What would happen where you live if all the ice melted?

[Egalitarianism Always]

of course, prepared always means confiscation of wealth and restrictions on behavior

Confiscation of wealth by a system that gave them that wealth in the first place through propaganda efforts and control. The system created the poor, and impoverished nature making both enemies to be stolen from, lied about and murdered.

The system is actually owned by a tiny elite of money men, who marginalize any who see their way as the ultimate consequence of the ego a battle where only one survives.

Except there never is only one, so the war offers the possibility of total destruction as far as it possibly can.

This is why there is no contact, we are an immature deceitful narcssistic race, who will likely end up falling to total destruction.

World wars

Police states

Mindless greed

[Filippa Eilhart]

This might be more helpful.

that's really cool.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I have a stupid question. The tool that has been linked to show how sea level rise will affect the world shows the Caspian sea getting bigger too. The Caspian has no outlet to the world's oceans and isn't fed by any large glaciers. How would sea level rise affect it? Can the thermic swelling of the water in the Caspian cause a 60 meter rise in its sea level?

[Sir Thursday]

I have a stupid question. The tool that has been linked to show how sea level rise will affect the world shows the Caspian sea getting bigger too. The Caspian has no outlet to the world's oceans and isn't fed by any large glaciers. How would sea level rise affect it? Can the thermic swelling of the water in the Caspian cause a 60 meter rise in its sea level?

According to the one felice linked to, the Caspian Sea would become joined to the Black Sea if sea levels rose by 30m worldwide. Before that point it shouldn't be shown getting any bigger - my guess is a bug in the tool, which doesn't realise that despite the Caspian being called a Sea it's really much more like a very large lake. I get the impression it's simply using elevation information to map this instead of considering the impacts of glacial melt in its numbers.

ST

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ST,

Well, it shows sea level rise on the Caspian long before there is any outlet to the Black sea. Consequentely this model seems to be extremely simplistic in its parameters. It's disturbing to see but how accurate is it when it is very simplistic?

Climate change is happing, that is undisputable. But it is happening in a very complecated, difficult to predict, or model fashion. Is dumbing it down really the way to go?

[Sir Thursday]

ST,

Well, it shows sea level rise on the Caspian long before there is any outlet to the Black sea. Consequentely this model seems to be extremely simplistic in its parameters. It's disturbing to see but how accurate is it when it is very simplistic?

Climate change is happing, that is undisputable. But it is happening in a very complecated, difficult to predict, or model fashion. Is dumbing it down really the way to go?

It's pretty simplistic, sure. But I don't think it needs to be perfect to be useful. That's like arguing that you can't use a portrait of someone to find out what they look like because it's missing a freckle somewhere.

Ignoring areas near inland lakes, this map is pretty accurate in depicting what an unchecked rise in sea-level would cause. The important question really is "how much will sea levels actually rise?". In the short-to-medium term, a rise of 60m is ridiculous hyperbole. But some of the smaller rise levels seem a bit more plausible given what we know about Global Warming and it's worth at least considering what impact that would have. There are areas of the world that would be threatened by a rise of a few metres unless a sea-defence is built. This lets you identify them. Some of them (eg. the Netherlands) have been working on this problem for a long time and can probably handle it. Others (I'm looking at you Florida) might not be quite so lucky.

ST

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Respectfully, ignoring or exaggerating the effects of inland seas is more than a "freckle". It's more like painting an extra limb.

That said it is still interesting. Looks like we'd have a large bay up near where I live with even a 30m sea level rise.

Actually, looking at the 60m rise I think the ocean stops along the "Orangeburg Escarpment" that I linked about earlier. That would put seas about where they were 3.5 Million years ago when the first Humans (of the genus Homo not necessarily Homo Sapians) were just starting out.

Another thing I noticed, Sub-Saharan Africa comes out rather well. There must be fairly steep coastlines in Sub-Saharan Africa.

[rocksniffer]

like ser scot, i live in the sand hills region of the orangeburg escarpment. these ancient sand hills do indeed support the idea that the ocean used to be right here near my front door...

...thus i shall lose my beach house in the Holy City (Charleston, SC) but will gain one here in the midlands. as i am located only a half a mile from the fall line.

Sadly my family home in south Louisiana will be inundated sooner rather than later, as the problem there has already begun over last several decades has already increased flooding and standing water areas, as well as salt water intrusion into normally fresh or less brackish wetlands

reposting nat geo link: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

also some articles i think are relevant:

ice sheets and sea level

loss of ice in Antarctica

antarctic ice shelf retreat

population and sea level rise

The IPCC predicts that sea levels will rise 26-82cm this century so I don't really see how those maps telling us what it would look like if the sea level rose ~6500cm are all that useful.

agreed that maps such as this and the national geographic link show the extremes but the link felice offered that i have quoted below will give you better visual info for the ipcc predition levels (up to 1 meter)... and since you can isolate your own area it gives a great up close and personal view of how you might be affected.

