We live in a little town in Quebec/Canada and every year lately many neighbours are increasingly flooded out of their homes. In the past a water side property was a gold mine to own; but now it cost a gold mine to keep. Insurances companies are shunning water side homes due to the constant flooding. Our home is quite far from the river in town and yet three years ago we had to install an interior French drain that cost about $25,000 due to the river overflowing.
@@AORD72Wise guy. Some buy their house 30 years ago. May be more😂🎉 Who even think about the consequences of climate change at that time? Coastal areas are most dens populated since..... Jesus
@@gehwissen3975 I remember at university being told about climate change and sea level rise about 1992, 30 Years ago it has been well known. Anybody building or buying near water should always take into canount natural or man made change.
@@AORD72 Absolutely - and you smart guys take this all serious. Why not shout out loud? 😅 Because 1992 nobody - even science - believes that a significant rise is possible before 2200. At that time the rate of change was far less. 1992 the temperature spike has just begun. If you not studying climate - you probably wouldn't know that at that time. I'm 60. I followed this since 1984.. Fool yourself.
Sea levels rising are the least of concerns. The environment that propagates such a dramatic sea level rise will be so hostile and possibly the ocean’s food chain will be so dramatically impacted that we will starve before we have time to worry about our waterfront property.
This is so true ty! Dana Durnford at Nuclear For Dummies underscores Fukushima has 4 fully blown out spent fuel pools and china syndromes and just had another massive quake resulting in another meltdown and the entire Pacific is already caput.
There are plenty of nuclear power plants on the seashores and before we get flooded, we will get much worse tides and hurricanes. So the question is whether we starve, because food doesn't grow anymore or it's containment beyond being edible.
No the Netherlands have been dealing with the land being below sea level for hundreds of years. The sea isn't rising unless you're watching fake news propaganda.
studying the ice ages of the northern hemisphere science learned that 20000 years ago the oceans were 400 ft or so lower than today and in previous ice ages ice melted to the point that the arctic became a tropical forest. all mankind can do is to adapt to earths climate changes and reduce /stop pollution.
Problem is that 8billion people cant adapt fast enough so some will have to move, that brings them into conflict with those who don't have to move , and don't expect vast amounts of understanding it will be dog eat dog in most instances, but maybe I am too cynical.
In a harbor in Taiwan they started recording the sea level in 1953. At current rates of sea level rise, in 100 years expect the sea to be 0.15" higher if nothing changes. Just facts.
Do you have a source for this? I was quite interested. My online research from Taiwanese sources state that sea level rise is predicted to be twice the world wide sea level rise and is quite a concern to them. I would really like to see evidence of 0.15 inch over the next hundred years. It could certainly put a wrench in dire projections…….. source?
@@warrenpalmeira9559 if you search tidesandcurrents at noaa, and poke around the government site. You will find a good introduction to tide gage data over the decades. Marks on a stick. Harbormasters have no sense of humor. They're the people that tell companies how high they must build their docks. Higer docks are more expensive. Lower docks risk being submerged. How much per century is the expected sea level rise? No waving of hands. Straight from historical data. One harbor in Alaska is rising (not sinking) at 15 mm per year. That's six feet per century of land rise, above and beyond sea level rise. That should be enough to ring alarm bells! Something is going on, and it's not all ocean related. Indeed, the land goes up or down for several reasons. Sea level is going up at *about* 1.5 mm per year. The number is somewhere between 1.5 and 1.7 mm per year. I use the 1.5 because it makes calculations easier. New York (at the Battery) has an average sea level rise of 3 mm per year, with a chart going back to 1850. It shows sea level to be consistently on the rise, though individual years may be ahead or behind the average. Why is NY City sinking faster? Geography. A mile thick ice sheet pressed down north America. The goopy stuff a hundred miles down is moving back slowly. How slowly? NY land is sinking by 1.5 mm per year in addition to the 1.5 mm per year of sea level rise. Again, this is not scary stuff. I live in Florida. 1.5 mm per year is 6 inches per century, is 5 feet per thousand years. The UN has been predicting 50 million eco refugees per year for the last 40 years, and it hasn't happened yet. It's almost like propaganda. What has been the consequent of their scare mongering? On them, nothing. They keep re-issuing the same scarry proclamation with changed dates. Heck, in 2018 they said that half of all species would be extinct by 2030. On this pronouncement Extinction Rebelion bases its existence. And for a false prediction, the UN will experience no negative effects. In other words, they can lie, and know that they are lying, and there is no downside. Should anyone believe such a source?
"A plan is useless, planning is everything". ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower If we wanted to alter the course of climate change, it needed to be done when we first understood it in the 60s and 70s.Being that most of the population lives on coastal boundaries, I'd say we will be scurrying uphill like rats and cockroaches. Then there will be mayhem as we contest for what is left... It is going to be a very different world after I am gone. Florida in 60 years might be just a little hill poking out of the ocean... if that.
I'm not worried so much about habitable locations as much as what methane eruptions will do to our atmosphere. The northern areas have many gigatons of methane stored in them. Some of which are already erupting, blowing craters in the tundra. The only way to survive a large methane eruption will be in enclosed habitats. The oceans have even more methane in them. The question in my mind is "How can we survive such large releases of gasses into our atmosphere?" The only solution I can come up with is to build, basically, underwater habitats that somehow generate their own air supplies. But I've yet to understand how that can be done. I'm probably too old to worry about it much, but it might be very important to my children. We know things won't change much with the elite maintaining their status quo attitudes.
... and the AMOC could stop as early as 2025 most likely by 2050. There are quite a few tipping points that can be triggered in the range of 1.6 to 2.4K. Each of these events has the potential for catastrophic damage. War is likely then. Gn8
A very good discussion but one thing you failed to mention is that the sea rarely just rises over the land. Unless you live on solid bedrock, a meter of rise will eat away unknown hectares of land. Where I live in Atlantic Canada the eroding dirt cliffs become steeper and higher with every storm tide, eating farther back into the land much faster than in the low marshy areas where sand bars are deposited. A lot of people will have to move farther inland than a meter's height would suggest. And it won't stop there. It will continue to rise faster in future.
@@luminousfractal420 A fair point, but you should be aware of context. I read of rises in sea levels of around 200ft/70mtrs but, big but, that is qualified by statements that "ALL" the planetary ice has melted. Nobody knows, as yet, how much planetary ice will melt, over whatever period, wherever, and the consequent rise in sea levels. Thing is that most of us reading these forecasts won't be around so it'll be for future generations to deal with the "actual" situation at the time as best they can. One thing tho', just a one metre rise in sea level will be catastrophic for the vast majority of coastal communities, as in lying on coastal areas/river estuaries and lower reaches of rivers of course. Probably best to buy a permanent cabin on a cruise ship ... with its port of origin being somewhere up a very wide river, if you follow. Or prepare to live on a raft or a boat. And develop an appetite for fish and seaweeds.
@@luminousfractal420 If it had actually been rising at the alarmists rates , many towns , cities would have major problems already . But as Andrew Horwood has said , it will go up the estuaries and eat away at cliffs , sand dunes although to some extent all the sediment will also displace water . So many variables .
30 years ago I moved from a coastal area to a place that is a thousand feet above sea level. Before you say anything I didn't do it because of the idea of rising sea level. It was strictly about job availability in my field, affordability of housing and the cost of living in general. If the sea levels do rise, I will erase this posting and deny it ever existed and I will write a different posting that says, "I called it! I WAS RIGHT!" I might end up getting on the talk show circuit.
Limestone contains fresh water that will be contaminated by sea water. You can't see it happening but you also can't use the water. It's already happening in Florida.
A lot of food for thought - thanks for the brilliant question. Instead of wasting money on Mars speculation let’s sustainably develop currently unused high ground areas on this planet.
You are correct. Colonizing Mars is out of the question. Musk admitted that 1 million tons of material must be sent to Mars to supply the components for safe habitat. That requires 10,000 successful launches and subsequent descents of Starship to the habitat area. In addition, it will take 12 more Starships for every Mars bound vehicle to refuel them for the actual Mars journey. That's 120,000 Starship launches, allowing that there are no failures. This gives us 13 launches for every Mars bound vehicle. So in reality, at one launch per week it will take 13 weeks per Mars bound vehicle. That now totals 2,300 years to complete material transfer. 1) What will happen to the first material after 2,300 years while it sits waiting for the final delivery? 2) Who will finance each Starship? 3) Who will finance the cargo? 4) Who will finance the fuel mass needed to make the journey? 5) What can be done at the Mars site if material is damaged? 6) During the 2,300 years will there continue to be a viable SpaceX factory? These are the most basic problems. There are countless questions for the logistics to get started, keep it operational and do the costly program maintenance.
You all sound like NIMBY's, who want the life (so mess up tge earth) and then blame those who make another plan because of your short-sightedness for not wanting to live the way you say "everyone" now need to.
Being the sea is said to only rise less than a quarter of an inch in the last 100 years...im not to worried. And as ice melts the cold water cools the planet yet creating ice all over again. When i was young it was global cooling. Then warming and now the majority of science says its cooling again. Food for thought--- be careful notbto trust scientist who are on governments payroll...they will always come to conclusions that are paid for...
Today, the strip of land on the seafront in Rio de Janeiro is extremely valued. Poor cariocas live in the hills, because real estate prices there are much cheaper. In Rio de Janeiro, the social and economic hierarchy can therefore be geographically observed with the naked eye. The city spends almost all the money it collects in the lower region near the beaches. The poor populations of the hills are abandoned and without access to public services. Rising sea levels will cause a real revolution in Rio de Janeiro. But I guess the poor cariocas who live in the hills won't want the company of the rich racist Brazilians who now live by the sea.
I live 230 metres above sea level, so this is good news for my grandchildren. If you think land is expensive now just imagine how much it'll cost when there's not much above the waves.
A better question to ask, which people don't even seem to be considering, is "Where does the former infrastructure go?". When the oceans swallow thousands upon thousands of miles of densely populated and developed coastline, all the trash from it gets churned up into the oceans. It all has to go somewhere. I keep seeing idiots saying things like, "Good, I'll have beachfront property!", as if the new "beaches" won't be covered in festering garbage and debris. Don't forget the cemetaries!
@@gehwissen3975Yep that's bad, but I'm more concerned about plants that produce plain old boring chemical waste. Not only will ALL their waste end up in the oceans, but all their chemical inventory as well. Less than a hundred NPPs vs thousands of industries, I'll take the NPP any day.
