• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sea levels may be rising faster than expected due to climate change (Slate)

Status
Not open for further replies.

entremet

Member
RIP Coastal cities.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html

These are NASA scientists, so some of the best in the world outside academia.

In what may prove to be a turning point for political action on climate change, a breathtaking new study casts extreme doubt about the near-term stability of global sea levels.

The study—written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years. The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, brings new importance to a feedback loop in the ocean near Antarctica that results in cooler freshwater from melting glaciers forcing warmer, saltier water underneath the ice sheets, speeding up the melting rate. Hansen, who is known for being alarmist and also right, acknowledges that his study implies change far beyond previous consensus estimates. In a conference call with reporters, he said he hoped the new findings would be “substantially more persuasive than anything previously published.” I certainly find them to be.

To come to their findings, the authors used a mixture of paleoclimate records, computer models, and observations of current rates of sea level rise, but “the real world is moving somewhat faster than the model,” Hansen says.

Hansen’s study does not attempt to predict the precise timing of the feedback loop, only that it is “likely” to occur this century. The implications are mindboggling: In the study’s likely scenario, New York City—and every other coastal city on the planet—may only have a few more decades of habitability left. That dire prediction, in Hansen’s view, requires “emergency cooperation among nations.”

Welp
 

DedValve

Banned
A friend of mine recently told me that most natural volcanoes produce more heat than humans could ever produce via cars/power plants ect,ect.
and this is been going on since forever.

Anyone, agree with this?

Most volcanoes don't go off constantly for the duration of a hundred years.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
A friend of mine recently told me that most natural volcanoes produce more heat than humans could ever produce via cars/power plants ect,ect.
and this is been going on since forever.

Anyone, agree with this?

I mean...maybe? I don't know off the top of my head. But the problem isn't that cars and power plants produce heat, its that they produce pollutants that change the composition of the atmosphere and how sunlight is trapped within it
 

Yagharek

Member
A friend of mine recently told me that most natural volcanoes produce more heat than humans could ever produce via cars/power plants ect,ect.
and this is been going on since forever.

Anyone, agree with this?

I'm sure climate scientists would love to hear his never before considered theory
 

Blader

Member
Finally, something to bring NYC rents down.

A friend of mine recently told me that most natural volcanoes produce more heat than humans could ever produce via cars/power plants ect,ect.
and this is been going on since forever.

Anyone, agree with this?

edit - better explanations below!
 

entremet

Member
A friend of mine recently told me that most natural volcanoes produce more heat than humans could ever produce via cars/power plants ect,ect.
and this is been going on since forever.

Anyone, agree with this?

That's a common rejoinder from climate change denialists.

The answer is no.

But it depends on the questions phrasing. Heat doesn't mean it's bad per se.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/wea...anoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.htm

Human activities emit roughly 135 times as much climate-warming carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year.

- Volcanoes emit less than cars and trucks, and less, even, than cement production.

- Climate change skeptics have claimed the opposite.

Colossal, mind-bogglingly hot and capable of spewing billowing clouds of flight-grounding smoke and searing, molten lava, volcanoes are spectacular displays of the massive forces at work inside our planet. Yet they are dwarfed by humans in at least one respect: their carbon dioxide emissions.

Despite statements made by climate change deniers, volcanoes release a tiny fraction of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by human activities every year.

In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
A friend of mine recently told me that most natural volcanoes produce more heat than humans could ever produce via cars/power plants ect,ect.
and this is been going on since forever.

Anyone, agree with this?

It's not that we produce heat, but greenhouse gases that trap in the sun's heat.

Edit: beaten soundly.
 

Oppo

Member
would Venice be the first to definitively "sink", given its current slightly dire situation?

I guess it depends on coastal shelves and a host of other factors
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
It's not that we produce heat, but greenhouse gases that trap in the sun's heat.

Its mind blowing to me that something as slow as global climate change still happens faster then the pace of the human species ability to react to it. We're slower than the goddamn planet guys
 

DedValve

Banned
The question I ask is how these cities will sink.

Will it be a "slow" process where every year the water raises drastically higher, forcing people out of their homes or will it be a very rapid sudden burst that could kill a lot of people?

Both situations are pretty terrifying.
 

entremet

Member
The issue here is that humans are terrible long term planners.

We're great firefighters, but we really suck at long term strategy.
 

danwarb

Member
So do we confiscate profiteering, FUD spreading fossil fuel industry assets to help pay for the damage if this happens?
 
A friend of mine recently told me that most natural volcanoes produce more heat than humans could ever produce via cars/power plants ect,ect.
and this is been going on since forever.

Anyone, agree with this?

Your friend doesn't seem to have the basics down, so take his stuff with a grain of salt.

Greenhouse gases work by changing the composition of the atmosphere so it absorbs more heat from the sun. On this front human activity has volcanos beat by orders of magnitude in terms of emissions over time. On top of that volcano spew ash, which has a cooling effect by blocking sunlight.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
The question I ask is how these cities will sink.

Will it be a "slow" process where every year the water raises drastically higher, forcing people out of their homes or will it be a very rapid sudden burst that could kill a lot of people?

Both situations are pretty terrifying.

Definitely slow. It's the type of thing where severe storms and rising tide slowly claim beaches, then the first row of houses and so forth.

Worst is when levees are raised higher and higher until they become impossible to maintain and whole swaths of city are forcibly abandoned after a storm, hurricane Katrina style.

So do we confiscate profiteering, FUD spreading fossil fuel industry assets to help pay for the damage if this happens?

There won't be any paying for it because there won't be an easy fix. By the time you get to the "seize their stuff" stage, it's catastrophic already.
 

