More Than 260 Airports At Risk of Getting Submerged Due To Sea Level Rise, Coastal Flooding: Study (weather.com) 171
Flights at hundreds of airports worldwide are in danger of being disrupted by rising sea levels, according to a new study. From a report: More than 260 airports around the globe are currently at risk of coastal flooding, and dozens could be below mean sea level by the turn of the century, the research published in the journal Climate Risk Management found. Hundreds more could be in danger depending on the amount of sea level rise driven by global warming between now and 2100. Airports in Asia and the Pacific topped the list. Researchers looked at several different factors to come up with the rankings, including the likelihood of flooding from extreme sea levels, flood protection and the impact on flights. They found that up to one-fifth of air travel routes could be affected.
8.2 FEET! (Score:3, Informative)
Oof dah, you can't make this stuff up. (Wait. Maybe you can, and that's the whole problem.) 8.2 feet of sea level rise in 80 years is a ridiculous number!
Here, I'll even search that for you. According to NOAA, the sea level trend at Battery Park, NY is 2.87 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence.
80 years of that trend will produce 9.03937 inches, not 8.2 feet.
But hey, don't believe me. Believe "the Science" [noaa.gov].
Re: (Score:3)
Forgot the quote FTA:
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's assuming the Thwaites Glacier https://earth.org/antarcticas-... [earth.org] doesn't collapse. Just ordinary melting, and thermal expansion due to oceanic warming.
A lot depends on what happens now, but it's also true that our current CO2 levels have already committed us to a sever warming trend...and we've only got guesses about how severe. It wouldn't be really surprising to see cotton growing in Canada at the end of the century. Unfortunately, due to the shape of the globe there's a lot less land tha
Re: (Score:3)
Forgot the quote FTA:
I'm not sure what the point is of comparing "worst-case scenario" to "linear extrapolation based on current slope."
The low-emissions scenario would basically keep the present rate of warming (the greenhouse gas we presently have is not going to vanish), so a better comparison between the two would be between the low-emissions case (which they call likely) and the current trend.
There's a logic error in your post, by the way. You compared a prediction from 2000 to 2100 with an extrapolation from 2020 to 2100.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically all models ignore the mass release of frozen methane, which of course will be the source of accelerated climate change. They also ignore new weather patterns, the rush of warm air up to the arctic, sucking up ice as water and of course pushing it back down south, where it dumps it as snow that melts and fills the seas faster (double plus, the flooding increase erosion and more flooding detritus rushes out to sea, raising sea level and rotting increases methane output).
All the models are stable ri
Re: (Score:3)
Oof dah, you can't make this stuff up. (Wait. Maybe you can, and that's the whole problem.) 8.2 feet of sea level rise in 80 years is a ridiculous number!
Here, I'll even search that for you. According to NOAA, the sea level trend at Battery Park, NY is 2.87 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence.
80 years of that trend will produce 9.03937 inches, not 8.2 feet.
But hey, don't believe me. Believe "the Science" [noaa.gov].
Forgot the quote FTA:
Oof dah, you can't make this stuff up, but worst case projections for Battery Park, NY in the link you provided actually supersedes the 8.2 feet figure in TFA and is literally off the chart for 2100, click the tab prior to the one you used https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.... [noaa.gov] (you walked into it).
Re:8.2 FEET! (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.climate.gov/news-f... [climate.gov]
Relevant quote:
"From the 1970s up through the last decade or so, melting and heat expansion were contributing roughly equally to observed sea level rise. But the melting of mountain glaciers and ice sheets has accelerated"
In other words, the linear extrapolation you are doing is unlikely to hold. Instead the projection is for accelerating sea level rise. I am sick and tired of ignorance passing off as informed opinion. It's just like with the virus: at first it doesn't look bad, then it's a disaster seemingly all of a sudden. At least do a bit of research next time, pretty please.
Re:8.2 FEET! (Score:4, Informative)
If you will actually visit the NOAA web site I referenced, you will see that the trend is IN FACT linear, and has been so literally since they have been collecting data back in the 1880s, not the 1970s.
