Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

New Interactive Map For Understanding Global Flood Risks

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the seek-out-higher-ground dept.

Earth 64

An anonymous reader writes "Using computations on the massive near-global SRTM surface model from NASA, this map lets you query watersheds, interactively set the sea-level and flood the world (North America at 500m increase in sea-level), or play around with river thresholds on a global or regional scale (computed rivers around NYC/NJ). It can be used to get an understanding of the watersheds and water flow paths in your local neighborhood; do you know where rain (or pollutants) that falls in your backyard end up? The map is freely available to the public."

cancel ×

64 comments

If you're going to go to all that trouble... (5, Interesting)

dohzer (867770) | about 5 months ago | (#46321613)

Why not go the whole hog and allow for a FALL in sea-level by enabling negative values? Surely we have the necessary sea-floor maps and people who think climate change is running the other way.

There is an interactive sea-level map from NASA (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 5 months ago | (#46321637)

I do not have the link right now but I remember there *was* an interactive map from NASA that allows user to input the sea-level (either hike or lower the sea/river/lake-level ) and see the changes appear in seconds.

I'll try to find that link (no guarantee), but if anyone has that link as well, mind sharing it with us ?

Re:If you're going to go to all that trouble... (3, Informative)

SeeSchloss (886510) | about 5 months ago | (#46321659)

The sea-floor elevation maps are vastly less precise (because you can't just use a radar from satellite to measure sea-floor).

Re: If you're going to go to all that trouble... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46325835)

Interestingly you can use satellite altimetry of the sea surface to work out bathymetry.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/predicted/explore.HTML

Re:If you're going to go to all that trouble... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46321711)

Why not go the whole hog and allow for a FALL in sea-level by enabling negative values? Surely we have the necessary sea-floor maps and people who think climate change is running the other way.

Well, that would actually make more sense than the 500m that the link points to. If all ice in both the south pole and Greenland melts the sea-level will rise with about 80m. To get above 100m we will need to import water from another planet.
The range that would be of interest would be somewhere between -100 to 100m for showing everything from a new ice age to an ice-free planet.
I guess even lower than -100m is still theoretically possible. 500m is just retarded scaremongering that undermines their credibility.

Re:If you're going to go to all that trouble... (0)

polar red (215081) | about 5 months ago | (#46321851)

not necessarily : if you heat water, it expands. So after all ice has been melted, the water will continue to rise.

Re:If you're going to go to all that trouble... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46322051)

You can heat the oceans until they boil, you are still not going to increase the level more than 100m.

Re:If you're going to go to all that trouble... (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 4 months ago | (#46324281)

Maybe so but scientists estimate that more than half of the sea level rise in the past century+ was due to thermal expansion of the oceans although melting of ice has become more dominant lately.

Re:If you're going to go to all that trouble... (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about 5 months ago | (#46322413)

"To get above 100m we will need to import water from another planet."

Did you not read the text of the HR4021 that congress is looking to pass? It's the Sol System Free water trade agreement.

Re:If you're going to go to all that trouble... (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 5 months ago | (#46323137)

"If all ice in both the south pole and Greenland melts the sea-level will rise with about 80m. To get above 100m we will need to import water from another planet."

Water is just an oxide of Hydrogen
There is still a lot of free O2 in the atmosphere
Sp when we burn fossil hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas) we get more water in the atmosphere, and the oceans, as well as more CO2

Re:If you're going to go to all that trouble... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#46325353)

"Well, that would actually make more sense than the 500m that the link points to."

If you go to the home page of that site, and navigate to the sea-level-rise page with no url parameters specified [scalgo.com] , it starts at 100m sea-level rise by default. The page linked here is exactly as it appears from simply clicking on the "raise seal level" link on the site.

Further, I examined New York and Seattle closely, at current sea level and at 1m (the reasonable max we can expect by 2100 according to the IPCC). It made only minuscule changes around the fringes in each city.

