ADVERTISEMENT

Rising Seas Will Erase More Cities by 2050, New Research Shows

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,490
58,978
113
Rising seas could affect three times more people by 2050 than previously thought, according to new research, threatening to all but erase some of the world’s great coastal cities.

The authors of a paper published Tuesday developed a more accurate way of calculating land elevation based on satellite readings, a standard way of estimating the effects of sea level rise over large areas, and found that the previous numbers were far too optimistic. The new research shows that some 150 million people are now living on land that will be below the high-tide line by midcentury.



The first map shows earlier expectations of submerged land by 2050. But the new outlook, the second map, indicates that the bottom part of the country will be underwater at high tide.

More than 20 million people in Vietnam, almost one-quarter of the population, live on land that will be inundated.

Much of Ho Chi Minh City, the nation’s economic center, would disappear with it, according to the research, which was produced by Climate Central, a science organization based in New Jersey, and published in the journal Nature Communications. The projections don’t account for future population growth or land lost to coastal erosion.


Standard elevation measurements using satellites struggle to differentiate the true ground level from the tops of trees or buildings, said Scott A. Kulp, a researcher at Climate Central and one of the paper’s authors. So he and Benjamin Strauss, Climate Central’s chief executive, used artificial intelligence to determine the error rate and correct for it.

In Thailand, more than 10 percent of citizens now live on land that is likely to be inundated by 2050, compared with just 1 percent according to the earlier technique. The political and commercial capital, Bangkok, is particularly imperiled.

Climate change will put pressure on cities in multiple ways, said Loretta Hieber Girardet, a Bangkok resident and United Nations disaster risk-reduction official. Even as global warming floods more places, it will also push poor farmers off the land to seek work in cities.

“It is a dire formula,” she said.



In Shanghai, one of Asia’s most important economic engines, water threatens to consume the heart of the city and many other cities around it.

The findings don’t have to spell the end of those areas. The new data shows that 110 million people already live in places that are below the high tide line, which Mr. Strauss attributes to protective measures like seawalls and other barriers. Cities must invest vastly greater sums in such defenses, Mr. Strauss said, and they must do it quickly.

But even if that investment happens, defensive measures can go only so far. Mr. Strauss offered the example of New Orleans, a city below sea level that was devastated in 2005 when its extensive levees and other protections failed during Hurricane Katrina. “How deep a bowl do we want to live in”? he asked.


The new projections suggest that much of Mumbai, India’s financial capital and one of the largest cities in the world, is at risk of being wiped out. Built on what was once a series of islands, the city’s historic downtown core is particularly vulnerable.

Over all, the research shows that countries should start preparing now for more citizens to relocate internally, according to Dina Ionesco of the International Organization for Migration, an intergovernmental group that coordinates action on migrants and development.

“We’ve been trying to ring the alarm bells,” Ms. Ionesco said. “We know that it’s coming.” There is little modern precedent for this scale of population movement, she added.



The disappearance of cultural heritage could bring its own kind of devastation. Alexandria, Egypt, founded by Alexander the Great around 330 B.C., could be lost to rising waters.

In other places, the migration caused by rising seas could trigger or exacerbate regional conflicts.

Basra, the second-largest city in Iraq, could be mostly underwater by 2050. If that happens, the effects could be felt well beyond Iraq’s borders, according to John Castellaw, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general who was chief of staff for United States Central Command during the Iraq War.



Further loss of land to rising waters there “threatens to drive further social and political instability in the region, which could reignite armed conflict and increase the likelihood of terrorism,” said General Castellaw, who is now on the advisory board of the Center for Climate and Security, a research and advocacy group in Washington.

“So this is far more than an environmental problem,” he said. “It’s a humanitarian, security and possibly military problem too.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage
 
Peace out Vietnam. It was fun while it lasted.

hochiminh-Artboard_3.jpg
 
Hopefully I live long enough to see how dumb you are, and how hair triggered you are to go for stock answers on certain subjects.
Still haven’t heard you say how Yang is raising $240,000,000,000 a month for universal income.

or give the science of how letting people pollute that can afford it helps the environment.

funny how actually making CFCs illegal helped the Ozone layer. Didn’t matter how rich you were with that law.

if you could just help me out on one of those that would be great. Just whip the calculator out and show me the math.

might take more than math on how allowing pollution if you are rich actually cools the earth. I would go for the Yang question if I were you.
 
