Slashdot Mirror
Sea Levels Will Rise Faster Than Ever If Earth's Warming Continues, Says Study (scientificamerican.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Scientific American: Sea levels across the globe will rise faster than at any time throughout human history if the Earth's warming continues beyond 2 degrees Celsius. The Atlantic coast of North America will be one of the worst-hit areas as melting glaciers cause the sea level to rise over the next century, a new study published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds. However, that rise is not expected to be uniform, as gravity and the movement of the ocean will play a role in how the water is distributed, and some areas will be hit worse than others. New York and other cities along the East Coast could see seas rise by more than 3 feet by the end of the century if the Earth warms by 4 or 5 degrees beyond preindustrial levels. If the rate of carbon emissions continues unabated, the authors said, the globe would warm by 2 degrees and cause significant sea-level rise by 2040. It would be worse along the East Coast of North America and Norway, which are expected to experience a sea-level rise of about a foot. The relative speed of the sea's rise means many areas won't have time to adapt, researchers found. And from there, warming would accelerate even faster. Two degrees of warming is expected to cause an average global sea-level rise of 8 inches, but virtually all coastal areas will see more of a rise, [researcher and lead author of the study Svetlana Jevrejeva], found. If warming exceeds 2 degrees by 2100, as some climate scientists worry it might, about 80 percent of the global coastline could experience a rise in sea levels of 6 feet. Such a rapid rise in sea levels is unprecedented since the dawn of the Bronze Age about 5,000 years ago, according to the study. The research takes further the potential for sea-level rise posed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which argued that sea-level rise of 11 to 38 inches is possible by 2100. Many climate scientists have since claimed that estimate is too conservative.
Eventually we will build a wall and it will be tremendous !
"Sea Levels Will Rise Faster Than Ever If Earth's Warming Continues, Says Study"
Awesome! I hope we all die because of it! At least then, we wouldn't have to read about man-made global warming anymore!
Rise sea levels rise! Gonna retire soon, my 401k ain't shit, go sea levels!
Without world government nothing will change. Dumping money to invisible entities for carbon will only impact people that volunteer. Meanwhile, developing countries and others (China, India, Russia) will continue to use industrial development (aka high polluters) and surpass others in production and development.
MAD doctrine seems to be the only viable option. We destroy ourselves if we take positive action, or destroy everyone at the same time if we don't.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
When he wins, President Trump will put a stop to this sea level rising nonsense. It was just a hoax, anyway.
Let me be the first to congratulate our new president.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sea levels across the globe will rise faster than at any time throughout human history if the Earth's warming continues beyond 2 degrees Celsius. The Atlantic coast of North America will be one of the worst-hit areas as melting glaciers cause the sea level to rise over the next century, a new study published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds. However, that rise is not expected to be uniform, as gravity and the movement of the ocean will play a role in how the water is distributed, and some areas will be hit worse than others. New York and other cities along the East Coast could see seas rise by more than 1m by the end of the century if the Earth warms by 4 or 5 degrees beyond preindustrial levels. If the rate of carbon emissions continues unabated, the authors said, the globe would warm by 2 degrees and cause significant sea-level rise by 2040. It would be worse along the East Coast of North America and Norway, which are expected to experience a sea-level rise of about 30cm. The relative speed of the sea's rise means many areas won't have time to adapt, researchers found. And from there, warming would accelerate even faster. Two degrees of warming is expected to cause an average global sea-level rise of 20cm, but virtually all coastal areas will see more of a rise, [researcher and lead author of the study Svetlana Jevrejeva], found. If warming exceeds 2 degrees by 2100, as some climate scientists worry it might, about 80 percent of the global coastline could experience a rise in sea levels of 1.8m. Such a rapid rise in sea levels is unprecedented since the dawn of the Bronze Age about 5,000 years ago, according to the study. The research takes further the potential for sea-level rise posed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which argued that sea-level rise of 28cm to 97cm is possible by 2100. Many climate scientists have since claimed that estimate is too conservative.
Voila!
Actually, if he gets elected he'll repeal global warming with an executive order, so it won't be a problem.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
...eventually, the earth will be *covered* with water, and all the bible literalists will be proved right.
SUCK IT SCIENCE!
-Styopa
Until the Republican Headquarters is under water, they won't allow shit to be done about it.
Table-ized A.I.
Yawn...the Earth has been warming since the last ice age. Guess what, we didn't pollute or cause the glaciers to melt either. Blame it on the dinosaurs that emitted carbon dioxide and methane from their gargantuan farts.
If virtually all costal areas will see more of a rise, then 8 inches isn't the average.
The biggest thing you can do:Have no more than two kids
Simple solution is to buy up all that new ocean front property before it becomes valuable. Doubly so when the climate turns mild further north along the east coast during winters. Though holdouts will likely just build up on stilts and try to stay, and south flordia will succeed and become the 51st state as New Venice in 2073.
I hear thousands and thousands of brain-sized flushing sounds.
