

The IAASTD’s governance structure is a unique hybrid of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the nongovernmental Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA).

Relax, the IPCC was involved, they are very credible and we should listen more to their predictions...

 

[LazyLion]

Poor old Al Gore must be absolutely frantic by now. Must be very INCONVENIENT for him.

 

[BCO]

Obviously because some of the IPCC predictions about future effects of climate change were wrong it means that climate change isn't happening. Obviously.

 

[Alan]

Obviously because some of the IPCC predictions about future effects of climate change were wrong it means that climate change isn't happening. Obviously.

Just out of interest when did you drop 'global warming' for 'climate change'

 

[LazyLion]

Obviously because some of the IPCC predictions about future effects of climate change were wrong it means that climate change isn't happening. Obviously.

Well it certainly casts a lot of doubt on the urgency and the science behind it all.
Makes one wonder if the accusations of a political agenda are not that far off after all.

 

[BCO]

Just out of interest when did you drop 'global warming' for 'climate change'

I use the two terms interchangeably - although "climate change" is probably a better term because although average global temperatures are warmer, some areas are actually cooler.

 

[BCO]

Well it certainly casts a lot of doubt on the urgency and the science behind it all.
Makes one wonder if the accusations of a political agenda are not that far off after all.

The science of around what is causing the warming and how much it is warming is fundamentally sound. Making predictions about how that change will manifest itself physically in the real world are more difficult. I'm not sure where "political agenda" comes in. As I've said ad nauseum there is far more of an "agenda" to maintain the status quo than to change it.

Also can we please stop ****ing mentioning Al Gore in every global warming thread?

 

[Alan]

Well it certainly casts a lot of doubt on the urgency and the science behind it all.
Makes one wonder if the accusations of a political agenda are not that far off after all.

Indeed. Recall the claim Brits wouldn't see any more snow in the future only to have the entire Island smothered in inches deep snow.

and you're supposed to just brush that off with a mere 'whoops'

 

[Alan]

The science of around what is causing the warming and how much it is warming is fundamentally sound. Making predictions about how that change will manifest itself physically in the real world are more difficult.

So conceivably global warming might have little impact on the "real world"

 

[BCO]

Indeed. Recall the claim Brits wouldn't see any more snow in the future only to have the entire Island smothered in inches deep snow.

and you're supposed to just brush that off with a mere 'whoops'

Same old warhorses get trotted out every time don't they? You're not actually interested in why there's more snow (but there's a very good explanation for it).

 

[BCO]

So conceivably global warming might have little impact on the "real world"

Conceivably, yes. Likely, no.

 

[LazyLion]

The science of around what is causing the warming and how much it is warming is fundamentally sound.

The Hypothesis may be sound. The science itself is far from settled.

Making predictions about how that change will manifest itself physically in the real world are more difficult. I'm not sure where "political agenda" comes in. As I've said ad nauseum there is far more of an "agenda" to maintain the status quo than to change it.

Well, the accusations fly thick and fast from both sides... I don't blame the public for being sceptical.

Also can we please stop ****ing mentioning Al Gore in every global warming thread?

Aww, but he's such a CONVENIENT target!

 

[Alan]

Conceivably, yes. Likely, no.

Well as you say predictions are notoriously dodgy and liable to be literally 100% wrong as in the case of the U.K's snow in.

Based on that you want to introduce a massive financial burden on people in the developed world and condemn millions in the 3rd world to poverty.

 

[Techne]

Same old warhorses get trotted out every time don't they? You're not actually interested in why there's more snow (but there's a very good explanation for it).

I think we are all interested in:
1) The reasons for the snow, and there are many of course.
2) Why the IPCC never thought about these reasons before coming up with their alarmism.
3) Why we should trust the IPCC.

Followers of the the Goracle obviously blame global warming for the snow.

Here are the real reasons:
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/20...ogy-solves-the-mystery-of-record-snows/all/1/

La ninas and el ninos come and go, they came and gone long before humans knew what CO2 was, the climate changes.... obviously. Do we contribute to climate change. Yes. How much and in what manner (detrimental or positive)? I don't know. Does the IPCC know. Apparently not. Let's focus on fixing our water reserves first rather than taxing and crippling economies with silly carbon taxes.

 

[Alan]

U.N attempts to remove the claim from their website and typically botches it up lol

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/16/t...n-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-cover-up/

anyway it's now 2020 we'll have 50 million "climate refugees"

WASHINGTON — Fifty million "environmental refugees" will flood into the global north by 2020, fleeing food shortages sparked by climate change, experts warned at a major science conference that ended here Monday.