@@NightRunner417 There around 50 in less than 1km distance to the sea. Their meltdown destroys the ozone layer in higher atmosphere. That's the end of all live on earth.
I Was Born In Livingston Izabal Guatemala, And Grew Up In Dangriga Town, Stann Creek District In BELIZE In The 1980's, Dangriga Town Was 36 cm below Sea Level, And 40 yrs later, We Don't get All That Rain That Would Flood The Whole Town For Half The Year!
No, you should be asking how long before the kilometre thick ice on southern greenland melt allowing the south of the land to rise, tipping up so the water melt is trapped until it exits into the north polar sea as a tidalwave of fresh water.
Extreme weather, Deadly Wet bulb temperatures with food and water insecurity will cause widespread chaos around the world and might send our civilization over the edge before sea level rise disrupts it substantially.
Agreed. Already rice production in Asia is declining. Think of what a few extreme heat and extreme droughts can do to rice, corn and soybean production. It would not take much to lose several billion people. This kind of thing will cause wars and civil strife the likes of which has never been seen before.
@@rhensontollhouseyou people are sadly psyopped People grow food in tropics. If they fail to it is cultural. They are majority of babies. Tropics are not uninhabitable
NASA says "Multiple studies, many of which use Landsat observations, show that most coral atoll islands in the Maldives and elsewhere have remained stable or even grown larger in recent decades".
Where animals & plants can re-establish sustainable ecosystems, how humans get potable water in sustainable ways, and how farming animals and plants can feed the world's population, and who is entitled to resources, will be a far greater challenge than I foresee architecture being (though extreme-weather resilient & attack-proof homes need economic designs too!).
I suspect that the large underground bunker projects won't survive but a little longer than the rest of the population. Methane has a ten year cycle. If methane erupts in vast quantities, the very atmosphere might become toxic to life as we know it. Underground habitats won't hold enough water, food, and air to sustain life for ten years. Underwater habitats might be a better alternative because the tops could be made clear enough to allow farming under the waves. But the habitats would have to be supported by pillars from the sea floor, because the eruption of so much gas would cause any floating vessel to sink.
yep. max water density is at about 4 degrees C. from there it expands as the temperature goes down to zero, meaning the nearly freezing water stays on the top. It's a tiny effect, below 1%; ice is 10% lighter, so water ice definitely floats... And water expands from 4 degrees on up to boiling.
If you are going to live on ocean water, the safest place is far from shore, because you would get hammered by much bigger waves coming from multiple directions if you are close to shore. And living far from shore means lots more effort to bring resources from land out to your artificial ocean island neighborhood. Also, you have to figure out whether you are going to make a mega barge that doesn't bend, which would have huge forces over it whole length trying to take it apart, or you could make a lot of small barges, maybe even the size of buildings, but with flexible connections between them, so each barge can ride the waves separately but be kept from crashing into each other.
Hmm, icebergs melting? Then why are the surface mass balance charts of Greenland stable. The MASIE charts largely unchanged. The Antarctic ice sheet is growing by millions of pounds, and the largest glaciers of Greenland are actually growing. The rate of sea level rise along the east coast of the US has been slowly increasing at the same rate as the 1860s. I find the assertion that the world ice is melting and destroying coastline is not supported by current observations over the past 100 years.
The ambient level of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 400 PPM. At 100 PPM of CO2 the rate of photosynthesis would be stopped completely. At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped. There may be a slight increase in photosynthetic efficiency due to the higher than ambient CO2 level, however this increase will probably be insignificant. The level of 1000 PPM CO2 is very close to the optimum level of CO2 required, given no other limiting factor.
It might be in a greenhouse, but in reality It's got nothing to do with an optimum level for photosynthesis. It doesn't mean a thing if most of the other requirements for plant growth aren't met thanks to the effects of climate change. Desertification and wild fires are completely opposite to plant growth and photosynthesis. So it's absolute nonsense to claim that we will be better off with higher CO2 levels because it benefits photosynthesis.😂
@@simonsena1378 "So it's absolute nonsense to claim that we will be better off with higher CO2 levels because it benefits photosynthesis." It has been discovered recently that plants require less water with higher CO2 levels. The edges of deserts in many parts of the world are becoming more dense with vegetation...much to the benefit of indigenous peoples.
@@simonsena1378 The major cause of water loss in plants is attributable to transpiration, in which the stomata or pores on the undersides of the leaves are open to absorb CO2. With more CO2, the stomata are open for shorter periods, the leaves lose less water, and more moisture remains in the soil. Link to follow in the next comment.
Can anyone please explain during the 2023 hottest year on record, how the Arctic sea ice extent is at its highest for well over a decade during the whole of December thus far (30/12/2023) currently @ 13.68 million sq. kilometers (27 December 2023) the highest it has been since at least 2009 which is illogical during the new era of global boiling according to the UN ?
10,000 penguin chicks died this year in Antartica. The ice broke up and melted at the nesting grounds. Because the chicks had not enough time to grow waterproof feathers they died in the cold sea. Some colonies reared no chicks at all. The saddest part is that these penguins that are leading to their extinction have never seen any humans in their life responsible for their demise. The ice is forming later in winter and melting faster in Spring.
@@ianrowley5762its climate but on other hand we're not ready to be gods Where some thousand 🐧 nest and leave... could be a full time forest with birds who spend whole life there. In time a 🦌 from tip of Tierra del Fuego gets caught in sea and survives to hit the peninsula. If there is grass he survives if God is good to him a mate arrives in a year. Couple more next generation and have herds of beasts where penguins nested Complicated
@user-sc3ts6lf8r I researched it. Penguins as a family in no danger of extinction. Maori ate one species to extinction. Another came in to fill niche. Only 3000 today the local authorities try to keep out of 🍲 and remind locals of the tourism that would be lost. Pepple come to see rarest 🐧 I think it is not the cold per se they need from Antarctica but fact so less predation. Lots prefer actual beaches like Falkland Islands 🇫🇰
@user-sc3ts6lf8r if we care to we can protect any given population, yes. We maybe can't keep every species from cold time to a warm time. Ocean will get less salty so faster adaptation between aquatic and marine species. Real bass maybe take over niche of seabass or the opposite 🙃 That's called a turnover where species are replaced. Different than an extinction event where food chains collapse
WE could build for this by encasing our building foundations in reinforced ferro-cement allowing them to break from their moorings and float inland, or just rise and fall with the storm surge. Barge props, anchors and a small diesel could do the rest.
Just fill a glass 2/3rd full of water and put about 5 ice cubes in it. When those ice cubes melt, the water will be millimetres more than what the ice cubes took up, leaving the glass maybe overflowing.
_"leaving the glass maybe overflowing."_ - FALSE. Ice takes up more space than water at 0 degrees C (which is why it floats), but water EXPANDS when heated, like most materials. To freeze, water has to pack its molecules further apart than they can exist when liquid. This is an unusual feature in nature.
@@gamingtonight1526I'd say you had too many whiskeys before you did that experiment. Ice has a firm lattice structure than water. Freeze water volume increases, thaw water volume decreases. Water has minimal volume change with increasing or decreasing its temperature. The reason seas might rise is because much of the melting ice is above sea level and will flow into the sea
There is a counterforce, which initiates an ice age, the nex milankovic cycle. So no one knows really, which of those will win. The real question is what level we should then try to keep CO2 to avoid another devastating glaciation in 10 000 - to 13000 years time?
Where do you get the "10 000 - to 13000 years time" from? This interglacial (the Holocene) is already longer than previous ones, from that perspective the next glaciation is overdue.
Around 20+ years ago, I heard similar predictions saying a lot of costal cities would be submerged in 30 years. Some even said Time Square would be under water by then. I live by the sea but cannot see any noticable changes. I can't help wondering if it is just a hoax.
@@magesalmanac6424 I did not hear different predictions. I heard some very dire predictions made by some scientists. Most governments, at least in the West, seem to believe in what they said and have gone all in to green energy. After 20+ years, I still do not see a bit of change in sea level.
Your timelines are slightly off and theres been other factors introduced. It was about y2k they finished the core sample studies. But it was set at 40years for severe ocean level rises. We made some progress for a while holding things back..but now the floodgates are open. The rich brats had a little foot stomping rebellion and putin helped. Also we had bp calling for an end to oil drilling, saying it wasnt feasible to profit from whats left in the ground. Then they introduced fracking. And discovered a massive oil well up in the arctic (russia/usa drama explained) .which has thrown us right back in the fire.
1) you do understand a melting iceberg doesn't cause the sea to rise unless it is an iceberg of freshwater and therefore with a different density - Archimedes' principle 2) for the seas to rise, the ice above ground in the antarctic and artic would have to mel or for fresh water icebergs to melt such that the less dense water floats on the more dense salt water. If that was to happen, rising sea will be the least of our problems
We already have bigger problems with methane eruptions taking place in the tundras now. And methane is reported as being ten times effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Humanities greatest problem is that there's so many of us. We might save more lives if a super volcano erupted during a major methane eruption. But either direction we look, starvation could become the largest killer of humanity in the coming years. How can anyone grow a self sustaining garden if food won't grow because of heat, pest, toxic rain, toxic air pollution, or lack of ample rainfall? And how can human lungs stand the intense heat of the surrounding air without drying out if enough of this methane erupts? Only by underwater habitats built on piers can sustain us. But the building materials are almost unattainable now with credit gone, inflation high, and little consideration from the government, and even less consideration from the business sector. Profit seems to be only in their eyes and nothing else. It's a question that Elon Musk has probably thought about. Our way of life on this earth will be forever changed soon. But there is hope.
@@jameslee-dp6cb indeed. Nature has always had a way of solving these problems. Whether by drought, famine, war, etc. She is already speaking and the coming war on China will help finish the job. When we are all gone, nature will reclaim her planet. Just look at Chernobyl
@@jameslee-dp6cb Depends who you ask concerning Methane. Some say 10x, others 25x, others still 85x. What few mention is how much methane there is in the atmosphere. CO2 is running at 420 ppm while methane at around 1800 ppb (That's part per billion). And the Earth is greener now, another rarely mentioned piece of news. 15% more from natural outgrowth, not human planting. The only starving people in the world today are starving because of war, poor distribution and pathetic governance. We produce more than enough for everyone. Sub-Saharan Africa has enough arable land (mostly unused or mismanaged) to feed the world. As for population. The dire consequences predicted in the 60s were criminally wrong. No western country is producing enough children to maintain their current populations. Japan is already facing decline and China, losing around 1000 a day can expect to see its population halved by the end of the century.
