Slashdot Mirror
Rising Seas Set To Double Coastal Flooding By 2050, Says Study (phys.org)
Coastal flooding is about to get dramatically more frequent around the world as sea levels rise from global warming, researchers said Thursday. Phys.Org reports, "A 10-to-20 centimeter (four-to-eight inch) jump in the global ocean watermark by 2050 -- a conservative forecast -- would double flood risk in high-latitude regions, they reports in the journal Scientific Reports." From the report: Major cities along the North American seaboard such as Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles, along with the European Atlantic coast, would be highly exposed, they found. But it would only take half as big a jump in ocean levels to double the number of serious flooding incidents in the tropics, including along highly populated river deltas in Asia and Africa. Even at the low end of this sea rise spectrum, Mumbai, Kochi and Abidjan and many other cities would be significantly affected. To make up for the lack of observational data, Vitousek and his colleagues used computer modeling and a statistical method called extreme value theory. "We asked the question: with waves factored in, how much sea level rise will it take to double the frequency of flooding?" Sea levels are currently rising by three to four millimeters (0.10 to 0.15 inches) a year, but the pace has picked up by about 30 percent over the last decade. It could accelerate even more as continent-sized ice blocs near the poles continue to shed mass, especially in Antarctica, which Vitousek described as the sea level "wild card." If oceans go up 25 centimeters by mid-century, "flood levels that occur every 50 years in the tropics would be happening every year or more," he said.
It doesn't help that as a background signal NYC is sinking about a foot a century due to isostatic rebound since the end of the last ice age. And that the gravity fed sewers and storm drains were built more than a century or two ago.
Actually, rising sea levels are no conspiracy but a fact. Given that the current sea levels are quite low over history of earth and that we're still coming out of an ice-age, rising sea levels are to expected. For one if it gets warmer, water expands and then all the ice melting in Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska (but not in the Arctic, because that ice already floats) need to go somewhere.
Can we do anything about it? Not really, except moving further inland or building dykes like the Dutch do.
Is that a reason to create panic just to make money with the fear of yet another apocalypse? I find that disgusting.
Ride a bicycle. Eat less meat. Turn your thermostat up in the summer and down in the winter.
At least not just yet.
Here's Michael Mann's (The Hockey Stick guy) prediction that the West Side Highway would be under water by now
http://www.salon.com/2001/10/2...
You mean like when ABC predicted, in 2008, that New York City would be underwater in 2015 ?? Or that a carton of milk would be US$12.99, and a gallon of gas over US$9.00 ??
Nah, he'll probably just find someone else to blame.
Or, given his age, undoubtedly high blood pressure, and obesity, he may well be dead before his monuments to opulent gaudiness are flooded.
Wasn't the coast to be swallowed by 2015? I mean seriously, get a grip, and stop listening to these clowns. No one knows shit about climate yet. We don't have the long term data to extrapolate that far out. We are just now getting marginally accurate with WEEKLY weather, how do you expect the climate to be accurately deduced? /am/ saying all these doomsday scenarios are just a ploy for money. No one truly knows, none of the climatology models bandied about in the early 2000s panned out for the mid-2010s, so why think we know what will happen by 2050?
I'm not saying man hasn't made an impact on climate, I
The scientific method is really more a nuisance to 'scientists' these days than the rule of law. Idiots.
Pax Vobiscum
Since you are cut-and-paste reposting what you already posted, I will cut-and-post what I already replied:
The difficulty here is that you are mixing up stuff that's correct, and stuff that isn't.
For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,
That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,
and it was colder.
This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.
We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.
First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.
It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.
As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.
The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html">http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html
The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:
I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.
But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
Looking at the long-term NOAA data it looks like the earth's crust is still rebounding from the last ice age, as much of the northern extremes are generally rising (sea level "falling") and the middle and southern areas are sinking (sea level "rising"). Not much we can do about that, is there? Other than use a solution the Dutch have implemented for the last several centuries, anyway...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!