• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

10 Feet of Global Sea Level Rise Is Now Guaranteed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nocebo

Member
Climate change deniers will just switch to It's too late anyways. 200 years is a long time and corporations focus on the next quarter profits. Nothing is going to change.
Ironically aren't you doing something similar right now in this very post as what you think climate change deniers are going to do in the future?
You believe nothing will change because others won't change. That sounds to me like you're trying to justify that you're not doing anything or very little about it.
 

adversarial

Member
"An ice sheet two miles thick has collapsed in West Antarctica"

I can't find this on any other site.

Only older articles indicating that the West Antarctic shelf is collapsing - has it actually collapsed?
 
You also have to think about everything else that is affected by rising water. (currents/temp/ocean life/migration patters/weather/etc)

The next 200 years... man.. that is crazy.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Says who?

Gg Florida. It was only a matter of time.

I mean, that's what was sad about them going for Trump. They were literally voting against their own existence.

And unlike a lot of cities that could presumably be walled off, etc., the porous nature of the limestone under a lot of Florida, particularly in the south, means that it doesn't matter if you try pumping the water out, it's gonna' get back in. It is entirely a lost cause.

As for New York, the bigger issue besides "just" the displacement (because there's no way they're going to wall off all of South Brooklyn) is that pretty much any major sea level rise is going to cripple the subway, and there's no way around that.
 
Btw all, Trump's about to eliminate this part of NASA so you won't hear about this news for another good 4 years until shit really hits the fan on your coastline.

The interesting thing is that it'll drive people to live inward - it may force a bigger mix of democrat and conservative districts in a state.
 
"An ice sheet two miles thick has collapsed in West Antarctica"

I can't find this on any other site.

Only older articles indicating that the West Antarctic shelf is collapsing - has it actually collapsed?

You're right, I just tried searching for the same thing, news articles in the past week or month - nothing.

This doesn't mean there's no cause for alarm but I'd like confirmation that there is an actual breaking story here.
 

Melon Husk

Member
You're right, I just tried searching for the same thing, news articles in the past week or month - nothing.

This doesn't mean there's no cause for alarm but I'd like confirmation that there is an actual breaking story here.

Journalists love to make news based on single research papers and tout it as truth.

The source is most likely:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet#Potential_collapse
"On 12 May 2014, It was announced that two teams of scientists said the long-feared collapse of the Ice Sheet had begun, kicking off what they say will be a centuries-long, "unstoppable" process that could raise sea levels by 1.2 to 3.6 metres (3.9–11.8 ft)[18][19] They estimate that rapid drawdown of Thwaites Glacier will begin in 200 – 1000 years.[20] (Scientific source articles: Rignot et al. 2014 [21] and Joughin et al. 2014.[22])"

which leads you to articles like

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapsing

Nature had a nicer title:

http://www.nature.com/news/crucial-west-antarctic-glaciers-are-retreating-unstoppably-1.15202
 

Brandson

Member
I've given up hope that we will do anything serious for another couple decades and it will be silly at that point.

Realistically, what can be done right now? Asking people to radically change consumption habits is not going to work. You could impose rolling brownouts on a global basis to reduce consumption and emissions, and force polluting factories to only operate during particular time windows, but that would kill the economy. Countries could build more nuclear power plants to supplant coal and natural gas plants, but nuclear waste is not exactly awesome either.

Solar and wind electricity generation are inherently not reliable enough to supply the entire world's energy needs by themselves. You need redundant reliable power generation even if you have enough renewable energy generation to power the whole world, because solar and wind are not consistent enough, and large-scale batteries capable of powering whole cities don't exist. So you would have to institute a brownout policy if you went 100% solar and wind. Telling people that their electricity won't be on 100% of the time in order to benefit the environment, when we have the ability to provide dirtier but reliable energy, is a non-starter and would also destroy the economy.

We either really need a source of clean, renewable energy that is not intermittent, or batteries that have the ability to store enough energy to power cities. Nuclear fusion could potentially do that but it's nowhere near ready: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/03/23/nuclear-fusion-reactor-research/#.WD2mhOIrJUQ.