Still haven’t heard you say how Yang is raising $240,000,000,000 a month for universal income.
You should probably ask Yang.

One factor, though, is that many elements of our welfare programs would cost a whole lot less because people getting his Freedom Dividend would no longer qualify.
 
Still haven’t heard you say how Yang is raising $240,000,000,000 a month for universal income.

or give the science of how letting people pollute that can afford it helps the environment.

funny how actually making CFCs illegal helped the Ozone layer. Didn’t matter how rich you were with that law.

if you could just help me out on one of those that would be great. Just whip the calculator out and show me the math.

might take more than math on how allowing pollution if you are rich actually cools the earth. I would go for the Yang question if I were you.

I typically read climate change threads with great interest - your act is tired. How a carbon tax impacts emissions has been explained here, to you, many times. Stop being willfully ignorant
 
So the nanny state is going to trust meth addicts to spend the money on food for their kids. Lol
Now you're a fan of the welfare state?

Notice how you asked a question. I answered the question. And you not only didn't respond to the answer, you immediately jumped to another wingnut talking point.

Don't get pissy when people don't answer your questions if that's the best you can do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorneStockton
Rising seas could affect three times more people by 2050 than previously thought, according to new research, threatening to all but erase some of the world’s great coastal cities.

The authors of a paper published Tuesday developed a more accurate way of calculating land elevation based on satellite readings, a standard way of estimating the effects of sea level rise over large areas, and found that the previous numbers were far too optimistic. The new research shows that some 150 million people are now living on land that will be below the high-tide line by midcentury.



The first map shows earlier expectations of submerged land by 2050. But the new outlook, the second map, indicates that the bottom part of the country will be underwater at high tide.

More than 20 million people in Vietnam, almost one-quarter of the population, live on land that will be inundated.

Much of Ho Chi Minh City, the nation’s economic center, would disappear with it, according to the research, which was produced by Climate Central, a science organization based in New Jersey, and published in the journal Nature Communications. The projections don’t account for future population growth or land lost to coastal erosion.


Standard elevation measurements using satellites struggle to differentiate the true ground level from the tops of trees or buildings, said Scott A. Kulp, a researcher at Climate Central and one of the paper’s authors. So he and Benjamin Strauss, Climate Central’s chief executive, used artificial intelligence to determine the error rate and correct for it.

In Thailand, more than 10 percent of citizens now live on land that is likely to be inundated by 2050, compared with just 1 percent according to the earlier technique. The political and commercial capital, Bangkok, is particularly imperiled.

Climate change will put pressure on cities in multiple ways, said Loretta Hieber Girardet, a Bangkok resident and United Nations disaster risk-reduction official. Even as global warming floods more places, it will also push poor farmers off the land to seek work in cities.

“It is a dire formula,” she said.



In Shanghai, one of Asia’s most important economic engines, water threatens to consume the heart of the city and many other cities around it.

The findings don’t have to spell the end of those areas. The new data shows that 110 million people already live in places that are below the high tide line, which Mr. Strauss attributes to protective measures like seawalls and other barriers. Cities must invest vastly greater sums in such defenses, Mr. Strauss said, and they must do it quickly.

But even if that investment happens, defensive measures can go only so far. Mr. Strauss offered the example of New Orleans, a city below sea level that was devastated in 2005 when its extensive levees and other protections failed during Hurricane Katrina. “How deep a bowl do we want to live in”? he asked.


The new projections suggest that much of Mumbai, India’s financial capital and one of the largest cities in the world, is at risk of being wiped out. Built on what was once a series of islands, the city’s historic downtown core is particularly vulnerable.

Over all, the research shows that countries should start preparing now for more citizens to relocate internally, according to Dina Ionesco of the International Organization for Migration, an intergovernmental group that coordinates action on migrants and development.

“We’ve been trying to ring the alarm bells,” Ms. Ionesco said. “We know that it’s coming.” There is little modern precedent for this scale of population movement, she added.



The disappearance of cultural heritage could bring its own kind of devastation. Alexandria, Egypt, founded by Alexander the Great around 330 B.C., could be lost to rising waters.

In other places, the migration caused by rising seas could trigger or exacerbate regional conflicts.

Basra, the second-largest city in Iraq, could be mostly underwater by 2050. If that happens, the effects could be felt well beyond Iraq’s borders, according to John Castellaw, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general who was chief of staff for United States Central Command during the Iraq War.



