7 ms·
Sea Levels Are Rising Faster Than Most Pessimistic Forecasts
- vixen99 6y agoSea level rise has been 2.12 cm (0.83 inches) since 1900. The graph (August 20th 2020) is here: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-led-study-reveals-the-causes-of-sea-level-rise-since-1900 https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-led-study-reveals-the-...
- wsc981 6y agoI guess that means many coastal resorts will be empty soon and property prices in those coastal resort areas will be plummeting. Wonder when banks will stop granting mortgages for coastal properties.
- keiferski 6y agoOr an increase in underwater and diving tourism. I imagine if Venice went completely underwater, the amount of tourism dollars actually might increase.
- pgsandstrom 6y agoVenice has almost 30 million visitors per year. There is no way 30 million people would go there for diving.
- keiferski 6y ago> tourism dollars I said dollars, not people.
- samus 6y agoVenice should evaluate whether moving the historic parts of the city is cheaper than shoring up its sea walls.
- njb311 6y agoOf course there is often opportunity coming out of catastrophe, though I doubt the displaced people would see it quite like that. In reality, sea level rise (barring any sudden shifts caused by ice shelves collapsing into the sea) is a slow process. Places will become uninhabitable in stages, first of all not because they are under water all the time but because the frequency of flooding is not economically sustainable. For some coastal populations that does not require a lot of rise from where we are today. Then you may have only 10s of cm of permanent water building up over decades and centuries. It’s a protracted process of inundation and it would be many generations before The Lost City of Venezia might be a tourist attraction, with an interim period where it is just a mess.
- VestingThrowawy 6y agoWere you dropped on your head as a baby? This might be the only explanation you'd think that.
- csa 6y agoI assume that this is some sort of commentary reflecting that you don’t think that global warming is an issue. If not, my apologies. If so, rising oceans create the following real problems that we are seeing now around the world: - contaminate fresh water aquifers (see Florida now). - flood wetlands (again, see Florida now). - contaminate agricultural soil with salt water (see Maryland now; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-water-farming-feature-idUSKBN1WA0XQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-water-farming-feature...). - increase erosion, especially during storm surges (see NC now; https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2974/cant-see-sea-level-rise-youre-looking-in-the-wrong-place/ https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2974/cant-see-sea-level-rise-y...). - flood low-lying areas during storms (see New Orleans, parts of the Netherlands, and Maldives now). - due to the above, lost habits for various flora and fauna. I am certain that seeing former beach resorts permanently underwater would probably be one of the most tangible ways to get people to believe in global warming, but Mother Nature is a bit more subtle than that while still being incredibly destructive.
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago> - flood low-lying areas during storms (see New Orleans, parts of the Netherlands, and Maldives now). I fully agree with your concerns regarding climate but specifically in the Netherlands the flooding of designated flood areas is actually by design, with well in advance warnings, these areas are pretty much designed to be escape valves. The Rijkswaterstaat even goes as far as monitoring upstream river flows from neighbouring countries to predict increased downstream river flow due to storms or alpine glaciar melts.
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago> The Rijkswaterstaat even goes as far as ... the Netherlands are already below sea level today - they had to think about building defenses since at least the Iron age[1]. So I guess they have somewhat a head-start. It should be in their "DNA" by now, some kind of "collective cognitive muscle memory" (still for such a tiny country and floods being a real threat already since always even they have many climate change deniers). For small countries zoning solutions can be applied everywhere equally (from both an engineering and administrative view). But Dutch dikes lend themselves poorly for comparisons against places that occupy the land of half a continent ranging from the arctic to the tropics and 6 time zones. I'm not saying it isn't a useful model in select regions/countries. but considering how poorly managed public safety is in the US today[2] it sadly takes more than ideas to prevent major loss of life. From [2]: "> You may wish to pretend that rising seas are a hoax perpetrated by scientists and a gullible news media. Or you can build barriers galore. But in the end, neither will provide adequate defense, the Dutch say." "> And what holds true for managing climate change applies to the social fabric, too. Environmental and social resilience should go hand in hand, officials here believe, improving neighborhoods, spreading equity and taming water during catastrophes." Millions will either be displaced or dead until the threat might be acknowledged. Even them I'm pessimistic considering folk on the ICU literally die of covid and still clam it is a hoax. I think the way people cope will be simply by tuning out the horror reports the same way we do today simply because the effects/damage will be distributed unevenly. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/15/world/europe/climate-change-rotterdam.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/15/world/europe/... [1] http://dutchdikes.net/history/ http://dutchdikes.net/history/ [2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big...
