Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Seas Rising Faster Than Projected

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the invest-in-canoes dept.

Earth 605

New submitter zenyu writes "IPCC's 2mm per year estimate for sea level rise at current CO2 levels has proven too optimistic. Sea levels have been rising 3.2mm per year in the last two decades. The IPCC's 50 cm — 100 cm projection for the next century may prove equally optimistic."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Republicans (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114683)

Just vote out the damn Republicans and their big-oil anti-science agenda and focus on energy efficiency.

Re:Republicans (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114719)

Hey look! I'm an American! Everything is always about me!

Denier (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114731)

Do you deny that Americans are generally the cause to all of the world's problems?

Re:Denier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114741)

Touché.

Re:Denier (0, Flamebait)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#42114889)

Well, I do. People like you sit there on your asses and say how the average american is brainwashed by foxnews, yet you believe and trust that all the anti-US sentiment spewed by your (relatively speaking) state controlled media is justified? If the average european was truly intellectually superior, he'd know that most if not all western media is full of self-serving, preachy bullshit. Why do your countries keep doing the US' bidding anyway? Grow a pair already and stand up for yourselves, or is the collective western european culture even more panty waisted than the most stridently politically correct US citizen?

Re:Denier (4, Insightful)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 2 years ago | (#42114957)

Well, we didn't follow you into the collective clusterfuck that was Iraq... and we've been enjoying universal health care and other communist evils for some time now, so would you like to elaborate how exactly we are doing the US's bidding?

Re:Denier (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115007)

Hows those new copyright laws working out for yas... Handed any of your citizens over to the usa lately? Done any threatening lately because we wanted mister wikileaks?

You're just like the USA. A puppet bitch for the multinational companys. Now bend the fuck over maggot. Or i'll sic the riaa on your ass again.

Re:Denier (-1, Flamebait)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#42115019)

Well, extraditing EU citizens to US courts over 'piracy', and engaging in cooperative KGB style monitoring programs come to mind...and actually iirc several european countries initially backed us during the iraq idiocy.

The only thing universal healthcare brought you was waiting lines and mediocre care if you're in any country but norway/sweden/denmark and maybe the UK. You give up so much control over your existences for this and other handouts and I do not understand why. Do you really want to end up like greece? ..or hell, the USA 20-40 years from now, as it slides into its new status as a chinese satellite?

Re:Denier (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | about 2 years ago | (#42115085)

The only thing universal healthcare brought you was waiting lines and mediocre care if you're in any country but norway/sweden/denmark and maybe the UK

Mediocre care is better than no care.

Plus people can still go private if they choose.

Re:Denier (5, Insightful)

k2r (255754) | about 2 years ago | (#42115179)

> The only thing universal healthcare brought you was waiting lines and mediocre care

Average life expectancy:
USA: 78.1 years
UK: 79 years
Germany: 79.3 years
France: 81 years

I think I'll keep my German mediocre universal healthcare.

(Source: http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427ev8tivmaqoj [wolframalpha.com] )

Re:Denier (5, Informative)

will_die (586523) | about 2 years ago | (#42115277)

You need to read into the numbers to find out why you are wrong. There are two main problems with USA life expectancy numbers:
1) The US starts the clock one a breath is made by the child. Other European countries use weight, length, and some other factors to determine when life starts. With the US saving so many premature and all of them counting when they die from being so premature it lowers the US numbers. Also death counting is different, US counts all people who die on its soil for other countries they don't count non-citizens.
2) To many foreigner who were born in poorer countries. The countries you have listed and other with higher life expectancy have one thing in common fewer percentage of people who were born outside of that country or were born in poor countries.
Look at charts to see life expectancy from ages 5,25,50,75 and that listing changes.

Re:Denier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115597)

I don't think I agree with point 2. If you meant "Too many foreigners who were born"....rather than your mangled grammar....the UK has a large immigrant from Pakistan, France from the Mah'g'reb and Germany from Turkey.

Re:Denier (5, Insightful)

SilenceBE (1439827) | about 2 years ago | (#42115353)

The only thing universal healthcare brought you was waiting lines and mediocre care if you're in any country but norway/sweden/denmark and maybe the UK

The typical ignorant American answer of really not knowing anything about the world outside. In this European country (Belgium) we don't have long waiting lines or mediocre care. That is not based on some flag waving argument but multiple studies that come out every year. This is the case for most European countries BTW.

It is funny as Americans tend always to point as greece as THE example of the "socialist" plan going bad. The situation in Greece has nothing to do with healthcare or socialism but with clientelism, fraud, tax evasion (which for American companies is a sport), etc.

