Support NeoGAF

[TAJ]

No, you must be confused. Those aren't rising sea levels, it's just a flood of fake news.

The flooding is real. The news is fake.

 

[Lubricus]

I hope Republican states become the first to experience the effects of climate change.

The south and midwest are suffering from unusual warm weather now. I had crabapples and peaches leafing out in January when it was 80F the last two weeks of January in Georgia. Several frosts nipped those in the bud.

 

[zeemumu]

The flooding is real. The news is fake.

Drowning in a sea of LIES

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Yep. Sea levels are rising, but only at about 3 mm a year right now, certainly not enough to cause this. This is due to negligence on keeping their coastlines maintained, and destroying much of the bayou.

Though rising sea levels certainly aren't helping anything.

3 mm a year? Is that right?
Seems awfully slow..

 

[Aztechnology]

I feel bad for people in Louisiana, they are sunk both metaphorically and literally. When I say putting money back into Louisiana is a sunk cost, I really mean it.

Time to dump and run.

 

[Felix Lighter]

It's unfortunate that by the time the collective world will want the heads of the climate change deniers, most will be dead or ridiculously old.

 

[Vixdean]

*Checks Louisiana's voting record*

whoopsie daisy!

 

[Ecotic]

This thread isn't inspiring much confidence that a problem like this can be solved. 90% of people here are misdiagnosing the problem and jumping to the conclusion that rising sea levels are the principal problem. The problem is mostly levees preventing sediment nourishment through flooding, along with a dozen other harmful activities such as dredging, mining, oil drilling, and building canals.

 

[PKrockin]

it's not rising sea level silly!

its sinking land!!

Damn illegal immigrants weighing down North America and making it less buoyant.

3 mm a year? Is that right?
Seems awfully slow..

That's what NASA says. Ice takes time to melt, especially when it's together in a massive sheet.

 

[Arttemis]

3 mm a year? Is that right?
Seems awfully slow..

Sarcasm? The sea level rising more than an inch every decade and accelerating ins't alarming as fuck to you? Half of the world's population lives near water.

 

[TheExecutive]

Better keep voting for Republicans, they'll surely save it, right?

Sad fact is we cannot save this coastline no matter what we do.

 

[ahoyhoy]

*Checks Louisiana's voting record*

whoopsie daisy!

As long as you're better than the black man God will save you.

Or something.

 

[Spike Spiegel]

For anyone interested in learning more about this:

Finding Common Ground: A Documentary on Environmental Communication (Youtube)

It's a new documentary on the wetlands crisis Louisiana is facing, produced by Kevin McCaffrey and Dr. Robert Thomas of Loyola. LPB (Louisiana Public Broadcasting) is airing it tonight as well.

 

[TAJ]

Sarcasm? The sea level rising more than an inch every decade and accelerating ins't alarming as fuck to you? Half of the world's population lives near water.

If you're alarmed by that then you should be sweating bullets about this.
http://earthsky.org/earth/antarctica-larsen-c-ice-shelf-animation-growing-crack

 

[archreaper93]

fuck 'em

Well when people like them are in power...

"My house was on land eight years ago. Must have been Obama."

Would not shock me if this was uttered.

Wouldn't shock me either.

 

[Lord Frieza]

The reason Republicans don't care about climate change is because they're mainly in the middle of the country and don't have to worry about it.

Uh, no, they don't care because they deny it fucking exists

 

[the_batman]

who wants to bet the same governor campaigned for Trump

Uh, no, they don't care because they deny it fucking exists

they deny it exists because they want to keep pumping out oil and coal.

 

[A Serious Man]

The reason Republicans don't care about climate change is because they're mainly in the middle of the country and don't have to worry about it.

The reason Republicans don't care about climate change is because the oil industry has paid them not to.

 

[Generate]

This isnt caused by rising sea levels, but it is a very major problem.
It has been going on for decades, and is mainly due to the canals dug from oil exploration as well as the US army corps of engineers keeping the Mississippi River from replenishing sediment downstream. Rising sea levels is now aggravating the situation but Louisiana was going under LONG before anyone even discussed climate change.

 

[Lord Frieza]

who wants to bet the same governor campaigned for Trump

He's a democrat.

they deny it exists because they want to keep pumping out oil and coal.

I was talking about voters, but the politicans themselves, yeah, more or less

 

[the_batman]

He's a democrat.

what the hell, i didn't expect Lousiana to elect a democrat governor. wasn't that dumbass Bobby Jindal the governor before that

A football field per hour??

That seems....Extreme

must be looking like Water World out there

 

[Lord Frieza]

what the hell, i didn't expect Lousiana to elect a democrat governor. wasn't that dumbass Bobby Jindal the governor before that

Yeah, I think so

 

[Machina]

A football field per hour??