Further loss of land to rising waters there “threatens to drive further social and political instability in the region, which could reignite armed conflict and increase the likelihood of terrorism,” said General Castellaw, who is now on the advisory board of the Center for Climate and Security, a research and advocacy group in Washington.

“So this is far more than an environmental problem,” he said. “It’s a humanitarian, security and possibly military problem too.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

There’s a reason I don’t watch the news, but you ruin it for me. You’re doing a good service though. I’d rather keep my head in the sand and do what I can to stop it in my house. I hate the dumb asses who deny and just keep on being a cancer to the earth. Does it hurt, is it too hard to just not **** the earth up even if you’re to stupid to accept the evidence? I don’t get it. It’s a toxic world and we are the cause and it’s getting worse everyday. I didn’t read your post, but I know what you’re going to post. With four young kids it’s too much for me. We do our part. Shitbags and greedy bastards never will without harsh laws and punishments. Yay, industrial revolution! Obviously there’s benefits, but it’s time to clean it up. How do you get the billions in India, China or Asia in general to clean their shit up? If we can’t, they never will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
There’s a reason I don’t watch the news, but you ruin it for me. You’re doing a good service though. I’d rather keep my head in the sand and do what I can to stop it in my house. I hate the dumb asses who deny and just keep on being a cancer to the earth. Does it hurt, is it too hard to just not **** the earth up even if you’re to stupid to accept the evidence? I don’t get it. It’s a toxic world and we are the cause and it’s getting worse everyday. I didn’t read your post, but I know what you’re going to post. With four young kids it’s too much for me. We do our part. Shitbags and greedy bastards never will without harsh laws and punishments. Yay, industrial revolution! Obviously there’s benefits, but it’s time to clean it up. How do you get the billions in India, China or Asia in general to clean their shit up? If we can’t, they never will.
The problem is these doomsday predictions never pan out; people stop believing any forecasts. They’ve cried wolf too many times.

That said, we should all want to come up with viable solutions to clean up the Earth. The pollution is out of control. We should all want clean air and water. Plastics are destroying our oceans. Our rivers are polluted with nitrogen and waste. And, our air is polluted with exhaust. Are humans causing global warming? I don’t know a definitive answer. But if you gave me the option to sit in a garage with a running internal combustion engine or an electric engine, I know what I’m picking.

To me, it should just be common sense to be cleaner. Stop with the single use plastics and cans and reduce emissions to the best extent possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuck C
The problem is these doomsday predictions never pan out; people stop believing any forecasts. They’ve cried wolf too many times.

That said, we should all want to come up with viable solutions to clean up the Earth. The pollution is out of control. We should all want clean air and water. Plastics are destroying our oceans. Our rivers are polluted with nitrogen and waste. And, our air is polluted with exhaust. Are humans causing global warming? I don’t know a definitive answer. But if you gave me the option to sit in a garage with a running internal combustion engine or an electric engine, I know what I’m picking.

To me, it should just be common sense to be cleaner. Stop with the single use plastics and cans and reduce emissions to the best extent possible.
Nitrogen is going to be hard to stop since lightning is a major source for the planet.
 
Now you're a fan of the welfare state?

Notice how you asked a question. I answered the question. And you not only didn't respond to the answer, you immediately jumped to another wingnut talking point.

Don't get pissy when people don't answer your questions if that's the best you can do.
The left doesn’t trust people with their own money. They always want to tax and spend it in programs. I find it odd they now want to trust people with cash.

and by god when the questions are never answered they should keep getting asked. It is Fbombing stupid to think $240,000,000,000 can be raised in new revenue a month. I don’t even pay $1000 a month in taxes but I am going to get $3000(have college kid)? Where the heck does they come from if I am middle class?

Warren bulls shit about forgiving loans? Um, if the wealth tax was passed the day after she took office she would need to save every penny of it for a decade to pay off just today’s loans. Roflmao.

questions should continued to be asked when all you get is polished lies.

bust out your calculator bitch. It isn’t talking points it’s math. Not even difficult math.


You can’t and won’t because you know it doesn’t add up so you just go back to bla bla bla.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully I live long enough to see how dumb you are, and how hair triggered you are to go for stock answers on certain subjects.
How is it any different than your talking points from MSNBC? Of all the people on this board to claim someone else is dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Speedway1
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT