Scientists to issue stark warning over dramatic new sea level figures

[IndianaGreen]

Source: The Guardian

Scientists to issue stark warning over dramatic new sea level figures

Rising sea levels pose a far bigger eco threat than previously thought. This week's climate change conference in Copenhagen will sound an alarm over new floodings - enough to swamp Bangladesh, Florida, the Norfolk Broads and the Thames estuary.

Robin McKie, science editor
The Observer, Sunday 8 March 2009

Scientists will warn this week that rising sea levels, triggered by global warming, pose a far greater danger to the planet than previously estimated. There is now a major risk that many coastal areas around the world will be inundated by the end of the century because Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are melting faster than previously estimated.

Low-lying areas including Bangladesh, Florida, the Maldives and the Netherlands face catastrophic flooding, while, in Britain, large areas of the Norfolk Broads and the Thames estuary are likely to disappear by 2100. In addition, cities including London, Hull and Portsmouth will need new flood defences.

"It is now clear that there are going to be massive flooding disasters around the globe," said Dr David Vaughan, of the British Antarctic Survey. "Populations are shifting to the coast, which means that more and more people are going to be threatened by sea-level rises."

The issue is set to dominate the opening sessions of the international climate change conference in Copenhagen this week, when scientists will outline their latest findings on a host of issues concerning global warming. The meeting has been organised to set the agenda for this December's international climate talks (also to be held in Copenhagen), which will draw up a treaty to replace the current Kyoto protocol for limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/08/climate-change-flooding

[Kool Kitty]

1. Yikes.

I can't wait to hear the CNN report about this. I'm sure they will give it the same care and attention that they have been lavishing on the Rush Limbaugh caper. Oh, wait a minute......

[gristy]

2. Everybody talks about global warming but nobody does anything about it...

[aquart]

3. Name a civilization which has survived the loss of its coastal cities.

Now is a nice time to get that cottage in the Pocanos.

[DRoseDARs]

9. Name a civilization which died because it lost its coastal cities...

Not to be a smartass, but seriously what civilization has died out due to the loss of its coastal cities (implying the civilization in question was A) large enough to have more than one city, thus spread out and able to survive the loss of one city to the sea and B) they were all coastal, thus losing them all to the sea)?

[Hekate]

12. It's about the eco-refugees from coasts & resultant chaos and political instability, as well as...

... things like crop failures and the spread of insect-born diseases as warming allows the bugs to expand their range.

Cultures will die. The atolls of the South Pacific may not mean much to you, but they are already sinking and their peoples must find new homes. They are probably the first eco-refugees, come to think of it.

What happens when the far-more-numerous Bangladeshis have to abandon their lands and push their way back into the Indian subcontinent?

Hekate

[DRoseDARs]

13. I know that, I was pointing out the hyperbole in aquart's post...

I'm well-aware of what's coming and have been so for years, but the hyperbole of implying we're all going to fucking die isn't helpful in dealing with the issues.

[Hekate]

14. LOL. Aquart is on my Ignore list, so I failed to realize to whom you were speaking!

Sometimes I can tell who it is by the type of replies they get from other people, but not this time. ;-)

Hekate

[DRoseDARs]

15. It's not often I put someone on ignore; probably time I took the current inmate off my list.

And I was hoping for an actual answer to my non-rhetorical question. I tried a brief search for cities lost to the sea (like in the history of the Minoan culture for instance, they survived the volcanic destruction of the island Theta as did many peoples of the Aegean) but wasn't really getting any satisfactory answers relevant to the posed question.

Unless you count Atlantis. ;)

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. It's not the downfall of a civilisation, but England has lost towns to the sea

The most notable probably being Dunwich:

Within 20 years of the Norman conquest, Dunwich was a town of 3,000 people. It had six parish churches, with at least two other chapels of ease. The parishes were All Saints, St Martin, St Leonard, St Nicholas, St John the Baptist and St Peter. Two known chapels of ease were St Bartholomew and St Michael. There was also a Knights Templars church.

In 1199, Dunwich was granted a royal charter, and become a Borough, electing a council, as well as magistrates and officers, two bailiffs, a recorder and a coroner.

