Sea Level Rise Can't Be Stopped

And Neither Can This by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:24 · Score: -1

FFrst Pstt.

You're lame, lameness filter!

Re:And Neither Can This by flyneye · 2012-07-03 12:17 · Score: 1

Being first to assess future beachfront, purchase and develop will be far more important than being first to post ,little cow.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Bye Florida! by ColdWetDog · 2012-07-03 08:25 · Score: 4, Funny

Serves you right. You let all those New Yorkers in and bad things happen....

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:Bye Florida! by ackthpt · 2012-07-03 08:50 · Score: 1

Serves you right. You let all those New Yorkers in and bad things happen....
Hope all those gators can adapt to a life at sea...

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Bye Florida! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:00 · Score: 0

Something tells me that 32.2cm won't affect all of Florida. I'm close enough to the beach to enjoy it, and far enough away that I might have beach-front property once all is said and done :).
Re:Bye Florida! by emho24 · 2012-07-03 09:36 · Score: -1

For every .1cm of rise, we'll have to raise taxes a hunnerd bajillion trillion dollars! Even if the rise doesnt occur! FOR THE CHILDREN! We'll use all that money to soak up the waters!

--
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
Re:Bye Florida! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:37 · Score: 0

She can't take much more of this, Captain!
Re:Bye Florida! by hairyfeet · 2012-07-03 09:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

They won't have any problem, same as the armadillos that USED to live in TX went through AR and are halfway through OK now. As a certain line from a movie went "life finds a way" and while we here in North Central AR may be roasting under 104F temps the armadillos just packed up and moved north. At the current rate I expect Canucks to be dodging armadillos in about a decade.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Bye Florida! by davidbrit2 · 2012-07-03 09:59 · Score: 1

Dude, it's not all New-Yorkers. That Billy Joel song was fictional, you know.
Re:Bye Florida! by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-07-03 10:01 · Score: 1

So you're saying that the armadillos have a better plan than you guys do? 0_o
As a scuba-diving Canuck, I look forward to trading in my 100#*, 7mm crushed neoprene drysuit for a rashguard. Also, the "wrecks" of old houses should be spectacular.
My house is 44m above current sea level.
*Okay, that's with the weights required to compensate for its buoyancy.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:Bye Florida! by jd · 2012-07-03 10:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

32.2cm is the mean sea level rise. If you picture the ocean as one gigantic seesaw, it's how much the midpoint rises by, not the endpoints. The lever on either side of this midpoint is around 3200 km long. I will leave you to figure out the total area of any given slice your side of the midpoint - and what will happen to that during spring tide. Sure, low tide might actually be lower as a result, but I'm thinking that any land much below 32m below current sea levels will be in real trouble.
That's ignoring the ocean currents. Those help take hot water away from the Gulf of Mexico, so lose/weaken them and you get longer, more severe hurricanes.
And this is still ignoring the fact that much of the SE is reclaimed swamp. Water table shoots up, even if only 32cm, and you WILL lose houses nominally on dry land because they're not designed for that. You'll also lose your storm drains and sewage systems, so the survivors can expect massive outbreaks of cholera. If there are any survivors - the road system there basically uses sand as a foundation, so you WILL lose most of your road network and that means no possibility of evacuation when the hurricanes arrive. New Orleans had substantially evacuated before Katrina, you won't be able to. With South Carolina in the same boat - literally, there also will be far fewer places to evacuate to.
By 2112, everything from Florida to the middle of North Carolina will be an uninhabited, uninhabitable lost land, barren of all life. Nothing will survive there.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Bye Florida! by kelemvor4 · 2012-07-03 11:04 · Score: 3, Funny

meh.. I live in Florida. About a mile from the Gulf of Mexico. 588cm above sea level. The expensive beach house owners might have to worry but much of FL will be just fine. Who knows, maybe someday my house will become a beach house!
Re:Bye Florida! by geekoid · 2012-07-03 11:08 · Score: 2

OF course there will be survivors. People will move as it happens more and more.
That's not the question. the question is:
DO we want a long term planned systems of codes to handle the changes.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Bye Florida! by rs79 · 2012-07-03 11:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

I live 2000 feet from Lake Ontario, seven feet above it.
I'd feel more confident about these predictions when at least two of them are the same.
So the "twenty feet by 2100" thing is gone now then is it Mr. Gore, cause, gosh, that sure sold a lot of movies books and carbon taxes.
And what would the sea rise be without man? Of are we supposed to believe the sea stays exactly the same forever?
Well, we only have 88 years to deal with a foot rise in water. Damn, that's devastating, we'd better get right to work.
Somebody ought to put this in perspective and figure out the human cost of this then compare it to the human cost in natural disasters by the end of the century.
It also should, you'd think, occur to somebody in a position of authority in the US that fighting natural disasters in the homeland is perhaps money better spent that having those boys occupy 153 countries with 186 bases with various occupying forces around the world.
Just a thought.

--
Need Mercedes parts ?
Re:Bye Florida! by geekoid · 2012-07-03 11:10 · Score: 1

"from Florida to the middle of North Carolina will be an uninhabited, u"
so we should fence them off now, make a note of everyone who thinking Man Made Global Warming is a 'controversy' and it isn't real, and never let them out.? ok.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Bye Florida! by rs79 · 2012-07-03 11:10 · Score: 0

You say that like having Florida be underwater would be a bad thing.

--
Need Mercedes parts ?
Re:Bye Florida! by jd · 2012-07-03 11:15 · Score: 1

Sounds like a plan to me. If we can get a fusion plant running, even better - stick a giant iron spike somewhere on the coast and connect that to -ve. Connect the fence to +ve. Once the sea level gets above a certain depth, everything contained by the fence will be electroplated by the pollution, preventing it from spreading elsewhere.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Bye Florida! by catchblue22 · 2012-07-03 12:08 · Score: 5, Informative

From the parent post

Well, we only have 88 years to deal with a foot rise in water. Damn, that's devastating, we'd better get right to work.
From the summary

...32.2 cm from thermal expansion alone...
I know it is easier to ignore reality, but I think the parent poster has gotten so used to ignoring science that he ignores the clear language in the article summary. Here is a fact: Most sea level rise will come in the end from melting glaciers. And the melting is accelerating.

So the "twenty feet by 2100" thing is gone now then is it Mr. Gore, cause, gosh, that sure sold a lot of movies books and carbon taxes.
Except that Gore didn't actually say twenty feet by 2100 in his movie. Here is a link to the transcript (pdf) of An Inconvenient Truth. I believe the passage that is often referred to occurs when Gore shows the maps of water inundated coast lines. Here is the transcript of that part of the movie:

If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the low-countries: absolutely devastating.
The above statement is basically true. If you broke up the entire Greenland ice sheet, the rise in sea level would be catastrophic. Mr. Gore does not say this will happen in the next 100 years. It is a conditional statement. If something happens, then something else will happen. The time scale is not certain, though given recent trends in melting, three feet by 2100 is not unlikely. A basic search of recent literature will support this.

--
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Re:Bye Florida! by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 12:15 · Score: 1

32.2 cm is only from thermal expansion. If glaciers and ice sheets continue to melt you can probably double that.
Re:Bye Florida! by catchblue22 · 2012-07-03 12:22 · Score: 1

From the summary

...32.2 cm from thermal expansion alone...
...as in not including glacial melt, which will in the end likely account for the majority of sea level rise

--
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Re:Bye Florida! by catchblue22 · 2012-07-03 12:24 · Score: 1

The summary gives the 32.2cm rise as the amount from thermal expansion, not including the rise from ice melting.

--
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Re:Bye Florida! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 12:49 · Score: 0

The quote is from jurassic park 2. Please disregard this comment. I have no other content to add.
Re:Bye Florida! by ultranova · 2012-07-03 13:20 · Score: 2

Water table shoots up, even if only 32cm, and you WILL lose houses nominally on dry land because they're not designed for that.

Relax, it won't do that. It's just the salt water that'll shoot up; the fresh water will keep receding as before, and probably faster due to the hotter climate and thus greater need.

By 2112, everything from Florida to the middle of North Carolina will be an uninhabited, uninhabitable lost land, barren of all life. Nothing will survive there.

On the contrary, I expect there to be several developing ecosystems there at that time. They simply won't include humans. Except that we are the most adaptabale things on this planet, and will figure out some way to over-exploit and fuck them up too. So again, relax.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Bye Florida! by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 13:25 · Score: 2

So the "twenty feet by 2100" thing is gone now then is it Mr. Gore, cause, gosh, that sure sold a lot of movies books and carbon taxes.
Mr. Gore never said there would be 20 feet of sea level rise by 2100. He said that if all the ice on Greenland melted it would cause 20 feet of sea level rise which is an accurate statement. He didn't specify a time frame.
Re:Bye Florida! by Smauler · 2012-07-03 14:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why say it in the context of a film about the need for immediate action then? I hate semantic pedantry like this - It's applying a fact to some completely irrelevant. If the ice on Greenland were to melt over a million years, he could use the exact same argument. This is a problem, since it diminishes research into what is actually happening _now_. It's a fuck up, IMO - it makes statements of no relevance to the current situation, and tries to make them relevant.
I believe in anthropomorphic climate change, btw.
Re:Bye Florida! by jd · 2012-07-03 14:21 · Score: 1

You've got to take into consideration that this will mobilize any pollution currently locked in the soil, most of which is likely to be detrimental to any kind of life.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Bye Florida! by Smauler · 2012-07-03 14:26 · Score: 1

2.2cm is the mean sea level rise. If you picture the ocean as one gigantic seesaw, it's how much the midpoint rises by, not the endpoints. The lever on either side of this midpoint is around 3200 km long. I will leave you to figure out the total area of any given slice your side of the midpoint - and what will happen to that during spring tide. Sure, low tide might actually be lower as a result, but I'm thinking that any land much below 32m below current sea levels will be in real trouble.
Tides won't increase anything other than fractionally because of sea level rise... I'm really not sure what gives you the idea that they would. The amount of extra water in the oceans caused by global warming is tiny compared to what is there already. It also doesn't operate anything like a lever, the analogy is bogus. Where did you get the idea that leverage came into play? Seriously?
I'm fed up of these quasi-scientific doomsday predictions which do more to harm legitimate scientific concerns about warming than denial does.
Re:Bye Florida! by maitai · 2012-07-03 15:00 · Score: 2

Since we built NY, I'm pretty sure we can also build a 1 foot tall sea wall.
Re:Bye Florida! by TapeCutter · 2012-07-03 15:39 · Score: 0

Under BAU he world will continue to warm past 2100, at some point the Greenland and Antartic ice sheets will melt (estmates range from 2-5 centuries). That may seem like a long time but many engineering projects take on those time scales (the stabalising of the tower of pizza is one trivial example).

I hate semantic pedantry like this
It simple comprehension skills, if there's is anything to hate it's the dishonesty of those who deliberately twist and misquote his words for political gain.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Bye Florida! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 15:42 · Score: 0

The point where you hit the brakes is different from the point where you come to a stop. That's where the need for immediate action comes from, even if the braking distance is long.
Re:Bye Florida! by TapeCutter · 2012-07-03 16:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

Meanwhile NC recently banned their civil engineers from considering the impact of any rise in sea levels due to AGW, they insist that infrastructure planning must only use the historical sea level records for forcasting future sea levels.

As for TFA, the phenomena of thermal inertia has been understood for decades (it's why the hottest weather occurs a month or two AFTER the summer solctice, and is also the origin of the "pluto is warming" canard). More and better data have added weight to that knowledge and more finely tuned our accounting of what mechanisim is responsible for what portion of the changes (such as the recent stories about the draining of aquifiers contributing to the rise). All this is because the IPCC avoids using data that is less that 2yrs old in it's reports, they're currently approaching the cut off date for new data to be added to the 2014 reports so you can expect to see these kind of stories over the next month or so. The next two years will be spent arguing over the expected 100k or so individual review critisisims of the draft reports.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Bye Florida! by phantomfive · 2012-07-03 16:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

The above statement is basically true. If you broke up the entire Greenland ice sheet, the rise in sea level would be catastrophic. Mr. Gore does not say this will happen in the next 100 years. It is a conditional statement. If something happens, then something else will happen. The time scale is not certain, though given recent trends in melting, three feet by 2100 is not unlikely. A basic search of recent literature will support this.
A perfect example of how to be misleading without actually lying.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Bye Florida! by busyqth · 2012-07-03 16:46 · Score: 1

That may seem like a long time but many engineering projects take on those time scales (the stabalising of the tower of pizza is one trivial example).
That tower of pizza sure is wobbly. How tall is it anyway? Is Papa John's involved in the stabilization efforts?
Re:Bye Florida! by catchblue22 · 2012-07-03 16:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

The above statement is basically true. If you broke up the entire Greenland ice sheet, the rise in sea level would be catastrophic. Mr. Gore does not say this will happen in the next 100 years. It is a conditional statement. If something happens, then something else will happen. The time scale is not certain, though given recent trends in melting, three feet by 2100 is not unlikely. A basic search of recent literature will support this.
A perfect example of how to be misleading without actually lying.
As opposed to the original parent post I responded to:

So the "twenty feet by 2100" thing is gone now then is it Mr. Gore, cause, gosh, that sure sold a lot of movies books and carbon taxes.
Which is an example of being misleading while actually lying

--
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Re:Bye Florida! by phantomfive · 2012-07-03 16:54 · Score: 0

Being able to mislead while telling the truth is a much more pernicious ability. Consider that the person you replied to may merely be an idiot.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Bye Florida! by TapeCutter · 2012-07-03 19:30 · Score: 1

Pizza, Pisa, they both taste like cheese.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Bye Florida! by burnetd · 2012-07-03 19:38 · Score: 1

It's 45 metres. Well London City Hall is, which is nicknamed the tower of pizza.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4059/4684055511_4e84148c74_b.jpg
Re:Bye Florida! by Hal_Porter · 2012-07-03 20:13 · Score: 1

By 2112, everything from Florida to the middle of North Carolina will be an uninhabited, uninhabitable lost land, barren of all life. Nothing will survive there.
So the Mayans were right about the apocalypse, but (exactly) 100 years wrong about the date?
Still I guess it's hard to do climate modelling in base 20 one stone tablets.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:Bye Florida! by sg_oneill · 2012-07-03 21:05 · Score: 1

But its neither misleading or a lie? Its very clear in the film what he means, and just because a bunch of shitty conservative bloggers decided to twist his words with selective quotation and straight out misattribution doesn't mean its HIM being dishonest, it means its the ridiculous denialists being dishonest.

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:Bye Florida! by sg_oneill · 2012-07-03 21:09 · Score: 2

Because its part of the big picture. The film was 1-2 hours and talked about a LOT of things. The reality is we dont know how bad its going to get , only that its bad. the film explored a range of scenarios at different time scales.
More to the point, as this very research shows, the effects of decisions made NOW will be with us for a LONG time to come. So yes, there is urgency. Even over the past ten years the *current* effects of climate change have become a lot more serious. Do we really need to spend another 20 years arguing with boorish anti-intellectual denialists and conservatives whilst we actually know now for a fact that we really do need to fix a serious problem in the biosphere, like right now?

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re:Bye Florida! by froggymana · 2012-07-04 02:30 · Score: 1

32.2 cm is only from thermal expansion. If glaciers and ice sheets continue to melt you can probably double that.
Since going from a solid to a liquid is a cooling process (80cals/gram for water), and it takes 1cal/gram to change liquid water's temperature by a degree. Doesn't this mean that the melted ice will cool the ocean down, offsetting the rise in sea level from thermal expansion?

--
"To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
Re:Bye Florida! by rwise2112 · 2012-07-04 03:14 · Score: 1

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

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Re:Bye Florida! by phantomfive · 2012-07-04 03:16 · Score: 1

It's good you are so intelligent as to not have been misled,

but very many people were, and it is likely that was his intention......to make global warming look as bad as possible (even though those effects are unlikely).

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Bye Florida! by JBaustian · 2012-07-04 04:14 · Score: 1

Didn't the sea level rise by about 30 cm during the 20th century? I think it did, even though this was not on the front pages of every newspaper published between 1901 and 2000. Somehow humans were able to adapt, and we can probably adapt to another rise of 30 cm this century.
Re:Bye Florida! by Ferretman · 2012-07-04 09:02 · Score: 1

I was stuck in Florida (Orlando) for 8 long months.

Nothing wrong with Florida that a few feet of global warming won't fix.....

Ferretman

--
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Re:Bye Florida! by Fjandr · 2012-07-04 09:38 · Score: 1

That would be great if all it took to deal with the changes in hydrostatic pressure from sea levels rising was to build sea walls.
Unfortunately, a sea wall wouldn't do a damn thing to prevent any of the actual engineering challenges resulting from rising sea levels.
Re:Bye Florida! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 01:43 · Score: 0

...32.2 cm from thermal expansion alone...
I know it is easier to ignore reality, but I think the parent poster has gotten so used to ignoring science that he ignores the clear language in the article summary. Here is a fact: Most sea level rise will come in the end from melting glaciers. And the melting is accelerating.
try melting a big ice cube in a glass of water, check the level before and after the ice cube melts
the only way ice melting affects the rise of sea level is when pieces of ice covering Greenland melt and flow into the ocean
thermal expansion is the main concern in regards to the level of sea rising
Re:Bye Florida! by RockDoctor · 2012-07-05 02:09 · Score: 1

My house is 44m above current sea level
So ... sea-level wise, you don't have much to worry about for one to one-and-a-half centuries. Confidence inspiring. Slightly less urgent things to consider are whether the routes of services (road, rail, pipelines, pylons) have any vulnerable dips that might need routing around. As sea-level rises, are there harbour facilities that will need to be moved, or just plain built ; and how will that affect the economics of the area.
If you're close to an ocean, including along a large river valley, then you've a literally astronomical consideration of whether you'll get hit by tsunami from a meteorite impact in that ocean basin. 44m is a healthy degree of freeboard though. A more terrestrial consideration is the stability of the piles of glacial debris on the continental slopes ocean-ward of you : that is fundamentally what caused the "Storegga Slide" which washed low-lying areas of the coast around here about 7500BC and 5000 BC (the waves washed up the Rhine Valley and across Belgium). You'll have to do your own research on that - I don't know about the structure of the ice sheets offshore from the St Lawrence estuary, or from Vancouver area. But with my "geologist" hat on (it says "ÑÐÐ±Ð", which is a joke that only works with Russians of a certain age and probably won't pass through SlashCode unmangled), I'd say that the idea is worth some examination. I'd start by finding the local university geology department (or amateur geology club ; an adult-education study group, perhaps?) and seeing if someone else has already taken an interest in the topic.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:Bye Florida! by Sarius64 · 2012-07-05 06:09 · Score: 1

Yes, because Al Gore never lies by omission. Nevah.
Re:Bye Florida! by Cuddlah · 2012-07-05 08:18 · Score: 1

From the parent post

Well, we only have 88 years to deal with a foot rise in water. Damn, that's devastating, we'd better get right to work.
From the summary

...32.2 cm from thermal expansion alone...

If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the low-countries: absolutely devastating.
The above statement is basically true. If you broke up the entire Greenland ice sheet, the rise in sea level would be catastrophic. Mr. Gore does not say this will happen in the next 100 years. It is a conditional statement. If something happens, then something else will happen. The time scale is not certain, though given recent trends in melting, three feet by 2100 is not unlikely. A basic search of recent literature will support this.
The problem is that actual scientists have now done actual science and determined that, in the Antarctic at least, there is no appreciable loss of ice mass, and that water temperatures have not changed appreciably as has been previously claimed by global warming/climate change nuts. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/
Re:Bye Florida! by riverat1 · 2012-07-05 13:24 · Score: 1

The average depth of the oceans is around 12,500 feet. If all of the ice on land were to melt it would raise sea level around 230 feet, an insignificant amount of water compared to what is already in the oceans. So there isn't enough ice to cool down the oceans significantly. At any rate the oceans have been absorbing heat energy at a rate of about 300 trillion Watts/second over the last few decades. To put that in perspective the total mass of the Earth's hydrosphere is about 1.4 x 10^21 kg. To raise all of that water by 1 C would take 1.4 x 10^24 calories or 1.5 x 10^21 Watt-seconds of energy (compared to 300 x 10^9 it is currently absorbing).
Re:Bye Florida! by riverat1 · 2012-07-05 13:31 · Score: 1

Oops, miscalculation and misreading. The "1.5 x 10^21 Watt-seconds" should have been 5.9 x 10^24 Watt-seconds. There are 4.1868 Watt-seconds of energy in a calorie.

