Slashdot Mirror


Seas Rising Faster Than Projected

New submitter zenyu writes "IPCC's 2mm per year estimate for sea level rise at current CO2 levels has proven too optimistic. Sea levels have been rising 3.2mm per year in the last two decades. The IPCC's 50 cm — 100 cm projection for the next century may prove equally optimistic."

19 of 605 comments (clear)

  1. It's ok. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just tell those seas you don't believe in global we fucked up the climate change.

    That's the cheap choice. And it's all we're gonna do.

  2. Energy companies will fight this report by mozumder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is their entire purpose in life - to force you to pay to do anything by using their energy resources. And, they're going to do everything they can to make sure any bad news about energy consumption goes away.

    Remember kids, this is why you fight the energy companies. Do everything you can to fight them back!

  3. I doubt it by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bad news about energy is good news for energy companies, that means they can have a new excuse to charge more for energy.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  4. I've given up by ndogg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've grown extraordinarily pessimistic that anything can or will be done about climate change at this point, and my only thought at this point is that we just need to enjoy what we can until the inevitable self-inflicted pain and suffering we will endure from its affects.

    So let's all party for tomorrow we may die.

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    1. Re:I've given up by gox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've grown extraordinarily pessimistic that anything can or will be done about climate change at this point, and my only thought at this point is that we just need to enjoy what we can until the inevitable self-inflicted pain and suffering we will endure from its affects.

      We don't know how to solve such problems. The extent we can do with our current political technology is to become increasingly centralized to implement and enforce consistent policies. Which is a much bigger nightmare than global warming and would cause more suffering in the long run. Of course we won't call it suffering then, since we will be educated to know better.

      I'm pessimistic about our ability to solve this problem, but I'm mildly optimistic about the coping part. We can easily adapt. New technologies will deal with the problems we're likely to face. The worst part would still be the politics of it. There is too much friction in resource allocation, which will make it very hard to help threatened populations. There is even more political friction if you want to relocate them.

      Would these issues result in the same kind of centralization? If so, then moving in that direction now would be the lesser evil. It's very hard to reason about.

    2. Re:I've given up by Ost99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The entire human exodus from Africa was during the last glacial period. And it almost did wipe us out. At some point about 70 000 years ago (in the middle of the last glaciation period) the total human population shrunk to 2 000 individuals - that's one flu outbreak from extinction.

      The changes we are facing now are of a much more dramatic than the gradual cooling over millennia during the last glaciation (4-5 degrees cooling over millennia vs 4-10 degrees increase in less than a century). Absolutely best case if we don't do anything now is +4C in less than 100 years, that's a civilization ending change. Worst case places +4C in 30 years, and +10C within 100 years - that's an extinction level event. - And that's without the possible feedback loops from ocean CO2 release and methane release from the tundras.

      --
      ---- Sig. gone.
    3. Re:I've given up by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Biological systems can't be so fragile as all that, or we wouldn't be here.

      Wrong. 97% of all species that ever existed are extinct. The history of the earth is filled with massive extinction events wiping out damn near everything alive.
      Life is resilient, even if just a few bacteria survive, in a few million years there'll be a system with plants and animals again.
      But biological systems are incredibly fragile and quite regularly get wiped out.
      You probably KNOW about the dinosaurs, but that wasn't a rare event, the history of earth is littered with hundreds of extinction events - most of them WORSE than that one.

      Life starts over with the left-overs.

      Now see, that's good news in a sense - no matter how badly we fuck up - chances are we can't wipe out life on earth, earth will live on and in a few million years there'll be some other creature who asks "Why are we here ?" - but it's BAD news for us !
      Sufficient disturbance to the ballance and it collapses, and we go down with it (hint: the larger the creature the smaller it's chances of surviving an extinction event - we count as a large creature, small in this context means bacteria and single-celled sea-creatures).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:I've given up by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have a city dweller's concept of how the world works. You're going to starve to death.

  5. None at all. by robbak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All we are going to do about it is shoot the climate scientists for not doing enough to warn us.