I should also note that the choice of colors is such that many coastal areas (including the Seattle-area coastline) appear to be already underwater at current sea level, when they clearly are not.

So regardless of its accuracy, that page is pretty obviousy intended to scare people.

Re:If you're going to go to all that trouble... (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | about 5 months ago | (#46338733)

I wonder if any of this data was "massaged" by the hadley climate unit ?

http://www.examiner.com/articl... [examiner.com]

The best thing about looking for liars is they can be found everywhere, and in
particular where big budgets rely on them lying.

Re:If you're going to go to all that trouble... (1)

wcrowe (94389) | about 5 months ago | (#46323103)

Heretic!

Re:If you're going to go to all that trouble... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46337415)

There's an app out there (isn't there always) that let's you do something similar and view it in 3D. It does let you lower the sea level as well. Their web site is here [elevationearth.com] . It's not free though - they charge a few dollars for it.

Re:If you're going to go to all that trouble... (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | about 5 months ago | (#46338603)

Operation Mockingbird wants to inform you not to question the official story.

You wouldn't want to end up like:

Ken Saro Wiwa, Terrance Yeakey, Barry Seal, Michael Hastings, Dr. David Kelly....

Netherlands already flooded, call 911 (3, Insightful)

Njovich (553857) | about 5 months ago | (#46321701)

So according to the map, Netherlands is already completely flooded with just millimetres of sea level rise. Somehow I think they forgot some factors.

Re:Netherlands already flooded, call 911 (0)

geogob (569250) | about 5 months ago | (#46321735)

No map or prediction can't tell you where there is going to be flooding or not. Even without sea level rise. This is espcially true with heavy human intervention, like in the Netherlands. You can simply identify regions at risk and attemp to evaluate the flooding probabilties.

But is that really so surprising and unrealistic? It's not like floods are something unheard of in the Netherlands.

Re:Netherlands already flooded, call 911 (1)

geogob (569250) | about 5 months ago | (#46321739)

No map or prediction can tell your... (sorry for the poor proofreading. It's early -_-)

Re:Netherlands already flooded, call 911 (1)

geogob (569250) | about 5 months ago | (#46321745)

*you* (i give up - if at least beta had comment editing possibility... not even that.)

Re:Netherlands already flooded, call 911 (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 4 months ago | (#46324071)

"No map or prediction can't (sic) tell you where there is going to be flooding or not."

I think the point is that, yes, a map can tell you where you are likely to have problems if the sea level rises. Like all science, it is not 100% accurate but it's much better than just sticking your head in the sand (and waiting for the water to rise).

Re:Netherlands already flooded, call 911 (1)

geogob (569250) | about 5 months ago | (#46332087)

I believe you missunderstood me or read only half of what I wrote - or I expressed myself poorly (or both). Your are basically saying the same thing as I do! A map can't tell you where a flooding will occure for sure, but you can say where the probability a flood will occur are higher, especially in the context of sea level rise. Combining elevation information with current flooding probability maps is a brilland idea to extrapolate the potential effects of sea level rise.

My comment was in response to the not-so-insightful comment "oh no, according to the map Niederland is completely flooded. The map must be wrong. The science must be wrong."

It is not wrong. It shows probabilites, just like I said in my first post and just as you mentionned in as well.

Re:Netherlands already flooded, call 911 (3, Insightful)

Alsn (911813) | about 5 months ago | (#46321755)

The map does not seem to take into account artificial means of holding back the ocean(dikes, for example). The Netherlands are in fact below sea level(about 25% of it according to wikipedia) so in that context, the map makes perfect sense.

Re:Netherlands already flooded, call 911 (2)

captainpanic (1173915) | about 5 months ago | (#46321831)

This map is very useful for countries/regions without any protection against the sea. In the Netherlands, far better maps are available anyway, which take all the major (and minor) dikes and protections into account.

