13 ms·

In the late 70's, I can remember a rash of stories on the nightly news, telling us that scientists were predicting that half of Florida was going to be underwat

In the late 70's, I can remember a rash of stories on the nightly news, telling us that scientists were predicting that half of Florida was going to be underwater by the 2000's. Perhaps, even as a kid, I was sensitized to reporting on science, since my 4th-grade science text book was also predicting we'd be in a mini ice age in the 80's, and completely out of oil by 2000. And, dang it, I was looking forward to driving. It's forty years later, and the only land that I've read about that we've lost to global ocean level rise is some "islands" in the South Pacific that were only a couple millimeters above sea level anyway. Can someone here point me to actual, significant, usable land loss due to rising sea level? I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I figure, if it had, it would be something that gets trotted out at every one of these discussions. Now we're getting a beautifully-rendered Times article where some NASA climatologist says that, in another 10 years, we could have some "significant retreat." After half a lifetime of hearing this, and not seeing anything like the kind of change that would threaten man's survival, I'm sorry, but I'm skeptical.

mannykannot 9y ago
If you were really interested in what is actually happening, you would not be using half-remembered journalism from forty years ago as your source of information.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
NOSHSHNACKERS 9y ago
Dude.. there is about 40% less Louisianna than when we were kids.. Lots of coastal areas esp Miami are flooding more offten and staying flooded longer So yeah.. oh and oil sands.. stuff they would never have touched when we were kids so yeah.. no need to be skeptical just open your eyes brother
Arnt 9y ago
I remember that too, but wasn't it the end of the century, not the beginning? And the measurements in Florida have shown a rise of more than 1mm/y for a while now.
thebooktocome 9y ago
Look at a map of Louisiana. https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-23/louisianas-coastline-disappearing-rate-football-field-hour https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-23/louisianas-coastline-...
- IanDrake 9y ago
  "Dramatic erosion and sinking land along the southeastern coast of Louisiana could lead to “the largest forced migration for environmental reasons in the history of the country,” a new report says." Not rising sea levels.
  - nissimk 9y ago
    I believe that is rising sea levels. The sea is not a static thing with a constant level as seen from land. The local level rises and falls with weather conditions and tides. As the general level rises, you would expect land close to the shore to wash away. Like when you build a sand castle on the beach and then the tide comes in and washes it into the sea.
    - AlgorithmicTime 9y ago
      IIRC, the sinking of Louisiana is more related to the channelization of the Mississippi. Without the sediment formerly delivered by yearly floods from the Misssissippi, the land is eroding away.
    - IanDrake 9y ago
      Well if you believe it...and with having the science of sand castles behind you, there's not much I can say.
      - nissimk 9y ago
        :-) Beyonce agrees with me too.
DanielBMarkham 9y ago
I'm afraid when the end of the world finally comes, there's going to be a ton of people who will be upset it didn't happen the way they wanted it to. I remember reading Bob Novak in the mid 2000s. Every week he'd predict that whatever the current news was, the United States would be pulling out of Iraq. Finally I emailed him. "Bob! Keep it up! Sooner or later you're bound to be right" He's not right yet, but my point holds. At some point, something really bad is going to happen that scientists have been predicting. Bound to happen. But once that happens, there will be a hundred other things that didn't make the cut. The precautionary principle is great, but not when you have dozens or hundreds of things all of which with potentially catastrophic consequences. Then it's all just so much noise.
geomark 9y ago
Doesn't get much coverage outside of Thailand, but there is a low lying coastal area called Khun Samut Chin that has been inundated by ocean for a distance of about 1km over the last couple of decades. It is a bit of a tourist destination now because while all of the houses have been moved to higher ground over the years there is a temple that is isolated out in the middle of the water. They say it is a combination of rising sea level and erosion. It might happen that way other places in the future, where a slight increase in sea level causes high tides and storm surges to reach father inland, resulting in land being washed away.
- aaron695 9y ago
  "A study published in 2009 by the University of Colorado at Boulder indicates that human factors are causing deltas in Asia and America to sink significantly. The study concludes that this problem is exacerbated by sediments being trapped upstream by reservoirs and dams, man-made channels and levees that whisk sediment into the oceans beyond coastal floodplains, and the accelerated compacting of floodplain sediment caused by the extraction of groundwater and natural gas." People always mention 'rising sea levels' with loss of land but it seems to me the real issue is local human behaviour. http://www.deltatimes.org/doc/deltatimes/turning-the-tide.pdf http://www.deltatimes.org/doc/deltatimes/turning-the-tide.pd...
  - geomark 9y ago
    Indeed. This is known to be a factor in the Bangkok area. Huge amounts of ground water are pumped from the aquifer and the land is subsiding as a result. It is making the a annual local flooding problem during rainy season worse, particularly when there is heavy runoff during a high tide.
