Rising Seas Set To Double Coastal Flooding By 2050, Says Study (phys.org) 206
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.
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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."
Probably not that much. But it is probably sinking. Nothing obviously wrong with the notion of glacial isostasy. But the numbers look to be hazier than most folks assume. Sometime in the next decade or two we'll probably have the solid GPS derived estimated of Battery tidal gauge elevation change accurate to say 100 microns. Then (and likely only then) will we k
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Even ignoring isostasy, if the Greenland ice sheet were to melt then sea level would go down near the cost of Greenland. This is from the gravitational attraction of the ice sheet on the ocean. The same is true near Antarctica.
If both melt there would be limited change in sea level near the poles but large increases near the equator.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction that was James Hannsen I always do that for some reason
Re: (Score:2)
LOL how long has it been and how much has CO2 increased ?
Re: (Score:2)
Article was written in 2001.
"While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”" http://www.salon.com/2001/10/2... [salon.com]
Re: (Score:3)
To understand the discrepancy between these two published accounts, it helps to look at the timeline of events. The original conversation was in 1988. Ten years later, referring to his notes, Bob Reiss recounted the conversation in his book The Coming Storm. James Hansen confirmed the conversation and said he would not change a thing he said. After the book was published, Bob Reiss was talking to a journalist at salon.com about it. As he puts it,
"although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years.”
We can check back in 2028, the 40 year mark, and also when and if we reach 560 ppm CO2 (a doubling from pre-industrial levels). In the meantime, we can stop using this conversation from 1988 as a reason to be skeptical about the human origins of global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
That article is bullshit - and the very reporter being quoted has said so.
The actual prediction was about what would happen if
1) CO2 levels doubled
2) In 40 years (not 20 as reported in Salon)
It has been nowhere close to 40 years yet, and CO2 levels have not doubled.
Hansen's prediction may actually come true - but his prediction was contingent on two conditions - neither of which has yet occurred.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Partly yes. The other part is just human error. The reporter being quoted, had originally interviewed Hanson in 1988 for his book "The oncoming storm", and that's when Hanson made the prediction, along with those caveats. The book includes the prediction accurately by the way.
Nearly a decade later the reporter got a phone call from the guy doing the Salon story - and by his own admission - remembered the timeframe wrong that's where the 20 years comes from), leaving out the "if CO2 doubled" part was entirel
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side, at least significant portions of Manhattan are build on solid bedrock. Venice, not so much: most of those buildings have a foundation of timber piles...driven into clay...in a lagoon.
On that subject, writer Kim Stanley Robinson has a new book about a Venice-like NYC [google.com]. Here is an overview and interview with the author. [sciencefriday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It won't. Modern engineering can easily deal with this.
Keep in mind that what you think of as "Manhattan" is constantly being rebuilt from the ground up anyway, so even if you (hypothetically) needed to raise every building by a few feet over the next 100 years, that wouldn't be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that NO city, ever, was built for permanence.
They exist for one reason: convenience. They are (generally) opportunistic agglomerations of people in time around wherever it happened to be easiest to unload/drop that heavy shit we were carrying from some other place.
They are, like all human creations, ephemeral. Sure, the timeframe may exceed human lifetimes, but with the success of humanity some of our oldest continually-inhabited places are now THOUSANDS of years old.
Ironically, the *oldest* p
Re:LOL Well don't fit your balcony out with a Dock (Score:4, Interesting)
"Here's Michael Mann's (The Hockey Stick guy) prediction that the West Side Highway would be under water by now"
The (demented) Hockey Stick is indeed Mann's. The Westside Highway prediction was James Hansen in 1988 and he still has a decade to go before it is shown to be false. I'm guessing that Hansen is probably beginning to think he may have gotten that one more than a bit wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Hansen made the prediction during a radio interview in 1988. There was some ambiguity whether it was a 20 year or 40 year prediction. When asked about that, Hansen said 40 years. Heck, let's give him that. (I reckon he needs about 2-3 meters sea level rise in the next decade for it to come about. But I don't live in NYC and don't know for sure how much freeboard the lowest stretch of 12th Avenue/Westside Highway has.
Not really referenceable (Score:4, Insightful)
There are plenty of actual predictions that are actually published in actual referenceable sources.
I really don't see the point in citing an offhand comment made in a radio interview as a "prediction", when the person quoted has an actual bibliography of hundreds of real publications that can be referenced.
(not to mention the point of misattributing a quote that's citing a guy informally recalling something another guy said in a conversation a decade earlier, and misremembering key details.)