Re:Denier (5, Interesting)

prefec2 (875483) | about 2 years ago | (#42115367)

The only thing universal healthcare brought you was waiting lines and mediocre care if you're in any country but norway/sweden/denmark and maybe the UK. You give up so much control over your existences for this and other handouts and I do not understand why. Do you really want to end up like greece? ..or hell, the USA 20-40 years from now, as it slides into its new status as a chinese satellite?

First, we do not have waiting lines in hospitals or any other part of the healthcare system in Germany. Especially not for urgent things. Second, when I have a chronic disease, my bill does not rise. I do not go bankrupt over healthcare cost. Third, according to OECD measures. The average US citizen pays $ 6000 for healthcare per year (including state money and including those people who do not have any healthcare) with a service coverage of around 80%, while the so puny Europeans only pay around $ 3000 per year (also including all subsidies) and have a service coverage by 99%. Fourth, the problem in Greece is corruption. And the ever mounting debt is a general problem of our world economy. the US has a much bigger deficit per person and by GDP. Especially when compared to Germany. And that after Germany had to incorporate East Germany in the 1990s.

However, we are all sitting in the same boat (including China). If we sink, the sink too. And we have all a resource and sustainability problem. And one cause of that is the present constitution of the economic system. That has to be fixed. As well as the resource problem. And yes. The US is not helping with these issues according to past outcomes of global environment conferences. The "We need to drill for more oil"-logic is also flawed. It would be better to start switching then to prolong the present. But, if you do not want to change, Europe or to be more precise the EU can try to do better. You are always welcomed to follow us.

Re:Denier (1, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#42115449)

"the only thing universal healthcare brought you was waiting lines and mediocre care"

you know nothing at all. Want to trot out the fake lie that "all the doctors will leave" because we all know that Canada has no doctors at all and is now a 3rd world country...

Oh wait, they have BETTER doctors than the USA... and we should have adopted their Healthcare system. but no, Most americans are fucking retards so I'm stuck with the healthcare for the rich only system we have here.

Re:Denier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115575)

The only thing universal healthcare brought you was waiting lines and mediocre care if you're in any country but norway/sweden/denmark

Heh .. you think there are no waiting lines in Scandinavia ? .. I used to employ people there (in Sweden) - we would have to get them a private health insurance in order to guarantee quick treatment (people would die waiting 12months + for operations). Nah - the only country I've lived in with really good healthcare was Switzerland.

Re:Denier (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#42115577)

Do you really want to end up like greece?

The Greeks ended up where they are because people got into government who should have gone into prison in the first place. (I still don't understand why they haven't reinstituted the death penalty for those people who have falsified Greek government accounting and caused the deaths of a few thousand people. That's mass murder to me.)

Re:Denier (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#42115613)

norway/sweden/denmark and maybe the UK. Australia should be somewhere on the LHS of your list, I believe it's between Norway and Sweden but maybe I'm mixing it up with our standard of living numbers? The US is 30 odd countries to the right in your list.

The anti-US sentiment is justified, though. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115223)

Or do you deny Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, drone attacks, GW Bush, Iraq and Saddam, Inhofe, Heartland and so on?

You even prove the point by claiming "state controlled media". As if that is proof it is wrong.

You're exemplifying and proving the cliche you're complaining about!

Re:Denier (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#42115433)

Why dont they? they dont want the USA to go looking for WMD's in their country as well.

Short of starting World War III what can they do but roll over for the biggest bully on the school ground.

Re:Denier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114929)

And solutions...

Re:Denier (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115265)

Like war in Irak or in the middle east?

Re:Denier (5, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 years ago | (#42115331)

The US of A is merely a land mass from which human people do the things they do. Under similar circumstance and opportunity other humans will do similarly. This is a fact of human nature. It has nothing to do with nationality. Let's be clear on this point.

That the rich and powerful of the US are abusing the rest of the world, I will not deny. The older I get, the more I awaken to it. But this is not really US Americans so much as it is a select group of people within the US. They seem to live in another plane of existence where the law and everything else treats them differently, protected in a cloak of money. They can harm the global economy without trouble to themselves, but a person can shop lift and get prison. I think the notion is clear enough.

It all happens because of greed you know. China wants more so they sell out their own people and pollute without shame. The US industries have done the same though within a tighter framework of law for centuries. (http://www.wvminesafety.org/disaster.htm) The link just points out one state and one type of industry, but you can pretty much guarantee this is not isolated. It is important to note that the people making decisions and money are completely isolated from problems which may result from their decisions in most cases. For example, several people in the BP incident were charged and convicted of crimes, but not the real decision makers... not the ones at the top.