Batteries useful for power-grid applications are also not ready, but are maybe closer than fusion: http://news.mit.edu/2016/battery-molten-metals-0112

If and when these and other technologies become available, they will be implemented, and have the potential to help reduce or stop global warming. Until then, more warming is inevitable. There's not much we can do, barring going off-grid completely, which may have a limited benefit. If you live somewhere that permits you to disconnect your home from the power grid, and generate your own power, then that might help in some small way, but so long as your house remains connected to the grid, then the power generation utilities have to provide enough electricity for you whether you use it or not.

Humanity in general is producing way too much stuff, and consuming a lot of energy to do it and to power niceties of modern life. You can't ask everyone to go back in time 200 years so we're unfortunately just going to have to mitigate the consequences the best we can. Denying that global warming exists is silly, but it's a problem that is not realistically solvable in 2016. Coastal areas should start building sea walls now, but they probably won't do that either until disaster hits, due to the cost.
 
I do think that the eventual reaction to this is going to be the creation of artificial islands. I'm talking a long ways down the road, though.
 

For instance, 99.5 percent of the population of New Orleans, Louisiana, as if they haven't suffered enough, will again find themselves underwater when the seas rise 10 feet. Thirty percent of all of the homes in Florida will be submerged; that's 5.6 million people. Fort Lauderdale, for one, will be nearly below the waves. Only 9 percent of New York City will have to relocate in the face of rising tides, but then, that means 700,000 people will have to find new homes—twice as many as New Orleans.
This ignore the fact that both NYC airports would be underwater.
 
It might be worth bolding the part of the article that says this will take 200 years. I mean, this is insanely bad news, but the change will happen gradually.

Well, sort of.

It will take 200 (or more) years for this particular ice sheet breakage to completely melt. Its complete melt will result in 10 feet of sea level rise.

That doesn't necessarily mean that 10 feet of sea level rise will take 200 years because it's only talking about this one sheet. That's a foot about every 20 years from one sheet. As more sheets fall into the ocean and begin melting, that number goes up and the time to hit 10 feet of sea level rise drops considerably.

So, no, we don't actually have 200+ years. If the melting continues or, more likely, accelerates, we have probably closer to 70-80 years before Florida is underwater. That's well within the lifetime of someone alive today.

Toby was right.
 
Journalists love to make news based on single research papers and tout it as truth.

The source is most likely:


which leads you to articles like

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapsing

Nature had a nicer title:

http://www.nature.com/news/crucial-west-antarctic-glaciers-are-retreating-unstoppably-1.15202
The current news story was I believe they found some geological process that was the source.

(note this doesn't mean that its not climate change but just the mechanism by which its acting)


I've given up hope that we will do anything serious for another couple decades and it will be silly at that point.

Its never too late. I mean we can always prevent its from being EVEN worse.

This is not the attitude to take

Even if we're all gonna die, rage against the dying of the light. Why not?
 
Realistically, what can be done right now? Asking people to radically change consumption habits is not going to work. You could impose rolling brownouts on a global basis to reduce consumption and emissions, and force polluting factories to only operate during particular time windows, but that would kill the economy. Countries could build more nuclear power plants to supplant coal and natural gas plants, but nuclear waste is not exactly awesome either.

Solar and wind electricity generation are inherently not reliable enough to supply the entire world's energy needs by themselves. You need redundant reliable power generation even if you have enough renewable energy generation to power the whole world, because solar and wind are not consistent enough, and large-scale batteries capable of powering whole cities don't exist. So you would have to institute a brownout policy if you went 100% solar and wind. Telling people that their electricity won't be on 100% of the time in order to benefit the environment, when we have the ability to provide dirtier but reliable energy, is a non-starter and would also destroy the economy.

We either really need a source of clean, renewable energy that is not intermittent, or batteries that have the ability to store enough energy to power cities. Nuclear fusion could potentially do that but it's nowhere near ready: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/03/23/nuclear-fusion-reactor-research/#.WD2mhOIrJUQ.

Batteries useful for power-grid applications are also not ready, but are maybe closer than fusion: http://news.mit.edu/2016/battery-molten-metals-0112

If and when these and other technologies become available, they will be implemented, and have the potential to help reduce or stop global warming. Until then, more warming is inevitable. There's not much we can do, barring going off-grid completely, which may have a limited benefit. If you live somewhere that permits you to disconnect your home from the power grid, and generate your own power, then that might help in some small way, but so long as your house remains connected to the grid, then the power generation utilities have to provide enough electricity for you whether you use it or not.