- dmichulke 6y agoWhat a strange headline. Reads like X is higher than most minima
- nairboon 6y agoBut it is X is higher than most maxima
- krona 6y agoThis shouldn't surprise anyone, but the conclusion of the paper doesn't support the headline. https://os.copernicus.org/articles/17/181/2021/#section6 https://os.copernicus.org/articles/17/181/2021/#section6
- gravelc 6y agoThe actual conclusion is still however rather worrying: "Taken together this suggests that the projected global sea level rise by the end of this century in various IPCC reports is at best conservative and consequently underestimates the upper bound of what is referred to as the likely sea level rise by the end of this century."
- coldtea 6y agoThe "by the end of this century" in these reports makes people not really care that much, for a few reasons... (a) Who can tell what can happen "by the end of this century"? That's too far in the future. (b) We have time, we can sort it out till then. (c) I'll be dead, and more likely than not my kids will be too, 80 years from now.
- roenxi 6y ago> (c) I'll be dead, and more likely than not my kids will be too, 80 years from now. This argument sounds sort of frivolous, but it is actually quite strong. If the climate was radically different 100 years ago, how many people would care, or even know?
- DyslexicAtheist 6y agoit's only frivolous if we do not count people who are soon becoming grand parents or those who already are.
- johnday 6y agoHuman beings have a standard operating temperature, and the higher the temperature rises across the world, the more people will now be born into unliveable temperatures. We in Canada or the United Kingdom might not notice, but I'm pretty sure those in Texas or Nigeria will.
- 2sk21 6y agoMotivated by reading an article about high tide flooding in Miami Beach, I recently spent some time looking at the coastline of Florida on Google Earth. It appears that there is an enormous amount of property right at sea level on both coasts. Looks like the effects of sea level rise on such properties may be visible within the next decade or two.
- vkou 6y agoFortunately, we have titans of political thought, like Ben Shapiro, who remind us that there is nothing to worry about. After all, the folks who live on the coast can just sell their homes and move inland.
- mhh__ 6y ago"Wouldn't you just sell your house and move?" Thanks Ben
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago"don't you think people aren't just going to sell their homes and move?" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-w-pdqwiBw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-w-pdqwiBw
- coldtea 6y agoWho would do the buying? Fish that need a house?
- 6y ago
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- alangibson 6y agoI'm sure about two things when it comes to climate change: 1) even the deniers now realize bad time are coming and 2) we have absolutely no intention of stopping it. We'd be better off if we immediately started working on mitigating this disaster (resettlement plans, replacing lost agricultural output, etc.) than pretending like we're going to make a dent in the severity of the changes.
- s5300 6y ago>>even the deniers now realize bad time are coming Hahaha... I take it you haven't spent much time in the MidWestern US We're still very much in the "I still see snow, stop talking about your hoaxes all the time" stage here.
- alangibson 6y agoI'm from rural Texas, so I know all about it. The state of the art in denialism is that it's happening, but it's 1) not that bad 2) has some good sides 3) likely not (fully) due to human causes
- flukus 6y ago> The state of the art in denialism They don't climb through the denialism steps like a ladder, they run through them like a mouse wheel. The people saying 1, 2 and 3 will be back to denying it's happening sooner or later. Some can run through all steps in the span of a single conversation.
- simonh 6y agoWell, we need to do both. There's no way to avoid some pretty painful consequences, and we need to be prepared for that, but we still need to clamp down hard on emissions to mitigate the worst effects down the line. I don't think it's fair to say we have no intention of stoping it. We were never going to prevent every consequence of climate change. It looks like we are not going to meet our targets, and even if we do the consequences are probably going to be worse than projected, but I think it's vitally important to stress that the steps we have taken so far were worthwhile and do matter. There's a real risk of complacency leading to resistance to further action, because it doesn't matter anymore because we've already lost. I see this on the denier side already, a lot of skeptics are switching from "it's a hoax" to, "well we can't stop it anyway so why bother trying?". That attitude can be given no quarter, comfort or succour. The positive steps we have taken have had a real, valuable positive effect, and we need to do more. I'm no fundamentalist on this, I'm a pragmatist. We do need to balance mitigation with prevention, and we're not going to be able to do as much prevention in practice than we'd like. This is the art of the possible, but there is a lot that we have done and a lot more that we can practically do, and it's all worthwhile. We need to convert those former skeptics into allies.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- _pmf_ 6y agoThen it's time for solutions that take it into account instead of fairy tale measures like riding the bike to work.
- einpoklum 6y agoThe option of riding a bike to work is 100% realistic when you live in a flat/planar area. Indeed, in many cities and towns in the world this is extremely popular. Of course, it's not an easy transformation from car-oriented urban planning.
- brandon272 6y agoWeather is a major factor. I live in an extremely flat area... in the Canadian prairies. Biking to work simply is not an option for most people for almost half the year.
