# 21 Global Mega Cities Will Be "Aquavilles"



## urbanaturalist (Sep 25, 2005)

osted on Sat, Oct. 20, 2007


Rising Seas Threaten 21 Mega-Cities

The Associated Press

The Associated Press

BANGKOK, Thailand - Cities around the world are facing the danger of rising seas and other disasters related to climate change.

Of the 33 cities predicted to have at least 8 million people by 2015, at least 21 are highly vulnerable, says the Worldwatch Institute.

They include Dhaka, Bangladesh; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Shanghai and Tianjin in China; Alexandria and Cairo in Egypt; Mumbai and Kolkata in India; Jakarta, Indonesia; Tokyo and Osaka-Kobe in Japan; Lagos, Nigeria; Karachi, Pakistan; Bangkok, Thailand, and New York and Los Angeles in the United States, according to studies by the United Nations and others.

More than one-tenth of the world's population, or 643 million people, live in low-lying areas at risk from climate change, say U.S. and European experts. Most imperiled, in descending order, are China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan, Egypt, the U.S., Thailand and the Philippines.

philly.com


----------



## urbanaturalist (Sep 25, 2005)

I really hope this doesn't happen cause that would just really suck in all 7 U.N. languages.
However, its not like we in the industrialized world and now the developing world haven't been warned about the consequences of having a VORACIOUS UNSUSTAINABLE appetite for the wrong resources. Its a long list of entities to blame for this, but its really bad news. Imagine all the wasted infrastructure and money that would have to go into protecting these ginormous burgeoning cities, not to mention great testaments to the fortitude of human kind.......DAMN!!. Some of these like Dhaka or Lagos may not make it at all, just because of the lack of financial resources. Ironically, Nigeria and Indonesia are huge oil producers that are basically "drowning" themselves, among plenty of other countries, so what the hell do you do????

The solution are clear IMHO, but the willpower needs to be manifested sooner rather than later. These cities are not going to go underwater overnight or even in the next decade, but the fact that it is likely to happen is pretty morose. But then again what scientists expected the juggernaut of the Northwest Passage in Canada to open up in the summer of 2007???? Oh well.

I'll just write the cities that are shown vertically, maybe that'll be more imposing

Asia
1)Dhaka
2)Shanghai
3)Tianjin
4)Mumbai 
5)Kolkata
6)Jakarta
7)Tokyo
8)Osaka-Kobe
9)Karachi
10)Bangkok

Africa
1)Cairo
2)Alexandria
3)Lagos

Americas
1)New York
2)Los Angeles
3)Rio de Janeiro


----------



## TheMann2000 (Feb 1, 2007)

^ I have little doubt that Tokyo, Osaka-Kobe and probably the Chinese cities would have plans in place to make sure the cities don't sink.

Rio would be an easy fix - move further up the hills.


----------



## superchan7 (Jan 21, 2004)

Somebody forgot about Hong Kong, a coastal city which has 3 times the economic output of Shanghai.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

> October 22, 2007
> 
> Today’s forecast: yet another blast of hot air
> 
> ...



Climate Change is constant and has always been with us, whether it is an ice age or a period of global warming - Whilst no one is denying climate change (as climate
change is constant) it is difficult to be certain of the exact effect.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=48F687F3-E7F2-99DF-3E042E20A4B66A99&chanID=sa007

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/...l-2005/html-version/cooling/cooling-past.html


*The nine points in the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' judged to be alarmist and not factual by the High Court in London last week.*

· The film claimed that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" - but there was no evidence of any evacuation occurring

· It spoke of global warming "shutting down the ocean conveyor" - the process by which the gulf stream is carried over the north Atlantic to western Europe. The judge said that, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it was "very unlikely" that the conveyor would shut down in the future, though it might slow down

· Mr Gore had also claimed - by ridiculing the opposite view - that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said although scientists agreed there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts" 

· Mr Gore said the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was expressly attributable to human-induced climate change. The judge said the consensus was that that could not be established

· The drying up of Lake Chad was used as an example of global warming. The judge said: "It is apparently considered to be more likely to result from ... population increase, over-grazing and regional climate variability"

· Mr Gore ascribed Hurricane Katrina to global warming, but there was "insufficient evidence to show that"

· Mr Gore also referred to a study showing that polar bears were being found that had drowned "swimming long distances to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm"

· The film said that coral reefs all over the world were bleaching because of global warming and other factors. The judge said separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution, was difficult

· The film said a sea-level rise of up to 20ft would be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future; the judge ruled that this was "distinctly alarmist"


----------



## LV994-CB (May 4, 2007)

New York? Not New York   :rant:
I dont want that one of the best skyscrapercities be under water.


