Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

More Than 260 Airports At Risk of Getting Submerged Due To Sea Level Rise, Coastal Flooding: Study (weather.com) 171

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Than 260 Airports At Risk of Getting Submerged Due To Sea Level Rise, Coastal Flooding: Study More

More Than 260 Airports At Risk of Getting Submerged Due To Sea Level Rise, Coastal Flooding: Study

Comments Filter:

  • 8.2 FEET! (Score:3, Informative)

    by davide marney ( 231845 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @12:32PM (#60989408) Journal

    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:

      Globally, NOAA's worst-case scenario predicts sea levels could be as much as 8.2 feet higher in 2100 than they were in 2000. A rise of at least 1 foot by 2100 is considered very likely, even on a low-emissions path.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by HiThere ( 15173 )

        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

      • Forgot the quote FTA:

        Globally, NOAA's worst-case scenario predicts sea levels could be as much as 8.2 feet higher in 2100 than they were in 2000. A rise of at least 1 foot by 2100 is considered very likely, even on a low-emissions path.

        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)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          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

      • 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:

        Globally, NOAA's worst-case scenario predicts sea levels could be as much as 8.2 feet higher in 2100 than they were in 2000. A rise of at least 1 foot by 2100 is considered very likely, even on a low-emissions path.

        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)

      by Compuser ( 14899 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @01:24PM (#60989654)

      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)

        by davide marney ( 231845 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @01:51PM (#60989824) Journal

        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)

          by Compuser ( 14899 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @02:11PM (#60989904)

          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.

          • 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.

        • 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)

          by Compuser ( 14899 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @02:21PM (#60989960)

          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.

          • 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

      • 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)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      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)

    by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @12:59PM (#60989506) Journal

    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."

  • It makes a nice juicy headline to say "260 airports". But the first page of the report contains a panel that says
    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.

    • 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)

        by Q-Hack! ( 37846 )

        Probably this...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Compuser ( 14899 )

      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

      • 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.

      • 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.

    • So I do not plan to get upset about less than 2% of something just because it is presented as a scare story.

      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)

    by wtvrtje ( 6971212 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @01:13PM (#60989582)
    Flying is actually one of the mayor 3 causes of climate change (with eating Meat/Dairy and buying too much stuff). But then again...flodded airports are the least of our worries in sea level rising. How about cities? And the sea level rising itself is just one of the problems we will face: droughts, extreme heath, bushfires, low food production, milions of people on the move, etc.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Malc ( 1751 )

      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)

    by foghelmut ( 2817869 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @01:27PM (#60989674)
    When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build an airport on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. And that one sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that’s what you’re going to get, Son, the strongest airport in all of England.

  • In 1900 there were no airports.
    How do you know we will still be using airports as we know them today in 2100?

    • 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.

      • 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

        • 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

          • 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.

            • 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

              • 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.

                • 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 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

    • Yeah we'll all have cold fusion reactors and matter transporters just like Star Trek.

      • 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)

      by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Monday January 25, 2021 @02:50PM (#60990100) Journal

      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!

  • Obvious solution (Score:3)

    by cellocgw ( 617879 ) <cellocgw@gmail . c om> on Monday January 25, 2021 @02:03PM (#60989868) Journal

    Update the engines and flight control systems for the Spruce Goose, and airports under water suddenly are a feature, not a bug.

  • Have the experts never heard of a water landing?

  • (In this case, fluid-based pun not intended!)

    https://www.questionableconten... [questionablecontent.net]
  • Hard to believe air travel will look the same in 80 years. The first airport didn't even exist 80 years ago. Rising sea levels is a huge concern. The relation to airports though is likely of less concern.
  • Another fear-mongering post by the warm-mongers.

  • None of us will be able to afford to fly by then, so the problem will solve itself.

  • Most people seriously under estimate the role the yearly frost plays in keeping insects and weeds under check. Already heated homes dotting all above frost line is proving more and more refuge for these to winter over.

    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

  • 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.

  • to build damns, dykes and new airports. Should problems actually arise that is.

    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".

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close