Sea Levels Rose Faster Than Expected Last Year. Blame Global Warming - But What Happens Next? (cnn.com) 134
Though global sea levels "varied little" for the 2,000 years before the 20th century, CNN reports that sea levels then "started rising and have not stopped since — and the pace is accelerating."
And sea level rise "was unexpectedly high last year, according to a recent NASA analysis of satellite data." More concerning, however, is the longer-term trend. The rate of annual sea level rise has more than doubled over the past 30 years, resulting in the global sea level increasing 4 inches since 1993. "It's like we're putting our foot on the gas pedal," said Benjamin Hamlington, a research scientist in the Sea Level and Ice Group at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. While other climate signals fluctuate, global sea level has a "persistent rise," he told CNN.
It spells trouble for the future. Scientists have a good idea how much average sea level will rise by 2050 — around 6 inches globally, and as much as 10 to 12 inches in the US. Past 2050, however, things get very fuzzy. "We have such a huge range of uncertainty," said Dirk Notz, head of sea ice at the University of Hamburg. "The numbers are just getting higher and higher and higher very quickly." The world could easily see an extra 3 feet of sea level rise by 2100, he told CNN; it could also take hundreds of years to reach that level. Scientists simply don't know enough yet to project what will happen.
What scientists are crystal clear about is the reason for the rise: human-caused global warming. Oceans absorb roughly 90% of the excess heat primarily produced by burning fossil fuels, and as water heats up it expands. Heat in the oceans and atmosphere is also driving melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which together hold enough fresh water to raise global sea levels by around 213 feet. Melting ice sheets have driven roughly two-thirds of longer-term sea level rise, although last year — the planet's hottest on record — the two factors flipped, making ocean warming the main driver. [SciTechDaily reports that between 2021 and 2023 the Antarctica ice sheet actually showed an overall increase in mass which exerted a negative contribution to sea level rise.]
It's likely that an increase of about 3 feet is already locked in, Notz said, because "we have pushed the system too hard." The big question is, how quickly will it happen? Ice sheets are the biggest uncertainty, as it's not clear how fast they'll react as the world heats up — whether they'll melt steadily or reach a tipping point and rapidly collapse... [I]t's still unclear how processes may unfold over the next decades and centuries. Antarctica is "the elephant in the room," he said. Alarming changes are unfolding on this vast icy continent, which holds enough water to raise levels by 190 feet.
Notz describes the ice sheet as an "awakening giant:" It takes a long time to wake up but once awake, "it's very, very difficult to put it back to sleep."
The article notes that U.S. coastlines "are tracking above global average and toward the upper end of climate model projections, NASA's Hamlington said." (The state of Louisiana has one of the highest rates of land loss in the world, with some places experiencing nearly 4x the global rate of relative sea level rise.) But it's not just a problem for America.
"Over the next three decades, islands such as Tuvalu, Kiribati and Fiji will experience at least 6 inches of sea level rise even if the world reduces planet-heating pollution, according to NASA.... "Entire villages in Fiji have been formally relocated," said Fijian activist George Nacewa, from climate group 350.org, "the incoming tides are flooding our roads and inundating our crops." However, if the pace accelerates rapidly, "it will be very, very difficult to adapt to, because things unfold too quickly," he said.
"Humans still have control over how fast sea level rises over the next decades and centuries by cutting emissions, Notz noted."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader RoccamOccam for sharing the news.
And sea level rise "was unexpectedly high last year, according to a recent NASA analysis of satellite data." More concerning, however, is the longer-term trend. The rate of annual sea level rise has more than doubled over the past 30 years, resulting in the global sea level increasing 4 inches since 1993. "It's like we're putting our foot on the gas pedal," said Benjamin Hamlington, a research scientist in the Sea Level and Ice Group at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. While other climate signals fluctuate, global sea level has a "persistent rise," he told CNN.
It spells trouble for the future. Scientists have a good idea how much average sea level will rise by 2050 — around 6 inches globally, and as much as 10 to 12 inches in the US. Past 2050, however, things get very fuzzy. "We have such a huge range of uncertainty," said Dirk Notz, head of sea ice at the University of Hamburg. "The numbers are just getting higher and higher and higher very quickly." The world could easily see an extra 3 feet of sea level rise by 2100, he told CNN; it could also take hundreds of years to reach that level. Scientists simply don't know enough yet to project what will happen.