It’s beautiful living along the shoreline of the ocean, a lake, or a river…….until it’s not! Water destruction from flooding, storms, or rise and fall of water levels is not enjoyable. Mother Nature has incredible power, don’t test her temper.
I think it’s cyclical but happening hundreds of thousands of years apart. I was on the northern side of the Alaska Range in the mountains and found sea shell fossils in the mountains. Of course the mountains did rise up but the land will change formation long after we are dead and gone. My resolution would be to move to higher ground.
@Anonymous One You'd be wrong. Highest tides are higher than ever. But since you don't like real facts, I suggest you buy some beach property right now. Let us know how it works out for you.
You're talking about tens of millions of years, not thousands, Apparently many people don't actually understand how old the planet is. (Hint: Four and half billion years. That's 'billion', which is a thousand million, in case you're a little hazy on math.)
Why is so much of this video just an orange/blue/peach coloured design just undulating across the screen and some audio? Like at 12:45? It’s annoying Couldn’t you find even some stock footage to put onscreen? Krykies the BBC was so much better when I was a kid Edit: I didn’t realise this was an audio file or radio programme lol 😂. They should still use something better onscreen
Thank you for this video. It is a great window into the diversity of the problems changing climate will cause. I found a place at a high elevation covered with jungle and built a house there. Knowing that the future is uncertain everywhere. I produce as much mulch and compost as possible to add to soil that grows food and retains carbon. Small gestures can have an affect.
LOL THE BANKS KNOW SEA LEVELS AINT RISING , OTHER WISE YOU WOULDNT BE ABLE TO GET A LOAN IN LONDON THOSE 30 YEAR MORTGAGES THE WORLD WOULD BE OVER BY THEN , THE BANKS ARE FUNDING WATERFRONT PROJECTS ALL OVER THE WORLD , THEY JUST BUILT A FOOTBALL STADIUM RIGHT ON WATERFRONT IN LIVERPOOL ,,, THE BANKS KNOW IT AINT RISING
@@RobertMJohnson WERE SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER WATER BY NOW ACCORDING TO THE 80S CLIMATE HOAX , IT HAPPENS AND GOES AWAY WHEN ALL THE ELITES MONOPOLIZE THE WORLD , SO FOOD SUPPLY IS ALL COMING FROM HANDFULL OF SOURCES , ALL TRAVEL IS CONTROLLED SO BAN CARS, ALL MONEY IS CASHLESS ,PROPERTY IS ONLY RENTABLE , ALL SMALL BUSINESSES DESTROYED , CLIMATE HOAX IS GOING TO BE USED TO TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOMS AND CREATE THE BIGGEST MONOPOLY BIGGER THAN STANDARD OIL AND DALE CARNAGIE !!!!
We have six sea level monitering stations in the South Pacific north of Australia and they show no significant change to sea level in thirty years. So this BBC airhead is clearly asserting that now winds and currents are causing sea level rises meters higher than gravity allows. Morover, Aborigines, who spear fish along their coast and know every pebble and rock, tell me it is exactly the same in the Timor and Arafura seas as it was 70 years ago. Ergo, you foolish people, they are exploiting your gullibility so that they can reduce CO2 and thereby reduce reforestation. The actual sea rises, such as along the US Atlantic coast, which in fact is subject to continental sinking at a rate of 3 mm per year; likewise Kiribati which is claimed to be inundated by sea, but has been known to be sinking for 400 years.
And Venice. We all know it's sinking, James Bond had that fight in a house with air bags to keep it floating...?! But the news always rolls out the high tide flooding pictures... insinuating...
@@normanstewart7130 The locations were, wisely I imagine, never disclosed. I first read their analysis around eighteen years ago when I had completed writing a book on fire in north Australia. This galvanised me to check the actual AGW data and I was dismayed to discover the claims were false, had been manipulated by Maurice Strong for the IPCC for the Rothschilds. I was required to rewrite the entire book and ever since have refused to accept scientific conclusions unless accompanied by the supporting data. Today, I simply accept that the only science extant is that which is paid for. All scientists of integrity are unemployed. You mentioned coral reefs. Despite very unscientific reports of a dying Great Barrier Reef, it is in fact the healthiest it has ever been. We are living through what history may well deem the Era of Monumental Lies.
@tonyryan43 Indeed, but I don't see how they can report observational data without identifying the locations, it makes the data worthless. I specifically asked about coral atolls because they grow vertically as sea level rises. That would explain why no sea level rise was observed. It also explains why the predictions of islands, such as the Maldives, disappearing have been proven wrong.
The world's ice has already melted. The ice that is left is not going to wreak havoc like everyone keeps saying it will. The ice sheet 12000 years ago now yeah that ice sheet would devastate the oceans coast lines.
In Cape town South Africa we are experiencing sea Gulf so strong that it cause mist or dew in the summer day. Am alarmed. The Russians were training along the coast, didn't they disrupt the sea
This was amazing listening to this podcast to improve my language and at the same time be aware about global warming thanks for this really it was informative.
If you were to stand on a seashore at the high water mark for the rest of the century, you would find your feet and ankles wet by 2100. So the answer to the question is we walk away...very, very slowly.
Gr8 video and thought provoking... considering options for water life here on the Barrier Islands in the Gulf of Mexico and hurricane Ian six months ago obliterated my home so we moved thirty kilometers inland on the harbor but still few meters above sea level
In all the World, we will try to use more solar energy. Under the solar panels make agriculture. We need to undertand that climate change is today a reallity so we need to do changes now.
Good to see that evidence based science of the last 30 years has given more ice in Antartica and less cyclones to Australia. Don’t know about northern hemisphere but migration is always a possibility
@@jaykanta4326 so? That has been happening for the last 25000 years. 14500 years ago was 40 mm rise a year. We live on a planet that is constantly changed, human additional change won't make much difference.
Northern Canada, South Pole, Australia, Siberia, Greenland. There are many places to develop and expand into. So many positives from global warming, a natural occurrence, that has been happening for 20,000 years. A cooling down of the worlds climate, would kill billions, (possibly wipe humans out) which hopefully would not happen, unless mankind finds a way to keep the planet warm.
LoL! Imagine people in 1850 saying they feel sorry for people in the future, like now. Would a person now want to cut their life span in half? No phone, no internet, no car, no grocery stores with refrigeration, and no medicine. In 170 years, do you think things will be better or worse than they were 170 years ago?
@@mattyk82 I see a little problem, honey. Ice-Ages and whetever we're cooming out of one is 'completly public knowledge' and 'completly obviously completly taken intoooo accounttt by all climate-scientists everr'. So guess what: Climate-Change is kindaaa still 'objectively true' and yxour misinterprating the evidence hard.
@@rilmehakonen9688 Probably down to education. Suggest you read up on the planet's history of climatic changes. That said it won't really matter where the water comes from when it's lapping on your doormat. The answer might be production of massive rafts ... artificial islands require support ... rafts use the sea itself for support. That means it doesn't matter how deep the water is. Energy provided by wind turbines and doubtless we'll see vast rafts covered in solar panels. We already have nuclear reactors on ships/submarines so energy needs could be easily(?) met. It might be we should ramp up research on generating more marine sources of food, as in fish and sea weeds. This 1.5C limit in global temperature is unlikely to be met so might be a waste of time trying to stop temperature rising anyway. Would suggest this limit is not worth striving for and might be better to adapt to the climate changes as opposed to trying to modify the climate.
Its past natural levels. Granted we only have evidence from the last 4 ice ages (ice core samples). But were not in the normal cycle. What we can do is stop psychopaths hellbent on profit from absolutely wrecking the place.
@@t1n4444 perhaps giant tidal farms could make for safe breeding grounds for wildlife if we do it right. Not just surface level generators but ocean top to ocean bottom interlinked structures. Would certainly keep the fishing boats out.
I might need to point out an important aspect toward living on the water. At some point in the future, methane will erupt out of the depths of the oceans. Large methane eruptions could displace the air in the general area of the eruption causing mass asphyxiation to anyone living there. A stored air supply could work, but only inside a completely enclosed environment. But any spark developing would possibly ignite the methane, burning the habitat. Underwater habitats might be better, but if these habitats a floating, they would loose bouyancy during the eruption and sink to the sea floor. But if the underwater habitats are mounted on piers, then they wouldn't sink.
I might also point out that moving to areas too high up could be very risky too. As the methane, which is a gas, floats up higher in the atmosphere, it could make living above certain elevations just as dangerous as living on the sea. But the methane will stay around much longer in the upper atmosphere. The methane cycle is reported to be ten years.
There is a place in Alabama known as the Selma Chalk. It is reported as being an ancient seashore since is not lifted up like mountainous locations. So we know that the sea level may rise high enough to return to that level again.
Adapting to live in/on water would be a mistake. Doing so would disrupt many ecosystems. It is once again a representation of how we as a species are living against nature. We need to be better
More excuses for not doing whats needed. Taking the worlds elite by the balls and stopping their abuses for all eternity by introducing empathy/mental health tests to all government members and politicians wanting to be in on the game. 100years of eugenics has us led by psychopaths.
Fajardo Puerto Rico is my residence . 62 years I've been visiting the same exact spot on the beach . A Boulder the size of a bus sits there . We use it as a marker for yes 62 years . Zero change in sea level . Zero .
Three things about this article. Firstly, to say that the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves won't all melt in our lifetimes is an assumption based on analysis that keeps being negatively revised at an alarming rate. Secondly, we know from the last ice age that when ice melts some land rises and this creates pressures on low lying lands. ie: Doggerland is close to Scotland, Scotland rose, Doggerland sunk. Thirdly, environmental pressures will create differing events in different places, so while sea levels rise and warm in certain parts of the world, desalination of conveyer currents may create ice age event in other areas. The earth is fragile and does not behave as you would necessarily expect in climate models.
PRO TIP: The seas have been rising AND FALLING - by as much as 300 to 450 feet - FOR👏🏼 MILLENNIA👏🏼. LONG BEFORE SUVs and A/Cs and wood stoves and barbecue grills. I can't believe I actually have to say this, but, WHEN the sea level rises, you go to higher ground. DUH. You're WELCOME.
Talking about the seas, no one could survive when it happens because the sea is the largest part [as far as I remember 80%?] rather than the land. Even in Indonesia [Jakarta] it's already predicted that one day Jakarta will be gone when the flood reaches as high as National Monument [Monas]. For houses construction, Need new way to build houses then, your landed house probably need a little bit "fly" away from the land.. Whether to avoid the water or flood. [then why it seems as a traditional house in Sumatra Indonesia? 😎] and not "cracking" when the earthquake happens.
