Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Sea-Level Rise Could Flood Hundreds of Millions More Than Expected (technologyreview.com) 214

Posted by msmash from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.
By the end of this century, rising oceans will almost certainly flood the lands where tens of millions of people live as accelerating climate change warms the waters and melts ice sheets. From a report: But precise estimates of the vulnerable populations depend on precise measurements of the planet's topography, to understand just how close to sea level communities have settled. A new study that seeks to correct for known errors in earlier elevation models finds that researchers might have been undercounting the number of people exposed to rising tides by hundreds of millions. That's three to four times more people than previously projected, depending on the specific scenarios. If these higher estimates prove correct, it will dramatically increase the damages and casualties from sea-level rise, swell the costs of adaption efforts like constructing higher seawalls, and escalate mass migration away from the coasts. Many of the estimates to date have relied on essentially a three-dimensional map of the planet produced from a radar system that flew on board NASA's space shuttle Endeavour in 2000.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sea-Level Rise Could Flood Hundreds of Millions More Than Expected More

Sea-Level Rise Could Flood Hundreds of Millions More Than Expected

Comments Filter:

  • end of the century (Score:3)

    by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Tuesday October 29, 2019 @03:53PM (#59359608) Homepage

    While this undoubtably true, I do want to point out that they're talking about the end of the century here. We do have a bit of time.
    This is not happening tomorrow.

    • Re:end of the century (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday October 29, 2019 @04:07PM (#59359658)

      While this undoubtedly true, I do want to point out that they're talking about the end of the century here. We do have a bit of time.
      This is not happening tomorrow.

      On the other hand, when we're all done kicking the can down the road, it may be under water.

    • I do want to point out that they're talking about the end of the century here. We do have a bit of time.

      This is true about anything climate change related. So I feel it is fair to point out that while we have lots of time to do something about it, we're not exactly jumping into action on any particular matter. The timeline for the major implications of climate change are indeed a ways off, but that's not exactly a comforting thought if our timeline for action on these matters is equally long.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Train0987 ( 1059246 )

        A couple months ago a Member of Congress told us that we only had 12 years left!

        • we only will reach the end of this century in the best-case scenario... I think more 20 years a good guess

        • To get our carbon budget down low enough to stay under the 1.5 degree threshold and thus avoid significant climate shifts, yes.

          If we can't manage that (due to ignoring the issue for the last forty years), we should still try our best to keep below 2 degrees, because a lot of things get worse after that.

          • To get our carbon budget down low enough to stay under the 1.5 degree threshold ...

            No. This is literally impossible. We have already warmed 1 degree. Even if humanity completely stopped burning fossil fuel today, just the 420ppm of CO2 already in the atmosphere is enough to take us up another 0.5C.

            we should still try our best to keep below 2 degrees

            That is theoretically possible, but unrealistic. It is not going to happen.

            There are hundreds of new coal power plants under construction in China, India, and Africa. They have 60 year lifetimes. We haven't even hit peak emissions yet. The problem is shifting away from the West, where the w

      • We're taking action. Among other things, we've started building more solar/wind power plants, we've been improving the technology, and we've been building more electric cars. The expectation that nothing will change in a century is nonsense.

    • Casualties? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thesupraman ( 179040 ) on Tuesday October 29, 2019 @04:15PM (#59359690)

      So, there are 80 odd years of slowly rising levels, and they dont think we are start enough to relocate over that time?
      People will drown by the unexpected rising of the water over that period?

      Sure, people drown, in unexpected floods, storms, tsunamis, and swimming at the beach, however AGW based sealevel changes dont cause drownings..

      • Jesus Christ, some of the shit I read around here.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        I don't know about anybody else, but my retirement plan is to buy cheap land in the Santa Cruz mountains and then resell it at a profit by describing it in the real estate listings as "AGW potential future beachfront property". Maybe put houses on them with natural-gas-powered generators instead of PG&E electrical hookups so that the homeowners can help things along a little. :-D

        But seriously, moving the SF Bay Area and NYC aren't exactly easy things to convince people to do. It definitely won't be c

        • It might even be cheaper to build a levee.