Overlords? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:26 · Score: -1

I, for one, welcome our new underwater overlords.

Re:Overlords? by ichthus · 2012-07-03 14:04 · Score: 2

UNDER lords. Underlords.

--
sig: sauer

Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:26 · Score: 1, Interesting

Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but 14.2cm in 80 years doesn't exactly seem so bad (or even 32.2cm for that matter). Surely cities that are going to be effected will have ample time to relocate those in "danger".

Re:Not too bad? by pe1rxq · 2012-07-03 08:29 · Score: 1

Since this is slashdot I don't expect you to read the article, but even a goldfish would have the attention span required to read the last sentence of the summary.

--
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Re:Not too bad? by Xiver · 2012-07-03 08:30 · Score: 1

Don't overestimate the government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLlUgilKqms

--
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10
Re:Not too bad? by afeeney · 2012-07-03 08:39 · Score: 4, Informative

Well, for one, in the US alone, more than half the population lives in a coastal area.
Even if just 10 percent are directly affected, that's still a large number of people.
In the US, can you imagine all the lawsuits and politics about how to move people, does the government have the right to do it, does the government have the obligation to do it, and who is going to pay for it?
For countries like Indonesia that are mostly islands, or in countries or areas that are largely below sea level, this could result in a major loss of housing and usable land.
Anything that changes ocean patterns could affect shipping and fishing, both of which would be major blows to the global and regional economies. If we lose major fish populations, that will increase food prices, and if shipping becomes riskier, that will affect the price of virtually everything.
It's a lot more than avoiding getting wet.
Re:Not too bad? by sjames · 2012-07-03 09:03 · Score: 1

What there isn't time for is the usual generation long denial cycle that covers this sort of thing. About the time those needing to relocate are noticing that the ocean comes up to their knees now when they get out of bed, someone in the Federal government will be hailed as a genius when he announces that there may be something to this sea level rise business and that as soon as he gets back from vacation he will think about forming a committee to set the agenda for a meeting to form a committee to discuss the need to commission a study on who needs to be relocated.
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:06 · Score: 1

Coastal area != flood area. I lived less than a half mile from the Chesapeake bay, yet was at least 30 feet above sea level.
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:07 · Score: 0

The greatest tragedy, of course, is that now the 1%ers beach houses will have to be abandoned and their servants will be the ones with beach front property. I'mn sure they'll find some way to grab that land!
Re:Not too bad? by sosume · 2012-07-03 09:08 · Score: 1

You're seeing a lot of problems, while I'm seeing a boom in the dyke building business.
Re:Not too bad? by the_humeister · 2012-07-03 09:11 · Score: 1

I guess so. It didn't work out so well for New Orleans, but it works pretty well so far for Amsterdarm.
Re:Not too bad? by ackthpt · 2012-07-03 09:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but 14.2cm in 80 years doesn't exactly seem so bad (or even 32.2cm for that matter). Surely cities that are going to be effected will have ample time to relocate those in "danger".
Too right. Let's move them into the last Indian reservations.
Exactly where would you propose we move tens of millions of people? Not only Florida and low areas of the Eastern Seaboard, but gulf coast and low lands of Texas, right up to Houston are at risk.
Walt Kelly's Pogo -- We have met the enemy and he is us.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Not too bad? by Penguinisto · 2012-07-03 09:18 · Score: 1

I'm at the same altitude ASL, less than 10 blocks from the Pacific Ocean.
In spite of winter storms which can shove a decent surge, only a full-blown tsunami is getting up here in the next 100 years or so.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:Not too bad? by Hentes · 2012-07-03 09:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Netherlands seem to be doing just fine below sea level. It might cause some economic harm, but it's not going to be a tragedy. Also, most low-lying islands are coral islands that follow sea level.
Re:Not too bad? by Nocturnal+Deviant · 2012-07-03 09:32 · Score: 2

well at least it would do something to the economy unlike our current politicians....

--
-Noc
Re:Not too bad? by Tommy+Bologna · 2012-07-03 09:44 · Score: 1

Though sea-level rise cannot be stopped for at least the next several hundred years, with aggressive mitigation it can be slowed down, and this would buy time for adaptation measures to be adopted.
I'm glad you focused our attention on that sentence from the journal article. It is a particularly poorly made point. Adoption is instantaneous, implementation takes time. Also, "adaption measures" for something like a slowly rising waterline are not something we even need to consciously adopt. Adaptation happens organically.
It's is wildly unlikely someone will drown because they were caught unaware the water rose a meter over a century. However, time travelers might get their feet wet if they beam into a damp patch that was previously dry. The horror.
Re:Not too bad? by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-03 09:53 · Score: 2

It's is wildly unlikely someone will drown because they were caught unaware the water rose a meter over a century.
But it's quite highly likely that Florida will be declaring more and more natural disasters with greater and greater frequency since storms that now have an added foot, 2 feet or meter to build on are increasingly destructive.

And YOU will be paying for that since it's a 'national' emergency.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Not too bad? by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-03 09:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Tides in South Carolina routinely affect land 100 MILES inland. Just because 'you' are high and dry doesn't mean it's not a pressing national issue.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Not too bad? by Grizzley9 · 2012-07-03 09:56 · Score: 1

As others have mentioned, coastal area does not equal flood area. Also we are talking over a period of 100 years. Anything that will be affecting population will be organically implemented. Also, the height for all USians is just 1ft, over an incredible long time period for development, of which we can do nothing about and realistically won't do anything about.
Re:Not too bad? by elvesrus · 2012-07-03 10:00 · Score: 1

montana, wyoming, colorado, nevada, idaho, washington, oregon, california (those last 3 being non coastal), just about any other state west of the mississippi...
Re:Not too bad? by dpilot · 2012-07-03 10:05 · Score: 1

And it won't be just Florida. Don't forget the Gulf Coast, etc. Plus there seems to be some locality, because I've read that the Atlantic seaboard is seeing more sea-level increase than other places.
As for sea-level rise due to aquifers, I'd be as much worried about aquifer depletion as about sea-level rise. Aside from difficulties of continuing to pump water, some areas are showing subsidence, etc.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:Not too bad? by Curunir_wolf · 2012-07-03 10:25 · Score: 1

Tides in South Carolina routinely affect land 100 MILES inland. Just because 'you' are high and dry doesn't mean it's not a pressing national issue.
That's why they call it Low Country. And THAT is NOT a "pressing national issue".

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Not too bad? by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-03 10:45 · Score: 2

As for sea-level rise due to aquifers, I'd be as much worried about aquifer depletion as about sea-level rise.
Gubdummit! One natural disaster at a time! Take a number and wait yer turn like everybody else.

;-)

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:47 · Score: 0

Exactly where would you propose we move tens of millions of people?
It's not as if there's some sort of land shortage. Only sheltered metropolis-dwellers think the US is a crowded place.
Ever been to Wyoming?
Re:Not too bad? by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-03 10:48 · Score: 1

I know, I've lived there. If Charleston had a decent tech base as of 1995 I'd have stayed, Blackbaud not withstanding :)

Just because 'they' don't consider it a pressing national issue doesn't mean it isn't :)

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:52 · Score: 0

Ten miles inland. Hell, five might even do it.
Re:Not too bad? by chispito · 2012-07-03 11:07 · Score: 1

well at least it would do something to the economy unlike our current politicians....
You mean besides make things worse?

--
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Re:Not too bad? by jd · 2012-07-03 11:09 · Score: 1

You're assuming the rise at the midpoint will equal the rise at the endpoint. The moon doesn't just drag the surface, it drags EVERYTHING. About two million meters of water extra per meter horizontal cuboid from Europe to the Americas, at a rough guess. I'll leave you to do the trig, but a crude estimate suggests you could be looking at between 32-100 feet increases during the spring tides. Hope you can swim.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Not too bad? by jd · 2012-07-03 11:10 · Score: 1

Damn, Oregon has too many idiots as it is. I was hoping we could export them. Now you're asking us to take millions more? If they caused it, let 'em drown in it.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Not too bad? by geekoid · 2012-07-03 11:15 · Score: 1

How is wiping out millions of sqr miles not a pressing national issue?
yes it's called low country, not 'bottom of the ocean country'.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Not too bad? by geekoid · 2012-07-03 11:17 · Score: 1

You haven't noticed the steady improvement? It's pretty clearly documented that the economic improvements implemented have help.
Of course one side want's to NOT do anything under the presumption that making rich people richer will fix everything.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Not too bad? by geekoid · 2012-07-03 11:19 · Score: 1

We should start implementing policy and code. Cities and the federal government need to thinking decades, not years.
And 1ft is the mid level, not the high level, and disregards storms, storm surges and other melts.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Not too bad? by elvesrus · 2012-07-03 11:22 · Score: 1

that's why you send them to places like arlington. drowning would seem like a good alternative
Re:Not too bad? by Curunir_wolf · 2012-07-03 11:27 · Score: 1

How is wiping out millions of sqr miles not a pressing national issue?
yes it's called low country, not 'bottom of the ocean country'.
Well, for one thing, it's South Carolina...

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Not too bad? by drooling-dog · 2012-07-03 11:28 · Score: 1

and who is going to pay for it?
The insurance companies will have a lot to say about that. Long before your beachside home is eroded out from under you, your insurance carrier will be informing you that it doesn't want to underwrite that risk anymore. Not, at least, at anywhere near the paltry fee you're paying them now.
Re:Not too bad? by budgenator · 2012-07-03 11:29 · Score: 2

You Sir are having a rational thought, which can be very dangerous to your karma around here.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Not too bad? by drooling-dog · 2012-07-03 11:32 · Score: 1

People will move on their own when they can no longer buy insurance at an affordable price. It'll be a hell of a time to sell, though.
Re:Not too bad? by Genda · 2012-07-03 11:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Here's a quick inventory of problems to cope with.
Florida has a maximum land height of 42 feet. A three foot rise in see level, plus shore erosion due to larger and more frequent storms could reduce Florida to a stub of the current state with central islands where the everglades are now.
Expanded erosion of barrier island and sand dunes along the gulf and eastern seaboard will eliminate thousands of square miles of existing shoreline, destroying some of the most valuable property in the country.
Much of the Mississippi delta and most of Louisiana will simply go away (a great deal of which is already below sea level due to subsidence from poor river engineering by the Army Corp of Engineers.)
The West Coast won't pass unscathed, because towns along the bays in both southern and northern California, will suffer significant land loss.
The simple fact is that the big cities of the world are virtually all coastal cities and as such will be seriously impacted. The amount of land shared be people and critters will shrink a couple percent (large coastal plains will be inundated... kiss Bangladesh and a number of small islands in the South Pacific goodbye.)
You bet we can engineer around it. Move cities slowly back. Build higher dikes and levees. Abandon places that are hopeless. Its just one more cost, and significant cost to consider as we continue to spew greenhouse gas into the air.
Re:Not too bad? by Samantha+Wright · 2012-07-03 11:45 · Score: 1

You guys can come up to Northern Ontario! We're not using it anyway.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 12:05 · Score: 0

14 centimeters over a period of 90 years? My dick rises more than that, in like 9 seconds. Nobody ever called that dangerous. :(
Re:Not too bad? by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 12:20 · Score: 1

Thank you.
Re:Not too bad? by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 12:22 · Score: 1

It is highly likely that people will drown when a large storm surge on top of a relatively small sea level rise reaches places that have never been flooded before.
Re:Not too bad? by catchblue22 · 2012-07-03 12:26 · Score: 1

To make it clear, the article says that 32.2 cm rise will be from thermal expansion alone, not including the rise from melting glaciers. I've counted five misinterpreted posts so far. How can so many people be so obtuse?!

--
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Re:Not too bad? by catchblue22 · 2012-07-03 12:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Netherlands seem to be doing just fine below sea level. It might cause some economic harm, but it's not going to be a tragedy. Also, most low-lying islands are coral islands that follow sea level.
Do you have a clue how expensive the water management system in the Netherlands has been? Do you realize that the Netherlands is tiny compared with the areas under threat from sea level rise in the US alone? Hell, it's tiny even compared with Florida. Do you realize that duplicating the Dutch diking system for American coastal areas would likely bankrupt the country? Not to mention how future sea level rise will make it even more difficult for even the Netherlands to maintain the integrity of their diking system.

--
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Re:Not too bad? by edjs · 2012-07-03 12:47 · Score: 1

If you are in the USA you are either covered by a federal insurance scheme or more likely SOL, as the private insurers won't provide flood insurance.
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 12:48 · Score: 0

Build higher dikes and levees. Abandon places that are hopeless.
And yet people are re-building New Orleans, below sea level.
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 13:10 · Score: 0

most low-lying islands are coral islands that follow sea level
...on a timescale of tens of thousands of years, sure. What do you suggest we do in the meantime, Mr. Smart Person?
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 13:19 · Score: 0

Lesbian body builders? That does not seem like the usual kind of thing for slashdot. But whatever floats your boat, I guess.
Re:Not too bad? by Will.Woodhull · 2012-07-03 13:46 · Score: 1

What we can expect as the Gulf of Mexico expands is much more moist air blowing into the central region of the country. Northern Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas: there will be a long, hard rain a-coming. The Missouri and Mississippi River drainages have not had to deal with that kind of wetness for quite some time: expect that the rivers will change course and not pay much attention to human contrivances like dams and bridges when they do so. Decisions will need to be made about which interstate highways and railroads should be kept open, because nobody would tolerate the tax burden needed to keep everything in repair.
Oh, wheat fields will become rice paddies, the cost of steak and hamburgers will go way up as feedlots shut down (directly from flooding but also the loss of cheap transport of feed), gas and diesel will become very expensive (much of the USA refinery infrastructure will be lost to floods).
On the bright side, some of the younger slashdotters may live long enough to see the return of shallow fresh water seas in eastern Colorado and Kansas. Of course travelling to some place where it rains 370 days a year would not be much of a vacation.
Yes, a one foot rise in sea level might cause some economic harm.

--
Will
Re:Not too bad? by Will.Woodhull · 2012-07-03 14:03 · Score: 1

If only all that water would just stay in the oceans.
It will not, of course. That one foot rise is going to flood a lot of marshes. Which will act like big evaporation trays, adding a lot more humidity to the air. And water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the Earth's atmosphere, driving increasing, albeit localized, greenhouse effects. But that is not the main point here.
The main point here is that all that water vapor is not going to stay in the air. It is going to come down as rain in the hills. That one foot rise in sea level is going to turn small streams into large creeks and large creeks into raging rivers.
Aside from what used to be 100 year flood plains becoming flooded every decade or so, you can expect whatever part of your economy depends on truck or rail transportation to become much more expensive and less reliable as bridges and roads wash away.

--
Will
Re:Not too bad? by khallow · 2012-07-03 14:04 · Score: 1

In the US, can you imagine all the lawsuits and politics about how to move people, does the government have the right to do it, does the government have the obligation to do it, and who is going to pay for it?

No, because it's so easy to move and so many do so. As I understand it, there's enough moving infrastructure in place right now that it effectively moves the entire population of the US every six years.
Re:Not too bad? by Will.Woodhull · 2012-07-03 14:10 · Score: 1

Too right, Not to mention that the coastal flooding will increase inland rainfall, and there will be refugees from flooded neighborhoods of cities on the Missouri, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers who will need to resettled, too.

--
Will
Re:Not too bad? by R3d+M3rcury · 2012-07-03 14:12 · Score: 1

Expanded erosion of barrier island and sand dunes along the gulf and eastern seaboard will eliminate thousands of square miles of existing shoreline, destroying some of the most valuable property in the country.
Why is that land valuable? Oh, yeah! Because it's on the shoreline!
I would imagine that the new land on the shoreline will become just as valuable as the old land on the shoreline.
Re:Not too bad? by Will.Woodhull · 2012-07-03 14:23 · Score: 1

I live in Oregon. It is not suitable for refugees from the Flood.
Eastern Oregon lacks the water supplies needed to support any more people than it already has. In fact it probably has too many already, there are indications that too much is being drawn out of the aquifers. Western Oregon has plenty of water, and with the weather changes that go hand in hand with a rise in sea level, it will have way too much. The Willamette Valley will lose the dams that are critical to preventing its frequent flooding. When those go, so goes the railroads and the highways... and a lot of neighborhoods. Oregon will be doing all it can to handle the needs of its own refugees.
I believe Washington State is in the same situation.
I suggest that Flood refugees from east of the Rockies seek shelter in the church or synagogue of their choice.

--
Will
Re:Not too bad? by jd · 2012-07-03 14:23 · Score: 1

Maybe if we feed them to the Humboldt squid that are causing such a nuisance on the west coast, they'll leave the humans alone.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Not too bad? by Smauler · 2012-07-03 14:39 · Score: 1

In the UK, London would be in trouble. Much of Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, and Lincolnshire would have massive effects, mostly on farmland, which would have devastating effects on food production in England.
The trouble is, even if we stop pumping now, it's still going to happen (as long as we believe the scientists). There's no incentive for a government to do anything about it, since it'll reduce international competitiveness, and not produce _any_ gains.
Re:Not too bad? by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 14:40 · Score: 1

At 30 feet AMSL you're still within reach of a large storm surge and rising sea level increases the chances of it happening.
Re:Not too bad? by Helix_Sky · 2012-07-03 15:45 · Score: 1

Because of attitudes like yours its not like the sea level rise is going to stop any time soon. So what idiot is going to invest in land right next to land that has recently eroded itself into oblivion.
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 15:54 · Score: 0

due to larger and more frequent storms could reduce Florida...
Lets recap history for the ignorant. The last Cat 5 hurricane to make landfall... Andrew in 1992 (Katrina was cat 3 on landfall). So where are the more frequent and larger storms you are claiming? It doesn't seem to match up with facts.
Does this make you a fact-denier? Are you anti-fact, or just pro-lie?
Re:Not too bad? by busyqth · 2012-07-03 16:39 · Score: 1

*YAWN*
Re:Not too bad? by busyqth · 2012-07-03 16:41 · Score: 1

Sounds like a good plan to me.
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 19:57 · Score: 0

It took us since 1953 (and it's an ongoing project) to get some sort of protection and still we struggle. It's not only storm surges but also rising amounts of glacial meltwater rushing through the many rivers that inhabit our flat-as-a-dime country that causes problems. Up to now it has cost us tens of billions of dollars for an area slightly larger than Kentucky.
The western part of The Netherlands has populations living 10m *below* sea level. As you can imagine, that won't work to well if the protective measures fail.
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 20:00 · Score: 0

Sorry that should be ~6m below sea level.
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 20:03 · Score: 0

Thanks for rousing enough to read at least part of the post you responded to. Go back to sleep now. While it is mildly amusing that the one person in all of slashdot who you have chosen as a friend has listed you as a foe, your entertainment value is meager and short lived.
Re:Not too bad? by dkf · 2012-07-03 21:05 · Score: 1

On the bright side, some of the younger slashdotters may live long enough to see the return of shallow fresh water seas in eastern Colorado and Kansas. Of course travelling to some place where it rains 370 days a year would not be much of a vacation.
I'm in the UK. I know what that sort of rain feels like, intimately.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Not too bad? by fritsd · 2012-07-03 23:00 · Score: 1
It might cause some economic harm, but it's not going to be a tragedy.
That's true. But the only reason why it's true, is because the Dutch collectively decided to build the Delta Works from 1953 -- 1997. (And they need to be upgraded now because of Global Warming).

So far, so good. Now *PLEASE* note the following important points:
- The project duration was 44 years of work. That's longer than a few election periods.
- The project cost € 5 billion. That's between 500 and 300 per citizen (50% increase in # of citizens in that time period!).
- The project was started 8 years after a devastating war, when the whole country was in need of repair anyway. The sea doesn't wait for people to be ready.
Now please read the "current plans" paragraph of the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works#Current_status, it talks about the necessity of continued work for the coming 190 years.
That's also longer than a few election periods.
--
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Re:Not too bad? by fritsd · 2012-07-03 23:13 · Score: 1

Another thing I forgot to mention: most of the expensive infrastructure (palaces, musea, libraries, ministeries, universities, factories) are west of Utrecht so the whole country would basically be a write-off and people would just evacuate, just like they came knocking on my grandma's door in 1953.