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  A map of that area (the red dot is the temple.. left is 70s, center 90s): https://witnesstreephotography.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/monastra_120505_1364.jpg https://witnesstreephotography.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/m... We have an area similar to that in the US.. Louisiana 1932: https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/LandLossinSouthernLouisiana1932_HR.jpg https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/LandLossinSouthe... and in 2011: https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/LandLossinSouthernLouisiana2011_HR.jpg https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/LandLossinSouthe... And land loss along the atlantic coast: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/atlantic-coast https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/atlantic-coast And increased coastal flooding (note, some cities being flooded 40 days out of the year.. thats pretty significant): https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-coastal-flooding https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
gldalmaso 9y ago
After half a lifetime of hearing this and not caring, humanity might have failed when they do start to see visible effects and can no longer do anything about it. As I understand, the main point of the article is that if the huge sheet of ice dislodges from main land, it is essentially going to melt entirely and no longer slow more land ice from getting to the ocean faster. The timeframe in which the ice will melt is uncertain, but it will surely melt. So by the time you noticed water rising, it will be too late. By taking this wait and see approach, you are basically negligencing the problem to the next one or two, maybe three generations to helplessly endure. The main test for humanity here is if it can coordinate and take one for the team economically so as to prevent itself from actual catastrophe in the future generations. So far it's not looking good.
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  Imagine if we do all the work to prevent climate change, end up being wrong, and are left with a clean and sustainable economy.
  - twoodfin 9y ago
    In which the real incomes of billions of the poorest people are significantly lower thanks to decades of compounded lower economic growth? TANSTAAFL.
    - melling 9y ago
      As the economist Bjorn Lomborg has been quite vocal about, we have lots of global problems and fixing climate change isn't the biggest problem. https://youtu.be/pQSGuC9GF70 https://youtu.be/pQSGuC9GF70 He does argue that we should be spending a lot more on research to find cheaper solutions, however. [Update] While you're downvoting me, you should understand that I'm simply passing along one of main arguments made by the Republican party. You live in your echo chamber and they live in their's. Can anyone guess why we are moving backwards in addressing the problem?
      - 9y ago
rorykoehler 9y ago
Isn't the ocean bubbling up through the drainage in Florida?
mikkom 9y ago
Island nations of the pacific are another example in addition to already posted ones http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-thousands-flee-pacific-islands-on-front-line-of-climate-change-a6757796.html http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/glob... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/14/pacific-nations-beg-for-help-for-islanders-when-calamity-of-climate-change-hits https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/14/pacific-...
- GlobalChange 9y ago
  What does it have to do with CO2? Those islands weren't even there a couple of hundred thousand years ago, what's to say they will always be there. Nature is not static! The plaques will move anyway and those islands will disappear regardless. Now if we really want to make the debate better, let's take aside the causes for a minute, and someone please tell me what they are going to do with those people. Nature does not know political frontiers, color, gender, age. The poorest people (at least half of the planet population, being generous) are the one who will suffer. The one already without air conditioning, or access to electricity or drinkable water, or a hot bath by the turn of a tap. Those people are the ones that will be most affected by changes in climate (that are natural and will come and there's nothing we can do about it). But all those crying about global warming and and useless carbon agreements and bullshit international protocols by defunct international organizations (whose main objective is to keep their useless existence and fancy and useless jobs alive). Who in those privileged countries are going to receive those people? Are people in Australia receiving those inhabitants of Vanuatu? Is the US receiving those of Samoa? Because that is the real discussion and anyone ignoring that are just deceiving themselves. No matter how much CO2 you put or take from the atmosphere, it won't change Earth's temperature and its natural shifts. It's not I saying. Those are the laws of Physics. Anyone wants to introduce new physics, be my guest, but it has to work today, tomorrow, in the past, here, and on the other side of the universe. The physics of the cherry farm does not work. The real discussion, on which time, money, and efforts should be employed are on those questions. How to make "the transition" better for everyone. We will have to learn to work as one (regardless of gender, color, origin, political or religion view). If we cannot be real Humans, with capital H, well, I just hope the "doomsday-climate-change" comes as soon as possible, because we are not worth of walking this planet anyway.
nyfresh 9y ago
Unfortunately the media makes aggressive predictions either to get a point across or for ratings but it is happening. Miami is investing in mediating current and future floods. I feel the fact that flood prevention is a significant part of your budget and planning that says something https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1dnlHPzhQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1dnlHPzhQA
- IanDrake 9y ago
  Miami has an erosion problem.
Gravityloss 9y ago
Do you happen to have sources for the seventies stories? Maybe even in New York times?
- jessriedel 9y ago
  (Thanks for just asking for sources rather than immediately attacking the intensions of the grandparent.) So a couple of Google searches show that there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of online lists of failed predictions of climate change maintained by climate change skeptics. For instance: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-e... From that list, I picked one story to track down: > On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UNEP’s New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Worryingly, searching for this headline mostly returned more climate change skeptics websites. But this isn't totally unexpected since it dates to before internet adoption, and I was eventually able to find this archive photo from a local newspaper that appears to substantiate it. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/83413062/ https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/83413062/ Thats just sample size 1, though. Will see if I can find a NYTimes article. Edit: So a lot of these lists look like copypasta. Some are partial, but here is a pretty complete version: http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1099963/121_failed_climate_predictions http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/109996... There are several mentions of the NY Times, and the two I checked were real (including at least one which was just a letter to the editor, and so not endorsed by the paper.) Note that these predictions are generally for global cooling. Many people says it's unfair to quote these claims because they did not represent the consensus position at the time (but this doesn't invalidate the grandparent's claim; he doesn't say NY Times). Anyhow, I would love to someone else take this further, but my initial impression is that the claim "there were a bunch of plausible sounding stories about coastal flooding in reputable newspapers" is probably true, but that this doesn't mean it reflected a consensus view back then. On the other hand, the current story also doesn't reflect a consensus view regarding any near- or medium-term claims.
flukus 9y ago
Can you cite any actual science to back that up? And make sure you exclude any sources that say "as early as 2000". Or is this the new denialist meme? Instead of "in the 70s they were warning us about a new ice age" it's evolved into "in the 70s they said we'd have drowned by now". I suppose it's getting slowly closer to the actual state of science.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Climate models back in the 70s were very crude. There were only about two decades of atmospheric CO2 measurements. And, as I recall, predictions were stated with far greater uncertainty. So I wouldn't be surprised if some high-end estimates are clearly wrong by now. Edit: But maybe initial models were decent enough: The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-f...
  - flukus 9y ago
    > And, as I recall, predictions were stated with far greater uncertainty. The bigger problem is people taking the upper bound of that uncertainty and concluding they were wrong because reality turned out to not be near the upper bound. Kind of like how political polls are "wrong", even when the result falls within the margin of error.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      True. But some writers (even science writers) sensationalize by focusing on upper-bound estimates. And most people never see primary sources, even abstracts or executive summaries.
      - flukus 9y ago
        In headlines maybe, the articles almost always include phrases like "as early as 20xx" that communicate the uncertainty.
IanDrake 9y ago
Billingsgate island off Eastham Ma. That was pre fossil fuels and was really caused by erosion. My point of posting it is that the sea takes things for various reasons and land is not static either. Land can be sinking or rising for geological reasons and we have to be careful what some might attribute to sea level rise.
codecamper 9y ago
Good for you. I think you should back up your words & plunk down some cash on some ocean front property somewhere.
Retric 9y ago
What your remembering from the 70's was actually happening then. In Florida 50 square miles of wetlands were disappearing each year. Thing was it was caused by erosion and frankly we changed how water flowed across much of Florida and rearranged a lot of the coast to keep it from happening. But, this is not just limited to Florida. We now do a lot to keep coastline looking like you're used to. The barrier islands around North and South Carolina are largely man made structures at this point. However, beach houses are built on stilts and you can keep moving sand so it's not that noticeable. But, the larger context of what's going on is flooding keeps getting worse. NYC for example was underwater in a recent storm doing a lot of damage and largely shutting down the city. Such events are going to become more regular as it goes form Massive storm surge, to normal storm surge, to unusual high tides, to regular high tides. But, NYC is on bedrock so they can use dikes and keep things ok. Other areas like Miami with different geology can't use the same approach. PS: Also, don't forget, Chicago Was Raised Over Four Feet in the 19th Century. So, if you’re willing to spend a lot of money we can keep building in swamps.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Yeah, Florida is mostly porous limestone and old coral. Dikes are useless, because water leaks underneath.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
  Miami has been investing heavily in water pumping systems because they experience 'sunny day' flooding as a result of sea level rise and high tides. It will buy them some time but eventually they're going to either have to abandon ship or go full Venice.
  - Balgair 9y ago
    Honestly, that would be pretty cool to see. Like, yeah, the path there is not 'fun', but a Venician Miami would be really cool if we could just snap our fingers and be at the end point.
    - oAlbe 9y ago
mannykannot 9y ago
As your only criterion for validity seems to be that something has already happened, an article that attempts to use the scientific method to explore future possibilities is not for you.
Steuard 9y ago
Here's an earlier NY Times article about a coastal Virginia community where property values are plummeting because a combination of rising sea levels and sinking land levels is gradually flooding the whole place out: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/magazine/when-rising-seas-transform-risk-into-certainty.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/magazine/when-rising-seas... (They're seeing the effect faster because it's not just rising seas at work, but the rising seas are definitely part of it. This pattern will be increasingly common over time.)
- erroneousfunk 9y ago
  Looking for a house in the Boston area last year, I definitely turned down some properties because of the risk during sea level rise. Regardless of what the seas actually do, increasing _concern_ about climate change could impact my future property value, which I wanted to avoid. My real estate agent was relatively new to the business, but she said she hadn't heard of anyone bringing climate change up as a factor in deciding which house to buy, which I thought was odd. My house is safe up to about a 10 meter rise now!
api 9y ago
You have to make bold (and often later false) predictions to get peoples' attention. Nobody pays attention to "scientists predict that there is a 10% chance of X in 20 years, a 25% chance in 50 years, and a 50% chance in 100 years" type stuff even if X is something really bad. To get the media and the average busy person to pay attention, it must be an emergency. It must be a crisis. But... it's a catch-22. When you make those kinds of bold, sensational predictions you lose the thinking people who pay attention. They'll notice that your prediction is unlikely and later turns out to be false. They'll make a note of it and never listen to you again. Some day we will really run out of certain fossil fuels, and if we haven't made them obsolete by then we are in big trouble. Some day if we keep dumping CO2 and methane into the atmosphere we will trigger some kind of runaway climate effect with potentially disastrous consequences. We also may trigger something like an ocean anoxic event. When will these things happen? Nobody knows, but it could be within our lifetimes (especially with life extension maybe coming) and it's even more likely within our childrens' lifetimes. "Why didn't anyone say something!?!?" They did, but they did too early and in the wrong way. But if they'd said it calmly and rationally nobody would have paid attention either. P.S. I personally find ocean acidification far scarier than climate change. We can move cities a lot easier than we can figure out how to survive without the oceans.
Tepix 9y ago
The Netherlands are spending several billion euros to build larger dams. They do this because of the rising sea levels.
- misja111 9y ago
  I'm from The Netherlands and this is news for me. Do you have a source?
  - Tepix 9y ago
    https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deltaprogramma https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deltaprogramma
hiddencost 9y ago
I've been seen a lot of "reasonable sounding" climate skeptics on HN lately. What's going on? I struggle to believe this community is _that_ ignorant; either I'm wrong or there's a fairly intentional and sophisticated astroturfing campaign going on.
- Udik 9y ago
  Maybe they sound reasonable because they are reasonable?
  - Certhas 9y ago
    I think reasonable climate sceptic is no longer possible. To be a climate sceptic requires wilful ignorance of evidence.
- curiousgeorgio 9y ago
  Have you ever considered the possibility of the alarmists being the ones actually involved in an "intentional and sophisticated astroturfing campaign" of global scale? You may disagree with climate change skepticism, but you still ought to recognize the fact that a group of government-funded scientists with incomes tied to political agendas all screaming "but almost all of us agree on this thing!" in every media outlet is a bit suspicious (as if the laws of nature have anything to do with size of your bandwagon). Add the fact that they've been demonstrably wrong over and over again for the past 50+ years, and it smells even more fishy. You may not change your position on the matter, but it shouldn't be surprising that even educated people (especially those who have heard these predictions for decades) are skeptical.
  - andygates 9y ago
    It's not "we agree", it's "all the different strands of evidence agree": that's the difference between a scientific consensus and a social (ie, bandwagon) one.
    - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
self_assembly 9y ago
> In the late 70's, I can remember a rash of stories on the nightly news, telling us that scientists were predicting that half of Florida was going to be underwater by the 2000's. Perhaps, even as a kid, I was sensitized to reporting on science, since my 4th-grade science text book was also predicting we'd be in a mini ice age in the 80's, and completely out of oil by 2000. And, dang it, I was looking forward to driving. Isn't the difference with today the consensus among scientist. In any time period you can probably find some scientist making exaggerated claims about X. It feels a lot different when you have hundreds of scientist coming together to write things like IPCC reports. This isn't just some scientist says X. This is the vast majority of scientist more or less agree that X is a major problem.
- triangleman 9y ago
  I think you may have been misinformed. There is a consensus that CO2 in the atmosphere has an affect on global temperatures. I don't think there is any consensus that it's a major problem, nor is there a consensus on the best course of action (of course that's a political question not a scientific one).
marcosdumay 9y ago
I was born in the 80's, and not in US, so my perspective is certainly different. But I don't remember ever reading a serious article about running out of oil by 2000 (saw a few about 2050), and about cities being under water by now. There were plenty of those things in popular literature and movies. But not in serious reporting, even science reporting being as bad as it was.

mannykannot 9y ago

If you were really interested in what is actually happening, you would not be using half-remembered journalism from forty years ago as your source of information.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

NOSHSHNACKERS 9y ago

Dude.. there is about 40% less Louisianna than when we were kids.. Lots of coastal areas esp Miami are flooding more offten and staying flooded longer So yeah.. oh and oil sands.. stuff they would never have touched when we were kids so yeah.. no need to be skeptical just open your eyes brother

Arnt 9y ago

I remember that too, but wasn't it the end of the century, not the beginning? And the measurements in Florida have shown a rise of more than 1mm/y for a while now.

thebooktocome 9y ago

Look at a map of Louisiana. https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-23/louisianas-coastline-disappearing-rate-football-field-hour https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-23/louisianas-coastline-...

IanDrake 9y ago
"Dramatic erosion and sinking land along the southeastern coast of Louisiana could lead to “the largest forced migration for environmental reasons in the history of the country,” a new report says." Not rising sea levels.
- nissimk 9y ago
  I believe that is rising sea levels. The sea is not a static thing with a constant level as seen from land. The local level rises and falls with weather conditions and tides. As the general level rises, you would expect land close to the shore to wash away. Like when you build a sand castle on the beach and then the tide comes in and washes it into the sea.
  - AlgorithmicTime 9y ago
    IIRC, the sinking of Louisiana is more related to the channelization of the Mississippi. Without the sediment formerly delivered by yearly floods from the Misssissippi, the land is eroding away.
  - IanDrake 9y ago
    Well if you believe it...and with having the science of sand castles behind you, there's not much I can say.
    - nissimk 9y ago
      :-) Beyonce agrees with me too.

DanielBMarkham 9y ago

I'm afraid when the end of the world finally comes, there's going to be a ton of people who will be upset it didn't happen the way they wanted it to. I remember reading Bob Novak in the mid 2000s. Every week he'd predict that whatever the current news was, the United States would be pulling out of Iraq. Finally I emailed him. "Bob! Keep it up! Sooner or later you're bound to be right" He's not right yet, but my point holds. At some point, something really bad is going to happen that scientists have been predicting. Bound to happen. But once that happens, there will be a hundred other things that didn't make the cut. The precautionary principle is great, but not when you have dozens or hundreds of things all of which with potentially catastrophic consequences. Then it's all just so much noise.

geomark 9y ago

Doesn't get much coverage outside of Thailand, but there is a low lying coastal area called Khun Samut Chin that has been inundated by ocean for a distance of about 1km over the last couple of decades. It is a bit of a tourist destination now because while all of the houses have been moved to higher ground over the years there is a temple that is isolated out in the middle of the water. They say it is a combination of rising sea level and erosion. It might happen that way other places in the future, where a slight increase in sea level causes high tides and storm surges to reach father inland, resulting in land being washed away.

aaron695 9y ago
"A study published in 2009 by the University of Colorado at Boulder indicates that human factors are causing deltas in Asia and America to sink significantly. The study concludes that this problem is exacerbated by sediments being trapped upstream by reservoirs and dams, man-made channels and levees that whisk sediment into the oceans beyond coastal floodplains, and the accelerated compacting of floodplain sediment caused by the extraction of groundwater and natural gas." People always mention 'rising sea levels' with loss of land but it seems to me the real issue is local human behaviour. http://www.deltatimes.org/doc/deltatimes/turning-the-tide.pdf http://www.deltatimes.org/doc/deltatimes/turning-the-tide.pd...
- geomark 9y ago
  Indeed. This is known to be a factor in the Bangkok area. Huge amounts of ground water are pumped from the aquifer and the land is subsiding as a result. It is making the a annual local flooding problem during rainy season worse, particularly when there is heavy runoff during a high tide.
rgbrenner 9y ago
A map of that area (the red dot is the temple.. left is 70s, center 90s): https://witnesstreephotography.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/monastra_120505_1364.jpg https://witnesstreephotography.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/m... We have an area similar to that in the US.. Louisiana 1932: https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/LandLossinSouthernLouisiana1932_HR.jpg https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/LandLossinSouthe... and in 2011: https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/LandLossinSouthernLouisiana2011_HR.jpg https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/LandLossinSouthe... And land loss along the atlantic coast: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/atlantic-coast https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/atlantic-coast And increased coastal flooding (note, some cities being flooded 40 days out of the year.. thats pretty significant): https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-coastal-flooding https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...

gldalmaso 9y ago

After half a lifetime of hearing this and not caring, humanity might have failed when they do start to see visible effects and can no longer do anything about it. As I understand, the main point of the article is that if the huge sheet of ice dislodges from main land, it is essentially going to melt entirely and no longer slow more land ice from getting to the ocean faster. The timeframe in which the ice will melt is uncertain, but it will surely melt. So by the time you noticed water rising, it will be too late. By taking this wait and see approach, you are basically negligencing the problem to the next one or two, maybe three generations to helplessly endure. The main test for humanity here is if it can coordinate and take one for the team economically so as to prevent itself from actual catastrophe in the future generations. So far it's not looking good.

rainbowmverse 9y ago
Imagine if we do all the work to prevent climate change, end up being wrong, and are left with a clean and sustainable economy.
- twoodfin 9y ago
  In which the real incomes of billions of the poorest people are significantly lower thanks to decades of compounded lower economic growth? TANSTAAFL.
  - melling 9y ago
    As the economist Bjorn Lomborg has been quite vocal about, we have lots of global problems and fixing climate change isn't the biggest problem. https://youtu.be/pQSGuC9GF70 https://youtu.be/pQSGuC9GF70 He does argue that we should be spending a lot more on research to find cheaper solutions, however. [Update] While you're downvoting me, you should understand that I'm simply passing along one of main arguments made by the Republican party. You live in your echo chamber and they live in their's. Can anyone guess why we are moving backwards in addressing the problem?
    - 9y ago

rorykoehler 9y ago

Isn't the ocean bubbling up through the drainage in Florida?

mikkom 9y ago

Island nations of the pacific are another example in addition to already posted ones http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/global-warming-thousands-flee-pacific-islands-on-front-line-of-climate-change-a6757796.html http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/glob... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/14/pacific-nations-beg-for-help-for-islanders-when-calamity-of-climate-change-hits https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/14/pacific-...

GlobalChange 9y ago
What does it have to do with CO2? Those islands weren't even there a couple of hundred thousand years ago, what's to say they will always be there. Nature is not static! The plaques will move anyway and those islands will disappear regardless. Now if we really want to make the debate better, let's take aside the causes for a minute, and someone please tell me what they are going to do with those people. Nature does not know political frontiers, color, gender, age. The poorest people (at least half of the planet population, being generous) are the one who will suffer. The one already without air conditioning, or access to electricity or drinkable water, or a hot bath by the turn of a tap. Those people are the ones that will be most affected by changes in climate (that are natural and will come and there's nothing we can do about it). But all those crying about global warming and and useless carbon agreements and bullshit international protocols by defunct international organizations (whose main objective is to keep their useless existence and fancy and useless jobs alive). Who in those privileged countries are going to receive those people? Are people in Australia receiving those inhabitants of Vanuatu? Is the US receiving those of Samoa? Because that is the real discussion and anyone ignoring that are just deceiving themselves. No matter how much CO2 you put or take from the atmosphere, it won't change Earth's temperature and its natural shifts. It's not I saying. Those are the laws of Physics. Anyone wants to introduce new physics, be my guest, but it has to work today, tomorrow, in the past, here, and on the other side of the universe. The physics of the cherry farm does not work. The real discussion, on which time, money, and efforts should be employed are on those questions. How to make "the transition" better for everyone. We will have to learn to work as one (regardless of gender, color, origin, political or religion view). If we cannot be real Humans, with capital H, well, I just hope the "doomsday-climate-change" comes as soon as possible, because we are not worth of walking this planet anyway.

nyfresh 9y ago

Unfortunately the media makes aggressive predictions either to get a point across or for ratings but it is happening. Miami is investing in mediating current and future floods. I feel the fact that flood prevention is a significant part of your budget and planning that says something https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1dnlHPzhQA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1dnlHPzhQA

IanDrake 9y ago
Miami has an erosion problem.

Gravityloss 9y ago

Do you happen to have sources for the seventies stories? Maybe even in New York times?

jessriedel 9y ago
(Thanks for just asking for sources rather than immediately attacking the intensions of the grandparent.) So a couple of Google searches show that there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of online lists of failed predictions of climate change maintained by climate change skeptics. For instance: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-e... From that list, I picked one story to track down: > On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UNEP’s New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Worryingly, searching for this headline mostly returned more climate change skeptics websites. But this isn't totally unexpected since it dates to before internet adoption, and I was eventually able to find this archive photo from a local newspaper that appears to substantiate it. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/83413062/ https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/83413062/ Thats just sample size 1, though. Will see if I can find a NYTimes article. Edit: So a lot of these lists look like copypasta. Some are partial, but here is a pretty complete version: http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1099963/121_failed_climate_predictions http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/109996... There are several mentions of the NY Times, and the two I checked were real (including at least one which was just a letter to the editor, and so not endorsed by the paper.) Note that these predictions are generally for global cooling. Many people says it's unfair to quote these claims because they did not represent the consensus position at the time (but this doesn't invalidate the grandparent's claim; he doesn't say NY Times). Anyhow, I would love to someone else take this further, but my initial impression is that the claim "there were a bunch of plausible sounding stories about coastal flooding in reputable newspapers" is probably true, but that this doesn't mean it reflected a consensus view back then. On the other hand, the current story also doesn't reflect a consensus view regarding any near- or medium-term claims.

flukus 9y ago

Can you cite any actual science to back that up? And make sure you exclude any sources that say "as early as 2000". Or is this the new denialist meme? Instead of "in the 70s they were warning us about a new ice age" it's evolved into "in the 70s they said we'd have drowned by now". I suppose it's getting slowly closer to the actual state of science.

mirimir 9y ago
Climate models back in the 70s were very crude. There were only about two decades of atmospheric CO2 measurements. And, as I recall, predictions were stated with far greater uncertainty. So I wouldn't be surprised if some high-end estimates are clearly wrong by now. Edit: But maybe initial models were decent enough: The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-f...
- flukus 9y ago
  > And, as I recall, predictions were stated with far greater uncertainty. The bigger problem is people taking the upper bound of that uncertainty and concluding they were wrong because reality turned out to not be near the upper bound. Kind of like how political polls are "wrong", even when the result falls within the margin of error.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    True. But some writers (even science writers) sensationalize by focusing on upper-bound estimates. And most people never see primary sources, even abstracts or executive summaries.
    - flukus 9y ago
      In headlines maybe, the articles almost always include phrases like "as early as 20xx" that communicate the uncertainty.

IanDrake 9y ago

Billingsgate island off Eastham Ma. That was pre fossil fuels and was really caused by erosion. My point of posting it is that the sea takes things for various reasons and land is not static either. Land can be sinking or rising for geological reasons and we have to be careful what some might attribute to sea level rise.

codecamper 9y ago

Good for you. I think you should back up your words & plunk down some cash on some ocean front property somewhere.

Retric 9y ago

What your remembering from the 70's was actually happening then. In Florida 50 square miles of wetlands were disappearing each year. Thing was it was caused by erosion and frankly we changed how water flowed across much of Florida and rearranged a lot of the coast to keep it from happening. But, this is not just limited to Florida. We now do a lot to keep coastline looking like you're used to. The barrier islands around North and South Carolina are largely man made structures at this point. However, beach houses are built on stilts and you can keep moving sand so it's not that noticeable. But, the larger context of what's going on is flooding keeps getting worse. NYC for example was underwater in a recent storm doing a lot of damage and largely shutting down the city. Such events are going to become more regular as it goes form Massive storm surge, to normal storm surge, to unusual high tides, to regular high tides. But, NYC is on bedrock so they can use dikes and keep things ok. Other areas like Miami with different geology can't use the same approach. PS: Also, don't forget, Chicago Was Raised Over Four Feet in the 19th Century. So, if you’re willing to spend a lot of money we can keep building in swamps.

mirimir 9y ago
Yeah, Florida is mostly porous limestone and old coral. Dikes are useless, because water leaks underneath.
SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
Miami has been investing heavily in water pumping systems because they experience 'sunny day' flooding as a result of sea level rise and high tides. It will buy them some time but eventually they're going to either have to abandon ship or go full Venice.
- Balgair 9y ago
  Honestly, that would be pretty cool to see. Like, yeah, the path there is not 'fun', but a Venician Miami would be really cool if we could just snap our fingers and be at the end point.
  - oAlbe 9y ago

mannykannot 9y ago

As your only criterion for validity seems to be that something has already happened, an article that attempts to use the scientific method to explore future possibilities is not for you.