Humanity in general is producing way too much stuff, and consuming a lot of energy to do it and to power niceties of modern life. You can't ask everyone to go back in time 200 years so we're unfortunately just going to have to mitigate the consequences the best we can. Denying that global warming exists is silly, but it's a problem that is not realistically solvable in 2016. Coastal areas should start building sea walls now, but they probably won't do that either until disaster hits, due to the cost.

Things are being done now, coal is being phased out and people are trying to reduce other GHGs. Renewables are cheaper and natural gas is better than Coal, and places like China are investing in hydro which don't have the problems to solve like batteries (which are being worked on!)

Emissions have been flat for the past 3 years, even with economic growth! I think we'll start to see reductions by 2020s, probably early in the time frame.

We're too late to stave off many of the issues, but we have to try.
 

Fuchsdh

Member
Realistically, what can be done right now? Asking people to radically change consumption habits is not going to work. You could impose rolling brownouts on a global basis to reduce consumption and emissions, and force polluting factories to only operate during particular time windows, but that would kill the economy. Countries could build more nuclear power plants to supplant coal and natural gas plants, but nuclear waste is not exactly awesome either.

Solar and wind electricity generation are inherently not reliable enough to supply the entire world's energy needs by themselves. You need redundant reliable power generation even if you have enough renewable energy generation to power the whole world, because solar and wind are not consistent enough, and large-scale batteries capable of powering whole cities don't exist. So you would have to institute a brownout policy if you went 100% solar and wind. Telling people that their electricity won't be on 100% of the time in order to benefit the environment, when we have the ability to provide dirtier but reliable energy, is a non-starter and would also destroy the economy.

We either really need a source of clean, renewable energy that is not intermittent, or batteries that have the ability to store enough energy to power cities. Nuclear fusion could potentially do that but it's nowhere near ready: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/03/23/nuclear-fusion-reactor-research/#.WD2mhOIrJUQ.

Batteries useful for power-grid applications are also not ready, but are maybe closer than fusion: http://news.mit.edu/2016/battery-molten-metals-0112

If and when these and other technologies become available, they will be implemented, and have the potential to help reduce or stop global warming. Until then, more warming is inevitable. There's not much we can do, barring going off-grid completely, which may have a limited benefit. If you live somewhere that permits you to disconnect your home from the power grid, and generate your own power, then that might help in some small way, but so long as your house remains connected to the grid, then the power generation utilities have to provide enough electricity for you whether you use it or not.

Humanity in general is producing way too much stuff, and consuming a lot of energy to do it and to power niceties of modern life. You can't ask everyone to go back in time 200 years so we're unfortunately just going to have to mitigate the consequences the best we can. Denying that global warming exists is silly, but it's a problem that is not realistically solvable in 2016. Coastal areas should start building sea walls now, but they probably won't do that either until disaster hits, due to the cost.

While it's nowhere near large-scale rollout, tidal power solves the issues of renewables not being dependable. The tides are always operating even when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't rolling. Whether or not systems can be put into place to actually deploy it on a large enough scale is the bigger question.
 

Melon Husk

Member
so did the ice sheet collapse or not?
If you use the word collapse to describe a process taking 100-200 years then possibly yes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html
For half a century, climate scientists have seen the West Antarctic ice sheet, a remnant of the last ice age, as a sword of Damocles hanging over human civilization.
...
Continued high emissions of heat-trapping gases could launch a disintegration of the ice sheet within decades, according to a study published Wednesday, heaving enough water into the ocean to raise the sea level as much as three feet by the end of this century. With ice melting in other regions, too, the total rise of the sea could reach five or six feet by 2100, the researchers found. That is roughly twice the increase reported as a plausible worst-case scenario by a United Nations panel just three years ago, and so high it would likely provoke a profound crisis within the lifetimes of children being born today.

While it's nowhere near large-scale rollout, tidal power solves the issues of renewables not being dependable. The tides are always operating even when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't rolling. Whether or not systems can be put into place to actually deploy it on a large enough scale is the bigger question.
Tide scales up but it's going to provide a fifth at best of wind power can even in the UK. iirc.
Complementary power in some regions. Not gonna help Germany for example.
 
If you use the word collapse to describe a process taking 100-200 years then possibly yes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html



Tide scales up but it's going to provide a fifth at best of wind power can even in the UK. iirc.
Complementary power in some regions. Not gonna help Germany for example.