Better hop on your bus to Canada, numbskulls.
One of the best things about Trump's victory:
Executive Privilege is suspended, come January 20th.
All the undemocratic shit that the Executive Branch has pulled in the last few decades. Whoosh. New precedent. The rest of the government will clip his wings in that regard so fast our heads will spin. It's one of the best things about Trump winning.
Laws will again need to be passed the way they're supposed to be in a democracy.
>> How will these predictions change once Trump assumes office?
The sea level will rise even further as Clinton's supporters hurl themselves into the ocean?
If it goes like it looks now, and Trump wins.
All you climate change deniers - ever think about what is we are right? No problem, it is only the human race...
Wasn't this type of problem solved over 150 years ago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Why isn't this a more reasonable solution vs. shutting down the world's industrial capacity? I know they have done retrofits to sky scrapers for earthquake proofing, so wouldn't the process be similar?
This is nothing to worry about. The sea level rose (and fell) much faster and much higher in Noah's time and Noah represents "recorded human history", and we are still here. So there.
"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
--Winston Churchill
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Yawn...the Earth has been warming since the last ice age. Guess what, we didn't pollute or cause the glaciers to melt either. Blame it on the dinosaurs that emitted carbon dioxide and methane from their gargantuan farts.
Well, the Earth is currently in a warming phase after the last ice age.
No, the warming following the last glaciation finished about ten thousand years ago, and the sea level rise attributable to that is pretty much done. Here's a good graph: cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png
I will also point out that this is warming and sea-level rise occurring on the time scale of millennia, while the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is on the scale of centuries-- much much faster.
That means global average temperatures will continue to rise past the 2 degrees Celsius TFS mentions even if humans never existed
Again, no. We're already in the interglacial period; temperature wouldn't be likely to rise more.
and no matter what we do (unless we figure out how to make a P-U 238 Explosive Space Modulator and cause the Earth to disappear with an Earth-shattering Kaboom),
Nice Duck Dodgers reference.
a strategy consisting mainly of adaptation (along with efficient but lower-impact CO2 and pollution controls) seems to be the logical strategy. We cannot stop global temperature rise, at the very best we might, maybe, be able to slow the rate of rise by a few tenths of a degree, but at huge costs in lives, suffering, opportunities, and wealth.
This is an assertion that is not particularly well grounded. I'm relatively techno-optimistic; I see no reason we can't switch to alternate energy sources and more efficient energy use. Most of the commentary I see on slashdot saying we can't consists of "if we do XXX with exactly the same technology we have right now, it would be expensive." Well, yes: so we need to work on better technology.
The level of technology pessimism I see on Slashdot astonishes me.
If we want to minimize the impact of humans on the Earth then the logical strategy is to concentrate on moving as much of those industries, activities, and resource-gathering activities which pollute or otherwise impact the Earths' environment to space as possible as quickly as possible...hopefully before limited Earth-bound resources become too scarce/expensive to accomplish it and condemn humans to extinction.
Interestingly, the main reason that developing industry in space will help the environment on Earth is that industry in space will necessarily be efficient and have complete recycling of waste products. Space industry won't emit gigatons of carbon dioxide because in space carbon dioxide is a resource to be used, not an effluent to be exhausted.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Many people feel that the Earth is like a life form that self corrects and balances. If there is any reality to that I wonder if man made warming could actually trigger an ice age as a response.
Past catastrophic predictions of sea level rises have been false, as this one will be.
Well, except that statement is incorrect. Previous predictions of sea level rise-- read the IPCC reports for reference-- were for a "sea-level rise of 0.25 to 1 meter possible by the end of the next century"-- that means, by the year 2100. They didn't make predictions as near to the present as 2016.
Reference: here's the First IPCC (1990) report on effects of global warming: http://www.ipcc.ch/publication... (Oceans are chapter 6)
and here's the most recent: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Lessee here .. global temperatures rise. Ice melts. Ocean levels rise. Doh ... I'm in the wrong business!
Unless .. if some of that ice is floating on an ocean, and it melts, does that make the ocean level rise? Or fall? Or just dilute it, which changes the specific gravity, but that won't change the levels, just how deep my yacht sinks in it. And how hard whales have to swim to stay afloat!
Hmmmm .. trickier than I thought.
Many will claim that Trump is going to make things worse by saying that he will increase coal mining, along with nat gas drilling. Yet, with America's nat gas being at the lowest level, it is impossible for Coal to take on nat gas. Likewise, Tesla EV will continue to sell since the M3 hits in less than year. And considering that you are getting a car that is better than a BMW 300 series, while costing only 35K, means that EVs will grow in sales in a massive way, regardless of Trumps cuts to AE subsidies.
As such, America's emissions will continue downward as we have for the last 8 years. In fact, they will likely go down faster than they did during O's time (a lot of things had to be primed).