What scientists are crystal clear about is the reason for the rise: human-caused global warming. Oceans absorb roughly 90% of the excess heat primarily produced by burning fossil fuels, and as water heats up it expands. Heat in the oceans and atmosphere is also driving melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which together hold enough fresh water to raise global sea levels by around 213 feet. Melting ice sheets have driven roughly two-thirds of longer-term sea level rise, although last year — the planet's hottest on record — the two factors flipped, making ocean warming the main driver. [SciTechDaily reports that between 2021 and 2023 the Antarctica ice sheet actually showed an overall increase in mass which exerted a negative contribution to sea level rise.]
It's likely that an increase of about 3 feet is already locked in, Notz said, because "we have pushed the system too hard." The big question is, how quickly will it happen? Ice sheets are the biggest uncertainty, as it's not clear how fast they'll react as the world heats up — whether they'll melt steadily or reach a tipping point and rapidly collapse... [I]t's still unclear how processes may unfold over the next decades and centuries. Antarctica is "the elephant in the room," he said. Alarming changes are unfolding on this vast icy continent, which holds enough water to raise levels by 190 feet.
Notz describes the ice sheet as an "awakening giant:" It takes a long time to wake up but once awake, "it's very, very difficult to put it back to sleep."
The article notes that U.S. coastlines "are tracking above global average and toward the upper end of climate model projections, NASA's Hamlington said." (The state of Louisiana has one of the highest rates of land loss in the world, with some places experiencing nearly 4x the global rate of relative sea level rise.) But it's not just a problem for America.
"Over the next three decades, islands such as Tuvalu, Kiribati and Fiji will experience at least 6 inches of sea level rise even if the world reduces planet-heating pollution, according to NASA.... "Entire villages in Fiji have been formally relocated," said Fijian activist George Nacewa, from climate group 350.org, "the incoming tides are flooding our roads and inundating our crops." However, if the pace accelerates rapidly, "it will be very, very difficult to adapt to, because things unfold too quickly," he said.
"Humans still have control over how fast sea level rises over the next decades and centuries by cutting emissions, Notz noted."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader RoccamOccam for sharing the news.
Not news (Score:1)
This is a long-term effect. Don't expect New York to be underwater in the next decade, or the one after.
But it is news (Score:2)
If the news doesn't garner a fix the first time, and it gets worse, then it will repeatedly becomes worthy news as the situation gets worse and worse.
Re:Not news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
They understate the problem since 30 - 40 years, because they did not want to be called "alarmists".
Every predictions with the wide error gabs in recent decades: met the upper edges of what was sold as "error bar". And that in all regards: weather changes, peak temperatures, droughts, sea level rise.
And and deniers pretend nothing bad is happening, just because 50% to 60% of all Taifuns/Hurricans never make landfall, or "only hit Philippines", and people declare it "as normal over there".
When was it ... No
Re: Not news (Score:2)
Re:Not news (Score:4, Informative)
(0.25–0.30 m over 2020–2050)
You will have to forgive me for not getting worked up over 10 cm in 30 years.
I know the metric system is really hard to comprehend but even you should be able to multiple a number by 100 to get from meters to centimetres. How you got an answer that doesn't include the significant digit from the original question is really baffling.
Re: Not news (Score:2)
Re: Not news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
worse than the science popularizations have suggested so far - and they were already called alarmist, when in fact, they were understating the problem.
What are you talking about, the alarmists are saying the oceans will boil [youtube.com], not that the results will be in the upper level of estimates.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. That is the problem with the denying morons only looking at the best-case projections or even denying them: Things can reach the worst case and, worse, since these are projections, they can get _worse_ than the projected worse-cases.
Re: (Score:1)
acknowledge the uncertainty in estimates
It is always acknowledged to the amount that is known.
However: you do not know the unknown. E.g. an iceberg crashes into the ocean from Greenland or Antarctica. It happens. But you do not know when. So ... what is there to acknowledge?
It is not like someone opened a valve and the amount of water coming through it is known or can be calculated perfectly.