Just read it. I'll wait. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.... [noaa.gov]
If you see a linear trend stretching back hundreds of years, the correct interpretation is that it will continue 80 more, not that it will suddenly change. That is an "extraordinary" claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
In the absence of such, you need to believe the historical data, not the theorized model.
Re:8.2 FEET! (Score:4, Insightful)
It is often very hard to detect exponential rise early on. The trend does not look linear but it takes a lot of squinting to see that. Just like with a virus, at first it looks minor then it explodes. You see the same thing with stock bubbles - at first it looks like a healthy appreciation then it suddenly goes into tulip mania mode.
The issue is that in some cases, like in the case of a stock market, we do not understand all the driving forces so bubbles are hard to predict early. In the case of viruses and climate change we do know the causal relationships and can catch these exponential rises quite early. At that point, ignorant uneducated people who do know understand the underlying science have a hard time seeing any problem but that does not mean the problem is absent.
Re: (Score:2)
It is often very hard to detect exponential rise early on.
Interestingly, temperature increase from AGW is logarithmic with regards to CO2. That is, every time CO2 doubles, an equal amount of warming is seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. One would actually naively expect the vast majority of the rise to be in the last years of the time span.
NOAA Sea level graph [Re:8.2 FEET!] (Score:2)
If you will actually visit the NOAA web site [noaa.gov] I referenced, you will see that the trend is IN FACT linear, and has been so literally since they have been collecting data back in the 1880s, not the 1970s.
Good data source, thanks for linking it.
But to be fair, the article referenced says that the rate is increasing now, while the NOAA data is shows that the rate was constant in the past. Two different things. If what they are saying is accurate, then they are predicting a change in slope; but given the noise in the data, it will take another ten years or more before a change in slope will be visible enough to show up in the NOAA data.
(However, so far I've only seen the popular article linked. Haven't seen
Re:8.2 FEET! (Score:5, Informative)
Just a bit more info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
About 15,000 years ago lots of ice melted. We got about 100 ft rise in sea level out of that within about 1000 years, or a rate of about 10ft in 100 years. If you want to argue that global ice melt will cause a lesser effect now then you might need some evidence indeed. That's an extraordinary claim.
Re: (Score:2)
About 15,000 years ago lots of ice melted. We got about 100 ft rise in sea level out of that within about 1000 years, or a rate of about 10ft in 100 years. If you want to argue that global ice melt will cause a lesser effect now then you might need some evidence indeed. That's an extraordinary claim.
Eh? It's not the least bit extraordinary. Coming out of the last glacial period 15,000 years ago required melting an ice sheet that covered the upper half of the entire North American continent. That's a lot of ice. The Laurentide Ice Sheet is the largest ice sheet in the world when it occurs. That much ice does not exist on the rest of the planet anymore. Yes, the Laurentide Ice Sheet's maximum extent is larger than maximum extent of the Antarctic ice sheet, in both surface area and depth. Nothing r
Re: (Score:2)
It's holding pretty steady near nearly all tidal gauges with long term records even though CO2 emissions exploded around halfway last century.
So the way to prevent accelerating sea level rise is clear, we need to build massive tidal gauges on the abyssal plains.
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming a steady rise in sea level. If we stopped ALL CO2 emissions today, it would be true(ish), but I don't see that happening, so the rate of sea level rise will accelerate.
Let red states sink (Score:3, Funny)
We should stop bailing out delusional fools.
"Fake news, there's no global warming, believe me. My own room is freezing. CNN and Hunter lowered the airports after midnight to make them flood by digging tunnels from pizza joint basements. Many people saw them, I get lots calls about those miserable diggers. We have to rid the country of diggers! Make Airports High Again! My terrific supporters like being high."
What wasn't said (Score:2)
The research looked at 14,000 airports worldwide.
So I do not plan to get upset about less than 2% of something just because it is presented as a scare story. Plus, I seriously doubt if the world is still reliant on airports in 80 years time.
Maybe they will get converted into yachting marinas, instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Plus, I seriously doubt if the world is still reliant on airports in 80 years time.
