Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday November 01 2019, @12:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the corner-the-market,-manufacture-stilts dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Before today, sea level rise and flooding were already forecast to wreak havoc for millions now and in the coming decades. Now, the story looks much worse—three times worse, to be precise. According to new research, hundreds of millions more people are already at risk from climate breakdown-caused coastal flooding and sea level rise than previously thought. And by the end of the century, large swathes of the coastal land we live on today could be unihabitable—even with immediate and deep emissions cuts.

This may not sound like much, but for millions of people two or three metres is the difference between safety or loss of livelihood and forced relocation. Thankfully, a handful of nations have now scanned coastal elevation using airborne laser-based radar equipment, and the new research, published in Nature Communications, uses the difference between these much more precise data and previously existing figures to recalibrate global estimates for land at risk of sea-level rise and flooding.

Based on the new model, the authors estimate not 28m but 110m people are already living below the current high tide line. And instead of 68m people living below annual flood levels, the figure is now 250m—the same number that live less than one metre above sea level. That's the equivalent of the UK, Russia, and Spain combined.

This increase in vulnerability to sea-level rise and flooding is not evenly distributed. More than 70% of those living on at-risk land are in eight Asian countries: China, Bangladesh, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Japan. And for many of these countries, the increase in risk that the new model predicts for the coming decades is much higher than three-fold.

Of course, it's not just Asia that's vulnerable—20 other countries outside of the continent are expected to see land that is currently home to 10% of their total populations fall below end-of-century high tide lines, even if emissions peak by 2020 and are then cut deeply. This count is up from two using NASA's data. All but three are island nations, and 13 of the 20 are small developing island states.

[...] The sad reality is that coastal communities worldwide look to be set for much more difficult futures than currently anticipated. As a global community, governments must work together to do all they can to help.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Friday November 01 2019, @04:41PM (2 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday November 01 2019, @04:41PM (#914651) Homepage
    The important word, which could either be considered "insightful" for its inclusion, or "weasel wording" for its inclusion, is "should". What matters in science is "does", not "should". "Should" without "does" is an indicator of bad science.

    One of the problems that I have with the climate-scare cabal is that they are now publishing graphs and charts of historical data that disagrees with the data gathered at the time. That's not a new model - that's new data teleported back in time replacing what was there before. When questioned on this matter, they first attempted to marginalise and deplatform those who were skeptical, which was remarkably successful, but as the naysayers only had to roll out peer-reviewed historical papers with the historical readings with very little effort, it was impossible to silence them completely. And when they did finally admit to changing the data they pulled themselves up with their own shoelaces by insisting that it's justified. Magic!
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @11:35PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @11:35PM (#914863)

    Suspect you're not informed.

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/ [arstechnica.com]

    Subtitle: "How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done"

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @12:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @12:30AM (#914881)

      You know, in every paper I ever participated in writing, we reported the raw data and then specified the adjustments we made due to systematic errors.
      Erasing the raw data and claiming the adjusted figures as the new raw is not how science is done.