Either you're seriously uninformed or you've got some axe to grind. Yes, thye planet will eventually enter another ice age....a few thousands of years from now. In meantime, your grandkids will curse your name for being so blind to the danger to the planet.
If the globe is warming it must be getting bigger. Ice will melt before solid land moves. Distance between continents will increase slowly hopefully accommodating the ice melt water
I strongly disagree. Humans only occupy a very small portion of the earth land mass. Yes coastal areas will be hit, but all we need to do is move further inland.
Something I don't hear much about: Many people will have to move. ...somewhere. And everyone else will have to MOVE OVER to make room for them. That may raise issues.
I'm no fortune teller, but I foresee a great die off of Earth's population in the future. Looks like it's gonna happen just like the bible has predicted.
The ever informative BBC might have called in to look at the Newlyn sea level datum in Cornwall. A geologically stable location where level rise has been tracked at an alarming 2.5mm per year over the last 100 years.
Not if. WHEN. We're past the IF part. If you think the amount of ice that's melted up until now is nothing, you're right. As we go into a warming negative feedback loop, the amount of water being dumped into the ocean will make Niagara falls look like a tiny stream. Right now almost 70% of the world's fresh water is locked away in the ice sheets. An ice sheet must be bigger than 50,000 kilometer squares. Glaciers can be 3-5km DEEP. Most of the Antarctica continent IS covered by glaciers so thick only the mountaintop peaks can be seen. Only a small fraction has been lost from that ice sheet. The 2nd largest ice sheet is located in Greenland. That's another block of ice thats at least 50,000 kilometer square and kms thick. ALL of that is predicted to melt when we reach catastrophic climate warming. Things have never looked bleaker. As I keep saying, climate change is like rabies. When symptoms start showing, it's too late. P.s. I have a postgraduate in environmental sciences. I've seen all this coming down the pipeline since 2017.
@@ToudaHell how much ice has been lost in the last 50 years with no sea level rise at all? Now the stuff you mentioned above melts and the entire world is going to flood? Give me a break
16,000 years ago no residual snow during summer at Chicago. 12,000 yrs ago a 2 mile high glacier over Chicago gouging out the Great Lakes. 7,000 yrs ago it was warm enough that there was a warm inland sea in Iceland. (Happy to provide a video with an Icelandic Glaciologist saying so). From 1300 to 1890 we were in the Little Ice Age. Since humans are responsible for Climate Change, what is the Industrial Activity we humans keep turning on and off? (What kind of technology did we have 16,000 yrs ago when it was warm? Ans: Hunter/Gatherer. No sign of even simple agriculture... pre horse drawn plows, yet warm.) From Ice Core Samples 500 million yrs ago CO2 conc in the atmospehere was 4,000 ppm. Today it is 400 ppm. What were we humans doing 500 million yrs ago to make the CO2 *Ten Times* today's CO2 conc.
500 million years ago there were no Humans as to day, 16000 years ago there were a miniscule number of humans compared to todays 8 billion so yes we can adapt but its unlikely there will be 8 billion or more when it all ends more like a few million left and unlikely any recognisable civilisation. That's assuming that enough diverse species can also adapt fast enough to not go extinct and cause the last few million people to also go extinct because of the breakdown of the food chain. As for Bony's Miniatures comment is concerned its not a case of not daring, its simply not really worth peoples time to correct someone who is so wrong and who has such ridiculous ideas, basically they can't be bothered, sorry.
If you are simply implying that these changes are natural, well that has been done to death by many real scientists all of them now basically agree that WE are causing the change, its NOT normal change, and will change so rapidly in comparison to the "normal" cycle that it will be extremely difficult for species (not just humans)to adapt and survive. Luckily I won't be around to see it.
The real question should be: Why hasn't the sea risen already since we have been polluting the air for the past 130 years? Even if it does rise, we're barely going to notice it. Earth is not going to turn into something from the film Waterworld
in the u s a alone there are huge sinks. the salton sea and the death valley ect. i wonder if sinks could be a flood control method ?they are world wide.
That is an excellent question. I suspect we might all be dead from a virus infection long before we have to worry about the sea lapping on our door mats.
@LOL-Yolo 😂😂😂😂 Indeed you might. Who knows what the effects are to be had from "forgotten" viruses. You might have typed truer than you knew. We shall watch your health with interest.
@@luminousfractal420 I have to agree with you ... but ... we didn't have a lot of protection from covid. We'll soon know once the medical boffins have unraveled the ancient viruses, bacteria and gasses. That said it would be a tad embarrassing if we had another Wuhan type episode. Alarming how things can work out ...
Watch the movie reminincense, it will give you an idea of the elites plan, or allysium is another plan for the future. Take your pick, the haves, and the have nots
You dont need a movie. Read up on eugenics (usa and uk). Then you will understand what strings are being pulled and why. (Purebred psychopaths going a bit dna loopy. No empathy at all. They cant even comprehend the damage they do)
I live 299 meter above seal level now, and the Bangkok bay is still over 800 km away. So if I get old enough, I am still save from get flooded from there and may only need to travel 400 km then to near Uttaradith. But beside that I hear no any affords about Bangkok to moved away like Jakarta, the lost of fertile lands used now most for rice from India, Thailand, Vietnam and China is the bigger lost problem as or urban. We can easy build new cities around, on top or in hills - but this huge farmland is not that easy to rebuild, maybe direct inside the cities also, vertical - also to save transport ways. Where ever the flooding will rush so much people away, the main problem is food then ! My daughter - hopeful has NO kids anymore - might see Bangkok like Venedig already.
Analyses of ice cores in Iceland show that thousands of years ago it was 3 to 4 degrees hotter than today. Why? only to cool precipitously over the millennia and with a couple recent cooling/warming bumps. The cores show the Little Ice Age indicating it was more than a Europe/North America regional event.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
We live in a little town in Quebec/Canada and every year lately many neighbours are increasingly flooded out of their homes. In the past a water side property was a gold mine to own; but now it cost a gold mine to keep. Insurances companies are shunning water side homes due to the constant flooding. Our home is quite far from the river in town and yet three years ago we had to install an interior French drain that cost about $25,000 due to the river overflowing.
Don't build or buy in low level areas then. At a rate of 3mm a year we easily out build sea level rise. Even at 10mm a year we can out build it.
@@AORD72Wise guy. Some buy their house 30 years ago. May be more😂🎉 Who even think about the consequences of climate change at that time? Coastal areas are most dens populated since..... Jesus
@@gehwissen3975 I remember at university being told about climate change and sea level rise about 1992, 30 Years ago it has been well known. Anybody building or buying near water should always take into canount natural or man made change.
@@AORD72 Absolutely - and you smart guys take this all serious.
Why not shout out loud? 😅
Because 1992 nobody - even science - believes that a significant rise is possible before 2200. At that time the rate of change was far less.
1992 the temperature spike has just begun. If you not studying climate - you probably wouldn't know that at that time.
I'm 60. I followed this since 1984.. Fool yourself.
@@gehwissen3975 You don't read like you are 60. Using icons and insulting people suggest you are a child.
Sea levels rising are the least of concerns. The environment that propagates such a dramatic sea level rise will be so hostile and possibly the ocean’s food chain will be so dramatically impacted that we will starve before we have time to worry about our waterfront property.
Yes. Thanks.
So - it makes sense to entertain our flattened psyche till then. BBC🎉
@@gehwissen3975qW
This is so true ty! Dana Durnford at Nuclear For Dummies underscores Fukushima has 4 fully blown out spent fuel pools and china syndromes and just had another massive quake resulting in another meltdown and the entire Pacific is already caput.
There are plenty of nuclear power plants on the seashores and before we get flooded, we will get much worse tides and hurricanes. So the question is whether we starve, because food doesn't grow anymore or it's containment beyond being edible.
Netherlands has been coping with the rising sea for hundreds of years.
No the Netherlands have been dealing with the land being below sea level for hundreds of years. The sea isn't rising unless you're watching fake news propaganda.
Hence they buy properties in Hungary to retire.
The final shelter would be the caves/cavesystems in the mountains. Weather will be so tough in the future that we have to go there.
studying the ice ages of the northern hemisphere science learned that 20000 years ago the oceans were 400 ft or so lower than today and in previous ice ages ice melted to the point that the arctic became a tropical forest. all mankind can do is to adapt to earths climate changes and reduce /stop pollution.
Problem is that 8billion people cant adapt fast enough so some will have to move, that brings them into conflict with those who don't have to move , and don't expect vast amounts of understanding it will be dog eat dog in most instances, but maybe I am too cynical.
Bravo! Common sense prevails, at last!
@@davedixon2068 so basically, the world is overpopulated. Nature will deal with the overpopulation problem.
@@ia8018 Thats about the size of it.
@@davedixon2068 yes, too many people and the planet can't sustainably have this huge numbers of people. Not not now and definitely not in the future.
It's a question I (on the small collection of islands called the UK) have constantly pondering for the last 10 years.
In a harbor in Taiwan they started recording the sea level in 1953.
At current rates of sea level rise, in 100 years expect the sea to be 0.15" higher if nothing changes.
Just facts.
Do you have a source for this? I was quite interested. My online research from Taiwanese sources state that sea level rise is predicted to be twice the world wide sea level rise and is quite a concern to them. I would really like to see evidence of 0.15 inch over the next hundred years. It could certainly put a wrench in dire projections…….. source?
@@warrenpalmeira9559 Shouldn't the base of the Statue of Liberty be under water by now?
Looking back to 1953?
@@warrenpalmeira9559 if you search tidesandcurrents at noaa, and poke around the government site. You will find a good introduction to tide gage data over the decades.
Marks on a stick. Harbormasters have no sense of humor. They're the people that tell companies how high they must build their docks. Higer docks are more expensive. Lower docks risk being submerged. How much per century is the expected sea level rise? No waving of hands. Straight from historical data.
One harbor in Alaska is rising (not sinking) at 15 mm per year. That's six feet per century of land rise, above and beyond sea level rise. That should be enough to ring alarm bells! Something is going on, and it's not all ocean related. Indeed, the land goes up or down for several reasons. Sea level is going up at *about* 1.5 mm per year. The number is somewhere between 1.5 and 1.7 mm per year. I use the 1.5 because it makes calculations easier. New York (at the Battery) has an average sea level rise of 3 mm per year, with a chart going back to 1850. It shows sea level to be consistently on the rise, though individual years may be ahead or behind the average. Why is NY City sinking faster? Geography. A mile thick ice sheet pressed down north America. The goopy stuff a hundred miles down is moving back slowly. How slowly? NY land is sinking by 1.5 mm per year in addition to the 1.5 mm per year of sea level rise.
Again, this is not scary stuff. I live in Florida. 1.5 mm per year is 6 inches per century, is 5 feet per thousand years. The UN has been predicting 50 million eco refugees per year for the last 40 years, and it hasn't happened yet. It's almost like propaganda. What has been the consequent of their scare mongering? On them, nothing. They keep re-issuing the same scarry proclamation with changed dates. Heck, in 2018 they said that half of all species would be extinct by 2030. On this pronouncement Extinction Rebelion bases its existence. And for a false prediction, the UN will experience no negative effects. In other words, they can lie, and know that they are lying, and there is no downside. Should anyone believe such a source?
It’s nature….it’s going to happen with or without humans 😏🇺🇸
"A plan is useless, planning is everything". ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower
If we wanted to alter the course of climate change, it needed to be done when we first understood it in the 60s and 70s.Being that most of the population lives on coastal boundaries, I'd say we will be scurrying uphill like rats and cockroaches. Then there will be mayhem as we contest for what is left... It is going to be a very different world after I am gone. Florida in 60 years might be just a little hill poking out of the ocean... if that.
I'm not worried so much about habitable locations as much as what methane eruptions will do to our atmosphere. The northern areas have many gigatons of methane stored in them. Some of which are already erupting, blowing craters in the tundra. The only way to survive a large methane eruption will be in enclosed habitats. The oceans have even more methane in them. The question in my mind is "How can we survive such large releases of gasses into our atmosphere?" The only solution I can come up with is to build, basically, underwater habitats that somehow generate their own air supplies. But I've yet to understand how that can be done. I'm probably too old to worry about it much, but it might be very important to my children. We know things won't change much with the elite maintaining their status quo attitudes.
... and the AMOC could stop as early as 2025 most likely by 2050.
There are quite a few tipping points that can be triggered in the range of 1.6 to 2.4K. Each of these events has the potential for catastrophic damage. War is likely then. Gn8
@@gehwissen3975Climate wars coming soon on a continent near you…
@@rhensontollhouse fine fsb
@@jameslee-dp6cbmethane is particularly noxious when diluted in the N O2 CO2 atmosphere?
N and CO2 are not perceptible to us... O2 we need
A very good discussion but one thing you failed to mention is that the sea rarely just rises over the land. Unless you live on solid bedrock, a meter of rise will eat away unknown hectares of land. Where I live in Atlantic Canada the eroding dirt cliffs become steeper and higher with every storm tide, eating farther back into the land much faster than in the low marshy areas where sand bars are deposited. A lot of people will have to move farther inland than a meter's height would suggest. And it won't stop there. It will continue to rise faster in future.
How is it 1m now? The predictions (from all the major scientists..not the bbc team) showed a 4m rise.
@@luminousfractal420
A fair point, but you should be aware of context.
I read of rises in sea levels of around 200ft/70mtrs but, big but, that is qualified by statements that "ALL" the planetary ice has melted.
Nobody knows, as yet, how much planetary ice will melt, over whatever period, wherever, and the consequent rise in sea levels.
Thing is that most of us reading these forecasts won't be around so it'll be for future generations to deal with the "actual" situation at the time as best they can.
One thing tho', just a one metre rise in sea level will be catastrophic for the vast majority of coastal communities, as in lying on coastal areas/river estuaries and lower reaches of rivers of course.
Probably best to buy a permanent cabin on a cruise ship ... with its port of origin being somewhere up a very wide river, if you follow.
Or prepare to live on a raft or a boat.
And develop an appetite for fish and seaweeds.
@@luminousfractal420 If it had actually been rising at the alarmists rates , many towns , cities would have major problems already . But as Andrew Horwood has said , it will go up the estuaries and eat away at cliffs , sand dunes although to some extent all the sediment will also displace water . So many variables .
30 years ago I moved from a coastal area to a place that is a thousand feet above sea level. Before you say anything I didn't do it because of the idea of rising sea level. It was strictly about job availability in my field, affordability of housing and the cost of living in general. If the sea levels do rise, I will erase this posting and deny it ever existed and I will write a different posting that says, "I called it! I WAS RIGHT!" I might end up getting on the talk show circuit.
Limestone contains fresh water that will be contaminated by sea water. You can't see it happening but you also can't use the water. It's already happening in Florida.
It's too bad most of the visuals are unavailable, and the design moving across the screen makes me feel weird.
I have a feeling that was meant to be their form of graphs. Weird rubbish to hide the stupidity of the models used to create them.
A lot of food for thought - thanks for the brilliant question. Instead of wasting money on Mars speculation let’s sustainably develop currently unused high ground areas on this planet.
You are correct. Colonizing Mars is out of the question. Musk admitted that 1 million tons of material must be sent to Mars to supply the components for safe habitat. That requires 10,000 successful launches and subsequent descents of Starship to the habitat area. In addition, it will take 12 more Starships for every Mars bound vehicle to refuel them for the actual Mars journey. That's 120,000 Starship launches, allowing that there are no failures. This gives us 13 launches for every Mars bound vehicle. So in reality, at one launch per week it will take 13 weeks per Mars bound vehicle. That now totals 2,300 years to complete material transfer.
1) What will happen to the first material after 2,300 years while it sits waiting for the final delivery?
2) Who will finance each Starship?
3) Who will finance the cargo?
4) Who will finance the fuel mass needed to make the journey?
5) What can be done at the Mars site if material is damaged?
6) During the 2,300 years will there continue to be a viable SpaceX factory?
These are the most basic problems. There are countless questions for the logistics to get started, keep it operational and do the costly program maintenance.
Lengthen the noose a bit you mean.
Yes, if you're mentally handicapped......... I concur.........
You all sound like NIMBY's, who want the life (so mess up tge earth) and then blame those who make another plan because of your short-sightedness for not wanting to live the way you say "everyone" now need to.
Being the sea is said to only rise less than a quarter of an inch in the last 100 years...im not to worried. And as ice melts the cold water cools the planet yet creating ice all over again. When i was young it was global cooling. Then warming and now the majority of science says its cooling again. Food for thought--- be careful notbto trust scientist who are on governments payroll...they will always come to conclusions that are paid for...
Today, the strip of land on the seafront in Rio de Janeiro is extremely valued. Poor cariocas live in the hills, because real estate prices there are much cheaper. In Rio de Janeiro, the social and economic hierarchy can therefore be geographically observed with the naked eye. The city spends almost all the money it collects in the lower region near the beaches. The poor populations of the hills are abandoned and without access to public services. Rising sea levels will cause a real revolution in Rio de Janeiro. But I guess the poor cariocas who live in the hills won't want the company of the rich racist Brazilians who now live by the sea.
Yyyaaaawwwwnnnnnnn
@@PGHEngineer The sea level rise in Florida is forcing the less well to do off the higher ground, now.
I live 230 metres above sea level, so this is good news for my grandchildren.
If you think land is expensive now just imagine how much it'll cost when there's not much above the waves.
You’re stealing my oxygen ….
A better question to ask, which people don't even seem to be considering, is "Where does the former infrastructure go?". When the oceans swallow thousands upon thousands of miles of densely populated and developed coastline, all the trash from it gets churned up into the oceans. It all has to go somewhere. I keep seeing idiots saying things like, "Good, I'll have beachfront property!", as if the new "beaches" won't be covered in festering garbage and debris. Don't forget the cemetaries!
Including NPP'S 🎉🎉 That's a nightmare.
@@gehwissen3975Yep that's bad, but I'm more concerned about plants that produce plain old boring chemical waste. Not only will ALL their waste end up in the oceans, but all their chemical inventory as well. Less than a hundred NPPs vs thousands of industries, I'll take the NPP any day.
@@NightRunner417
There around 50 in less than 1km distance to the sea.
Their meltdown destroys the ozone layer in higher atmosphere.
That's the end of all live on earth.
The good news is that we will be gone long before this happens.
Great; now I have to remember to start hoarding thousands of gallons of water somehow too.
I Was Born In Livingston Izabal Guatemala, And Grew Up In Dangriga Town, Stann Creek District In BELIZE
In The 1980's, Dangriga Town Was 36 cm below Sea Level, And 40 yrs later, We Don't get All That Rain That Would Flood The Whole Town For Half The Year!
No, you should be asking how long before the kilometre thick ice on southern greenland melt allowing the south of the land to rise, tipping up so the water melt is trapped until it exits into the north polar sea as a tidalwave of fresh water.
"Glacial rebound" could cause earthquakes, which would be a new hazard for places like Greenland.
Bee ess alarmist!
elastic rebound theory..........seismology and Earth science........
Thank you for asking.
Toronto.
"New York as run by the Swiss," is 76.5 metres above (nominal) sea level.
Extreme weather, Deadly Wet bulb temperatures with food and water insecurity will cause widespread chaos around the world and might send our civilization over the edge before sea level rise disrupts it substantially.
Everyone can save their grandchildren. By simply not breeding their children.
Agreed. Already rice production in Asia is declining. Think of what a few extreme heat and extreme droughts can do to rice, corn and soybean production. It would not take much to lose several billion people. This kind of thing will cause wars and civil strife the likes of which has never been seen before.
@@rhensontollhouseyou people are sadly psyopped
People grow food in tropics. If they fail to it is cultural. They are majority of babies. Tropics are not uninhabitable
"Deadly Wet bulb temperatures" 😂😂. Do you even know what wet bulb temperature is?
I heard the Maldives were somewhere about a metre and not much more above sea level, I've not yet heard anything about their demise?
NASA says "Multiple studies, many of which use Landsat observations, show that most coral atoll islands in the Maldives and elsewhere have remained stable or even grown larger in recent decades".
Where animals & plants can re-establish sustainable ecosystems, how humans get potable water in sustainable ways, and how farming animals and plants can feed the world's population, and who is entitled to resources, will be a far greater challenge than I foresee architecture being (though extreme-weather resilient & attack-proof homes need economic designs too!).
I suspect that the large underground bunker projects won't survive but a little longer than the rest of the population. Methane has a ten year cycle. If methane erupts in vast quantities, the very atmosphere might become toxic to life as we know it. Underground habitats won't hold enough water, food, and air to sustain life for ten years. Underwater habitats might be a better alternative because the tops could be made clear enough to allow farming under the waves. But the habitats would have to be supported by pillars from the sea floor, because the eruption of so much gas would cause any floating vessel to sink.
1 minute 36 seconds in and the statement is, when water gets warmer, it expands ?
yep. max water density is at about 4 degrees C. from there it expands as the temperature goes down to zero, meaning the nearly freezing water stays on the top. It's a tiny effect, below 1%; ice is 10% lighter, so water ice definitely floats... And water expands from 4 degrees on up to boiling.
'Bonkers to think" is the key to this understand this story telling...
Complicated question with a simple answer.
Inland
To live in a tropical island is not good because category 4-5 hurricanes will destroy that small island. It is safer to go to higher ground.
Gf ycuy😅u
Vhvbk😅
Ghana is a good choice for where to go when the seas rise. Particularly in the mountainous enclave of Kpedze in the volta Region of Ghana
OK bro. How many billions of immigrants you want to see?
Btw, most of them are colonialist
@@gehwissen3975 since the colonialist left, we haven't put the fertile lands to any good use. might as well come back.
Northwards are some people facing uninhabital land in coming decade.
Sahel
@@gehwissen3975 we have lots of empty fertile lands, begging to be cultivated
If you are going to live on ocean water, the safest place is far from shore, because you would get hammered by much bigger waves coming from multiple directions if you are close to shore. And living far from shore means lots more effort to bring resources from land out to your artificial ocean island neighborhood. Also, you have to figure out whether you are going to make a mega barge that doesn't bend, which would have huge forces over it whole length trying to take it apart, or you could make a lot of small barges, maybe even the size of buildings, but with flexible connections between them, so each barge can ride the waves separately but be kept from crashing into each other.
Maybe the iceburg model
Who wrote this a kindergartner
When does the butt stuff start 😂?
Yeah 🤡👀 stay safe from the...."disaster" while it takes literally 590 years to actually present a real threat
This "Island" will be fine, until the rain stops.
I’m from Ladakh good to hear the news of my native land😊
Hmm, icebergs melting? Then why are the surface mass balance charts of Greenland stable. The MASIE charts largely unchanged. The Antarctic ice sheet is growing by millions of pounds, and the largest glaciers of Greenland are actually growing. The rate of sea level rise along the east coast of the US has been slowly increasing at the same rate as the 1860s. I find the assertion that the world ice is melting and destroying coastline is not supported by current observations over the past 100 years.
Well said !
They are confusing calving with melting again.
They just love fearmongering.
All a load of 💩, the climate has been changing forever. Strange how all of the solutions involve taking more money and power
I live in Greenland, and all glaciers I know about and often pass and see are - and has been retrieving for the last 40-50 years.
The ambient level of CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 400 PPM. At 100 PPM of CO2 the rate of photosynthesis would be stopped completely. At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped.
There may be a slight increase in photosynthetic efficiency due to the higher than ambient CO2 level, however this increase will probably be insignificant. The level of 1000 PPM CO2 is very close to the optimum level of CO2 required, given no other limiting factor.
It might be in a greenhouse, but in reality It's got nothing to do with an optimum level for photosynthesis. It doesn't mean a thing if most of the other requirements for plant growth aren't met thanks to the effects of climate change. Desertification and wild fires are completely opposite to plant growth and photosynthesis.
So it's absolute nonsense to claim that we will be better off with higher CO2 levels because it benefits photosynthesis.😂
@@simonsena1378 "So it's absolute nonsense to claim that we will be better off with higher CO2 levels because it benefits photosynthesis."
It has been discovered recently that plants require less water with higher CO2 levels. The edges of deserts in many parts of the world are becoming more dense with vegetation...much to the benefit of indigenous peoples.
@@Teller3448 Put the link where you read that and let's have a chat.
@@simonsena1378
The major cause of water loss in plants is attributable to transpiration, in which the stomata or pores on the undersides of the leaves are open to absorb CO2. With more CO2, the stomata are open for shorter periods, the leaves lose less water, and more moisture remains in the soil.
Link to follow in the next comment.
You are cherry picking one data stream among thousands. That is not how the methodology works.
Can anyone please explain during the 2023 hottest year on record, how the Arctic sea ice extent is at its highest for well over a decade during the whole of December thus far (30/12/2023) currently @ 13.68 million sq. kilometers (27 December 2023) the highest it has been since at least 2009 which is illogical during the new era of global boiling according to the UN ?
10,000 penguin chicks died this year in Antartica. The ice broke up and melted at the nesting grounds. Because the chicks had not enough time to grow waterproof feathers they died in the cold sea. Some colonies reared no chicks at all. The saddest part is that these penguins that are leading to their extinction have never seen any humans in their life responsible for their demise. The ice is forming later in winter and melting faster in Spring.
It’s called weather.
@@ianrowley5762its climate but on other hand we're not ready to be gods
Where some thousand 🐧 nest and leave... could be a full time forest with birds who spend whole life there.
In time a 🦌 from tip of Tierra del Fuego gets caught in sea and survives to hit the peninsula. If there is grass he survives if God is good to him a mate arrives in a year. Couple more next generation and have herds of beasts where penguins nested
Complicated
@user-sc3ts6lf8r I researched it. Penguins as a family in no danger of extinction. Maori ate one species to extinction. Another came in to fill niche. Only 3000 today the local authorities try to keep out of 🍲 and remind locals of the tourism that would be lost. Pepple come to see rarest 🐧
I think it is not the cold per se they need from Antarctica but fact so less predation. Lots prefer actual beaches like Falkland Islands 🇫🇰
@user-sc3ts6lf8r if we care to we can protect any given population, yes.
We maybe can't keep every species from cold time to a warm time. Ocean will get less salty so faster adaptation between aquatic and marine species. Real bass maybe take over niche of seabass or the opposite 🙃
That's called a turnover where species are replaced. Different than an extinction event where food chains collapse
99% of all life that has ever existed on Earth is extinct
WE could build for this by encasing our building foundations in reinforced ferro-cement allowing them to break from their moorings and float inland, or just rise and fall with the storm surge. Barge props, anchors and a small diesel could do the rest.
Where did you find the science that melted water takes up more room than water?
Tap water will have the same density of melted pack ice
Just fill a glass 2/3rd full of water and put about 5 ice cubes in it. When those ice cubes melt, the water will be millimetres more than what the ice cubes took up, leaving the glass maybe overflowing.
@@gamingtonight1526 Check out Archimedes Principle.
_"leaving the glass maybe overflowing."_ - FALSE. Ice takes up more space than water at 0 degrees C (which is why it floats), but water EXPANDS when heated, like most materials. To freeze, water has to pack its molecules further apart than they can exist when liquid. This is an unusual feature in nature.
@@gamingtonight1526I'd say you had too many whiskeys before you did that experiment.
Ice has a firm lattice structure than water. Freeze water volume increases, thaw water volume decreases. Water has minimal volume change with increasing or decreasing its temperature.
The reason seas might rise is because much of the melting ice is above sea level and will flow into the sea
There is a counterforce, which initiates an ice age, the nex milankovic cycle. So no one knows really, which of those will win. The real question is what level we should then try to keep CO2 to avoid another devastating glaciation in 10 000 - to 13000 years time?
Where do you get the "10 000 - to 13000 years time" from? This interglacial (the Holocene) is already longer than previous ones, from that perspective the next glaciation is overdue.
Around 20+ years ago, I heard similar predictions saying a lot of costal cities would be submerged in 30 years. Some even said Time Square would be under water by then. I live by the sea but cannot see any noticable changes. I can't help wondering if it is just a hoax.
Think more. Different groups are using different prediction models. There are different scenarios to test, which is why you hear different results.
@@magesalmanac6424 I did not hear different predictions. I heard some very dire predictions made by some scientists. Most governments, at least in the West, seem to believe in what they said and have gone all in to green energy. After 20+ years, I still do not see a bit of change in sea level.
Your timelines are slightly off and theres been other factors introduced. It was about y2k they finished the core sample studies. But it was set at 40years for severe ocean level rises. We made some progress for a while holding things back..but now the floodgates are open. The rich brats had a little foot stomping rebellion and putin helped.
Also we had bp calling for an end to oil drilling, saying it wasnt feasible to profit from whats left in the ground.
Then they introduced fracking. And discovered a massive oil well up in the arctic (russia/usa drama explained) .which has thrown us right back in the fire.
So how do you feel about the fires and extreme weather events?
@@tsunamis82 Never heard of reports about arsons in those places?
1) you do understand a melting iceberg doesn't cause the sea to rise unless it is an iceberg of freshwater and therefore with a different density - Archimedes' principle 2) for the seas to rise, the ice above ground in the antarctic and artic would have to mel or for fresh water icebergs to melt such that the less dense water floats on the more dense salt water. If that was to happen, rising sea will be the least of our problems
We already have bigger problems with methane eruptions taking place in the tundras now. And methane is reported as being ten times effective as CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Humanities greatest problem is that there's so many of us. We might save more lives if a super volcano erupted during a major methane eruption. But either direction we look, starvation could become the largest killer of humanity in the coming years. How can anyone grow a self sustaining garden if food won't grow because of heat, pest, toxic rain, toxic air pollution, or lack of ample rainfall? And how can human lungs stand the intense heat of the surrounding air without drying out if enough of this methane erupts? Only by underwater habitats built on piers can sustain us. But the building materials are almost unattainable now with credit gone, inflation high, and little consideration from the government, and even less consideration from the business sector. Profit seems to be only in their eyes and nothing else. It's a question that Elon Musk has probably thought about. Our way of life on this earth will be forever changed soon. But there is hope.
@@jameslee-dp6cb indeed. Nature has always had a way of solving these problems. Whether by drought, famine, war, etc. She is already speaking and the coming war on China will help finish the job. When we are all gone, nature will reclaim her planet. Just look at Chernobyl
@@jameslee-dp6cb Depends who you ask concerning Methane. Some say 10x, others 25x, others still 85x. What few mention is how much methane there is in the atmosphere. CO2 is running at 420 ppm while methane at around 1800 ppb (That's part per billion).
And the Earth is greener now, another rarely mentioned piece of news. 15% more from natural outgrowth, not human planting.
The only starving people in the world today are starving because of war, poor distribution and pathetic governance. We produce more than enough for everyone. Sub-Saharan Africa has enough arable land (mostly unused or mismanaged) to feed the world.
As for population. The dire consequences predicted in the 60s were criminally wrong. No western country is producing enough children to maintain their current populations. Japan is already facing decline and China, losing around 1000 a day can expect to see its population halved by the end of the century.