That seems....Extreme

 

[jabuseika]

...and he expects Federal help? Good luck with that.

 

[Jaleel]

They should take a hint from Indonesia and build a massive wall. Not only will it help Louisiana's eroding coastline but it will prepare them for the impending Gaijin invasion.

 

[zelas]

Why do they deserve Federal help while denying other states funding. Go build rafts out of bootstraps or something.

 

[Xe4]

3 mm a year? Is that right?
Seems awfully slow..

It is slow, but it's accelerating. Scientists predict that sea levels will rise anywhere from 1-3 meters from 2000 to 2100, with a consensus at about 2 meters.

A big problem is that people hear 3 mm (or 4 or 5, or 1 cm) a year and think "that's not bad". Our brains aren't built for long term thinking which is why we're in this mess in the first place. People hear about climate change and think of The Day After Tomorrow, when really it's a slow process that will become a larger and larger drain on the developed world's economy, and more and more of a problem for the developing world.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

That Chinese hoax is pretty impressive.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Damn illegal immigrants weighing down North America and making it less buoyant.


That's what NASA says. Ice takes time to melt, especially when it's together in a massive sheet.

Sarcasm? The sea level rising more than an inch every decade and accelerating ins't alarming as fuck to you? Half of the world's population lives near water.

It is slow, but it's accelerating. Scientists predict that sea levels will rise anywhere from 1-3 meters from 2000 to 2100, with a consensus at about 2 meters.

A big problem is that people hear 3 mm (or 4 or 5, or 1 cm) a year and think "that's not bad". Our brains aren't built for long term thinking which is why we're in this mess in the first place. People hear about climate change and think of The Day After Tomorrow, when really it's a slow process that will become a larger and larger drain on the developed world's economy, and more and more of a problem for the developing world.

The reason it seems slow to me is precisely because of the long term effect. 3 mm a year means a 1 meter rise will take 300 years. The consensus you state of 2 meters after 100 years is accounting for acceleration then. How many people live on the coast at 2 meters or less above sea level? And how large of a change in habitation patterns have we seen over the last century due to processes unrelated to global climate change?

Is this particular danger really at the forefront of climate related risks?

Edit: has the Trump admin gone and fudged the numbers on the EPA's website?
Because they're saying a 1-3 feet rise by the end of the century, not meters!
https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-coastal-areas#Sea level

 

[deadlast]

who wants to bet the same governor campaigned for Trump



they deny it exists because they want to keep pumping out oil and coal.

He didn't. He's the first democrat governor since jindal.

Beaten. Lol

 

[Spike Spiegel]

Scientific American published a great article a few years ago detailing the crisis and its history.

'Losing Ground: Southeast Louisiana Is Disappearing, Quickly' (Scientific American)

 

[NH Apache]

For anyone interested in learning more about this:

Finding Common Ground: A Documentary on Environmental Communication (Youtube)

It's a new documentary on the wetlands crisis Louisiana is facing, produced by Kevin McCaffrey and Dr. Robert Thomas of Loyola. LPB (Louisiana Public Broadcasting) is airing it tonight as well.

Scientific American published a great article a few years ago detailing the crisis and its history.

'Losing Ground: Southeast Louisiana Is Disappearing, Quickly' (Scientific American)

Dr. Bob is the man, thanks for the links.

 

[jmdajr]

Good luck with those constituents.

 

[shawnbuddy]

Trump can't do it, he'd have to admit climate change is real. He's just going to tell them their coastline is great, the best ever, as they drown.

 

[Hesemonni]

Is there a good picture set / .gif / video of the change occuring over time?

 

[HammerOfThor]

This is just a liberal ploy to distract us from the real issues of Hillarys emails. Don't be fooled.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Trump can't do it, he'd have to admit climate change is real. He's just going to tell them their coastline is great, the best ever, as they drown.

In a way, he's already admitted it. -- http://time.com/4345367/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course/

Shhh, don't tell anyone.

 

[Scrooged]

it's not rising sea level silly!

its sinking land!!

You're being sarcastic but that is the main reason for the erosion.

The Louisiana coast is literally sinking. New Orleans is known as the 'Sinking City' because of this.

 

[Spike Spiegel]

Is there a good picture set / .gif / video of the change occuring over time?

Louisiana Coastal Land Loss Simulation 1932-2050 (Youtube)
Source: USGS/CWPPRA

Source: Losing Ground Propublica Project Interactive Map

Source: NOLA/The Times-Picayune: "The $50 Billion Plan to Save Louisiana's Coast Gets a Rewrite"

Source: The Weather Channel: "Losing Louisiana"

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

They voted red this last election right?

World's smallest violin

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

They voted red this last election right?

World's smallest violin

 

[Alebrije]

 

[LinkAndEpona]

3 mm a year? Is that right?
Seems awfully slow..

Geologic time is really slow. The point however is to prepare now so the future climate won't be fucked.

 

[Xe4]

The reason it seems slow to me is precisely because of the long term effect. 3 mm a year means a 1 meter rise will take 300 years. The consensus you state of 2 meters after 100 years is accounting for acceleration then. How many people live on the coast at 2 meters or less above sea level? And how large of a change in habitation patterns have we seen over the last century due to processes unrelated to global climate change?

Is this particular danger really at the forefront of climate related risks?

Edit: has the Trump admin gone and fudged the numbers on the EPA's website?
Because they're saying a 1-3 feet rise by the end of the century, not meters!
https://www.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-coastal-areas#Sea level

Predicting future sea level rise is very difficult, because of the complexity of the process, and because it can change based on our actions. All we have to go on are past indicators, and models which constantly need to be tweaked.

Estimates of future sea level rise, temperature change, variation in weather, etc. vary by quite a bit. Again it depends on who you ask and when. For instance, this is the National Climate Council's discussion of sea level rise:

PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE SEA LEVEL RISE

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that sea level would rise by an additional 0.6 to 1.9 feet (0.18 to 0.59 meters) by 2100 (Meehl et al., 2007a). However, this projection was based only on current rates of change and was accompanied by a major caveat regarding the potential for substantial increases in the rate of sea level rise. The 2007 IPCC projections are conservative and may underestimate future sea level rise because they do not include one of the two major processes contributing to sea level rise discussed in this chapter: significant changes in ice sheet dynamics (Rahmstorf, 2010). While the growth of ice sheets—mainly through snow accumulation—is an inherently slow process, the processes that govern ice sheet losses, in particular discharge rates, can be strongly nonlinear, with the potential for sudden changes (Overpeck et al., 2006), as illustrated in Figure 7.5. Thus, there is a real potential for ice sheets to shrink rapidly, causing a rapid rise in sea levels. Unfortunately, we do not yet have a good understanding of the processes that control the flow rates; consequently, the potential for rapid ice sheet losses is not well understood at this time. This uncertainty prevented the IPCC from providing a quantitative estimate of how much ice sheet losses might contribute to sea level rise in the coming century.

Research on current and potential future rates of sea level rise has advanced considerably since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which was based on data published in 2005 or earlier. Some research conducted during the past several years suggests that sea level rise during the 21st century could be several times the IPCC estimates, as shown in Figure 7.6. Empirical techniques (e.g., Grinsted et al., 2009; Rahmstorf, 2007; Vermeer and Rahmstorf, 2009) that relate sea level to historical average temperatures suggest that a sea level rise of up to nearly 5 feet (1.4 meters) is possible by 2100. By incorporating this empirical effect into models, Horton et al. (2008) estimates a sea level rise of 2 to 2.6 feet (0.62 to 0.88 meters) by 2100. In other work, Rohling et al. (2008) find that a rise rate of up to 5 feet (1.6 meters) per century is possible, based on paleoclimatic evidence from past interglacial periods (including the most recent interglacial period, 110,000 years ago, when global temperatures were 3.6°F [2°C] higher than today and sea levels were 13 to 20 feet [4 to 6 meters] higher). Kopp et al. (2009) estimate that sea level peaked at 22 to 31 feet (6.6 to 9.4 meters) higher than today during the last interglacial period and had a 1,000-year average rise rate between 1.8 and 3 feet (0.56 to 0.92 meters) per century. Pfeffer et al. (2008) used geophysical constraints of ice loss to suggest that a 2.5-foot (0.8-meter) sea level rise is more likely, with a 6.5-foot (2-meter) rise the maximum to be expected by 2100. Others (Siddall et al., 2009) suggest that a 2.5-foot (0.8-meter) rise is the most we could experience by 2100, based on a model that is fit to data only since the last glacial maximum.

I was probably being a bit too liberal with my 1-3 meter rise by 2100 prediction, and I think a 0.5-2 meter rise would be more accurate, with a consensus around 1 meter. Thus, I don't think it's the EPA site being messed with. I apologize for any confusion I caused.

As for viewing what sea level rise looks like, here's a wonderful interactive by NOAA where you can view anywhere from a 1-6 foot rise, and the effects it would have on America. You can even view different local areas to see how they would be effected. It's quite striking, even to me who has done a bunch of research on the topic.

They have a democratic governor, I can't fault him for asking.