Steuard 9y ago

Here's an earlier NY Times article about a coastal Virginia community where property values are plummeting because a combination of rising sea levels and sinking land levels is gradually flooding the whole place out: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/magazine/when-rising-seas-transform-risk-into-certainty.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/magazine/when-rising-seas... (They're seeing the effect faster because it's not just rising seas at work, but the rising seas are definitely part of it. This pattern will be increasingly common over time.)

erroneousfunk 9y ago
Looking for a house in the Boston area last year, I definitely turned down some properties because of the risk during sea level rise. Regardless of what the seas actually do, increasing _concern_ about climate change could impact my future property value, which I wanted to avoid. My real estate agent was relatively new to the business, but she said she hadn't heard of anyone bringing climate change up as a factor in deciding which house to buy, which I thought was odd. My house is safe up to about a 10 meter rise now!

api 9y ago

You have to make bold (and often later false) predictions to get peoples' attention. Nobody pays attention to "scientists predict that there is a 10% chance of X in 20 years, a 25% chance in 50 years, and a 50% chance in 100 years" type stuff even if X is something really bad. To get the media and the average busy person to pay attention, it must be an emergency. It must be a crisis. But... it's a catch-22. When you make those kinds of bold, sensational predictions you lose the thinking people who pay attention. They'll notice that your prediction is unlikely and later turns out to be false. They'll make a note of it and never listen to you again. Some day we will really run out of certain fossil fuels, and if we haven't made them obsolete by then we are in big trouble. Some day if we keep dumping CO2 and methane into the atmosphere we will trigger some kind of runaway climate effect with potentially disastrous consequences. We also may trigger something like an ocean anoxic event. When will these things happen? Nobody knows, but it could be within our lifetimes (especially with life extension maybe coming) and it's even more likely within our childrens' lifetimes. "Why didn't anyone say something!?!?" They did, but they did too early and in the wrong way. But if they'd said it calmly and rationally nobody would have paid attention either. P.S. I personally find ocean acidification far scarier than climate change. We can move cities a lot easier than we can figure out how to survive without the oceans.

Tepix 9y ago

The Netherlands are spending several billion euros to build larger dams. They do this because of the rising sea levels.

misja111 9y ago
I'm from The Netherlands and this is news for me. Do you have a source?
- Tepix 9y ago
  https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deltaprogramma https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deltaprogramma

hiddencost 9y ago

I've been seen a lot of "reasonable sounding" climate skeptics on HN lately. What's going on? I struggle to believe this community is _that_ ignorant; either I'm wrong or there's a fairly intentional and sophisticated astroturfing campaign going on.

Udik 9y ago
Maybe they sound reasonable because they are reasonable?
- Certhas 9y ago
  I think reasonable climate sceptic is no longer possible. To be a climate sceptic requires wilful ignorance of evidence.
curiousgeorgio 9y ago
Have you ever considered the possibility of the alarmists being the ones actually involved in an "intentional and sophisticated astroturfing campaign" of global scale? You may disagree with climate change skepticism, but you still ought to recognize the fact that a group of government-funded scientists with incomes tied to political agendas all screaming "but almost all of us agree on this thing!" in every media outlet is a bit suspicious (as if the laws of nature have anything to do with size of your bandwagon). Add the fact that they've been demonstrably wrong over and over again for the past 50+ years, and it smells even more fishy. You may not change your position on the matter, but it shouldn't be surprising that even educated people (especially those who have heard these predictions for decades) are skeptical.
- andygates 9y ago
  It's not "we agree", it's "all the different strands of evidence agree": that's the difference between a scientific consensus and a social (ie, bandwagon) one.
  - curiousgeorgio 9y ago

self_assembly 9y ago

> In the late 70's, I can remember a rash of stories on the nightly news, telling us that scientists were predicting that half of Florida was going to be underwater by the 2000's. Perhaps, even as a kid, I was sensitized to reporting on science, since my 4th-grade science text book was also predicting we'd be in a mini ice age in the 80's, and completely out of oil by 2000. And, dang it, I was looking forward to driving. Isn't the difference with today the consensus among scientist. In any time period you can probably find some scientist making exaggerated claims about X. It feels a lot different when you have hundreds of scientist coming together to write things like IPCC reports. This isn't just some scientist says X. This is the vast majority of scientist more or less agree that X is a major problem.

triangleman 9y ago
I think you may have been misinformed. There is a consensus that CO2 in the atmosphere has an affect on global temperatures. I don't think there is any consensus that it's a major problem, nor is there a consensus on the best course of action (of course that's a political question not a scientific one).

marcosdumay 9y ago

I was born in the 80's, and not in US, so my perspective is certainly different. But I don't remember ever reading a serious article about running out of oil by 2000 (saw a few about 2050), and about cities being under water by now. There were plenty of those things in popular literature and movies. But not in serious reporting, even science reporting being as bad as it was.