A combination of renewables (solar, wind, etc.) with grid battery storage, hydro where available, and nuclear fission (Gen 3, Gen 4, or Gen 4+ like LFTRs or other MSRs/Fast Breeder Reactors) should be top priority and could be implemented today with a massive energy infrastructure improvement bill, but Trump will just stick with transportion infrastructure (mostly road and bridge based), which ironically will exacerbate vehicle emissions.
 

Xe4

Banned
10 feet, in how many years time is the real question. Whenever people show those graphs of rising sea levels it annoys me a bit because they're provided without context. Current scientific evidence shows a projected 1 m rise by 2100 with a worst case scenario giving a 2 m sea level rise. This is bad, but not the kind of hyperbole the article seems to suggest.

Yes, the sea levels and temperatures are guaranteed to rise even if emissions stopped completely today. That's the nature of feedback loops. However to say there's no control over how much this will occur and how fast is nonsense, and articles like this help nothing.
 
How long because Florida and other coastal states start noticing the effects and starts losing land?

Have you seen what Louisiana looks like now?

pict_large_problem.jpg
 

Nikodemos

Member
but Trump will just stick with transportion infrastructure (mostly road and bridge based), which ironically will exacerbate vehicle emissions.
In all honesty, there's nothing wrong with just a transportation bill. The US Association of Civil Engineers has stopped issuing roadway worthiness bulletins three years ago. An utterly shocking number of bridges throughout the US are in appaling condition.
 

Melon Husk

Member
A combination of renewables (solar, wind, etc.) with grid battery storage, hydro where available, and nuclear fission (Gen 3, Gen 4, or Gen 4+ like LFTRs or other MSRs/Fast Breeder Reactors) should be top priority and could be implemented today with a massive energy infrastructure improvement bill, but Trump will just stick with transportion infrastructure (mostly road and bridge based), which ironically will exacerbate vehicle emissions.

Exactly. Getting to 100% is theoretically possible but we're not getting there before 2050. We could be building nuclear power plants now. We should be building ten nuclear power plants per country per year if we wanted to cut emissions to zero asap.
 
"An ice sheet two miles thick has collapsed in West Antarctica"

I can't find this on any other site.

Only older articles indicating that the West Antarctic shelf is collapsing - has it actually collapsed?

https://www.engadget.com/2016/11/28/antarctica-ice-sheet-cracking/

When a giant (225 square mile) slice of Antarctica's Pine Island Glacier broke off in 2015, scientists wondered exactly what caused it. Well, they now have an explanation... and it's not very reassuring. They've determined through satellite imagery that the break started when a rift was formed at the base of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet, almost 20 miles inland, in 2013. Most likely, warming oceans intruded the sheet at the bedrock well below sea level, triggering cracks that gradually made their way upward. In other words, Antarctic ice could be much more susceptible to breaking up than it seems on the surface, and that separation may be happening faster than researchers expected.

There's still a lot left unanswered. The discoverers want to know just how these rifts get started, and determine their overall effect on the stability of ice shelves. That will require data collected from the air and on the ground, not just in space. And that may be difficult for US researchers when the incoming Trump administration appears bent on shutting down "politicized science" -- that is, anything which studies the causes of climate change. The US and UK are already teaming up on field research in the area, however, so they'll likely have more info regardless of long-term American science funding.

If the glacier break is a sign of things to come, it reinforces predictions that humanity is in for a rough ride as the Earth warms up. Scientists believe that the entire West Antarctica Ice Sheet is likely to collapse within the next 100 years, sending a massive volume of water into the sea. That would be enough to raise the global sea level by almost 10 feet and flood coastal cities. The newly analyzed satellite data suggests that the collapse could happen sooner than later, and possibly within your lifetime
 
Exactly. Getting to 100% is theoretically possible but we're not getting there before 2050. We could be building nuclear power plants now. We should be building ten nuclear power plants per country per year if we wanted to cut emissions to zero asap.

And yet Jill Stein wants to shut every single one of them down.

"Green" Party indeed.
 

BriGuy

Member
Well, at least the fish will have plenty of new reefs to kick around in. Assuming they don't all die in the meantime that is.
 

Stevey

Member
Could take 200 years.
Everyone you know will be dead by then.
And whats to say in 200 years it might get colder again?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom