Slashdot Mirror

. Even if we could get CO2 concentrations up to 2000 ppm, we likely wouldn't be warming the planet to anywhere near where it used to be. And it used to be fine even then.

A little more people around these days... Certainly, the planet would continue spinning and life would go on - but there are a quite a lot of people living in the coastal zones that'd be / used to be under water. Ready to kiss goodbye to most of the worlds big cities, all port infrastructure? The upheaval of moving, or the killing off of, a large proportion of the worlds population? Nifty use of Google Maps API to simulate sea level rise - have a look

While you might be okay if you live in Australia (unless you live in the entrance or around Newcastle) people in the Netherlands, southern Vietnam or the Shanghai and Macau areas won't be too happy about a 1 - 2m rise (see http://flood.firetree.net/)

The problem is that all of our coastal infrastructure is built around existing sea levels. Including many of the worlds major cities. Change that sea level and there are going to be consequences.

And of course if we get into a positive feedback loop and the sea rise is significantly more than anticipated, we are all fucked.

What I find rather interesting is that people continue to buy coastal low level land, especially considering that interactive maps (like http://flood.firetree.net/ ) clearly show what a sea level rise will do to that land. The site I use has been around since 2004. Are these people expecting that the government pay them when their land goes underwater?

But it gets even more interesting (when you use the link I provided) to raise the sea level as many meters as is now predicted. Places such as the Salton Sea might actually become connected to the Pacific Ocean because of the low level land to the south. Rivers that dump in to the ocean, as sea levels rise, the land on either side of the river upstream will flood.

As to the topic of this article, there is a solution besides relocation, such as using buildings that float. Otherwise, relocate to a location at a high enough altitude that future sea level rises will not affect them. And to start the process now instead of waiting until the last moment.

Thought I would research the London case - http://flood.firetree.net?ll=51.4438,-359.6106&zoom=9&m=20

Yeah, the way to save London in this scenario is to dredge (a vast amount) from Southend southwards to the spit of 20m+ land from Sheerness.

The far more reasonable 5m sea level rise would have you damming between Shoeburyness and the Isle Of Sheppey and then probably to the east of Faversham. http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.5020,0.6225&zoom=11&m=5

The fens might need the same doing, despite a lack of a vast city to save: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=53.0000,0.4526&zoom=10&m=20

Sorry Holland: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.2405,6.0700&zoom=8&m=20 ... oh dear, 5m isn't much better: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.2405,6.0700&zoom=8&m=5 and 1m is devastating: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.5422,6.2568&zoom=8&m=1

Thought I would research the London case - http://flood.firetree.net?ll=51.4438,-359.6106&zoom=9&m=20

Yeah, the way to save London in this scenario is to dredge (a vast amount) from Southend southwards to the spit of 20m+ land from Sheerness.

The far more reasonable 5m sea level rise would have you damming between Shoeburyness and the Isle Of Sheppey and then probably to the east of Faversham. http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.5020,0.6225&zoom=11&m=5

The fens might need the same doing, despite a lack of a vast city to save: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=53.0000,0.4526&zoom=10&m=20

Sorry Holland: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.2405,6.0700&zoom=8&m=20 ... oh dear, 5m isn't much better: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.2405,6.0700&zoom=8&m=5 and 1m is devastating: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.5422,6.2568&zoom=8&m=1

Thought I would research the London case - http://flood.firetree.net?ll=51.4438,-359.6106&zoom=9&m=20

Yeah, the way to save London in this scenario is to dredge (a vast amount) from Southend southwards to the spit of 20m+ land from Sheerness.

The far more reasonable 5m sea level rise would have you damming between Shoeburyness and the Isle Of Sheppey and then probably to the east of Faversham. http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.5020,0.6225&zoom=11&m=5

The fens might need the same doing, despite a lack of a vast city to save: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=53.0000,0.4526&zoom=10&m=20

Sorry Holland: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.2405,6.0700&zoom=8&m=20 ... oh dear, 5m isn't much better: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.2405,6.0700&zoom=8&m=5 and 1m is devastating: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.5422,6.2568&zoom=8&m=1

Thought I would research the London case - http://flood.firetree.net?ll=51.4438,-359.6106&zoom=9&m=20

Yeah, the way to save London in this scenario is to dredge (a vast amount) from Southend southwards to the spit of 20m+ land from Sheerness.

The far more reasonable 5m sea level rise would have you damming between Shoeburyness and the Isle Of Sheppey and then probably to the east of Faversham. http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.5020,0.6225&zoom=11&m=5

The fens might need the same doing, despite a lack of a vast city to save: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=53.0000,0.4526&zoom=10&m=20

Sorry Holland: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.2405,6.0700&zoom=8&m=20 ... oh dear, 5m isn't much better: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.2405,6.0700&zoom=8&m=5 and 1m is devastating: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.5422,6.2568&zoom=8&m=1

Thought I would research the London case - http://flood.firetree.net?ll=51.4438,-359.6106&zoom=9&m=20

Yeah, the way to save London in this scenario is to dredge (a vast amount) from Southend southwards to the spit of 20m+ land from Sheerness.

