NASA Scientists Paint Stark Picture of Accelerating Sea Level Rise

A NASA panel yesterday announced widely reported finding that global sea levels have risen about three inches since 1992, and that these levels are expected to keep rising as much as several more feet over the next century -- on the upper end of model-based predictions that have been made so far. From the Sydney Morning Herald piece linked above: NASA says Greenland has lost an average of 303 gigatons [of ice] yearly for the past decade. Since it takes 360 gigatons to raise sea level by a millimetre, that would suggest Greenland has done this about eight times over just in the last 10 years or so. "People need to be prepared for sea level rise," said Joshua Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge. "It's not going to stop."

Comments

"...need to be prepared..."

[turkeydance]

already prepared for 0.13 inches per year.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Talennor]

If you live 1,000 ft above current sea level, you may need to be concerned in just 90000 years or so! The threat is real. (but yes, also other bad things can happen.)

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Notorious G]

Yeah, in about 100 years I *might* have to move my chair and beer cooler another foot up the beach.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[MightyMartian]

There are helluva lot of people who live very close to sea level.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[aaarrrgggh]

That is just Greenland and does not cover Antarctica.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[msauve]

Sure, but the people on the inland side of the road will be able to look forward to owning beachfront property! Myself, I'm investing in Hudson Bay waterfront property - with global warming, it will be the new French Riviera!

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[thinkwaitfast]

Greenland alone is adding 0.8mm / year

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[blue9steel]

One would hope they can walk faster than that.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

Sea levels rose 125m in the last 10,000 years or so

fell 10m in the last 1,000 or so

We care about 3 inches because??????

Seriously, isn't everyone tired of this BS by now?

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[roc97007]

> Sure, but the people on the inland side of the road will be able to look forward to owning beachfront property!

True, but probably in several hundred years.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[hey!]

Sure. Or sooner if you are economically tied to businesses or people near the coast; or businesses or people not near the coast; or businesses or people not near the coast but dependant on others that are. That's the downside of living in a modern economy. I didn't hold any toxic mortgage backed financial instruments, but I sure felt the pain when the capital markets went tits up in 08.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's been accounted for in the studies maybe, or do you think you're the only one who knows that?

The only people who disbelieve climate change is a problem are corporate stooges, religious nutjobs, and people who can't grasp the notion that they could possibly be doing anything wrong.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

what's been accounted for in the studies?

I'm just asking why anyone would care about 9 more centimeters after the 12,500 we already had.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[WalksOnDirt]

We care about 3 inches because??????

Seriously, isn't everyone tired of this BS by now?

The sea level rise is expect to accelerate and go up over three feet in the next 100 years. Still, that's not going to drown anybody. Sea level rise is annoying, but it gets far too much attention.

Droughts and ocean acidification are scarier. I don't know where it will dry out or what problems the acidification will cause, but doing an experiment on our environment is not a sane way to find out.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[NicknameUnavailable]

Maximum sea level rise for all ice and precipitation on earth being in liquid form on the ground at once is about 70m.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[NicBenjamin]

Because New Orleans and Miami are already mighty close to being drowned at high tide, and doing the logical and cheap thing (moving them to Detroit, which has perfectly fine water resources, is 500-600 feet above sea level, has plenty of space to build new housing, and no hurricane issues) is a political non-starter.

Moreover these estimates aren't really shrinking, so it's entirely possible that in 2115 mSparks43 III will read that comment and say "Geez, grandad sure was wrong about what would happen to Lady Liberty."

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[TapeCutter]

If you want to talk about paleo-climate, realise that the industrial revolution looks like an asteroid strike in the fossil record.
I will never understand why some people accept that "sea levels rose 125m in the last 10,000 years", but call BS when the same people tell them "AGW is a serious problem"? It seems to be related to the common religious behaviour where people pick and choose the bits they like, then labels the rest as BS?

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

You must live near a very shitty beach. Are you sure it's not a cliff?

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

And it still wont be at the level it was 1000 years ago.

or be anything like the DAILY change in tidal waters (14 meters in some places).

So, Mr Canute,

Why exactly should we care?

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

I call headlines of
"3 inch sea level rises a serious problem"

BS

When London, for example, sees sea levels rise 6 Meters

A DAY!

Kinda akin to a "Mr Evil" plan to stop the moon circling the earth.

Just the joke is very old and boring now.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

So because a few politicians are obsessed over a bit of land, we should all sit up and take notice to them...

Nah, much more important things to pay attention to.

Like the fools that take this garbage seriously.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[ChrisMaple]

New Orleans is already hopeless, the land is subsiding much faster than the ocean is rising. Even if the sea level remains unchanged, New Orleans will be as dry as Atlantis in a century.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

MightyMartian afraid to answer a simple question http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ? Yes. How's that flamebait downmod treating you too? Shouldn't start things with your betters, oh delusional online 20 year fake name using loser. You'll lose every time. You're used to that though you loser. Hence your hiding behind fake names online.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[bunratty]

One foot of sea level rise is not a loss of one foot of beach, unless the beach has a 45-degree angle. A few feet of sea level rise is going to displace many millions of people.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Applehu Akbar]

"If you live 1,000 ft above current sea level, you may need to be concerned in just 90000 years or so! "

Actually no, because if all the land-based ice (the kind that affects sea level) in the world were to melt, the sea would rise 70m (about 230').

Not all of the effects of global warming even of that magnitude would be catastrophic, or even negative. For example, Florida would disappear entirely.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if you actually believe this or if you're just being flippant. Why are people just so incredibly ignorant about how things work!!! It drives me freaking crazy! That beach you're talking about isn't some ornamental pond. It's a vast, dynamic system. The entire coastline is. The actual results of a foot of sea level change on any particular section of coast could be very difficult to predict. It could be relatively small, or it could mean that a hundred square miles of coastal area vanishes in a single storm.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you like the flamebait mod yourself, you psycho asshole?

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Gavagai80]

Because the billion plus people it brings more storm surge damages or routine flooding to will cost the world (that's you, taxpayer) trillions of dollars in damage mitigation. Sea level rises thousands of years ago cost you nothing.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Captain Splendid]

"bit of land" = the displacement of hundreds of millions of people across the globe.

AKA your kids get to grow up in permanent refugee crisis world.

And you know what ? I am a fool to care about this, because I'll be dead before shit gets really real. Hope you leave your kids some money!

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

It will displace them so slowly that they will barely notice.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[riverat1]

Sea levels rose 125m in the last 10,000 years or so

fell 10m in the last 1,000 or so

We care about 3 inches because??????

Seriously, isn't everyone tired of this BS by now?

Where do you get the idea that sea level fell by 10m in the last 1,000 years or so? As far as I can see by eyeballing graphs sea level rose maybe 0.15m (~6 inches) during that time.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Will.Woodhull]

Oh, it will be noticed.

A one foot rise in sea level is going to create a lot more shallow water basins and tidal flat areas. All that increase in surface area is going to increase evaporation rates. That will result in an increase in atmospheric water vapor, which is one of the more potent greenhouse gases, which introduces a new positive feedback to global warming.

But in turn the increased atmospheric water vapor will, under some conditions, create an increase in clouds, which will lower the insolation of the land and ocean below them and tend to counter global warming. Since evaporation and cloud formation will be regional, there will be a stronger thermal differential between regions, which will make severe weather incidents more frequent and more intense.

People are going to be displaced by storm damage more than by the simple rise in sea level. If every year 3 to 5 port cities on the East Coast of the USA were hit by an incident on the level of Hurricane Katrina, what would that permanent stream of refugees look like? How could even the wealthiest nation keep up the infrastructure repairs needed to keep those cities functional?

No one knows how to model this, so there can be no scientific talk about it yet. All we can know is that somewhere along the way as the seas rise to 21 feet above their current level, these kinds of effects are going to occur. I think the flooding that will happen with a one foot rise will be enough to change the Earth's weather engine. I may be off by a few feet... or by a few inches. We'll have to wait and see.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[riverat1]

There is still steric sea level rise, the rise from heating water and salinity changes. But that probably still leaves you under 300 feet.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo...

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

Yeah yeah yeah.

I'm sure my kids will be able to move their fat lazy arses a whole three inches.

Although I can see why Americans can think that would be difficult.

Jeez.

China is building new homes for 13 million people a year.

And you think a few inches of sea level rise will cause the world some problems.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

You mean instead of using trillions of tax dollars to bomb schools and hospitals?

That's a good thing isn't it?

Although why fools like you actually pay tax for such endeavours when there are so many lovely tax heavens a lot more than 3" above sea level we will never know.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[FlyHelicopters]

Yes, and at the rate of 3 inches per generation, their kids might have to walk inland a foot or so.

Heaven forbid...

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[FlyHelicopters]

Oh, it will be noticed.

Perhaps it will be... maybe all that you say is correct...

The real issue is that some people take that and then say, "now you have to give other people lots of your money to do something about it".

Except, all that money won't do anything about it, either way. Regardless of your take on AGW, it is going to happen or it isn't.

We aren't going to, as humanity, stop burning coal, oil, or natural gas. We just aren't.

So if they cause AGW, then we're going to get it.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Eunuchswear]

No, if you live 1,000 ft above current sea level you may need to be concerned when some of those 150 million people who live within 1 metre of current sea level move in next door to you.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Troed]

If you want to talk about paleo-climate, realise that the industrial revolution looks like an asteroid strike in the fossil record.

Yes.

Mostly due to the difference in resolution between the proxies used for paleo-climate and today's instrumental measurements of course.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[IHTFISP]

Greenland alone is adding 0.8mm / year

Clearly the United Nations needs to impose severe sanctions against Greenland for negligently discarding their ice shelves and endangering world peace and prosperity. Such arrogance!

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[PPalmgren]

I think his point is that a lot of the alarmism seriously damages the ability for AGW proponents to reach people. Cities are quite fluid creatures, and as long as the seal level rise doesn't make specific sections of land uninhabitable overnight but rather in a 10-20 year period, we can plan for it and react timely. Of course, this doesn't account for problems like the severe weather you mentioned and a Katrina-level event, but we have completely different systems in place to deal with the more severe changes associated with them ("National Emergeny", aid injections, etc).

There's a lot of people who aren't deniers that anything is happening, but just don't see a reasonable solution available that would prevent the problems we anticipate happening. Our global society is simply too fragmented to apply and enforce a stop or reduction in CO2 PPM. So, we focus on damage prevention rather than problem prevention - what technical solutions can we come up with over the next 30 years that might make this problem, not a problem at all. Or, what problems are something we can adapt to on a normal time scale with our current setups. This latter category is one that I and many others think the "sea level rise" problem falls into, and feel that people terrified of New York City magically being underwater in 100 years drastically underestimates human ingenuity.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[hattig]

Where are you getting this 1000 year 10m higher sea level thing from anyway? Given that we have evidence of Roman and post-Roman settlements a few metres above current sea levels, I suspect this is complete bullshit.

Not that it is important now, we've build our cities to cope with high tides that we were getting in the very recent past. We have an accelerating sea level rise: 8cm in 20 years is in the past, the next 8 cm will occur in 15 years, the 8cm beyond that in 10 years.

Regardless, a 1 metre level in sea directly affects high tide levels too, so it's massive volumes of water overspilling sea defenses and backfilling very large areas of low level land beyond. Some cities build around tidal rivers will be fine - barriers will be built. Cities on the coast will find $$$ flooding events increasing from once a century to once a decade. And then once or twice a year at seasonal high tides.

And sea walls won't save any city built on porous materials. Miami, for example...

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and every city on this planet has been built to cope with the highest tides seen in the past, plus a couple of foot (if lucky - some cities accept the spring/fall tidal flooding already).

So talking about tidal ranges in an article about sea level rise is missing the point entirely.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[dywolf]

Bingo. Mod up.

the problem with sea level rise that deniers miss (willfully ignore) isn't the (roughly) steady state level of the water (a threat, but a much more long term threat for all but the low lying island peoples).

The much more immediate short term problem is surge, both normal and storm. Particularly storm.
Some places have more surge than others and will experience rising sea levels more quickly.

But everyplace is susceptible to storm surge, and rising seas make storm surge many many times more damaging and dangerous.

Already we've seen this with both Katrina and Sandy in our own country. It's been estimated that Sandy caused nearly 40% more damage that it would have without sea level rise being a factor, contributing to a much larger storm surge. Think about it: you have a massive storm front, hundreds of miles across. Just adding an inch of height to the volume of surge equates to many millions of gallons of extra volume, not to mention extra momentum, able to penetrate far futher inland. And we've seen the seas rise nearly 8 inches in the past 120 years or so. Storm surge risk evaluations, done every ten years, have been increasing. As well as the number of events and severity, and the actual damage caused.

These images describe quite well, what we are already seeing happen:
http://climatecommission.angry...
http://ian.umces.edu/imagelibr...
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de...

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

Perhaps check the thread, you are not the first person to ask this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo...

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[hattig]

Hmm, from a few pixels on the last graph.

Yet other data sources simply don't support this.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nB6y... http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... http://www.forbes.com/sites/er...

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah I see you've finally gone from Stage 3 (It's not a Problem) to Stage 4 (We can't do anything about it). Progress. Sort of.

Reality: Yes we bloody well can.

The uptake of green energy generation, particularly solar, is actually MORE rapid in developing nations than in western ones. In large part because its easier and cheaper in these poorer nations to slap a panel on a roof than build an entire energy distribution grid based off centralized generation.

And the thing is, we already -ARE- having an effect. We already -ARE- reducing emissions. Speaking in terms of Europe, the US, China in particular. And we will continue to do so as long as people don't block common sense emission regulations. Rules which you've posted in opposition to before, even though we're already 30% of the way there, and the goal emission level is based off a baseline year that had higher than normal emissions anyway, which only further reduces the actual reduction. Sorry bud, you continue to be dead wrong on this.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[dywolf]

More on the various forms of "we can't stop it".
Of particular interest to you would apparently be the economic one, the idea that we can't stop using fossil fuel, marked with a *.

http://grist.org/climate-energ...
* http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...
http://grist.org/climate-energ...

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[dywolf]

Two words: storm surge.
It's already displacing people.
Every hear of Katrina? Sandy?
While Katrina hit NOLA, a city more than partially below sea level and protected , making it harder to quantify how much storm surge contributed to the flooding following the collapse of the levees, with Sandy the analysis has already been done: 40%.