Venice is interesting because it is unique; it is very beautiful (though it smells bad), and Amsterdam is "the Venice of the North", but I can't see it happening that half of the country does a "Venice". It would just cost too much. Hello, German neighbours! Budge up!

--
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Re:Not too bad? by dominious · 2012-07-03 23:21 · Score: 1

Surely cities that are going to be effected will have ample time to relocate those in "danger".
That sounds like one of those "famous last words"...
Re:Not too bad? by Neil+Boekend · 2012-07-03 23:32 · Score: 1

We (the Dutch) will probably figure something out and sell it to the USA (and get rich off it)

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Not too bad? by Hentes · 2012-07-03 23:59 · Score: 1

True, they are small but they also have to deal with an about 4m water level instead of 30 cm. And you don't have to cover the whole coastland, just the populated areas.
Re:Not too bad? by tbannist · 2012-07-04 01:12 · Score: 1

Actually, carbon taxes (and other solutions) can actually produce efficiency benefits without significantly impacting competitiveness. In the U. S. the Republican "base" doesn't support action on climate change because "it's not their problem". Think about it, the Republican demographics are sliding towards the elderly (age 60+). They've got a triple whammy of 1) not wanting anything done about climate change because they'll be dead before the "real effects show up", 2) they're retired and therefore on fixed incomes (so they are completely opposed to any tax increases and the easiest way to increase their spending money is to reduce taxes or shift the taxes to the young), and 3) they don't like today's "young people" so why should they sacrifice to help out those "lazy bums who can't find a job"?

--
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Re:Not too bad? by khallow · 2012-07-04 01:44 · Score: 1

Exactly where would you propose we move tens of millions of people? Not only Florida and low areas of the Eastern Seaboard, but gulf coast and low lands of Texas, right up to Houston are at risk.
I can't believe you actually asked that. For example, we could just move everything 30 cm up the coast and it would have the same risk profile more or less that it has now. Plenty of land for doing that.

It's worth noting that if that 30 cm rise happened tomorrow rather than over 80 years, the US wouldn't have any trouble adapting to it. It's really bizarre to make such a big deal out of such a small rise in sea level.
Re:Not too bad? by Alioth · 2012-07-04 02:58 · Score: 1

It's easy to move if where you're moving from is worth something to someone, and can buy the old place off you.
If you're forced to move because your home is now uninhabitable, it is MUCH more difficult because you probably don't have the resources to buy a new place. You can move inland but you'll be homeless.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 03:13 · Score: 1

Florida has a maximum land height of 42 feet. A three foot rise in see level, plus shore erosion due to larger and more frequent storms could reduce Florida to a stub of the current state with central islands where the everglades are now.
Where did you come up with 42 feet?
The highest point in Florida is 345 feet above sea level. It's in the Panhandle, near the Alabama border. But many areas in central and south Florida away from the coast have elevations of 100 feet or more above sea level. Just look at a topographical map.
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 04:23 · Score: 0

Florida has a maximum land height of 42 feet. A three foot rise in see level, plus shore erosion due to larger and more frequent storms could reduce Florida to a stub of the current state with central islands where the everglades are now.
Where did you get this crap? The Everglades are very close to sea level and much of the state is above 42 feet. I grew up there and have driven over most of the state. While there are no towering mountain ranges, there are a lot of hilly areas. Even as far south as Bradenton, there are areas above 100 feet.
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 10:32 · Score: 0

We're currently investing about 0.1% of our GDP in our dikes. The math has been done: if we plan on an average rise of 1.3 meter in 2100 and 4 meters in 2200 it would cost us 0.6% of our GDP. Entirely affordable.
Re:Not too bad? by khallow · 2012-07-04 12:23 · Score: 1

Ok, so it is "more difficult" (though much easier than staying!). We saw that in the 70s and 80s when people were fleeing the "Rust Belt" (the part of the US where the auto and steel industries used to be concentrated). And there were earlier episodes. I don't recall a lot of lawsuits involved with those migrations. I still think this is an overrated issue.
Re:Not too bad? by khallow · 2012-07-04 12:32 · Score: 1

Anything that changes ocean patterns could affect shipping and fishing, both of which would be major blows to the global and regional economies.
Or a major boon. For example, with sufficient warming the Arctic Ocean would be opened up to both commerce and fishing. That includes much shorter and deeper routes between the Far East and Europe.
Re:Not too bad? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 05:23 · Score: 0

Florida has a maximum land height of 42 feet ???
Sorry but I call BS on that. Mean elevation is more like 100 feets, maximum elevation is 345 feets.
Re:Not too bad? by Tommy+Bologna · 2012-07-07 11:34 · Score: 1

I'm not sure why you think we care about Florida.
Re:Not too bad? by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-07 19:38 · Score: 1

Because your federal tax dollars will be propping up the state as it deals with ever rising sea levels?

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D

Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Jeff1946 · 2012-07-03 08:27 · Score: 5, Funny

It will be ok in North Carolina since their legislature said you can only use linear extrapolations of sea level rise to plan building in coastal areas. Guess they didn't get beyond simple algebra in school (no quadratic equations etc).

Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:42 · Score: 1

Algebra? That sounds Arabic. Must be a terrorist training camp. Shut it down!
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:46 · Score: 0

Algebra? That sounds Arabic. Must be a terrorist training camp. Shut it down!
Euler? That sounds like fuel. Must be ours by God-given right. Invade it now!
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by olsmeister · 2012-07-03 08:46 · Score: 5, Informative

Link for anyone that didn't hear about this.
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by NatasRevol · 2012-07-03 08:46 · Score: 1

Algebra & seconds - both Arabic origins.
Ban Math and Time!

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:51 · Score: 0

Not sure if you were joking but it really is based on Arabic roots. So is algorithm.
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-03 08:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Algebra? That sounds Arabic. Must be a terrorist training camp. Shut it down!
I heard they were working on weapons of math destruction!

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:07 · Score: 0

They don't bloody teach math here to begin with. :P
- NC resident
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:35 · Score: 0

OMG are slashdot comments auto generated? I've seen a comment like this on every fucking GW post. Or is human activity statistical?
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by NatasRevol · 2012-07-03 09:54 · Score: 2

That's why, once my kids hit elementary school, I left.
- a former NC resident.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by CodeHxr · 2012-07-03 10:27 · Score: 1

+1 Funny

(I don't have any real mod points to spend, so you get a fake one. Enjoy!)
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Curunir_wolf · 2012-07-03 10:30 · Score: 1

It will be ok in North Carolina since their legislature said you can only use linear extrapolations of sea level rise to plan building in coastal areas. Guess they didn't get beyond simple algebra in school (no quadratic equations etc).
To be fair, they didn't say anything about whether what kind of extrapolations can be used, only that there they have to be based on measurable observations rather than computer models that do not match observation. Seems like a pretty reasonable policy.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:40 · Score: 0

It will be ok in North Carolina since their legislature said you can only use linear extrapolations of sea level rise to plan building in coastal areas. Guess they didn't get beyond simple algebra in school (no quadratic equations etc).
But... thermal expansion IS linear... (yeah... the minor detail on the parameter... the temperature, not time... but dealing with details is below the dignity of a political being).
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by geekoid · 2012-07-03 11:21 · Score: 1

no, it isn't. It doesn't allow for any realistic planning. You need models because they are making decisions that will effect future generation.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Artifakt · 2012-07-03 11:29 · Score: 3, Funny

We don't need you Liberals telling us where Al Gore ithms got their start, you leftist hippy!
(And if you're not sure if I'm joking either, then God bless you))

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Curunir_wolf · 2012-07-03 11:30 · Score: 1

no, it isn't. It doesn't allow for any realistic planning. You need models because they are making decisions that will effect future generation.
And they are refusing to use computer models without observational evidence to back them up, because those won't affect any future generations.
I know Modern Warfare can seem really realistic to you, but people that live in the real world look for real world evidence. It's not a fucking computer game.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Samantha+Wright · 2012-07-03 11:46 · Score: 5, Funny

You don't understand; it's a cultural exchange program! They just want to integrate!

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 12:54 · Score: 0

Seriously? These math jokes are so derivative.
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 17:23 · Score: 0

to be fair, it was done for totally cynical and greed-based reasons... not so much because they 'don't believe in global warming'. If some insurance company wants to insure a property built in a zone that's probably going to end up underwater then they deserve to lose the money. If the developers can't get insurance then they can't build.
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 19:06 · Score: 0

I heard they were working on weapons of math destruction!
No, no: math INstruction.
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-03 20:06 · Score: 1

Don't you think you're generalizing? Not everything has to be so absolute!

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by lexman098 · 2012-07-10 13:45 · Score: 1

What's already been observed in the area of climate science or otherwise can help to predict future events through complex simulations of various forces acting together over large periods of time *in* the area of climate science (or any other science for that matter).
I can tell you're no where close to the math/engineering/science field of study or work. If you were, you would know that every advanced gadget or piece of machinery we have today is possible due to computer simulations (this is no joke). Also, obviously modern warfare isn't anything like modern warfare, but the physics engines used in games are more advanced than you might expect.
Re:Bad news unless you are in North Carolina by Curunir_wolf · 2012-07-10 15:49 · Score: 1

I can tell you're no where close to the math/engineering/science field of study or work.
Well that shows how much you know. Okay, that's probably too subtle for you - it shows you know nothing.

If you were, you would know that every advanced gadget or piece of machinery we have today is possible due to computer simulations (this is no joke).
It's a joke that you compare computer assisted engineering design with things like climate modelling. They don't design drugs or human surgery robots with computer modelling, because modelling a human being is complex (although it's easier than modelling the earth's climate).

Also, obviously modern warfare isn't anything like modern warfare, but the physics engines used in games are more advanced than you might expect.
Yes, simulating explosions (and the like) is very precise these days. But my point was that you need to play computer games a little less and get out and see how things work in the real world. You might be surprised by a butterfly effect.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by crazyjj · 2012-07-03 08:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Should have known better than to try to save that ungrateful environment. I'm buying an SUV.

Suck my balls, you lying hippies!

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:47 · Score: 1

Has been working alright for Texans: Strong mobile A/C units powered by whatever V8 engine you find to cool you down in the 100+ F.
Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by Mashiki · 2012-07-03 08:51 · Score: 0

What they didn't tell you is that you're using a lot of coal based power. I know, the truth hurts.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by chemicaldave · 2012-07-03 09:00 · Score: 1

Coal factories in my Prius? All this time I thought it was regenerative braking.
Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by Thud457 · 2012-07-03 09:12 · Score: 1

regenerative braking.
Now you just need to plot a round-trip route to work and back that's downhill all the way. You'll never have to buy gas again! HAHAHAHA SUCKERS!

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:38 · Score: 0

That might be possible if there was a tide-driven floating bridge system on some kind of ratchet drive.
It wouldn't be much of an incline, but might be enough for bicycles to coast.
Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:55 · Score: 0

That,... and 10-15 kg of Lanthanum.
Don't worry - the La was smelted in China and their C02 emissions don't count.
Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by Chris+Mattern · 2012-07-03 10:04 · Score: 1

Coal factories in my Prius?
It's more common than you think!
Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by HornWumpus · 2012-07-03 10:33 · Score: 1

Not whatever V8 engine, a very specific V8 engine. Different strokes (and bores) for different folks. I like 4.25x4.0 (BxS) in Chevy, not a Texan though.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by DigiShaman · 2012-07-03 10:35 · Score: 1

Screw the SUV, you'll need a Monster Truck just to get out of the stuck mud. Oh, and they have a set of Truck Nutz swinging in the back. It's a requirement, trust me on this!

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by geekoid · 2012-07-03 11:23 · Score: 1

depend on where you are located. Also, Coal power is easier to control the individual cars.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 11:27 · Score: 0

SUV is a much better car in the case of rising sea levels anyway. Prius will just short circuit and your balls will get all wet as a result.
Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 12:17 · Score: 0

Can it be in Florida?
Damnit! You win again nature!
Re:Then wtf am I doing driving this Prius?!? by fritsd · 2012-07-03 23:50 · Score: 1

I don't think that Nd2Fe14B magnets decay with time, smartass! At least if you keep it under the Curie temperature. So when his/her Prius goes to the scrap yard, the magnets are taken out and sold to someone who can use them (Toyota might be interested).

Remember the three-arrow symbol U+2672 stands for the slogan "Reduce, Re-use, Recycle".

Re-use is quite environmentally friendly.

--
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?

Two words by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:27 · Score: 0

Mt. Everest

Nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:27 · Score: 1, Insightful

Jesus will come back and save us

Jesus is my lifeboat. This is all part of the plan. Relax.

Re:Nothing to worry about by Nick+Fel · 2012-07-03 08:31 · Score: 5, Funny

Screw Jesus. I want Noah. Praise be Noah!
Re:Nothing to worry about by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-03 09:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

What if Jesus sent you scientists warning you what you were doing was bad?

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Nothing to worry about by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2012-07-03 09:04 · Score: 1

Noah hates suck ups. Further more, he's sort of a dick, only ever takes his family on boating trips. Best bed is to disguies yourself as an animal and sneak on the boat.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Re:Nothing to worry about by Nocturnal+Deviant · 2012-07-03 09:34 · Score: 1

lmao mod this guy up, I havent laughed this hard in ages xD

--
-Noc
Re:Nothing to worry about by geekoid · 2012-07-03 11:24 · Score: 1

God sais he wouldn't send a flood, be we still get floods. Ergo, god doesn't exist.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Nothing to worry about by Black+Parrot · 2012-07-03 12:37 · Score: 1

Noah hates suck ups. Further more, he's sort of a dick
Yeah, he borrowed money to build his boat.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Nothing to worry about by Black+Parrot · 2012-07-03 12:39 · Score: 1

What if Jesus sent you scientists warning you what you were doing was bad?
Maybe global warming is His warning of what awaits us in the hereafter, if we believe in such irreligious nonsense as global warming.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Nothing to worry about by Jason+Levine · 2012-07-03 13:26 · Score: 1

God said he wouldn't flood the entire world again. This won't affect the "entire" world. Thus, God loves loopholes.
Wait... does this mean God's a lawyer?!!!!

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:Nothing to worry about by LeadSongDog · 2012-07-04 03:40 · Score: 1

Wait... does this mean God's a lawyer?!!!!
That would explain the whole camel through the eye of a needle admission test for heaven. She just doesn't want too much competition.

--
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Re:Nothing to worry about by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 04:35 · Score: 0

crucify them?

Simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:28 · Score: 1

We find some areas like the Grand Canyon and Aral Sea, even the deep Sahara and Outback, and we pump water from the oceans there.

This will work fine, don't worry about the consequences. Just think of the benefits!

Re:Simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 13:35 · Score: 0

isn't that what fracking does? So that why the oceans aren't rising!

Sell! by amiga3D · 2012-07-03 08:28 · Score: 2

Time to unload all that beachfront property. 32cm is like, over 12 inches. That's gonna be noticeable.

Re:Sell! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:39 · Score: 1

Time to unload all that beachfront property. 32cm is like, over 12 inches. That's gonna be noticeable.
A-ha! I own the property just behind yours! I'm that much closer to having beachfront property!
Re:Sell! by KhabaLox · 2012-07-03 08:40 · Score: 4, Funny

32cm is like, over 12 inches. That's gonna be noticeable.
Somewhere in there is a "Your Mom" joke, straining against the seams to get out.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:Sell! by ohnocitizen · 2012-07-03 08:54 · Score: 1

Or time to market marked up property as "soon to be" beachfront. Or time to invest in some myself, something for the great great grandkids to enjoy when they unplug from their neural-net-by-facebook world and want to be wheeled down to the sea by their robot butlers for their evening repast.
Re:Sell! by ackthpt · 2012-07-03 08:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Time to unload all that beachfront property. 32cm is like, over 12 inches. That's gonna be noticeable.
A-ha! I own the property just behind yours! I'm that much closer to having beachfront property!
I once opened a fortune cookie to read: You'll make your home in the mountains and by the sea.
I didn't realize it meant at the same time.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Sell! by Kohath · 2012-07-03 08:59 · Score: 0

Yeah, how could anyone ever build a 12-inch-high seawall in only 87 years?
I'll buy that property if you're selling at a nice discount.
Re:Sell! by vlm · 2012-07-03 09:00 · Score: 1

32cm is like, over 12 inches. That's gonna be noticeable.
Somewhere in there is a "Your Mom" joke, straining against the seams to get out.
Or worse, a goatse joke

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Sell! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:13 · Score: 1

Your mom is straining against the seams to get out!
Re:Sell! by the_humeister · 2012-07-03 09:14 · Score: 1

Yo mama's so loose down there she's 32cm, which is like, over 12 inches.
Re:Sell! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:23 · Score: 0

You could move to the Oregon Coast and get that right now. ;)
Re:Sell! by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-07-03 09:32 · Score: 1

That's what she said!

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sell! by timeOday · 2012-07-03 09:36 · Score: 0

Time to unload all that beachfront property
Yeah, right. As if the hundreds of billions to build up beaches and levies to protect million-dollar beachfront homes won't end up coming from tax money.
Re:Sell! by catchblue22 · 2012-07-03 12:39 · Score: 1

12 inches from thermal expansion alone. RTFS

--
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Re:Sell! by rtb61 · 2012-07-03 13:31 · Score: 1

Now add in equatorial bulge, tidal impacts as percentage of water available and, storm surges. Substantial increased weathering and erosion removing currently protective barriers and not to forget altered weather patterns due to altered sea temperature and destabilisation of existing weather patterns around 'new' weather norms with random consequences of extremes. Note also ice melt can be added to the rise which will escalate as a result of increased flooding producing considerably more methane from rotting vegetation and drowned animals. So all of a sudden 12 inches can readily become 12 feet and even more. Sing to your masters 'Privatise the profits and socialise the losses' sing it loud and that's all you'll here, 'Privatise the profits and socialise the losses'.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Sell! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 15:53 · Score: 0

On one hand I feel terrible about what we are doing to the planet, but on the other hand the little Ayn Rand inside me finds it hilarious that we have found a mechanism to wash away people with poor reading comprehension in a flood.
Re:Sell! by Kohath · 2012-07-04 08:31 · Score: 1

Since you're just making up numbers, why not go with 12 miles?
Re:Sell! by Kohath · 2012-07-04 08:35 · Score: 1

So your point is that 87 years isn't enough time to build a 13-inch seawall? Or 15 inches? Or 18? People will just stand there on the beach, waiting for their property to wash away for 8 or 9 decades.

Overall rise by zrbyte · 2012-07-03 08:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

Any water pumped from aquifers or glacial/ice sheet melt is added to that.

How big is the effect of thermal expansion in comparison to melting of ice? How much would be the additional rise in the worst case scenario?

Re:Overall rise by viperidaenz · 2012-07-03 08:47 · Score: 1

How big is the effect of increased evaporation due to higher water surface temperatures?
Re:Overall rise by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:53 · Score: 3, Informative

If the entirety of the Greenland ice sheet melted, over twenty feet of rise. There's a heckuva lot of ice sitting up on top of Greenland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
Re:Overall rise by zrbyte · 2012-07-03 08:58 · Score: 1

That has to come down as rain. There's only so much water that the atmosphere can hold.
Re:Overall rise by chemicaldave · 2012-07-03 09:04 · Score: 2

Current estimates place global sea level rise of 10ft if the West Antarctic ice sheet were to completely disintegrate
Re:Overall rise by viperidaenz · 2012-07-03 09:10 · Score: 1

It's not like sea levels are rising due to extra water being created. Rain doesn't only fall over the sea. Where do you think lakes come from? What happens when there is a lot more could cover over the earth? Does that not reflect some of the heat from the sun? Does evaporation from the ocean not cool it down?
Re:Overall rise by sociocapitalist · 2012-07-03 09:11 · Score: 1

Any water pumped from aquifers or glacial/ice sheet melt is added to that.
How big is the effect of thermal expansion in comparison to melting of ice? How much would be the additional rise in the worst case scenario?
Wouldn't that be thermal contraction, as water has less volume in liquid state than frozen state?