"In 2020, the UN has projected that we will have 50 million environmental refugees," University of California, Los Angeles professor Cristina Tirado said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.aa651167cd0af745b3cb395cf1d402e3.c41

When 2020 comes around they'll push it back to 2030 :erm:

 

[Techne]

Didn't want to make ANOTHER climate thread so thought of posting it here:
Threading the Climate Needle: The Agulhas Current System

April 27, 2011

The Agulhas Current which runs along the east coast of Africa may not be as well known as its counterpart in the Atlantic, the Gulf Stream. But now researchers are taking a closer look at this current and its "leakage" from the Indian Ocean into the Atlantic Ocean--and what that may mean for climate change

In results of a study published in this week's issue of the journal Nature, a team of scientists led by University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science Oceanographer Lisa Beal, suggests that Agulhas leakage could be a significant player in global climate variability.

The Agulhas Current transports warm and salty waters from the tropical Indian Ocean to the southern tip of Africa. There most of the water loops around to remain in the Indian Ocean (the Agulhas Retroflection), while some water leaks into the fresher Atlantic Ocean via giant Agulhas rings.

Once in the Atlantic, the salty Agulhas leakage waters eventually flow into the Northern Hemisphere and act to strengthen the Atlantic overturning circulation by enhancing deep-water formation.

Atlantic overturning circulation is technically known as Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC); it carries warm shallow water into northern latitudes and returns cold deep water southward across the equator.

Recent research points to an increase in Agulhas leakage over the last few decades, caused primarily by human-induced climate change.

The finding is profound, oceanographers say, because it suggests that increased Agulhas leakage could trigger a strengthening in Atlantic overturning circulation--at a time when warming and accelerated meltwater input in the North Atlantic has been predicted to weaken it.

"This could mean that current IPCC model predictions for the next century are wrong, and there will be no cooling in the North Atlantic to partially offset the effects of global climate change over North America and Europe," said Beal.

"Instead, increasing Agulhas leakage could stabilize the oceanic heat transport carried by the Atlantic overturning circulation."

There are also paleoceanographic data to suggest that dramatic peaks in Agulhas leakage over the past 500,000 years may have triggered the end of glacial cycles.

These data are further evidence that the Agulhas system and its leakage play an important role in the planet's climate, Beal and others say.

"This study shows that local changes in atmospheric and oceanic conditions in the Southern Hemisphere can affect the strength of the ocean circulation in unexpected ways," said Eric Itsweire, director of the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s physical oceanography program, which funded the research.

"Under a warming climate," said Itsweire, "the Agulhas Current system near the tip of South Africa could bring more warm salty water from the Indian to the Atlantic Ocean and counteract opposing effects from the Arctic Ocean."

The study establishes the need for additional research in the region that focuses on Agulhas rings, as well as on the leakage, believes Beal.

Climate modeling experiments are critical, she said, and need to be supported by paleoceanographic data and sustained observations to firmly establish the role of the Agulhas system in a warming climate.

"Our goal now is to get more of the scientific community involved in research on the Agulhas system and its global effects," said Beal. "The emphasis has been too long in the North Atlantic."

The Agulhas Current Time-Series Experiment, or ACT, was launched in April 2010 to measure the variability of the Agulhas Current using a combination of current meter moorings and satellite data.

Beal, who serves as chief scientist, spent one month aboard the research vessel Knorr in the southwest Indian Ocean deploying oceanographic instruments.

The data gathered in situ, when combined with along-track satellite information, will help increase our understanding of how the Agulhas system is changing in a warming climate, Beal said.

The scientific team included Beal, Wilhelmus P.M. de Ruijter of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, Arne Biastoch of Leibniz- Institut für Meereswissenschaften (IFM-GEOMAR) in Germany, and Rainer Zahn of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona in Spain.

It also included members of the Scientific Committee for Oceanic Research (SCOR) Working Group 136 on the Climatic Importance of the Agulhas System, sponsored by SCOR, the International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceans, and the World Climate Research Program.

For information on the program, please visit the ACT website.

-NSF-

So while it is argued that climate change is the culprit, it blows another hole in the IPCC's credibility for predicting future events. Aint science wonderful.

 

[Ou grote]

Anyone know if Al Gore is a Jehovah's witness?

 

[KSINGH]

i think the large energy corps who stand to lose money with climate change penalties and the like paid/funded Al Gore and these scientists to make these claims ten years ago, to create a perception like they really cared, only to now place doubt and remove credibility from these findings a few years later. now the man on the street wont give a damn about further findings and warnings and will buy SUV's, keep all the lights on and move on with life/death-Only to be screwed for carbon tax and high fuel/electricity prices.

 

[Archer]

So while it is argued that climate change is the culprit, it blows another hole in the IPCC's credibility for predicting future events. Aint science wonderful.

I'm guessing you could do a better job of predicting climate changes around the globe? Whats that? You cant? You dont have access to over 100 teraflops of computing power?

Such comments dont belong in NS. You know full well that real proper science learns from its mistakes. Yes, the same cant be said for the some organisations that fund the science, but your attack on science itself is plain ludicrous.