Re: (Score:3)
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... [salon.com]
What?? I think you're confused. That article refers to a prediction Jim Hansen made in 1988 or 1989, shortly after he testified to Congress about climate change. Nothing to do with Michael Mann.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I posted a correction just after I hit submit.. It's a personal quirk I have swtiching their names. Slashdot unfortunately still has no way to edit posts.
Re: (Score:2)
You're the guy who doesn't know the difference between sea ice and land ice, so please don't be offended when people take your claims with a grain of salt.
Re: (Score:2)
Dave who could possibly be offended by you ?
Cut-and-paste reposting of misunderstood facts (Score:5, Informative)
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. [wordpress.com]
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 [ucsd.edu]
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/ [scientificamerican.com]
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml [ucsd.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Causation isn't what it used to be. Ask any quantum physicist.
Higher CO2 causes warming. I'm not entirely sure about warming increasing CO2, but there might be an effect. Apparently in past warmings, CO2 has lagged. However, based on isotopic analysis, we know where the extra carbon is coming from. In addition, we can roughly calculate the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning, and it's enough to cover the increase.
Re: (Score:2)
A caution. Once you get back beyond the reach of polar ice cores (about 800,000 years), CO2 estimates are based on somewhat dubious proxies. The one case I'm aware of where there are two proxies for the same sediment bed (leaf stomata size and soil calcification) the estimated values differed by a factor of two. Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the accuracy of past CO2 estimates. But then, I don't have much faith in proxy measurements of anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you're digging *way* back there aren't you? The planet was radically different back then, to the point that you can extrapolate very little to the current situation. I mean we're talking completely dead continents, primitive plants and arachnids only just began leaving the oceans to colonize the shorelines by the very end of the period. And the continents were all south of the equator, strangling the oceanic thermal cycles that would normally have carried heat to the south pole, so glaciation on tha
It's time to give up the ship (Score:2, Interesting)
Although climate change (specifically global warming) is happening (unless you deny the laws of chemistry and physics), it's probably too late to realistically do anything about it. The real problem isn't the warming, it's the positive feedback -- warmer air holds more water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas, warmer temperatures melt the polar ice packs exposing darker ground/water, warmer temperatures unfreeze once frozen swampland which releases methane (and more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2), etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Add to all of the above that the CO2 currently in the system is so diffused (roughly 400 parts per million) that I don't know of any human technology that could possibly make a dent in the CO2 concentrations on a global atmospheric scale.
You don't use human technology. You use plant technology. We have the technology to replace 100% of our transportation fuels, for example, with carbon-negative (there is waste and you compost it) fuels like butanol and green diesel. We have the technology to replace 100% of our use of wood for construction with bamboo, which grows rapidly and therefore fixes carbon rapidly. If the whole planet were land and you could plant the whole thing in bamboo then you would only need one crop to fix all the excess env
"To make up for the lack of observational data," (Score:2)
"we theorize, speculate, and focus on the worst-case scenario"
Yea, and I can get back to something more certain and true, like CNN or Facebook.
no "would" about it (Score:2)
Using "would" suggests incorrectly that there is any choice about it. Sea level rise of that magnitude is inevitable, no matter what policies we adopt, so we better learn to deal with it.
Coastal flooding, on the other hand, is something that's humans have dealt with for all of our existence
Because it's happening NOW (Score:2)
I still find it disappointing that there would be climate deniers. Yeah sure the sea is going to rise a 1/2 foot, no big deal... Well first of all, what's causing the 1/2 foot rise in oceans if there isn't climate change. It's like saying, oh well I feel healthy and I can't possibility have cancer even thou my doctor is telling me all his blood tests are coming back positive, it's a conspiracy by the doctors to make more money!
Humans are also inherently less than pro-active on many many issues wanting to
Again? (Score:3)
Haven't we heard something like this before?
Every time I see alarmist stuff like this, all I can think of is this:
Hypothesis and Disproof
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay .com, May 22, 2006 .com, Aug. 7, 2008 .com, June 19, 2015
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain
“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN, Dec. 10, 2008
“NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010
“NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011
“2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience, Aug. 9, 2012
“NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAApress release, May 23, 2013
“A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab
“The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews, Aug. 11, 2016
“NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews, Oct. 24, 2016
NOTE: the NOAA is The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a scientific agency within the Department of Commerce focused on the conditions of the oceans and the atmosphere.
For more “Best of the Web” from The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto
I'm sure that *EVENTUALLY* they'll get one right...2016 was the "strongest in years" but was still pretty much meh, except for Matthew's impact on Haiti.
