Future generations could face sea levels 20 metres higher

[Dead_Parrot]

Even if we manage to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommends, future generations could face sea levels 12 to 22 metres higher than present, according to new research.

The research was published today in the journal Geology, by Professor Ken Miller of Rutgers University (New Jersey) and an international team including New Zealander Professor Tim Naish from Victoria University of Wellington.

The researchers studied sediment cores in Virginia in the United States, Enewetak Atoll in the Pacific and the Whanganui region of New Zealand.

They investigated the late Pliocene epoch—2.7 million to 3.2 million years ago—which is the last time the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was at its current level, and atmospheric temperatures were two degrees higher than they are now.

More: http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/about/newspubs/news/ViewNews.aspx?id=4919&newslabel=
Paper (sub): http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2012/03/16/G32869.1.abstract

[LiberalEsto]

1. With some DNA tinkering,

maybe our descendants can grow fins and gills.

[intaglio]

4. The downside is that everyone would be Kevin Costner! n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

5. Or worse...

Patrick Duffy, the poor man's David Hasselhoff

[XemaSab]

2. I'ma go buy some oceanfront property in Modesto

[madokie]

3. Alrighty then that'll make my property worth more as I'll be closer to the gulf

just being a smart ass but if it was to raise 120 plus feet that will change our coast line tremendously. The coast will be a hell of a lot closer to me I know that fore shore. Do I believe that will happen, no I don't. Man will cease to exist long before it gets that bad and once we and our co2 producing ways are gone the world will slowly swing back the other way.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. But just think of all the poison we will leave behind. The ocean will eat up our cities,

industrial areas, and many nuclear power plants.

Lovely!

[madokie]

14. Yes man has been very destructive in the time we've been industrialized

We've done more damage to the world in the last 200 years than man has done in thousands of years prior to this.

Just think what man that does make it though it all and in thousands of years in the future and they start finding some of the stuff we've done they'll be flummoxed as to what kind of people we were.
Will there even be man in thousands of years is something I think of often.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Here's an interactive flood map.

http://flood.firetree.net/

At 20m my new house is under water.

[guardian]

7. DOOM DOOM DOOM

I think we will be able to adapt just fine and move population centers a mile or two inland over the course of 2,000 years. It isn't like the buildings in Manhattan will still be standing in 2,000 years from now anyway. You probably stand an equal chance of having a 1 mile thick ice sheet covering NYC in 2,000 years.

From the cited article

"If the present levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are not abated, and humans were to disappear from the planet and return in 2000 years, they would find a world where the oceans have risen 20 metres," says Professor Naish.

But you can be worried if you want. I give you permission.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Obviously the 20m rise is not what we need to worry about. It will take a far

smaller rise to affect areas that are near sea level. Enough of a rise and we can still be looking at a major displacement of people, which would cause a lot of stress not only on those people who have to move, but on the communities where they wind up, and on resources.

[guardian]

10. Well a 20m rise was the main point of the OP.

If the OP was talking about a "smaller rise" of sea level then my reply would have focused on that. But the OP was not discussing impacts of 2 inch or 6 inch or 18 inch rise in sea level. I guess a small rise in sea level doesn't sound scary enough.

[joshcryer]

19. In United States 10% of population lives below future sea level risk line

Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding for the contiguous United States - Strauss et al. (2012)

Because sea level could rise 1 m or more during the next century, it is important to understand what land, communities and assets may be most at risk from increased flooding and eventual submersion. Employing a recent high-resolution edition of the National Elevation Dataset and using VDatum, a newly available tidal model covering the contiguous US, together with data from the 2010 Census, we quantify low-lying coastal land, housing and population relative to local mean high tide levels, which range from ~0 to 3 m in elevation (North American Vertical Datum of 1988). Previous work at regional to national scales has sometimes equated elevation with the amount of sea level rise, leading to underestimated risk anywhere where the mean high tide elevation exceeds 0 m, and compromising comparisons across regions with different tidal levels. Using our tidally adjusted approach, we estimate the contiguous US population living on land within 1 m of high tide to be 3.7 million. In 544 municipalities and 38 counties, we find that over 10% of the population lives below this line; all told, some 2150 towns and cities have some degree of exposure. At the state level, Florida, Louisiana, California, New York and New Jersey have the largest sub-meter populations. We assess topographic susceptibility of land, housing and population to sea level rise for all coastal states, counties and municipalities, from 0 to 6 m above mean high tide, and find important threat levels for widely distributed communities of every size. We estimate that over 22.9 million Americans live on land within 6 m of local mean high tide.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/1/014033/pdf/1748-9326_7_1_014033.pdf

I'd like to see how you plan to move 30 million people in 100 years. That's 300 thousand people every year from now. Cumulatively add 3000 people more per year for each year you don't start doing it. The average number of people per home is roughly 4. That means you are losing or destroying or otherwise damaging the property value 7.5 million homes, or almost 8% of all homes. The average home is about 120 thousand dollars. This is approximately 900 billion dollars of lost capital or property.

It's going to get worse dude. And this is just a meter of sea level rise. I expect higher, to be honest, because the projections continually underestimate and we still have summer sea ice, which we won't for much longer.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. A rise of 20m meters is enough to innundate quite a few low level islands and regions.

Most of which have indigenous species that will be wiped out.

You, personally, will not be affected. But since I don't give a flying fuck what happens to you, personally, that's not why I posted it.

[guardian]

12. "You, personally, will not be affected."

Really? Whew! I was worried there for a second. I feel much better now. That is such a relief.


"that's not why I posted it." So why did you post the OP? Was it to alarm people about the dangers of global warming and a how a 20m sea level rise 2,000 years hence will have zero effect on any creature, human or otherwise, alive today?

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Jeez

It was to point out new research that indicates the effects of climate change may well be a lot greater that than we currently understand them. Your offhand reply about moving "a mile or two inland" is totally irrelevant.

[joshcryer]

16. You're talking about trillions of dollars of capital.

That's stupidity.

Ports are extremely valuable. Moving ports is not something you "just do."

[guardian]

17. You do if the sea level changes enough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostia_Antica

If sea level increases to levels of ancient times maybe Ostia could becomea port again.

[joshcryer]

18. Half a trillion tons of ice melt every year, and it's accelerating.

Trading up dozens of ports for maybe the return of a few is not good business.

[joshcryer]

15. LOL, "could."

We're heading for 3.0-4.0C. Historians are going to look back at us posters from this era and wonder, if so many people saw it coming, why did we do effectively nothing about it?