Easy_D

never left the stone age
A friend of mine recently told me that most natural volcanoes produce more heat than humans could ever produce via cars/power plants ect,ect.
and this is been going on since forever.

Anyone, agree with this?

Greenhouse gases don't exactly produce heat, they just make it harder for the heat to get out, hence greenhouse.
 

DedValve

Banned
Definitely slow. It's the type of thing where severe storms and rising tide slowly claim beaches, then the first row of houses and so forth.

Worst is when levees are raised higher and higher until they become impossible to maintain and whole swaths of city are forcibly abandoned after a storm, hurricane Katrina style.

I figured it'd be Katrina style except permanent. Maaaaaan I like the bronx, and Puerto Rico is my home :(
 
The question I ask is how these cities will sink.

Will it be a "slow" process where every year the water raises drastically higher, forcing people out of their homes or will it be a very rapid sudden burst that could kill a lot of people?

Both situations are pretty terrifying.

"sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years"

They don't actually know. Like most of these theories it's just something someone hopes happens so they can get their name in a book or something. Substantial sea level rises have probably happened millions of times on earth. We'll just live under the sea like im sure other civilizations did.
 

BlueWord

Member
A friend of mine recently told me that most natural volcanoes produce more heat than humans could ever produce via cars/power plants ect,ect.
and this is been going on since forever.

Anyone, agree with this?

Your "friend" has no idea how climate change works.
 
I can't wait for water world

Can't wait to be stuck in a shitty Kevin Costner post apocalyptic movie.

Now's the time to buy real estate in the valley. The prices will go up when it becomes the new coast.


Luthor_Superman_II.JPG
 
So do we confiscate profiteering, FUD spreading fossil fuel industry assets to help pay for the damage if this happens?
Well the steam coal market is just about killed off entirely, particularly in the Appalachian basin in the eastern US, so you won't have much to confiscate pretty soon. Guess it's time to go after natural gas a little harder.

My question is, where is all the electricity going to come from when coal and NG are dead? In 2014 wind power accounted for 1.7% of total US energy consumption while solar was at 0.4%. In total, renewables (primarily hydro-electric, wood, and bio-fuels) accounted for less than 10%. Our reliance on fossil fuels is still extremely high and quite frankly a lot higher than most people seem to realize.

bluZpkS.jpg


Posted a 1000x before, but still pretty accurate.
Show this picture to the thousands of miners in Eastern KY, WVa, and Southwest VA who are currently out of work and on the fast track to poverty.
 

Griss

Member
10 feet in 50 years would make basically every place I've ever lived uninhabitable. My current home would be underwater.

I have no faith that humanity will be able to deal with this :(
 

Interfectum

Member
10 feet in 50 years would make basically every place I've ever lived uninhabitable. My current home would be underwater.

I have no faith that humanity will be able to deal with this :(

Humanity will deal with it but our current civilization will not.
 

entremet

Member
10 feet in 50 years would make basically every place I've ever lived uninhabitable. My current home would be underwater.

I have no faith that humanity will be able to deal with this :(

We will deal with it but it will be at the last minute like always.
 

Opiate

Member
A friend of mine recently told me that most natural volcanoes produce more heat than humans could ever produce via cars/power plants ect,ect.
and this is been going on since forever.

Anyone, agree with this?

Okay, let's agree we're both pretty ignorant on the topic of climatology. I know I am. I'm going to make an argument before we even begin to understand the evidence.

Now, what you're proposing is a very simple, straightforward observation. I don't mean it's a bad observation or anything, just that volcanoes aren't a secret source of pollution and basically everyone understands they can produce giant bursts of dust and stuff that can affect the climate.

So given that, what are the odds that the consensus of climatologists in the world -- thousands of experts with years of education dedicating their lives to this topic -- just all happened to miss this simple, obvious observation? What do you think the chances are you'd waltz in to a climatological convention and say, "Hey, what about those volcanoes?" or "Hey, could it just be sunspots causing the climate to change?" And they'd all collectively slap their foreheads and say, "Good heavens, how could we forget! It's so simple, and we've all been missing it this whole time!"

Please note that I'm not saying that climatologists cannot possibly be wrong. Of course they can be. Individual climatologists are wrong every day about all sorts of things. But if they're wrong collectively about this one, big thing, it's probably because of some esoteric detail that none of us laymen could possibly understand without going through years of education. It's super, duper unlikely to be something that any joe could figure out just by looking at the problem for a few seconds or researching on the internet for a couple of hours, which is likely what your friend's climatological education resembles.
 
Well the steam coal market is just about killed off entirely, particularly in the Appalachian basin in the eastern US, so you won't have much to confiscate pretty soon. Guess it's time to go after natural gas a little harder.

My question is, where is all the electricity going to come from when coal and NG are dead? In 2014 wind power accounted for 1.7% of total US energy consumption while solar was at 0.4%. In total, renewables (primarily hydro-electric, wood, and bio-fuels) accounted for less than 10%. Our reliance on fossil fuels is still extremely high and quite frankly a lot higher than most people seem to realize.

We'll use technology to figure it out.
 
Well the steam coal market is just about killed off entirely, particularly in the Appalachian basin in the eastern US, so you won't have much to confiscate pretty soon. Guess it's time to go after natural gas a little harder.

My question is, where is all the electricity going to come from when coal and NG are dead? In 2014 wind power accounted for 1.7% of total US energy consumption while solar was at 0.4%. In total, renewables (primarily hydro-electric, wood, and bio-fuels) accounted for less than 10%. Our reliance on fossil fuels is still extremely high and quite frankly a lot higher than most people seem to realize.


Show this picture to the thousands of miners in Eastern KY, WVa, and Southwest VA who are currently out of work and on the fast track to poverty.

So what do you propose? We keep mining so they can keep their jobs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom