9 ms·

Surprisingly if you put it to 20 meters the effect globally seem insignificant. Although 80% of my own country would be flooded, so that's not great.

by arno_v 5y ago

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
On a global scale, sure, but as you pointed out for some spots it wouldn't be good. Both Miami and New York (to a lesser extent) would be having a bad time.
jazzyjackson 5y ago
I guess you mean the shape of the countries doesn't change much? iirc the majority of Earth's population lives on coastlines, most major cities will be inundated
- lijogdfljk 5y ago
  They'll have a _long_ time to migrate though, no?
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    The rise in sea level is something of a misnomer, because the real damage comes in storm surges. Even a 1cm rise increases the amount of water that can pushed inland by *checks notes* a whole helluva lot. So while manhattan isn't going to be put underwater even after a whole foot of sea level rise (predicted by 2100), the storms it has to survive will be much worse. People won't move just from a little water in the roads (just look at Miami), I think even in the year 2099 you'll have a hard time getting new yorkers to move to ohio, but once a storm comes through and destroys their housing they will have to find somewhere else to live.
    - France_is_bacon 5y ago
  - bigthymer 5y ago
    Housing is super expensive for people now. All of that coastal infrastructure will need to be rebuilt.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      But housing isn't expensive because it's hard to build. It's expensive because building it isn't allowed. If it all had to be rebuilt, that would be much cheaper than trying to build it under existing conditions.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  Yeah, I was looking at this and thinking "At 20m, basically the entire Eastern and Southern Seaboard of the US is gone."
  - Maursault 5y ago
    Not at all. Those living along the shore have flood insurance which will continue to pay for restoration of the coastline.
    - ehnto 5y ago
      Insurance isn't an endless bucket of money, and it's also going to adapt. Eventually you just won't be able to get insurance for properties in areas like that. Just look at the floods in New Orleans or the current flooding along the east coast of Australia, I doubt there's enough money to make all those affected whole again. I think insurance may be the main driver for when people actually decide to move. People are pretty resilient, but if you can't get a home loan because you can't get insurance, people won't keep living there.
    - chiefalchemist 5y ago
      I live in NJ. As I understand it, the state gov - via taxpayers, obviously - subsidizes property insurance at the shore (as NJ calls the beach). That generosity isn't endless.
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        These communities are wealthy and influential. Places like Buffalo will go bankrupt keeping places like NYC above water.
Sebb767 5y ago
The big problem, as a sister comment pointed out, is that, for various reasons, a lot of people live close to the coast line. And a lot of people having to move was historically never really a good for peace, plus we loose a lot of agriculturally valuable land in the process.
- _0w8t 5y ago
  Transportation by water is like 50 times cheaper than by land and it has been like that for at least the last 2000 years. So most people live either along the coast or along rivers.
scruple 5y ago
At 20 meters, the Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, and parts of Orange county are significantly impacted.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Well if California goes, we might as well all pack up, civilisation is over.
  - scruple 5y ago
    Okay. So what do you think will happen when a significant chunk of the United States economic power is under water?
    - oceanplexian 5y ago
      I suspect it will look like Amsterdam, or Venice, or any number of cities that figured out how to cope with existing at or below sea level.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - gus_massa 5y ago
      From https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148494/anticipating-future-sea-levels https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148494/anticipating... > In its 2019 report, the IPCC projected (chart above) 0.6 to 1.1 meters (1 to 3 feet) of global sea level rise by 2100 (or about 15 millimeters per year) if greenhouse gas emissions remain at high rates (RCP8.5). By 2300, seas could stand as much as 5 meters higher under the worst-case scenario. I guess thy will migrate the datacenters before 2300.
    - refurb 5y ago
      Mostly knowledge workers. Remote work already reducing potential impact.
    - 5y ago
r00fus 5y ago
And as Lex Luthor pointed out in Superman1, there may be profit to be had. So honestly, two sides to that coin, amirite?