- FriedrichN 6y agoAs someone who actually lives in the area in the satellite image shown in the article, this worries me. What worries me even more is that a few days ago on a local news website there was an article of a group warning the local government about rising sea levels, but most of the reactions were of climate denial. Saying that sea levels have been rising for centuries, but are not accelerating, that the island Tuvalu is growing[1] as some sort of proof that sea levels aren't rising. I wonder how these people figure how the icecaps can melt without raising the sea level. It's become very fashionable to be 'skeptic' these days. [1] which is actually sediment and reef growth, rising sea levels are still a large threat to the island https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/fact-check-is-the-island-nation-tuvalu-growing/10627318 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/fact-check-is-the-isl...
- arethuza 6y agoIt seems interesting that, at least amongst people I know, the "deniers" about things like covid and climate change are also the first to believe daft conspiracy theories. Why are some people so resistant to one set of idea and so open to other ideas?
- FriedrichN 6y agoMost of these 'movements' are merely contrarian in my opinion, is any perceived 'elite' for something? You're against! Are they against? You're all for it! A prime example is Covid-19 and hydroxychloroquine, on the one hand the virus is 'just a flu' because scientists and politicians say it's dangerous, on the other hand hydroxychloroquine is highly effective because scientists say it's either useless or dangerous. It reminds me of Orwell's idea of doublethink, holding two thoughts contradictory to each other but still accepting it as the truth.
- r00f 6y agoFrom my experience of talking to such denialists and conspirologists, it just comforts them to be a part of smaller group, so they feel like the chosen ones, like they know a secret that the most humanity doesn't. Of three COVID denialists that I personally know, two are flat earth believers and one believes in secret world government led by jews.
- pdimitar 6y agoSo can somebody TL;DR this? Taken this new more realistic data into account, what levels of sea rising are we looking at in 5 years? Or 10? Or 20? Or 50? Say you are pondering buying a beach estate but are not on the idea of sinking underwater. What would you pick?
- cudgy 6y agoWhy are historic fluctuations in global temperatures rarely mentioned in these articles? Actual historical figures are more trustworthy than future models based on multiple potentially false assumptions. Are we seeing a cultural desire to be “shocked” by the information we consume influence our research and funding of said researchers? The following site shows a graph over the last 3000 years or so that puts current temperatures at a high point, but it is within the range of recent fluctuations in global temps. I have seen graphs that go much further back in history that demonstrate current temperatures are lower than average. Should we take drastic measures to fight natural fluctuations in temps? How much influence is due to nature vs human? Has anyone addressed this properly? http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
- cudgy 6y agoHere is a graph of historical temperatures over millions of years ... note how projections at end of graph are wildly out of character from millions of years of data. https://phys.org/news/2020-09-high-fidelity-earth-climate-history-current.html https://phys.org/news/2020-09-high-fidelity-earth-climate-hi...
- bawana 6y agoSo when will all the politicians drown?
- gmuslera 6y agoBloomberg can't see past the end of their noses. They worry about property value, but if the sea level rise is worse than the most pessimistic forecasts means that a lot of other things (not just that particular symptom) are getting worse than expected, and they are bigger and far more destructive than a peaceful slow sea rise. For what they worry about, property value, could be at risk even if you are away from sea. Or in a few decades property value (and more things) may have no meaning at all.
- m463 6y agoThey could be sending a specific message to a specific audience. Maybe to the folks who have their hands on the levers of the machine.
- loopz 6y agoNobody has those levers. They're in-built to Nature. As we collectively continue down this path, there are irreversible lock-ins that just accellerate Climate Instability. If we lose this stability that bio-diversity provides us, we have no known way of turning back to normal anymore, or to sustain civilization as we know it. The later in the game we are before playing, the more it'll cost in damages and mitigation. This is on an exponential trajectory, so people won't truly notice until the last moment, ie. doubling from 50% to 100% in one "last" step. This is not to say another Ice Age is preferable, so the science will be of vital importance. This for dealing with uncertainty of which might even defer some decisions too.
- gmuslera 6y agoThe ones with the levers don't worry about the cost of a house. If it is a message with a target, it goes to middle-high class (but not high enough). And, again, as the message is mostly "water will eventually rise" is not an urgent enough message, nor as scary as it should really be.
- davidhbolton 6y agoPerhaps someone could ask Barack Obama and Al Gore about their opinion on sea level rise. Both seem to have bought expensive sea front properties so perhaps are not as concerned as they have publicly made out to be.
- phs318u 6y agoSix years ago Slate [0] were trying to convince people not fall for the reality TV shows pushing beach-front property on what some people would call "rubes". I find it hard to think that these shows aren't helping those already invested offload their assets before they become harder to sell (which doesn't require the water to be lapping at your front door, just a higher frequency of events like this [1]). [0] https://slate.com/technology/2014/08/beach-house-reality-tv-shows-do-not-buy-oceanfront-property.html https://slate.com/technology/2014/08/beach-house-reality-tv-... [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/21/australia/australia-coastal-erosion-homes-intl-hnk-scli/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/21/australia/australia-coast...