In the Netherlands, the height of literally every square meter is mapped already (probably because the Dutch built the land themselves).
Here's a more detailed map of the Netherlands, with all the major dikes on it: http://www.floodsite.net/junio... [floodsite.net]
You can enter any postcode (zipcode) and get the elevation here: http://ahn.geodan.nl/ahn/viewe... [geodan.nl]
According to this site, Dutch maps have 8 pixels per m2, while the NASA/SRTM gadget seems to have 1 pixel per 100m2 or so: http://www.ahn.nl/bestellen/ke... [www.ahn.nl]

Re:Netherlands already flooded, call 911 (0)

fremsley471 (792813) | about 5 months ago | (#46321759)

The default is 10 m sea rise, shown to illustrate what will happen. Change it back to zero and it will go away.

Re:Netherlands already flooded, call 911 (1)

Sique (173459) | about 5 months ago | (#46321965)

No, it doesn't, because in fact, the coastal regions of the Netherlands would be flooded by today's sea levels, if it wasn't for the dikes and constant pumping.

Scary map... (1)

GNious (953874) | about 5 months ago | (#46321723)

Shite, that map is scary - if the water raises 1 mm, the fjord where I grew up will be flooded! All that water, covered by 1mm water ...

Watershed and fine resolution (2, Insightful)

fremsley471 (792813) | about 5 months ago | (#46321767)

Best hydrology resource I've seen online, sorry to be so positive.

Re:Watershed and fine resolution (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46322939)

Best hydrology resource I've seen online, sorry to be so positive.

Wow, I never realized that the state of hydrology resources online was so bad.

8 meter rise worst case = dooom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46321783)

Put in an 8 meter rise (this is the worst case scenario until 2100CE) and see what goes down. It's pretty devastating for North America coastal cities, but survivable.

For funsies I decided to see how much the sea level would have to rise before the area I live in would be flooded, and that's at 133 meters or so, where I live, and the closest shopping mall become an Island. About 6 city blocks. I wasn't actually aware that I was that high up, though the University on the top of the hill has far more sea level rise wiggle room. I then went and looked up the area I grew up in which is up in the mountains, a 470 meter rise would be required. So I think between these two silly reasons I'm living in a good place that isn't susceptible to immediate flood risk.

The thing is, the airport is like the first thing to go at around 1 meter rise, and at 3 meter rise most of the area south of the river is lost (all lost at 8 meters) So I was right for not wanting to live on that side of the river hehe...

If you go look at places like the San Francisco bay or New Orleans, these areas are gone at even 10cm rise because the map can't compute areas that are already below or near sea level.

Re:8 meter rise worst case = dooom (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 5 months ago | (#46321887)

What's more worrying is that a lot of farmland is going away if there's a rise. And a considerable amount of the farmland in California may suffer.

Re:8 meter rise worst case = dooom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46322085)

What's more worrying is that a lot of farmland is going away if there's a rise. And a considerable amount of the farmland in California may suffer.

The farmland is good farmland because of the proximity to the oceans. Move the the ocean level up and more area inland becomes better farmland. Move the ocean level down and the better farmland will move with it.
I would be more worried about moving the major cities. Sure you can move one house at a time as the water rises but the leftovers is going to be a sanitary problem.

Re:8 meter rise worst case = dooom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46322573)

Wow, this is the dumbest thing I've read in a while.

Re:8 meter rise worst case = dooom (3)

stenvar (2789879) | about 5 months ago | (#46322923)

Farmland is where we decide to farm, it doesn't just "go away". If you mean potential farmland or arable land, climate change causes it to go away in some places, and it causes lots of it to appear in other places. But that's been going on since the last ice age and humanity deals with it easily.

Re:8 meter rise worst case = dooom (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | about 5 months ago | (#46338933)

True and with vertical hydroponics you can use 10x less water, and 10 times less space.

Supposedly they now have an LED that will grow plants as well...

Thou it would appear that not all LED plant lights are created equal....

http://forums.gardenweb.com/fo... [gardenweb.com]

Re:8 meter rise worst case = dooom (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 5 months ago | (#46343055)

I don't think we'll need vertical hydroponics; there's plenty of new arable land opening up in the north, even as the south gets warmer and drier.