I used to map this out in high school - more than thirty years ago.

These days, such extrapolations are a stock feature of 'young adult' SF books.

My best guess ocean levels will increase by about three feet - just under a meter between now and 2050. Big issue won't be so much flooding as erosion and displacement.

Politically, the republicans will successfully blame the democrats for having to abandon the likes of Miami. They will successfully convince their flocks they never denied ocean levels were increasing in the first place.

That said, way back when, I took a more detailed stab at the purely local effects of a 200 foot sea level increase. Where I'm at now is only 90 - 100 feet above sea level, and has a severe beach erosion problem with current ocean levels. (Cook Inlet is half a mile away, so I'm not real concerned.) The folks homestead, though...that's hill country. I figure part of it, at least would be an island or shoal of some sort.

i agree erosion will be big problem considering problems we have here on southeast coast now. displacement is also a serious issue as the people the least able to successfully relocate often live in the lowest lying areas...however i disagree that flooding will not be an issue. increased sea level even just 1 ft effects how water runs off or is absorbed as i say below, but also how long flood waters remain causing more damage to infrastructure and private property.

GotB,


Yup.

Dr. Pepper,

Coastal South Carolina was underwater in the relatively recent geologic past. There is major escarpment showing where former coastlines were. The land my house sits on was part of sand dunes fronting that old coast line. There is a narrow region running north east paralelling the existing coastline of North America through Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina (I don't know if it makes it in to Virginia) called the "Sand Hills" that is old coast line sand dunes. The dividing line between the sand hills and the former sea floor os called the "Orangeburg Escarpment". It formed 3.5 million years ago and is about the age of the Human Species (an eyeblink in geologic time if not half an eyeblink):

https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/the-orangeburg-escarpment-is-a-remnant-of-early-pliocene-sea-cliffs/

Horza,

The Permian-Triassic exctintion was caused by massive vulcanism is what is today Siberia. It last a million or more years and created the "Siberian Traps":

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps

The traps cover approximately a third of Siberia's land area and can be up to a Kilometer thick. In other words the Permian-Triassic exctinction event was about a lot more than the mere release of methane and carbon.

i agree traps contributed but check out this article...it is kinda dry reading but indicates the confluence of events that each contributed to the extinction and where effects were worst. note the vulcanism in china...it was longer and possibly more disruptive, for example.

.

is there even a prediction in there? looked like a thought experiment to me.

if it is a prediction, new orleans hereby demands new federal levees sufficient to withstand 65 meter storm surge.

try the link below from felice...i think you will be surprised how much of the city and the surrounding area will be inundated with just 1m increase particularly since so much of the city is below sea level as it is.

and the one from natgeo that Fragile bird linked for me, they are a little more detailed and easier to see your specific area.

and my friend, more levees won't help you...

my advice...buy a houseboat

You wouldn't get flooded; that doesn't mean you wouldn't be affected. Any idea what losing every port city in the world would do to the global economy? And there's the refugee issue.

This might be more helpful.

this is a great interactive map that i encourage everyone to use since you can zoom in and see exactly where you live and how a change as low as 1 meter would effect you personally. as to the economy and refugees i think that even though the increases creep up as opposed to surging, flooding would be a problem as areas that are prone to flooding, basically all low-lying places would flood worse due to raised water table, leading to decreased absorption by the soil and increasing fast flow runoff.

also interesting to note is the disruption of local infrastructure. perhaps your home would be dry but everything (roads, electrical and water lines, rail and subway systems) leading to it are partially or totally submerged.

for example solo and others in my home town area of new orleans (golden meadow for me personally) should pay attention that many of the roads connecting us would be underwater not to mention large parts of commercial and residential property including power plants and water facilities. particularly during flood events and storms.

[Sophelia]

that's really cool.

I agree- thanks Felice - according to this my house will survive up until about 40 metres rise, then I'm underwater. Certainly brings it to life having such specific visualisable predictions.

P.S. Perhaps it is some consolation that by that time Peterborough, Slough, Hull and Middlesbrough will already be well underwater, though, though sadly Cambridge, York and London will also already have succumbed. I guess we'll have a lot of (attempted) dykes in the UK.

[Eyron]

Thank you Felice! That was very helpful. It seems my house will be safe until it the water rises beyond +20m. The infrastructure though, that is another matter. We will be fucked basically.

It was impossible to see how bad it would get here on the animation in the OP, Birdie. But I live on the coast opposite Denmark :( Bye bye Danes.

It's a lot hillier here besided a higher coastline and we have a highland inland. The city I live in will be drowned eventually but it has to go very far for that.

