SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We may be headed for an ice apocalypse which could result in the flooding of coastal cities before the end of this century. Glaciers in Antarctica may break and release ice, exposing taller cliffs, resulting in faster melting.
[...] A wholesale collapse of Pine Island and Thwaites would set off a catastrophe. Giant icebergs would stream away from Antarctica like a parade of frozen soldiers. All over the world, high tides would creep higher, slowly burying every shoreline on the planet, flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Rapid Collapse of Antarctic Glaciers Could Flood Coastal Cities by the End of this Century
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 48 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Don't go surfing in South Dakota for a while.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Virindi on Monday November 27 2017, @09:37AM (17 children)
The description as "apocalypse" is overblown.
Many of these cities that are being referred to already have parts that are below sea level. The idea of maintaining land below sea level is not at all an impossibility! Sure it's expensive, but it's not an 'apocalypse'.
Instead of "millions of refugees" and all these other overhyped descriptions, in countries that aren't poor as dirt already, what we would see is dike and seawall projects. For the most part, the only places where that wouldn't be the case would be places where people are living in dwellings with very little value already. That sure sucks for them, but the rest of the world can help.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Monday November 27 2017, @09:57AM (11 children)
Millions of refugees over 80 years is nothing more than a modest slow shift in population, like the shift from the rust belt to California in the 50s and 60s or the shift to the pacific northwest.
We've seen this movie before. There is certainly nothing "apocalypse-ish" about it.
Besides, we've heard this sea rise alarm before. New York was ALREADY predicted to be flooded by this time. Its not even measurable.
NYC underwater by 2015. [newsbusters.org]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @10:39AM (10 children)
More "truthiness"? It's very measurable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1880-2013.png [wikipedia.org]
"not even measurable"... like it's not even measurable how slow you get diabetes until you end up with your limbs amputated because of high sugar levels? Like that?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @12:27PM (9 children)
Waving about "global trends" to cover up local misprediction is quite poor style.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750 [noaa.gov]
Note how the section from 2000 till today, if taken in separation, shows no trend at all.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Virindi on Monday November 27 2017, @01:03PM (8 children)
Honestly, if you take just the chart from your link, it looks like a pretty reasonable linear fit. The 2010-now data matches previous pauses. Same with 2000-2010.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @01:32PM (7 children)
You cannot honestly treat it as anything else, extrapolations from previous century notwithstanding.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Monday November 27 2017, @02:10PM (6 children)
The timescale you are talking about is too short to conclude any pause occurred in the data you linked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @02:40PM (5 children)
When 20+ years is "too short a timescale" for a process, most any human being thinks "nothing is happening", or at least, "does not affect me". Right or wrong, humans still aren't eternal beings, and certainly not wired to react like such.
BTW, they're not wrong here; 20 years nowadays bring huge changes in technology, running around crying wolf now as opposed to developing better tech for later is plain stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @02:53PM (4 children)
If there were nobody running around "crying wolf", then nobody would have any reason to develop better tech.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 27 2017, @04:43PM (3 children)
Ok, smarty pants what apocalypse provided the reason for the iPhone? Better tech happens for a lot of reasons, few which have anything to do with apocalypse hysteria.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @05:51PM (1 child)
Well, it seemed like annoying greed that led Steve Jobs to convince millions of suckers not only that they need a smartphone instead of a miniaturized computer, but that they need to keep buying new versions of it every year or two for the forseeable future. However, without the iphone (and on this site, I suppose I should mention its android imitators as well), we wouldn't have a mountain of ewaste in 20 years' time to build seawalls out of to save our coastal shitties^Wcities. Hail Jobs, the apocalypse-curing hero!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 27 2017, @06:21PM
So doesn't with the narrative of the grandparent AC. And here, "annoying greed" created some technology that people wanted.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 28 2017, @02:35AM
I assert iPhone is an apocalypse in and by itself [telegraph.co.uk] (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @02:00PM (1 child)
So there's no need to do dikes and seawalls. All you need to do is require the actuarists, accountants and property valuers do all calculations for potentially affected property with the assumption that property in those zones will be underwater and worth near nothing in 50 years. Then new buildings will be built elsewhere, and people will gradually move away from the affected zones.
I seriously doubt it'll be so soon though, all the other scientists are giving numbers where it only gets bad in the next century.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Monday November 27 2017, @02:59PM
That neglects the historical and cultural value of existing neighborhoods.
But of course it would make sense for properties that need protection to pay the lion's share of the costs of that protection.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Monday November 27 2017, @03:49PM (2 children)
It's global warming alarmism crying wolf, a common practice.
Just as there are screw-loose nutjobs who say the climate isn't changing AT ALL! Wake up people!
So there are screw-loose al-gore nutjobs who say Climate change END OF THE WORLD oh God the SKY IS FALLING.
The word "apocalypse" here is one's tip-off to stop reading and move on with life.
If all the nutjob flooding (and storm and famine and pestilence) predictions had come true, we would have all been dead years ago.
Sadly, both camps of nutjobs are so shrill that they tend to obscure any valid scientific information. Reading carefully is a must!
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Monday November 27 2017, @04:04PM (1 child)
That's about where I am on the subject at this point. The level of absolutist rhetoric and outright deception from both sides is fever pitch.
Question anything, say anything that doesn't match the party line, and you are instantly judged to be the enemy. Make any argument which is 'wrong' in the minds of the other person and people will associate you completely with the other side. No room is allowed for moderation.
I am tired of it.
(Score: 1) by acid andy on Tuesday November 28 2017, @01:07AM
So, errr, which side were you on again? ;-P
"rancid randy has a dialogue with herself[...] Somebody help him!" -- Anonymous Coward.