Re:8 meter rise worst case = dooom (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 5 months ago | (#46323169)

A lot of farmland?

Hmm, plug in the 40cm rise expected this century, and I see a wee bit of land near San Fransisco Bay, plus some land around the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.

I'm not seeing a significant loss of farmland as a result, even if we assume everyone is too stupid to build a two foot high levee to protect the affected areas.

Balderdash! (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#46321839)

If we start taking this sort of alarmist garbage seriously, my beachfront condo might get reassigned into a higher-risk flood zone, potentially increasing my insurance payments to something vaguely resembling actual cost! Then, if it should happen to flood for a third time this decade, I'll have to make do with less taxpayer money to rebuild it. How is that fair?

(In case it wasn't abundantly obvious, I don't actually espouse that point of view; but there's a reason why flood-estimate maps are Big Political Business at least in the US: because stuff getting flooded happens approximately all the time, we have the 'National Flood Insurance Program [fema.gov] '. Your level of estimated risk governs your premiums; but not your payout in the event of an incident, so people are even less happy than usual to hear from Mr. Pessimism, when it comes time to redraw the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, regardless of his accuracy.

Luckily, with a suitable understanding of the political process and access to a few lawyers and engineers, it is frequently possible to evade such heinous miscarriages of justice as 'being classified as high risk just because your property has a recent history of flooding' and the like.

Re:Balderdash! (1)

Xyrus (755017) | about 5 months ago | (#46323045)

If we start taking this sort of alarmist garbage seriously...

This resource has nothing to do with "alarmist garbage". Its simply a tool that you can use to see what different levels of sea level rise does to the the planet. For example, you can set the map to 500m of sea level rise, which is well beyond what is physically possible.

That being said, insurance companies are one of the larger consumers of climatological information. And yes, if your inundation rate has gone up ten fold as compared to what it was 30 years ago (REGARDLESS of the cause), then your insurance rates will go up.

Re:Balderdash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46325383)

Of course it is "alarmist garbage". Saying it is not is like saying that a hammer is not for driving nails, being merely a stick with a flat steel face affixed to one end.

Re: Balderdash! (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 4 months ago | (#46327209)

War hammers, smiths hammers, sledge hammers, ball peen hammers... None of these are for driving nails.

Re:Balderdash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46323903)

I think you understand the system pretty well.

I am forced to pay flood insurance because I live in a FEMA mapped flood zone... in a house that's been there for over 160 years (possibly 300, nobody really knows) that has never been flooded. Every year the government takes the money I pay in premiums and uses it for rebuilding places where people vastly richer than me live in houses that have been repeatedly flooded out (or, in the case of the barrier islands, repeatedly destroyed). If I had lawyers and government connections, I could get my property reclassified, but I don't have that kind of cash.

Re:Balderdash! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#46324295)

Apparently the sleaze artists to talk to are the fine folks at Flood Zone 'Correction' [floodzonecorrection.com] ... For a suitable fee, they will see to it that your apparent risk is put where you would prefer it, not necessarily fettered by inconvenient 'empiricism' or similar egghead nonsense.

Re:Balderdash! (1)

naughtynaughty (1154069) | about 4 months ago | (#46325959)

You aren't forced to purchase flood insurance. If you want to borrow money your lender may condition their loan on you having flood insurance just as your lender may require you to have fire insurance even though in 150 years your house has never burned down.

Re:Balderdash! (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 4 months ago | (#46324119)

"Luckily, with a suitable understanding of the political process and access to a few lawyers and engineers, it is frequently possible to evade such heinous miscarriages of justice as 'being classified as high risk just because your property has a recent history of flooding' and the like."
(I assume that you are being sarcastic with this statement... it not, we have a serious problem.)

Insurance companies are "reality based" and don't subscribe to the climate denial theories. The US govt has been subsidizing flood insurance (to help the rich folks) and the congress has been trying to make the program self sustaining but those darn floods keep interfering. Rich folks can buy political influence in our corrupt system and they are attempting to roll back the insurance price increases. My guess is that the rich folks money will buy enough of congress to avoid reality.

Re:Balderdash! (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#46324319)

I was being sarcastic; but yes, getting property reclassified into lower-risk zones in order to score ultra-cheap insurance (financed by the taxpaying suckers; because the flood insurance plan is utterly broke) is something you can do with a suitably skilled team of flimflam artists, and it's apparently quite cost effective for more expensive developments.

Re:Balderdash! (1)

hendrips (2722525) | about 4 months ago | (#46326567)

Everything you say is completely correct. However, I'd point out that it can actually be a bad thing for the property owners when this type of political maneuvering makes flood prone homeowners ineligible for federal flood insurance because they lie outside of the federally defined flood zones entirely. When Nashville, TN was flooded in 2010, it came out that some of the flooded homeowners had attempted to purchase flood insurance beforehand, but had been told that they couldn't purchase or didn't need insurance. The property developers had made sure that the houses were in a no-risk zone.

I don't know how widespread of a problem that kind of thing is, but it has definitely happened.

Re:Balderdash! (1)

naughtynaughty (1154069) | about 4 months ago | (#46329231)

You aren't ineligible for flood insurance because your property isn't in a federally defined flood zone, other than some areas where the risk has not been analyzed ALL areas are defined as either high risk or low to moderate risk. There is no such thing as a "no-risk zone". If you want to purchase flood insurance for your home you can.

A beta flood (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46321865)

Fuck beta.

land ho (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46321929)

like fluids off a sucker's back https://news.yahoo.com/oil-closes-orleans-port-part-miss-river-005544210.html

problem areas solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46322027)

looks to me that a lot of problems might be solved if those areas were to submerge, assuming of course that they didn't migrate

Missing picture (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 5 months ago | (#46322517)

It shows, all being similar, would be the coastline if the water somewhat magically rises so much in a calm way, as in what causes the water rises is an isolated event that only happen in Antarctica and Greenland, that causes the ice melt, global sea rise and thats it. But will be process that will be happening in all the world, sometimes in violent ways, that will cause floods (even in places far from the coast), droughs, high winds events, extreme heath (and cold), probably in a scale far bigger than we've seen in the last 6 months. The afected areas won't be in a so uniform way as the map shows.

And if well it shows that coastal cities will be flooded, it don't show the chaos that it will imply, with maybe in the order of a billon of people living in those areas, only having their now worthless house, that will have to move to slums of then very expensive new/old cities that should be far enough from sea, to be surely hit by extreme weather events. And don't forget about food. What about crops that get ruined if a heavy rainstorms or hailstorms hits them?

Anyway, don't get too scared by the 500m sea level rise, even if the entire antarctica ice melts sea should not rise a lot more than 100m. Probably will be a lot of more things to worry about if that manages to happen.

Soylent News... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46322863)

...is people!

Soylent News [soylentnews.org]

BUCK FETA!

unscientific nonsense (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 5 months ago | (#46322891)

Coastal regions are frequently composed of sediments; if sea levels rise, they rise along with it. Many low-lying islands work the same way. You cannot predict the effects of sea level rise on most coastal regions by taking a height map and adjusting the sea level.

Even more stupid is the fact that they "model" sea level rise of up to 500m. The maximum sea level rise that is possible from melting all of the earth's ice is about 80m. But no matter how hot it gets, a complete melting of Greenland and Antartica would take thousands of years.

500m increase? Try 70m maximum. (2)

mpercy (1085347) | about 5 months ago | (#46322971)

If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and all the glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). I've seen numbers in this range from several different sources, e.g. Nat Geo says 216 ft.

Bad, sure. But 500m is not even in the bounds of reality.

Re:500m increase? Try Denver (1)

kwrzesien (1263426) | about 5 months ago | (#46323433)

But Denver sure is looking a lot safer!

Re:500m increase? Try 70m maximum. (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | about 5 months ago | (#46338797)

Well Antarctica is gonna need to warm up a bit if it is going to melt.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/... [usatoday.com]

I'm impressed (1)

wcrowe (94389) | about 5 months ago | (#46323093)

This is great! And I'm not being facetious. I've wanted a good interactive watershed map for a long time. I probably missed my calling and should have been a hydrologist.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46323183)

Is this map a joke? Seriously... 500 meters? I don't think that is even possible. Give me a f&##$'in break already with the catastrophic climate mindset.

What is going on at NASA that they are stooping to this level of sensationalism?

Re:Huh? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 4 months ago | (#46323785)

If you want to know what climate change is going to look like, just look around.

We have extremem drought in the SW
colder, and snowier in the NE
ice storms down south
and in the MidWest we have had a long period of really cold (below 250Kelvin) weather - normally thats just in mid january.
And it was too warm for the Sochi winter olympics
Extreme heat in Australia
etc
Then of course we have had severe storms like Sandy

Re:Huh? (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | about 4 months ago | (#46325297)

Then of course we have had severe storms like Sandy
You know what followed Sandy? One of the mildest Atlantic Hurricane Seasons. OMG! climate change might cause fewer hurricanes in August. This post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy brought to by Ignorance and the letter P.

Re:Huh? (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | about 5 months ago | (#46338837)

Fear as a tool to raise budgets man, works with terrorists all the time.

Thus why we have a military budget the same size as the next 25 nations
combined and 24 are our allies, LOL.

Fear makes BIG money, and besides we ONLY have 700+ bases in 100+ countries
so we are not quite on track for that global government plan just yet, but it is
not for a lack of US tax dollars being printed at the Fed at $65 billion a month
and backed by nothing is the same method used by the Wiemar Republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

The party is about to start, and reserve currency status is the only thing stopping it,
but the BRIC alliance is about to kick that can to the curb.

The map tells you almost nothing about risk. (1)

hey! (33014) | about 4 months ago | (#46324579)

What it tells you is the part that is certain: that if sea level rises by X, places that are less than X above mean high tide will be under water -- once for places with diurnal tides and twice for places with semi-diurnal tides. Flooding is much more complex than that.

Natural disasters are never actually "natural". It is human behavior that turns what would otherwise be just a natural phenomenon like an earthquake or flood into a "disaster". So changes in flood risk will occur where human engineering and settlement practices don't adapt to changes in local sea level and weather.

What we've done in planning development over the past century is look at historical records to figure out what a "ten year flood" or a "hundred year flood" would be, and site things near the coast according to our tolerance for it being flooded. A hundred year flood is probably not going to be a factor at all in siting something, but a ten year flood is going to be a big deal.

Here's the important part: the levels in a hundred year flood aren't going to be 10x as high as in a ten year flood; in many places it might only be just a little bit higher. But people build right up to the line because sharp demarcations are baked into building codes and insurance rates. So a slight increase in sea level could well have a disproportionate economic effect due to flooding.

Another issue not to discount in a climate change scenario is greater weather variability. Even with no local sea level rise, an increase in the frequency of unusually large coastal storms can create a dramatic shift in flooding frequency. Just like an unchanging sea level is built into our calculations of a "hundred year flood" an unchanging climate is as well.

So the climate change/flooding connection not as simple as dialing up sea level by a certain number of meters. Depending on local conditions like tidal dynamics and wind exposure, a modest (or non-existent) change in global sea levels along with a modest change in the frequency of large storms could mean a lot of stuff along the edges of the flood plain that never flooded in the past could flood quite frequently. That's what we should be worried about not a 500m or even 5m increase in sea level.

Great Basin? (2)

MrSoccerMom (529763) | about 4 months ago | (#46325003)

Am I missing something, or have they missed the Great Basin? It seems they depict the Columbia River watershed abutting the Colorado River watershed and they both appear to go all the way to the base of the Sierras.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...