40% is the amount of additional damage incurred due to an increased storm surge compared to what would have occurred without that rise in sea levels. Just a few inches extra height equates to many millions of gallons of additional flooding in a storm surge event.

That combined with the fact that 2/3 of the world's population lives near the coast is why it matters, why it will causes mass displacement and trillions in property damage/loss. Not because their homes will be permanently underwater, but because of the storm events and the accompanying storm surge. Eventually people stop trying to rebuild (seen in Katrina and Sandy, who in both cases had also been hit before a few years previously to those events), and move somewhere else. IE, displacement.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[dywolf]

Storm surge.
educate thyself: http://climatecommission.angry...

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

That's one data source.
NASA
On on this particular issue they are mostly discredited (for a whole host of reasons, don't know why, don't really care. Not really interested in this "click bait for the sheeple").

  quick google of "Ancient Egypt sea levels fell" gives

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07...

Which discredits one of those images.

There should be more considering it was falling sea levels which destroyed that once powerful empire.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[bunratty]

The way it happens is that sea level rises slowly, so slowly it's barely noticeable. Then, literally overnight, a storm causes specific sections of land to go underwater. It's very expensive, even if we plan for it. But we never do seem to plan for it adequately, do we?

CO2 emissions will go down as fossil fuels become harder to obtain and the cost of alternative energy decreases. It's inevitable to reduce CO2 emissions, because fossil fuels will simply be exhausted. All we can do is speed up that process by imposing a carbon tax. We came together to reduce CFC emissions and sulfur emissions to alleviate the ozone hold and acid rain, so why not CO2 emisisons?

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

And anyway, without wanting to get too hung up on the exact details, and while I'm inclined to take publications from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration over the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on matters of the ocean.

Pointing out that the two biggest institutions tasked with investigating these issues can't even agree on recent sea levels within ten meters.

Really doesn't help anyone give a flying f' about 3 inches.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Captain Splendid]

I like how you glossed right over the worldwide refugee crisis. I guess you think the 2nd amendment and gated communities will suffice for your progeny.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

You mean the worldwide refugee crisis caused by america dropping bombs on people.

Not sure what that has to do with sea level rise and falls.

Other than you'll have a tiny little bit less land to house them all when the EU start shipping the people displaced by US weapons to the US.

Now that would be something worth talking about.

The size of American penis's.
Not so much.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

Pretty sure it wasn't a
"We can't do anything about it"

and more a
"We can't be bothered doing anything about it".

A bit like the UK Monarchy molesting small children.
Everyone knows they do it
But no one cares enough to do anything about it.

probably because they are all to busy arguing over the average size of an Americans penis...
Sorry I mean 3" of sea level rise

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Coren22]

Since you bring up Katrina level event, I would like to have a list of cities built 5 feet below sea level so we can start talking about evacuating them.

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

So, those few cities should be moved, but the vast majority of cities are not below sea level, so there is zero chance of a Katrina level event happening in the wide majority of the US. I have been to New Orleans, I have seen the levies, I have seen the 5 foot or so of water elevation there. I am still dumbfounded that people moved back into New Orleans, it WILL be flooded again, and there is nothing that the Army Core of Engineers can do to stop that. But trying to say that there will be 3-5 port cities that get flooded like that a year, that is not true and you know it. There would have to be 10-20 feet of sea level rise for that to be even possible, and as the increase is on the order of half an inch a year (a foot in 23 years), I don't think that we should have significant concern. It is something that needs to be planned for, but not a OMGOMGOMGOMG you are trying to make it sound like.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

You mean this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Yes, I do agree that suggests sea level changes have nothing todo with hydrocarbons or AGW.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

I don't think New Orleans is the shining example of Americans caring about the people and Environment you think it is.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Coren22]

NOLA is 7 feet below sea level:

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

Perhaps as a solution, NOLA should have been abandoned and a new city built a little up hill.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Coren22]

Where are you getting this acceleration from? As sea levels rise, the rise should slow down as there is more land underwater which increases the surface area of the oceans meaning more ice will have to melt for the same level of rise. Are you saying that ice melting is accelerating at a higher rate? I have seen no scientific evidence for this, please link your source.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[FlyHelicopters]

More on the various forms of "we can't stop it".
Of particular interest to you would apparently be the economic one, the idea that we can't stop using fossil fuel, marked with a *.

Ok, I read it... all it says is, "the cost of doing nothing is more than the cost of doing something."

And that might be true, but it doesn't matter. Why? Because the people who have to pay for the cost of doing nothing are NOT the same people who have to pay for the cost of doing something.

My point is that the world, the human population, will continue to burn coal, oil, and natural gas at rates the AGW people say is unsustainable, regardless of any other factors, until such time as those resources actually become expensive.

It is a simple understanding of human behavior and the nature of the world as it exists today. Sure, the US and Europe might reduce their overall consumption. Even China may well do the same. But you won't get every nation on Earth to do it, not to the degree required.

From the numbers I've looked at, from NASA, taken at face value, you'd need to cut world-wide CO2 output by almost 50%, and you'd need to do it, more or less, TOMORROW, for it to stop the temp rise below 2 degrees C. That just isn't going to happen.

10 years from now, the world will put out the same, or more CO2 than it puts out this year.

So rather than try and pointlessly fight the change, perhaps we'd be much better off just planning for it. Of course, we won't do that either, because it requires 20 year, 50 year, and 100 year plans, and we largely, as a people, suck at those. Look at New Orleans, we rebuilt that and kept even the areas 7 feet below sea level open. How stupid is that? There is nearly a 100% chance that some of that will flood again in the next 100 years. Why build when you know it will happen again?

Because humans are very short term planners, because we have other forces at work besides just long range planning (in that case, racial concerns over appearing to "shut down black neighborhoods").

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[FlyHelicopters]

Ah I see you've finally gone from Stage 3 (It's not a Problem) to Stage 4 (We can't do anything about it). Progress. Sort of.

Reality: Yes we bloody well can.

We can't do enough to matter...

Or let me put this another way... Ok, yes we COULD, if humanity worked together on stuff...

But considering human nature, we AREN'T going to do anything about it.

There, is that better? Instead of, "we can't", I'm pointing out that, "we won't".

The uptake of green energy generation, particularly solar, is actually MORE rapid in developing nations than in western ones. In large part because its easier and cheaper in these poorer nations to slap a panel on a roof than build an entire energy distribution grid based off centralized generation.

Ahh, good to know, so CO2 levels world wide are dropping now? Total CO2 output of planet Earth is dropping each year?

Because that is what it would take. I don't much care (nor does the Earth) what any one nation does, or what a local group of people does. The question is, what is all of humanity doing?

http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/...

Looks to me like they are climbing.

BTW, notice that gas is now getting cheaper? That actually causes more of it to be used, it will cushion the bottom of the fall of oil, as people go back to burning it as the price drops. True CO2 reductions won't happen until the base cost of coal, oil, and natural gas becomes more expensive. Until then, we're going to burn it all.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[riverat1]

10 meters is almost 33 feet. 1000 years is within the historical record. If there had been sea level change anywhere close to that amount it would be slap you in the face obvious. Show me some historical evidence for that much sea level drop. Are there Roman ports that are now 33 feet above sea level? Do historical records from China or Japan show anything like that? 10 meters of sea level drop over the last 1000 years is impossible to support.

Here's a story on a detailed study of sea levels over the last 2000 years done on the North Carolina coast that doesn't show anything like 10 meters of change.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[FlyHelicopters]

the problem with sea level rise that deniers miss (willfully ignore) isn't the (roughly) steady state level of the water (a threat, but a much more long term threat for all but the low lying island peoples).

The much more immediate short term problem is surge, both normal and storm. Particularly storm.
Some places have more surge than others and will experience rising sea levels more quickly.

So move everyone inland 20 miles... or 50...

This isn't rocket science...

Let me turn this around... ask yourself why New Orleans was reopened and rebuilt and why not one mile of the city was closed off to homes?

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[FlyHelicopters]

The lowest city on that list has less than 300 people living in it and it is hundreds of miles inland from the ocean... :)

We keep building right next to the ocean and then are shocked when some of those homes and people are destroyed/killed.

Film at 11...

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[bunratty]

It would be cheaper just to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That's why we're trying to do that... it's the less expensive approach. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions also has all sorts of other benefits: ensuring we have plenty of energy while fossil fuel resources dwindle, reducing pollution, reducing ocean acidification, and reducing droughts. I don't understand why so many people are against doing it. I suspect that in their minds in means going back to an agrarian lifestyle. It's the exact opposite -- it's moving to 21st century high technology.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

what the are using America as a reference for.

that place barely has 200 years of history.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[david_thornley]

We weren't building cities 10K years ago. Our living and working situations are designed around a sea level that was fairly stable until now. Ten thousand years ago, a rise in sea level would cause tribes of humans to move inland, which may have been a grave hardship for them, but not one I really care about. Currently rising sea levels have an effect on cities that have stood for centuries, and which have historic value.

To put this more generally, there is no "right" CO2 content, or "right" temperature, or "right" sea level. There are the values we built civilization around, and the values that will disrupt said civilization in a thoroughly unpleasant way. Change is expensive. When it's change that makes us all wealthier, we tend to ignore that.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[FlyHelicopters]

It would be cheaper just to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Would it? Ask yourself... how would you reduce the worldwide CO2 emissions to, say, the 1990 number?

What would it take to get them down there and hold them there, while world population continues to rise?

I don't understand why so many people are against doing it.

I'm not against it, I fully support reasonable changes, such as moving to LED bulbs, requiring car companies to slowly make their cars and trucks use less gas over time, etc.

I just don't believe those changes will make enough of a difference.

The changes that WOULD make enough of a difference aren't going to happen due to human nature. This is not the only concern and issue in the world and the EU, US, etc. aren't all of humanity. Look at the price of oil. It continues to drop. As the US and EU reduce their overall demand for it, as we pump more of it, the price drops.

As the price drops, it becomes easier and cheaper for developing nations to use. We're a planet of 200 or so sovereign nations that don't all agree on stuff. Until the cheap oil, natural gas, and coal are gone, we as a species will keep using them.

Slowing the rate of growth isn't the solution. You'd have to cut the total output by nearly half to stop the temp rise. There is zero chance this is going to happen.

I don't say that because it would be a bad thing, I say it because it is reality.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

and since you mentioned Japan.

I assume you are aware of this lovely bit of disinformation.
https://youtu.be/RvHD-oLT-qE

like it's remotely possible humans didn't live there.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Will.Woodhull]

I am not sure that I fully understand the post I'm responding to (maybe I need more caffeine).

My intended point is that slashdotters should be looking beyond the simplistic models of complex systems that are all that our current level of science can produce. Slashdot can and should be starting to shape our collective imagination to better orient ourselves wrt the highly probable future challenges that can be inferred from the simple models, even though this is all conjecture since the science cannot be done until the changes have manifested. Accepting the conclusion that we will see significant sea level rise, but dismissing it because everybody we know lives far enough away from any beach is inappropriate for a slashdotter. That's more of a FaceBook level of cognition. That's what FB is for: to provide comfortable reassurance that the things you don't like to think about don't much matter.

But thinking about whether a new nuclear power plant should be designed to withstand a couple of superstorm events every year instead of once during its service life now seems appropriate. Also the use of coal to generate electricity is dependent on the viability of railways, and if these become increasingly threatened by flooding and washouts, then what? Now that the science of sea level rise / global warming is firmly enough established, what are the on-the-ground challenges that we might expect, and how should we be influencing design decisions on infrastructure being built today that we expect to have a service life of 25+ years?

We no longer have historical data from which we can develop projections. The rules by which we design major infrastructure have just changed.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[vandamme]

That's what I thought, when I first went there the year before Katrina hit, and looked at the levees. These people are crazy, I thought. They live in a boat made of dirt.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

3 inches!?! Wahhh! You are mean, msparks43!!! It just happens to be chilly in America right now is all!!!

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Coren22]

Yes, The only city in any danger on that list is NOLA at 7 feet below sea level, while being right on the ocean. The rest of them are miles inland behind mountains.

Though many areas are sinking faster than the oceans are rising, NOLA seems to be the worst of those. I saw a picture at some point that pointed out that most of the land in Maryland, including DC is sinking, I am sure there are other areas experiencing this as well.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Will.Woodhull]

So move everyone inland 20 miles... or 50...

This isn't rocket science...

This isn't any kind of science.

Climatology and meteorology are based on historical statistics. What both are saying right now is that we have moved out of the predictive envelope that can be derived from the data we have been collecting for a couple of hundred years. We have no scientific tools to forecast events.

We know the Earth is a homeostatic mechanism that has now been pushed beyond the responsive range of what historically have been the most reactive mechanisms of adjustment. We don't know which backup mechanisms will be engaged next, nor do we know what kind of shivers and shudders will be part of the shift in mechanisms. We are in for a wild ride, and our science has shut its eyes, unable to look ahead.

Slashdotters, some of them, have an ability that goes beyond the limitations of science. It is called "imagination". Those who train themselves to use it in a disciplined way may find ways to avoid catastrophes. Those who refuse to use their imaginations would be better served by FaceBook than Slashdot, since on FB they can find a compatible group of thinkalikes to comfortably reinforce their point of view. Slashdot, at its best, challenges established world views. Which is never comfortable.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[hucker75]

I skim read your post and realised you were one of the gullible fools that believes in global warming. The climate has always changed and always will, it's fuck all to do with us and we don't care, let's just sit and watch. And anyone with a house next to a river or sea is a idiot anyway.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

In principle I am against sea level rise, but let's not fix it until it has fixed Florida for us.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Captain Splendid]

LOL, that's a drop in the bucket compared to what climate change will throwc up.

Best of luck to you, you'll need it.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[FlyHelicopters]

Those who refuse to use their imaginations would be better served by FaceBook than Slashdot, since on FB they can find a compatible group of thinkalikes to comfortably reinforce their point of view. Slashdot, at its best, challenges established world views. Which is never comfortable.

Don't be silly, Slashdot is just like Facebook, a collection of people focused on a specific world view...

This site has been pushing the pro-AGW for some time, the bias is clear to anyone paying attention...

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on dude. By "bias", you mean " accepted reality". Or do you think that homeopathy is effective and Santa Claus really does exist and can visit every child on earth in a single night?