[Leofric]

Respectfully, ignoring or exaggerating the effects of inland seas is more than a "freckle". It's more like painting an extra limb.

If the climate changed enough, warming areas to cause a massive melt off of ice caps, then potentially these inland seas may actually have drops in water level due to severe drought conditions. But that is outside the scope of the model.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Leofric,

Yes. The model is very simplifed, if interesting.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

My house should be ok at 60meters. I'll be near the sea but not sea front I'm also on hill compared to the surrounding high ground I live in, so Soph, when your home is under water you can come live with me. Although It seems I'm in danger of living on an island during high spring tides. - I'm guessing this map does not take into account tidal variations. I know we have some big tides in the Uk compared to some other places. I would assume probably incorrectly that with more water in the seas means bigger tides.

[jarl the climber]

What would happen to Greenland and Antartica? if all the ice melted these places might end up becoming habitable. Since all the ice is fresh water it would lower the salinity of the ocean waters, what would be the effect of that?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jarl,

I've read that lower salinity could really screw up ocean currents and consequently exacerbate existing climate fluxuations.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Thats part of the argument I've never really understood.

I remember a TV program on what would happen to us in the UK if all the greenland sea ice melted. It basically summed it up as

water Temperatures would have to increase by I think it was 4 degrees to melt all the sea ice.

the Gulf stream warms Britain by 4 degrees (I may be wrong with the exact figure but I remember it being the same as the water temperature increase)

the sea ice melting will cause the gulf stream to stop running.

thus the Britian would no longer be warmed by the gulf stream

therefore Britain will be be like Siberia is now.

But I don't get that if the sea temperature has increased by the same amount that the gulf stream used to warm us why we would now be colder? What happened to that global warming of the seas that melted Greenland ice - wouldn't that also warm us he same way as the Gulf stream - which lets face it is water temperature?

I'm sure I'm missing something obvious but to me +4 -4 = 0

[MerenthaClone]

Jarl,

I've read that lower salinity could really screw up ocean currents and consequently exacerbate existing climate fluxuations.

Heat variations could, iirc (and I'm probably not) stop the gulf stream, which would wreak havoc on agriculture around the Atlantic.

[felice]

water Temperatures would have to increase by I think it was 4 degrees to melt all the sea ice.

the Gulf stream warms Britain by 4 degrees (I may be wrong with the exact figure but I remember it being the same as the water temperature increase)

The amount the Gulf Stream warms Britain by and the temperature of the stream itself aren't the same thing. The surface water temperature around Britain looks to be at least 10 degrees warmer than it would be without the stream, so even if there was a uniform 4 degree increase, the loss of the stream would still drop local surface water temperature by at least 6 degrees. I'm not sure how much that drop would affect land temperatures, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was close to 4 degrees.

[polishgenius]

The amount the Gulf Stream warms Britain by and the temperature of the stream itself aren't the same thing. The surface water temperature around Britain looks to be at least 10 degrees warmer than it would be without the stream, so even if there was a uniform 4 degree increase, the loss of the stream would still drop local surface water temperature by at least 6 degrees. I'm not sure how much that drop would affect land temperatures, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was close to 4 degrees.

Also, you don't necessarily need all the sea ice to melt to fuck up the Gulf Stream.

But yeah, there is a bit of an overwhelming focus on just the effect of sea-level rises in this debate (more widely, not just here) which ignores the other effects global warming could have. We're already seeing some of them- for example I remember some convincing arguments last year that the reason the 'polar vortex' affected America as long as it did, and Britain got torrential rainfall for far longer than usual, whereas Central Europe had a ridiculously balmy winter with almost no bad weather, was that the polar jetstream is slowing down, and therefore not pushing about and breaking up weather patterns the way it used to.

Basically while in the long term yes, sea-levels will rise and everything will be warmer, before then what we'll see are potentially greater extremes in weather. The fact that Europe could potentially stop being the temperate, welcoming climate it has been for pretty much all of recorded history is interesting but rather terrifying for someone living in it. Plus, I fucking hate snow.

It should also be remembered though that climates have been warmer than now in the past too, and humanity dealt with that, and with the subsequent 'little ice-age'.

[Fragile Bird]

We need someone like rocksniffer to provide the explanation, but from what I remember the problem is that anything warm rises because it's lighter. Just like warm air rises in your house, so your feet can be cold in winter when the room temperature seems warm enough, or in the summer your basement is freezing from the air conditioning and the second floor is too warm.

The warm water from the tropics rises to the top of the ocean, and the current of warm water keeps North America and Europe much milder than, say, Siberia, in winter. The heat is dispersed as it flows north, and then the water gets cold and sinks and the currents push the cold water south again, where the water warms up in the tropics and rises to the top once more. The worry is the loss of the salt will stall the current, stopping it from flowing north.