But greed... greed... a human condition, not one which is exclusive to residents of a particular land mass. These are crimes of opportunity, not of character.

I hate to point this out but it is essentially and in practice quite true: Civilization is most advanced when we counter our own nature with a system of law and keep it enforced fairly and without exception. In order to be fair, law must be in the interests of the masses, not in the interests of the few. So religious law and law which supports the interests of a few need to go.

If anyone thinks "the US" is the problem, they need to look at where the people of the US came from and what those people, when allowed, have done to their world in the past and what they are doing at present. There are a lot of pots calling kettles black.

We should accept what we are and what we know of our nature. We should acknowledge we already have an effective solution to our weaknesses which we call a framework of constitutional law... and support it. When people protest government, people should demand that law and order prevail. Many people are. But we should focus on the causes here and this is, as I see it, the real cause when you exclude "human nature."

Re:Republicans (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114869)

hey look I'm european and everything is always about me too, even though I probably live in a country with 9 million people and is about the size of one US state, and also votes to have the US do their dirty work when it gets too politically hot at the UN.

Re:Republicans (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114737)

but then we have to deal with retarded liberals and their society of "Acceptance and multiculturalism"

Re:Republicans (0)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#42114857)

Hi. Yeah, and usher in the radiant socialist future where everyone is happy and equal and one with the earth, even if it means cutting down/neutering those who actually are better in some context for the sake of feelings/'community cohesion' and the court of oprahtic opinion. Oh wait, that's right, the democrats are just as fucking useless. They'd squander our resources on stupid shit as well, like bailing out backwater countries while they demand remote control of our cars, refrigerators, diets, and thermostats (among other casualties of the 'smart grid'). Meanwhile what we should be doing is using our dwindling resources to get a foothold in space before they run out because that's where the motherload is. We need leaders that get this with the same strident urgency as the obamey autocrats have for maintaining the status quo as the answer.

Both parties are part of the same problem and both need to go. They are our grandparents' parties. Their opinions, motivations, and expectations are 50 years out of date.

Re:Republicans (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115105)

The Republican Party of today would be totally unrecognizable to my grandfather who was born in 1899. Eisenhower was a president he fully supported. Today Eisenhower would be considered a liberal socialist by the idiots running the GOP today. Don't blame the wrong generation.

It's ok. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114695)

Just tell those seas you don't believe in global we fucked up the climate change.

That's the cheap choice. And it's all we're gonna do.

Re:It's ok. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114787)

all yelling at the tides like Psy yelling at a butt.

Re:It's ok. (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#42115131)

Just tell those seas you don't believe in global we fucked up the climate change.

That's the cheap choice. And it's all we're gonna do.

Hey, is that you King Knut?

Energy companies will fight this report (5, Insightful)

mozumder (178398) | about 2 years ago | (#42114705)

This is their entire purpose in life - to force you to pay to do anything by using their energy resources. And, they're going to do everything they can to make sure any bad news about energy consumption goes away.

Remember kids, this is why you fight the energy companies. Do everything you can to fight them back!

I doubt it (4, Insightful)

OrangeTide (124937) | about 2 years ago | (#42114733)

Bad news about energy is good news for energy companies, that means they can have a new excuse to charge more for energy.

Re:Energy companies will fight this report (3, Informative)

ciclano (2778515) | about 2 years ago | (#42114801)

Energy or oil? If to defeat the much less powerfull tobaco industry misinformation war took 50 years. Oil companies have much more money and resources.
We must demand that the oil companies collect the garbage generated by the product they sell just as happens with batteries and tires.

Re:Energy companies will fight this report (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115283)

Energy or oil? If to defeat the much less powerfull tobaco industry misinformation war took 50 years...

Over 400,000 people die every year (just in the US) from smoking.

The only product they make is grown with radioactive pesticides, continues to go completely unregulated with regards to restrictions on chemicals used, and is shoved under the same group who regulates alcohol and firearms.

You call that a win?

I'm guessing you also have a "W" marked down for the US under the Vietnam column too.

You're more brainwashed than the politicians the tobacco industry bought off long ago.

Re:Energy companies will fight this report (-1, Troll)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#42114955)

Yes, that's true, and then we have the hippie tree huggers on the left who think every nuclear plant = chernobyl while they're ignorant about the unbelievable damage all those batteries in their priuses do to the environment when they're 'recycled.' Also, don't forget the PETA/ASPCA lunatics who think we should subsist on insects and grass because hurting 'innocent' animals should be a crime. These are the same kinds of people who think 'free love' is just so wonderful because the state will take care of all the unwanted babies that result when mommy says "oh life is just so wonderful I'm keeping my baby," and "daddy, you're paying the bills" when he doesn't have the money. Of course, they forget that all these mouths will put even more stress on the environment, justifying their resource stratification and control mantras even more.

yeah, lots of sensible solutions, attitudes, and solutions from the party fuckwits..

Remember kids, this is why critical thinking is important. It prevents any one ideology from dominating your mindset for any serious length of time. Anything else is no different than religious idiocy.

I've given up (5, Insightful)

ndogg (158021) | about 2 years ago | (#42114735)

I've grown extraordinarily pessimistic that anything can or will be done about climate change at this point, and my only thought at this point is that we just need to enjoy what we can until the inevitable self-inflicted pain and suffering we will endure from its affects.

So let's all party for tomorrow we may die.

Re:I've given up (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114749)

I've grown extraordinarily pessimistic that anything can or will be done about climate change at this point, and my only thought at this point is that we just need to enjoy what we can until the inevitable self-inflicted pain and suffering we will endure from its affects.

So let's all party for tomorrow we may die.

Tonight! We dine in HELL!

Re:I've given up (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115039)

C'mon, the work canteen isn't that bad.

Re:I've given up (5, Insightful)

gox (1595435) | about 2 years ago | (#42114821)

I've grown extraordinarily pessimistic that anything can or will be done about climate change at this point, and my only thought at this point is that we just need to enjoy what we can until the inevitable self-inflicted pain and suffering we will endure from its affects.

We don't know how to solve such problems. The extent we can do with our current political technology is to become increasingly centralized to implement and enforce consistent policies. Which is a much bigger nightmare than global warming and would cause more suffering in the long run. Of course we won't call it suffering then, since we will be educated to know better.

I'm pessimistic about our ability to solve this problem, but I'm mildly optimistic about the coping part. We can easily adapt. New technologies will deal with the problems we're likely to face. The worst part would still be the politics of it. There is too much friction in resource allocation, which will make it very hard to help threatened populations. There is even more political friction if you want to relocate them.

Would these issues result in the same kind of centralization? If so, then moving in that direction now would be the lesser evil. It's very hard to reason about.

Re:I've given up (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114999)

> I'm pessimistic about our ability to solve this problem, but I'm mildly optimistic about the coping part. We can easily adapt. New technologies will deal with the problems we're likely to face. The worst part would still be the politics of it. There is too much friction in resource allocation, which will make it very hard to help threatened populations. There is even more political friction if you want to relocate them.

There's no coping. There's NO coping at all.

It's not about what we do about our populations. We are extremely on bees -- and that's ONE species... but we live in a complex mesh of ecologic relations.

With sea acidification and massive coast ecosystems death, next will be animals and plants on land -- coffee? ha! You'll be lucky if rice and wheat can somehow adapt and still we won't be able to survive on these alone.

With possibly a complex chain of ecosystem failures -- who knows how many, maybe thousands -- and our reactive capacity will be overwhelmed.

Even if we resort to the worse within us, I'm pessimistic about the winners' chances...

Re:I've given up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115113)

We accidentally all the bees!

Re:I've given up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115249)

"become increasingly centralized to implement and enforce consistent policies. Which is a much bigger nightmare than global warming and would cause more suffering in the long run."

FALSE.

Go on, alarmist PROVE your theory.

If the ice on land all melts that's a 100m rise in sea level. How many people would that drown and how much land would be lost (and need rebuilding elsewhere)?

You have this religious belief that central planning and government are inherently worse than anything ever anywhere.

And so you pretend that AGW MUST be wrong, else this "worse thing!" will happen.

Bollocks.

Re:I've given up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115445)

How many people would that drown

Not many, as long as they move when waterline has moved to their front door.

If you take all the ice, melt it and then dump in on the coastline instantly however...

Re:I've given up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115581)

Are you trolling or stupid?

Most people live on the coast throughout the world; the main cities (and probably most capitals) would be obliterated by such rise; an entire country, Netherlands, would need relocation -- but where do you put 16 million people? Will they learn to live underwater?

My only consolation is that since I believe in evolution, more deniers than liberals will die -- since they'll deny there is a problem even with water at their noses, while liberals will give up reasoning with them and seek a safe place.

Re:I've given up (0)

Ost99 (101831) | about 2 years ago | (#42115347)

At this point it looks like anything slightly worse than the best case scenario is going to cause the collapse of civilization. There is no "adapting" to that.

We are possibly facing a extinction level event unless significant change is made in the short term.

Re:I've given up (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114873)

So let's all party for tomorrow we may die.