          Or a flood barrier across the Golden Gate.

        • You're going to have to wait for that area to burn first, it's not cheap now unless you compare it to the flat land below. Plus it would suck to have to build twice.

        • Maybe put houses on them with natural-gas-powered generators instead of PG&E electrical hookups so that the homeowners can help things along a little. :-D

          What makes this especially funny is that the natural gas comes from PG&E as well...

          • What makes this especially funny is that the natural gas comes from PG&E as well...

            Gas lines are buried and are not shut off during wildfires.

            Gas may be shut off during and after earthquakes.

            • If the power is out long enough, the gas infrastructure shuts down too. Also, PGE has already had one major gas main explosion. They will likely have more, as that wasn't the only gas line on which they were deferring necessary maintenance. (They knew that specific site was having problems.)

              A smarter thing to do would be to use a propane generator. You can't have a big propane tank in town, but you can in the hills. Propane keeps basically forever if you keep the tank from rusting, which only takes paint. I

        • Wait, there's cheap land in the Santa Cruz mountains? Are you sure??

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            Cheap is relative. Compared with, for example, land in Cupertino or Mountain View, yeah, it's pretty cheap. Of course, it's at a 45 degree angle, so you only get about 1/sqrt(2) times the area you think you're getting, but that's another matter. :-D

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Teun ( 17872 )
        I really don't understand those that modded up your uninsightful remark.
        Many places already have flood defenses but due to rising sea levels a what used to be manageable flood will suddenly become a disaster and people die.
    • Guess we will have to put the sulfur back in jet fuel, say 2-3%, for direct inject to the stratosphere to replace all the cooling that ships were doing with 3-4.5% sulfurous bottoms fuels...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

      Nope according to the hysterical girl being put on display we have a dozen years left, tops.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tomxor ( 2379126 )

      [...]they're talking about the end of the century here. We do have a bit of time [...]

      Yeah... the water level will wait until the end of the century before deciding to rise...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      Oh my the ignorance. Yep 100 years from today sea level will rise overnight, because God did it, oh yeah. NO, it will rise and has already risen and they are trying to forecaste how high, based upon current patterns and ignoring peak events, they just look at a conservative climate model. There are much worse models that take into account methan hydrate melt and the Northern Polar regions and the surge in tempreture in those regions, where all the ice is, which is local weather and not global climate but ca

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Just far enough away to be a problem.
      Time for that huge green tax on all productive work.

  • Not just coasts (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday October 29, 2019 @03:56PM (#59359614) Homepage Journal

    It's also populations along low-lying rivers. Not only where the sea level rise will reach directly, but also where storm surges will be able to reach further inland.

  • Well then (Score:5, Funny)

    by geek ( 5680 ) on Tuesday October 29, 2019 @04:06PM (#59359650)

    Its a good thing Obama and Al Gore both bought beach front property!

  • Choosing to live at or near sea level at or near a sea is not exactly a reasonable choice since this alarmist climate model has been circulating for decades. You would think that the ocean dwelling population that would be affected the worst by all of this would be moving to higher elevations if they really believed all of the messaging .... and yet they aren't. So are they stubborn, or stupid?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Please check in with Miami. They now get several flood events a year just due to tides and some light breezes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *

      Choosing to live at or near sea level at or near a sea

      I dunno. Holland seems to manage, and they're below sea level.

  • I'm a glass half full kind of person

  • Don't forget that those "tens of millions of people" living on the edge are also having babies. There will be many more of us by the turn of the century, and happily, I'll be long dead.
  • So far, no-one has been willing to bet on coastal areas receiving significant flooding due to global warming. Bonds for seaside cities are not collapsing. New construction is not halting. Obama is moving to an ocean-side home. Everyone willing to risk their money is saying "no problem".