Buildings abandoned in Hawaii (Score:4, Informative)
Several condo buildings have had to be abandoned and knocked down in Hawaii. They're ocean front properties, and higher tides inundated the bottom floors. They're complexes that did just fine for many decades.
Ocean rise is going to accelerate as more CO2 and methane enter the atmosphere as thawing permafrost reveals ancient biomass, and as more heat gets absorbed from ocean revealed by melted ice.
We are so fucked.
Re: (Score:1)
Who is this "we"? I just sold my house and build one 40m above the surrounding flood plain. The old one was on the river. Beautiful place, tranquil water views, several meters above to 100 year flood level. But floods have grown noticeably more frequent and higher in the 20 years I owned the place. The writing was on the wall, so I decide it was time to move on. Despite the new house needing far more $ coverage, the insurance is around 1/2.
I for one there are still people out there wh
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, they can just sell that property and move inland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We are so fucked.
Indeed. But it will get worse, as still nothing effective is being done.
NUKE IT FROM ORBIT (Score:1)
CO2 levels correlated with sea level rise? (Score:2, Interesting)
Take a look at real sea level rise at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8724580
Now take a look at the historical sea level rise at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level and note the Post Glacial sea level rise, sea levels are rising but slowly and consistently over the last 2000 years.
Does sea level and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere correlate? Check out https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide and sc
Re: (Score:3)
Take a look at real sea level rise at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.... [noaa.gov] Now take a look at the historical sea level rise at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and note the Post Glacial sea level rise, sea levels are rising but slowly and consistently over the last 2000 years.
OK, I did what you asked. Click on the Post Glacial sea level rise graph in that wikipedia article and you see it in more detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Contradicting what you stated, the graph shows no sea level rise over the past 2000 years (although it doesn't have enough detail to show the most recent 30 years discussed in the article.)
Re: (Score:2)
You can see the slow rise better with the larger graph from that page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
No, you can't. That graph shows the rise over the last 24,000 years, but your claim was about last 2000 years, and on that curve the last 2000 years are flat. The curve [wikimedia.org] I linked from the same Wikipedia page is a blow-up of the same data over just the last 2000 years, and shows more clearly that it there is no increase visible over the last 2000 years.
My point is that we are in a post glacial period with slow sea level rise.
And my point is that the data you linked shows that we are in a post-glacial period after the glacial-melt sea level rise.
Now compare the linear sea level rise in the tide gauge data to the exponential CO2 level rise
There's your problem right there. Fir
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok say I take all of your points as valid, then I look back at the sea level rise over the last hundred years and if like you said we can't measure the second derivative then why are we worried?
Not sure what you mean by "worried". We should be aware.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 levels really took off during WWII and here 75 years later we are not seeing the exponential rise predicted.
We are seeing an exponential rise. Look again at the data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: CO2 levels correlated with sea level rise? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The temperature and effects of global warming that we are seeing today are the result of CO2 levels that were reached 75-100 years ago.
You have that entirely wrong. From a recent study [ametsoc.org], "In this paper, we aim to elucidate the mechanisms operating on time scales of hours to years to better understand the response of key climate quantities such as energy fluxes, temperature, and precipitation after a sudden increase in either carbon dioxide (CO2), black carbon (BC), or sulfate (SO4) aerosols. The results are based on idealized simulations from six global climate models. We find that the effect of changing ocean temperatures kicks in after a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again you're comparing apples to oranges. Here's is what you said in your original post:
The temperature and effects of global warming that we are seeing today are the result of CO2 levels that were reached 75-100 years ago.
That statement is entirely false. The temperature effects we're seeing today are primarily the result of greenhouse gas emissions in the last few decades, not ones from a century ago. If we had stopped emitting greenhouse gasses 75 years ago, the planet would be much cooler today.
A completely different question is how long it takes to come to equilibrium. This article [mit.edu] gives a good discussion of that:
In 2020, Sokolov was part of a team that studied a variety of scenarios in which CO2 emissions stop entirely in the near future. In most of the models used in their simulations, average global temperature stops rising after a couple of decades, but stays above the historical average for many centuries. A few models showed continued warming for decades or even centuries after the end of CO2 emissions, but they were in the minority.
The reason temper
Re: (Score:2)
Sea level rise is happening, but it is one of least of the impacts of global warming that I worry about ... but then again I am over 100 miles from the ocean.
If you were the only person around, that attitude would make sense, but lots of the people who live near the ocean or near a river near the ocean (which is actually a very significant percentage of us) are going to have to move. That's going to affect everyone, not just them/us. I live in Humboldt County, CA. Some whole communities here are threatened, like Ferndale, which is already pretty swampy. This area is also at risk of the land dropping significantly [lostcoastoutpost.com] due to the specific type of fault we have located
What Happens Next? (Score:2, Informative)
Trump/DOGE de-fund NOAA and w/o any data there won't be any problems -- like he hoped during COVID,
"If we stop testing right now, we'd have very few cases, if any," Trump asserted.
Google trump covid stop testing fewer cases [google.com]
Science!
OK. you win (Score:4, Insightful)
You've trigger the libs. Go ahead and take a victory lap. Maybe take a nap.
The rest of the adults are going to try and clean up this fucking mess.
The Important Question: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the vast majority of cases it is because the data before the start date destroys the point they want to make.
That's not typically the case for climate scientists (maybe it's possible to find a handful of examples). If you have contrary evidence, for "the vast majority of cases", please provide it.
See for yourself and follow the claim to it's source and try to get the full picture.
It's an area of science I've been interested in for decades. I've even played around with some of the models. I know climate scientists. It's why I know that your characterisation above is incorrect.
In terms of the paper, they had to stop somewhere. Since the model doesn't work well prior to 1000, then 0 seems to be a p
Beachfront property will move inland.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens next. It gets worse. I saw a political cartoon where there was a huge pile of blocks set up and one tiny little block barely holding the whole thing up at the bottom.
Sounds like a relabelling of this xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2347/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
People do not realize what it means to have a country with the kind of military America has completely in control by a combination of absolute basket cases
Still better than Bush. (At least until the day he actually does invade Greenland.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How does one explain those timelapses of satellite imagery of beaches that show the exact same sea level over 20 years?
Citation needed as to exactly what image. An overall discussion is here: https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
And NASA data on sea level rise is here: https://earthobservatory.nasa.... [nasa.gov]
Also why do the elites keep buying oceanfront property?
They buy oceanfront property on top of bluffs fifty feet above the water.
Real estate scams (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
who said it was worthless? do we not know how real estate works?
Sure they are (Score:2)
The Federal reserve prints the money and gives it to the bank and the bank is in charge of loaning it out. This is how our money supply is generated (well that in the national debt but your kind isn't going to want to think about that so it's not get too advanced here)
You are drastically underestimating how much corruption is in our system and how much it benefits the wealthy and we
Re: (Score:2)
You keep saying things like this over and over and wondering why nobody ever agrees with you and why people here laugh at you. Well, I have a question that might help you figure it out for yourself: Has it ever occurred to you that you might be
Re: Sure they are (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They do actually. They have a discount window for member banks to take loans from them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
How does one explain those timelapses of satellite imagery of beaches that show the exact same sea level over 20 years?
Cherry-picking. You can always find an example to prove any point you want to make. That is why researchers look at averages and aggregate data.
Also why do the elites keep buying oceanfront property?
I live in ocean-front property. Just a couple feet above sea-level. It is an awesome place to live. Yes it will be gone in another 50 years. I still get to enjoy life on the coast. Why do you have a problem with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't beget you living where you wish. Assuming you mean ocean front and also aren't availing yourself of FEMA or other gov't money WHEN it's destroyed by natural disasters.
Once/twice is fine but now we know it absolutely WILL happen again in less than 20 years. Time to stop subsidizing these choices...and thankfully the insurance industry is still based in reality and is curtailing coverage.
It's the epitome of socializing the cost while privatizing the benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you mean ocean front and also aren't availing yourself of FEMA or other gov't money WHEN it's destroyed by natural disasters.
Why not? Why wouldn't you as a citizen take advantage of every service a government offers you? People are out to maximise their wealth. Availing themselves of FEMA money during a disaster is no different than filing a tax return.
Your problem shouldn't be with the parent, but with how FEMA is administered.
Re: (Score:3)
If the ocean rises then it rises. You can't cherry-pick a beach and say that the height of the ocean is an outlier in that area.
Actually, you can. Sea level is not uniform [nasa.gov], and sea level rise is even more not uniform. Yes, the sea level can rise a lot in one place, a little in another place, and not at all in others. So, yes, some places will be outliers high, and some outliers low. On the average, however, sea level is rising.
And it's all complicated by the fact that in places the land is subsiding, in others it's rising, and in some places parts of it are rising and others sinking.
For more, see: https://climate.esa.int/en/Sci.. [esa.int]
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Informative)
Who ever told you in 2008 New York would be underwater by 2015 was either outright lying to you or knew as little about global warming as you do. If that was actually any kind of mainstream projection property values in New York would have plummeted only they didn't.
I kind of don't think anyone actually told you the above anymore than I believe all those people who questioned the COVID vaccine because they had "always been told vaccines protect 100% against the targeted disease" when no vaccine has ever done that and no one with any knowledge of how vaccines work would have ever told them that.
he is mistaking it for storm surge (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
Like how the news in 2008 was saying NYC would be underwater by 2015? Is NYC underwater? Is the coastline of NYC any higher?
Oh look, you were making that shit up https://www.aap.com.au/factche... [aap.com.au]. .
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
>Fourteen years ago, on June 12, 2008, ABC’s Earth 2100 offered a special on the then-far off year of 2015. Correspondent Bob Woodruff revealed that the program "puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.”
>The special featured one of ABC’s experts warning that in 2015 the sea level would rise quickly. An on-screen graphic showed New York City being engulfed by water. (Spoiler alert:
Re: (Score:2)
GFYS, gaslighting retard
Way to read the entire link.
"While the ABC video featured in the NewsBusters article links a number of extreme statements to the year 2015 - such as a carton of milk costing $12.99 - it does not clearly predict New York City could be underwater at that point.
Rather, the video includes a brief animated graphic of Manhattan and surrounding areas being partially inundated with water without attaching any specific claims to the vision (video mark 20sec).
In Earth 2100, a version of which appears here, a scenario
Re: (Score:2)
In the video predicting what life would be like in 2015 there's a literal graphic showing NYC is underwater. Just like I said.
You want me to believe that's just some random coincidence? Why?
Flail more
Re: (Score:1)
Because that video has nothing to do with any science?
Seems you kind of fail badly?
Re: (Score:2)
It cited more science than you did, and people believed it
Re: (Score:2)
>>It cited more science than you did, and people believed it
>You did not cite any science.
it - Pronoun
it (subjective and objective it, reflexive and intensive itself, possessive determiner and pronoun its, plural subjective they, plural objective case them)
The third-person singular neuter personal pronoun used to refer to an inanimate object, abstract entity, or non-human living thing.
Take this book and put it on the shelf.
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Less than twenty four hours ago you just learned that water levels are not constant. This is easily accessible information and for example, even the elevation at opposite ends of small lakes are different and usually published. Like anywhere with dam probably has a state website or power utility publishing that info. It's not a conspiracy, there are a lot of variables the larger the scale, at ocean scale it's even more complicated, even the land itself can be moving up or down at different rates everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you go "science, science, science!" after you've been provided with evidence that you lost an argument, then yes, you're exposing your religious belief.
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So your entire understanding of global warming is based off one single news story from 2008 with a misplaced graphic? That's truly impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Like how the news in 2008 was saying NYC would be underwater by 2015?
Can you point to news stories from 2008 saying NYC would be underwater by 2015? Or are you just making it up? Give a link to a 2008 news story from a reputable source saying that. If you can't then ask yourself, why are you making up false claims to support an argument?
Re: (Score:1)
Like how the news in 2008 was saying NYC would be underwater by 2015
Because it was a typo, and you idiot believed it?
No idea. Why would anyone 2008 have made such an idiotic claim? And why would anyone else be so stupid to believe such a claim if there actually ever was one?
Re: (Score:2)
At the time you were screaming that it was an accurate prediction of the future, same as you're screaming now (and replying to every single thing I've commented on in this thread)
>a typo
lol cope
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>Like how the news in 2008 was saying NYC would be underwater by 2015
>Because it was a typo, and you idiot believed it?