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

And when the seas become so acidic in such a short time that the ecosystems collapse, you'll be cool with that? Who needs to eat fish anyway?

The issue isn't that climate is changing or seas are acidifying - it's the speed of the change that is a problem. If this was happening on a typical timespan of several kiloyears it would be fine. When it happens in less than a couple of dozen decades it's a problem.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not thinking out of the box. It can force other to move. Government might take your property and force you to share it with others. The weather might change. There might be changes in plant or animal life. Business might suffer. Etc.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[hucker75]

There is no reason to believe faster change is a problem.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Temperature rises, ice melts. Temperature rises higher, ice melts faster. A 6 year old understands that.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

The Thames Barrier will be useless within twenty years. London is very worried about sea level rise and is already constructing further flood defences.

The six metres tidal range of the lower Thames isn't the issue. It's the height of the highest spring tide combined with a storm surge that is. Sea level rise means high water mark is higher until barriers are overtopped.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

The sun moves around the earth, so Santa Clause actually has 24 hours to visit every child on Earth. Which is totally practical.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[DanielRavenNest]

> It's inevitable to reduce CO2 emissions, because fossil fuels will simply be exhausted.

We will not be able to breathe before we run out of fossil fuels. At 5000 ppm CO2 (0.5%), people start having trouble breathing.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[uninformedLuddite]

My reaction upon seeing some of the pictures of some of the 'levees' was WTF. They were pathetic little things for the job that was required of them.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

This site has been pushing the pro-AGW for some time, the bias is clear to anyone paying attention...

Yeah, this site wants the global climate to get hotter, the ice caps to melt, and then we'll conquer Antarctica.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[NicBenjamin]

I didn't mean to imply it was, certainly not about the people. If we cared about the people the whole Katrina mess would not have been allowed to get so bad. The levee would have been fixed, the Marines flown in with a bevy of small watercraft to rescue people so the National guard could truck them to hastily set-up refugee centers on Day 2, etc.

What we care about is their property right to have a house on precisely the exact plot of land they have the deed to. We will not violate that property right by turning the entire damn neighborhood into a national park, no matter what.

Always remember, before Thomas Jefferson got to it the battle cry was "Liberty and Property."

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

Yeah, everybody is worrying about everything.
Planet X, meteors, stock market crashes
and the latest, incredulous thing we should be scared of.

sea levels rising by 3" plus or minus 10 meters.

how is everybody not bored of this BS by now.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

Ever hear of subsidence:

https://www.climate.gov/news-f...

Land subsidence [sinking] in the New York City area has been roughly 3-4 inches per century, which is primarily due to the Earth's crust.

i.e. Absolutely NOTHING to do with ice melting. and however told you it is, was lieing to you, and you should get your money back.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

Exactly.

Which is yet another reason "widely reported FUD" about melting ice causing 3" of sea level rise is BS.

No one in the US cares about such disasters already caused by subsidence.
So
There is no way anyone cares about disasters that may happen if something that may or may not be happening, happens somewhere 99% of the population has never been to.

But won't stop rich folk putting a carbon tax on the poor folk, so they can drop more bombs on villages and schools in places the average American has never even heard of.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[NicBenjamin]

Come on now.

Rich people pay the carbon tax, too. Probably more then poor people (it takes a lot to heat a McMansion and fuel the SUV/sensible car/fun car combo) in absolute terms, if not relative terms.

The Carbon tax is intended to do a lot more then prevent floods. It also deals with droughts and forest fires. And guess who hunts a lot, and will be in trouble if there's a drought?

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[TapeCutter]

Agree - instantaneous and 250yrs are indistinguishable, geologically speaking. :)

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

Now you are being quite rediculous.

Only poor people (those with income less than about $2mill a year) pay any tax.

Unless you count the negative interest rate on their swiss bank accounts and the cost of bribing the politicos to give them exceptions.
And I'm pretty sure they don't count.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[TapeCutter]

It's not the click-bait headlines that are "getting boring", it's your particular brand of loudmouth hubris.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

I don't think laughing at people who take this nonsense seriously will ever get boring.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[dywolf]

nope. not flamebait

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[NicBenjamin]

Even Mitt Romney had to pay 14%. Granted that gave him more in after-tax income then both of combined will earn over our life-times, but it also meant that his tax bill (of $2 Million) was more then I will earn over my lifetime. I suspect Obama will be in the $5-10 Million range once he no longer has to worry about a) political appearances, and b) Federal conflict-of-interest rules. He'll also be paying a tax rate of more like 35% because (unlike Mitt) his income isn't in stock he is selling off from years in finance (which is taxed at the long-term capital gains tax rate), it'll be actual income, and his income tax bracket will be the 39.6% bracket.

In terms of a Carbon Tax, that would be nigh-impossible to dodge. Each gallon of gasoline burned emits so many pounds of carbon, that means the gas tax is now higher and includes a carbon tax. Romney and Obama could dodge it by buying a Tesla, but getting their fleets of vehicles to emit less was kind of the point. Each kilowat-hour of electricity from Power Plant A emits so much carbon, the utility pays it and passes the cost on to you. The only way for them to bypass it would be for him to retrofit his home for energy efficiency, and/or power generation (solar is popular now, but Geothermal also works) which a) employs relatively poor (at least compared to either Mitt or Barack) class construction workers, and b) is precisely what the Carbon tax is supposed to do.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[Bathroom Humor]

I think this is one of the biggest problems with the debate over climate change. Most of the people (especially the ones who can effect real action toward reversing or limiting the issue) won't be around when things really go into the shitter. They don't care in part because why worry about something they won't ever live through?

People who have children they care about but still deny it, well that's a different story. But those who have a vested interest in keeping things as they are may not care so much what happens when they and most of their investors are long gone. This is our children and our grandchildrens problems, more than it's our own. That's sorta how delayed systems work, as with most forms of pollution humans subject the planet to. People have trouble getting worried when it's not something that happens right away, or something they won't be alive to witness.

HOPEFULLY in the future when more currently old people are gone, things will change and society will have less reasons to shrug it off. It may be too late by then.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[hucker75]

You'd think people on slashdot were more intelligent than average, so why do so many of you believe in global warming? You'll be telling me god exists next.

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[mSparks43]

Firstly:
In 2010, Romney and his wife totaled $21.6 million in income and paid slightly more than $3 million in federal income taxes. That's good for an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent

Which kinda proves my point. Bet you wish you had an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent

And secondly .... according to the documents he released.
->If you think his income was really "just" $21.6 million, Which is less than an entry level VC, you are dreaming.

   

Re: "...need to be prepared..."

[mcswell]

The only people who disbelieve climate change is a problem are corporate stooges, religious nutjobs, and people who can't grasp the notion that they could possibly be doing anything wrong.

and that is just plain biased and ignorant

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[nobodie]

Eg: I live in Tampa FL. About 1 mile from downtown and 13 ft above average sea level right now. If the sea rose two feet in the next few years it would wipe out the most valuable real estate in Tampa Bay, pretty much devastating the economy of the area. Davis and Harbor Islands were manufactured with rubble back a hundred years ago, just one hurricane with a 5 foot storm surge would wash everything out on the islands, including the hospital (Tampa General Hospital). Yeah, this is real, we jeust had a summer of good rains, not hurricanes or tropical storms, just rains, and six of the small towns in the bay area were evacuated at least once. The bayfront properties were all flooded. South Tampa was cut off a few times. And it is getting worse because it is still raining.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[dywolf]

"just move 4 billion people"

no its not rocket science.
it is however a logistical nightmare talking about the displacement of over half the world's population.
this is you're not a serious contributor to these discussions.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[FlyHelicopters]

And you are?

The comments being offered about this or that solution are equally useless...

So check a mirror, you might find your comments apply to you as well...

At least I'm being realistic about things, most of the people offering up "solutions" are just dreaming fantasy.

Re:"...need to be prepared..."

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem with sea level rise that deniers miss (willfully ignore) isn't the (roughly) steady state level of the water (a threat, but a much more long term threat for all but the low lying island peoples).

The much more immediate short term problem is surge, both normal and storm. Particularly storm. Some places have more surge than others and will experience rising sea levels more quickly.

So move everyone inland 20 miles... or 50...

This isn't rocket science...

Nope - but it's fucking expensive.

As with all hot-button issues on Slashdot

[Fwipp]

Watch what the ACs are (or will be) saying in this thread - their messaging is usually very consistent.

Re:As with all hot-button issues on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

[Insult disparaging other ACs]

Re:As with all hot-button issues on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the bigotry against the unknown messenger? Identity only distracts from the message.

Anyway, I only came her to tell people they have plenty of time to move inland and/or move out of the first two floors. Stopping the polluting would be nice, but the whole idea of thinking about others downstream is probably to socialist/communist for some peoples' tastes

Posting AC, just because I don't like your phony pseudonym, it's hypocritical! So there! Pfffft!

Jerk!

It's not happening

[cyber-vandal]

La la la can't hear you. It's all a leftie plot to rob hard working Republicans of their God given right to get 10 miles to the gallon.

Re:It's not happening

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because the majority of emissions are from cars, and cars aren't such a minor contributor as to actually be diverting interest and resources away from the major polluters, or even legitimate minor ones

Re:It's not happening

[Anonymous Coward]

La la la let's pretend that the sea level's rising is some kind of modern phenomena and has not been increasing steadily for thousands of years.

Re:It's not happening

[riverat1]

Coming out of the last glaciation sea level rose over 100 meters but since about 6,000 years ago it has hardly varied more than about 1 meter.

Re:It's not happening

[Coren22]

When I can buy a Prius that can tow 10klbs, then I will buy one, until then, I am stuck with my Tundra.

Now, what I want in reality though would be a 4 cyl diesel serial hybrid truck, but no one seems to want to build a decent hybrid truck. The electric motors have severe torque, and the batteries would contribute to stable towing as they should be placed under the truck bed. This would make for the ultimate towing vehicle, which should get around 25 Mpg, instead of my current 15-20 Mpg.

Re:It's not happening

[ajzimm3rman]

Do you really think driving a truck is going to kill the planet?

Re: It's not happening

[Anonymous Coward]

When I as a European was first exposed to American TV commercials, the thing that struck me most was that Americans apparently have this obsession with towing shit around. And looking at the parking lot at my office, they seemed to like using the same vehicle for their daily commute. Maybe they would tow their kids to school before going to work, or tow some groceries on the way home from work?

Re: It's not happening

[Coren22]

Or perhaps many people can't afford to buy a $35k vehicle to tow boats or camper trailers as well as an economy car?

I have one vehicle, it is not paid off, how would you work that $600 payment with another payment for an efficient car?

I am glad to hear you are made of money, I am not.

Re:It's not happening

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not happening because it's bullshit via the natural cycle of weather and climate:

http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/26/suppression-of-science-former-noaa-meteorologist-says-employees-were-cautioned-not-to-talk-about-natural-cycles/#sthash.HhEXOqei.RKfPxP5H.dpbs

Re:It's not happening

[Anonymous Coward]

La la la can't hear you. It's all a leftie plot to rob hard working Republicans of their God given right to get 10 miles to the gallon.

10? Sounds like there are some econoboxes in the mix.

Action Required !!

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it. No more federal funds of any kind for regions currently under water!

Until basic common sense measures like these happen, then we can rightly conclude this is just another "climate change hysteria" study. If the government doesn't believe in their own studies, then it is wrong to use them to force actions on others.

Re:Action Required !!

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your offer to fund new housing for the hundreds of thousands of Florida and Gulf coast inhabitants to be very generous. I would like to hear more about your bold new proposal.

Re:Action Required !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, shut down all our ports and major cities! Then when we're wallowing around in our misery we can blame stupid libruls for it!

Re:Action Required !!

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it.

New Orleans was built on the high ground. But over time, parts of it slowly sank into the soft marshland underneath. There is no way they will abandon it. It's cheaper to continue to keep the water out. And it is mostly state and local money being spent, so let the locals vote with their pocketbook. I'm glad, because it is indeed a very special place.

Re:Action Required !!

[HornWumpus]

FYI the port of New Orleans was up and running in time for the crop the year of Katrina.

The 9th ward is still even more of a ruin than it was prior to the hurricane.

One of these things is not like the other.

Nobody is going to rebuild a slum. Slums are the leftovers. Poor people live where nobody else wants to. Sucks to be them.

Re:Action Required !!

[HornWumpus]

They won't abandon NO. But the 9th ward isn't going to be rebuilt. The residents don't have the resources and are stuck living in the next cheapest available housing.

That said the 9th ward should not be rebuilt at all. It should be a park that is used as a flood basin, being the lowest part of NO.

The 9th was also a culturally self reinforcing shithole. The residents are better off spread out, so they can be slowly civilized by their new neighbors.

Re:Action Required !!

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Until basic common sense measures like these happen, then we can rightly conclude this is just another "climate change hysteria" study. If the government doesn't believe in their own studies, then it is wrong to use them to force actions on others.

You expect government to act sensibly?

And you propose we ignore scientific studies until governments take action?

Sounds like a recipe for doom.

Re:Action Required !!

[Frosty Piss]

The 9th Ward *will* be rebuilt with condos once all the poor people have been kicked out and the developers have their hands on it.

Re:Action Required !!

[CrimsonAvenger]

It should be noted that with the current levees around New Orleans, the sea level rise referred to in TFS will become a problem somewhere around 4000AD (the city averages about 500 mm below sea level, the levees rather more than 1500 mm above sea level)....

And this assumes we don't just shovel another foot of dirt onto the levees every couple centuries....

Re:Action Required !!

[blue9steel]

But over time, parts of it slowly sank into the soft marshland underneath.

But the fourth one stayed up!

Re:Action Required !!

[Anonymous Coward]

No more federal funds of any kind for regions currently under water!

I'm from Atlantis you insensitive clod!

Re:Action Required !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, except for the hurricanes which might put a hole or three in the levees.

Re:Action Required !!

[Applehu Akbar]

New Orleans has the inherent problem of being built ion a river delta. All deltas subside slowly with time, even given the same sea level, but in nature are continually replenished at the surface by new silt coming down the river. After you build a city, this process cannot continue.

Has anyone thought of drilling a grid of injection wells throughout New Orleans so that fresh mud could be injected at some calculated level under the city to slowly raise it? This would obviously have to take place at the same rate over the whole grid. What might the best depth be? What would the maximum well spacing be?