In 1279, we are told that Dunwich possessed 80 large ships. It was, above all else, a prosperous town, and this is what marked it higher than Ipswich, which had fallen on hard times. The sea was already making incursions, but the people of Dunwich strengthened the sea walls, because this was a town worth defending. Throughout the 13th century, we read of defences being erected, and then moved as the forces of the sea changed their point of attack.
...
The decline of Dunwich begins with a storm. The 14th century was not kind to it, and on the 14th January 1328 a wind of hurricane proportions drove the sea against the spit of land called the Kings Holme, shifting the shingle so that it effectively blocked off Dunwich harbour. The harbour mouth was more or less where the car park is today. This was a disaster for Dunwich. Instead, all ships, and thus all goods and revenues, went into Walberswick instead. This was the start of a violent disagreement between the people of the two towns, which went on for nearly a century, and resulted in many deaths.

But without any revenue, the town was not worth defending. The sea continued to make incursions, and during the fourteenth century Thomas Gardner reports 400 houses, 2 churches, as well as shops and windmills, succumbing to the tempest. These were St Martin, on the east side of town, which last instituted a Rector in 1335, and St Leonard.
...
But no one wanted to live in Dunwich anymore - what was the point? The land was worthless, there was no fishing fleet, no work at all. By the middle of the 18th centry, the town had been all but abandoned. The last Rector left All Saints in 1755. The church was still used for baptisms and burials until the new church of St James was built in the village. Then, it was abandoned, and it fell into dereliction, like many Suffolk churches of the time.

And yet, the town continued to elect its two members of parliament! The freemen of Dunwich had passed on their honour to their ancestors, who now lived all over England. At the end of the 18th century, we read of people travelling to Dunwich on election day, going out in a boat to the point where the town hall used to be, and casting their vote. The freemen also continued to elect magistrates, bailiffs, and so on, and went about their business in a similar manner. By the time of the 1832 Reform Act, which abolished Rotten Boroughs like Dunwich, there were just 8 residents left in the constituency, which still returned two MPs!
...
All Saints stood surprisingly well, and I have met old Suffolkers who remember climbing its tower. But during the early years of the twentieth century, after the new pier was built north of here at Lowestoft, the pattern of the tides underwent an alarming change, and in February 1904 the sea began to take the ruins of All Saints off to their destiny. The tower went on the 12th November 1919, leaving just a single buttress, which was rescued and reset in the graveyard of the new church of St James. Hauntingly, it carries graffiti from sightseers who visited it during its lonely sojourn on the clifftop.

All Saints was one of Suffolk's biggest churches; at 149 feet long, it was of a scale with Southwold. This gives us some idea of the speed with which the cliff eroded away.

http://www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/dunwichas.html

[14thColony]

21. It's a good question

Logically, to fit the parameters you've set, the civilization would have to be either on a relatively small island, or confined to the continental littoral zone due to some sort of geographic constraint, like the fringe of an immense ice sheet or a large desert lying a short distance inland. Otherwise, an innundation even several miles inland would most likley just result in re-location of the civilization further inland, with new cities/towns situated on the new bays and new harbor formed as the sea levels rise.

So you're in need of either 1) a civilization that had no geographic depth (island-based or confined to coastlines) or 2) a cataclysmic rise in sea levels that innundated coastal cities so quickly that the survivors only had time to flee, not to re-locate their infrastucture in an organized fashion.

Possibilities:
- the supposed innundated Harapan city found under the Gulf of Cambray, off NW India, flooded about 9,000 BC. If it is what it appears to be, then there may have been serious cataclysmic disruption of the subcontinent's proto-Harapan civilization, since Harapan culture did not (re)appear until several thousand years later (this presumes this city wasn't the only one around). Given the extent of the Himalayan ice sheets at the time, this COULD have been an example of a civilization physically confined to a littoral zone that then rapidly innundated. The survivors would have had no inland cities to flee to, and would presumably have had to revert to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle for many generations. Some serious marine archaeology will be required to determine if this city is really a city though.

- Proto-Cretan civilization that appears to have been flushed into the Med by a gigantic tsunami about the time of the destruction of the Minoan civilization. I don't think this was related to the detonation of Santorini, but I may be mistaken.

- Possibly the water pulse off the Laurentine Ice Cap about 10,000 yrs ago that created the Badlands in about 24hrs. Who knows what that swept away? The wall of water was still several meters tall when it hit the Pacific. A similar pulse probably pre-dated that one, but heading for the East Coast instead.

Of course we end up with a Catch-22 outcome - to have examples of civilizations that were destroyed through innundation of coastal cities, we would have to have thoroughly explored the innundated coastal areas. But we haven't, and therefore may have no idea how many towns/villages/cities and perhaps even full civilizations have been lost in the past.

Nonetheless, I agree with your premise that it ain't too likely today. First, no modern human civilization is strictly coastal, and the events of the Last Glacial Maximum were unique - it's doubtful we'll experience the catalysmic flood events that they did.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. A better question is 'name a civ that died due to climate change'

and that is easy: the Mayan civilization most likely expired due to a significant climate change in the Yucatan peninsula.

[The Second Stone]

30. The Minoan civilization

lost its coastal cities one afternoon and that was the end of them.

[DRoseDARs]

38. Read reply #14; no it wasn't. n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

37. Atlantis?

Remember Atlantis....
The way I heard it, the city sank and the inhabitants had to move underground where there is a constant temperature for their reptilian blood, and they occcasionally surface incognito to mix with the Republicans, but often have to be hospitalized for maintainance to ensure they can continue to live among us.
See: cheney, hospitalizations, for example.

I am sure that is the way i heard it....kinda...

[steven johnson]

24. Egypt Lost Coastal Cities With the Shifting Delta

[scicom.ucsc.edu/scinotes/0101/egypt.html|Sunken Cities of
Egypt]


"Hidden beneath 2 feet of sand and 21 feet of murky water
lie the once great Egyptian cities of Menouthis and
Herakleion. The cities thrived on commerce entering the Nile
River from the Mediterranean Sea. But the prosperity ended
abruptly and mysteriously. From the remains left under the
sea, archeologists know the people in Menouthis left in a
hurry, never to return. At least two catastrophes leveled the
cities and plunged them into the Mediterranean more than 12
centuries ago"

"The world’s heavily populated major deltas include the
Nile, the Yangtze, and the Ganges-Bramaputra deltas, which
combined have over 200 million people living on them. They
could be prone to major catastrophes, Stanley says. “Any place
that you build on soft, water-rich mud, you’re in trouble,” he
says. “It doesn’t take much of a trigger. You can have
earthquakes, and you can have other phenomena as simple as
having a week or two of rain. Look at the critical situation
of Venice.” "

[maxsolomon]

36. Ephesus?

it's not a civilization, but it was a city that died out when it's delta filled in...

[defendandprotect]

4. "Climate change" continues to warrant yawns . . . it's GLOBAL WARMING ...!!!

it is Global Warming which makes clear the HEAT is on . . .

that in heating the atmosphere we have guaranteed chaotic conditions!

Climate change is a bit of propaganda intended to make the situation appear normal.

[DRoseDARs]

6. DAMN those LIEbrul scientists and their evolving terminology...

:wtf:

[defendandprotect]

25. The terminology didn't "evolve" in more than 50 years . . ..

until the truth of Global Warming began to emerge a few years ago --

But, you're probably right, the right doesn't use propaganda any more -- !

[Uncle Joe]

35. I try to always combine the terms to "global warming climate change"

as a means to neutralize the power behind that piece of not being able to the see the forest for the trees propaganda.

[XemaSab]

5. .

[DRoseDARs]

8. ;

~

[DRoseDARs]

7. For anyone interested in seeing what a +1m to +14m rise in sea levels does to Google Maps...

This site has been around for a few years:
http://flood.firetree.net/

It's an approximation*, but gives some idea of what to expect. According to the algorithm this site uses, even a +1m rise (1m = about 3.3ft) would be hugely devastating for the Bay Area and everything between Sacramento and Stockton, CA. And I'm sorry, but New Orleans is fucked at +1m, forget +3m. Just because rightwingers say it too doesn't mean it's bullshit. Manhattan Island will see minor flooding along is edges between +1m and +3m., the interior will largely remain dry unless NYC gets hit with a storm surge. Florida is Florida, they'll always be susceptible to hurricane storm surges. It'll actually take a greater rise to really change the shape of the state's coastline. At +3m, marshlands in the very southern tip of the state become part of the Gulf of Mexico.



*Here's the guy's disclaimer on it's accuracy:

"And is it really accurate ?

There are a number of significant sources of inaccuracy. All of these inaccuracies are optimistic - correcting the inaccuracy would make the consequences of sea level rise look worse. I’ve made a conscious effort to avoid ad hoc corrections for these effects. If these maps have a purpose, it is to encourage the general public to consider the consequences of global warming. If I were to make corrections that make more bits of the map shaded blue, then I would run the risk of having the whole thing discredited as alarmist.

Firstly, the model knows nothing about the tides. Since tidal variation can be 10m or more in some parts of the world, this is a major deficiency.

Secondly, the NASA data itself is not very accurate. Jonathon Stott has said that “NASA claims their height data is accurate to +/- 16m with 90% certainty”. NASA gathered the data by radar from orbit, so buildings and trees cause a systematic overestimation of the elevation of built-up and forested areas.

Thirdly, the NASA data does not extend beyond +/-60 degrees latitude. Its accuracy becomes degraded at the extremes of its range, especially in the Southern hemisphere, I am told.

Fourthly, the simulation takes no account of the effects of coastal erosion. I believe that anywhere within a metre or so of daily maximum sea level would be swiftly eroded. So areas which my model shows as future ‘coastline’ would almost certainly be quickly eroded away.

Fifthly, I don’t take any account of coastal defences. It’s obviously possible to build defences that protect habitable land far below sea level. I’ve got no way of knowing whether current defences (in Holland, say) are able to withstand an extra +1 metre of mean sea level. I imagine that the impact would depend upon how quickly the oceans rise, and how much money was available for building new defences.

Finally, there are areas of the world far from the oceans that are far below sea level. These areas are shown as flooded on my map, where clearly they are not in danger. The area North of the Caspian Sea is the most striking example."

[XemaSab]

10. Yuba City, Williams, and Modesto would be beachfront property

at 14 meters. This would also knock out the lower third of Florida, and wreak havoc on the east and gulf coasts. The Bahamas and many other Carribbean islands would be hosed. Bangladesh would be GONE,

It would take less than 10 meters to flood the Salton Trough, effectively turning that area into the uppermost point of the Gulf of California.

[DRoseDARs]

11. Of course, it would take centuries for sea levels to rise that much. We've time to adjust...

For all the hooting and hollering people do about such worst-case scenarios, it is utterly impossible for changes that severe to occur on a global scale within Human lifetimes. Humans only really saw flooding like that within their lifetimes when the Mediterranean Sea broke through the Bosporus and flooded what we now know as the Black Sea. Sea level change is a geologically slow process; Humans just don't live remotely long enough individually to perceptively see the incredible rises we've seen as a species like at the end of the last major ice age 18,000 years ago when sea levels were about 120m lower than they are now.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. But it's amazing how short-sighted some planning authorities are being

I've just spent an hour putting in formal objections to one of Britain's new 'eco-towns' - developments of 5,000 or more houses that should follow best practice for energy use, carbon emissions and sustainability. The site is less than 5 metres above sea level, next to a river that already regularly floods (above 2 miles inland, though the river is still tidal at this point). The developers plans to avoid flooding consist of raising the ground level on which houses will be built by shovelling on more dirt (though they don't say how much, or what sea level rise they're allowing for). 15% of the site is already in the official "high risk of flooding" category, with no sea level rise.

[DRoseDARs]

18. A balance must be found between the Chicken Littles and the Do-Nothings...

We're fucked either way, all we get to do is decide if lube is used. But in spite of it all people have got to remember that we'll survive this.

[certainot]

22. US reaction will be/is effected considerably by the radio monopoly

that pounds global warming denial into the heads of tens of million everyday 24/7/365 from 1000 stations, enabling those flat earth GOP reps.

[tanngrisnir3]

26. Nah. More likely that the Siskiyous would become the new Big Sur and...

Big Sur would become an island.

[blackbart99]

16. Ijust looked at the flood maps...

Its very scary. The town I was born in, Waialua Oahu, Hawaii is lost at 10m rise.
The family home in Ipswich Mass. has water on the back porch at 10m. gone at 14m.
This house sits on a hill top overlooking the Ipswich river, it seemed impossible that
it could go under water. Extremely disturbing.:wow: :scared:

[maseman]

20. Guess I'll have some ocena front property here

in OHIO.

[Baby Snooks]

23. The real danger...

As the ice caps and ice sheets melt, there will be massive amounts of fresh water added to the salt water currents which in turn affect the weather. Something the scientists don't seem to be researching. Or perhaps are and simply don't want the public to know about it.

We have seen more extremes in the weather patterns the past several years and probably will continue to in the coming years.

It may not be the sea level rise we need to worry about but the changes in the weather patterns. And the extremes they produce.

As the for "insignificant rises in average temperature" those insignificant rises may allow dormant bacteria and viruses to emerge and thrive and produce pandemics never seen before by our civilization.

Some of those bacteria are already thriving in our oceans as well as our lakes. Deadly bacteria that each year claims more and more lives. The result of not only changes in temperature but possibly the pollution of the past century of not only our land and our air but our water.

We have begun to destroy the Earth. The Earth may destroy us in order to protect itself.

[ohio2007]

28. The article said we have to wait until 2100 to find out

but nobody is willing to tell China that coal turns into acid rain so

stop building coal powered electric plants.

[FarCenter]

29. By 2100 the population will be a lot smaller

Other limits to growth will have decimated the population by then.

Global warming and sea level rise won't matter very much.

[ohio2007]

31. The Prince of Wales is preparing to tell the world we have "less than 100 months to act" before the

The Prince of Wales is preparing to tell the world we have "less than 100 months to act" before the damage caused by global warming becomes irreversible.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Prince-Charles-To-Tell-Business-Leaders-We-Have-Less-Than-100-Months-To-Save-The-World/Article/200903215236887?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_5&lid=ARTICLE_15236887_Prince_Charles_To_Tell_Business_Le

A bold stand suggesting results will be seen in eight years


Boston OpEd article seems to question the fresh prince
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/

[FarCenter]

32. I think the damage is already irreversible -- it just doesn't matter

We will undoubtedly continue to pump and burn crude oil and natural gas, and the easier to mine coal reserves will also be exploited. I doubt that carbon sequestration will be at all economically viable. So the planet will warm and the sea level will rise.

The investments in the fossil fuel infrastructure are so large, and alternatives are so difficult and expensive that no really significant changeover will be done.

Back in the '70s the chairman of Fiat was asked what the cars being driven in 2000 would be like. He said that it would be a lot like the cars being produced then. The current plant was capable of producing gasoline powered vehicles. It would take 15 years or more at best to change over the manufacturing investment to something else. Then it would take at least a decade of sales before the cars being driven would be of a more recently manufactured type.

So changing over from our current transportation and power generation systems is a few decades project.

Meanwhile, at 85 million barrels a day or so, the world will continue to exhaust oil fields. We've likely just passed the peak in oil production, although there is more natural gas to be produced. Nonetheless, the current population of 6.7 billion will rise to maybe 9 billion by mid-century.

Most likely the increased population and the diminishing resources will result in global economic collapse and war over the dwindling resources. This will be followed by famine and epidemics.

By the end of the 21st century, I'd expect the world population to be small enough that moving inland from coastlines wouldn't be a problem.

[jaksavage]

33. See ya, it's been good to know ya.

Since the Plundered Planet was written in 1936 or so, we have known.
But the powers of consumption won the war of ideas. Petro chem industry and the war industry marginalized and belittled the affects of human activity on the atmosphere.

The resulting crash landing of our lifestyle after 50 years of dilusional and murderous growth, into our bankrupted planet is what we get to witness.
Make the most out of what ever you have left cause we have only just begun to see the affects of our excess.

May your garden be filled with childrens laughter.

[dysfunctional press]

34. 10 years from now, they'll be melting even faster...

the shit may yet hit the fan in my lifetime...:popcorn:

[glinda]

39. I am with you. I think it will hit in our lifetime. Still have to try though.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: