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.
Interesting I was just talking to my wife about how with the rise of the ocean you could/would have to turn Manhattan into a new Venice, and with our apartment being on the 10th floor, we may be sitting on some water-level real estate. The worst part is it's only half a joke and a real future issue to deal with, just look at what happened with the subways during the last major storm, it doesn't take much of a rise to sink the city.
Why not just come straight out and say chinese/hippy conspiracy? Why bother with the pretense?
Your current leader thinks it's fiction (along with most of slashdot of course), so that should be a great comfort to you. Nothing bad will happen.
BTW, what 'crop' of apocalypses?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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.
Why not just come straight out and say chinese/hippy conspiracy? Why bother with the pretense?
I am sorry, he is citing predictions that didn't happen. What do you call a theory that makes wrong predictions ?
What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions ?
And with regard to your own attitude what do you call someone who is no longer looking at what is actually happening, and just shouting down anyone that disagrees with them ?
I get that it makes sense to be "concerned", but common sense provides that no panicking is required.
I'm glad we agree on this. The panicking so far hasn't been from the scientists, who have simply been pointing out that there are problems coming up and that we'd better look at them, especially since we can address them. Most of the furore has come from sensationalist media and different interest groups on both sides; those that want us to abandon all modern industry in the name of nostalgic (but misguided) environmentalism, and those that only care for their own, short term interests and don't give hoot for what happens to others. Such as the fossil fuel industry - they know perfectly well that it would benefit the world both environmentally and economically, if we seriously developed renewable energy, and it would even benefit the energy producers themselves in the long term; but they don't want that - it would cost investments up front, and they wouldn't see the profits from that for maybe decades. That's where all the panic and yelling comes from, not from the climate scientists.
However, at the end of all this, we DO have a problem, it is likely to become serious, even if to a lay-person a few millimeters or 5 degrees doesn't sound like much. And fortunately we can do something about it - a lot, in fact. But it is like all other 'repairs': at first you notice a mouldy spot on the wall paper in a corner, and you know that there is a small leak in the roof. If you fix it now, it will cost you a bit of sweat, standing on a ladder, maybe you have to spend a bit of money. Or you can wait until the whole roof is sagging, and you have to replace large parts of the structural timber and redecorate most of the house; and you will have call in a team of builders, you may have to move out for a couple of months and it will costs very serious money. I can't see why the choice is hard to make.
a few inches of sea level rise in the next 50 years clearly isn't going to do all that much additional harm.
There are people in Miami (and other Florida coastal cities), who beg to differ. And I'm not talking boo-hoo poor little rich people losing some of their exclusive ocean view. Low-lying lower-class neighborhoods are already suffering and city officials are having to deal with the thorny issue of raising funds to buy them out. Another unexpected consequence is that clearances on bridges are being shortened, and boating brings in a lot of money in Florida.
Jacksonville has an upscale neighborhood that also serves as a major traffic connector to downtown. Several years back they had to put pumps in the streets because when the Autumn deluges begin and the Spring High Tide coincides, the St Johns River flows backwards up the storm drains. It has not only caused considerable distress to local merchants, the streets became impassible (to say nothing of the road damage).
Personally, I'm just waiting for the first incursions on Mar-A-Lago. I expect Trump to change his position on climate really fast once that happens. And I'm sure that more than one of the Trump Towers around the world is fairly close to sea level.
Look at depth charts of the Florida Keys and you'll notice that a 1-foot fluctuation in sea level would greatly increase or decrease the land area down there. Whole islands would appear or disappear.
Also it should not noted that not all consequences of rising seas roll in from the coast lines. Florida is largely porous limestone rock. It gets its water from aquifers in that rock, and sea water can and does intrude into that rock. Orlando, which is one of the most land-locked cities in the entire state has been fighting for decades with Brevard County for water resources and the last thing they want is for any of that water to turn brinier. Tampa Bay has already seen shortages because they pipe in water from inland sources but have seen pipe failures. And the less said about the fragile state of fresh water in the upscale areas of Fort Myers and Venice, the better.
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