Re:Action Required !!

[khallow]

The thing is, New Orleans is not underwater.

Re:Action Required !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds good.

Re:Action Required !!

[riverat1]

If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it. No more federal funds of any kind for regions currently under water!

Until basic common sense measures like these happen, then we can rightly conclude this is just another "climate change hysteria" study. If the government doesn't believe in their own studies, then it is wrong to use them to force actions on others.

The problem with New Orleans is that it's the major port city at the mouth of the Mississippi River. As long as it's feasible they'll keep it going. If the IPCC projections are correct 'Nawlins has maybe another 50 or 75 years.

Re:Action Required !!

[riverat1]

When you look at the levees height you have to look at maximum high tide but possible storm surge (or maximum flood of the river, God forbid all 3 happen at the same time). SLR will be a problem for New Orleans a lot sooner than you think.

Re:Action Required !!

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government is not going to be allowed to refuse to let private industry build where they want if, under *current* rules, those areas are suitable for building.

So allowing building there is free-market and therefore going to be allowed. And insurance should be (and is) much more expensive because of these reports and the facts and conclusions proven and displayed in the IPCC reports. THAT is the free market response: you can HAVE your beachfront property, but it will cost you.

What should happen is that places like Florida and other "at risk" areas affected by AGW abetted events should get no government aid (nor international aid). After all, if it's safe there, then there's nothing lost by agreeing to this stipulation. And if it's not safe there, then they are willingly taking the risk on, so why the hell should any other taxpayer pay for their error of judgement?

Re:Action Required !!

[CrimsonAvenger]

No, it won't. The system is designed for a reasonable facsimile of worst case right now. Long before Sea Level rise has raised it a foot (~400 years), we'll have added a foot onto the top of the existing levees, since we do levee maintenance more or less continuously.

Note that Katrina was more or less a "worst case" scenario. It screwed things up so badly that the next year's Mardi Gras was delayed a whole ZERO days....

Re:Action Required !!

[Anonymous Coward]

and the people living there are just SOL ?
just screw em?

this is why conservatives are stupid and shouldn't be trusted with public policy decisions.
cause you know damn well he wouldn't support using tax money to actually relocate people and their homes.

Re:Action Required !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep.
F em.
It's the conservative way.

Re: Action Required !!

[Anonymous Coward]

If they got the pressure too high on the injectors, then they would be fracked!

Re:Action Required !!

[riverat1]

If you think there will only be a foot of sea level rise over the next 400 years I want some of what you've been smoking.

Re:Action Required !!

[HornWumpus]

The liberal way is, of course, to build them brand new slums while pocketing most of the money.

Re:Action Required !!

[DanielRavenNest]

It would be easier to bring in fill dirt and jack up the buildings than trying to inject mud underground.

Re:Action Required !!

[DanielRavenNest]

As long as the developers bring in enough fill dirt and build higher up, that's fine. They could even dredge up some of the local dirt and use it to make marinas and lakes, then pile it up where the buildings go.

Meh so what...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a problem for those 'future' people.

Not our problem. We don't want to spend the money to fix anything.

Re:Meh so what...

[riverat1]

The problem is that the great ice sheets are behind the curve on melting and even if it stopped getting warmer tomorrow they would continue to melt for several centuries until they caught up to the new equilibrium point. I'd be surprise if there was less than 20 feet of sea level rise by 300 years from now and what we do now has an effect on how much total SLR there will be in the future.

Republican response:

[Anonymous Coward]

*takes out a cup filled with ice* See! The ice melting doesn't raise the water. So obviously global warming is fake. May God smite those heathen nerds!

U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Coincidence? I think not (Cayce was way, Way, WAY too accurate, too many times, & for TOO many folks worldwide - including the wealthy).

U.S. Naval Map -> http://www.fourwinds10.net/res...

(Bear in mind - that's the men of today, scientists, bearing that out...)

Edgar Cayce Map -> http://www.bing.com/images/sea...

* Pretty odd that a man from the early 20th century could "see" that & have it borne out by today's scientists, eh?

APK

P.S.=> Honestly? I hope neither are right - as the world's got ENOUGH problems right now, but... there you are - "Food for Thought"... apk

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[MightyMartian]

I love how these topics bring out the fucking maniacs.

Well, I guess it's better than the Koch Brothers Brigade.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

Get on topic asshole or go the fuck away you motherfucking little punk bitch.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[MightyMartian]

And then the Internet kook, having been mocked, will lash out in anger, because the object of his undying adoration isn't being accepted by others unconditionally.

Man, I've been on the Internet way too long. This was fun twenty years ago. Now it's just sort of sad that sick minds don't get the treatment they need.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

How's your 20 yr. online fantasy going with your fake online name as you're a do nothing loser in life?

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[MightyMartian]

You really are a nut

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

Got to you eh? Figures. It's truth. You're a loser in life hiding behind fake names online.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

See internet no mind with fake online name attacking via stale crap as his mind's limited. That's you, MightyLoser complete with delusions of grandeur as an online no mind hiding behind fake names as you're a loser in life and you know it. We do. It's symptomatic of your kind.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

What's it like hiding behind online fake names for 20 yrs. as you're a loser in life? It's symptomatic of your kind, losers, you know.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

What's it like hiding behind online fake names for 20 yrs. as a loser in life? It's symptomatic of your kind, losers, ya know.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. Naval map backs him. Your 20 year fake online name's delusional and nothing backs you. Grow up little boy.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Sardaukar86]

Are you going to put this on your big list of "Times APK Was Modded Up By /."? No, of course not! This richly-deserved -1 moderation wouldn't add to your 'score' and certainly wouldn't fit your internal narrative that "everybody loves APK!". We all agree with you that cherry-picking statistics is a perfectly legitimate scientific practice!

As for the quality of your submission, does it still surprise you that nobody wants to hear from a deranged, immature fool in his fifties if this is the sort of bilge you want to post to /.?

I'm hopeful you'll stalk every post I make for at least a month following my post. Why, you could use the opportunity to tell people that I'm mean and nasty and that I stalk people.

Please, APK? Your weapons-grade hypocrisy is always a pleasure to experience.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. Naval map backs him. What backs you? Your childish fake name online?? That proves you're done nothing loser pal.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Sardaukar86]

Ahhh, I thought it had to be you. Only you are so doggedly persistent and determined to demonstrate your own stupidity by stalking other people's posts in unrelated matters. Especially after whining about others doing the same to you. Boo-hoo.

By doing so you've found the optimum path to achieving /. fame and adoration.

Now unleash the hordes of ACs pretending very hard that they're not APK, nope, not related at all, even if they do all agree with him. We stupid Slashdotters will never catch on to your dastardly scheme!

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Sardaukar86]

U.S. Naval map backs him. Your 20 year fake online name's delusional and nothing backs you. Grow up little boy.

And so it begins. I'm not APK, no, I'm just an anonymous friend who shows up to assist APK in his assault against the whole world.

Nope, no APK here, nope! Everyone is dreaming, APK is right! Watch as all his anonymous friends line up to support him! Look, they're accusing people of 'hiding behind fake names'. Do you think they get the joke?

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahaha so true! That's telling little shitstain sockpuppet of MightyMartian's "Sardaukar86" off perfectly.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Sardaukar86]

Hi APK, how are you enjoying your 1-person-block-party with all your anonymous friends? Sorry, anonymous hypocritical friends. Man, you have quite the social life!

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than being a fake online name do nothing loser in life like you by far.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer the question asked of you. It really struck home didn't it? Absolutely. Right to your core obviously.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

What's it like living out your delusional fantasy online as "sardaukar86"?

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Sardaukar86]

Ha! You don't know me. Everyone however knows you and most wish you'd just quietly leave and never come back. Must feel good to be famous!

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypocrite MightyMartian. You say that after you said this http://science.slashdot.org/co... ? You've shot yourself in your own foot stupid.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Sardaukar86]

I think your brain is failing you again old fool - if you look carefully, you'll see it's actually yourself who is posting anonymously.

Now, as to your hypocrisy, I don't need to state anything, your idiot words are there for all to read and your blind stupidity at then denying your hypocrisy provides entertainment for all.

I do so love playing with low-IQ trolls like you because your type always twitches amusingly when poked with a stick.

Best of all, you're outraged that someone distracted you from your own stick-poking behaviour. Hypocrisy upon hypocrisy, you are just such rich comedy gold!

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Sardaukar86]

I was going to ask you the same thing about your posting of delusional, crackpot bullshit to Slashdot like that Edgar Cayce rubbish. You expect the Slashdot community to swallow it? You obviously haven't been paying much attention APK, you sad, sad cunt.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. Naval map backs him. What backs you? Your childish fake name online?

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. Naval map backs him. What backs you? Your childish fake name online???

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[ClickOnThis]

What's it like hiding behind online fake names for 20 yrs. as you're a loser in life? It's symptomatic of your kind, losers, you know.

Says the AC.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

Better than being delusional weirdos with fake names online like you. Ac's are better than losers like you by far.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. Navy backs him. What backs you? A childish fake name online??

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer this. US Navy backs apk. What backs you? A delusional fake name online?

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer this. US Navy backs apk. What backs you? Your childish delusional fake name online??

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

US Navy backs apk. What backs you? Your delusional fake name online??

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

US Navy backs apk. What backs you? Your delusional fake name online? Answer that.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh fuck off apk, you twisted deviant retard. The US Navy doesn't agree with your twisted freak lying con artist hero.

Don't you have a host file to butt fuck, you vile repugnant cancer?

You're nothing more than a vile evil bully.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Naval map does back apk! Apk kicked the shit out of you all with it and you started up with him only to fall flat on your faces. Utterly hilarious.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

You really are a nut

I suspect KharmaShlocks gotten tired of being ignored, so he's trolling w ACs more often now

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

US Navy map backs apk. What backs you or MightyMartian who trolled apk? His fake name online?

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[drinkypoo]

Please don't engage him. He's not even amusing. I'll take a good tranny furry slashfic troll over host file shilling.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

US Navy map backs apk. What backs you or MightyMartian who trolled apk? His fake name online?

You have too much time on your hands. There are better ways to spend it.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

Your engaging apk = losing to him as Sardy did http://it.slashdot.org/comment... you both must be sadomasochists.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[uninformedLuddite]

Here I am

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, APK, it's considered a little rude to talk to yourself in public. Just how far does your multiple personality disorder extend, anyway? I mean, are there 3 people in that head? 10? 25? Don't the voices get annoying after a while, and drive you insane? Oh...wait.....I should have realized; they already have.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, it is Alex, Andy, APK, or AlecStaar who's gracing us today with his august presence?

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Sardaukar86]

Yeah, you're right. It's just so funny to see him twitch and I hate seeing him bang on other users but I agree it's probably best to let the sad prick be.

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I read he lets trolls like you bang on themselves http://it.slashdot.org/comment... and if anybody's a sad prick here it's you still being butthurt over your own blunders and apk cremated you for it using your own words you had to eat. You did that to yourself. Seek professional psychiatric help Sardaukar86. You really need it.

One meter and Florida is gone

[Anonymous Coward]

We can only hope.

To those who would trivialize this...Tides, Storms

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, to all those who would make light of 1mm an year increase in sea level, you must THINK

I don't have the math, but 1mm average increase across the entire sea level WILL result in lower/higher tides, and higher tides WILL impact YOU.

Even if you don't live anywhere near the ocean, the impact will affect you in many ways, and will generally result in an increased cost of living as more people are displaced, more infrastructure has to be modified/rebuilt/moved, governments increase taxes and/or abandon land to the sea.

You cannot expect the currently landlocked ice of greenland and antartica to have no effect when it melts and enters the water cycle.

Storms will get worse, not only because there's more available water to push around, but also because there's more energy to do that pushing.

Wake up, this is serious.

water world

[Anonymous Coward]

So can earth tutn into a water world?

Re:water world

[riverat1]

No, the maximum possible sea level rise is probably in the 300 foot range from current levels.

That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[FreeUser]

If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it. No more federal funds of any kind for regions currently under water!

By that logic we should just write off large swathes of the Netherlands. Dykes and berms work just fine, and we have the engineering means to keep portions of land we consider valuable dry even if the waters rise 10 or 20 feet. New Orleans would fit in this category in my opinion. It is a unique part of American heritage and a cultural gem (one of not-so-many the US possesses), well worth the investment of Federal dollars to keep around.

Not to mention that it is by far less expensive to retain land by shoring up or building new dykes, than it is to reclaim land already submerged. Not as cheap as ditching it of course, but in places where it is worthwhile (New York City, Hoboken, New Orleans, Holland, and various other places) it is much smarter to keep existing places dry than leave them to be inundated and then realize our mistake later and either lose them forever, or pay even more to reclaim them.

Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[chipschap]

Hoboken is worth keeping? Now that's something :)

I'm not radicalized in either direction on climate change, but there are very talented people at NASA. Maybe we should listen.

Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not radicalized in either direction on climate change, but there are very political people at NASA. Maybe we shouldn't listen.

Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[Ichijo]

At what point would it make more sense to abandon a low-lying city or relocate it to higher ground than to shore it up? Until this question is answered, nobody can say for sure that New Orleans or New York City is worth saving.

Re: That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[Anonymous Coward]

New Orleans had a substandard flood control system thanks in part to the money to fix it being diverted to W's wars of ego and conquest. Then the city got destroyed, rich people snapped up the land from those who can't afford to rebuild, and now New Orleans has a modern flood control system.

Mission accomplished.

Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[Jane Q. Public]

By that logic we should just write off large swathes of the Netherlands.

That doesn't follow. The Netherlands don't have a choice. We do.

Dykes and berms work just fine, and we have the engineering means to keep portions of land we consider valuable dry even if the waters rise 10 or 20 feet.

That also doesn't follow. The dyke and berm system in New Orleans was being "shored up" using local, State, and Federal money, yet "somehow" a very large part of the money mysteriously ended up elsewhere, and not spent on building or maintaining dykes and berms.

The engineering and technology do work just fine... but the "system" of dykes and berms did not.

Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[hey!]

Well, a lot depends on how your actions fit into your long term vision, if anything. "We'll just rebuild this neighborhood and everything will be hunky-dory" is obviously not a long term plan.

The reason the Netherlands flood control makes sense is that the value of 25% of their country's land area far outweighs the cost of reclaiming it, as simple as that. When the net present value of keeping the flood waters off a piece ofland exceeds the net present value of the use you'll get from it, then it's time to abandon piece of land.

Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[Anonymous Coward]

Déjà vu:

And just let me add this: Louisiana (and New Orleans in particular) politicians took Federal (read: your and my) money, that was supposed to be used to shore up the levees and so on, and spent it instead on their own favorite local pork projects. So, while I don't have ANY sympathy for the flood victims, I would go further and say that those politicians ought to be in prison, if not shot outright. [Jane Q. Public, 2009-06-13]

Considering how often Jane claims people should be shot, maybe Jane's "ethical standpoint" could use some work?

If history keeps repeating itself, Jane is about to say this again:

You call it "socially and emotionally retarded". I call it "social darwinism". The terminally stupid get culled. We have been doing that for millions of years. Oh... but in just the last 20 or so, some pampered know-it-alls seem to think they have a better answer. And I call that hypocritical hogwash. Hey... don't go living below the waterline, and I'll never have to refuse to bail you out. Sound fair? [Jane Q. Public, 2009-06-13]

Jane, part of my family lives below the waterline in New Orleans. Will you please retract your accusation that they're "terminally stupid" and ask yourself why you don't have ANY sympathy for the flood victims? My friends and family don't live below the waterline because they're "terminally stupid". They live there because they're poor. That's not the same thing.

Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[ChrisMaple]

New Orleans is a human sewer, not worth preserving.

Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

Indeed. And this answer is a part of why doing something about global warming (i.e. reducing CO2 emissions) is considered cheaper than do nothing and face the consequences.

Mind you that the 1m increase in sea level is probably already comming even if we stop all CO2 emisssions now. The emission reductions is just to avoid worse (FTA if the ice sheet on Greenland would melt entirely that would result in a 6m rise of the sea level - that's not something you can solve with some dykes)

Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[Anonymous Coward]

When's the last time you've been?

Hoboken used to be scary as hell. Now it's filled with hipsters.

Wait... I think I see your point now...

Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[chipschap]

When's the last time you've been?

Hoboken used to be scary as hell. Now it's filled with hipsters.

Wait... I think I see your point now...

Haven't been to Hoboken since the 1960s, and it sounds like it hasn't improved. If indeed it's filled with hipsters, it's actually gotten worse, which I never would have thought possible. This is off-topic, but the whole idea of gentrification making neighborhoods become unaffordable to families who have been there for generations, is quite distasteful. And I'm not even a SJW.

Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic we should just write off large swathes of the Netherlands.

That doesn't follow. The Netherlands don't have a choice. We do.

Who are "the Netherlands"? If you mean the current inhabitants, they could all move to another Schengen country without greater complication. Germany could well absorb them all into its sparsely populated northern and eastern plains. And they wouldn't even need houses, they bring their own caravans.

Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[Anonymous Coward]

For someone who lives on that piece of land, the "net present value" of keeping their home will largely exceed the value calculated by some cynical macroeconomist. It wasn't the inhabitants who decided that these parts of New Orleans weren't worth keeping.

Re:That would be penny wise and pound foolish

[Anonymous Coward]

The residents of New Orleans should have fled a century AGO. Living in a coastal area that was already below sea level is not a shining example of human intelligence. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-02-02]

... As for taxes, it better not cost me very damned much, because I wasn't one of those people who decided to build (or live in) a big city at sea level. Nobody twisted their arms and made them live there. Let them pay to relocate. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-02-04]

Nobody twisted any of my family members' arms and made them live in New Orleans. They were just born there, so it should be no problem for them to heed Jane's proclamation and move away from all their family, friends and job networks. Right?

Jane, please try to realize that the human beings you're deriding as not being "shining examples of human intelligence" are simply poor. Many of the people trapped in New Orleans during Katrina were trapped because they were too poor to own a car or even afford a bus ticket.

It's fortunate (for Jane too!) that most humans (other than Jane, obviously) have sympathy for the flood victims, and sympathy for other disaster victims who couldn't just get in a car and relocate.

Your epitaph

[Anonymous Coward]

...Spray painted in huge red letters along the sides of the Grand Canyon:

WE COULD HAVE SAVED IT, BUT WE WERE TOO DAMNED CHEAP

RIP Kurt Vonnegut.

Oversimplification

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists dumb down data so science magazines can understand. Mainstream media further simplifies for the general population to understand. Even the summary states that this guestimation is based on a different guestimation of how many gigatons of ice have melted. If 360 gigatons of ice on land melt, it is estimated that it will raise the sea level by 1 mm. However, if the ice is already in the sea, it won't raise the sea level. The dumbed down story doesn't say how much of the missing ice was already in the ocean vs on the land, so we can't use numbers to say that sea level has risen 8mm over that decade.

Since we are talking about NASA, why don't they measure the actual sea level instead of playing this numbers game?

Re:Oversimplification

[Anonymous Coward]

If ice is *floating* on the sea then melting it doesn't make much difference, yes. If it is grounded on land and melts then it all counts as long as it is above sea level in the first place. Because practically all the ice and the melting occurring on Greenland is above sea level and on land, practically all the volume decrease counts. The ice volume on Greenland (and Antarctica) has been studied very carefully by satellite radar interferometry, among other techniques, and calibrated with ground measurements. It's an estimate, but it's not going to be off by an order of magnitude or something dramatic like that.

The article doesn't say "how mch of the missing ice was already in the ocean vs on the land", but the answer is: almost all of it. They aren't measuring sea ice or floating ice shelves.

Re:Oversimplification

[riverat1]

Scientists dumb down data so science magazines can understand. Mainstream media further simplifies for the general population to understand. Even the summary states that this guestimation is based on a different guestimation of how many gigatons of ice have melted. If 360 gigatons of ice on land melt, it is estimated that it will raise the sea level by 1 mm. However, if the ice is already in the sea, it won't raise the sea level. The dumbed down story doesn't say how much of the missing ice was already in the ocean vs on the land, so we can't use numbers to say that sea level has risen 8mm over that decade.

Since we are talking about NASA, why don't they measure the actual sea level instead of playing this numbers game?

The summary says sea level has gone up about 9 inches since 1992. That's 76 mm, divide that by 23 years and you get about 3.3 mm per year since 1992.

Re:Oversimplification

[riverat1]

Oops, I said 9 inches but it was only 3 inches. Nevermind.

Re:Oversimplification

[vandamme]

That's what she said.

Effective way of melting ice

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 emissions are around 35Gt/yr currently. So we get about 10x the mass of freshwater for each ton emitted. And that's just Greenland?

Volume-wise, the picture is different of course. Methane's even more effective though...

I live on a hill

[Nyder]

I live on a hill, so I guess I'm safe. Can't wait till I have waterfront property though.

Re:I live on a hill

[speederaser]

I live on a hill, so I guess I'm safe. Can't wait till I have waterfront property though.

Here are some people who lived on a hill near the ocean. Hope you do better than they did.

Re:I live on a hill

[quenda]

Here are some people who lived on a hill near the ocean. Hope you do better than they did.

Thats not a hill, it's a coastal sand dune. Building your home on a beach dune is idiotic at the best of times.

Re:I live on a hill

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but you will have to defend your property from the vast number of previously beachfront property owners who are now homeless and desperate.

And please remember, they are as armed as you are. And more numerous. And they are fighting for their lives, you're just fighting to keep your home, so they are more motivated.

Re:I live on a hill

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a terrible logical fallacy. Miscreants don't take on someone equally threatening. They avoid them, and go after people unarmed or less well-armed. The last thing they want is a fair fight.

So long Bangladesh

[onkelonkel]

So long Bangladesh.

La Cañada?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

What? Since when do we have a Mexican province?

Re:To those who would trivialize this...Tides, Sto

[mark-t]

Look, to all those who would make light of 1mm an year increase in sea level, you must THINK

Consider...

I don't have the math....

Why should you be expecting anyone else to think when you clearly can't even be bothered to?

3mm is the key

[blogagog]

In fairness, you should mention that the sea level rises about 3mm a year, and has done so since at least 1650, which I think is when they first started measuring it. It hasn't been a major problem for the last 350 years, so I don't expect it will be a problem for the next 350. After all, we are much more advanced now.

Re:3mm is the key

[Camel Pilot]

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Scroll down to figure 3... "Global mean sea level from 1870 to 2006 with one standard deviation error"

What is the first thing that you notice about the character of this plot? Is is linear? Does your statement make sense from what you know of trends and basic algerbra?

Re:3mm is the key

[BCGlorfindel]

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Scroll down to figure 3... "Global mean sea level from 1870 to 2006 with one standard deviation error"

What is the first thing that you notice about the character of this plot? Is is linear? Does your statement make sense from what you know of trends and basic algerbra?

Looks pretty close to linear from where I sit. For absolute certain it's slight acceleration is grossly slower than temperature rise, so that's hopefull we aren't facing any grossly non-linear sea rise. Bonus is that in the IPCC latest report they graph instrumental to projected and it has tracked at the low end of projections.

Re:3mm is the key

[pipingguy]

But panic sells and climate hysteria is (government funded) big business.

Re:3mm is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I see meteorologists, hydrographers and satellite image analysts driving around in Ferraris.

No, wait, that's oil company executives, you fucking idiot.

Re:3mm is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

"U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy."

Climate change alarmism is a very profitable industry.

Who said both oil companies and climate change alarmists can both make fists full of dollars?

Al Gore became a billionaire selling climate change alarmism.

Re:3mm is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks pretty close to linear from where I sit. For absolute certain it's slight acceleration is grossly slower than temperature rise, so that's hopefull we aren't facing any grossly non-linear sea rise. Bonus is that in the IPCC latest report they graph instrumental to projected and it has tracked at the low end of projections.

The whole weather/temperature/sea level system is complex and has a lot of inertial factors, which can hide runaway scenarios for some time. Then it's too late, and things can get very hectic, with chain reactions and exponential powers.

Re:3mm is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

*Looks at Gore* Yep, nobody is making money on climate scares...

Try comparing something a bit closer...
http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Senior-Climate-Scientist-l-Berkeley,-CA.html
$107K/year
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Senior+Chemical+Scientist&l1=Berkeley%2C+CA
$108k/year

Nope, they seem to get payed as much as those people who actually contribute to making life better.

Re:3mm is the key

[riverat1]

How much of that $32 billion was spent on satellites, building, launching and downloading and processing the data over the lifetime of a satellite? How much of it was spent on constantly improving supercomputers to run models on? How much on 10s of thousands of Earthbound devices to monitor climate and collecting and processing that datta? The tools of the trade are expensive.

Re:3mm is the key

[FlyHelicopters]

Scroll down to figure 3... "Global mean sea level from 1870 to 2006 with one standard deviation error"

What is the first thing that you notice about the character of this plot? Is is linear? Does your statement make sense from what you know of trends and basic algerbra?

Does it matter?

The sea will rise, or it won't... we aren't going to stop burning coal, oil, or natural gas in either case...

Re:3mm is the key

[serviscope_minor]

Panic sells what precisely?

Going all "omg gubbmint conspiracy omg omg" doesn't make you a smart free thinker.

Re:3mm is the key

[Sique]

And now we compare that with the tax breaks, subsidaries and profits for the oil and coal industry between 1989 and 2009. And suddenly we are talking about pocket change. They get $2.4 billion per year in tax breaks only, while the whole money spent on climate research (which includes weather forecasts, which people like to forget) is just $1.6 billion per year. And this does not include the $6.5 billion in subsidies per year for oil and gas. And the $14 billion per year subsidies for Nonconventional fuels (e.h. oil from shale, from tar sands, coal seams and coal based synthetic fuels). And the tax break of about $1 billion per year by declaring Coal Royalty Payments as Capital Gains.

So where are the government founded profits, in launching satellites and building expensive computers for weather forecasts and climate modelling at $1.6 billion per year and which aren't profitable to sell, or in mining coal and oil and gas for $25 billion in subsidies, and which you can then sell for a profit on the market?

So whoever brings up the financial gain argument against the climate scientists, has to honestly conclude that the financial interest on the anti-climate-scientist-stance is much more plausible. If you want to follow the money, the big stinking trace goes to oil and gas, and not to climate research and renewables.

Re:3mm is the key

[serviscope_minor]

The sea will rise,

It will. What is it with right wingers hedging on facts?

Re:3mm is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember to add in, as was done with the $32Bn figure, the costs of labour, equipment, land, materials, permits and so on. Not the profit, not even just the revenue, but ALL COSTS AND REVENUE, INCLUDING GOODWILL et al.

Re:3mm is the key

[argStyopa]

For the cheap seats, 3mm/year * 23 years = 2.71".

So we're talking about the cataclysmic impact of...0.3" "increase". That's about the height of the meniscus in a small test tube.

Re:3mm is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

1650? I'm not familiar with any measurements so old.

Re:3mm is the key

[FlyHelicopters]

Are you calling me a right-winger?

I believe in single-payer health care, don't box me in. :)

---

In any case, the sea has been rising for thousands of years, so of course it will continue to rise, the only real debate is the speed of that rise.

Re:3mm is the key

[serviscope_minor]

Fair enough. My bad: right/left distinction is a stupid one whose only purpose is to take a bunch of complex, nuanced and multifaceted issues, randomly assign them to one of two teams and then lets the shit flinging commence.

Re:3mm is the key

[FlyHelicopters]

:) the irony is that in my comments of, "we're not going to change the outcome", I also would say that, "yes, we should conserve, we should reduce our use where we can and where it makes sense".

Looking at human behavior, I fully believe we'll burn every drop of cheap oil that we can find. We as HUMANS will. Maybe the US or EU won't, but somewhere, some humans will.

That being said, it would be better to burn it over 200 years rather than 100 years, it would help the planet absorb it better and slow the rise so we can all better adapt to it.

So yes, we should set vehicle fuel standards higher. Yes we should raise the tax on gas. Yes we should tell people to replace old light bulbs with LEDs. Yes we should tell people to use more efficient HVAC systems.

But, I don't think that we should take such drastic measures so as to upset the apple cart. This is not an asteroid coming to wipe out all of humanity, it is a problem for part of humanity over time, not a world ending event.

