|
You might be able to wall around Manhattan and run pumps constantly. They already do pump pretty constantly because New York City was built on a site of natural springs. Miami seems like a lost cause though.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
When the West Antarctic ice sheet goes in 20 or 50 or 80 years and Manhattan is submerged up to midtown, will they still say it's a one-time freak event?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Jersey + Newark + LaGuardia airport flood pretty quickly even for marginal sea level rise. You could wall off Manhattan, but no-one could actually leave (at least not without going through Yonkers, so entirely theoretical).
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
http://ss6m.climatecentral.org/#12/40.6643/-73.9385
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
It will be a very small comfort that Wall Street will flood if West Antarctica falls into the sea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Best start taking pictures and post cards from Boston and Cambridge. They're going to be worth quite a lot when it all goes under.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Upside is its going to be interesting to scuba dive in the French Quarter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Woah uh you weren't kidding about Miami. With 10ft sea level rise pretty much south Florida is gone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Trying to get this drat thing to work http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/ or this one http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Suggestion for a public arts work: Find a nice park in a low lying area and erect a nice "sculpture thing" that fish will like and that will be a nice spot for scuba divers to explore, 60 years from now when it will be underwater.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
loving high tides cause some flooding in Miami area now. That poo poo is just going to get worse and worse. How long are people going to deal with it is anyone's guess. Oh, also, if the Gulf Stream just fizzles... rapid sea rise of feet along along the East Coast will ensue. The current right now pushes water away from the coast. On the Arctic sea ice front, it continues to recover, but it's slower than is needed to hit the December 7th crossover to 2012 record low extent: 9,463,931 sq km total, today. Last few days of recovery have been: +125,669 sq km (Nov 28) +114,379 sq km (Nov 27) +134,391 sq km (Nov 26) +131,954 sq km (Nov 25) +138,895 sq km (Nov 24) Well short of the 144,000 sq km/day needed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
This seems to be working pretty well. http://ss2.climatecentral.org/#11/40.7128/-74.0059?show=satellite&projections=0-RCP85-SLR&level=10&unit=feet&pois=hide
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Thats not so ba-HOLY poo poo LMAO
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
The Earth shall have its revenge on the Florida voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
But that's where all the democrats live.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
If the WAIS is seriously going to go within our lifetimes then we are turbofucked in a way that nobody is really expecting or prepared for. That's absolutely insane. You can basically throw out the idea of first world countries being insulated from the worst effects of climate change if we're talking about sea level increases on that level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The Earth shall have its revenge on the Florida voters. Buddy the Panhandle is full of the most blood red meat you can imagine. Florida's gonna have 20 Electoral Votes in a population that's 90% republican with no south Florida to block it off. Most of them will probably be happy to see the Minorities getting hosed over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You can basically throw out the idea of first world countries being insulated from the worst effects of climate change if we're talking about sea level increases on that level. It still is. Worst case scenario is mass migrations of hundreds of millions of people, starving and thirsting to death and dying of cholera/typhoid and dysentery. The first world might get the migrations but not the dying parts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
So wait, this article is saying that if the Shelf Collapses it's a 10 feet increase. Is this like 10 feet all at once or over a period of a few years? Like I'm trying to figure out if this is 'you go to sleep and you wake up in the morning and you're literally trapped in a house filled with water' or 'you slowly watch as over a period of months the water grows closer and closer to your front porch as you try to move'
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:48