It wasn't a typo, it was in the video. I linked to the video. QED.
I know things can be really confusing when you have to read two things. That's a lot to keep in your head.
Maybe if you ask AI you can have it explain to you what it means to read two things and understand both.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't a typo, it was in the video. I linked to the video. QED.
It's a video, not a scientific paper. It's not scientific evidence. Can you provide a citation from a scientific paper suggesting that NYC will be under water by 2015?
Re: (Score:2)
Look up what moving the goalposts is
And I never claimed it was scientific evidence. Just like you're not presenting scientific evidence.
>Can you provide a citation from a scientific paper suggesting that NYC will be under water by 2015?
Why would I do that? I never claimed it. You're flailing. Take the L
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Wake up, please. Don't save the Earth (Score:2)
Coasts are not Fixed (Score:4, Insightful)
How does one explain those timelapses of satellite imagery of beaches that show the exact same sea level over 20 years?
It's impoosible to answer that accurately without knowing which beach you are referring to. However, you should be aware that coasts are affected by more that just sea level rises. In some places land is rising and in others it is sinking which can either increase or entirely offset any effect of sea level rise. Then there is erosion vs. deposition: come coast is being heavily eroded while elsewhere, like deltas, material is being deposited. Also steeper beaches will see far less effect than beaches with very shallow slopes where a small change in sea level vs. the land corresponds to a large horizontal displacement. So with no details it is impossible to explain why a beach may seem unchanged because there are many reasons why that may be the case.
Equally simply seeing a beach get more and more inundated does not necessarily mean that sea levels are rising either. However, there is little reason to doubt sea level rises though. We know the globe is warming, we know water expands with increasing temperature once it is above a few degrees above zero and we can measure the rise directly itself. So the physics is extremely well understood: we know exactly why this is happening and we can measure it happening too using satellites to measure changes in sea levels over large areas.
Re: (Score:2)
However, you should be aware that coasts are affected by more that just sea level rises. In some places land is rising and in others it is sinking which can either increase or entirely offset any effect of sea level rise. Then there is erosion vs. deposition: come coast is being heavily eroded while elsewhere, like deltas, material is being deposited. Also steeper beaches will see far less effect than beaches with very shallow slopes where a small change in sea level vs. the land corresponds to a large horizontal displacement.
Tides. Many people know about tides, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Castillo de San Marcos - Built at Sea Level in 1672.
Castillo de San Marcos - Still at Sea Level in 2025.
Re: (Score:2)
that 4" is an average. some places it's barely changed. some places it's like a foot higher.
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There are no time lapsed beaches with same sea level.
4 inches are 10cm.
You do not "see that on an image". You read it at the scale of the side of the image. And then you average it over the current year ... and compare it with the average of "what ever year" you find interesting.
If you want to tell me, you know a secret beach where there is no sea level rise: good luck.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
44 years.
Cope and seethe
This will keep happening to you the more you reply to every single thing I've commented on in this thread
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you're talking about because I'm not watching some random video but it's likely there's some public GIS data that will answer that question.
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why do the elites keep buying oceanfront property?
I was not equipped to conceive of the import of a billion dollars from my personal experiences, but I can still understand that adding a bunch of zeroes to the right side of the number changes the considerations in ways that I do not viscerally understand. These people can afford to buy homes that are at risk of being washed away, especially since federal flood insurance exists. If flooding looks likely, they hop a plane (private or at worst, chartered) and get away from the drowning plebs.
Re: the oceans have been rising for 12,000 years (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they wrote about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: sea levels always rise (Score:2)
Re: sea levels always rise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know slashdot is deeply Christian, but why are the last 2000 years so sacred?
They aren't, but 20,000 to present includes the end of the last glacial maximum that we know ended due to the Milankovitch cycle when we know current warming isn't related to that.
Re: I mean, no, not really (Score:4, Insightful)
The result, of course, is a reinforcement of the good old "hockey stick" - little change until recently which fits a desired climate change narrative so much more neatly...
It also fits with reality, which is the ultimate arbiter.
Re: I mean, no, not really (Score:2)