And what would transportation method would be used for worldwide travel in 80 years? I doubt trains or ships would replace it. If we look at the last 50 years, the main improvement with airplanes has been longer range and more fuel efficiency. The planes have gotten slightly larger but efforts like the A380 has shown that cost efficiency is more important to airlines than size. Some enhancements like WiFi and better entertainment options are good for the customer but not a breakthrough when it comes to the
Re: (Score:2)
Probably this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you can trust Americans with transport over water either:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oUa0El-plc [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well yes with today's technology, hovercraft and some modern military ocean craft are just a first primitive step on the very bumpy road to effectively using ground effects to fly.
A jet liner flies around 400-500 knots. The fastest passenger hovercraft averages 70 knots. Crossing the Atlantic would take days by the fastest hovercraft; I fail to see how hovercraft will ever really replace airplanes in terms of speed. The last commercial hovercraft I know was used to cross the English channel as a ferry. I think it was largely obsoleted by the Chunnel.
Control over the gravitational aspect of matter would be nice but till then we can create craft that are much more fuel efficient at least over calm waters
And when are the oceans ever really calm? Over the ocean: probably never.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with this. The world is past the point when we can fix climate catastrophe. It is time to engineer our way around it. Relocate whole nations, add soil and concrete to lift coastal areas where it is economically advantageous and declare other areas a blight and vacate (just turn off all services, zone out all business buildings and people will move out by themselves, except for mobile uses like RV visits without hookups or RV parks).
I am not going to cry over any number of airports under water. If th
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this. The world is past the point when we can fix climate catastrophe. It is time to engineer our way around it.
Why not both?
Relocate whole nations,
Yow, that's going to be hard.
add soil and concrete to lift coastal areas where it is economically advantageous and declare other areas a blight and vacate
That's going to be hard, too.
Re: (Score:2)
If the US committed to it, it could in theory do marine cloud brightening on the scale currently modelled as necessary to offset CO2 emissions from pre-industrial times till now in less than a decade IMO. It's not rocket science.
Other nations too, but other nations will never have the balls.
Re: (Score:3)
I know what you mean. I feel the same way about over 410,000 people dead in this country from covid-19. That's only 1/10 of one percent of the population dying in one year from this. No big deal.
the airports are really the least of our worries (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How does it compare in absolute numbers with power production, personal motor vehicle usage, all ground transportation, human population growth, deforestation, farming... ?
Typical locations for an airport (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Typical locations for an airport [are swamps] (Score:2)
In USA, swamps build airports.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The swamp was never the issue. One could just slide the luggage through the mud. Only since they've put little wheels on the luggage did it become a problem.
In 1900 there were no airports (Score:2)
In 1900 there were no airports.
How do you know we will still be using airports as we know them today in 2100?
Re: (Score:3)
So what you are saying that before airplanes were invented, there were no airports for airplanes. . . Let me form a blue ribbon committee to figure out why.
And what form of worldwide mass transportation do you envision in 2100? Options like teleportation are not feasible and space planes are cost prohibitive for the average person.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying that before airplanes were invented, there were no airports for airplanes. . . Let me form a blue ribbon committee to figure out why.
And what form of worldwide mass transportation do you envision in 2100? Options like teleportation are not feasible and space planes are cost prohibitive for the average person.
I have no idea what to expect by 2100 but technology changes rapidly. Maybe we will see massive growth in regional usage of small autonomous electric aircraft that don't require the same runway and terminal infrastructure that jumbo jets require.
I do know I'm not worried about the possibility that 1% of the world airports, all of which were built in the last 100 years, might be closed or relocated due to changing conditions over the next 80 years. Heck, LaGuardia is on that list, nobody would miss that aw
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what to expect by 2100 but technology changes rapidly. Maybe we will see massive growth in regional usage of small autonomous electric aircraft that don't require the same runway and terminal infrastructure that jumbo jets require.
Small electric planes will ferry the masses in 2100 across oceans? Before CoVID, one of the busiest airports, DFW, had 200,000 passengers per day. How many regional airports would you need to handle that much traffic? Even if the Dallas area had 100 airports, I seriously doubt they could handle the passengers much less the logistics of handling air traffic control of an exponential increase in airplanes. Have you thought about that?
I do know I'm not worried about the possibility that 1% of the world airports, all of which were built in the last 100 years.
1) You do understand that all airports have only existed in the last 100 yea
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what to expect by 2100 but technology changes rapidly. Maybe we will see massive growth in regional usage of small autonomous electric aircraft that don't require the same runway and terminal infrastructure that jumbo jets require.
Small electric planes will ferry the masses in 2100 across oceans? Before CoVID, one of the busiest airports, DFW, had 200,000 passengers per day. How many regional airports would you need to handle that much traffic? Even if the Dallas area had 100 airports, I seriously doubt they could handle the passengers much less the logistics of handling air traffic control of an exponential increase in airplanes. Have you thought about that?
I do know I'm not worried about the possibility that 1% of the world airports, all of which were built in the last 100 years.
1) You do understand that all airports have only existed in the last 100 years for a reason right? 2) You are not taking into account the effect of those airports on overall traffic. 1% of airports != 1% of traffic. For your example, LaGuardia had about 83,000 passengers per day in 2019. LaGuardia is a terrible airport but you have to replace that volume of passengers somehow if you get rid of LaGuardia.
As the growth of cities explodes I wonder where they are going to put all that horse shit from all the horses?
Oh, wait, the technology changed which made the horses obsolete, and it happened in a matter of decades.
Of course I understand why all airports were built over the last 100 years. My point is this article is worrying about losing, moving, or remediating a very small percentage of them over the next hundred years. I'm pretty sure we are capable of building some new ones as needed.
Re: (Score:2)
As the growth of cities explodes I wonder where they are going to put all that horse shit from all the horses? Oh, wait, the technology changed which made the horses obsolete, and it happened in a matter of decades.
What the hell are you talking about? You said that in the future we would switch to smaller electric planes and more airports. My question is how in the world would you handle the same amount of traffic of passengers and airplanes? Clearly have put zero thought into this and just lash out when pointed to this inconvenient fact.
My question remains: If we switch to more planes and smaller airports, how would that remotely work seeing how an airport like SFO (which is on the list) handles about 156,000 passe
Re: (Score:2)
As the growth of cities explodes I wonder where they are going to put all that horse shit from all the horses?
Oh, wait, the technology changed which made the horses obsolete, and it happened in a matter of decades.
What the hell are you talking about? You said that in the future we would switch to smaller electric planes and more airports. My question is how in the world would you handle the same amount of traffic of passengers and airplanes? Clearly have put zero thought into this and just lash out when pointed to this inconvenient fact.
My question remains: If we switch to more planes and smaller airports, how would that remotely work seeing how an airport like SFO (which is on the list) handles about 156,000 passengers a day.In your hypothetical future, how many smaller regional airports do you plan to put in to the bay area when the area has little place for residential development currently.
Of course I understand why all airports were built over the last 100 years. My point is this article is worrying about losing, moving, or remediating a very small percentage of them over the next hundred years. I'm pretty sure we are capable of building some new ones as needed.
Again you do not seem to understand that 1% != 1% of traffic. Also you do not seem to understand that for some airports, they may be the only one in the area so they are of vital importance to the area or country where they are. Also you do not seem to understand that currently a disruption in one major airport has ripple effects across a country. A snow storm in the Northeast can disrupt flights all over the US. You seem to have little understanding of the situation yet dismiss any concerns at the same time.
My point is simple, you just don't get it. The people of the year 1900 could not foresee what the world would be like 100 years later, and neither can the people of the year 2021. Just like them you are projecting forward under the assumption that nothing will change, when history has shown you how rapid the pace of change has become.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is simple, you just don't get it. The people of the year 1900 could not foresee what the world would be like 100 years later, and neither can the people of the year 2021.
And what does that have to do with the fact that your suggestion of using more airplanes and more airports does very little to solve the problem? You are missing this point repeatedly.
Just like them you are projecting forward under the assumption that nothing will change, when history has shown you how rapid the pace of change has become.