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:It still is. Worst case scenario is mass migrations of hundreds of millions of people, starving and thirsting to death and dying of cholera/typhoid and dysentery. A ten foot increase in sea levels puts portions of most major coastal US cities underwater. Migration on that level isn't something that we've ever had to deal with, and I'm not confident that it's something that even a rich country like the US can handle. You're talking about an unprecedented number of people being displaced over a decade or less. That's uncharted territory. edit- Stallion Cabana posted:So wait, this article is saying that if the Shelf Collapses it's a 10 feet increase. I can't give you an informed answer on how quickly sea levels would rise, but the issue with the WAIS is that a complete collapse has the potential to be incredibly sudden. It's the sort of situation where we might notice it happening, but we won't necessarily realize how far along it is until we're past the point of no return. I'm still not entirely buying that this is something that's going to happen anytime in the near future. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:A ten foot increase in sea levels puts portions of most major coastal US cities underwater. Migration on that level isn't something that we've ever had to deal with, and I'm not confident that it's something that even a rich country like the US can handle. You're talking about an unprecedented number of people being displaced over a decade or less. That's uncharted territory. I am aware. And the ability for a country like the USA to handle a situation like this is like a BILLION times greater than Bangladesh for example. Or the Maldives. Or India.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
There's evidence expectations of sea level rise and greater storm severity is beginning to discourage construction in vulnerable areas. If we were seriously willing to reform federal flood insurance we could probably prevent more harm, but that's not very likely politically. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/science/global-warming-coastal-real-estate.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Stallion Cabana posted:Buddy the Panhandle is full of the most blood red meat you can imagine. The people from south Florida aren't going to just sink into the waves, most of them will move inland. Of all the downsides of sea level rise, "will drown all Democrats" is not something you need to worry about. Also, once major coastal cities are flooded beyond repair, hopefully even the GOP will start taking climate change seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
When should one start buying farmland in the frigid States
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Fansy posted:When should one start buying farmland in the frigid States Don't. You probably don't know how to run a farm, and with climate change it's not getting any easier. As a citizen of a first world country, you'll probably have food available forever. If you really want to prepare for the worst, get a vegetable garden and some chickens to complement the future potato & beans rations. If you just want to rent or sell the land later at a high price, still don't. In that kind of dire crisis, being an absentee landlord doesn't fare too well. For examples see 1940s China.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Would there even be the slightest chance of mitigation, in any form, at that point? It's p[robably incredibly dumb and naive to ask, but prevention would be long dead, and it seems like mass evacuations would be the only option. Drop a few dozen nukes in the ocean, burn off the water, worth a shot! Or whatever pointless thing the morons in charge at the time decide makes the most sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Fansy posted:When should one start buying farmland in the frigid States If you buy it, do it as a real estate investment, and rent it to an actual farmer. Eastern Montana is one of the few areas that is currently only limited by climate when it comes to AG in the US, so that's an ok spot. If Trump lets the republicans unload federal lands in the western states, it won't be long before someone figures out that the forests in the mountains are the source of almost all the water, so that's not a bad bet either if you're really thinking big. Rural areas in the southeastern states are also likely to become a profitable alternative to California for some crops, as they were before trains and reefer trucks. Seriously though, real estate around cities with reliable water supplies will always be something to look at going forward. Cities are on a trajectory to absorb a greater and greater proportion of humanity regardless of climate change, and will likely do so more intensely as various land-based livelihoods undergo attrition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
At least in my area the post-glacial rebound is still gaining land from sea, so I should be safe from drowning for a while. Low-lying blue areas on the other hand are double hosed...