The far more reasonable 5m sea level rise would have you damming between Shoeburyness and the Isle Of Sheppey and then probably to the east of Faversham. http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.5020,0.6225&zoom=11&m=5

The fens might need the same doing, despite a lack of a vast city to save: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=53.0000,0.4526&zoom=10&m=20

Sorry Holland: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.2405,6.0700&zoom=8&m=20 ... oh dear, 5m isn't much better: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.2405,6.0700&zoom=8&m=5 and 1m is devastating: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.5422,6.2568&zoom=8&m=1

Thought I would research the London case - http://flood.firetree.net?ll=51.4438,-359.6106&zoom=9&m=20

Yeah, the way to save London in this scenario is to dredge (a vast amount) from Southend southwards to the spit of 20m+ land from Sheerness.

The far more reasonable 5m sea level rise would have you damming between Shoeburyness and the Isle Of Sheppey and then probably to the east of Faversham. http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.5020,0.6225&zoom=11&m=5

The fens might need the same doing, despite a lack of a vast city to save: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=53.0000,0.4526&zoom=10&m=20

Sorry Holland: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.2405,6.0700&zoom=8&m=20 ... oh dear, 5m isn't much better: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.2405,6.0700&zoom=8&m=5 and 1m is devastating: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=52.5422,6.2568&zoom=8&m=1

not exactly

Mobile Alabama is already adjacent to the sea. To flood the Florida panhandle, and thus expand Alabama's beach front to the east, you'd need between 30 and 40 meters of sea level rise. You'd need 60 meters to get rid of the florida peninsula entirely source.

Well, if we manage to melt Antartica, we are in hot waters!

Here is the sea rise interactive map. You can choose how much sea level rise and see if you still live on land. I recall melting the whole Antartica would cause a sea rise of 70 meters. I do not know if it includes water thermal dilatation, but I hope it does.

There's a dynamic map here which is fun to play with.

The map is wildly inaccurate. Look at this gravel pit near Petersburg, VA: Because the pit is close to sea level, the map claims it will be flooded at a 2 m sea level rise. In reality, it would probably take a 60 m sea level rise for it to flood because of the height of the surrounding terrain.

It looks like NASA just did a plane intersection with the terrain. If the height above sea level at this point is lower than a threshold, then they claim it will be flooded when the sea rises to this threshold. This is the reason why the Netherlands seems to be all flooded on the map - dams are completely ignored by this algorithm.

Look at a sea level rise map of the same gravel pit in a calculation that takes the global terrain into account. You need to set the water level to 60 m for the sea to spill over into the gravel pit.

It's based on their DEM (digital elevation model) dataset, specifically the Shuttle Radar Terrain Mapping project, but I doubt that they had anything to do with this. There's also an ad at the bottom for flood insurance. It also looks like the guy just went through and generated a blue overlay for land lower than the sea level rise you select, which wouldn't include any backwater effects from going up rivers. He's got a website about what he did here: http://blog.firetree.net/2006/05/18/more-about-flood-maps/

Here's a mash-up site that purports to show the effects of global sea level rising in increments of 1 meter, up to +14m. I make no claim as to the accuracy of the info it presents, I just happened to find it a while back while researching hurricane storm surge.

http://flood.firetree.net/

Personally, none of this worries me in the least - I live on a boat. :D Maybe that's something more people, especially global warming fanatics, should consider.

Wait, then they would be my neighbors. Ugh, scratch that. I can't stand fanatics. Except for the hot-nyphomaniac-in-a-bikini sort of fanatic. Those, I don't mind... ;)

Even a 1M rise is not good news for Denmark see map, or many places in the USA like New orleans or even Sacramento.

Even a 1M rise is not good news for Denmark see map, or many places in the USA like New orleans or even Sacramento.

You need to get current with the literature. The IPCC points out that they have left the icesheets out of their estimate. You want to go with 5 meters or higher for planning purposes. Say, 5 meters plus a 3 meter storm surge. Here is what things look like under those conditions: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=28.6942,-96.0603&z=6&m=8

I guess you might want the customers to be underwater too ;-)? You can see from the cover of this Brochure that the land is pretty flat there: http://etidweb.tamu.edu/classes/entc359/STP%20Brochure%20June%2006.pdf. Here is how close 5 meters of sea level rise gets to the resevior: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=28.6942,-96.0603&z=6&m=5. I doubt the resevior will avoid being breached in this situation. You can run the level up to 14 meters which we might see by 2200. 25 meters is not available but this is what a 3 C warming would likely cause. The interesting thing is that this seems to happen in centuries rather than millennia: http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/l3h462k7p4068780/?p=0f73dea5b8974dfa837377d459559a91&pi=1.

How many feet of sea level rise does the Himalayan glacial melt represent? We see stats about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (5m) and Greenland (7m), but what about the Himalays? And what about the contribution from all the Andean glaciers, not just Peru's? Canada's got lots of land ice...

Even the NASA data for flood elevations goes up to only 14m. We've got a lot more ice than that.