Again going by your suggestion, you have not solved anything but introduced new problems. My point again as you keep missing it that you haven't solved anything and relied on the premise: "And then a miracle occurs . . ." and then we have all the answers.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is simple, you just don't get it. The people of the year 1900 could not foresee what the world would be like 100 years later, and neither can the people of the year 2021.
And what does that have to do with the fact that your suggestion of using more airplanes and more airports does very little to solve the problem? You are missing this point repeatedly.
Just like them you are projecting forward under the assumption that nothing will change, when history has shown you how rapid the pace of change has become.
Again going by your suggestion, you have not solved anything but introduced new problems. My point again as you keep missing it that you haven't solved anything and relied on the premise: "And then a miracle occurs . . ." and then we have all the answers.
My exact statement was "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO EXPECT BY 2100 BUT TECHNOLOGY CHANGES RAPIDLY. Maybe we will see massive growth in regional usage of small autonomous electric aircraft that don't require the same runway and terminal infrastructure that jumbo jets require."
I'm not trying to solve anything. I'm just telling you that based on the increase in the rate of change the world will change even more between now and 2100 than it did between 1900 and now. And even in the very unlikely event there are no
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah we'll all have cold fusion reactors and matter transporters just like Star Trek.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah we'll all have cold fusion reactors and matter transporters just like Star Trek.
I don't know what will be invented by the year 2100.
But when you consider the pace of change since the year 1900 you must have zero imagination to think there will be no significant changes by the year 2100.
Re:In 1900 there were no airports (Score:5, Funny)
In 1900 there were no airports.
Oh yeah. I have it on good authority that US troops captured the airports from the British in 1775. [youtube.com] How could they have done that if there were no airports, smart guy? Explain that one!
Re: (Score:2)
In 1900 there were no airports.
Oh yeah. I have it on good authority that US troops captured the airports from the British in 1775. [youtube.com] How could they have done that if there were no airports, smart guy? Explain that one!
I stand corrected
Obvious solution (Score:3)
Update the engines and flight control systems for the Spruce Goose, and airports under water suddenly are a feature, not a bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just turn them into seaports. I see 260 new cruise terminals!
I'm a little bit surprised (Score:2)
Have the experts never heard of a water landing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And Boing will have to change it into Splash.
Solution (Score:2)
https://www.questionableconten... [questionablecontent.net]
What Will Air Travel Look Like (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another day... (Score:2)
Enh (Score:2)
None of us will be able to afford to fly by then, so the problem will solve itself.
Long before that most population will be dead. (Score:2)
And weeds and insects get more generations per season. Forsythia used to bloom mid April in Pittsburgh area, it is doing two to three weeks early. I see cottonwoods, magnolias blooming three weeks early. Clover and crown vetch and dandelions out early. Crocus is bursting out from goddamned s
BS study... (Score:2)
Whenever I read these studies I wish people would step back and do basic science. Is Amsterdam on this list? If yes then the study is absolute BS and just flapping its lips. For Amsterdam airport is ALREADY underwater.
80 years is plenty of time (Score:2)
Also, what a load of nonsense! Upon what are they basing this silly "one fifth of flights" nonsense? Are they also experts on the future of air travel, population and economic growth, and future developments in transportation technology?
What a worthless "prediction".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened to all the stories about how hospitals were overwhelmed and thousands were dying everyday and it was the fault of the current President? Total silence.
Those stories are still posted literally every day.
Re: (Score:2)
gaxiyi7905 user page [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If the deaths have increased so drastically,?
First of all, what do you mean "drastically"? You do understand that the death rate has been climbing steadily right? Or does your newsfeeds not tell you?
why is WHO talking about changing the criteria for PCR tests and Gavin Newsome talking about stopping the lockdowns
Why is that relevant to the topic that you do not seem to be that informed on the US death rate which is a number, a fact.
Re:Climate change stories (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they are not on Slashdot, but I see them on the front page of both of my newspapers daily and hear them, usually as the lead story, on the evening news, both national and local. the death toll is huge and growing. I personally know more victims in a regular basis. (Another today.) On average over 500 deaths a day over the past week in California.