It’s beautiful living along the shoreline of the ocean, a lake, or a river…….until it’s not!
Water destruction from flooding, storms, or rise and fall of water levels is not enjoyable. Mother Nature has incredible power, don’t test her temper.
it's called EROSION and it's happening to 100% of ocean-bordering real estate
Canada has wildfies, we are in drought, not enough doctors and other health care professionals. Also teacher shortage.
I think it’s cyclical but happening hundreds of thousands of years apart. I was on the northern side of the Alaska Range in the mountains and found sea shell fossils in the mountains. Of course the mountains did rise up but the land will change formation long after we are dead and gone. My resolution would be to move to higher ground.
@Anonymous One You'd be wrong. Highest tides are higher than ever. But since you don't like real facts, I suggest you buy some beach property right now. Let us know how it works out for you.
You're talking about tens of millions of years, not thousands, Apparently many people don't actually understand how old the planet is. (Hint: Four and half billion years. That's 'billion', which is a thousand million, in case you're a little hazy on math.)
Why is so much of this video just an orange/blue/peach coloured design just undulating across the screen and some audio?
Like at 12:45?
It’s annoying
Couldn’t you find even some stock footage to put onscreen?
Krykies the BBC was so much better when I was a kid
Edit: I didn’t realise this was an audio file or radio programme lol 😂.
They should still use something better onscreen
BBC world service is generally on the radio
Thank you for this video. It is a great window into the diversity of the problems changing climate will cause. I found a place at a high elevation covered with jungle and built a house there. Knowing that the future is uncertain everywhere. I produce as much mulch and compost as possible to add to soil that grows food and retains carbon. Small gestures can have an affect.
LOL THE BANKS KNOW SEA LEVELS AINT RISING , OTHER WISE YOU WOULDNT BE ABLE TO GET A LOAN IN LONDON THOSE 30 YEAR MORTGAGES THE WORLD WOULD BE OVER BY THEN , THE BANKS ARE FUNDING WATERFRONT PROJECTS ALL OVER THE WORLD , THEY JUST BUILT A FOOTBALL STADIUM RIGHT ON WATERFRONT IN LIVERPOOL ,,, THE BANKS KNOW IT AINT RISING
that's are local solution to a global problem! The world would be a better place if all humans emulated this kind of living!
why isn't is happening NOW? why is all the climate change happening in the FUTURE? and why can't you tell me when it's going to happen?
@@RobertMJohnson WERE SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER WATER BY NOW ACCORDING TO THE 80S CLIMATE HOAX , IT HAPPENS AND GOES AWAY WHEN ALL THE ELITES MONOPOLIZE THE WORLD , SO FOOD SUPPLY IS ALL COMING FROM HANDFULL OF SOURCES , ALL TRAVEL IS CONTROLLED SO BAN CARS, ALL MONEY IS CASHLESS ,PROPERTY IS ONLY RENTABLE , ALL SMALL BUSINESSES DESTROYED , CLIMATE HOAX IS GOING TO BE USED TO TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOMS AND CREATE THE BIGGEST MONOPOLY BIGGER THAN STANDARD OIL AND DALE CARNAGIE !!!!
18:37 Is this British English ?
We have six sea level monitering stations in the South Pacific north of Australia and they show no significant change to sea level in thirty years. So this BBC airhead is clearly asserting that now winds and currents are causing sea level rises meters higher than gravity allows. Morover, Aborigines, who spear fish along their coast and know every pebble and rock, tell me it is exactly the same in the Timor and Arafura seas as it was 70 years ago. Ergo, you foolish people, they are exploiting your gullibility so that they can reduce CO2 and thereby reduce reforestation. The actual sea rises, such as along the US Atlantic coast, which in fact is subject to continental sinking at a rate of 3 mm per year; likewise Kiribati which is claimed to be inundated by sea, but has been known to be sinking for 400 years.
And Venice. We all know it's sinking, James Bond had that fight in a house with air bags to keep it floating...?!
But the news always rolls out the high tide flooding pictures... insinuating...
God get a room with yourself.
I'd be interested to know the locations of those six stations. Are they on coral reefs?
@@normanstewart7130 The locations were, wisely I imagine, never disclosed. I first read their analysis around eighteen years ago when I had completed writing a book on fire in north Australia. This galvanised me to check the actual AGW data and I was dismayed to discover the claims were false, had been manipulated by Maurice Strong for the IPCC for the Rothschilds. I was required to rewrite the entire book and ever since have refused to accept scientific conclusions unless accompanied by the supporting data. Today, I simply accept that the only science extant is that which is paid for. All scientists of integrity are unemployed. You mentioned coral reefs. Despite very unscientific reports of a dying Great Barrier Reef, it is in fact the healthiest it has ever been. We are living through what history may well deem the Era of Monumental Lies.
@tonyryan43 Indeed, but I don't see how they can report observational data without identifying the locations, it makes the data worthless. I specifically asked about coral atolls because they grow vertically as sea level rises. That would explain why no sea level rise was observed. It also explains why the predictions of islands, such as the Maldives, disappearing have been proven wrong.
The world's ice has already melted. The ice that is left is not going to wreak havoc like everyone keeps saying it will. The ice sheet 12000 years ago now yeah that ice sheet would devastate the oceans coast lines.
When the water rises, go uphill.
or go sailing
Were you going to link Part-1 somewhere?
In Cape town South Africa we are experiencing sea Gulf so strong that it cause mist or dew in the summer day. Am alarmed. The Russians were training along the coast, didn't they disrupt the sea
The future of humanity will live within the ocean
This was amazing listening to this podcast to improve my language and at the same time be aware about global warming thanks for this really it was informative.
Sea levels haven't risen in the past 70 years give it a break.
Global average rate of sea level rise is approx. 2.5 to 3 mm/year.
If you were to stand on a seashore at the high water mark for the rest of the century, you would find your feet and ankles wet by 2100. So the answer to the question is we walk away...very, very slowly.
❤❤❤
I'll be glad when they finally do then I can be done hearing about it
Gr8 video and thought provoking... considering options for water life here on the Barrier Islands in the Gulf of Mexico and hurricane Ian six months ago obliterated my home so we moved thirty kilometers inland on the harbor but still few meters above sea level
In all the World, we will try to use more solar energy. Under the solar panels make agriculture. We need to undertand that climate change is today a reallity so we need to do changes now.
@@RubenPlata-l1j solar panels are not the solution, they need fossil fuels to exist to begin with.
@anonymousone6075 The less you write, the smarter we can pretend you are.
Is this a quiz and is there a prize for the correct answer? I suggest Nepal.
Good to see that evidence based science of the last 30 years has given more ice in Antartica and less cyclones to Australia. Don’t know about northern hemisphere but migration is always a possibility
Antarctica just had it's lowest ice extent ever.
Hmm, you are sure about that, then.
There was an 11 year hurricane drought in the US from 2005-2016, google it if you don't believe, you probably never heard that from the msm...
@@jaykanta4326 so? That has been happening for the last 25000 years. 14500 years ago was 40 mm rise a year. We live on a planet that is constantly changed, human additional change won't make much difference.
@@AORD72 more ignorant denialism and lies without evidence
Northern Canada, South Pole, Australia, Siberia, Greenland. There are many places to develop and expand into. So many positives from global warming, a natural occurrence, that has been happening for 20,000 years. A cooling down of the worlds climate, would kill billions, (possibly wipe humans out) which hopefully would not happen, unless mankind finds a way to keep the planet warm.
I feel sorry for future generations.
Nobody else did.
LoL!
Imagine people in 1850 saying they feel sorry for people in the future, like now. Would a person now want to cut their life span in half? No phone, no internet, no car, no grocery stores with refrigeration, and no medicine.
In 170 years, do you think things will be better or worse than they were 170 years ago?
We adapt like always
ice generally melts when you are coming out of an ice age, oh and it gets a bit warmer too, dont worry, we are nearly due for another one
Thx Mr.Uneudcated, but iiiii ratttherrr listen to Climate-Change-Scientists - and -UA-camrs.
@@slevinchannel7589 no problem at all. I prefer to follow the evidence over the predictions, tends to be more reliable.
@@mattyk82 I see a little problem, honey. Ice-Ages and whetever we're cooming out of one is 'completly public knowledge' and 'completly obviously completly taken intoooo accounttt by all climate-scientists everr'. So guess what: Climate-Change is kindaaa still 'objectively true' and yxour misinterprating the evidence hard.
If you are prepared to wait 17,000 years.
We will still go to the beach, bit won't be as far.
The seas have always risen and fallen. There is nothing that we can do about it
How could you possibly know that?
@@rilmehakonen9688 Overwhelming geological evidenece. Simples
@@rilmehakonen9688
Probably down to education.
Suggest you read up on the planet's history of climatic changes.
That said it won't really matter where the water comes from when it's lapping on your doormat.
The answer might be production of massive rafts ... artificial islands require support ... rafts use the sea itself for support. That means it doesn't matter how deep the water is.
Energy provided by wind turbines and doubtless we'll see vast rafts covered in solar panels.
We already have nuclear reactors on ships/submarines so energy needs could be easily(?) met.
It might be we should ramp up research on generating more marine sources of food, as in fish and sea weeds.
This 1.5C limit in global temperature is unlikely to be met so might be a waste of time trying to stop temperature rising anyway.
Would suggest this limit is not worth striving for and might be better to adapt to the climate changes as opposed to trying to modify the climate.
Its past natural levels. Granted we only have evidence from the last 4 ice ages (ice core samples). But were not in the normal cycle. What we can do is stop psychopaths hellbent on profit from absolutely wrecking the place.
@@t1n4444 perhaps giant tidal farms could make for safe breeding grounds for wildlife if we do it right. Not just surface level generators but ocean top to ocean bottom interlinked structures.
Would certainly keep the fishing boats out.
climate is always changing. amen
Were helping it this time. Praise be
Then we need to change also by adapting to it..
@@suehowie152 It's happening too fast for change in anything larger than a cell.
Don't go and start following the science now. God forbid, right?!
climate has been changing since the fall. when sin entered the world.
The answer to "Where do we go when sea levels rise?", is simple. We either learn how to live in or in the sea, or we move to higher ground.
I might need to point out an important aspect toward living on the water. At some point in the future, methane will erupt out of the depths of the oceans. Large methane eruptions could displace the air in the general area of the eruption causing mass asphyxiation to anyone living there. A stored air supply could work, but only inside a completely enclosed environment. But any spark developing would possibly ignite the methane, burning the habitat. Underwater habitats might be better, but if these habitats a floating, they would loose bouyancy during the eruption and sink to the sea floor. But if the underwater habitats are mounted on piers, then they wouldn't sink.