----------



## OMH (Aug 21, 2007)

Jaeger said:


> Climate Change is constant and has always been with us, whether it is an ice age or a period of global warming - Whilst no one is denying climate change (as climate
> change is constant) it is difficult to be certain of the exact effect.
> 
> 
> ...


see..al gore just really can't convince me too much!


----------



## phxaz (Oct 22, 2007)

los angeles doesnt seem as likely. even though its by the ocean, most of its elevation is pretty high for a coastal city


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

So what if climate changes have always been there? They now involve way much more people.

Do the maths and value the risks.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

eusebius said:


> So what if climate changes have always been there? They now involve way much more people.
> 
> Do the maths and value the risks.


I don't know what people have to do with the elevation of the earth, a major factor in climate change.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/...l-2005/html-version/cooling/cooling-past.html

Even if there were no people there would still be massive climate change.


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Jaeger said:


> I don't know what people have to do with the elevation of the earth, a major factor in climate change.
> 
> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/...l-2005/html-version/cooling/cooling-past.html
> 
> Even if there were no people there would still be massive climate change.


He means that previously, climate change of such proportions would not have affected anyone (as humans weren't on earth), whereas now they do.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

_00_deathscar said:


> He means that previously, climate change of such proportions would not have affected anyone (as humans weren't on earth), whereas now they do.


Once again 'it is difficult to be certain of the exact effect' and many of the media stories are not always factual.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_533589.html


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Isn't Los Angeles significantly above sea level?


----------



## dreamtime07 (Jun 23, 2007)

*The Great Global Warming Swindle*

*The Great Global Warming Swindle* is a controversial documentary film that argues against the scientific opinion on climate change that human activity is the main cause of global warming.

*Claims made in the film*

The film claims that the consensus on climate change is the product of "a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media".[1] It uses a series of interviews and graphics to support its claims that are listed below.[6]

*On contradictions in the theory of anthropogenic global warming*

* Records of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then. (This graph used in the programme's first airing was twenty years old and was originally sourced as "NASA", but later was said to be from a 1998 graph found in the Medical Sentinel journal. The authors of the graph were from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, publisher of the Oregon petition. Durkin acknowledged that the graph's time axis was "mislabelled", indicating that 1988 data were valid through 2000. The graph was corrected in subsequent showings by ending the data series at 1988.)[7]

* All models of temperature increase as a result of the greenhouse effect predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. Current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.

* The film shows that increases in CO2 levels lagged behind temperature increases during glacial terminations.
EPICA and Vostok ice cores display the relationship between temperature and level of CO2 for the last 650,000 years.
EPICA and Vostok ice cores display the relationship between temperature and level of CO2 for the last 650,000 years.

* Carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide.

* Due to the large oceanic mass, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in the mass of the ocean, which is why analysis of the Vostok Station and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature lag temperature increases by 800 years.

* Water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat. The effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.

* The total concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is just 0.054%, a very minuscule amount. Humans contribute much less than 1% of that. The documentary states that volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans (Durkin has subsequently admitted that this claim is wrong[8]), while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and that the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a "mere" 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions therefore cannot be causing global warming.

* Solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation. Solar activity is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth.

* The current warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the Medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in Europe.

*On research findings driven by financial or ideological motives*

* There has been an increase in funds available for any research related to global warming "and it is now one of the best funded areas of science."

* Scientists seeking a research grant award have a much more likely chance of successfully obtaining funding if the grant is linked to global warming research.

* It is more likely that vested interests occur among supporters of the proponents of the theory of man-made global warming because hundreds of thousands of jobs in science, media, and government have been created and are subsidized as a result of this theory.

* Scientists who speak out against the theory that global warming is man-made risk persecution, death threats, loss of funding, personal attacks, and damage to their reputations.

* Some supporters of the theory that global warming is man-made do so because it supports their emotional and ideological beliefs against capitalism, economic development, globalization, industrialisation, and the United States.

* The theory that global warming is man-made was promoted by Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a means of promoting nuclear power and reducing the impact of strike action by the National Union of Mineworkers.