I agree with you that fixing the climate requires too much of a short-term sacrifice to be politically feasible. The only way to reach a sustainable equilibrium is to drastically reduce the world population, maybe to 300 million. Even if you managed to implement it humanely (single-child policy Chinese-style), it would take a couple of centuries to take effect because people are living longer all the time. As hundreds of millions of Asians are (hopefully) lifted out of poverty and achieve a well-earned Western lifestyle, the emissions will accelerate until we run out of coal.

However, I don't think you will be among the first to die. I believe the main culprits will also be safest from the repercussions. Expect the poor in India and Africa to do the dying.

Re:I've given up (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#42114933)

If you want to reduce the population, you just need to implement unreasonable austerity measures. Our birth rate here in Portugal dropped 10% just this year, to well below the replacement rate.

Re:I've given up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115011)

Go Portugal! Goes to show that educating women is the best remedy to the world's ailments.

Re:I've given up (1)

hattig (47930) | about 2 years ago | (#42115051)

Yet in the UK we've just had a record year for babies. Unemployed people spend more time fucking y'see.

Re:I've given up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115259)

I am willing to bet that most of those babies are brown, too. Allah u ackbar, welcome to the Caliphate of England.

Re:I've given up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115307)

Our birth rate here in Portugal dropped 10% just this year, to well below the replacement rate.

Which segment of Portugal's population is choosing to delay having children? Is it the contributing segment of the population, such as the employed or the unemployed people who are seeking employment, or is it the non-contributing segment, such as those who are content to live on social assistance and have no real intention of seeking employment? If one group is delaying having children, and the other group is not, then the one group is actually replacing the other.

Re:I've given up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115475)

Is it the contributing segment of the population, such as the employed or the unemployed people who are seeking employment, or is it the non-contributing segment

You base your post on the idea that a child can't grow up and work his way from one group to the other.
If that is the case then the traditional capitalistic concept is invalid and has to be revised.
You are essentially making an argument for communism.

Re:I've given up (2)

mdsharpe (1051460) | about 2 years ago | (#42114939)

Agreed. We may or may not be at peak oil, but either way there's a heck of a lot more fossil fuel left to dig up, and I just cannot see any way that business will let themselves be denied that wealth.

One consistent theme (4, Interesting)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#42114785)

Every estimate has been overly optimistic. Can anyone see a problem with this? Essentially throw out the best case scenario and look at the worst case scenario as the baseline. Anyone not panicked at the thought of this IS A FOOL! After a decade plus of denial we come out with the worst case scenario is our best case. Basically three foot of ocean level rise is the best we can hope for and the likely result is twice that. Kiss all that coastal property goodbye! Forget all that because it mostly affects rich people. Just look at the Great Lakes. They stand at record levels. Remember this ISN'T the bad this is the best we can expect for the next 100 years and it may get worse after that. Drought is likely to be the norm not to mention storms damage. In 10 or 20 years the conservatives will blame the liberals for not telling them how bad it could get. Okay from a liberal here's how bad it can get, ever see Road Warrior???? That's bad. Good is probably Soylent Green. Any questions????

None at all. (4, Insightful)

robbak (775424) | about 2 years ago | (#42114815)

All we are going to do about it is shoot the climate scientists for not doing enough to warn us.

Re:None at all. (1)

hattig (47930) | about 2 years ago | (#42115063)

That's what the Italian government will probably do, with it's massive lack of understanding of science and imprisonment of scientists for not being omniscient.

Re:One consistent theme (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114839)

The only estimate that still matters is "The Limits to Growth". According to the BAU scenario, the modern civilization will end by 2030, and according to what I see, we're firmly heading that way. So, while we will probably go through Dec 21, 2012 uneventfully, it is quite uncertain if we'll hit the 2038 Linux bug.

Re:One consistent theme (4, Insightful)

kyrsjo (2420192) | about 2 years ago | (#42114851)

"The rich" might loose their valuable beachfront property, but many poor in Bangladesh and other places will drown.

A small sadistic part of me is looking forward to see what our right-wing politicians who argue that (a) climate change is a conspiracy and (b) immigrants are evil once the people-flood sets in - hundreds of millions of people are not going to sit quietly on their hands and drown, no matter how much right-wing western politicians wish that is true... Lets just hope there are no mayor shortages before the worlds food production can adjust - but on the other hand, "someone else" will probably get the pointy end of that problem, too...

Re:One consistent theme (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 2 years ago | (#42115455)

They will not Drown... not unless they are stupid and just sit there for a couple years while the water rises. They will simply move away from the water, into the rich people's country estates. Preferrably with torches and pichforks and ending with a rich guy swinging from a tree.