Where I have a problem is when the pro-AGW people then say, "well all you rich people have to give crap loads of money to a bunch of poor people". It becomes about redistribution of wealth more than solving anything. It is that factor that causes so much resistance I believe.

Re:3mm is the key

[Straif]

Over 60% of the 'subsidies' the oil and gas companies get in the US are from 3 programs; the national oil reserve, farmers fuel exemption and the home heating oil credit.

The oil reserve is simply the government buying oil and storing it in tanks for later use. The farmers exception is because gas used for farm equipment is not subject to the regular taxes used to pay for road maintenance (since they don't operate on roads). Finally, the home heating credit is to help pay for heating oil for homes in the northern part of the country for lower income families. Feel free to demand each of those programs be stopped.

Most of the rest of the credits are standard business practices of R&D expenditures, investments and depreciation write-offs. In many cases thee write-offs available to the oil industry are actually below the standard business levels because they are capped at a lower percentage.

Re:3mm is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

and still they produce shit like this that has no basis in reality!..

money well spent.... not

keep cheering the idiots!!!

Re:3mm is the key

[cbeaudry]

That line is pretty close to linear, especialy if you consider the error bars for the first 50-75 years.

A sea level rise of 3 inches for 23 years is not abnormal.

3mm/yr sea level rise is pretty much what we've been seeing since the end of the little ice age.

At this rate we will see about 1foot rise per century, which is absolutely NOTHING to worry about and just natural variation considering we are comming out of an ice age.

If it hasnt been a catastrophic problem in the past, why would it be for the next 100 years?

The EXPERTS are showing non catastrophic data and trying to convince you that it is catastrophic.

Finaly, the first 15 years of this century has seen about 45mm of sea level rise. To reach 3 feet it would require 3 times that rise per year and NOTHING indicates this will happen.

Re:3mm is the key

[cbeaudry]

Its hiding under the surface right? Thats your reasoning?

It is pretty complex and chaotic, but why do you have to believe in the most catastrophic scenario?

Its scaremongering of the highest order.

Re:3mm is the key

[uninformedLuddite]

Panic sells what precisely?

>

Cheap panaceas?

Re:3mm is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks pretty close to linear from where I sit.

You must be sitting in a fishbowl.

Easy to say, hard to do

[Geoffrey.landis]

If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it.

That turns out to be harder than you would think.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...

Re:Easy to say, hard to do

[drinkypoo]

If this is actually a credible report, then the U.S. government needs to stop funding the rebuilding/construction of areas that are CURRENTLY under sea level like New Orleans and the dikes and berms around it.

That turns out to be harder than you would think.

Uh no. No it isn't, at least, not to do a pretty decent job. You just don't give any funding for rebuilding, you prohibit any funding given for other purposes from being used for rebuilding, and you prohibit any disaster relief check recipients from using the money for buying back into their ruined communities. Some people will do it anyway, spend the minimum effort preventing that during the escrow process, some people will slip through but you can catch most of 'em.

You may not be able to stop people from moving back into those neighborhoods, but you sure can avoid spending money on it, at least most of it.

Re:Easy to say, hard to do

[FlyHelicopters]

Uh no. No it isn't, at least, not to do a pretty decent job. You just don't give any funding for rebuilding, you prohibit any funding given for other purposes from being used for rebuilding, and you prohibit any disaster relief check recipients from using the money for buying back into their ruined communities. Some people will do it anyway, spend the minimum effort preventing that during the escrow process, some people will slip through but you can catch most of 'em.

You may not be able to stop people from moving back into those neighborhoods, but you sure can avoid spending money on it, at least most of it.

Sure, if you're King and can dictate the rules. Or if we're all Vulcans and make decisions without emotions.

Neither of which is the case.

The primary concerns in the case of New Orleans were racial (oh my god, black people, watch out!). Not long term planning.

It is the perfect example of why we aren't going to do anything about AGW until it is FAR, FAR too late.

Re:Easy to say, hard to do

[drinkypoo]

The primary concerns in the case of New Orleans were racial (oh my god, black people, watch out!). Not long term planning.

Right, I agree with you. It was a land grab. The purpose was not positive.

Maldives

[bobthesungeek76036]

sucks to be there...

Striped shirt, sash, straw hat and start singing.

[Anonymous Coward]

> People need to be prepared for sea level rise

Visit Venezia while you can still do so?On the other hand, a lot of South East Asia will soon become like Venezia, with streets and lowlands permanently underwater. Minus the tourism. But USA, Russia and China couldn't care less.

Can't trust ANY scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not radicalized in either direction on climate change, but there are very political people at NASA. Maybe we shouldn't listen.

It has been the talking point of the denier community for years that you can't trust the NASA results because they are "very political" and we shouldn't listen, but there isn't any evidence for that.

It has been the talking point of the denier community for years that you can't trust the NOAA results because they are "very political" and we shouldn't listen, but there isn't any evidence for that.

It has been the talking point of the denier community for years that you can't trust the British Meteorological Agency results because they are "very political" and we shouldn't listen, but there isn't any evidence for that.

It has been the talking point of the denier community for years that you can't trust the Japanese Meteorological Agency results because they are "very political" and we shouldn't listen, but there isn't any evidence for that.

It has been the talking point of the denier community for years that you can't trust the Max Planck Institute für Meteorologie results because they are "very political" and we shouldn't listen, but there isn't any evidence for that.

It has been... well, the deniers will tell you that every single agency and every single scientist who has ever studied climate is "very political and we shouldn't listen to theml" and we shouldn't listen, ... except for the ones that they carefully accept for their political views.

Re:Can't trust ANY scientists

[vandamme]

You forgot Pope Frank. He's political, too. Worse yet, religious, although No True Christian would believe in science.

Once The Beast Rises From The Sea...

[zenlessyank]

Then the ocean levels will return to normal....so it is all good.

U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Coincidence? I think not (Cayce was way, Way, WAY too accurate, too many times, & for TOO many folks worldwide - including the wealthy).

U.S. Naval Map -> http://www.fourwinds10.net/res...

(Bear in mind - that's the men of today, scientists, bearing that out...)

Edgar Cayce Map -> http://www.bing.com/images/sea...

* Pretty odd that a man from the early 20th century could "see" that & have it borne out by today's scientists, eh?

APK

P.S.=> Honestly? I hope neither are right - as the world's got ENOUGH problems right now, but... there you are - "Food for Thought"... apk

measured data [Re:Oversimplification]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Scientists dumb down data so science magazines can understand. Mainstream media further simplifies for the general population to understand. Even the summary states that this guestimation is based on a different guestimation of how many gigatons of ice have melted. If 360 gigatons of ice on land melt, it is estimated that it will raise the sea level by 1 mm. However, if the ice is already in the sea, it won't raise the sea level. The dumbed down story doesn't say how much of the missing ice was already in the ocean vs on the land, so we can't use numbers to say that sea level has risen 8mm over that decade.

The 303 gigaton number was for Greenland ice. Greenland ice is on land.

Since we are talking about NASA, why don't they measure the actual sea level instead of playing this numbers game?

They do. Read the linked articles. These are satellite measurements of sea level.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/n...
http://www.nasa.gov/risingseas...

I love how these topics bring out morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Morons like MightyMartian with his "fantasy online name" as he's do nothing zero loser in life.

Re:I love how these topics bring out morons

[Sardaukar86]

Fuck off. Nobody cares what you think about MightyMartian and nobody wants to read your bullshit comments you childish fucking imbecile.

Re:I love how these topics bring out morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike you he's no childish imbecile zero in life hiding behind delusional fantasy fake names like you and MightyLoser.

Re:I love how these topics bring out morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously sardaukar86's is mightyloser's sock puppet alternate fake account here. Childish nobodies do it all the time. Grow up, get on topic, and get a life loser.

Re:I love how these topics bring out morons

[Sardaukar86]

Hahahaha, hahahhaha! Thanks, I needed that. :)

Re:I love how these topics bring out morons

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to get a life and to get on topic here. Try being yourself even though you're a fake online name loser.

Re:I love how these topics bring out morons

[Sardaukar86]

You need to get a life and to get on topic here. Try being yourself even though you're a fake online name loser.

OK I have to ask: as a stalking arsehole, how long did it take before you could tolerate your own hypocrisy?

Perhaps you've become immune by starting small and growing accustomed to it, like the Man in Black did with Iocain powder?

Re:I love how these topics bring out morons

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. Naval map backs him. What backs you? Your childish fake name online??

Re:I love how these topics bring out morons

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. Naval map backs him. What backs you? A childish fake name online?

Re:I love how these topics bring out morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody will ever respect you, Alex.

Re:I love how these topics bring out morons

[Anonymous Coward]

What's apk want 'respect' from disrespectable nobodies like MightyMartian's delusional online fake name user for or you? You're all nothing and you know it. Hence your fake names online. You can't achieve anything but to be weasels online. Pitiful.

Re:I love how these topics bring out morons

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to stop eating your words vs. apk Sardaukar86 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Re:I love how these topics bring out morons

[Coren22]

Have you seen the psychiatrist yet APK? You may need a med check.

Re:I love how these topics bring out morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it up, AlecStaar. We all know what went down a few years ago at ArsTechnica. And you have grown no less pathetic since then.

Yours in Stockholm,

Kilgore Trout

I can tell from the comments

[HangingChad]

I can tell from the comments most of you don't live near the ocean. Down here in South Florida it's already making an impact. There are storm drains that flow water during high tide up and down the coast and boat docks underwater. Miami is worse. Hallendale Beach has five of their seven fresh water pumps closed because of salt water intrusion.

The real problem that no one is talking about is what happens when Miami gets nailed by a Cat 4 or 5 hurricane? We're going to have boats washing up on I-95. Do we spend the money to rebuild Miami just to have it flood 40 years later? Or when it gets nailed by another hurricane?

Re:I can tell from the comments

[Anonymous Coward]

. Hallendale Beach has five of their seven fresh water pumps closed because of salt water intrusion.

Um.. Dude... This is because we've been pumping the fresh water out of the ground to drink and water our lawns and it's not being replaced by natural means (rain) fast enough to keep the salt water from flowing in, not because the sea level is getting higher.

Re:I can tell from the comments

[CrimsonAvenger]

Down here in South Florida it's already making an impact.

Really??? Already?

So, Florida is already being adversely impacted by the THREE INCH increase in sea level since WORLD WAR ONE?!?

Wow, I'm impressed...that Floridians are stupid enough to think that three inches per century has had an "impact" on their lives....

Re:I can tell from the comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Three inches is a lot for the SEA level. If this were a bath tub, it wouldn't be. If this were a lake, it wouldn't be. But this is the fucking AT-LAN-TIC. A big fat huge body of water. Three inches in that area is way more than you'd think.

Over 400 years for a foot is immense, in global terms.

I'm on the other side of the country, and rather didn't like the beach. I didn't visit it for 10 years, even though it was 50 miles away. When I saw it, the sea level was certainly higher than I remembered. A lot higher. And the beach was shorter. Much shorter. So, to say three inches doesn't have an impact on lives is missing the point: it has an impact on the environment, the climate, and THUS lives.

100 years is a blip, if even that.

Re:I can tell from the comments

[WalksOnDirt]

So, Florida is already being adversely impacted by the THREE INCH increase in sea level since WORLD WAR ONE?!?

It's three inches since 1992. Not that that's so terrible - unless you live somewhere like South Florida. It looks like they might get hit by a small hurricane in the next few days.

Re:I can tell from the comments

[ChrisMaple]

Storms change beaches a lot faster than the alleged ocean level change.

Re:I can tell from the comments

[drinkypoo]

Storms change beaches a lot faster than the alleged ocean level change.

It's funny you mention storms, because a small change in ocean level rise equals a substantial increase in flood surge distances inland. It's obviously going to be greater than 1:1 because the land slopes, on average, at less than 45 degrees; especially around FL, LA, etc.

Three inches of ocean level rise means feet less beach, even without storms.

Re:I can tell from the comments

[FlyHelicopters]

Three inches is a lot for the SEA level. If this were a bath tub, it wouldn't be. If this were a lake, it wouldn't be. But this is the fucking AT-LAN-TIC. A big fat huge body of water. Three inches in that area is way more than you'd think.

Over 400 years for a foot is immense, in global terms.

I'm on the other side of the country, and rather didn't like the beach. I didn't visit it for 10 years, even though it was 50 miles away. When I saw it, the sea level was certainly higher than I remembered. A lot higher. And the beach was shorter. Much shorter. So, to say three inches doesn't have an impact on lives is missing the point: it has an impact on the environment, the climate, and THUS lives.

100 years is a blip, if even that.

If all of the above is true, then mankind isn't causing the rise.

Re:I can tell from the comments

[Anonymous Coward]

People die mostly from old age. Therefore there is no such thing as murder. Or illness.

Dumbass.

Re:I can tell from the comments

[argStyopa]

It might sound like I'm being flippant, but I'm not: that's what you get for living on a sandbar.

My serious point is this: NOBODY, ever, (except perhaps the Egyptians and their pyramids) built cities on the basis of "what's the safest place for us to build this to withstand millennia of the cycles of climate?" This is a relevant discussion no matter where you stand on AGW; it's *ultimately* an issue to everyone, the only thing that will matter depending on your climate-change stance is the urgency.

Cities are built in places of convenience, which almost always means water nearby, often large amounts (because boats are a shitload easier to move cargo than by hand in a horse-drawn wagon) like oceans. These locations in particular are subject to the vagaries of climate.
Further, the growth of human population and concomitant urban sprawl heedless of such concerns has caused major populated areas to end up in danger zones even if the original core city wasn't (New Orleans would be a prime example: the oldest parts weren't endangered by Katrina-flooding).

So now we have massive collections of human dwellings and urban areas on city sites that were likely selected by neolithic humans THOUSANDS of years ago because of a fortuitous mix of convenience, safety, and food sources...and now we're saying "oh, wait, these city sites are vulnerable"? Seriously? Of COURSE they are.

It's just staggeringly naive or disingenuous to be surprised about this. Nothing lasts forever. if climate was going the other direction, it would be like complaining that Edmonton's going to get wiped out by glaciers - yeah, if you build a city in the distant north, eventually, that's its fate. And yes, "eventually" comes someday.

Re:I can tell from the comments

[FlyHelicopters]

People die mostly from old age. Therefore there is no such thing as murder. Or illness.

Dumbass.

Call me dumb all you like, but you should use the term on yourself first...

People do mostly die from old age, or more specifically, heart disease, cancer, etc.

While some people die from murder, it is like being concerned about dying from a major storm or global warming. Neither are likely to kill you, similar to murder.

My point is that humans are not causing the rise if it has been going on that long at a steady pace. Even if we're speeding it along a bit, if 90% of the rise is due to natural causes and 10% to human causes, then we're a minor issue.

Re:I can tell from the comments

[FlyHelicopters]

^ You, sir, deserve a mod up...

That is correct, sooner or later, Earth changes... but for some reason, humans expect, "well now that we have modern civilization, it should all stop for US!"

That is silly.

Re:I can tell from the comments

[Straif]

Florida's issues are generally man-made in nature but they have a lot less to do with climate change than greed. Bulldozing natural flood plains and marshes to build new oceanview condo developments tends to leave the water with fewer choices as to where to go.

In the University town I went to there was a store that had a flood sale every year because they had to make sure their bottom shelves were empty during the spring thaw when a foot of water routinely went through the store. Was it because of global warming? No, it was because the idiot town planners built a terrible bridge across the main waterway and whenever the ice started to melt it blocked the flow causing the river to go up over the banks. A few years after I left they redesigned the bridge to actually allow large chunks of ice to pass underneath and lo and behold, no more flooding.

Re:I can tell from the comments

[vandamme]

If I was you I'd move to the Florida mountains.

Re:I can tell from the comments

[Cthulhu's Physicist]

Yep, I live in Hollywood Fl near A1A. When I moved there 20 years ago we would get an occasional flood now and then. Nowadays it seems A1A floods almost every time there is a full moon and there is a wind blowing towards shore at high tide. Though I do enjoy seeing the gliterrati driving their Ferrari's and Lamborghini's through the saltwater flooding the streets down in South Beach. I'm betting that there will be severe flooding down there when Erika blows in this weekend. Though personally I'm not too worried since I'm down in Brazil for the next couple of months...

Greenland is land

[grimJester]

None of the ice lost from Greenland is sea ice.

Re:Greenland is land

[Daetrin]

"None of the ice lost from Greenland is sea ice."

But if the sea level rises enough then Greenland will be underwater. Then the ice will have been going to be in the water, so it will be have been sea ice. So the sea level will be not have been going to rise!

.

Re:Greenland is land

[epiphani]

The weight of the ice pushes down significantly on the land. While the sea levels rise and Greenland looses it's ice, it will actually rise quite a bit since it's not carrying those several teratonnes of ice anymore. Probably more than the rise of sea level.

Re:Greenland is land

[Daetrin]

Well fine, if you are going to be have been right about that then i will be going to be wrong about what will be has been going to be, and the paradox will be going to have been not be happening.

Exaggeration is not Necessary

[pubwvj]

"It's not going to stop."

It is unfortunate when they exaggerate.

The rise will stop. There is a finite amount of water on the planet that can end up in the oceans. Then the rise stops. Stick with science. Stick with facts. Don't exaggerate.

Re:Exaggeration is not Necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that when the Sun eventually expands past Venus' orbit, it will be plenty warm enough to dry up all that flooding. See, nothing to worry about.

Wait, what?

Re:Exaggeration is not Necessary

[Roger W Moore]

The rise will stop. There is a finite amount of water on the planet that can end up in the oceans.

True but the sea could rise quite a bit before we get to that if you have a look at the sea level over the past 500 million years. Interestingly it seems that we live in a time of surprisingly low sea levels. A 200 metre sea rise would affect quite a few people.

Re:Exaggeration is not Necessary

[hey!]

Well, if you *insist* on being pedantic, what they mean is "It's not going to stop before it causes a degree havoc most people would find inconceivable."

I think they kind of expect people to understand they're not claiming that the water levels will rise, drowning the Moon, inundating the Sun, and eventually filling up the entire universe.

Re:Exaggeration is not Necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, would be interested to find out just how far the average person would expect sea levels to rise in the event that all of Earth's ice were melted. I imagine that a lot of the doom and gloomers think that all land everywhere would be covered in water, like Waterworld (and let's be fair, a lot of people accept what they see in movies as factual even when there is absolutely no basis for it; see: Waterworld). I mean, the premise of that movie would have seemed believable to a LOT of people at the time, and probably still even now despite having access to Google and an actual map of the effects.

Re:Exaggeration is not Necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

So... how much of that was caused by Americans driving SUVs?

Re:Exaggeration is not Necessary

[pubwvj]

You miss the point. They're exaggerating. No need. Simply say 200 meter sea level rise. Don't say unlimited. Sticking with facts is better than exaggerating. Exaggeration comes back to haunt you because you end up losing credibility. People think, "ah, Roger exaggerated about A so he's probably exaggerating about B now too..."

Re:Exaggeration is not Necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

A 200 metre rise is impossible. There isn't enough water on the planet. A complete melt of all existing ice sheets would raise sea levels around 80 metres at most. If you'd actually read the text under the image you linked to, you'd have realized that.

Although, National Geographic states it would be about 65 metres, so there's certainly a lot of leeway for debate in that.

The only way to get a 200 metre rise would be massive seismic activity that altered ocean basins dramatically enough that they didn't actually hold as much water as they currently do. And if this happens, we have way bigger problems to worry about than a 0.6 C rise in global temperatures.......

Re: Exaggeration is not Necessary

[Anonymous Coward]

Check your link again. It says we are living in a time with relatively high sea levels, the opposite of what you claim.

Re: Exaggeration is not Necessary

[Roger W Moore]

Check your link again. It says we are living in a time with relatively high sea levels, the opposite of what you claim.

Read the text again carefully! From the caption under the figure I linked: "Note that over most of geologic history, long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today.".

In case that was not clear if over much of geological history sea level has been higher than today this means that we are living in a time of relatively LOW sea level. If you don't believe that then just look at the data in the plot!

There are also seismic implications to this.

[dsmatthews9379]

If I have that much pressure in one place on the surface of a ball of liquid iron and rock with a thin crust (Earth) and I remove the force so rapidly the entire area rises upward and as it does the effects propagate to the rest of the globe changing the stresses on all of the fault lines. i.e. Isn't the real problem that this will increase earthquakes and volcanic activity before the water level is a real problem? The extra eruptions may actually be a good thing as the ash clouds will have a albedo increasing, therefore cooling, effect. To bad if you live near one, or in California.

Re:There are also seismic implications to this.

[drinkypoo]

The extra eruptions may actually be a good thing as the ash clouds will have a albedo increasing, therefore cooling, effect. To bad if you live near one, or in California.

I live in the world's largest volcano field, in California, you insensitive clod!

Drink for Humanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Just doing my share, drinking more water and pissing in the mountains.

Models

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution is clear here. Just adjust the models so that the sea level doesn't rise and the earth doesn't warm (much like what's been observed in the last 18 years with accurate global satellite temperature measurements). On the other side of the issue? Well shit, just leave the models alone and adjust the satellite temperature data to reflect your assertions. It's as easy as that.

Political activism

[amightywind]

After 20 years of political activism for 'climate change', NASA has no credibility. The organization is diseased and corrupt. It gives me no pleasure to say that.

kinda sad

[Anonymous Coward]

I was looking forward to owning ocean beach front property in Tulsa, Ok by 2050. Now its going to take over a century if the ocean even gets here at all.

Re:kinda sad

[riverat1]

I hate to burst your bubble but at 722 feet Tulsa will never see the sea get near it. The maximum possible sea level rise is probably less than 300 feet.

Re:kinda sad

[Anonymous Coward]

from: https://xkcd.com/1379/

Cretaceous Hothouse had 200m higher sea levels, so while it does not get up to Tulsa's 722 feet, it is double your less then 300 feet guess.

Re:kinda sad

[riverat1]

Cretaceous Hothouse also had significantly different topology on the face of the Earth and my 300 feet guess assumes the ocean doesn't get nearly as hot as it was back then. About half of the SLR in the past century was simply due to the water heating up and expanding.

In other words ...

[Rudisaurus]

... surf's up! :-)

Only Greenland?

[koick]

that would suggest Greenland has done this about eight times over

Isn't there land based ice melting into the oceans from other places, like say, Antarctica?

Re:Only Greenland?

[WalksOnDirt]

For now, Antarctica is losing much less ice than Greenland.

Re:Only Greenland?

[AaronW]

Also, water expands when it warms. The density of water is greatest at around 4C. Given how deep the ocean is, it doesn't take a lot of warming to raise the sea level noticeably. I read recently that around 1/3 of the sea level rise is due to melting mountain glaciers, 1/3 from increasing ocean temperature and 1/3 from Greenland ice melting. I suspect the amount of ice from Antarctica will increase significantly now that the ice shelves are breaking up which are holding back a lot of ice.

Re:Only Greenland?

[ihtoit]

what they don't take into account is the amount of sea ice that reforms during local Winter.
Or the fact that in Summer in the Northern hemisphere, it's Winter in the South and vice versa.
Plus they ignore data prior to 1976 for the simple reason that according to them it's not accurate enough when the truth is it doesn't fit their model.

Re: Only Greenland?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in case your not aware, the southern hemisphere doesnt freeze up like the north does in winter. No where near as much snow and ice.

Re: Only Greenland?

[ihtoit]

sure, it's only three miles thick in Antarctica.

Yuo Fail[5 It

[Anonymous Coward]

to a7oid so as to It has to be fun volume of NetBSD of BSD/OS. A support GNAA,

Severe shortsightedness

[kheldan]

Here comes the people who couldn't give a fuck about what happens after they're dead, so long as they're not 'inconvenienced' by anything right now. The Human Race gets what it deserves, I guess.

I know you! You like "eating your words"

[Anonymous Coward]

Change your diet (eating your words != good nutrition) http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* At least I'm somewhat famous (vs. infamous like you), but you? LMAO - the others are right about you - a delusional little kid posting under "internet fake names"...

APK

P.S.=> Gosh! Isn't it "StRaNgE" (lol, not) that "suddenly" it's Sardaukar86 "to the rescue" for "MightyMartian"? Can everyone here say "SOCKPUPPETS" or what?? LMAO... talk about obvious! apk

Re:I know you! You like "eating your words"

[Sardaukar86]

There's the cherry-picking I was talking about. See how there's no corresponding list of times you were DOWN-modded? Yeah, that's the APK way!

You really are stupider than you appear if you think that MM and I are the same person.

Oh, and as it happens I would happily defend my Slashdot FOES against you, Alexander "Anus-Cancer Of Slashdot" Kowalski, if you're busy engaging in antisocial behaviour.

Anti-social behaviour: try to see the thread here, I know it's hard for you. You don't get thrashed by me when you behave yourself. You just can't help yourself though, so here we are.

Re:I know you! You like "eating your words"

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer the question: US Navy backs him. What backs you? A fake online name?

What emissions are used for:

[Geoffrey.landis]

Yes, because the majority of emissions are from cars, and cars aren't such a minor contributor as to actually be diverting interest and resources away from the major polluters, or even legitimate minor ones

About 13% of global carbon emission is from transportation:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

--although transportation accounts for twice that in the US, 28% of the US emissions:
http://climate.dot.gov/about/t...

about a third of which is cars.

What's "eatin' yer words" taste like?

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO, well tell us -> http://science.slashdot.org/co...

R O T F L M A O!

APK

P.S.=> As was said on THIS topic before, the US Naval Map backs me on this topic & you are OFF topic!

SO - what EXACTLY backs you? Your delusional little 'phantasy name' online??

After all, anyone can see you need to CHANGE YOUR DIET from that link above, as "eating your words" != GOOD NUTRITION, lmao...

Now?

Hey, you're just putting your foot in your mouth to RAM THEM BACK DOWN YOUR THROAT again, washing them down with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat" yet again... lol, man, you are STOO-PID... apk

Re:What's "eatin' yer words" taste like?

[Sardaukar86]

Oooow, poor widdle baby got her little nappies in a twist, poor baby.

Re:What's "eatin' yer words" taste like?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why won't you answer this? US Navy backs apk. What backs you? A delusional fake name online?

Re:What's "eatin' yer words" taste like?

[Sardaukar86]

Oh, that's easy. If neither facts, statistics, common-sense nor reason can get through to you then why would I expect you to accept an answer I give you now? That would be delusional.

Re:What's "eatin' yer words" taste like?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact from the US Navy back apk up. What backs you? Your delusional fake name online?

Put your money where your mouth is

[Tablizer]

Conservatives should purchase beach-front property if they are so confident in hoaxing. Some is already selling at a discount due to climate change risk. The prices would go back up after the Great Hoax is fully revealed by the alert and detail-oriented Fox reporters.

Re:Put your money where your mouth is

[bigwheel]

Conservatives should purchase beach-front property if they are so confident in hoaxing. Some is already selling at a discount due to climate change risk.

Can we get a citation on that? I don't have a lot of cash, but I'd love to buy some beachfront property if it is cheap. And I'd be willing to adapt to the ocean rising 0.13 inches per year. That should give me enough time to move my lawn chair.

Meanwhile, don't forget that Al Gore spent $8.87 million on his beachfront getaway. But what does he know?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Re:Put your money where your mouth is

[Brett Buck]

Al Gore bought a 3rd house that is only a few feet above the current water line.

Re:Put your money where your mouth is

[riverat1]

Gore's house in Montecito is half a mile from the ocean and around 500 feet above sea level which you would have figured out if you'd looked at the photos in your link. It's in no danger due to sea level rise now or in the future as the maximum possible rise is less than 300 feet.

Re:Put your money where your mouth is

[Coren22]

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/...

I don't know, it is hard to tell how far from the ocean it is from any picture but that one, and that one gives the impression of being pretty close to the ocean as you can see it in the background.

In case the link doesn't work, it is the last picture in the gallery.

which you would have figured out if you'd looked at the photos in your link.

So, please link to the better picture showing that the house is so far up and away from the ocean. Or did you just not even look at the pictures?

Only bad if you don't live in North Carolina

[AaronW]

<sarcasm>It won't be a problem in North Carolina because they banned sea level rise planning. Texas and Florida should be fine too because you can't talk about climate change there or plan for it, so therefore it's not happening there. Clearly this so-called sea-level rise only happens in places where those pesky liberals who believe this so-called science live. Why, God will just protect these states just like he parted the Red Sea for Moses.</sarcasm>

Re:Only bad if you don't live in North Carolina

[Anne Thwacks]

If the God theory is correct, it is more likely he will part the waters for Texans like he did for the Egyptians. Presumably Florida will get the Sodom and Gomorrah treatment.

Good data is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

We have only had satellites to accurately measure that for less then 80 years. Your 350 year theory is rather useless.

Re:Good data is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

Less than 60 years. Are all your measurements off by 25%?

Re:Good data is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

Last time I checked, something that was less than 60 was also less than 80.

Did this change recently, and I just didn't get the memo?

8mm a decade is NOT 76.2mm over 2

[ihtoit]

Simple math exposes the blatantly fraudulent claims being made here. Also where does TFS make the switch between imperial and metric measurement and where does it distinguish between the two for those who don't know what the fuck an inch is? (it's 25.4mm)

Re: 8mm a decade is NOT 76.2mm over 2

[Anonymous Coward]

The incorrect assumption that Greenland is the only place losing ice is yours, not the article's.

Re: 8mm a decade is NOT 76.2mm over 2

[ihtoit]

I made no such claim, so fuck right off.

Military can solve this!

[countach]

Can't America send in some drone strikes against those pesky Greenlanders who are dumping their ice in the water? Bombing them will teach them a lesson!

Back that up Sardaukar86

[Anonymous Coward]

Provide a list where apk's justifiably downmodded validly technically proven wrong. You can't unless you applied those downmods yourself. You'll run like the dishonorable little online swine you know that you are with your delusional little fantasy name you use since you haven't done a damn thing worth noting in this life. Good luck getting 244 of them that aren't from little sockpuppeting weasel ne'er do wells like yourself.

Ok: Sardaukar86 "Eating your words"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sardaukar86 how's eating your words taste? http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* Remember: YOU ASKED FOR IT!

(Do answer the question though & tell us how it tasted eating your words after you shot your piehole off @ me only to have me hand you your ass with solid facts?)

APK

P.S.=> Ah, the "bitter TASTE of SELF-defeat" with your foot stuck in your MOUTH is how it tasted - you only did that to yourself, you utter moronic dolt, lol... apk

Re:Ok: Sardaukar86 "Eating your words"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not busy writing malware APK? How does it feel to be the resident village idiot, either laughed at or pitied for you obvious insanity.
You never won one argument, all you did is with every post look more like a lunatic.
I usually don't even bother replying, but it's time you knew nobody on this site agrees with you.
I don't even waste mod points down modding you anymore, only have to read the first line to recognise your loonie rants.
By all means continue, just as the wise amongst us will continue to ignore you.
Please guys, don't ever respond to this useless moron, it only encourages his delusions of sanity.

Re:Ok: Sardaukar86 "Eating your words"

[Anonymous Coward]

Sardaukar86, apk ate you alive & you ate your words http://it.slashdot.org/comment... so just give up and realize he's far in advance of your dimwitted self in all things obviously, mainly intelligence.

Bigmouth I've shot your ass down before easily

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember this you DUMB FUCK http://ask.slashdot.org/commen... ?

* So much for "demanding citations" from ME, you worthless sack of blowhard shit...

(All those years YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CODING yet not a damn thing ever came out of your lame sorry ass worth noting, did it? Prove otherwise, bullshitter)

APK

P.S.=> You demanded citations from me bullshitter? NETCRAFT OWNED YOUR SORRY BLOWHARD ASS in that link above, you pisspot nobody fake online name using delusional little fuck... apk

MightyMartian: Remember this pisspot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember this from Netcraft that ate you alive http://ask.slashdot.org/commen... ?

* So much for "demanding citations" from ME, you worthless sack of blowhard shit...

(All those years YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CODING yet not a damn thing ever came out of your lame sorry ass worth noting, did it? Prove otherwise, bullshitter)

APK

P.S.=> You demanded citations from me bullshitter? NETCRAFT OWNED YOUR SORRY BLOWHARD ASS in that link above, you pisspot nobody fake online name using delusional little fuck... apk

Write a Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we could write a law denying the existence of such sea level rise, talking about it and preparing for it. Perhaps a troll-factory of some sort could steer the Internet conversations into the right direction. Problem solved!

Drinkypoo, did you say this to me? apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958)

Sure you did, saying I am RIGHT on hosts files!

FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

---

HOW ABOUT THIS TOO?

"(APK) raises a good point, through packet mangling you can reroute DNS queries with users none the wiser. Since most providers don't offer any encryption (let alone authentication) of DNS queries, this is a real problem. But you can trade fingerprinted hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, 2011 @12:33PM (#36253160)

FROM -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

?

* Yes or No will do as your answer... & you KNOW it's yes!

APK

P.S.=>

"Please don't engage him. He's not even amusing. I'll take a good tranny furry slashfic troll over host file shilling." - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday August 27, 2015 @11:43PM (#50407017)

It's not amusing easily making you "eat your words" like Sardaukar86 - it's TOO EASY!

Clue: You dolts CAN'T "engage me" - I've got most all of you trolls clocked & destroyed with YOUR OWN WORDS... lol!

... apk

Sardaukar86 here's a fact

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk made you eat your words 244:1 http://science.slashdot.org/co... It was hilarious reading that one after seeing you shoot your dumb piehole off only to have to eat your words for it courtesy of apk.

Sardaukar86 by ac? Eat your words again

[Anonymous Coward]

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...

&

MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

(& they've seen + have a copy of its sourcecode they VERIFIED AS CLEAN/SAFE prior to hosting it, you PITIFUL little done zero "ne'er-do-well" utter moron!)

It's also GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

APK

P.S.=> You can post by ac ALL DAY LONG Sardaukar86, but you projected all thru this exchange that I was "supporting myself" by ac posts? Please!

LMAO - you do, proving that much now (since nobody sane would 'support' a fool like you after all this), dolt.

I've annihilated you YET AGAIN, moronic dolt that you are - heck this one's BETTER than making you "EAT YOUR WORDS" in a 244++:1 ratio against you as I did before here, stupid -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

... apk

There's only one thing to do

[Tough Love]

There's only one thing to do: buy real estate in Greenland.

Re:There's only one thing to do

[Skapare]

anywhere up high should be fine depending on your temperature preferences.

Sardaukar86, thanks for being so stupid... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

By letting me kick your ass easily, twice http://science.slashdot.org/co...

* :)

I love it!

APK

P.S.=> Seriously - thanks, dolt! After all, see the link above, & You're helping me via your own stupidity + HORRENDOUS BLUNDERS against me due to you shooting your mouth off and then having to "eat your words" not just ONCE, but now TWICE - you utter cretin!

... apk

Sardaukar86 - thanks for burning yourself again

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof of that's here & not ONCE, but TWICE http://science.slashdot.org/co...

* :)

I love it!

APK

P.S.=> Seriously - thanks, dolt! After all, see the link above!

LMAO!

( You're helping me via your own stupidity + HORRENDOUS BLUNDERS against me due to you shooting your mouth off and then having to "eat your words" not just ONCE, but now TWICE - you utter cretin!)

... apk

don't buy property here

[Skapare]

don't buy property here.

This is such utter bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

"changes are not uniform"

Does the Guardian not understand how physics works? If you measure "sea level rising due to CO2" and you get "changes are not uniform. Some areas showed sea levels rising ... and other regions ... actually falling" then maybe your science is shit and you should figure out why CO2 can magically make gravity not work.

Or does CO2 magically make the melted glaciers only flow to some regions and not others. Yeah, they blame "ocean currents and natural cycles". Does water flow uphill? If not then what is causing these "currents". And explain these "natural cycles"? It kind of seems like wherever earth reacts in the way the alarmists' models predict then it is confirmation. And wherever it doesnt? "Natural cycles". It's a great game. You can predict *anything* and no matter what happens, either you are proved correct, or it's just "natural cycles".

Here, let me try: Thesis: "the stock market will go up tomorrow because of global warming". If it does then I am right. If it doesn't, then it is just natural cycles. Wait for a while and it will go up later. It may go down first. You may lose all your money. But when it goes up a smidge after that then it will prove I was correct all along.

And as an added bonus: "23 years of satellite data". LOL. The geological history of the earth in 23 years. 20k years ago, New York City was covered in glaciers. The sea level then was 120m below now. We have hundreds of years of sea level data due to harbors recording tide levels for sailing. The sea level has been rising steadily and slowly since we started measuring. And every indication is that it has been rising steadily since the start of the interglacial, and that if you killed every human on the planet to stop their CO2 emission, it would continue to progress this way.

Pesky NASA models

[IHTFISP]

A NASA panel yesterday announced [...] the upper end of model-based predictions [...].

I for one am sick and tired of these pesky NASA models dictating how we spend trillions of tax-payer dollars looking up at the sky staring at clouds and such. I lived near the NASA Ames research center in CA and, trust, me: those fat bloated NASA bastard scientists and filthy computer geeks are not a pretty sight, prancing about in their cheap wigs and stiletto heels! It's positively repulsive!!

I say we stop funding all this ridiculous scare mongering and put these climatologist asshats to work doing something useful for society, like digging a huge moat around the continental United States to thwart the onslaught of this mongrel sea level incursion on our sovereign borders. That would also solve the problem of the growing wave of illegal immigrants flooding our southern shores with rapists and drug smugglers. Two birds, one stone.

And another thing: we should all start boycotting America's Next Top Model. It's a public outrage against geometry and theology!

Now back to my video games.

--
No witness, no crime.

Ignatius J. Reilly

more fascist crap

[Anonymous Coward]

More crap from one of the most fascist governments the world has yet seen...George Soros is laughing as he buys up bankrupt coal companies.

What are they basing that on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wishful thinking and totally unfounded assumptions.

They are WRONG yet again and their scare mongering is getting desperate not to "save the planet" but to "save their funding".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/28/on-nasas-recent-sea-level-claim-science-isnt-broken-except-when-it-is/

So the "global warming" / "climate change" crowd get their knickers in a knot yet again only to be thoroughly refuted within hours. PATHETIC.

This calls for a meme!

[IHTFISP]

This calls for a meme!

No acceleration-look at data

[Anonymous Coward]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/28/on-nasas-recent-sea-level-claim-science-isnt-broken-except-when-it-is/

Not unprecedented
not a problem.

Sea level has been rising since we came out of the last ice age.

Look at data.

I live in Utah. I think I'll be OK.

[rhyous]

I live in Utah. I think I'll be OK. Elevation 4,327 feet.
A 4000 foot wave would stop before reaching my house.
I feel safe unless there is a cataclysm so great that mountains are reformed.
Of course, the Yellow Stone volcano could take out the entire Western United States.
I do like the Florida oranges so I would miss them.
If we are lucky, the Death Valley will fill up with Ocean water and we can have a shorter drive when vacationing to the beach.

Everybody is concerned by CO2 emissions

[Pouic]

but what about water emissions generated when burning fossil fuels? Which volume of water is injected per year into the atmosphere (initially as water vapour) when burning gazoline, diesel, gas similar? And what is the impact on sea level, meteorological events...?

Greenland mass loss:

[DanielRavenNest]

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/rep...

(Data from Grace satellite measurements, by NOAA)

Re:U.S. Naval Map & Edgar Cayce prophecies...

[Zontar The Mindless]

Well, Cayce was right about Piltdown Man, wasn't he?

No... wait... it was exposed as a hoax for which both Cayce and his trance-medium "other" fell for--hook, line, and sinker.

Alex, you must be leading a very sad and empty life, if you've nothing to do other than troll Slashdot and read your mom's old supermarket-checkout paperbacks written by someone who was discredited 50 years ago. (Amongst other things, they asked him to give readings for dead people, with most entertaining results.)

Hoboken

[zenyu]

We'll never need to decide if Hoboken is worth saving. It will be saved as a side effect of saving Manhattan. Once we block inflows on the Arthur Kill, the Narrows and East River then all of Hudson County is safe.

Of course NYC may need to evacuate Staten Island and South Brooklyn somewhere, so Hoboken may change. Sorry. PS For the short stint when I lived in Hoboken it was a living shrine to Frank Sinatra, with a surprising number of residents who never left the "square mile" for any reason. I've been told this has already changed.

Still "stinging" over EATING YOUR WORDS?

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & this link: Answer = YES, lol http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* :)

(Hilarious - 3++ yrs. later, & he's STILL 'butthurt'... but he ought to be after the SPANKING I gave him in the link above!)

APK

P.S.=> Change your diet Sardillo! Eating your words != GOOD nutrition... lol!

... apk

I see you swallow your words

[Anonymous Coward]

Since apk made you eat them Sardaukar86 http://it.slashdot.org/comment... and we can all tell you're still butthurt over it. Get over it. You did that to yourself.

You've got a lower iq obviously after this

[Anonymous Coward]

Sardaukar86 apk made you eat your words http://it.slashdot.org/comment... and we can all tell you're still butthurt over it. Get over it. You did that to yourself.

Are you enjoying eating your words?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk made you eat your words (did you enjoy it?) http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Thermal Expansion

[Roger W Moore]

A 200 metre rise is impossible.....If you'd actually read the text under the image you linked to, you'd have realized that.

I don't know which image you were looking at but the text under the image I linked to says: "Comparison of two sea level reconstructions during the last 500 Ma. The scale of change during the last glacial/interglacial transition is indicated with a black bar. Note that over most of geologic history, long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today."

I don't see anything there to suggest that any major plate tectonics are required. Furthermore in the text of the article in says: "During the glacial-interglacial cycles over the past few million years, the mean sea level has varied by somewhat more than a hundred metres. This is primarily due to the growth and decay of ice sheets (mostly in the northern hemisphere) with water evaporated from the sea."

Which seems to explicitly contradict you and say that the change is precisely due to changes in temperature. Melting ice is not the only way to increase sea level: thermal expansion is also a major factor and what evidence I could find suggests that it accounts for about 50% of sea level change at the moment. So if you get 80m from melting the ice and another 80m from thermal expansion you can easily get close to 160m. After that there is no reason to limit thermal expansion since this could continue even after all the icecaps melt so 200m does not seem impossible.

I agree that this is a surprising number and I expected to find that the maximum possible rise would be far less than this but the evidence suggest otherwise.