No, it has not gone away and people I know are getting closer to hysterical all the time. Maybe now that there is real leadership in D.C., I suspect social
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not how sea level rises affect local communities. Don't be disingenuous.
What happens is, the sea level rises slowly, causing flooding events to happen more and more often and increasing coastal erosion. Rich countries build dikes and walls to push back the inevitable - like the city of London, Venice, or a lot of the Netherlands. Poor countries like small coral islands in the Pacific simply see their population flee when the cost of staying becomes too high.
It's not like the exposed airports will suddenly close tomorrow - or in 50 years. The problem is that they'll progressively become unavailable more and more often every year, prohibitively more expensive to run, and will eventually close for purely economic reasons long before they're fully underwater.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You are the one being disingenuous. These airports will have decades, on the order of half a century or more, to deal with the problem. They can and will move or deal with it. There is no problem. The truth is they are too close to the sea anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
These airports will have decades, on the order of half a century or more, to deal with the problem. They can and will move or deal with it. There is no problem. The truth is they are too close to the sea anyway.
Yes because finding and building an airport is an extremely easy task. Every one of these airports has many, many options in terms of zoning, available land, air space restrictions, mass transit options, etc. So easy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> rejected in October 2003 due to very high cost
Time is split into two eras. Pre Elon Musk (and his work) and Port Elon Musk (and his work).
2003 is PEM, or Pre Elon Musk. They weren't able to account for the technology of the Boring Machine.
We are now PEM, or Post Elon Musk. I know, it is confusing because both acronyms are the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
airports are usually near water (Score:3)
No sane white man builds an airport close to water.
That's a bizarre statement. Most cities build their airports next to the water. The reason is that the approach over the water is always clear; you don't want skyscrapers on the final approach path. Otherwise, you'd have to purchase a large area of land surrounding the airport.
(also, people don't like living near airports; they're noisy).
ORD has one right over 1-90 with skyscrapers on th (Score:2)
ORD has one right over 1-90 with skyscrapers on the sides
Re: (Score:3)
The old Hong Kong airport required pilots to navigate close to lots of buildings... exciting.
The new one is on a man made island... much better... except that it will probably be underwater as sea level rises.
Re: (Score:3)
The old Hong Kong airport required pilots to navigate close to lots of buildings... exciting.
The new one is on a man made island... much better... except that it will probably be underwater as sea level rises.
Silly premise. Hong Kong has already demonstrated the will and financial wherewithal to build an entire island for their airport. Tacking on a small seawall around the perimeter is pocket change in comparison. Even if they didn't already account for some sea level rise when they built it in the first place (and they undoubtedly did), still, they can just add more dirt and concrete, a capability they have already demonstrated to an extreme equaled only by Japan and Dubai.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if "too close" is defined by "so close to the sea that they go underwater when the sea rises" which I suppose might be the way a moron would define it.
Being close to the sea is a boon for airports for a multitude of reasons. It's a desirable property of airport location. For instance, being close to the sea allows for as much traffic as possible to occur over unpopulated areas to mitigate costs from pollution and air traffic accidents. And to minimize travel time when the point of the route is to get
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the disingenuousness is pretending to care what the climate will be long after you’re dead. These things have been studied quite a bit, and what is found time and again is that human beings just aren’t THAT unselfish. Not that there needed to be any studies. Would anyone seriously doubt this?
We’re too selfish to have kids (our words), we fly in record numbers despite climate change, we hate Republicans, and every manner of anti-ist-phobe, we will not tolerate people who make mist
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I happen to have grandkids of my own, and I actually do like (most) other people's children. Kids are a trip, if you've never spent much time with them you're missing out on a lot.
And of course, I'm seeing the effects of climate change right here and now, so I have plenty of reasons to care.
Re: (Score:2)
Women get beaten on Seattle buses and we look away. 100% of us look away.
Not 100% of us.
Re: (Score:2)
You're being pretty generous with other people's money there. Airports are expensive. Most of them were built where they are now because that's the only place they could find to build them anywhere near civilization (but not so near that the people already living there would block it due to the obvious noise and traffic issues).
Re: (Score:2)
Too close to the sea? There's a reason they're built next to the water...you clearly missed that point.
Re: so what? (Score:2)
in a few hundred years we'll have to live underwater just to have a civilization
All the water on the planet could end up as liquid in the oceans and that still wouldn't happen. Anything 100 meters above today's sea level would still be above sea level, and while yes it would cause a lot of problems for humans in the short term, the abundance of shallow coastlines would be a huge win for aquatic life.
Re: (Score:2)
To what extent is airport "vulnerability" relative to the economic viability of the airport? Airports which have a lot of economic value seem much less likely to be affected because they can be protected via mitigation which their economic value will ensure.
Most of the at-risk airports seem to be lower economic value, although so many are in China it's hard to see the Chinese government doing nothing.
I'm not even sure what to think about Oceania airports flooding. Much of Oceania, especially the small arc
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Airports do get updated over time. Just like the roads next to my house are over 200 years old. They were for horse and buggy, then they were paved for automobiles about a hundred years ago. about 50 years ago they were expanded to handle more trucks...
An area reserved for an airport, still may be in service in a hundred years ago.
If the current airport is under water and cannot be used, than an other airport may need to be built. Then you have to do something to clear out a huge plot of land, which co
Re:so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Half a century notice is more than enough.
Just like we had 50 years notice about how in the 2020s we'd see climate change that would make vast swaths of the planet uninhabitable, combined with sea level rise, global droughts, famine and pandemics that would destabilize if not outright collapse civilization, and we totally took care of that
So long as we allow Corporations to prioritize short term profits over human lives, we will continue to stay on course to take civilization right over a fucking cliff. It's time that the UN started treating Corporate polluters as eco-terrorists, but we all know that money, wealth and power is all that matters So 1 year, 50 years or a hundred makes no difference at all because nothing meaningful will be done so long as governments and the people worship the almighty dollar
Re: (Score:2)
Half a century notice is more than enough.
Just like we had 50 years notice about how in the 2020s we'd see climate change that would make vast swaths of the planet uninhabitable, combined with sea level rise, global droughts, famine and pandemics that would destabilize if not outright collapse civilization, and we totally took care of that
And, none of that stuff happened. Sorry to be so blunt. It's sad because that stuff likely *will* happen in the future, but by then the boy will have cried wolf one too many times....
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, no global pandemic happening in 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
Dat's it. Global. You know what else is pandemic? The common cold. We have pandemics yearly.
You elided "destabilize if not outright collapse civilization" which makes his statement correct. Haven't had one.
Re: (Score:2)
The common cold doesn't usually disrupt everything, this pandemic has been quite disrupting and is not over. While the richer countries may come out stable, it is a lot more questionable for the poor countries that can't afford vaccines and may well incubate a deadlier version.
Re: (Score:3)
Just like we had 50 years notice about how in the 2020s we'd see climate change that would make vast swaths of the planet uninhabitable,
There were no such predictions. About the best summary of the scientific consensus of the 70's would be the 1979 National Academy of Sciences Report, and it did not predict "vast swaths of the planet uninhabitable" by 2020. Here's the report [nap.edu], check it yourself.
If you think that there's some other predictions of "vast swaths of the planet uninhabitable" by 2020, show me a citation.
Re: (Score:2)
That's "sort of" true. Wherever agriculture pumps water out of the ground or petrocompanies pump oil out of the ground you have subsidence in the wake. This is long known and not new. But it's also true that the sea level is rising. More in some places than in others. Less, e.g., in the north Atlantic because since Greenland is melting there's less gravitational attraction to that area. (Also diluted ocean water is less massive than undiluted ocean water.) Well, that was an explanation I heard. I fi
Re:sea level rise isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Continental drift happens on the order of ~1inch per year. Sea level rise happens on the order of ~3mm per year. (If you can't convert inches and mm in your head, then Google is one click away.)
But if you can't understand the difference between the x-y axis and the z axis, Google probably won't help.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, continental drift is neither vertical or horizontal.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you could say "He didn't get my drift."
Re: (Score:2)