Re:One consistent theme (1)

Bongo (13261) | about 2 years ago | (#42114983)

Catastrophe projections are predicated on feedbacks.

Re:One consistent theme (1)

Vintermann (400722) | about 2 years ago | (#42115251)

All climate projections are predicated on feedbacks. Even the ridiculously optimistic projections of the contrarians are predicated on feedbacks - only with dubious negative ones counteracting the undeniable positive ones.

Re:One consistent theme (1)

Bongo (13261) | about 2 years ago | (#42115421)

Cloud cover can both help warming or help cooling at the same time depending on many things, and it is part of the feedbacks. Now which caused which and in which direction and by how much? Calling it undeniable is pointless. We can easily fuck ourselves acting against problems we little understand, eg. invading Iraq.

Re:One consistent theme (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115021)

Yes unfortunately this is being treated as a scientific observation where caution means not making the most extreme claims. It should be treated like an engineering problem where caution means assuming the most extreme claims might be true (and build in a factor of 2 safety).

Re:One consistent theme (1)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42115161)

Engineering doesn't mean just putting in safety margins that make people happy, it means making cost/benefit tradeoffs. And it means taking into account opportunity costs.

Expending too many resources on reducing green house gas emissions may mean that, in the long run, far more people may die than if we had done nothing.

Re:One consistent theme (2)

Ost99 (101831) | about 2 years ago | (#42115503)

With extinction looming on the horizon if we do nothing, I doubt your risk reward function is working properly if you think we might end up hurting more people by doing something now.

Re:One consistent theme (5, Interesting)

WhiteSpade (959060) | about 2 years ago | (#42115091)

Just look at the Great Lakes. They stand at record levels.

Do you mean record lows or highs? Because the way it's written seems to indicate you think they're at record highs, and that is not the case at all. I am originally from Wisconsin, and dropping lake levels has been a concern for a long time and this year saw a record low for Lake Michigan. The states surrounding the lakes have been actively trying to protect and increase the lake levels, since they had been dropping for so long. Many states (read: the southwest) wanted to run a pipeline from the Great Lakes in order that Arizona can have green grass in their front yards. All of the Great Lake states (and eventually the feds) signed the Great Lakes Compact [wikipedia.org] in order to protect the lakes. In effect, it requires that all water removed from the lakes must be returned.

Dropping lake levels has a significant economic impact on shipping in the midwest - measured in the billions of dollars (too lazy to find a citation for this, but I've read more than a few reports on this over the years).

As for the rest of your post, yes sea level are rising, but I think a 3 foot rise in sea levels in the short term is not terribly likely. The seas are rising, this is a problem, but I don't think it serves anyone to overstate the problem. A cm or two is a big enough problem as it is. 3 ft in the short term would be nothing short of catastrophic. Calm down, focus on the problem, readjust to the new data, and contribute to the conversation productively with your newfound context.

---Alex

Re:One consistent theme (-1)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#42115141)

Please get a grip.

a) Plants love CO2.
b) Heat puts water in the air. Putting more water in the air on average will result in less not more drought. Moreover for about 6000 years have been rather good at moving fresh water around for agriculture.

Humans are excellent at adaption, that's why we successfully exist in so many climates. The sort of exaggeration you are engaging in is precisely how climate change theories got discredited to begin with.

Re:One consistent theme (4, Informative)

dkf (304284) | about 2 years ago | (#42115479)

Plants love CO2.

On the other hand, plants aren't so keen on heat stress. There's multiple effects going on, some of which are positive and some negative and many of which are non-linear, and that's why this stuff is so hard to work out: balancing the relative sizes of all these things to get the overall picture (especially in non-equilibrium situations) is viciously difficult.

Re:One consistent theme (0)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#42115599)

I agree. But in general hot moist environments with lots of CO2 are great for plants. The more earth becomes like a rain forest the more plants (on average) will like it. I suspect we can find plants that would like it even hotter if we could keep humidity high.

What plants don't do well with is high heat / low humidity.

Get a clue. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115505)

a) If plants love CO2 so much, how come it's increasing in the atmosphere? Are the plants picky about what they eat???
b) Heat putting water in the air is how we know there is a positive feedback (cf "Bongo (13261) on Wednesday November 28, @05:04AM (#42114983)") and that water won't fall and remain on the same spot.

Humans may be excellent at adaption, but you aren't. You refuse to adapt (changing your source of power is an adaption to the climate problem).

Re:Get a clue. (0)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 years ago | (#42115585)

a) That's like asking why there is still sand if we use sandbags. We are putting CO2 faster than plants need it. Increased CO2 assists plant growth by about 30%.

b) Of course wanter won't remain on the same spot. A lot will migrate from ocean to dry land.

