
The water is coming for Copenhagen; good design could be its best defence - sohkamyung
https://www.foreground.com.au/planning/water-coming-copenhagen-good-design-best-defence/
======
ddebernardy
> By the end of this century, it’s predicted that Copenhagen will experience
> 25-55 percent more precipitation in winter months, while the city’s
> typically wet summer months will see up to a 40 percent reduction in
> rainfall.

Err... By the end of the century, it's also predicted that sea level will
rise. If Greenland melts in any significant manner, which given the current
heat wave in the Northern Greenland it very well might, increased
precipitation seems to me like it'll be Copenhagen's least of problems.

~~~
euroclydon
Yeah, I read that for most of Earth's history, there were no polar ice caps.
Our current ones are only a relic of the most recent ice age. And the next ice
age is not due for 90,000 years.

~~~
labster
Indeed. But there were 0 humans during most of Earth's history, so it's not
really a relevant point. The entire Mississippi valley used to be under a
shallow sea, but this is also an irrelevant fact for the Quaternary Period.

The next one being due in 90kyr thing is pretty false, you can't just pick
your favorite Milankovitch cycle and say that this is the important one for
climate, as the shorter period cycles are important too, along with other
things like the thermohaline circulation. But hey, I'm guessing you actually
don't know what the words I'm using even mean, and are just parroting things
you heard from other unknowledgeable sources.

~~~
euroclydon
John McPhee stated, rather breezily, in The Annals of the Former World, that
the next ice age is due in 90K years. He did mention there were three or so
cyclical events that have to line up.

I think, with all your animosity, you might be making a lot of assumptions
that I have some agenda with my comment. Is your brother-in-law a climate
change denier?

And about the rest of your comment: Is that how you normally talk to people?
That must go well...

One more thing: I can’t imagine a top five goals list for humanity that
doesn’t include existing as a civilization through a few more ice ages. I
mean, sure, the economic lifetime of Copenhagen’s buildings might not extend
that long, but I think it’s relevant.

~~~
labster
It's more that in offline life, I have to deal with lots of people who have
crazy theories about climate, and I tend to see HN as a kind of safe space
where I shouldn't have to deal with uninformed people offering barely-on-topic
opinions. Your justification... kinda qualifies. If you don't understand
something here, follow community norms and ask a question.

The next ice age isn't really "due" anytime. Yes, there are orbital parameters
which create a long-term varying climate. But you could also argue that it's
due right now, as the Yellowstone Caldera is seems to be behind on its
eruption cycle.

But none of that has to do with Greenland melting, which is mainly a
geological/hydrological process at this point. It's climate-adjacent, for
sure, but the questions are mainly how much will melt, how fast, and how much
will the land rebound once shedding weight.

And further, this all has even less to do with flooding in coastal areas, as
most of the sea level rise will come from simple thermal expansion. (Honestly
I'm more worried about Greenland as a albedo change positive feedback effect
than the meltwater.) And that's a typical technique of climate deniers --
reframe the debate in terms of something simpler, and then make a sweeping
generalization based on that. You set off my filter for that -- sorry that it
was a false positive.

