Disaster looms with rising sea levels: islands

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

FWIW Bangladeshi illegals have been streaming into India for decades. If they 'go under' say bye-bye to the tribal indigenous populations of the Indian NE, the Bangladeshi 'colonization' of the region (now underway) will be complete.

[scandal 951]

You should be thinking here about low lying coastal areas such as Bangladesh, the Netherlands (actually much of Holland is below sea level and the dykes keep it dry .. friggin' dykes are everywhere ) as well as coral atoll islands such as the Maldives. Much of that land would be inundated with even this amount of sea rise. Hence the title of this thread....

Good examples. Maldives has a small population and Bangladesh is a natural disaster zone with flooding rivers and storm surges long before global warming. The Netherlands used dykes for centuries and was flooded at the end of WWII. The difference is the Netherlands has the money and it's a relatively small nation. Best guess is valuable areas will get levees and the less valuable areas left to the sea.

I'm no climate expert by any means, but I think you're generally correct. For the next 70-100 years, anyway. Assuming we can extrapolate from the current sea rise levels. And that's a huge assumption .. I'll get to that down below in a sec...

So, if you're right, it means that "only" insignificant places like Bangladesh and Maldives get swamped in the next century, while we preserve "valuable" Holland and everybody else just yawns because it doesn't affect us.

However there is more to this drama than just the next 3-4 generations. Presumably some of us feel some sense of responsibility to leave a planet for generations to come beyond our mere immediate descendants. If you'd like Manhattan and London to be above water in 200-300 years, then these issues do matter for than just the Maldivians. Think of Indian Ocean atolls as the canary in the coal mine, the portents of greater disasters to come. Now, perhaps you don't care about Earth 300 years from now. Fair enough. I think that's the problem. Very few people can (or should even be expected to). It's just not human nature to think that way. It doesn't make the problem any less real - the carbon emissions we put out now in our generation are having a permanent irreversible effect down the road.

OK - I want to come back to the assumption about current sea rise rates. All of that assumes a smooth continuation of the kinds of trends in the paper I cited, a few mm annually. This rise comes primarily from the gradual melting of sea ice from the polar ice caps and Greenland.

What this does NOT take into account is the very sudden shock to seal levels that can emerge when entire ice sheets collapse off of Greenland and Antarctica. In this case you don't need melting to occur for sea levels to rise precipitously. Think of it like dunking ice cubes in a glass of water - the level rises regardless of whether you've put liquid water or ice into the glass.

And the frightening thing is that this is an increasingly distinct possibility of happening in the very, VERY near future. Like - in our lifetimes. What's happening is that annual melting cycles during the summer months are creating increasing water flows from the upper surfaces of glaciers on Antarctica and Greenland, and the water runs down crevasses to the bedrock below the glacier, sometimes a mile or more through the body of the ice. When it reaches the bedrock, the water pools and forms a lubricating surface between the rock and glacier. As a result the glaciers start to move, off the land and towards the sea. This movement is a natural cycle and occurs over geological timeframes. The concerning thing is that it's being observed now in real time by scientists with projections of possibly radical sea level rises.

That's the bad news. The really bad news is the process is so accelerated that there's probably not much we can do about it. The good news is that since we can't do anything about it and we're doomed anyway, what's the point about worrying about carbon emissions, right? Might as well just party like it's 1999!

It's too late, we're doomed. I'm going to continue my extravagent, wasteful, environment damaging ways. Why should I worry about future generations, it's all about me, here and now.

EXACTLY!! SPOT ON, TURTLE

[Nagishkaw 510]

No, I do apreciate your answer. 15 inches in the next 100 years. My God we are all doomed!!!! How can man ever adapt to such drastic changes!!!!

Haven't you heard? The world is gonna end in 2012.

[scandal 951]

No, I do apreciate your answer. 15 inches in the next 100 years. My God we are all doomed!!!! How can man ever adapt to such drastic changes!!!!

Haven't you heard? The world is gonna end in 2012.

Right!

Since no one seems to want to take my bait (earlier, to Gary) about the "snake bites #######" story I feel obligated to pursue this matter myself.

Unfortunately I could not find an image (yeah, n00b am I, I know ....) with a genital bite, so this headshot will have to do.

Also, since the MC/Braza thread has taken a turn towards mud wrestlers, I figured we'd spice this one up with some jello-wrestling. Y'know, just to keep the conversation light and all .......

[LaGreenEyes 0]

If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range

from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the

IPCC TAR.

Up to 15 inches by the 22nd century? Which countries have a maximum elevation that low?

Florida... .

[Nagishkaw 510]

There's always room for jello.

[GaryC 7]

If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range

from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the

IPCC TAR.

Up to 15 inches by the 22nd century? Which countries have a maximum elevation that low?

Florida... .

Florida isn't a country. And it's mean elevation is 100 feet.

http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/fl_geography.htm

[Pooky 3,803]

If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range

from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the

IPCC TAR.

Up to 15 inches by the 22nd century? Which countries have a maximum elevation that low?

Florida... .

Florida already seceded from the Union?

OMFG, someone tell the President! Tell the Democrats! Florida got away and no-one noticed!

(And they can take the bugs with them!)

[scandal 951]

There's always room for jello.

Florida isn't a country. And it's mean elevation is 100 feet.

http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/fl_geography.htm

Yes, but more importantly, what's its per capita jello consumption?

[Nagishkaw 510]

Let's ask Bill Cosby.

[Scott & Lai 12]

No, I do apreciate your answer. 15 inches in the next 100 years. My God we are all doomed!!!! How can man ever adapt to such drastic changes!!!!

Haven't you heard? The world is gonna end in 2012.

I am sooo looking forward to 2013 so we can finally put this Mayan calendar ####### behind us

Edited May 13, 2009 by Scott & Lai

[DEDixon 39]

I didn't have kids for a reason.... the world is a mess and I'd feel guilty bringing anyone into this world!!!

But, since I didn't bring any kids in this world, I feel quite comfortable using all the resources my kids would have used.

Hey do-gooders, don't have resource hogs (kids) if you are so passionate about global warming.

[DEDixon 39]

Oh, and they were talking about social security on "all in the family" way back in the 70s .... what they are saying today is the same thing Meathead was saying in the 70s... nothing has changed.... OMG!!!

[scandal 951]

Oh, and they were talking about social security on "all in the family" way back in the 70s .... what they are saying today is the same thing Meathead was saying in the 70s... nothing has changed.... OMG!!!

Hmm. What did Meathead have to say about Social Security in the 70s? Please do enlighten us.

[Nagishkaw 510]

I am sooo looking forward to 2013 so we can finally put this Mayan calendar ####### behind us

Me too.