Surprisingly if you put it to 20 meters the effect globally seem insignificant. Although 80% of my own country would be flooded, so that's not great.

by arno_v 5y ago

Surprisingly if you put it to 20 meters the effect globally seem insignificant. Although 80% of my own country would be flooded, so that's not great.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago

On a global scale, sure, but as you pointed out for some spots it wouldn't be good. Both Miami and New York (to a lesser extent) would be having a bad time.

jazzyjackson 5y ago

I guess you mean the shape of the countries doesn't change much? iirc the majority of Earth's population lives on coastlines, most major cities will be inundated

lijogdfljk 5y ago
They'll have a _long_ time to migrate though, no?
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  The rise in sea level is something of a misnomer, because the real damage comes in storm surges. Even a 1cm rise increases the amount of water that can pushed inland by *checks notes* a whole helluva lot. So while manhattan isn't going to be put underwater even after a whole foot of sea level rise (predicted by 2100), the storms it has to survive will be much worse. People won't move just from a little water in the roads (just look at Miami), I think even in the year 2099 you'll have a hard time getting new yorkers to move to ohio, but once a storm comes through and destroys their housing they will have to find somewhere else to live.
  - France_is_bacon 5y ago
- bigthymer 5y ago
  Housing is super expensive for people now. All of that coastal infrastructure will need to be rebuilt.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    But housing isn't expensive because it's hard to build. It's expensive because building it isn't allowed. If it all had to be rebuilt, that would be much cheaper than trying to build it under existing conditions.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Yeah, I was looking at this and thinking "At 20m, basically the entire Eastern and Southern Seaboard of the US is gone."
- Maursault 5y ago
  Not at all. Those living along the shore have flood insurance which will continue to pay for restoration of the coastline.
  - ehnto 5y ago
    Insurance isn't an endless bucket of money, and it's also going to adapt. Eventually you just won't be able to get insurance for properties in areas like that. Just look at the floods in New Orleans or the current flooding along the east coast of Australia, I doubt there's enough money to make all those affected whole again. I think insurance may be the main driver for when people actually decide to move. People are pretty resilient, but if you can't get a home loan because you can't get insurance, people won't keep living there.
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    I live in NJ. As I understand it, the state gov - via taxpayers, obviously - subsidizes property insurance at the shore (as NJ calls the beach). That generosity isn't endless.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      These communities are wealthy and influential. Places like Buffalo will go bankrupt keeping places like NYC above water.

Sebb767 5y ago

The big problem, as a sister comment pointed out, is that, for various reasons, a lot of people live close to the coast line. And a lot of people having to move was historically never really a good for peace, plus we loose a lot of agriculturally valuable land in the process.

_0w8t 5y ago
Transportation by water is like 50 times cheaper than by land and it has been like that for at least the last 2000 years. So most people live either along the coast or along rivers.

scruple 5y ago

At 20 meters, the Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, and parts of Orange county are significantly impacted.

rich_sasha 5y ago
Well if California goes, we might as well all pack up, civilisation is over.
- scruple 5y ago
  Okay. So what do you think will happen when a significant chunk of the United States economic power is under water?
  - oceanplexian 5y ago
    I suspect it will look like Amsterdam, or Venice, or any number of cities that figured out how to cope with existing at or below sea level.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - gus_massa 5y ago
    From https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148494/anticipating-future-sea-levels https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148494/anticipating... > In its 2019 report, the IPCC projected (chart above) 0.6 to 1.1 meters (1 to 3 feet) of global sea level rise by 2100 (or about 15 millimeters per year) if greenhouse gas emissions remain at high rates (RCP8.5). By 2300, seas could stand as much as 5 meters higher under the worst-case scenario. I guess thy will migrate the datacenters before 2300.
  - refurb 5y ago
    Mostly knowledge workers. Remote work already reducing potential impact.
  - 5y ago

r00fus 5y ago

And as Lex Luthor pointed out in Superman1, there may be profit to be had. So honestly, two sides to that coin, amirite?