Actual activity in 2016: 15 named storms, 7 hurricanes, 4 CAT3+
Average (1981–2010[1]) 12.1, 6.4, 2.7
Record high activity 28, 15, 7
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you're talking about weather predictions, which are very different from climate predictions. A climate prediction would be something like "the 2020s will see significantly more hurricane activity than the 2010s", and that's cutting the time slices rather fine.
Money where your mouth is (Score:2)
If you really think rising sea levels is a fraud, you'd be buying up beach-front property at cents on the dollar from the chumps who believe it.
Re:Another End of the World scenario (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Another End of the World scenario (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sea levels where up to 6 meters higher 4000-6000 years ago.
Prieto et al., 2016
“Analysis of the RSL [relative sea level] database revealed that the RSL [relative sea level] rose to reach the present level at or before c. 7000 cal yr BP, with the peak of the sea-level highstand c. +4 m [above present] between c. 6000 and 5500 cal yr BP [calendar years before present] This RSL [relative sea level] curve was re-plotted by Gyllencreutz et al. (2010) using the same index points and qualitative approach but
Re: (Score:2)
That's not actually how the terminology works. The ice-age is the last 2.6 million years, due to the continental topography causing less mixing of tropical and polar waters. Within the Ice Age there are glacial and interglacial periods - relative amounts of freezing and thawing. We're in the middle of an interglacial that began 11000 years ago. but previous patterns covering 10000's of years aren't much good for predicting how climate is going to be impacted in the near future. Our particulated emissions ex
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a reason to create panic just to make money with the fear of yet another apocalypse? I find that disgusting.
Or you know, stop pumping so much CO2 into the air, move away from a hydrocarbon economy, figure out ways of getting the carbon in our atmosphere underground again. That sort of stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we do anything about it?
Yes we totally can. There's not a lot humanity can't accomplish with the proper funding and will, but people like you think it will cost too much.
Not really, except moving further inland or building dykes like the Dutch do.
Gee, I wonder how much THAT will cost?
Is that a reason to create panic just to make money with the fear of yet another apocalypse? I find that disgusting.
The only thing that makes me panic is that people treat this idea so casually. I like not having a billion people knocking at my door looking for a new place to live. Personally, I find that level of apathy disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine there are a lot of made-up, phoney jobs that depend on there being a crisis, though, with the vast majority of them being taxpayer funded.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're right about taxpayer-funded crisis jobs...more specifically, it's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. Various leaders of the movement readily admit as much.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate confere
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another End of the World scenario (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ?
Re: (Score:2)
I am sorry, he is citing predictions that didn't happen. What do you call a theory that makes wrong predictions ?
You mean like "The temperature isn't rising" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age" OR "OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"?
That kind of theory is what you mean?
What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions ?
Well, what would you guys like to be called?
Re: (Score:2)
If I am not mistaken, you just told me I won, but you aren't willing to alter your opinion under any circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
You are mistaken.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't address the question.
When you say : What do you call a theory that makes wrong predictions you mean theories like: "The temperature isn't rising" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age" OR "OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"?
Is t
Re: (Score:3)
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 ?
I call people who misapply scientific terminology idiots. There were no scientifically valid theories predicting the end of the world. Oh I'm sure you'll find a lot of hyperbolic articles and other nonsense, but there isn't a single peer reviewed paper from the 70's, 80's, or 90's making any claims of an apocalypse (other than the obvious ones, like asteroid impacts, the sun going red giant in a few billion years, etc.).
What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions ?
Misinformed? Ignorant? Stupid? What do call people who continually use the word "theory"
Re: (Score:2)
There were no scientifically valid theories predicting the end of the world.
Wow way to strawman and tautology.
Seeing as even the worst of global warming predictions don't predict the end of the world that seems a rather pointless statement.
There are however over a hundred models for global warming, and even more predictions of "Dire Consequences" based on those models.
I'd call them James Hansen http://www.salon.com/2001/10/2... [salon.com]
Here's another question for you what do you call someone who thinks peer review makes a paper correct ?
Answer: Ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
>What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions ?
We call you science deniers, or sometimes we get specific and mention the particular science your're denying. Like evolution-denier or climate-change-denier.
Re: (Score:2)
We call you science deniers,
We ?? You ??
Glad to see you haven't gone all "Tribal" on this and are still thinking objectively.
Re: (Score:2)
That "you" was singular. I was talking to you, personally.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for you, not everyone gets to be a personal We.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said the "we" was singular. You do seem to jump to whatever conclusions suit your preconceptions.
That also, by the way, explains why you are on the wrong side of science - which is where this topic began in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said the "we" was singular
Oh, You weren't trying to dispute you were being tribal ?