* Claims that all sceptics are funded by private industry (such as oil, gas, and coal industries) are false and have no basis in fact.

*Disputing a scientific consensus supporting anthropogenic global warming*

* The claim that "2,500 top scientists" support the theory of man-made global warming mentioned in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report are false, and that in fact the report includes many politicians, non-scientists, and even dissenters that demanded that their names be removed from the report but were refused.

* IPCC reports misrepresent the views of scientists who contribute to them through selective editorializing. For example, when Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute complained that the IPCC did not take his professional opinion under greater consideration, the IPCC kept his name on the report as a contributor. His name was not removed until he threatened legal action.

* The concept of man-made global warming is promoted with a ferocity and intensity that is similar to a religious fervor. Sceptics are treated as heretics and equated with holocaust deniers. Retired university professor Tim Ball states in the film, and in subsequent press publicity that he has received death threats because of sceptical statements he has made about global warming.[9]

*Killing the African dream of development*

* Author and economist James Shikwati says in the programme that environmentalists campaign against Africa using its fossil fuels: "there's somebody keen to kill the African dream. And the African dream is to develop." He describes renewable power as "luxurious experimentation" that might work for rich countries but will never work for Africa: "I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry ... We are being told, 'Don't touch your resources. Don't touch your oil. Don't touch your coal.' That is suicide."
* An example is given in the film of a Kenyan health clinic which is powered by solar panels which do not provide enough electricity for both the medical refrigerator and the lights at the same time. The programme describes the idea of restricting the world's poorest people to alternative energy sources as "the most morally repugnant aspect of the Global Warming campaign."

Source: Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle


----------



## dreamtime07 (Jun 23, 2007)

You can watch the video here http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Channel 4's 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' Documentary was also littered with inaccuracies - however this doesn't make Gore's claims any
less inaccurate.

The High Court in London called on experts who dismissed many of the claims made in 'An Inconvenient Truth' as alarmist.


----------



## xXFallenXx (Jun 15, 2007)

TenRot said:


> Isn't Los Angeles significantly above sea level?


yeah, LA's at at least 100ft if not more so it shouldn't be a problem at all.


----------



## Unionstation13 (Aug 31, 2006)

I read about that. As far as historical cities, has anyone ever seen megamovers? :banana: imagine the empire state building being moved across New York! :lol: 
This is one of the nice things about living inland. Hopefully though they can find a way to stop it.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

Unionstation13 said:


> I read about that. As far as historical cities, has anyone ever seen megamovers? :banana: imagine the empire state building being moved across New York! :lol:
> This is one of the nice things about living inland. Hopefully though they can find a way to stop it.



New York City - Proposed Flood Barriers










London's new flood barrier at the mouth of the river Thames.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6964281.stm


----------



## Unionstation13 (Aug 31, 2006)

^^ hopefully that works, but wouldn't it back the water up and flood the land?


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

PresidentBjork said:


> Woah, woah, sorry to _offend_ you so much.
> 
> Yes, I absolutely _adore_ Wiki, after all I glance at it sometimes twice, sometimes even 3 times a week to get a few simple facts when I can't be bothered to trall through detailed essays every time I want to quickly know something.
> 
> If you really must know where I got the stuff on coastal terminology- it was something I read from a Geography student out interest. If you don't like it take it up with them or whoever wrote the book.


hno:

I couldn't care which book you claimed to get this information from, the fact a city has a tidal river does not make it coastal.


----------



## PresidentBjork (Apr 29, 2007)

Aw well, I'll agree to disagree. 

I know what I read, but never mind, there's no point starting a flame war.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

You just need to go to the Encyclopedia Britannica and look up coastal it will give you the relevant information on what constitutes coastal.

As for the book you read I suggest you consign it to mthe bin.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

Do we have any existing aquavilles on this Earth? If so, how are going to live in an aquaville? If life in an aquaville is impossible, how the hell are we supposed to prevent this problem?


----------



## djm19 (Jan 3, 2005)

phxaz said:


> los angeles doesnt seem as likely. even though its by the ocean, most of its elevation is pretty high for a coastal city


Even a lot of the area right next to the ocean make a pretty sharp increase in elevation once you get past the beach. 

Here you can see whats practically a canyon on the beach, with just a sparce amount of houses literally on the beach: 









photo: iNetours.com


----------