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
  6. Re:One consistent theme by kyrsjo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The rich" might loose their valuable beachfront property, but many poor in Bangladesh and other places will drown.

    A small sadistic part of me is looking forward to see what our right-wing politicians who argue that (a) climate change is a conspiracy and (b) immigrants are evil once the people-flood sets in - hundreds of millions of people are not going to sit quietly on their hands and drown, no matter how much right-wing western politicians wish that is true... Lets just hope there are no mayor shortages before the worlds food production can adjust - but on the other hand, "someone else" will probably get the pointy end of that problem, too...

  7. Regret by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the most regretful moments of my life was when a few people from an organization I don't remember were visiting my school, claiming that rising sea levels are nothing more than myths and scare stories. I clearly remember the guy in front of the class being all smug, saying "I'm sure you've all seen the movie Water World. Well, that's just Hollywood because the sea is never going to rise. Ice floats on water and has actually a lower density than water, therefore, if it melts, the sea level is going to stay the same or actually -lower-....".

    I was in agony, on the one hand I wanted to shove Antarctica, an entire continent packed with ice, full in his face, but my shyness, fear of being at the center of attention and making a scene by completely discrediting these highborn scientific authorities that had come to talk to us, made me stay quiet.

    Man, how much I regret having stayed quiet.

  8. Re:Denier by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, we didn't follow you into the collective clusterfuck that was Iraq... and we've been enjoying universal health care and other communist evils for some time now, so would you like to elaborate how exactly we are doing the US's bidding?

  9. Re:One consistent theme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes unfortunately this is being treated as a scientific observation where caution means not making the most extreme claims. It should be treated like an engineering problem where caution means assuming the most extreme claims might be true (and build in a factor of 2 safety).

  10. Not much of a surprise by rrohbeck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The IPCC always said that various positive feedbacks were not included because the science wasn't clear enough. That always implied that the AR projections were the best possible case, and don't forget that those were the consensus opinion - meaning that if the Saudi delegates didn't agree it wouldn't go in the AR.

    I just hope the AR5 will be a little more realistic and a wake-up call.

  11. Re:Denier by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only thing universal healthcare brought you was waiting lines and mediocre care if you're in any country but norway/sweden/denmark and maybe the UK

    Mediocre care is better than no care.

    Plus people can still go private if they choose.

    --
    which is totally what she said
  12. Re:Denier by k2r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > The only thing universal healthcare brought you was waiting lines and mediocre care

    Average life expectancy:
    USA: 78.1 years
    UK: 79 years
    Germany: 79.3 years
    France: 81 years

    I think I'll keep my German mediocre universal healthcare.

    (Source: http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427ev8tivmaqoj )

  13. Re:Denier by SilenceBE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only thing universal healthcare brought you was waiting lines and mediocre care if you're in any country but norway/sweden/denmark and maybe the UK

    The typical ignorant American answer of really not knowing anything about the world outside. In this European country (Belgium) we don't have long waiting lines or mediocre care. That is not based on some flag waving argument but multiple studies that come out every year. This is the case for most European countries BTW.

    It is funny as Americans tend always to point as greece as THE example of the "socialist" plan going bad. The situation in Greece has nothing to do with healthcare or socialism but with clientelism, fraud, tax evasion (which for American companies is a sport), etc.

  14. Re:Denier by tmosley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    20% of GDP per capita for one additional year of life expectancy doesn't really seem worth it.

  15. The evil U.S. is to blame, not any of you! by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, because the U.S. is so evil and corrupt--as opposed to all of Africa, South America, Asia, most of the Middle East, etc. And despite never having had an empire to speak of--like Britain, France, Mongolia, Italy, Iran, etc.--the U.S. is clearly responsible for all the problems in the world. And when it comes to invading other countries, well, clearly no one compares to the U.S.--certainly an enlightened country like Britain would never consider something as brutish as invading 90% of the countries in the world. Only the evil, uncouth U.S. does that!

    Yes, the U.S. is the cause of all your problems. You bear absolutely no responsibility for any of your own goddamned messes. It's all those evil Americans' fault.

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