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:Overall rise by zrbyte · 2012-07-03 09:17 · Score: 2

The effect of the cloud cover is not entirely clear yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_feedback
Re:Overall rise by misnohmer · 2012-07-03 09:21 · Score: 1

Doesn't the glacial/ice melt reverse the thermal expansion effect by adding cold water to the mix? I would assume the melt is about as cold water as it can be in the liquid state (since it just changed from a solid ice state).
Re:Overall rise by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:23 · Score: 0

That's not thermal expansion nor thermal contraction, that's "Phase Change".
Re:Overall rise by florescent_beige · 2012-07-03 09:47 · Score: 1

How big is the effect of increased evaporation due to higher water surface temperatures?
May I point out that you are admitting global warming will have noticeable effects.

--
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Re:Overall rise by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:58 · Score: 0

May I point out that you are admitting global warming will have noticeable effects.
Like when the last Ice Age ended? Nobody denies global warming would have an effect. Giving the UN money to spread around won't be one of those effects though.
Re:Overall rise by tomhath · 2012-07-03 10:00 · Score: 1

Ever notice that icebergs float? Think about the part that's sticking out above the water...
Re:Overall rise by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:15 · Score: 0

That's only true for the range of temperatures 0C to 4C. From 4C and higher the water takes up more space than the ice.
Re:Overall rise by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:18 · Score: 0

edit, 4C is the maxima of water density, I meant 8C and warmer for water being less dense than ice (for ice at 0C)
Re:Overall rise by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:39 · Score: 0

Not if the ice in question is located on land.
Re:Overall rise by jfengel · 2012-07-03 10:42 · Score: 1

Some water is being created, though I suppose not enough to be noticeable. For each atom of CO2 created, there's another atom of H2O, since you're burning hydrocarbons of the form CnH(2n+2). Plus one extra water molecule per hydrocarbon, but that's a small factor.
I doubt it's enough to contribute to sea level rise, though. The effect of pulling those liquid hydrocarbons out of the land must be causing at least as much of a problem.
Re:Overall rise by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 11:09 · Score: 0

Warmer air can hold more moisture.
Re:Overall rise by geekoid · 2012-07-03 11:27 · Score: 1

reverse? no. Slow down? yes.
Until they are gone.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Overall rise by viperidaenz · 2012-07-03 11:38 · Score: 1

May I point out I never implied otherwise. Hippy.
Re:Overall rise by viperidaenz · 2012-07-03 11:44 · Score: 2

Plants turn water into hydrocarbons. The photosynthesis equation is 6CO2 + 6H2O -> C6H12O6 + 6O2
Re:Overall rise by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 13:42 · Score: 0

This is talking about the expansion of water that's already liquid.
Also, ice that's floating won't affect sea levels when it melts, it's the ice that's sitting on land that's the concern.
Re:Overall rise by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 15:07 · Score: 1

A recent post on RealClimate has a graph of the components of sea level rise. Thermal expansion and ice melt are about equal in their contribution so as a rough guess you can double the thermal expansion number.
Re:Overall rise by Neil+Boekend · 2012-07-04 00:09 · Score: 1

It's really about "water displacement". About 10 % of an iceberg sticks out of the water, but by definition that's about the amount of shrinkage it has.
Look at it this way: an iceberg of 1000 kg displaces 1000 kg of water. The iceberg is bigger than 1000 kg of water, because ice has a lower density than water, so some of it sticks out of the surface (it won't fit in the room for 1000 kg of water). Once it melts it'll still be 1000 kg, only now it'll be 1000 kg of water. 1000 kg of water (the melted iceberg) takes as much space as 1000 kg of water (the "hole" in the water where the iceberg was).
Thus melting floating ice doesn't raise the sea level. Any raising of the sea level by the melting of ice will be because that ice was on land. Antarctica (on land) melting will raise the sea level. Arctica (floating on the arctic sea) melting won't raise the sea level.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.

whales by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:29 · Score: 1

We should start pulling all whales out of the oceans, I think.

Re:whales by NatasRevol · 2012-07-03 08:49 · Score: 1

You mean tourists?

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:whales by viperidaenz · 2012-07-03 09:03 · Score: 1

Great, I'll call Japan
Re:whales by HornWumpus · 2012-07-03 09:45 · Score: 1

You can try. I had an expat convinced to ship me some whale but his Japanese wife found out and nixed it.
Served the hippies beef maranted in oyster sauce instead. Good laughs for all.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:whales by Pikoro · 2012-07-04 01:09 · Score: 1

You marinate your hippies in beef and oyster sauce too? Wow, what a weird coincidence...

--
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"

It's briefly touched upon in TFA by TaggartAleslayer · 2012-07-03 08:31 · Score: 1

Does anyone have a map of affected low-lying areas? Can we get any visual depictions of the chaos to come?

People don't respond well to small numbers. Most can't understand the impact of them. Shouting, "The ocean will rise by 14cm!" only begs for the response of "Well that's only ankle deep..."

Can't we take what we've learned from marketing sodas to the masses and apply it to important doomsday scenarios like this? Where are all of the Don Drapers of the scientific world anyway?

Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:33 · Score: 5, Informative

Yes, this: http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/
But that map makes even a 60m rise seem not bad at all.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

The fact is, it is only ankle deep. Tidal variations are greater than that. Any map showing New York underwater or Florida off the map because of a 14" rise in sea level is wrong. If that were the case, high tide would cause the same flooding.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:36 · Score: 5, Funny

I know, I never liked Florida either.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Hatta · 2012-07-03 08:52 · Score: 1

Where are all of the Don Drapers of the scientific world anyway?
Can't happen. Good scientists are honest.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:54 · Score: 0

If that were the case, high tide would cause the same flooding
High tide would be getting 14" higher too. Derp.
You're right that 14" rise isn't much though, if you don't build seawalls it's only going to cut a few hundred to a few thousand feet off the shoreline in many areas.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-03 09:05 · Score: 1

Except places like South Carolina where the 'tide' is active even 100 MILES inland.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by vlm · 2012-07-03 09:06 · Score: 1

landlubber. Tides vary quite a bit based on position of moon in its orbit and weather conditions and wind conditions and currents and probably other stuff.
There is no simplistic grade school single value of "high tide" level. The end effect is that rather than legendary high tides causing extremely minor flooding once a decade, it'll happen once per year, or something like that.
Tides are not simple. Landlubbers get killed all the time thinking that "back home the difference between high and low tide is always about 5 feet so I can dive off this pier" little did they know that in that area, low tide is like 30 feet lower. Its a decade or so before my time, but I think one of the Beetles died that way, jumping off a pier at low tide in a area with unusually low, low tides.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:12 · Score: 1

That map shows a 60m rise relocating the Missisipi Delta to Memphis, TN.
I think you have a different version of "not bad at all" than the rest of us.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by X0563511 · 2012-07-03 09:14 · Score: 1

Yea, well you seem to forget that a 14" rise may well flood at high tide when, 14" earlier, it wouldn't have.
It's not like we'll stop having tides after the see rises.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Mister+Whirly · 2012-07-03 09:31 · Score: 2

one of the Beetles died that way, jumping off a pier at low tide in a area with unusually low, low tides.
If you are referring to the band The Beatles, then no current or former member of the Beatles has ever died jumping off a pier into low tide. Stuart Stutcliffe died of a brain hemorrhage (not resulting from diving off a pier), George Harrison died of cancer, John Lennon was shot to death, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and Pete Best are all still alive.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:35 · Score: 0

Strange that it doesn't allow entering 0.14 meters or any rise likely to happen in the next 200 years.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Nocturnal+Deviant · 2012-07-03 09:40 · Score: 1

honestly...it really doesnt seem to make much of a difference....minus a few more extinct species....it really wouldnt effect humans much.

--
-Noc
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by HeckRuler · 2012-07-03 09:45 · Score: 2

And this prediction is for a 1 inch rise a decade.
The panic, I'm missing it.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by HornWumpus · 2012-07-03 09:48 · Score: 1

'Two more bullets' just doesn't ring as a punchline like the old version did.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by gl4ss · 2012-07-03 09:52 · Score: 1

That map shows a 60m rise relocating the Missisipi Delta to Memphis, TN.
I think you have a different version of "not bad at all" than the rest of us.
not really. the map shows something that is a far cry from "everything is doomed!! everyone will die!! didn't you see WATERWORLD?!?!?!".
but if you look at the big picture, most of earth would be just fine, we wouldn't need all move to alps.
there'd be a nice missippi gulf. looks like it would create lots of nice new beaches. probably a lot of territory for various animals too.
however, I don't understand the headline - it's saying that because of heat expansion the water would rise regardless of warming?

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Missing.Matter · 2012-07-03 10:02 · Score: 2

But that map makes even a 60m rise seem not bad at all.
Seriously? 60m puts the states of Florida and Delaware underwater, half of Maryland and New Jersey, and major cities including Houston, New Orleans, Baltimore, Washinton DC, Boston, Philadelphia, and oh yeah New York City. That's well over 50 million people left homeless on the Eastern seaboard alone.

Internationally, also say goodbye to Shanghai, Tokyo, Nanjing, Pyongyang, Nanjing, Cambodia, Bangkok, Bangladesh, Denmark, The Netherlands, London, Sydney, Melbourne.... notice the trend where highly populated major metropolitan areas are located near waterways?
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Njovich · 2012-07-03 10:06 · Score: 1

I never get this kind of map. If you take their logic, Netherlands should already be flooded. As far as I can see from my window, it isn't.
Higher sealevel just means building some infrastructure against flooding.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:17 · Score: 0

But that map makes even a 60m rise seem not bad at all.
Well... there is the minor detail of my entire home land being completely submerged at that point. You insensitive clod.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by uniquename72 · 2012-07-03 10:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

I never get this kind of map. If you take their logic, Netherlands should already be flooded. As far as I can see from my window, it isn't.
Higher sealevel just means building some infrastructure against flooding.
You need a decent government for that. In the U.S., we knew for decades that much of New Orleans was going to be underwater if a decent hurricane hit it (I first learned about it in college in 1992). Nothing of substance was done.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by HornWumpus · 2012-07-03 10:38 · Score: 2

Global warming is a treacherous dutch plot to help their flood control engineering consultants. Fiendish.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 11:01 · Score: 0

I know, I never liked Florida either.
Well, good news! At this rate in 8,000 years, it'll be half gone. Won't you be pleased.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by zixxt · 2012-07-03 11:09 · Score: 1

one of the Beetles died that way, jumping off a pier at low tide in a area with unusually low, low tides.
If you are referring to the band The Beatles, then no current or former member of the Beatles has ever died jumping off a pier into low tide. Stuart Stutcliffe died of a brain hemorrhage (not resulting from diving off a pier), George Harrison died of cancer, John Lennon was shot to death, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and Pete Best are all still alive.
The real Paul McCartney died that way, the one you know as Paul McCartney now is just an imposter.

--
---- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 11:13 · Score: 0

But that's where i keep all my stuff! /tick
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by geekoid · 2012-07-03 11:36 · Score: 2

That map show sea levels. In high tide of low tide, not storms, not erosion, etc... What happened when level five hurricanes start hitting land happening monthly?
If the world was static, and the oceans still, then the map is what you would get.
It also doesn't take into account erosion.
That said, no one is really talking about a 'water world' The idea is stupid on the face of it.
But most people are talking about planning for future development of houses, cities ports, inward migration.
This is why deniers drive me batty. They are making it hard to make policy changes. They talk about nonsense such as 'bigger government' What we need is policy, at this point. wait longer then, yes, the government will need to spend a lot more money. Act now.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by EdIII · 2012-07-03 11:37 · Score: 1

It's not that bad when you are zoomed that far out.
Hell, if you were to look at World War II from space it probably seemed quite peaceful.
Try zooming in. 60m rise completely eliminates New Orleans, Houston, Corpus Christi, Florida (like the whole fucking state), etc. Don't get excited just because it takes out most of New Jersey too.
Just a 3m rise takes out Rotterdam in the Netherlands and Venice in Italy. Extensive damage to Alexandria in Egypt as well as their coastal areas.
Yeah sure, it's not Water World, but more than a couple places just completely gone.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by EdIII · 2012-07-03 11:39 · Score: 1

I know, I never liked Florida either.
You think that is funny... take a look at what happens to New Jersey. Perhaps they could finally stop making that show...
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by EdIII · 2012-07-03 11:42 · Score: 1

Well considering his entire post sounds like Popeye, I am willing to bet that one of the "The Beetles" (note the spelling) is probably referring to one of Olive Oil's slower relatives.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by SunTzuWarmaster · 2012-07-03 12:21 · Score: 1

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/dmsp/interest/wilma.html
By the ocean is where the people live...
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 12:37 · Score: 0

The Chinese would be really pissed about the 60m rise. Too bad there is not more of the northern areas depicted in the representation. To think about that during the last ice age, the sea levels where 100 meters lower than they are now.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by khallow · 2012-07-03 13:59 · Score: 1

What happened when level five hurricanes start hitting land happening monthly?
Why would that happen? Besides we've solved that problem already. Don't be there when the category 5 hurricane hits and patch things up after it goes away.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 15:58 · Score: 0

Do you live in North Carolina, so that you are legally required to use linear extrapolation in your trolling?
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 16:02 · Score: 0

Yeah, but the Netherlands is a socialist hell-hole like the rest of Europe. Americans hate their government too much to let it build such a socialist flood protection infrastructure.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 16:23 · Score: 0

It's just enough to remove New Jersey too!
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by Shambhu · 2012-07-03 18:14 · Score: 1

The headline is referring to the article which says that, independent of other sources of rising sea levels, thermal expansion is already underway and won't reverse easily.

--
Rome wasn't bilked in a day.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by GNious · 2012-07-03 18:57 · Score: 1

at 1m, Holland disappeared - what you got against them?
Note: I'm not convinced the map is correct. Part of the flood-map seem optimistic compared to what I expect based on local knowledge.
Re:It's briefly touched upon in TFA by FirstOne · 2012-07-04 06:43 · Score: 1

That map is not very accurate..
I plugged in a +4 meter(+13 feet) sea level rise for my area of South Florida and it indicates most of my waterfront(sea level) city is still mostly dry. That's not going to happen, No way, no how.
Almost NONE of the buildings around me have a floor ground floor elevation higher than 7.5 ft above the current mean sea level.. Tack on spring tides of up to +3.3ft on top of +13ft and you'll see it's going to get wayy ugly before that map indicates trouble.
I.E. A 4 Meter sea level increase would put low tide near the roof of my house. But the map indicates my waterfront property is mostly dry. I suspect they swapped feet for meters, (an error by 3.25x), when they displayed estimated sea level increase.

Astonishing by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

I really thought our cunning plan of exporting our coal consumption to Asia was going to work. I mean, nothing that happens over there is in the Environment, right?

Yes we knew this by cpu6502 · 2012-07-03 08:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

This paper is just further evidence that we've already released enough CO2 to continue the warming trend. Even if all humans disappeared, like one of those History Channel Life After People episodes, the globe would continue to warm towards a non-ice age state.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"

Re:Yes we knew this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:34 · Score: -1

This paper is just further evidence that we've already released enough CO2 to continue the warming trend.
Is it? Is it really? Or could it be that other factors -- in conjunction with human activity -- are contributing to this?
Re:Yes we knew this by Hentes · 2012-07-03 09:02 · Score: 4, Informative

No, this paper is a theory. Observation of sea level rise is evidence.
Re:Yes we knew this by bbecker23 · 2012-07-03 09:09 · Score: 1

If you get caught going 90mph down the highway, the fact that you had a tailwind is probably not going to convince anyone of your innocence.

--
cat /dev/random > sig.txt
Re:Yes we knew this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:44 · Score: 0

If I got caught doing 90mph down a highway in my Prius it'll be because of the tailwind.
Re:Yes we knew this by Zordak · 2012-07-03 09:47 · Score: 2

Actually, this is a projection based on a computer model. A theory has a falsifiable premise that can be tested in a controlled experiment.

--

Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Re:Yes we knew this by HornWumpus · 2012-07-03 10:45 · Score: 1

I bet we can 'rewire it' (reprogram the motor controller) and double the power. Might affect the electric motor and batteries life. If it's under warranty we just need to reprogram it back to stock before getting the motor and battery pack replaced (again). It might be worth damaging them right before the warranty runs out.
I'm sure someone has already put up a page about it. It's academic to me, but you should look. Not going to improve highway speed, but would help with bursts of speed.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Yes we knew this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 15:01 · Score: 0

And a piss poor model at that since anyone who thinks they've accounted for even a fraction of all the variables that control the environment are self deluded.
This is nothing than a Hollywood version of fiction published in a has been journal.
Re:Yes we knew this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 15:19 · Score: 0

Umm...No, theory and model are essentially synonyms in science. A theory makes a falsifiable prediction about the outcome of an experiment. Unfortunately, in this case we have to wait several decades to conclude that experiment.
Re:Yes we knew this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 23:07 · Score: 0

Actually, this is a projection based on a computer model. A theory has a falsifiable premise that can be tested in a controlled experiment.
Exactly, like the Theory of Plate Tectonics. Or Big Bang Theory. Or Stellar Evolution. Or Evolution (the biological kind).
Oh, wait...
Cluebat: If the evidence gathered from the real world is strong enough, theories don't have to be supported directly by controlled experiments.
And if you have such distrust of computer models, then go live in a hippie commune somewhere. The rest of us like our modern technology, thank you very much - almost all of which relies, to greater or lesser extent, on computer models.
I should explain - I'm assuming I'm dealing with a rational human being here, rather than one that just assumes global warming is wrong, because "Al Gore is a pinko commie loser, who wernts ter terk er jerbs..."
Re:Yes we knew this by Zordak · 2012-07-05 00:57 · Score: 1

Exactly, like the Theory of Plate Tectonics. Or Big Bang Theory. Or Stellar Evolution. Or Evolution (the biological kind).
Plate movement is an event that we can observe and measure. It happens frequently.
All those other things are more properly hypotheses than theories.* Just like global warming, we can't test them in repeatable experiments. And this is not a distinction without a difference. F=ma is a theory. We've tested it for hundreds of years and found it to be a reliable predictor of results. (Until we started making things go really fast. Then we had to adjust it to account for relativity. Even very solid theories are subject to adjustment.) Using F=ma, we can predictably do really cool things, like land a rover on a planet millions of miles away, assuming we're all using the same units.
Hypotheses are explanations that we impose on events after the fact. We observe a phenomenon and try to work backward to come up with a chain of cause and effect. This is the exact opposite of experimentation. That doesn't mean it's not useful. It just means that we can't reliably use it to predict the future like we can do with a theory.

And if you have such distrust of computer models, then go live in a hippie commune somewhere. The rest of us like our modern technology, thank you very much - almost all of which relies, to greater or lesser extent, on computer models.
The thing about computer models is that they're only as good as their inputs, and they get less reliable as systems get more complex. Again, we can use computer models to very accurately predict that planets' orbits or the flight path of a rover to Mars. Even when we add well-understood phenomena like air resistance, we can very accurately model the performance of an airplane. But systems like the atmosphere or the stock markets have far too many disturbances to model accurately. At that point, it's really just educated guesses. That's why weather forecasts are really only reliable for a couple of days. That's why stock markets do unexpected things, despite our best models. And that's why we don't really know what the climate's going to do for the next hundred years.
Could I be wrong? Could James Hansen's fear mongering be 100% spot on? Could Al Gore's lucrative carbon credit trading system save us from certain annihalation? Sure. But there's no way to test it and see which one of us is right. That being the case, we are both left to make the best decisions we can based on the information available to us.
*With the qualification that we can test and observe evolution on a micro scale with viruses and bacteria.

--

Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.

Hell yes! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

That coastal property I bought in Arkansas for 48 BTC is going up uP UP!!! My investments own.

Not too bad? (Sqore:325) Amazingly Insightful by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:31 · Score: 1

have ample time to relocate those in "danger".

Funny. And you base that on what about our current politicians?
Oh, you mean relocate themselves. Got it.

Re:Not too bad? (Sqore:325) Amazingly Insightful by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:37 · Score: 1

Oh, you mean relocate themselves while we foot the bill. Got it.
FTFY.
Re:Not too bad? (Sqore:325) Amazingly Insightful by Nocturnal+Deviant · 2012-07-03 09:31 · Score: 0

if you hadnt posted ac, i would gave gone back to the post previously posted something nonsensical to get my mod points back, and specifically modded you up.