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      The reason is because back in the 60's, the developers convinced Johnson to use the Federal Flood Insurance to backstop flood events. So they rebuilt because they know people like you are stupid enough to bail them out. Contribute a bit more this year in your federal taxes, it will make them feel better.

  • More like 2 billion actually (Score:4, Informative)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Tuesday October 29, 2019 @04:17PM (#59359694) Homepage Journal

    If you actually read the internal military estimates, you'll realize this is a lowball projection, and the actual expected impact will be around 2 billion displaced individuals.

    Try building a wall that will stop that, and not be topped by climate crisis magnified wave surges.

    Pro tip: you can't.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ahodgson ( 74077 )

      Much of the displacement will be due to lack of fresh water and the collapse of agriculture, not rising sea levels.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        Oh, well, that's a relief. We shouldn't worry about it, then.

      • Much of the displacement will be due to lack of fresh water and the collapse of agriculture, not rising sea levels.

        Oh, that makes a lot of difference. I'll just check the box for the massive hordes displaced from:
        [X] Climate Crisis - sea level rise
        to
        [X] Climate Crisis - no fresh water
        or
        [X] Climate Crisis - no food

        I'm sure that will matter.

      • okay so we would just need our 'they are billions' style fortifications to last for 3 days.. that sounds reasonably doable.

    • So you are anticipating 2 billion displaced people to come to America? How? There aren't that many people on the north/south American continent (Canada, US, Mexico and all of south and Central America) - are you expecting the to walk here from Asia/Europe?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ahodgson ( 74077 )

        No, Russia and Europe should be a lot more worried.

        If you think the current flood of Guatemalans is bad though wait until it's all of Central America.

        And in fact, the USA is projected to be one of the countries hardest hit by climate change. So as a Canadian, if there's a wall involved, it'll be to keep you out.

      • I didn't say that. You inferred it, incorrectly.

        But, I love what you say, during the summer.

  • The impact of disasters depends strongly on how well the infrastructure protects the inhabitants. If the wealth of the country is distributed well to provide the protection for the population, then the impact of natural disasters is very much lower, be it climate change, earthquakes or hurricanes. The Florida flooding may have had a climate change factor, but the main factor was that no money was made available to maintain the dikes.
    If wealth gets concentrated too much the majority loses protection. The wa

  • if you believe this then you need to take a container and put a big chunk of ice in it and fill it with water enough to cause the ice to float and mark the line of the water and wait for the ice to melt and check the line.

  • Sky is not falling (Score:3, Insightful)

    by onyxruby ( 118189 ) <onyxruby AT comcast DOT net> on Tuesday October 29, 2019 @04:26PM (#59359734)

    This guy doesn't actually really think global warming is going to raise sea levels any time soon. In fact you could say he just bet $14.5 million dollars against that.

    https://www.realtor.com/news/c... [realtor.com]

    This news company doesn't really think that global warming is going to raise sea levels any time soon either. In fact you could say that they just bet $520 million dollars against it.

    https://nypost.com/2019/01/08/... [nypost.com]

    I could get more examples, but I think my point is made. The sky isn't falling and the powers that be don't really think that the earth is about to be flooded tens of meters by global warming. In fact they have bet against it. Don't look at what they want to do with your money, look at what they do with their own money.

    Yes, there is some climate change, as there has always been climate change. Some of it is caused by humans, but the dial isn't cranked to 11 and the world isn't about to end. Learn to separate the hyperbole from the science.



    • Hahahahaha. You ignore science, point to real estate the the super wealthy are buying, and then say this? Did somebody else jump in to add that last line to your post, or are you schizophrenic?

    • Re:Sky is not falling (Score:5, Insightful)

      by citylivin ( 1250770 ) on Tuesday October 29, 2019 @05:26PM (#59360004)

      This is the worst argument ever. It presumes that if people are in the "know" about the climate crisis, that they would immediately decamp to the middle of the continent and what, wait it out in a bunker? These aren't preppers that are focused on doomsday, they are rich people who don't give a fuck if their mansion is wiped out as they will just buy another one when that comes to pass.