Re:One consistent theme (1)

Chewbacon (797801) | about 2 years ago | (#42115263)

So if I'm 20 feet above sea level now, my property value is expected to go up! Fuck yeah.

Stefan Rahmstorf says he was right all along (1)

DeathToBill (601486) | about 2 years ago | (#42114803)

It really is as bad as we thought. Editors still let him publish.

Yawn.

What do you mean optimistic? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114807)

I would call this pessimistic and the new projection optimistic.

I've got beach front property in Pensylvania that I plan on selling in 2030.

That's wrong, (-1, Troll)

Stumbles (602007) | about 2 years ago | (#42114809)

because Obama lowered the oceans and being a "savior" he can do as he pleases.

Re:That's wrong, (1)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#42114823)

No, Obama didn't drop the sea level. That great crag you saw rise from the oceans was just one of his caves as it reared its ugly head. :(

dry land (1)

negativeduck (2510256) | about 2 years ago | (#42114831)

dry land is not a myth! I've seen it!
sorry couldn't help it :)

Regret (5, Insightful)

allcoolnameswheretak (1102727) | about 2 years ago | (#42114911)

One of the most regretful moments of my life was when a few people from an organization I don't remember were visiting my school, claiming that rising sea levels are nothing more than myths and scare stories. I clearly remember the guy in front of the class being all smug, saying "I'm sure you've all seen the movie Water World. Well, that's just Hollywood because the sea is never going to rise. Ice floats on water and has actually a lower density than water, therefore, if it melts, the sea level is going to stay the same or actually -lower-....".

I was in agony, on the one hand I wanted to shove Antarctica, an entire continent packed with ice, full in his face, but my shyness, fear of being at the center of attention and making a scene by completely discrediting these highborn scientific authorities that had come to talk to us, made me stay quiet.

Man, how much I regret having stayed quiet.

Re:Regret (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115061)

yep... okay... so call me a skeptic... but what is the yardstick by which to measure? with landmasses moving up and down the tectonic shift.. some areas of the world are rising up out of the water, some are sinking, and in some places at a rate greater than this 3.2mm/year..

btw.. I do agree with there being more water in the oceans now, with ice caps shrinking, logically it goes somewhere... but can they please tell me HOW they came up with this 3.2mm figure and I might be more inclined to listen.

Re:Regret (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115073)

we could use the best climate model program available... Civ V.

Re:Regret (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115183)

You know, you could actually read the paper... Unfortunately not linked in the Reuters article but easy to find with some Google-fu (I searched for the journal):

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

TL;DR: tide gauge data and satellite altimeter.

Re:Regret (1)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#42115241)

The most important factor of rising sea levels is not the quantity of water, but its temperature. When heated water expands, water covers most of the earth.

Don't regret. You were just a kid. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115491)

... were visiting my school....

I assure you that if you spoke up, you would have been belittled by the smug asshole, your teacher would have joined in or told you to shut up, you would have been sent to the office, your parents called, and suspended. You then would probably would have been forced to apologize to those kooks.

No you did the right thing. And not only that, I can be pretty sure those smug asshats walked away thinking they did a great job getting the "word" out about the "truth". Those people are delusional. All the data in the World will never change their mind. And as more things are done (hopefully) to deal with Global Warming, those people will be scratching their heads wondering why there's so much support for such actions. Kind of like the Fox News crowd who couldn't believe that Obama kicked Romney's ass in the elections. Actually it is the same crowd.

The Fox News - Talk Radio crowd are so ill informed that they are living in a delusion of what reality is. Why right now, they firmly believe that Obama is going to pull some sort of a legal thingy doodle and be in office until 2020. But that's another story and post ....

GOP has a solution for that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114917)

Their approach is:
  ask your self what would Jesus do?

Lets all start building rafts.

Any one want to be a raft entrepreneur? lots of wood in South America forests you know.

Time to move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114961)

Well, time to get off my island and move to highgrounds. No way I'm buying a house on sea level or lower.
Lucky we got plenty of those here.