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:When the West Antarctic ice sheet goes in 20 or 50 or 80 years and Manhattan is submerged up to midtown, will they still say it's a one-time freak event? Well there's only one West Antarctic ice sheet...  Polio Vax Scene posted:Thats not so ba-HOLY poo poo LMAO Eh. Continental shelf makes for good seafood habitat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 12:06
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Nenonen posted:At least in my area the post-glacial rebound is still gaining land from sea, so I should be safe from drowning for a while. Wait, so Scandinavia exempting Denmark will be relatively fine? That can't be right, no way is the land rising that quickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Wait, so Scandinavia exempting Denmark will be relatively fine? That can't be right, no way is the land rising that quickly. Mostly not, although in some areas ground is rising 9cm per anno, which about equals the rate of sea level rise. But even in lesser areas it will give extra time to react, which is good compared to areas like the Netherlands where ground is sinking simultaneously as sea is rising. The bigger question for northern Europe is going to be whether the Gulf stream will remain stable. If not there could be a local ice age, unless neutralized by global warming... Nenonen fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I can't give you an informed answer on how quickly sea levels would rise, but the issue with the WAIS is that a complete collapse has the potential to be incredibly sudden. It's the sort of situation where we might notice it happening, but we won't necessarily realize how far along it is until we're past the point of no return. I'm still not entirely buying that this is something that's going to happen anytime in the near future. Sorry if I implied the time horizon is "the near future". It probably won't happen during the Trump presidency IMO. Much like a massive California earthquake, the time is "in the next <100 years". Could be in 20? 30? Point is we risk living to see it happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Here are questions I've been asking myself; http://www.iflscience.com/environment/bioethicist-the-climate-crisis-calls-for-fewer-children/ Some of the same points that have been raised so far in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Excelsiortothemax posted:Here are questions I've been asking myself;
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Western countries' birthrates have been below replacement rate for decades. Where you personally place yourself on the 0-3 offspring spectrum really matters even less than the type of car you choose to drive, or whether you choose to own a dog. You could say you don't want to create children who will have to live in the world we've created, but then again their life will probably be better and more comfortable than that of 99% of people in history. Ultimately I'd say climate change should not determine your choice to have / not have children. Work to promote family planning worldwide, empower women, maybe don't join the Duggar family cult, that's more effective than trying to convince affluent westerners to not have their 1-2 children.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
I think considering adoption instead of having kids is very cool and good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
pidan posted:You could say you don't want to create children who will have to live in the world we've created, but then again their life will probably be better and more comfortable than that of 99% of people in history. Well, in the context of climate change, that's probably true if you are already a first world individual. The author is making the classic anti-natalist argument though. quote:I, like many philosophers, believe that it’s morally better to make people happy than to make happy people. Those who exist already have needs and wants, and protecting and providing for them is motivated by respect for human life. It is not a harm to someone not to be created. Which remains true in my mind, even if climate change doesn't impact us in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:That article is disappointing as it only argues that having less children is ethical in the face of climate change without any suggestions for how to actually accomplish this. I realize the author is a philosopher and mainly interested in the ethical argument, but he must be aware that such a policy would be very difficult (or impossible) to politically implement on a wide scale. At least he's only arguing that people should have less kids (they clearly should), some posters in this thread have seriously argued for zero children with the expectation that people would take them seriously. Even if they're completely correct, anybody who's been outside recently would realize that is a complete non-starter and not worth discussion. Anti-natalism gets shot down by breeders news at eleven.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
cosmicprank posted:Anti-natalism gets shot down by breeders news at eleven. Well yes, Anti-natalism is something you can advocate for and encourage in your own life. It's not really feasible to force it though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
Despite the idea of it being pretty far fetched even compared to the massive devastation that will assuredly happen due to climate change this century, the idea of ocean acidification leading to mass die-off of phytoplankton and depletion of atmospheric oxygen made me consider how that would affect humans physiologically, assuming at that point we even still exist as a major species. Just based on my knowledge of physiology, the most likely way I could see it manifesting would be like altitude sickness, but gradually happening at lower and lower altitudes. At the start, populations living at high altitudes would start having symptoms despite having normalized to the atmosphere at that level. Eventually this would get so bad that these groups would be displaced and have to move closer to sea level. As atmospheric levels of O2 dropped this would continue to ramp up until eventually nowhere on the planet is safe and symptoms continue to get worse until it is impossible for humans to live at all and we all die out. That leaves out the intermediate period of mass death due to displacement as well as the massive amount of problems associated with people's bodies having to essentially live with polycythemia as we try to adjust to lower oxygen levels. So lots of fun considering that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2016 18:56
|
|