--
-Noc
Re:Not too bad? (Sqore:325) Amazingly Insightful by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-03 09:54 · Score: 1

You know what? You could run for office and do a better job....or could you?

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Not too bad? (Sqore:325) Amazingly Insightful by dryeo · 2012-07-03 15:06 · Score: 1

Why not mod up an AC? Mod points are for making comments more visible or hiding the cleanmypc guy and AC needs mod points more as they start at zero and lots of people browse at a higher threshold.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

LOL. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:31 · Score: 0

Especially the belugas.

remove excessive CO2? by pak9rabid · 2012-07-03 08:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?

Re:remove excessive CO2? by ethergear · 2012-07-03 08:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Beyond growing wood or some other plant matter, not really.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:41 · Score: 0

GRAPHINE TO THE RESCUE!!!!
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:44 · Score: 0

This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?
That sounds like a great business model. Remember, we live in a capitalistic society so unless you can figure out a free fix, we're fucked.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-07-03 08:46 · Score: 1

This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?
Sure there is. But it will cost more than any country will spend (or could spend) to do it on a scale that will make any noticeable difference. Besides, how happy do you think people will be if one country does this but others keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:46 · Score: 0

This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?
Diamonds are made of carbon, right? So find some way to convert the excess atmospheric carbon into diamonds and market them as "Global Warming Bling." It'd be the latest fashion craze. I'd bet Paris Hilton and the Kadashians would account for 50% of the carbon alone! The rest of the world's uber elites would buy the rest.just for bragging rights.
Then our problem would become too little carbon in the air!
Re:remove excessive CO2? by JDG1980 · 2012-07-03 08:49 · Score: 1

This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?
Wouldn't it be much easier just to grow a crapload of fast-growing trees (since as you noted, they already do this very thing) and then bury or sink whatever wood isn't needed for housing and furniture?
Re:remove excessive CO2? by girlintraining · 2012-07-03 08:52 · Score: 2

This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?
Yeah. It's called an ocean. But it runs on its own timetable. Geological time, to be exact.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:remove excessive CO2? by nomadic · 2012-07-03 08:53 · Score: 1

There are several different proposed methods. Fast-growing trees and crops (that are then turned into biochar and buried), enhanced weathering by grinding and spreading silicate materials such as olivine, ocean iron fertilization to increase phytoplankton blooms and increase carbon transport to the deep ocean (where it will stay for a couple thousand years). Unfortunately they are all expensive and it is uncertain how effective any of them are.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:53 · Score: 0

yeah, it's called planting trees
Re:remove excessive CO2? by marcosdumay · 2012-07-03 08:58 · Score: 1

I would give you the obvious answer (if I could decide wether you were making a joke), but you simply said it yourself... Why didn't you accept the obvious answer as such, and asked for another one?
We can make it better, of course. Trees are extremely inefficient. But then, we'd better using any power source created for that task to reduce our emissions, instead of taking the carbon already on the athmosphere. So, the only answer are trees. That, or if we want to get all hight tech, grass, stored as some purified product (some people say one can put letters on that purified stuff and tell histories).

--
Rethinking email
Re:remove excessive CO2? by pixelpusher220 · 2012-07-03 09:09 · Score: 1

Only if you monetize carbon release. Or basically a Carbon Tax...care to ask the GOP what they think of their idea these days?

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Znork · 2012-07-03 09:17 · Score: 1

Indeed. Well, burying wooden things may not be that useful as they're prone to decomposing which would just release the CO2 again. And deep burials would probably be quite energy intensive.
However, as compulsive hoarding is essentially a form of carbon sequestration we should provide economic compensations or other encouragement for people storing things (Yes, those things are useful, in case the Zombie apocalypse comes. And they're useful as carbon sinks!)
Re:remove excessive CO2? by slew · 2012-07-03 09:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

Removing the CO2 is damn near impractical. However, even if we did it, it wouldn't be enough.
Any warming (should it exist) eventually is likely to cause two other effects...
1. an increase in the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere (which is currently responsible for about 50% of the greenhouse effect compared to 20% for CO2).
2. an increase in methane clathrate melting in the permafrost and ocean releasing large quantities of methane into our atmosphere. Methane is ~70x a potent a greenhouse gas as CO2 (but currently only accounts for about 7% of greenhouse effect)
Many speculate that if warming actually happens, these two effects could effectively cause run-away global warming. That's why people are thinking about how to block the heating from the sun (e.g., spraying particles in the air), not just sequestering carbon or just living with the consequences of warming. It's probably too late to just think about CO2. That ship has probably sailed...
Re:remove excessive CO2? by rickb928 · 2012-07-03 09:32 · Score: 2

We've been reforesting the U.S. for at least the past 15 years, and probably longer, but of course it is not enough.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by DerekLyons · 2012-07-03 09:39 · Score: 1

Keep in mind that solid carbon is flammable as hell....
Re:remove excessive CO2? by wierd_w · 2012-07-03 09:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have actually thought about this.
Take something like kudzu. Evil vine that ate the south. It grows over a foot PER DAY.
Ok, plant it on an enclosed, circular growing area, with a slow moving, automated cutting system that continually dead-heads the vines, and keeps them inside. The cut off cruft is put into a hermitically sealed solar sintering system with sand, and heated to vitrefaction.
Carbon rich black glass is produced. The stuff would be more geologically stable than coal.
Slow, but could be nearly completely automated. Done on a large scale, you could remove tons of carbon from the atmosphere daily in rainy tropical areas.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Ichijo · 2012-07-03 09:41 · Score: 1, Informative

Republicans don't believe in negative externalities, because it would force them to change their lifestyles.

--
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by wierd_w · 2012-07-03 10:03 · Score: 1

That's why you need to bind it in an inflamable matrix.
I suggest adding the carbon powder to sand in a sealed solar sintering pot, then using the resulting "black glass" for architectural purposes.
The glass would not be flamable, and could contain up to around 30% carbon by weight.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:04 · Score: 0

I tend to prefer bamboo. It sucks up more CO2 than trees but radiates less heat. Plus it doesn't fall down in high winds. Hell, when I finally finish populating my 4 acres with bamboo I may start building with it.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:07 · Score: -1

A more important question is "WHO FUCKING CARES?". Do you plan to be alive in another 90+ years? I'll have been dead for more than half a century by that point. Sea level will mean fuck all to a corpse.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by wierd_w · 2012-07-03 10:16 · Score: 1

I dunno... the carbon credit shell game could make carbon sequestration services lucrative.
The deal with producing geologically stable carbon deposits, and rendering them unburnable, is that the exact same process creates potential fuel in an energy hungry economy.
As natural energy supplies dwindle, created carbon, such as through a biochar operation, begin to reach price parity through scarcity. Burying that carbon after rendering it unburnable (such as by sintering it with silicates so that it is more silicate than carbon, and doesn't stay lit) needs to be subsidized, otherwise the big money is in providing biochar for energy production.
A combination of peak energy, and carbon tax/credit, could create financial incentives to fix the co2 problem.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by wierd_w · 2012-07-03 10:19 · Score: 2

Hypocricy at its finest.
On the one hand, people proclaim their superior intellect and ability to understand the universe and make useful predictions of future events, and say it is what sets men apart from animals.
The on the other, they say and do shit like this.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:27 · Score: 0

You mean like diamonds? Or did you mean like graphite?
Re:remove excessive CO2? by houghi · 2012-07-03 10:33 · Score: 1

Since what we released has been accumulated over several millions of years, that will be a very hard thing to do.
How much CO2 is realeased by a barrel of rude oil when completely processed and used?
How many trees would you need to counter that?

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:34 · Score: 0

The TV show Dinosaurs solved this, what, 20 years ago? They had wiped out all plant life, but the problem was the same. They needed more plants to grow. So they bombed all the volcanoes around the planet. The logic being volcanoes produce clouds, clouds produce rain, rain produces plants.
That they over-did it and produced an ice-age which ended their civilization and killed everyone does not mean it was a bad idea. We just need to bomb half of the volcanoes.
Dinosaurs, final episode, "Changing Nature"
Re:remove excessive CO2? by wierd_w · 2012-07-03 10:44 · Score: 2

Natural sequestration is a punctured equilibrium.
Here's the scoop:
After the carboniferous period, brown mold and tree fungi experienced an evolutionary mutation that allowed them to digest a structural protein found in wood, which was previously undigestible. It was that indigestibility that allowed wood, leaves, and other bio matter to fall into peat bogs and not fully decmpose.
In the world today, where molds and fungus can completely decompose the organic substrate, such sequestration is impossable.
It is important to note that the natural sequestration still had partial decomposition of the biomatter. Only a fraction of that mass became coal. The rest re-entered the carbon cycle.
Artificial sequestration, such as putting the biomass in a hermetically sealed crucible, and heating it with sunlight, turns more than 90% of the hydrocarbons into elemental carbon. This is vastly more efficient than natural sequestration. As such, artificial sequestration would take significantly less time than the carboniferous period did to sequester the same amount of carbon.
The problem is not if it can be done or not. It certainly can. The problem is that it is economically disadvantageous to do so. This is because our economic policies are based on the philosophy of whooping it up, and leaving other people with the bill. We act like we can do this forever.
Stort of it: we can't. We can't, and it's gonna eat us alive in the end.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:46 · Score: 0

I'm terribly sorry, but if we're talking about antropogenic emissions alone, we're taliking about giga tonnes per year of CO2. That would translate to one hell of a haystack.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by NeutronCowboy · 2012-07-03 10:59 · Score: 1

The good news is that water vapor is an effect of, not a forcing of rising temperatures. Water vapor has a life span of a few days in the atmosphere. Methane significantly more, at about an average of 9 years. The lifespan of atmospheric CO2 is about a century or so. So removing CO2 is actually an option - if it would be anywhere near economical to do so on a scale large enough to affect the global temperatures. If anyone wants to know the cost of pumping CO2 in the atmosphere, it's right there.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by ethergear · 2012-07-03 11:10 · Score: 1

This sounds great, but it's not such a good idea that people will just up and do this spontaneously. Black glass isn't worth any money, sadly.

I really think we are going to have to nickel and dime our way out of global warming. Reforestation AND fuels from atmospheric CO2 AND methane sequestration AND plastic from CO2 and anything else we can think of that reverses the atmospheric changes and might make someone somewhere a buck.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Artifakt · 2012-07-03 11:40 · Score: 1

Xenu, is that you?

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 11:48 · Score: 0

There is. But you are basically reversing the process that put it there in the first place. In other words you need to use a bunch of energy. Given we get that energy by burning carbon there's no point - actually given out processes aren't 100% efficient it would be a losing proposition.
At least until there's a energy source available - other than the obvious planting of trees and then chopping them down and sealing up the carbon somewhere so it doesn't rot or burn.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by IICV · 2012-07-03 11:58 · Score: 1

The really scary part is that, actually, we know that there's some sort of runaway greenhouse effect, we just don't know what it is.
See, the thing is (and this is an argument the denialists love to make), in the historical record global temperature increases always happen before rising levels of atmospheric CO2.
What the denialists are missing, though, is that the historical data is saying "when temperatures go up, some reservoire of CO2 gets dumped into the atmosphere" - and the truly terrifying thing is, we don't know what that reservoire is. It might be the methaine clathrates, but it might also be something we've never even seen before; either way, it's something that outputs a shitload of CO2, which creates a vicious warming cycle.
So yeah. Somewhere hidden in the Earth there's a big ol' balloon filled with CO2, and we're poking it with sticks. When it starts leaking out, things are going to get really hot.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 12:09 · Score: 0

blocking the sun does nothing to stop the oceans from acidifying
Re:remove excessive CO2? by suppo · 2012-07-03 12:19 · Score: 1

"Republicans don't believe in negative externalities, because it would force them to change their lifestyles."
Don't pick on just the Republicans. Do you really think Soros, Gore, Pelosi, the Kennedy clan, Kerry, Clooney and all the rest of the 1% Dems take a train or ship for travel because trains and ships contribute the least CO2 per weight-distance moved of any other transporation mode?

--
NON-geek Linux user since 1998
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 12:22 · Score: 0

Then we could burn that carbon rich black glass, right?
Re:remove excessive CO2? by slew · 2012-07-03 12:31 · Score: 1

The lifespan of atmospheric CO2 is about a century or so.
Unfortunatly, life is a bit more compllicated than that. The actual time a particular emitted CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere before re-interacting with the biosphere has been estimated to be closer to 5 years. However, the total time before eventual recapture or dissipation of net CO2 output has been estimated to be closer to 50-100 years. Why the difference? It's because one of the largest sinks (the ocean) although it probably can sink all of the anthropogenic CO2 produced so far (and likely to be produced), it unfortunatly operates on a much longer timescale (it absorbs the CO2 and re-emits some fraction of it because the surface is saturated so it has to mix*** to absorb more). How much does is re-emit? We don't know, because we don't know the full process yet (it involves both deep sea currents and mineral-carbonate rock formation/uptake).
So when you read the lifespan of atmospheric CO2 is a century, that's not true, but the effect of the emission of a marginal amount of CO2 will have an continuing effect over a century might be true if our currently models about the ocean CO2 uptake and re-emission hold up.
***maybe if we turned the ocean into a giant jacuzzi it would help this ;^P
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Black+Parrot · 2012-07-03 12:43 · Score: 1

Remember, we live in a capitalistic society so unless you can figure out a profitable fix, we're fucked.
FTFY

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Black+Parrot · 2012-07-03 12:45 · Score: 1

This may be a stupid question, but isn't there a way to collect massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, compress the carbon into some sort of solid composite, and store it somewhere where it's land-locked (similar to how trees store carbon in wood)?
If we would just start making our money out of carbon, rich people would hoard it and the problem would go away.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:remove excessive CO2? by wierd_w · 2012-07-03 13:18 · Score: 1

The whole POINT, is that you CAN'T burn the glass.
It makes absolutely no sense to go through all the trouble to pull carbon out of the air, only for some simpleton to do everything they ca to put it right back in.
Sequestration: it means putting it away, and never getting it back out again. It does *not* mean you get to hide it for awhile, then just puke it right back into the fishbowl.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Ichijo · 2012-07-03 13:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

At 468 passenger-mpg, people would take trains more often if the market failure were fixed by adding the external cost of carbon to the price of fuel. A demand curve shows how price affects demand.

--
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by khallow · 2012-07-03 13:52 · Score: 1

Sequestration: it means putting it away, and never getting it back out again. It does *not* mean you get to hide it for awhile, then just puke it right back into the fishbowl.
No, even temporary sequestering can work. Otherwise, we'd already be deep in trouble just from carbon that has been temporarily sequestered by geological processes.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 15:04 · Score: 0

This whole Post sounds like an argument between a Star Trek fan and a Star Wars fan.
How long before some Slashidiot starts talking about going back in time to pick up a pair of whales?
Re:remove excessive CO2? by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 15:20 · Score: 1

Hmm... 30 GT/ year CO2 = ~ 8 GT carbon. I think 8 GT of diamonds per year would pretty much tank the diamond market.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 15:37 · Score: 1

If we magically stopped emitting net CO2 tomorrow it would be thousands of years or more before the level dropped back to the 280 ppmv it was before we started. It would probably take 50-100 years before the warming caught up with the forcings and stopped. The way I look at it is that we're adding carbon to the carbon cycle and the carbon gets balanced between the various parts of it, the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere most notably. So the carbon cycle is going to find a balance between those and the things that naturally remove carbon from the cycle more or less permanently operate on far longer time scales.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 15:42 · Score: 1

... we don't know what that reservoire is ...

That reservoir is mostly the oceans. As water temperature rises it is able to hold less CO2 in solution and forces it back into the atmosphere.
Re:remove excessive CO2? by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 15:46 · Score: 1

A saying I've seen attributed to several cultures holds "We don't inherit the world from our parents, we borrow it from our children." How would you feel about it if you were that child born 90 years from now?
Re:remove excessive CO2? by Ardipithecus · 2012-07-03 16:14 · Score: 1

One word: Diamonds
Re:remove excessive CO2? by argStyopa · 2012-07-04 02:15 · Score: 1

Except that repeatedly throughout Earth's history, CO2 levels have spiked almost instantly (at least to the resolution of whatever's being used as a temperature proxy), and the earth has some sort of feedback mechanism that restores the system.

--
-Styopa
Re:remove excessive CO2? by fritsd · 2012-07-04 03:10 · Score: 1

Yes, of course there is. How did you think all that coal and petroleum got down under those rock layers in the first place.
Problem is, it takes several millions of years to do it the natural way (in a manner of speaking, since the Carboniferous (notice the origin of the name) geological era).
I could be wrong, but I think it goes like this: anoxyc swamp with dead plants -> peat -> Brown coal -> coal -> anthracite. The reaction goes to the right with: oodles of time, high temperature, and high pressure.

As far as I'm aware, there are two modern ideas to store carbon in less than geological time;

one is based on centuries long work by Brazilian indians ("Terra Preta" soil), using incompletely burned plants (yeach) and charcoal,

and the other are "white elephant" projects called CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) whereby a large petrochemical company builds an experimental reactor to (1) take coal out of the ground (2) burn it for the energy (3) collect the much less dense CO2 (4) separate it from the acidic and poisonous shit (SOx, NOx, fly ash) (5) ??? (6) profit! ... (999) somehow compress it and put it back under the ground again where it came from in the first place if they hadn't dug it out. You can keep the mountains of fly ash and surplus sulphuric acid this generates.

I don't like the idea of CCS of CO2, how can you prevent the risk of another Lake Nyos "burp"?

--
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Re:remove excessive CO2? by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-04 04:12 · Score: 1

Good idea but I wonder if there's a more efficient method to store the carbon. Vitrefaction needs a lot of energy and extra material.
Also considering that kudzu likes to spread out and not grow up, I'm figuring that a more efficient way to harvest it would be to let it grow to cover an enclosed area and then mow it. Maybe grow it on platters arranged helically around a tower (to let the most sun and rain in) to fit lots of grow surface into a small area. Then a mower device could run on a helical track between the platters.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:remove excessive CO2? by vandamme · 2012-07-04 06:29 · Score: 1

Put it in the damp earth, and it will stay there for hundreds of years, increasing fertility. Look up "biochar".
Re:remove excessive CO2? by ShooterNeo · 2012-07-04 09:13 · Score: 1

Yes. Molecular manufacturing nanotechnology could do this easily. A quick summary of the idea : molecular manufacturing posits a machine capable of creating an arbitrary 3d structure that is atomically precise. It also posits that the machine itself is only composed of a few million atoms per subunit, so the machine could be used to replicate itself.
With self replication over a reasonable timescale (say a few weeks), you get incredibly rapid exponential growth. So you'd start with 1 machine, and within a few years have warehouses full of these things taking up the land area of entire states, all these machines busily converting matter into useful products or more of themselves. Please note that these machines are macroscale : they are housed inside stainless steel vacuum chambers, and an assembled machine is quite large and eats a lot of power. They would get their power from either solar or cheaply printed nuclear reactors. (right now, a nuclear reactor costs billions of dollars. If you could print out the parts for one in a way that was atomically perfect, they would be much cheaper. )
Anyways, you have these machines print devices that are a solar panel on the top side, and an array of nanoscale gas pumps on the underside. They selectively grab CO2 from the atmosphere, combine it with water to produce some type of plastic that is long term stable. The resulting pellets of plastic are buried in the ocean or vast landfills. You deploy these things over the ocean or something. It would take about 10 years, but you could completely collect all of the CO2 that humanity has added since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

The sky is falling... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:34 · Score: -1, Troll

There is no man-made global warming. Besides drowning liberals, communists and socialists in California and New York is good for the Country.

Re:The sky is falling... by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-03 08:43 · Score: 5, Funny

It's a poorly understood fact that any unwanted facts can simply go "poof" if you scream LIBURAL LIBURAL LIBURAL over and over.
Re:The sky is falling... by MightyMartian · 2012-07-03 08:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Because, of course, the laws of nature obey your political ideology.
Here's news, moron, the Universe doesn't give a fuck about Liberal vs. Conservative, Socialist vs. Capitalist. It does not fucking care. If pumping millions of years of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere in the space of two centuries is going to cause serious climactic changes, it is absolutely fucking irrelevant who you fucking vote for, or whether you masturbate to Vladimir Lenin or Ayn Rand.
Fucking hell, you ideological fanatics are a tiresome, mentally handicapped lot. Don't like evolution because you think it falsifies your religion. Don't like acid rain or climate change because it means there are consequences to wide-scale and uncontrolled industrial activity. Don't like regulations because it kills your particular get-rich-quick-while-fucking-the-economy scheme.
Is there any part of you at all that isn't a selfish, greedy piece of stupidity? Is there any part of you that gives the least little fuck for anyone other than yourself? Or are you really the vile repugnant sociopathic troll you appear?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:The sky is falling... by BeerCat · 2012-07-03 08:55 · Score: 1

How to respond...
Option 1: Wish I had mod points
Option 2: .... And breathe! Sometimes a good rant is what it takes.

--
"She's furniture with a pulse"
Re:The sky is falling... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:00 · Score: 0

Indeed, the grandparent is ignoring the unwanted fact that drowning coastal urbanity will exacerbate their tendency to migrate to places they haven't messed up yet.
Re:The sky is falling... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:12 · Score: 0

Without California and New York around who's tax money are you pathetic hill billy shitbags going leech off?
Re:The sky is falling... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:20 · Score: 0, Insightful

GIven that all the states at the top of the productivity and standard-of-living rankings are blue states, and all the ones at the bottom of the lists are red-states... I dont' think it's the "LIBRULS" that are messing things up.
Duh.
(the annoying mix of ignorance and arrogance that defines today's conservatives would make the conservatives of a generation ago cry)
Re:The sky is falling... by SpryGuy · 2012-07-03 09:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

All I can say to that is ... Amen.
And I wish more people would take your rant to heart. Thank you for venting.

--

- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Re:The sky is falling... by TubeSteak · 2012-07-03 09:25 · Score: 1

It's a poorly understood fact that any unwanted facts can simply go "poof" if you scream LIBURAL LIBURAL LIBURAL over and over.
Will your unwanted fact that "any unwanted facts can simply go "poof" if you scream LIBURAL LIBURAL LIBURAL over and over" go "poof" if someone screams LIBURAL LIBURAL LIBURAL over and over?
Which came first, the LIBRUL or the unwanted fact?

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:The sky is falling... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:47 · Score: 0

So, what's your plan for dealing with the well-documented and apparently natural global warming and sea level rise that's been going on for the last couple of centuries, then? I guess those communists and socialists living along the Gulf Coast and in Florida are SOL too, like that hotbed of communism and socialism in Galveston, Texas, for example. Damn hippie socialists and their crazy ideas of building beachfront cottages on a fricking sand spit and then expecting government tax dollars to build sea walls and bail them out every time a hurricane rolls through. Yeah, that couldn't end badly due to continued sea level rise.
Next up: solving plane and car crashes by ending the scourge of liberal, communist, and socialist physics.
Re:The sky is falling... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:47 · Score: 0

Yeah but environmentalism in the modern age is equally a get-rich-quick scheme. Lobbyists, grants, "non-profits" raking in money, startups raking in money. Large corporations seeing new profits from things like CFLs and Solar tech. The answer to our oil, environmental, and warming problems isn't windmills and solar farms in the desert anyways. Without bothering going down that line, it's easy to see there's not enough usable land/wind/whatever to support the 7 billion of us with any combination of these technologies. To place your hope in them is to doom humanity.
If you want to claim that science is on your side, try siding with science for once. Fusion is the answer. If all the bullshit, the money, the political will, the "awareness", etc that's gone into Green Energy went straight into current Fusion research programs, we'd get there a lot faster. As it is it's going to be a close race whether we get there (practical wide-scale adoption) before we run out of oil.
Re:The sky is falling... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:06 · Score: 0

I don't like regulations that don't accomplish anything beyond costing me time and/or money. Most of the things I have seen that claim to fight global warming fall into that category. They don't do anything to help the earth and create lots of unnecessary bureaucrats that only add to the pollution and resource drain while producing nothing.
Re:The sky is falling... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:12 · Score: 0

productivity and standard-of-living rankings
Census data is infinitely more credible than any amount of carefully massaged sociological analysis. As to what is and is not messed up; people vote with their feet -- as they always have -- and they tend to abandon, at great cost and risk, the statist dominated areas you admire.
Re:The sky is falling... by neurophil12 · 2012-07-03 10:12 · Score: 1

If you want to claim that science is on your side, try siding with science for once. Fusion is the answer. If all the bullshit, the money, the political will, the "awareness", etc that's gone into Green Energy went straight into current Fusion research programs, we'd get there a lot faster. As it is it's going to be a close race whether we get there (practical wide-scale adoption) before we run out of oil.
You are sorely mistaken. Solar is a far more promising solution to our problems. We have many proven methods of harnessing solar power whereas we have zero ways currently of harnessing fusion. Solar research has been producing regular technological advances while fusion has been and still is "30 years away". The sun provides way more than enough energy for our planet provided we have the technology to take advantage of it, and the way the technology has been advancing I think there is every reason to believe that it will be one of the primary solutions. Best of all, solar will be a distributed and democratizing source of power that you'll be able to put on your car, home, or even your shirt. Some regions will still benefit most from wind, geothermal, or some other source such as tidal, and maybe someday fusion will enter the mix (particularly on any interstellar craft), but that's a looooong way away compared to what we're looking for in the next 30-50 years.
Re:The sky is falling... by MightyMartian · 2012-07-03 11:01 · Score: 1

Fusion thus far has been a total dead end. Christ, you invoke science, and then advocate something we can't even make produce energy even the slightest bit greater than the energy we put into it.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:The sky is falling... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 11:28 · Score: 0

Unwanted facts like the undeniable scientific fact from the 60s and 70s that we were headed for another Ice Age? Fuck all the scientists smug in their theories cast as fact.
Re:The sky is falling... by drooling-dog · 2012-07-03 12:13 · Score: 2

Oh, I wish I had ranted that. Well done.
Climatology became political because the fossil fuel industry spends a boatload of money on public relations to make it so. If they can stall the development and adoption of carbon-neutral energy technologies for even 10 or 15 years by spreading misinfomation and confusion, it still means hundreds of billions of dollars to them, and PR firms are cheap compared to that.
I've spoken with conservatives - a couple in my own family - who've never taken any interest in any science of any kind, yet have big, loud opinions on climatology and "bad science". Their complete lack of interest and knowledge in the subject shields them from having to consider any evidence you might present, so reason is useless. To ask them how they arrived at their conclusions is to open up a boiling cauldron of nonsense and paranoia that usually boils down to all scientists belonging to some great liberal conspiracy bent on destroying the economy. Or sometimes, just a blank stare.
Re:The sky is falling... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 12:37 · Score: 0

Lets look at things mathematically instead of ideologically.
If we forgo N% of world GDP each year to offset global warming then, using the formula for compound interest we see in 100 years:
Lost GDP = GDP * N% ^ 100
Now lets assume cost of dealing with global warming in 100 years is catastrophic, like 10x current world GDP. The question is:
10x GDP = GDP * N% ^ 100 ???
We know current world GDP is about 64 trillion dollars:
640 Trillion = 64 * N% ^ 100 giving N = 1.34 %
Will it cost less than 1.34% of GDP to offset global warming? Probably not. Therefore it is not mathematically worth doing anything about it.
Feel free to check my math.
Re:The sky is falling... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 13:14 · Score: 0

We'll annex Canada and tax anyone who ends a sentence with "eh?"
Re:The sky is falling... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 15:14 · Score: 0

We certainly don't give a fuck about you or what you think.
Re:The sky is falling... by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 15:58 · Score: 1

The Sun shines more energy on the Earth in a few hours than humans use in a whole year. I think there's plenty of solar energy to power us. I read somewhere that it would take a solar array of only 40x40 km to power the human world.
Re:The sky is falling... by docmordin · 2012-07-03 17:07 · Score: 1

Fusion thus far has been a total dead end. Christ, you invoke science, and then advocate something we can't even make produce energy even the slightest bit greater than the energy we put into it.
And you berate the parent poster, yet fail to mention the significant strides that have been made in fusion research in the past two decades, making it far from a "dead end" endeavor, and the likelihood that we will, eventually, produce more energy from a nuclear fusion reaction than we pump into it.

To elaborate on just one area: while the empirical scaling of the density limit and the onset of plasma collapse in tokamak reactors has long been known (see: M. Murakami, et al. "Some observations on maximum densities in tokamak experiments", Nuclear Fusion, 16, 347, 1976; S. J. Fielding, et al. "High-density discharges with gettered torus walls in DITE", Nuclear Fusion, 17, 1382, 1977; R. S. Granetz, "Density Threshold for Magnetohydrodynamic Activity in Alcator C", Physical Review Letters, 49, 658–661, 1982; E. S. Marmar, et al., "Impurity injection experiments on the Alcator C tokamak", Nuclear Fusion, 22, 1567, 1982; M. Greenwald, et al., "A new look at density limits in tokamaks", Nuclear Fusion, 28, 2199, 1988; and M. Greenwald, "Density limits in toroidal plasmas", Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 44, R27, 2002), it wasn't until recently that a sound physics mechanism hypothesis was advanced to explain this phenomenon. In particular, Gates and Delgado-Aparicio ("Origin of tokamak density limit scalings", Physical Review Letters, 108, 165004, 2012), building upon the empirical findings of Suttrop et al. ("Tearing mode formation and radiative edge cooling prior to density limit disruptions in ASDEX upgrade", Nuclear Fusion, 37, 119, 1997) and Salzedas, et al., ("Exponentially Growing Tearing Modes in Rijnhuizen Tokamak Project Plasmas", Physical Review Letters, 88, 075002, 2002), conjectured that radiation-driven islands are the cause of the density limit, as the interior of the islands contain impurities, which radiate cooling, thereby increasing local resistivity and helical current perturbation.

Since, from all appearances, the ideas of Gates and Delgado-Aparicio are correct, steps can now be taken to counteract these instabilities before they become a problem and thus improve reactor efficiency, e.g., in the ITER currently underway in France, the Alcator C-Mod at MIT, or the DIII-D tokamak at General Atomics; for example, one could adopt the processes outlined by J. P. Graves, et al. ("Control of magnetohydrodynamic stability by phase space engineering of energetic ions in tokamak plasmas", Nature Communications, 3, 624, 2012).
Re:The sky is falling... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 00:57 · Score: 0

And any problem can go *poof* if you scream TAXES TAXES TAXES over and over.
Re:The sky is falling... by khallow · 2012-07-04 01:38 · Score: 1

If pumping millions of years of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere in the space of two centuries is going to cause serious climactic changes, it is absolutely fucking irrelevant who you fucking vote for, or whether you masturbate to Vladimir Lenin or Ayn Rand.
Well, then, how about we talk about absolutely fucking relevant things instead? Such as, should we do anything about it? There's a word up there in your post that's really causing problems for us: "if".
Re:The sky is falling... by fritsd · 2012-07-04 06:01 · Score: 1
It's an interesting approach, assuming the GDP continues growing for the coming 100 years. You assumed it costs 10 x current world GDP, and that number 10 is made up as well;
I get a different result 2.3%, check it:
- 10 * GDP = GDP * N% ^ 100
- 10 = N% ^ 100
- log(10) = log (N% ^ 100) = 100 * log(N%)
- log(N%) = log(10) / 100
- N = exp(log(10)/100) = 10 ^ 0.01 = 1.02329 = 2.33 %
(radix of the log doesn't matter for this)

Now let's do a different one for a laugh: assume the world GDP starts a long descent and declines with 4.5007% per year (peak oil was in 2005 or so). This means world GDP in 2112 will be 0.01 x world GDP in 2012. If it costs less than your 1.34 % of GDP or my 2.33 % of GDP to combat global warming now, it costs less than 134% or 233% of world GDP then, to combat global warming. So, it's 100 times cheaper to just start solving it now rather than leaving our petroleum-industry-less grandchildren to pay the bill.

I made that huge percentage 4.5007% up to suit the calculation, BTW.
--
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?

New disaster by cyberspittle · 2012-07-03 08:36 · Score: 1

Imagine the trenches under the water expanding and kicking off earthquakes and tsunamis. Any idea what would happen to the Marianas Trench?

Re:New disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:41 · Score: 0

one of the things about water that makes it so interesting is that its a fluid
Re:New disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:45 · Score: 0

It would be cold, dark, and wet?
Re:New disaster by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:51 · Score: 0

Sounds like my wedding night...

Posting Anon so my wife doesn't kill me... love ya, hon!

RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:37 · Score: 0, Informative

Maybe I am being overly optimistic, but 14.2cm in 80 years doesn't exactly seem so bad (or even 32.2cm for that matter). Surely cities that are going to be effected will have ample time to relocate those in "danger".

The 14 - 32cm is only accounting for thermal expansion, not Ice / glaciers / aquifers.

Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by slashmydots · 2012-07-03 09:01 · Score: -1

Of course, water doesn't expand or contract based on temperature though. So....there's that.
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by Kohath · 2012-07-03 09:05 · Score: 2

Or sea level rise from magic. Or because Gaia hates George Bush.
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by zill · 2012-07-03 09:13 · Score: 1

Wow! Water has a coefficient of thermal expansion of zero across the entire temperature range? What an amazing material!
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by drdread66 · 2012-07-03 09:15 · Score: 1

Uh....what on earth would make you think/say that? The thermal expansion properties of water are (a) well understood and (b) essential to life on earth. See this page for more info...search it for 'water' and you'll find lots of references -- including the thermal expansion coefficients. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by Penguinisto · 2012-07-03 09:16 · Score: 1

Actually, water does expand due to temperature... err, but only when it freezes.
Just food for thought...

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:30 · Score: 0

Or perhaps you could read your own link and see that it also expands when heated above 4 degree C. Water is however atypical in that it also expands when cooled below 4 degree C.
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:48 · Score: 1

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Now remind them that this is over the course of the next 80 years, during which time the RATE of increase will be accelerating, because the amount of energy trapped in the atmosphere and the oceans will be increasing. That's the only real point to the research and discussion. It's a chance to acknowledge and respond to the likelihood that we're headed down the wrong path.
No one is sure about how increased water vapor in the atmosphere or its distribution will effect climatolocial patterns, desertification or the viability of the plants and animals that depend on the naturally occurring environmental and ecological relationships into which they have evolved. No one is sure how the increased surface heat will effect storm generation or magnitude. No one is sure about anything other than the fact that we are now aware of our opportunity to change our collective involvement and mitigate man's impact on the future.
We've benefitted from industrialization based on cheap fossil fueled energy for 250 years during which time we've increased our population from 1 to 7 billion, and our rate of consumption of energy and environmental resources has increased along with the development and implementation of technologies focused on allowing humans most humans to live in relative comfort but without regard to the long term viability of our species. We've never been able of really had to do this before.
I think it's sad to see such ill-informed, unimaginative responses from the general public (from which Slashdotterers seem to be a fairly representative sample). It's bad enough that the global economy is in the throws of failure and at the hands of international leadership that seems bent on preserving the status quo in the face of mounting evidence that even our completely artificial means and methods of trade through interlinked 'markets' and fiat money is failing to serve the average needs well. But that fact that these same people can ignore such a serious subject and slough it off as fodder for bad jokes leaves me cold.
This obviously is no virtual place of community from which to expect decent dialog or inspired conversation about potentially positive change, innovation or care for the future.
Too Bad...
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by tmosley · 2012-07-03 09:56 · Score: 2

Who doesn't?
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-07-03 10:03 · Score: 3, Informative

Nope, it is densest at 4C. I know this from spending my summers swimming in 4C water. The thermoclines set up, you get a bottom of near-freezing water, and the visibility is spectacular.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:20 · Score: 0

Sure, and none of that ice is on top of land, where it isn't currently displacing ocean water. Like in Greenland or Canada or Antarctica or anything like that.
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by geekoid · 2012-07-03 11:13 · Score: 1

Just a tip: The oceans aren't fresh water.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by drooling-dog · 2012-07-03 11:20 · Score: 1

I think it's sad to see such ill-informed, unimaginative responses from the general public
To be fair, a lot of money has been spent - by the fossil carbon industry in particular - on PR to achieve precisely that end. Their job is to sow confusion and doubt over the issue, not to educate. This crap gets fed to the public through the usual bellowing conservative commentators, and voila! An issue that was once a scientific one becomes a rallying cry of conservatives as part of their core ideology, along with their antipathy to evolution, astronomy, geology, and just about every other product of human reason in the past 200 years.
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by slashmydots · 2012-07-03 11:47 · Score: 0

EXACTLY! Mod every single one of those stupid trolls above this down and me back up. They said water. Water = liquid. They didn't say ice or steam or dihydrogen oxide, they said WATER. In fact they said when liquid water flows into other liquid water, the temperature change makes it change density. Water does not do that! Many, many, many machines and inventions rely on the fact that water does not compress. Even under 20 tons of pressure deep in the ocean, water still doesn't compress. This is idiotic that people on slashdot are stupid enough to actually think I'm wrong about a basic fact of physics.
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by nadaou · 2012-07-03 12:22 · Score: 2

> Nope, it is densest at 4C.
that is only true for fresh water.

--
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by styrotech · 2012-07-03 12:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Water has no thermal expansion? Really? Basic physics huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Density_of_water_and_ice
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/AllenMa.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ww6BIy3nc0
And water is actually slightly compressible:
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/compressibility.html
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by Skrynkelberg · 2012-07-03 20:54 · Score: 1

It's funny that you are so adamant about something that can be disproved with a simple Google search.
Re:RTFS - 14-32cm only for thermal expansion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-05 05:36 · Score: 0

from your own link :
"Water at ordinary temperatures contracts and increases in density as it is cooled, like most substances. "
You should have kept reading...

One word by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:42 · Score: 0

Chomolungma

(Cause that's what it's called in the language the survivors are going to be speaking)

Re:One word by NatasRevol · 2012-07-03 08:48 · Score: 1

Or, home.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure

Obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:44 · Score: 0

The obvious solution is to make a huge solar reflector that can be deployed for about 10 minutes every ten years. That should do the trick.

Re:Obvious solution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:50 · Score: 0

Paging Dr. Wernstrom.
LMAO captcha: mirror

vast energy required by peter303 · 2012-07-03 08:46 · Score: 2

creates even more CO2 with our current energy generation

As long as NYC and SF are ok... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:47 · Score: -1

who gives a shit if the fucking hill billies flood themselves to death.

water is much lighter than rock by peter303 · 2012-07-03 08:47 · Score: 1

And we are just redistributing water already there: from the poles to the whole ocean.

Re:water is much lighter than rock by cyberspittle · 2012-07-03 11:10 · Score: 1

Water is heavy. It will no longer be near the poles as it is fluid. It will be more centered around the equator.
Re:water is much lighter than rock by Black+Parrot · 2012-07-03 12:46 · Score: 1

Water is heavy. It will no longer be near the poles as it is fluid. It will be more centered around the equator.
And we'll rename it the aquator.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Thermal expansion? by h4rr4r · 2012-07-03 08:48 · Score: 1

What do Professor Vanessa and Dr. Dewey have to say about this?

Good news... by mevets · 2012-07-03 08:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now that there is nothing we can do about it, the shills can stop pretending it isnâ(TM)t happening.
Already, Exxon has stated the obvious - burning fossil fuels is warming the planet by increasing the co2 level; however had to mute it with a statement that we can handle the change.
I suppose a whiff of honesty is better than before.

Re:Good news... by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-07-03 10:24 · Score: 1

Now that there is nothing we can do about it, the shills can stop pretending it isnÃ(TM)t happening.
"Now that there is nothing we can do" is a bit misleading - the condition ("there is nothing we can do") has been true since before we ever thought about AGW....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Good news... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 12:27 · Score: 0

I've never understood this debate: "Setting fire to all of this stuff doesn't make the planet warmer."
CO2 release, Methane release, burning coal, burning natural gas, burning oil, Nuclear Fission, etc. all make things hot, where before they were not. Presumably, this heat is not shunted into space (any more than it was before). We are adding heat to the system,.
Re:Good news... by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 16:06 · Score: 1

The difference between 14.2 and 32.2 cm is pretty significant.
Re:Good news... by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 16:43 · Score: 1

Actually burning stuff and nuclear reactions releases less than 1% as much energy as the forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases including CO2 and methane (0.028 W/m2 vs. 2.9 W/m2). It's on the level of a rounding error.
Re:Good news... by mevets · 2012-07-04 01:07 · Score: 1

That is what she said.

But then there's the laws of physics by slashmydots · 2012-07-03 09:00 · Score: -1

As warmer water is mixed down into the oceans, it causes thermal expansion of the water.

Well then it's a darn good thing water doesn't actually change density based on temperature. What dumbass wrote that nonsense? A middle school physics student can tell you water doesn't expand or contract under any conditions.

Re:But then there's the laws of physics by MightyMartian · 2012-07-03 09:04 · Score: 4, Informative

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion#Expansion_in_liquids
Translation: You're a fucking idiot.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:08 · Score: 0

is this a joke? any 8 year old would know its density under various temperatures does differ... any person with eyes would really: have you ever made ice cubes, dumb ass? never realized how much of a pain in the ass it is to get them out of the ice cube tray?
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:17 · Score: 0

You're confusing incompressibility with thermal expansion. And even incompressibility doesn't mean perfectly stiff. It just means very stiff compared to another substance, say, air.
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:18 · Score: 0

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Density_of_ice_and_water_(en).svg
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:28 · Score: 0

That's "phase change", buddy, a totally different conversation.
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:41 · Score: 0

LOL! Water just so happens to be the only liquid that expands both when heated and frozen.
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by lessthan · 2012-07-03 09:45 · Score: 1

Are you being sarcastic? Why would ice float if it wasn't changing density?

--
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by HeckRuler · 2012-07-03 09:52 · Score: 1

It's ok Slashmydots, you were wrong on this one. It happens to everyone now and then. But before you hit that little submit button again, take a moment to think about how the world works, or take a quick check on wikipedia, or google it. Be better.
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:57 · Score: 0

A middle school physics student can tell you water doesn't expand or contract under any conditions.
Indeed they could. And they would be wrong.
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by gl4ss · 2012-07-03 09:59 · Score: 1

what makes water interesting is that it has unique properties of expanding.
at the bottom of this page is a curve, http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/beachdam.htm
it's funny because the page is from 2000 and has this exact same issue. "haha".

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:23 · Score: 0

Ever seen a Water Heater explode?
Nathan
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:41 · Score: 0

FUN SCIENCE PROJECT!
(Kids -- Get an adult to help you! :-)
1. Find a large plastic cup that can hold water. A red SOLO cup is perfect, but any plastic cup will do.
2. Fill plastic cup with water, almost to the top.
3. Carefully (don't spill!) place the plastic cup in the freezer. Note that the water is completely contained in the cup.
4. Wait 24 hours.
5. Open the freezer ... What happened to the cup? What happened to the water? Why?
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by MightyMartian · 2012-07-03 10:42 · Score: 1

But this is so typical of the AGW skeptics in general. It does not matter at all whether what they post is true, or even makes sense. All that is required is that it raises some sort of doubt. Of course anyone who has any fucking brains at all knows that water expands, but I'll wager right now that six months down the road when a similar article comes along, this meme will be repeated.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 11:33 · Score: 0

You should have gotten past middle school physics. If you had gotten to high school chemistry before dropping out of school, you would have learned about the thermal expansion of water. If you had made it to college, you might have even taken an engineering class in thermodynamics to fullfill your engineering elective. There, you would certainly learn about the different densities of water. Water is most dense at 4C. Water also expands and contracts due to pressure, but the effect is very small. You have to simplify things to teach them to middle school students. The process of high school, undergraduate education, and then graduate education, is to simplify things less and less. Do you think real world engineers make everything out of frictionless pulleys and mass-less rope? Do you really think atoms are tiny balls with tiny balls actually orbiting around them in circles? There's a reason you have to go past 6th grade to get any decent job.
Re:But then there's the laws of physics by dthx1138 · 2012-07-03 15:15 · Score: 1

But! But! One time I heard somebody say that liquids are "incompressible fluids" and I instantly had a complete understanding of thermodynamics! Teh Global Warmings are a hoax!

--
I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].

Listen and understand. by feepness · 2012-07-03 09:06 · Score: 4, Funny

That global warming is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until your tootsies are completely soaked.

Re:Listen and understand. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:48 · Score: 0

It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever...
For a moment I thought you were talking about politicians.
Re:Listen and understand. by elvesrus · 2012-07-03 10:22 · Score: 1

I guess it's a good thing I'm 6000 feet (1.8km) above sea level
Re:Listen and understand. by El_Oscuro · 2012-07-03 11:48 · Score: 1

Several billion trillion tons of superhot exploding hydrogen nuclei rose slowly above the horizon and managed to look small, cold and slightly damp.
But lately, it is not quite so cold nor damp. It is as if some washed up, dead (for tax reasons) rock star sundove a ship into it.

--
"Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."

Not the worse by fermion · 2012-07-03 09:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

When I think of climate change, increased sea levels are not the worse that I think about. Increased sea levels are simply about real estate and lost infrastructure. To be sure, I plan to be around awhile and these increases in sea level are going to directly effect me in terms of flooding and real estate value, but that does not have anything to with long term livelihood and food production. If anything, it might provide more territory for certain sea creatures to grow. Of course a sea levels rise, some fresh water is going to become brakish which could be a long term concern for certain population. Not to mention a few populated low lying islands that will disappear.

But when I think of climate change, I think of longer periods of temperatures that are outside what a human can really aclimate to, and food can really be produced in. For instance, daytime temperatures that approach or go over 100F during the day and don't get under 80F at night. In Europe we are seeing another winter with temperatures staying at freezing for a continuous period. This is a concern because if we can't produce food, we can't survive. Look at the desertification of Africa. Look at the fight over water going on now in Texas and California. There are going to be some things that are just going to involving restructuring, insurance, and large writeoffs. This will be over and forgotten each generation, like the recurring banking crisis that hits us every 20-30 years. The other, like weather and temperature changes, are not going to be so easily fixed.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black

Re:Not the worse by drinkypoo · 2012-07-03 10:29 · Score: 1

For instance, daytime temperatures that approach or go over 100F during the day and don't get under 80F at night.
When I was in Texas there was a month of that. Well, 70F at night, but 99% humidity every night, and never dropped below about 75% humidity. A mere handful of old people died. Whoop de doo. A greater concern is whether we will shift our food production and consumption habits to match. Many of the food plants we're used to eating don't like temps over 80 and pretty much nothing likes them over 100.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Not the worse by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 13:56 · Score: 0

Instead of looking at Europe you should consider Siberia or even Canada, a much larger area. Perhaps there will come a time when Siberia produces much of the world's food. I Imagine the outcry if another ice age were upon us. There would be predictions of mass starvations, global wars for liveable land and great population migrations towards equatorial regions. For example, tropical rain forests would be replaced by temperate forests destroying numerous species. The main reason we believe the current global climate is optimal is that we have adapted to it. Change always has winners and losers. Stay ahead of the curve, buy land in Canada. (or Siberia). In less inflammatory words much of the Northern Hemisphere lies at high latitudes and will become more hospitable to man as well as many other species when the Earth warms.
Re:Not the worse by dell623 · 2012-07-03 16:12 · Score: 1

Oh please. I live in India, a '100F' day in summer is something to feel cheerful about. Humans can survive. It's uncomfortable, but we'll survive. The biggeer issue is crops, lack of freshwater, desertification. Think of it this way: if they average temperature goes up by a couple of degrees, we'll feel it but we'll survive. But imagine the amount of heat it takes to raise the temperature of a huge landmass by even one degree. That has got to have massive consequences, much beyond summers becoming slightly more uncomfortable for humans.
Re:Not the worse by dargaud · 2012-07-03 19:18 · Score: 1

When I was in Texas there was a month of that. Well, 70F at night, but 99% humidity every night, and never dropped below about 75% humidity. A mere handful of old people died. Whoop de doo.
Remove air conditioning from this, because of a long power outage due to a storm (like right now farther north) or big economic downturns and you'll see the death toll... And all the texans fleeing what is basically a non-livable area !

--
Non-Linux Penguins ?

pshaw! by Thud457 · 2012-07-03 09:07 · Score: 3, Informative

Something tells me that 32.2cm won't affect all of Florida.

It's call tidal surge. And increased atmospheric energy leading to more frequent and more powerful hurricanes.
Florida's not going to be a very hospitable place to live or grow crops if large parts of it are under saltwater frequently.

Anyhow, screw future generations, I've got mine. They can just adapt to the new normal, they'll never miss what they never had in the first place.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:pshaw! by rickb928 · 2012-07-03 09:15 · Score: 1

Depends on the crops, and your expectations, or how high your house is off the surf.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:pshaw! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:37 · Score: 0

Just so you know, there is no evidence that global warming will create more hurricanes. I'm just telling you in case you want to be scientific or something, and actually back up what you say with evidence.
If that is not your intent, then carry on.
Re:pshaw! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:39 · Score: 0

I'm guessing you're meaning the Kevin Costner "Waterworld" adaptation?
Re:pshaw! by drooling-dog · 2012-07-03 10:52 · Score: 1

I'm not a climatologist any more than you are, but I do wonder how all of the additional energy from warmer surface waters might be dissipated.
Re:pshaw! by budgenator · 2012-07-03 11:13 · Score: 1

Anyhow, screw future generations, I've got mine. They can just adapt to the new normal, they'll never miss what they never had in the first place
" US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions." Global carbon-dioxide emissions increase by 1.0 Gt in 2011 to record high
curse you, rest of the world! Funny how the country the rest of the world trash-talks for not ratifying Kyoto, is the one leading the world in CO2 reduction. Next thing you know somebody will tell you that Anthony Watt drives an electric car, oh wait he does.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:pshaw! by siddesu · 2012-07-03 11:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is no need for more hurricanes, getting the same number, but stronger and with more rain is more than enough. And this is already happening.
Re:pshaw! by siddesu · 2012-07-03 11:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

Unless the US recession continues indefinitely, this will change.
Re:pshaw! by Crosshair84 · 2012-07-03 12:02 · Score: 1

Hurricanes are, simplifying of course, the result of temperature differences in the atmosphere. If the MMGW theory is correct the temperature differences between the tropics and poles will diminish, thus there will be less energy and storms will be weaker and less frequent.
Re:pshaw! by reboot246 · 2012-07-03 12:18 · Score: 0

Unless the US recession continues indefinitely, this will change.
I think that's the current administration's plan.
Re:pshaw! by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 12:18 · Score: 2

I think the current understanding is that global warming doesn't necessarily increase the number of hurricanes/tropical storms but I will likely increase their intensity. Look at what TS Debby did to the Florida panhandle.
Re:pshaw! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 13:13 · Score: 0

"Anyhow, screw future generations, I've got mine. They can just adapt to the new normal, they'll never miss what they never had in the first place."
Well, that's been the attitude of the parasitic "baby boomer" generation as they suck the money out of this fucking country. So why the fuck should I care?
You also can't tell me that george washington and that lying cocksucker jefferson didn't think about how bad slavery and ending it would be decades in the future. but they didnt give a fuck. Cuz they got theirs. Fuck them all in the ass. Sacks of fucking shit to a man.
Re:pshaw! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 14:03 · Score: 0

george washington and that lying cocksucker jefferson... fuck them all in the ass. Sacks of fucking shit to a man.
Wow. Somebody knows how to hold a grudge.

You're an angry loon.
Re:pshaw! by TapeCutter · 2012-07-03 16:43 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm not a climatologist either but I have been interested in it for at least 30yrs. Having said that, wtf does the "MMGW" acronymn stand for?

The only "theory" I know of concerning storms other than the obvious more heat == more turbulance is that the N. Hemisphere jet stream will ocillate more and the ocillations will move slower. This will increase the likeleyhood of Atlanitic hurricanes being "killed" by the sheraing of the jet stream, but on a global scale the monsoon rains will increase and the sub-tropic deserts will expand due to the more intense Hadley cells (Hadley cells = convection currents on either side of the equator that pump moist air up over the tropics where it dumps the moisture as rain after which the dry dry air falls down on the sub-tropical deserts). In other words heat will increase the amount of water traveling through the hydrological cycle, this is already happening as evidenced by the atmosphere already holding 4% more water vapour than it did 40yrs ago. Note also that the increase in water vapour is more evidence of a warmer planet since the atmosphere is basically chemically staurated with H20 and the only way to increase it is to raise either the temprature or the pressure (and I don't think gravity is any stronger than it was in the 70's).

So yeah, to a certain extent the jury is still out on storms. It's pretty certain we will get more floods/snow and more droughts/heatwaves but it won't necassarily comes via hurricanes and blizzards.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:pshaw! by Shambhu · 2012-07-03 18:03 · Score: 1

US emissions have fallen due to the recession and to the increased use of natural gas at the expense of coal. The former won't last, hopefully, but if the latter trend sticks it would be good.

--
Rome wasn't bilked in a day.
Re:pshaw! by actiondan · 2012-07-03 20:24 · Score: 1

>Having said that, wtf does the "MMGW" acronymn stand for?
Man Made Global Warming
Re:pshaw! by roman_mir · 2012-07-03 20:27 · Score: 1

future generations are a problem of future generations, here we can't even deal with the past, you think people can deal with the future?
There are 7 billion people on the planet, surviving another day takes all the energy that we are using today, what exactly do you think people should do 'for the future' that they are already not doing? Are you willing to kill yourself for example, today, for the future, to reduce the energy consumption?

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:pshaw! by mSparks43 · 2012-07-03 20:41 · Score: 1

one thousand years ago the sea was ten meters higher than it is today.
so yep, pretty sure it can't be stopped, because it was never something we were responsible for, and if anything is still falling.
Also don't really care, just means as a species we'll all have to move back to the middle east.
Re:pshaw! by TheRaven64 · 2012-07-04 01:34 · Score: 1

It's easy to reduce emissions when you start off with the highest per-capita emissions in the world. It's also easy to reduce emissions when you move your most polluting manufacturing to China.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:pshaw! by musicalmicah · 2012-07-04 01:41 · Score: 1

Plus half of Florida is flatter than a pancake. It's a huge sandbar that happens to be above water. The overpasses are the most exciting part of the drive because you can see whole towns from them.
Re:pshaw! by LeadSongDog · 2012-07-04 03:04 · Score: 1

The overpasses are the most exciting part of the drive because you can see whole towns from them.
You're forgetting the garbage hill on I-95. You can see the vultures circle from fifty miles away.

--
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Re:pshaw! by LeadSongDog · 2012-07-04 03:30 · Score: 1

You can see it from http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=florida+landfill+&hl=en&ll=27.587986,-80.500882&spn=0.000038,0.017488&sll=29.778682,-81.243896&sspn=1.575704,2.238464&hq=landfill&hnear=Florida,+United+States&t=h&fll=27.577906,-80.490282&fspn=0.012572,0.017488&layer=c&cbll=27.58799,-80.500341&panoid=KtXQgty0SWZWNunOTdK8IQ&cbp=12,145.38,,0,0&z=16 but when you get close http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=florida+landfill+&hl=en&ll=27.578761,-80.495582&spn=0.000038,0.017488&sll=29.778682,-81.243896&sspn=1.575704,2.238464&hq=landfill&hnear=Florida,+United+States&t=h&fll=27.577906,-80.490282&fspn=0.012572,0.017488&z=16&layer=c&cbll=27.578681,-80.495545&panoid=4sxvj9m1jeRyUC_iaxXKVg&cbp=12,88.53,,0,0 you can really enjoy the experience.

--
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
Re:pshaw! by hidave · 2012-07-04 11:10 · Score: 1

Actually, the hurricanes we get are not only less in number, they are less in intensity. Look it up.

--
Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant

Look on the bright side by Tough+Love · 2012-07-03 09:10 · Score: 1

It's a good time to own a cruise ship company.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.

Re:Look on the bright side by mevets · 2012-07-03 09:47 · Score: 1

Good Point. If it happened 50 years later, the Concordia might not have sunk....

Another WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE ARTICLE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:11 · Score: 0

You know why legitimate climate science can't take place? Do you know why half the world doesn't give a crap about global warming? Because we're tired of hearing fear-mongering scientific papers like this. If the climate 'scientists' didn't appear to be so damned biased we're probably be light years ahead of where we are right now.

Re:Another WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE ARTICLE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:21 · Score: 0

That's right. Global warming is not happening! Not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not not happening!
I am going to scream it over and over again until you believe it and I believe it. NOT HAPPENING!
Why are you all so biased?
Re:Another WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE ARTICLE by MightyMartian · 2012-07-03 10:57 · Score: 1

Translation: The scientists aren't telling me what I want to hear, therefore they must be wrong.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

1st derivative sea level by vlm · 2012-07-03 09:13 · Score: 0, Flamebait

For a good time ask two groups of people what the 1st derivative of sea level is:

1) Enviroloonies and save the earthers will step out of their Priuses (and/or SUVs) and swear Gaia earth mother goddess set the 1st derivative of sea level to be always and forever more zero until the evil political opponents raped the earth and elected Reagan. Zoning committees and housing developers will demand congress pass a law to make the 1st deriv of sea level be zero by pure fiat, or Gaia earth mother goddess will get an arrest warrant for not holding the 1st deriv constant, should she ever descend to earth from heaven in her birkenstocks and unshaven glory when she makes an apparition at the drumming circle or maybe the homeopathic clinic... these are the same people who claim they could never have predicted a hurricane could strike the coast so the inland people should all pay to bail them out, every couple years, over and over and over and over...

2) Geologists and scientists in general will point out that other than very rare short term local maxima/minima the 1st derivative of sea level has never been zero and probably never will be, and anyone planning on the sea level never going up or down is doomed to unhappiness.

The two groups can't make any sense of each other, mostly because only one group lives in a scientific reality.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:1st derivative sea level by CanHasDIY · 2012-07-03 09:57 · Score: 1

For a good time ask two groups of people what the 1st derivative of sea level is:
1) Enviroloonies and save the earthers will step out of their Priuses (and/or SUVs) and swear Gaia earth mother goddess set the 1st derivative of sea level to be always and forever more zero until the evil political opponents raped the earth and elected Reagan. Zoning committees and housing developers will demand congress pass a law to make the 1st deriv of sea level be zero by pure fiat, or Gaia earth mother goddess will get an arrest warrant for not holding the 1st deriv constant, should she ever descend to earth from heaven in her birkenstocks and unshaven glory when she makes an apparition at the drumming circle or maybe the homeopathic clinic... these are the same people who claim they could never have predicted a hurricane could strike the coast so the inland people should all pay to bail them out, every couple years, over and over and over and over...
2) Geologists and scientists in general will point out that other than very rare short term local maxima/minima the 1st derivative of sea level has never been zero and probably never will be, and anyone planning on the sea level never going up or down is doomed to unhappiness.
The two groups can't make any sense of each other, mostly because only one group lives in a scientific reality.
You forgot 3) Creationist-Birthers, who will demand the scientists be tarred, feathered, and run out on a rail for daring to challenge their unquestionable faith in the Great Googelly-Moogelly in the Sky. Science = witchcraft, after all.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

When the Great Rift Valley turns into a Sea . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-07-03 09:17 · Score: 1

. . . won't that suck up a bunch of water? Can we speed up the process with a couple of nuked canals? Are there any other places on Earth that are just begging to be flooded permanently and forgot about? Now, don't get nervous, Holland, we're just taking a quick look at your dikes . . .

Now is an excellent time to brain brawl some unfeasibly wacky Wile E. Coyote engineering schemes to get rid of water.

How about if everyone drinks 5 instead of 4 liters of water each day . . . ?

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Something can be done by gmuslera · 2012-07-03 09:20 · Score: 1

We can push far more with the global warming, the water will eventually evaporate and sea level will drop. Starting a nuclear war (because everyone screaming and running in circles do subtle changes to culture and may see it as a viable option) and getting a nuclear winter could do the trick too, in the other direction. Dealing with new reality is another option, but will be discarded as boring.

Take care of some of that excess housing stock by gelfling · 2012-07-03 09:22 · Score: 2

Particularly in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. Sounds like a good thing to me.

Here's the solution. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:27 · Score: 0

Dig one giant hole, or a bunch of smaller holes, desalinate ocean water, fill holes with water until water level starts to drop, problem solved. You could also take the water to other planets but it would probably be less expensive to find frozen water in space.

Kool-Aid Tsunami and Hobbits by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:29 · Score: 0

I don't see a problem here. We will all drown in all the kool-aid long before rising sea levels rise. Hell because we are all going to be shorter due to AGW, we'll all die even quicker.

These "studies" are like like a Star Wars movie "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine." No matter how many times these clowns are caught fudging the data, making shit up, etc they just keep coming back. No matter how many times we beat them down with Micheal Mann's hockey stick!

I guess our only home to that we get "The One" to serve us for another four years because as the Gospel says "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." Hallelujah!

Beside couldn't he just couldn't walk across the water and start tapping it down if it gets to high?

Not that I understand any of this scientific stuff - I just write the computer models that the enlightened ones tell me too.

I feel vindicated! by Grayhand · 2012-07-03 09:31 · Score: 1

Everyone laughed when I bought beach front property in Riverside California!

Time to stop focusing on cutting emissions by DarkOx · 2012-07-03 09:47 · Score: 1, Insightful

The simple fact is that cutting emissions is stupid. Most of the science suggests that we are already on a path that is sure to exceed the point where the oceans will become loaded with enough hydrogen sulfide to completely destroy our ecosystem. Possibly within a few hundred years and that IF we cut emissions beyond anyone's realistic expectations. Essentially if the only measures we take are passive, reducing emissions, and the science is right we are already dead. That's if

In either case cutting emissions is economically harmful in developed nations and likely impossible in the developing world. Either the science is right and its already to late, or the science is wrong and elevated CO2 won't do these terrible things to our planet. The focus needs to move toward active controls on the temperature and chemical make up of the oceans. Its the only way.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re:Time to stop focusing on cutting emissions by MightyMartian · 2012-07-03 10:46 · Score: 1

So let me get this straight. Rather than pursuing a course that at least will stop things from getting worse, you want to embark on a geo-engineering exercise of the Earth's oceans, for which we have little or no technology capable of doing it, and don't even know what the long term effects are.
It's like a guy going "Geez, my engine's seized, but rather than pay to have it rebuilt, because that's kind of expensive, I'm going to put a warp engine in instead."

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Re:Time to stop focusing on cutting emissions by DarkOx · 2012-07-03 12:27 · Score: 1

No its more like I am headed off the cliff and even if the breaks did work I could never stop in time. So do I spend my last seconds sitting here like an fool pumping the break or look for some other solution.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Time to stop focusing on cutting emissions by Honclfibr · 2012-07-03 18:21 · Score: 1

Indeed. We need to spend our last seconds figuring out ways to make the ocean rise to meet the cliff.
Re:Time to stop focusing on cutting emissions by huckamania · 2012-07-03 18:34 · Score: 1

Mitigating warming could be done very cheaply, however, we are not even close to the point of needing to do anything. Another model comes out and the gloom and doomers start soiling their pants. Models, predictions and wags from the past are forgotten or explained with a wave of the hand. Hurricanes, tornadoes and weather continue to happen with some frequency, which is now proof when it is hotter or colder. CO2 turned out to be pretty good plant food and not much of a green house gas, 20% as some have stated. Artic still not ice free, greenland still not green. The sun is expected to enter a prolonged silent period, no evidence to support that will have any affect. What was the hottest year again or maybe I should ask how many years ago was that? Maybe warming means something different, maybe this year will be the new hottest, any takers?
If you really believe that this is going to happen, you have to think radically. How about some solar powered siphons to fill up Death Valley and the Salton Sea. We could setup a network of pipelines and fill up all of the dry lakes throughout the southwest. It might not do squat for sea level, but it would open up a huge area for all them poor beach loving people whose houses are gonna be under water. There are other regions of the world that could benefit from something similar and that aren't in California.
Don't like that idea? Okay, how about we start dredging the Gulf of Mexico and start raising the land. They did it with swampland and bayous. All it would take is the Government allowing it to happen. Let people buy the land that they create and you'd have tiny islands popping up all over the place in a couple of years.
But you don't like that idea either, do you?
Re:Time to stop focusing on cutting emissions by bzipitidoo · 2012-07-03 18:39 · Score: 2

cutting emissions is economically harmful
Why do you think that? I love the way everyone thinks change = sacrifice. Even the progressives fall into that kind of thinking.
A War on Global Warming would be economically beneficial. War stimulates the economy. And unless you've been in a coma for the last 5 years, you know our economy could really use some stimulating. Producing solar cells, wind mills, hydro power, biofuels would create a lot of jobs.
World War II made the Greatest Generation great. The next generation kept the Cold War cold. Our generation also has a big challenge, a chance to live up to our parents and grandparents' examples. That problem is Global Warming, and it is bigger than terrorism, bigger even than nuclear proliferation. We've spotted and verified the danger, we have a number of plans to address the problem, all we need do now is get to work.
But so far, our conduct has been downright shameful. Denial, fear, and even lying and treachery. Imagine if after Pearl Harbor, the US had cut and run. Abandoned Hawaii and ran whimpering back to the west coast, opined that maybe those Japs and Nazis had legitimate grievances and they actually weren't bad fellows, acknowledged that we pushed the Japs into attacking by denying them oil and other resources, told Britain that Neville Chamberlain should be reinstated and France should be left to its fate. And besides, it's more profitable to keep trading with the Axis. Republicans often accuse Democrats of being wimps, peace loving fools, and impractical dreamers. Now it's the Republicans who are screwball cuckoo crazy. Even their much vaunted reputation for fiscal prudence is just so much noise with no substance. If they think they impressed me with that debt ceiling showdown last year that damaged our credit rating, while the bankers who wrecked our economy still enjoy respect, privileged access, and massive bailouts, they are mistaken! Makes me sick, the way they lobbed softballs to Dimon just the other day. The air raid siren is wailing and the Republicans are sitting there, hands over ears. "Confirmation, Kaminsky. I want confirmation." Where are the real Republicans? All dead and honorably buried in veterans' cemeteries?
We haven't had a Pearl Harbor moment yet this war, at least not a big enough event to convince the skeptics. Larsen Ice Shelf B was a footnote. Hurricane Katrina was the equivalent of blitzkrieg on Poland. We're in sitzkrieg. I hope we still have good options when the public at last acknowledges the danger.

--
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"

Good. by GigG · 2012-07-03 09:51 · Score: 1

That is great. Now we don't have to worry about it any more and have close to 100 years to get those people moved.

--
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?

Re:When the Great Rift Valley turns into a Sea . . by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:54 · Score: 0

How about if everyone drinks 5 instead of 4 liters of water each day . . . ?

Then everyone goes pee 5 times instead of 4 times each day, with a net result of no change.

/. please just stop posting links to nature.com by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 09:59 · Score: 0

EOM

The important things for slashdotters: by Hartree · 2012-07-03 10:09 · Score: 0

Obviously, the most important questions are:

1. How can we use this in the Emacs vs VI debate?
2. Can this be used in the cloud vs local computing debate.
3. Where does Natalie Portman come down on this issue?
4. Can we use this to justify locking RMS and ESR in a closet with various blunt weapons and only talk to whoever walks out afterward?
5. How will this help that guy turn girls into stone?

Re:The important things for slashdotters: by fritsd · 2012-07-04 07:03 · Score: 1

6. What size of Beowulf cluster are we talking about to solve this, exactly?

--
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?

Yea, Sure by Curunir_wolf · 2012-07-03 10:16 · Score: 0

Under the best emissions scenario, the expected rise is 14.2 cm by 2100; under the worst, 32.2 cm from thermal expansion alone.

Complete bullshit, pulled in whole out of somebody's ass. How many idiots are there out there that actually buy into fear-mongering crap like that?

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

Re:Yea, Sure by drinkypoo · 2012-07-03 10:26 · Score: 1

Complete bullshit, pulled in whole out of somebody's ass
[citation needed]

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Yea, Sure by Curunir_wolf · 2012-07-03 11:05 · Score: 1

Complete bullshit, pulled in whole out of somebody's ass
[citation needed]
In other words "Please prove this negative." Truly spoken as someone with no grasp of science.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Yea, Sure by drinkypoo · 2012-07-03 11:09 · Score: 1

[citation needed]
In other words "Please prove this negative." Truly spoken as someone with no grasp of science.
Don't put words in my mouth or take thoughts out of my head; it belittles only you when you make unfounded assumptions. Unfortunately for you what we're talking about is a peer-reviewed paper, so there is a proper way to rebut it, and that is with science, not Ad Hominem. You may now try again to discredit my statement, but from what I've seen you don't have a fucking hope in hell.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Yea, Sure by riverat1 · 2012-07-03 17:16 · Score: 1

You can find out where the numbers came from if you read the paper I cited. But maybe it's above your reading level.
Re:Yea, Sure by Curunir_wolf · 2012-07-03 18:16 · Score: 0

You can find out where the numbers came from if you read the paper I cited. But maybe it's above your reading level.
Sure ... okay, let's see...

...global coupled climate model simulations...

Our intention here is to relate the rate of future global temperature change from the representative concentration pathway (RCP) mitigation scenarios to possible future sea-level rise...

One will simply be the part due to thermal expansion of sea water computed from a global coupled climate model (CCSM4). The second will use the example in the IPCC AR4
Hmmm... looks like they pulled it only partly out of their ass, and partly out of numbers somebody else pulled out of their ass.
My apologies for jumping to conclusions - I honestly did not realize there were so many asses involved...

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Yea, Sure by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-04 04:19 · Score: 1

LOL excellent sig material here!
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Yea, Sure by riverat1 · 2012-07-04 05:20 · Score: 2

I was right, it is above your reading level.

Obligatory Video by JWSmythe · 2012-07-03 10:27 · Score: 1

... and the band played this while the coasts sank into oblivion ...

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.

So What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:28 · Score: 0

Shorelines have been moving location for millions of years. Many ruins of ancient costal civilizations are miles inland or out to sea today. The Earth is a costantly changing system and nature has been adapting to those changes for years.

Bullshit. by Mr.+Firewall · 2012-07-03 10:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sea levels stopped rising in 2008 and, according to some interpretations of the data, have actually been declining ever since.

--
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll

Re:Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 21:23 · Score: 0

First off, you realise that Obama is talking about plans for the future, right? And how future generations will thank us for acting and doing what needs to be done? He doesn't say that ocean levels have already stopped rising.
Which is prudent, because as a matter of fact they haven't. If you look at the sea levels over the past century, it's pretty much a wobbly line around a rising trend. Some years it rises a bit faster, some years it might dip a little, but the trend is clear.
This trend seems to be (at the moment) mostly linear and accelerating slightly, but unfortunately there are good reasons to think that that the pace will be bigger in the future, since there are a lot of tipping points that we're only now starting to reach (like the effects of melting glaciers and thawing permafrost).
Re:Bullshit. by riverat1 · 2012-07-04 11:12 · Score: 1

Why don't you get back to me when that trend has continued for 20 years or so.
Re:Bullshit. by Mr.+Firewall · 2012-07-04 13:10 · Score: 1

Did you not click on the link? The Prophet clearly said that it shall be a trend that shall continue unto the generations. No need to wait.
O ye of little faith.

--
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Re:Bullshit. by riverat1 · 2012-07-04 14:26 · Score: 1

Yes, I clicked the link. Political rhetoric has no meaning in a scientific context.
Re:Bullshit. by Mr.+Firewall · 2012-07-04 14:45 · Score: 1

The Prophet has spoken. And that makes it true. Science has no meaning in a True Believer context.

--
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Re:Bullshit. by riverat1 · 2012-07-04 14:58 · Score: 1

Who are you talking about? It certainly isn't me.

Re:Not in the Bible by arthurpaliden · 2012-07-03 10:45 · Score: 0

No quadratic equations etc in the Bible. Well there is the value for PI but then they got that wrong.

--
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo

And Now for Something Completely Different by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 11:02 · Score: 0

Some evidence.

I know, I know, it's not fashionable to actually look into the facts before posting about important subjects such as these.

Re:And Now for Something Completely Different by riverat1 · 2012-07-04 05:56 · Score: 1

Just eyeballing the chart it looks to me like there is more area where the sea surface temperature anomaly is above zero than below. But it's hard to tell since the map projection distorts the area as you move away from the equator.

Holland survived it by WinstonWolfIT · 2012-07-03 11:15 · Score: 1

Affected areas with high population density should easily be able to come up with the cash to build levees high enough to survive a million years of warming.

Obama Lied, The Oceans Rised. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 11:25 · Score: 0

Barack Obama on winning the nomination, June 4, 2008: "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Simple solution... by PortHaven · 2012-07-03 11:45 · Score: 1

We're draining the prehistoric deep underground aquafers.

Just pump the seawater back inside. :-P

Don't panic, everything's fine! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 12:05 · Score: 0

We'll just have to keep growing the population at full speed, and we'll use our super efficient and cheap solar panels and our graphene salt water filters and we'll drink the ocean back down to appropriate levels.

KEEP SHOPPING AND BREEDING, HUMANS! NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

calm down by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 12:44 · Score: 0

It's alright, there will always be a climate change denyer that will buy your "beach front" property.

that's the problem by publiclurker · 2012-07-03 13:02 · Score: 1

You don't know how to think.

Replica Watches Sale, Buy Replica Rolex Watch Onli by topmywatch777 · 2012-07-03 13:54 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Replica Watches of all world brands for sale - Replica Rolex Watches, Breitling, Tag Heuer, Cartier, Hublot Replica Watch at topmywatch.net online store. http://www.topmywatch.net/

We didn't listen! by andydouble07 · 2012-07-03 14:38 · Score: 1

RABLABALBABLABLABLABLA

As usual ... by PPH · 2012-07-03 15:42 · Score: 1

... the solution is The Cloud.

We'll just store all that excess water in the cloud. Everything will be fine.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:As usual ... by Areyoukiddingme · 2012-07-03 19:29 · Score: 1

Oh. My. God. I can't decide whether you win One Internet or to stab you in the face.
That was HORRIBLE.

an order of magnitude off by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 15:57 · Score: 0

banking crises happen every 2 to 3 years. perhaps this is better than truly catastrophic disasters occurring less frequently. its probably not just that people dont learn, its that the entire financial system is built on a series of protections for the bankers that ultimately protect them from the burden of being responsible for their mistakes, while still allowing a healthy profit.

Honey badger by kackle · 2012-07-03 16:04 · Score: 1

Here's news, moron, the Universe doesn't give a fuck about Liberal vs. Conservative, Socialist vs. Capitalist. It does not fucking care.

Hmmm... I wonder what the honey badger's take is on all of this...

Yep. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 16:13 · Score: 0

Bye, bye, Manhattan.

Re:Yep. by Gorobei · 2012-07-04 02:46 · Score: 1

Manhattan is one of the richest places on earth (in terms of income per sq mile.) It could handle a 10 meter sea level rise if it needed to: 40 miles of dikes, beef up the pumping infrastructure, etc, is quite doable for one of the world's major financial centers.
Florida, Louisiana, the Carolinas, sorry, you are in the bye-bye zone.

280' above current sea level by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 17:46 · Score: 0

The fossil records show sea level as being 280 feet above where it is now. If most of the ice were to melt, that's where it would go again. It looks like most (all) of the ice is going to melt. It appears that this melting happens on human and not geologic time zone. Its interesting that the highest point in Florida above sea level is about 280 feet.

So What? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 18:25 · Score: 0

China could give a damn, the planet could be going up in flames and they will tell everyone to pack sand. So sure we can make a impact while completely destroying what little is left of our economy. China on the other hand you can bet will just keep on subsidizing prices and doing what they want until we cease to exist. (They are doing one hell of a job at it so far)

Scream global warning as much as you want, it will not change the dynamics of the problem.

let's not beat around the bush by khipu · 2012-07-03 19:58 · Score: 2

The above statement is basically true. If you broke up the entire Greenland ice sheet, the rise in sea level would be catastrophic. Mr. Gore does not say this will happen in the next 100 years

This is apparently Gore's equivalent of "I did not inhale" or "it depends on your definition of 'sex'". What this amounts to is that, in order to push his political agenda, Gore has been using technically true statements intended strike fear into people. And a lot of the advocates of action on climate change are doing the same thing, like Hansen's statements about runaway greenhouse warming and the numerous pictures of burning planets and scorched earth. The reality of climate change is much less dramatic.

United States of Haliburton by AmericanToBeDad · 2012-07-03 20:00 · Score: 1

I don't think global warming is real, but if anyone is to be blamed, is the oil companies who constantly block any other alternative fuels such as biodiesel. They also block technological advancements which would probably at least increase fuel economy from 32 mpg to at least 100 mpg. It is a fact that oil companies run congress and washington, heck, they even put a president in charge for 8 years and the vice president was a former Haliburton CEO. It is not a conspiracy theory, when it is all over the fucking news.

www.brand-onlinerabat.dk,nike free run orange blue by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 20:51 · Score: -1

http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk/nike-free-sko-c-277.html
http://www.brand-onlinerabat.dk/nike-free-sko-c-277.html
nike free run + 2
nike free run + 2 damer
nike free run kvinder
nike free run lunarglide sko
nike free run lyesr?d
nike free run orange blue men
nike free run +2 herre sko
nike free pink yellow
nike free run billigt
nike free run black orange
nike free run black white women
nike free run blue black yellow
nike free run b?rnesko
nike free run dame pink sort
nike free run dame sort pink
nike free run damesko purple-white
nike free run grey pink
nike free 3.0 limited
nike free 3.0 pink and yellow
nike free 3.0 red
nike free 3.0 sko
nike free 3.0

Problem is your analogy is wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 22:37 · Score: 0

You're driving to the cliff edge and the brakes aren't going to stop you in time BUT THEY DO SLOW YOU. Now, do you keep braking the car and try somthing else or do you put your foot on the accelerator and hope that your car will fly if it goes fast enough?

You're wanting to try to fly.

So all that building is worthless? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 00:10 · Score: 0

And moving it (or rebuilding it) free?

Beause if that land is inundated, that infrastructure which cost you to build and currently allows economic activities that bring in money (you will lose all NY tourists when it's flooded, therefore all that tourist money) will be destroyed. That's worth something.

Or is arson OK because it is destroying something that is still there afterwards: the land only.

Nonsense! by Lazy+Jones · 2012-07-04 00:15 · Score: 1

We can always dig a bit deeper underwater and dump the rubble on the Netherlands (they could use some mountains, or at least they could reach sea level).

--
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)

Dump the excess on the moon by necronom426 · 2012-07-04 02:05 · Score: 1

What we need is a storage tank in geostationary orbit and a big pipe going from a platform in the sea up to it, with a huge pump on either end pushing/sucking the water up (this might not be possible without it ripping itself apart with the weight). Then a shuttle to run from the tank to a landing site on the moon where the water is pumped into a large lake.

Not cheap, but losing something like 10% of the worlds wealth (in towns and cities) is quite expensive, too.

Define "Ice Shelf" by minstrelmike · 2012-07-04 04:56 · Score: 1

If the Ross Ice shelf broke off Antarctica, sea level would rise 6 inches pretty much immediately (give it a week).
That would affect all ports which affects all international shipping which affects all economies.

It would be easier to just stop polluting.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-04 06:07 · Score: 0

The easiest place to collect CO2 is at the exhaust pipes and smokestacks. Even easier would be to just stop burning fossil fuels. And even that I wouldn't call easy. Think of all the opposition there is, for merely trying to restrict that.

So yeah. If putting the whole atmosphere through a filter a few times sounds easy to you, we disagree.

Re:Time to start Teraforming Mars by lpq · 2012-07-04 06:10 · Score: 1

No... it would just evaporate on the moon.

This could be the beginning of the Mars restoration project.

Nasa has said it needs lots of water to protect against space radiation as people travel through space -- huge cargo ships going to mars to replenish the 'canals' and seas... once there use solar to break down some of it into Oxygen and save the hydrogen for battery usage....

Time to start teraforming Mars! ;)

Why Care by johnwerneken · 2012-07-04 08:46 · Score: 0

A foot of water and those idiots want to spend $15 trillion to prevent it? Someone has put LSD in their koolaid.

Slashdot Mirror

Sea Level Rise Can't Be Stopped

521 comments