How the world will react? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42114981)

See http://www.amazon.com/Glass-House-Climate-Millennium-ebook/dp/B005U3U69C

No significant change for a century. (4, Informative)

PerMolestiasEruditio (1118269) | about 2 years ago | (#42115003)

recent data doesn't show any increase in rate of sea level rise:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ [colorado.edu]
looking at the decadal rate of increase it has actually been falling off for last 5 years:
http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/sea_level_rise_fig1.jpg [masterresource.org]
doesn't appear to be any significant alteration in rate of rise over last 100 years, rate of rise in 30's-60's was about the same as current:
http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/images/uploads/2012_sea_level_fig1.jpg [oceanclima...nge.org.au]

A rather big factor that needs to be taken into account is that since the 1950's there has been a massive amount of ground water abstraction for agriculture that is estimated to contribute something like 0.4-0.8mm/year to sea level rise (15-25% of total).
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2012/05/120531-groundwater-depletion-may-accelerate-sea-level-rise/ [nationalgeographic.co.uk]

More bluster. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115009)

According to whom? As far as I know, there's no way to measure sea level to that degree of accuracy, taking into account all of the variable factors. NASA JPL admits to “spurious” errors in current satellite based sea level and ice altimetry [wattsupwiththat.com] . That is to say, the lack of a stable reference frame. Worse for the catastrophists, a paper in GRL shows there to be a 60 oscillation in the majority of long tide records [wattsupwiththat.com] .

sea floors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115059)

You know sea floors never rise right? And land masses never fall right? Both have been shown to be happening. But hey it's all about the people that build by the water that need their 3rd home rebuilt and who gets subsidized on the university level. Drama, drama, drama.

Not much of a surprise (5, Insightful)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#42115067)

The IPCC always said that various positive feedbacks were not included because the science wasn't clear enough. That always implied that the AR projections were the best possible case, and don't forget that those were the consensus opinion - meaning that if the Saudi delegates didn't agree it wouldn't go in the AR.

I just hope the AR5 will be a little more realistic and a wake-up call.

Faulty study (0)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 years ago | (#42115101)

They measured once in the morning and once in the afternoon.

typical fear mongering (1)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42115139)

"Unless we reduce our carbon pollution rapidly, this study clearly shows we are heading for the nightmare world at the top end of the IPCC predictions,"

No, we'll simply be heading for a world with sea levels that are a few feet higher and temperatures that are a few degrees higher a century from now, ample time to adapt without much effort. It's not like we need to move New York or Miami overnight.

Re:typical fear mongering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115447)

I'm sorry but you're absolutely wrong there. Ice-Core data show us that in the past the climate showed the ability to drastically change in the course of a few years. They talk about it in the BBC Documentary "The Climate Wars", i think in the third part. It's in full length on youtube and a very interesting view.

Greenland is melting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115305)

The IPCC projections don't include the water added by the Greenland Ice Sheet melting.
Expect it to get a lot worse as more of that melts.

Where's the source? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115341)

Contrary to most others, I always look into these studies and read them, to form my own opinion. Sadly, I rarely see an article written by a journalist that is even remotely close to the truth, especially when it comes to science. So before I draw any conclusions I want to see what exactly was measured, how it was measured and how the conclusions came to be. But... alas, no source as far as I can see... :-(. Anyone found the original study?

All fossil fuels will still be burned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115425)

I'm sure everybody wants the best for our planet, but I'm also convinced that all fossil fuels that can be dug up, will be converted to CO2 eventually.

If we want CO2 levels to stop rising, we have to stop burning fossil fuels, or turn the CO2 back into C and O2.

It's that simple.

Seems they are always underestimating the climate (2)

GoodnaGuy (1861652) | about 2 years ago | (#42115461)

In general when someone makes an estimate of something, they are too low 50% of the time and too high 50% some of the time. Somehow they are always underestimating the figures. Doesn't seem very likely to me. More likely people are just exaggerating to get attention. If this isnt happening then looked at from a scientific point of view. If the model they are using for the climate is consistently giving figures that are too low, it doesnt mean we must give more credit to that theory, it means we must look for a new one.

Need to go nuke as a short-term measure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115467)

We need an immediate and massive shift to nuclear as a short-term measure to keep up with our ravenous energy demands. It's better to risk a few localized Chernobyl/Fukushima disasters than have an assured global disaster. We should shoot for a goal of having all fossil fuel burning slowed to a trickle within the next 10 to 20 years.

As a long-term measure we need to continue the shift to solar, wind, biofuels, and other alternatives and slowly ween ourselves off the nuclear sources of energy.

We, as citizens of the world who are aware of this problem, need to create the political impetus to make this happen. You are not powerless. Post links to good articles about climate change to Facebook and Twitter. People will respond to these issues if they hear enough about them. Don't worry about looking like a buzzkill talking about this stuff. Use humor to get your point across.

Original Study? Peer review? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42115559)

I was sure something would come out like this for the conference - a study done by an organization invested in the climate change alarmism. This one is especially amusing as several peer reviewed studies recently have shown less rise in ocean levels than expected, to almost no rise.

"for the next century " (1)

mapkinase (958129) | about 2 years ago | (#42115573)

"for the next century " eyeroll

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?