You do seem to jump to whatever conclusions suit your preconceptions.
I don't know about that. So far I have been having fun watching you reveal yourself.
So tell me more about this we you are apart of that calls me a science denier. How is membership in the set determined ? Is it a reflexive self identification ? Does the group require a knowledge of the theories they claim I am a denier of ?
Re: (Score:2)
All these people really have is shoutiness and the full cooperation of the stupids in the media who are always looking for a compelling scare story to tell (so they can push those drug ads in your face).
Re: (Score:3)
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
Not so fast. His Orangeness most certainly does believe in climate change. It's the very reason he cited [theguardian.com] in his application to build a sea wall [cbsnews.com] for an Irish golf course. Specifically:
"If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosio
Re: (Score:2)
Your current leader thinks it's fiction (along with most of slashdot of course)...
It only seems that way. Most of us recognize the seriousness of climate change and have long since given up arguing with the very vocal minority that are spouting their denialist nonsense online. There's no point debating people who will not listen to much less have the ability to reason. Rest assured there are a great many intelligent Slashdotters out here, silently chuckling at the trolls who create strife just for fun, the paid shills, the politically motivated right wing shitposters, and the honest-to-g
Re: (Score:2)
> the trolls who create strife just for fun, the paid shills, the politically motivated right wing shitposters, and the honest-to-goodness morons who are too stupid to face reality.
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have mastered the dubious talent to be all those things at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think caused all the other apocalypse scares we've been enduring since the beginning of time? What made them all wrong, but this one is right for realzy-realz this time guise!
Re: (Score:2)
Apocalypse scares generally don't come out of science. I haven't noticed climate scientists as a group talking about apocalypses either, just some very serious ill effects.
Re: So what can I personally do to help? (Score:2, Informative)
Ride a bicycle. Eat less meat. Turn your thermostat up in the summer and down in the winter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you think calling a congressman would change anything in any way?
Re: (Score:2)
They will be as accountable as the ones causing it when it turns out to be true.
Re:When this doesn't come true... (Score:4, Informative)
You mean like when ABC predicted, in 2008, that New York City would be underwater in 2015 [newsbusters.org] ?? Or that a carton of milk would be US$12.99, and a gallon of gas over US$9.00 ??
Re: (Score:2)
Because, of course, ABC is a peer reviewed scientific institution well known for it's high quality research in various academic disciplines.
Oh wait...
Re: When this doesn't come true... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
He's making the same logic error as those who claim Y2K was a hoax.
They say "look everybody panicked and spent all that money to prevent a disaster and then almost nothing happened".
But they ignore the fact that the only REASON almost nothing happened is BECAUSE we spent all that money and effort to prevent it.
We had a warning, we had time to implement solutions, we did- and we averted a problem.
The correct response is to be joyful at our success, not to claim that the success proves the problem wasn't real
Re: (Score:2)
They may have decreased over time, but it seems highly unlikely that it's from increasing the population. I'd imagine that we've been doing things about these things that have had significant effects, enough to overcome some population pressure.
It's been a long time since I read Ehrlich's book, but I seem to remember a discussion of national triage, including a recommendation to forget about India until assorted disasters cut its population. Obviously he didn't predict what we could do to improve the s
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why would I? I sit here about 1000m above sea level, all I'm asking for is to be allowed to hunt those for fun that try to escape the flood.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lesbians aren't going to get you out of this one. You've watched too many pornos.
Re: (Score:2)
So fucking grow up, put your big pants on and build a fucking dyke.
Hang on, I thought this was about Climate Change, not Sexbots ??
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth changes, true, but not normally this fast. This amount of warming over ten thousand years would be no trouble at all. Over a few decades, it causes problems.
Moreover, studying what's going on is essential to planning ahead.
The Dutch dyke system has been good for claiming land that started under sea level, but there's lots of problems with pushing it too far. It doesn't work for seaports, for example, since you don't want to wall the ocean off. The Netherlands is small with a high populati
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is there no common sense anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be amusing, but it's probably got more of other people's money than Trump's tied up in it.
In any case, he'd build a wall round it and make the mermaids pay for it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Sea Levels really are rising. But not very fast.
The good news is that the article is, like most of the stuff BeauHD posts, more or less unmitigated nonsense. Despite mankind's practice of building way to much stuff below the level likely to experience storm surge in a major storm, a few inches of sea level rise in the next 50 years clearly isn't going to do all that much additional harm.
The bad news is that there is no reason to expect sea levels to stop rising any time soon. Here's a link to the NOAA we
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
"There are people in Miami (and other Florida coastal cities), who beg to differ."
They seem to have built parts of Miami Beach below the level reached by the highest high tides. Imprudent of course, But profitable if you can sell the property before the moon and sun next align in an unfortunate configuration. Maybe they should have put a bit more thought into approving building permits.
There are a number of tidal gauges in Florida and several in the Miami area.
Here's what NOAA has to say about Miami Beach
"The mean sea level trend is 2.39 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years. "
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.... [noaa.gov]
Don't take my word for it, nor your local newspaper's and certainly not the Slashdot editor's. I'd encourage you to check both NOAA.gov and psmsl.org for yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they should have put a bit more thought into approving building permits.
In some states they've legislated ignorance of sea level rise [go.com] in order to appease developers.
"The mean sea level trend is 2.39 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years. "
The half a foot rise over that period can mean the difference between being just above sea level at high tide instead of just below. But the big problem is the acceleration that's taking place. [agu.org]
Since 1993 (the beginning of the satellite record) we've seen global mean sea level increasing by about 3 millimeters per year or about 1 foot in 100 years.
Over the second half of that period, global mean sea level rose b
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much complete nonsense. They are comparing two different sets of instrumentation that should conceptually show the same quantity, but don't. Then calling the difference "acceleration". That's nuts.
Neither the tidal gauges by themselves nor the satellites by themselves http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ [colorado.edu] show any significant acceleration although both are a bit noisy. Why are they different? Lots of people would like to know that. FWIW, I think the satellites are somewhat more likely to be right plane
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't do that when the bedrock is swiss cheese. Florida is in trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
The flooding in Miami actually has nothing to do with sea level. It's because the limestone it sits on is so porous, and ocean water pools in the pores of Floridian limestone. Beachside condos lie perilously close to the edge of the sea, with little land reaching over six feet above sea level. The majority of U.S. citizens who live at an elevation of four feet or less reside in south Florida.
A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study of the causes of flooding in the Miami area found that surfac
Re: (Score:2)
A few inches causes substantial harm via storm surge.
And its a greater than 1:1 increase, that is 1 more inch of sea level results in more than 1 inch of additional surge (surge is a complicated beast).
That's billions of gallons of additional flood waters and their associated damage costs.
Re: Yeah (Score:2)
Must be great to know you'll never lose your job and never have a really expensive illness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Jeesh, I guess you take your global warming *cough* "climate change" pretty seriously don't you? WTF did I do to arouse your righteous indignation? ...". I don't call estimates that are off by 2X, 3X or more than an order of magnitude "consensus". It just goes to show that the people mak
I quoted three stories which gave vastly divergent estimates for sea level rise by 2050. The exhaustively used "climate change" talking points are: "The science is settled" & "95%(or whatever) of scientists agree
Re: (Score:3)
The big unknown and one that is still a hot topic of research is how strong the feedbacks become in a warming world.
The "low end" of the range assumes no significant feedback cycle takes hold. It's the "simple" projection and not all the different than the ones Arrhenius did back in the 1890's. However, the paleoclimate research has indicated that historically there appear to be tipping points during climate transitions that cause much more rapid changes to take place once they're crossed.
There are number o
Re: (Score:2)
The linked article reads: "10 to 20 cm of sea-level rise expected no later than 2050."
No, it doesn't, it reads:
Basically they're saying that if we get far less ocean level rise than we expect, the rate of major flooding incidents will still double. If we get something closer to what we expect to get, once-a-century flooding incidents may become once-a-year flooding incidents
Re: (Score:2)
The Guardian article you linked to says "6 meters" but it doesn't say when. It will probably take several centuries. 2050 is only mentioned as when there will be "an emerging flooding crisis", which, like today, would be mostly from storms. That's compatible with the 10 cm to 20 cm discussed here.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the consensus is whatever keeps the government funding flowing. No crisis = no money, so of course there's a crisis! Multiple ones, all the time!
Predicting the future is NOT science.
It would be if they could, but they can't, so it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific consensus tends to be on things they're extremely confident about. Climate predictions are exceedingly complicated to begin with, and they depend heavily on what we as a species do. The result is that predictions are generally in the form of a range, and often have conditions attached. I'd check the IPCC reports, myself, and I've got other things to do right now than look through them.
News media tend to report the extremes, because they draw eyeballs. If there's fifty papers saying 10-20cm
Like the fusion energy people (Score:2)
They've been saying fusion power plants are only 20 years away for about 50 years it seems.
Re: (Score:2)
How we stop the gravy train is listening to the scientists, and not the ones who make up scandals, deceive people, and perform other sleazy activities.