
If all the ice melted - bra-ket
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map
======
bellerocky
The thing about global warming that I don't know and would like some answers
on is how bad is it going to get? Is the worst case scenario mass-extinction?
It doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere with reducing carbon emissions and
I'm pretty pessimistic on the politics since it involves international
cooperation, which there isn't much of between the big polluters. Does the
worst case seem as likely as I think it is?

~~~
vixin
[http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-
upd...](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/02/global-temperature-update-still-
no-global-warming-for-17-years-10-months/) gives 'data from RSS dataset for
the 214 months October 1996 to July 2014'.

You can make your own projections: they are likely to be as accurate as any
others taking into account the success rate of climate modellers.

~~~
anthonyb
> "By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley"

That would be _Lord_ Christopher Monckton, notorious climate quack.

~~~
lotsofmangos
But not a member of the House of Lords, though he frequently claims otherwise
- [http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-
office/...](http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-
office/2011/letter-to-viscount-monckton-20110715.pdf)

------
cromulent
It's a fun hypothetical exercise, but of course there are other factors. Post-
glacial rebound means that Finland (for example) is rising at around 1cm per
year. That would keep pace with quite a lot of ice melting.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-
glacial_rebound](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound)

------
Nux
Here's an interactive map, showing how it would look before and after as well
as simulated floods for different level increases:

[http://flood.firetree.net/](http://flood.firetree.net/)

------
matteotom
In this scenario, would it be realistic to damn the Strait of Gibraltar and
the Suez Canal?

It seems that that would save most of southern and eastern Europe, as well as
northern Africa.

~~~
lisper
Even if you could (and you almost certainly couldn't) Rain would eventually
fill the Mediterranean if you did.

~~~
mkl
Actually, no, the Mediterranean evaporates faster than rain fills it. In the
past, when the Straits of Gibraltar have been closed, it has dried out
completely, or nearly so [1], and it's _5 kilometres deep_!

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messinian_salinity_crisis)

~~~
lisper
Well, dam! ;-) Learn something new every day.

------
wyager
So let's say global warming gets really bad and a ton of methane gets dumped
into the atmosphere.

Is there anything stopping us from engineering algae with methane as an input
to their metabolic process (genes borrowed from Methylococcus capsulatus) and
releasing them into the ocean?

~~~
ars
There's no real point - methane doesn't last long in the atmosphere.

~~~
wyager
More info? That's certainly not what I've heard from global warming activism
people.

~~~
ars
Methane lasts about 8-12 years, after which it becomes CO2 and water. (Not
sure if that is a half life, and average, a maximum or what, everyone just
quotes the figure no one said where it comes from.)

The CO2 and water it makes are also greenhouse gases and are "billed" to
methane when they calculate its impact. (So if you see crazy numbers for it
see if they are doing that.)

This means the methane itself is not really a problem, or at least only a very
short term problem. So there is no real need for us to actively remove methane
from the atmosphere - it does that itself.

------
callesgg
I think the topic should be "When all ice melt"

------
waps
I can't comment on most of it. But about the Netherlands, this will not
happen. Everybody knows that the Netherlands is currently already below sea
level, and has been for over three hundred years. So if you made this kind of
map for the Netherlands, for the sea level in 1901, nearly all of the
Netherlands, and large pieces of Belgium and Germany would already be declared
under water.

Most of Zeeland, North and West Flanders, Flevoland, and large parts of
Utrecht and Noord Holland are reclaimed from the sea, starting in the 17th
century (they won 3 wars by partially turning back reclaiming efforts during
battles). There was a point in history when Brussels had a seaport. Ghent was
built as a seaport, now it's 50km inland. When Ghent became unusable, they
built Brughes as a seaport. That one is now 15-20km inland. Without constant
effort, these would simply be reclaimed by the sea, not in a hundred years,
not in a thousand years, but in a month or two. The effort to prevent that has
been a necessity for 2-3 centuries, and they obviously are not about to stop
doing it.

So I would bet that these governments will continue to raise land (importing
sand mostly from germany), dam rivers as required and control their elevation
and coastal tides to compensate. Hell I've heard about a plan to put a dam in
the channel, which would slow down the currents and make the land reclimation
a lot easier and eventually create a continuous land area into the UK. The UK
doesn't like this at all, but if national geographic is right, and it's either
something like that, or lose London, I see that changing.

~~~
jakozaur
Most likely only a fraction of globe could afford this massive earth
engineering. Some places like Mediterranean/Baltic sea are easier will be
easier to protect. Most aren't.

On the other hand, even in pessimistic scenarios the sea would rise very
slowly, so we will have time to build this thing.

Even better and cheaper, stop putting that much CO2 into atmosphere.

~~~
at-fates-hands
>>> Even better and cheaper, stop putting that much CO2 into atmosphere.

You might want to talk to China about that. At least the US has been actively
trying to reduce emissions for some time now. China, India and other countries
simply don't give a fuck and won't sign any treaties that attempt to reduce
CO2 emissions.

Also, when alternative energies are actually affordable for more middle and
lower income families, you'll probably get more buy-in. As it sits right now,
unless you have a lot of cash laying around, affordable, renewable energy
isn't likely:

$35,000 for a Prius?

$30,000 for a small solar array with a 10+ year ROI?

$63,000 for a Tesla (the actual overall cost environmentally speaking is
actually higher CO2 wise than most current SUV's)

Maybe someday, but that day is so far off, I'm not sure its feasible.

~~~
stenl
USA emits 19 tons CO2 per capita, China only 5. As far as I understand, China
refuses to sign any climate treaty that locks in a situation where US to emit
so much more than other countries.

Btw, the EU average is 8, and Sweden (my country) at 5.5, so it's not like
you'd have to give up your quality of life to reduce enissions.

~~~
at-fates-hands
If you look at per capita, then Canada is 16 and Australia is 18. If you look
at it overall, then China is largest producer:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#List_of_countries_by_2012_emissions_estimates)

If look at it as a percentage of world emissions, it's not even close - China
has 26% with the US way back in 2nd with 14%:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#List_of_countries_by_2012_emissions_estimates)

Also, if you look at your home country of Sweden, your overall population is
much smaller, you have a much smaller land mass and I would expect your carbon
emissions to much lower.

Also, your country was smart to start phasing out fossil fuels, and has a ton
of very environmentally friendly laws which are doing a lot of positive things
for your country.

If we in the US actually adapted some of your laws and thinking, we'd probably
be a lot further along in reducing our country's impact on the rest of the
world.