So, where will the CO2 emissions continue growing? In Germany, Japan, South Korea, India, Russia, Brazil, and most of all, CHINA. WHy will these areas go up? Because the far left runs around giving excuses for why they should be allowed to emit far more than others and regardless of what the CO2 levels are at.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No, the warming following the last glaciation finished about ten thousand years ago, and the sea level rise attributable to that is pretty much done. Here's a good graph: cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_rise2.png [antarcticglaciers.org]
That's one theory. There are others.
That wasn't a theory. That was data.
The causes of the quaternary ice age cycle over the last ~3 million years is know in general outline, although as you point out a lot of the details need to be worked out. However, data from hundreds of thousands of years ago is indirect and difficult to interpret. Today, on the other hand, we have very good data: we measure the input and the output. It's cute that you have your own theory that the Earth is warming due to the fact that we're still coming out of the Late Wisconsin glaciation, but there's not evidence whatsoever for that theory.
...Which I find interesting in that if the reasons why ice ages occur and why some are longer than others are so poorly understood, how can it be claimed that there is sufficient certainty in the claims of AGW proponents
First, despite Wikipedia saying that the causes of ice ages are not "fully" understood, that doesn't mean we know nothing at all about them. It is, however, indeed harder to study events that happened ten thousand to three million years ago, because we don't have good measurements during that period, so we have to estimate output and input and timing based on indirect ("proxy") measurements of things like pollen counts and oxygen isotope ratios. Today, on the other hand we have very good data and lots of it. It is much easier to look at today's climate in detail.
to make the kind of major societal/economic/industrial/diplomatic sacrifices that would be required across the board in order to achieve any even slightly-meaningful effect? >Before we start condemning those in poverty to further suffering and death (artificial energy scarcity/high prices are extremely regressive taxes that impact the poorest the most and the quickest)
You are mixing up two things. One is "is the science correct, and to what uncertainty?" The other is "what should we do about it, and what would this cost? These are completely different questions. The response "I think that it would cost too much to solve the problem, therefore I will assert that the science is inaccurate and the problem does not exist" is not a logical response.
The proposed solution "we should do nothing; we can simply adapt to the changes" is a valid proposal. The solution "it's too expensive, let's attack the science" is not.
Now: your statement that every possible approach to solving the problem would require "major societal/economic/industrial/diplomatic sacrifice" and would "condemn those in poverty to further suffering and death" is simply an assertion, and lacks even superficial analysis. What has happened, right now, is an asymmetric response: so far, the people politically on the left have been proposing possible solutions, while people politically on the right have been refusing to propose solutions or analyze them-- when the problem is discussed, their response has been overwhelming: "the problem doesn't exist and it's a hoax."
So, if you're not even willing to analyze the problem-- and your analysis lacks all numbers-- it's really hard to say that you can dismiss the solutions you haven't thought about or looked at.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You are mixing up two things. One is "is the science correct, and to what uncertainty?" The other is "what should we do about it, and what would this cost? These are completely different questions. The response "I think that it would cost too much to solve the problem, therefore I will assert that the science is inaccurate and the problem does not exist" is not a logical response.
No, I am not "mixing up two different things". I am posing two different concepts, the first is that we have no freaking clue what the climate will do over the next 1,000-2,000 years.
Yes, you've been asserting that. All I can derive from what you post, however, is that you're saying that you have no freaking clue what the climate will do. The fact that you don't understand climate has no particular bearing on whether other people understand it.
The second is that the solutions proposed are costly, including a cost in lives lost, across a wide variety of measures. To ask for that level of sacrifice
You have indeed asserted (without evidence) that every possible solution is costly and require "sacrifice", but you've given no indication that you've looked at every possible solution, nor done even a superficial analysis of cost.
In any case, however, how much the solution would cost has nothing to do with whether the basic science is understood..
... It may well be a hoax, there simply isn't enough 'there' there to say with certainty.
I have zero patience with people who try to score political points by claiming that it's all a conspiracy, and scientists are frauds. Science is not a hoax.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Check out the history. We know Romans were growing grapes in England when they were there. Earth was much warmer. Same with the settlements in Greenland that are being exposed now. We're coming out of a mini ice age. It's mother nature.
Before flaming or marking me a troll or something, look it up. Google "roman grapes england". Know when you're being lied to by a bunch of people that want to take your money.
This was an idea I had with my toy ecology lab box but alas! I was not only a boy but there were not these many sources of information, so my hypothesis that the weather might be growing hotter remained unanswered and forgotten. Nowhere implied in the toy, just thinking an if... But now that we are confirming living beings liberate many Greenhouse Effect gases, the obvious solution is to... reduce the number of living beings on Earth! The only question to ask is, then what Continent do we eliminate? I of course vote for Afroaraby, they are already in a continuous war or something like that, anyway. It most definitely would help reducing the threat of overwarming and fulfill all the requirements of the solution for the stated problem. Would a **For a less Stinky Earth** slogan be OK?
Not yet finished writing this and the African clerk in this office comes and wants me out or the police and I am writing this in silence! It certainly suggests I should not buy from here but it is one of the best options available around in Big Location place.