      You fail to understand human nature. No one thinks things will change till they wake up one day and realize that they have changed already. This is how the future gets to you, it slowly creeps up until you wake up and realize that you are in the future and you don't know how that happened. There isnt one particular day where a wall of water wipes everything out. This is not the movies.

      Because people still live in the present and buy beachfront property, all scientists are wrong... Your error is in assuming that the rich don't waste their money on houses that their grand children might not be able to live in. Most people don't think that far ahead, because what matters to most is the here and now.

    • Learn to separate the hyperbole from the science.

      Good advice. Maybe you should follow it.

      This [www.ipcc.ch] is what the science says. You should read that, or at least the summary, to understand what the risks really are, and what can be done to lessen them. If you insist on following the business decisions of some ex-president instead of science, at least read what insurance actuaries [grist.org] feel are the biggest risks today, since their jobs depend on accurate risk assessment.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by rogoshen1 ( 2922505 )

      Look man... right now there are tens of thousands of grad students and their professors who rely on research bucks to survive. Similarly there are hundreds of websites, thousands of magazines, and don't even get me started on the lobbyists... these people all have bills to pay, and mouths to feed.

      And you know what? they all rely on a healthy dose of worry and fret on our part about the impending climate disaster.

      When you go and post stuff like that you are DIRECTLY hurting their livelihood -- seriously, sh

    • Yeah buddy. There is a whole industry that is adjusting their business practices based on climate change:

      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/e... [pbs.org]

      It's either going to get more expensive or you won't be able to get it in problem areas. They can't pretend there is nothing happening.

  • Is it 1990 yet? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by biggaijin ( 126513 )

    In the 1970s, the best scientific minds were assuring us that lower Manhattan would be under water up to 20th St by the mid 1990s. It hasn't happened yet. When the promised deluge does arrive, it will not come overnight and drown millions of people. It will come slowly and people will go somewhere else.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Why, you are correct!! They could come here to America. We have lots of space and white people aren't reproducing to replace the ones going tits up.

    • Someone's forgetting hurricane Sandy.

  • "Than Expected" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Tuesday October 29, 2019 @04:40PM (#59359830) Homepage Journal

    Google "Meltwater Pulse 1a". Read the chart.

    Now recall that Earth has been ice-free before and we're still coming out of an Ice Age. Extrapolate.

  • From YouTube [youtube.com]

    When you look at ice, 90% of all ice/snow is located in the Antarctica. The average temperature in the Antarctica is -49 F. When looking at core samples dating back 800,000 years, the variance of temperature still not demonstrate that this ice will melt. Of the remaining 10% of ice/snow, that is located in the Arctic (Alaska Area), 90% of that ice FLOATS meaning that Archimedes' principal would apply and the 90% of ice/snow in the Arctic would not cause the oceans to rise at.

    • If it gets warm enough to melt the ice, sea level rises simply due to thermal expansion.

    • That will take rather more than 100 years to melt, but you only need a fraction of that to flood a lot of coastal cities.

      Antarctica's land ice would raise it another 60 metres. Add in a similar fraction of that, plus glaciers from around the globe, and there's plenty of melting ice to concern us.

      And it's not the slowly-rising mean sea level that's at issue - it's the upper extremes. King rides, storm surges, water tables etc will all rise along with the sea, and our flood protections are already inadequate.

  • Even if people are reluctant to relocate from low places near the shores, building dikes is no rocket science, and the Dutch have proven over decades that you can happily spend your whole life below sea level, with dry feet, if you are so inclined.

  • People want cheaper seaside property. Then claim itâ(TM)s all going underwater, and soon!

  • Notice the prices don't go down, and even the Obamas have ocean front property.

    It's all a scam to keep you green tards away from the nice places.

    And truth being told, living on the ocean is NICE.

Slashdot Top Deals

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.

Close