I might also point out that moving to areas too high up could be very risky too. As the methane, which is a gas, floats up higher in the atmosphere, it could make living above certain elevations just as dangerous as living on the sea. But the methane will stay around much longer in the upper atmosphere. The methane cycle is reported to be ten years.
There is a place in Alabama known as the Selma Chalk. It is reported as being an ancient seashore since is not lifted up like mountainous locations. So we know that the sea level may rise high enough to return to that level again.
Adapting to live in/on water would be a mistake. Doing so would disrupt many ecosystems. It is once again a representation of how we as a species are living against nature. We need to be better
More excuses for not doing whats needed. Taking the worlds elite by the balls and stopping their abuses for all eternity by introducing empathy/mental health tests to all government members and politicians wanting to be in on the game.
100years of eugenics has us led by psychopaths.
Fajardo Puerto Rico is my residence . 62 years I've been visiting the same exact spot on the beach . A Boulder the size of a bus sits there . We use it as a marker for yes 62 years . Zero change in sea level . Zero .
Three things about this article. Firstly, to say that the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves won't all melt in our lifetimes is an assumption based on analysis that keeps being negatively revised at an alarming rate. Secondly, we know from the last ice age that when ice melts some land rises and this creates pressures on low lying lands. ie: Doggerland is close to Scotland, Scotland rose, Doggerland sunk. Thirdly, environmental pressures will create differing events in different places, so while sea levels rise and warm in certain parts of the world, desalination of conveyer currents may create ice age event in other areas. The earth is fragile and does not behave as you would necessarily expect in climate models.
I live in Suggan Buggan 760 meters above sea level, that should be a safe distance
Informative introductory and on point atm
When the sea rise Hell will freeze and we can all go ice skating
warm water will stop golfstream and you will freeze
PRO TIP: The seas have been rising AND FALLING - by as much as 300 to 450 feet - FOR👏🏼 MILLENNIA👏🏼.
LONG BEFORE SUVs and A/Cs and wood stoves and barbecue grills.
I can't believe I actually have to say this, but, WHEN the sea level rises, you go to higher ground.
DUH.
You're WELCOME.
Talking about the seas, no one could survive when it happens because the sea is the largest part [as far as I remember 80%?] rather than the land. Even in Indonesia [Jakarta] it's already predicted that one day Jakarta will be gone when the flood reaches as high as National Monument [Monas].
For houses construction, Need new way to build houses then, your landed house probably need a little bit "fly" away from the land.. Whether to avoid the water or flood. [then why it seems as a traditional house in Sumatra Indonesia? 😎] and not "cracking" when the earthquake happens.
What about strong winds blowing it away, or perhaps these house come equiped with substantial anchors.
😅pure fiction we are still coming out of an ice age and we will head back into one eventually. These people need locked up .
Either you're seriously uninformed or you've got some axe to grind. Yes, thye planet will eventually enter another ice age....a few thousands of years from now. In meantime, your grandkids will curse your name for being so blind to the danger to the planet.
If the globe is warming it must be getting bigger. Ice will melt before solid land moves. Distance between continents will increase slowly hopefully accommodating the ice melt water
I was expecting usual fear mongering about co2 but they seem to have taken it up a notch or two
Showing calving as melting again.
I strongly disagree. Humans only occupy a very small portion of the earth land mass. Yes coastal areas will be hit, but all we need to do is move further inland.
Something I don't hear much about: Many people will have to move. ...somewhere. And everyone else will have to MOVE OVER to make room for them. That may raise issues.
I'm no fortune teller, but I foresee a great die off of Earth's population in the future. Looks like it's gonna happen just like the bible has predicted.
@@jameslee-dp6cb Where in the Bible was that predicted?
The ever informative BBC might have called in to look at the Newlyn sea level datum in Cornwall. A geologically stable location where level rise has been tracked at an alarming 2.5mm per year over the last 100 years.
Cornwall is known to be sinking .its the last place to measure sea level.
This should say IF they rise. How much ice has already been lost and sea levels haven’t changed?
Not if. WHEN. We're past the IF part. If you think the amount of ice that's melted up until now is nothing, you're right. As we go into a warming negative feedback loop, the amount of water being dumped into the ocean will make Niagara falls look like a tiny stream. Right now almost 70% of the world's fresh water is locked away in the ice sheets. An ice sheet must be bigger than 50,000 kilometer squares. Glaciers can be 3-5km DEEP. Most of the Antarctica continent IS covered by glaciers so thick only the mountaintop peaks can be seen. Only a small fraction has been lost from that ice sheet. The 2nd largest ice sheet is located in Greenland. That's another block of ice thats at least 50,000 kilometer square and kms thick. ALL of that is predicted to melt when we reach catastrophic climate warming. Things have never looked bleaker. As I keep saying, climate change is like rabies. When symptoms start showing, it's too late.
P.s. I have a postgraduate in environmental sciences. I've seen all this coming down the pipeline since 2017.
@@ToudaHell how much ice has been lost in the last 50 years with no sea level rise at all? Now the stuff you mentioned above melts and the entire world is going to flood? Give me a break
I imagine that one day we can live with man-made island when seas rise. It seems very interesting and fantastic.
16,000 years ago no residual snow during summer at Chicago. 12,000 yrs ago a 2 mile high glacier over Chicago gouging out the Great Lakes. 7,000 yrs ago it was warm enough that there was a warm inland sea in Iceland. (Happy to provide a video with an Icelandic Glaciologist saying so). From 1300 to 1890 we were in the Little Ice Age. Since humans are responsible for Climate Change, what is the Industrial Activity we humans keep turning on and off? (What kind of technology did we have 16,000 yrs ago when it was warm? Ans: Hunter/Gatherer. No sign of even simple agriculture... pre horse drawn plows, yet warm.)
From Ice Core Samples 500 million yrs ago CO2 conc in the atmospehere was 4,000 ppm. Today it is 400 ppm. What were we humans doing 500 million yrs ago to make the CO2 *Ten Times* today's CO2 conc.
well said i see no climate sheep dare too comment to you )
Because we don’t live to entertain morons.
500 million years ago there were no Humans as to day, 16000 years ago there were a miniscule number of humans compared to todays 8 billion so yes we can adapt but its unlikely there will be 8 billion or more when it all ends more like a few million left and unlikely any recognisable civilisation. That's assuming that enough diverse species can also adapt fast enough to not go extinct and cause the last few million people to also go extinct because of the breakdown of the food chain.
As for Bony's Miniatures comment is concerned its not a case of not daring, its simply not really worth peoples time to correct someone who is so wrong and who has such ridiculous ideas, basically they can't be bothered, sorry.
If you are simply implying that these changes are natural, well that has been done to death by many real scientists all of them now basically agree that WE are causing the change, its NOT normal change, and will change so rapidly in comparison to the "normal" cycle that it will be extremely difficult for species (not just humans)to adapt and survive. Luckily I won't be around to see it.
@Jonathan O'Connor - Your argument is invalid. Study the Cambrian period and the Quaternary glaciation.
i need to see pictures of what is happening. Sorry. You need to give more.
The real question should be:
Why hasn't the sea risen already since we have been polluting the air for the past 130 years?
Even if it does rise, we're barely going to notice it. Earth is not going to turn into something from the film Waterworld
Tectonic plates, upon which ALL oceans rest, also rise and fall, according to the weight of land, water, and ice that may rest upon them.
in the u s a alone there are huge sinks. the salton sea and the death valley ect. i wonder if sinks could be a flood control method ?they are world wide.
What about permafrost and what viruses have been frozen will be unleashed.
That is an excellent question.
I suspect we might all be dead from a virus infection long before we have to worry about the sea lapping on our door mats.
@LOL-Yolo
😂😂😂😂
Indeed you might.
Who knows what the effects are to be had from "forgotten" viruses.
You might have typed truer than you knew. We shall watch your health with interest.
Definate concern. But we probably have the redundant protections in place within our dna still.
@@luminousfractal420
I have to agree with you ... but ... we didn't have a lot of protection from covid.
We'll soon know once the medical boffins have unraveled the ancient viruses, bacteria and gasses.
That said it would be a tad embarrassing if we had another Wuhan type episode.
Alarming how things can work out ...
Watch the movie reminincense, it will give you an idea of the elites plan, or allysium is another plan for the future. Take your pick, the haves, and the have nots
‘Elysium’ (2013) and ‘Reminiscence’ (2021) are both thought-provoking films.👍🏽 🎥🤗
You dont need a movie. Read up on eugenics (usa and uk). Then you will understand what strings are being pulled and why. (Purebred psychopaths going a bit dna loopy. No empathy at all. They cant even comprehend the damage they do)
This is for all the Homeowners and parents to figure out
BBC.............total tripe and a forgettable broadcast on this topic with superfluous interviews. Don't bother.......
To the mountains
I live 299 meter above seal level now, and the Bangkok bay is still over 800 km away.
So if I get old enough, I am still save from get flooded from there and may only need to travel 400 km then to near Uttaradith.
But beside that I hear no any affords about Bangkok to moved away like Jakarta,
the lost of fertile lands used now most for rice from India, Thailand, Vietnam and China is the bigger lost problem as or urban.
We can easy build new cities around, on top or in hills - but this huge farmland is not that easy to rebuild, maybe direct inside the cities also, vertical - also to save transport ways.
Where ever the flooding will rush so much people away, the main problem is food then !
My daughter - hopeful has NO kids anymore - might see Bangkok like Venedig already.
29:30&that sound 🎁🧩
Stephen Baxter’s ”Flood” and ”Ark” (audio)books tell in pretty good detail what is going to happen soon.
video is not a radio, you have to show something, teach your correspondents to make video, not only talk.
warmer water expands? isn't it freezing water that expands?
Water contracts as it cools to around 4c when it expands. From that point, contraction continues.
What will happen to the Caribbean?
Where do we go when the seas rise, boats and ships that's where...
Legend has it that the color waves are still ongoing.
❤ O exemplo impressiona muito mais a mente e o coração do que as palavras. São João Batista de La Salle.
Analyses of ice cores in Iceland show that thousands of years ago it was 3 to 4 degrees hotter than today. Why? only to cool precipitously over the millennia and with a couple recent cooling/warming bumps. The cores show the Little Ice Age indicating it was more than a Europe/North America regional event.
What you cited here is not sustained by evidence from both the Pacific and also underground vadoze zones.