Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rising Sea Level Could Put East Coast Nuclear Plants At Risk

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 months ago | from the coal-industry-will-stop-at-nothing dept.

Power 323

mdsolar (1045926) writes with news that global warming may make it more difficult to use modern power sources that rely upon being near large bodies of water for cooling. From the article: "During the 1970s and 1980s, when many nuclear reactors were first built, most operators estimated that seas would rise at a slow, constant rate. ... But the seas are now rising much faster than they did in the past ... Sea levels rose an average of 8 inches between 1880 and 2009, or about 0.06 inches per year. But in the last 20 years, sea levels have risen an average of 0.13 inches per year... NOAA) has laid out four different projections for estimated sea level rise by 2100. Even the agency's best-case scenario assumes that sea levels will rise at least 8.4 inches by the end of this century. NOAA's worst-case scenario, meanwhile, predicts that the oceans will rise nearly 7 feet in the next 86 years. But most nuclear power facilities were built well before scientists understood just how high sea levels might rise in the future. And for power plants, the most serious threat is likely to come from surges during storms. Higher sea levels mean that flooding will travel farther inland, creating potential hazards in areas that may have previously been considered safe." The article has charts comparing the current elevation of various plants with their estimated elevations under the various NOAA sea level rise estimates.

cancel ×

323 comments

A MUCH more important matter.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043657)

The biggest reason that guys don't have HUGE CUM LOADS is that they jack off too much. If you cut back of your fapping, you'll find you unleash a much bigger torrent of sticky white baby batter...

Explain the data (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043667)

What is the data? How was the data gathered? What technical difficulties are there in gathering the data? What assumptions were made when extrapolating from the data?

Re:Explain the data (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043715)

Just stick with "LA LA LA can't hear you!!! LA LA LA".

Re:Explain the data (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043731)

No. That would be just as unscientific as believing someone blindly.

Except nobodies doing that (1)

publiclurker (952615) | about 2 months ago | (#47043873)

but the deniers that are desperate for any excuse to avoid admitting the obvious.

Re:Except nobodies doing that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043885)

So then why provide them with fodder like these reports of the science that leave out all the crucial information?

Re:Except nobodies doing that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043959)

Because it's not for them? NOBODY CARES WHAT THE DENIERS ARE DOING. THis is for people who have the brains to taka facts as facts. Sea levels have risen more than estimated. This is measured data. They are not going to protect the nuclear plants by reversing global warming or whatever, but by elevating the ground, or building floodwalls, or something. If someone wants to deny rising sea levels please sell them flat land by the shoreline. They can then deny there all they want.

Re:Except nobodies doing that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043997)

THis is for people who have the brains to taka facts as facts. Sea levels have risen more than estimated. This is measured data.

I repeat my original questions to you:

What is the data? How was the data gathered? What technical difficulties are there in gathering the data? What assumptions were made when extrapolating from the data?

As two reasonable people who "take facts as facts" we should be able to agree that the answers to these questions are important. Do you agree or disagree?

Re:Except nobodies doing that (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 2 months ago | (#47044173)

you aren't smart enough to deal with the data when you actually look for it and read it hence the stupid posts

Re:Except nobodies doing that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044249)

I don't mean to put words into your mouth, so correct me if I am wrong about the following. You seem to be implying that you (Barsteward) are smart enough to "deal with the data when you actually look for it".

In that case, please explain to the rest of us less smart people:

1) What is the data?
2) How was the data gathered?
3) What technical difficulties are there in gathering the data?
4) What assumptions were made when extrapolating from the data?

Re:Except nobodies doing that (2)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 2 months ago | (#47044277)

No, most lay people are not smart (or educated in the subject) enough to correctly analyse the data. And the people are capable of analysing the data, are also capable of finding the data. It's not that well hidden, actually.

Re:Except nobodies doing that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044307)

So... if you are smart enough please answer the four questions posed above. If no one here is smart enough then what is the point of telling us?

No mounds, no wall, etc needed (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 months ago | (#47044347)

Because it's not for them? NOBODY CARES WHAT THE DENIERS ARE DOING. THis is for people who have the brains to taka facts as facts. Sea levels have risen more than estimated. This is measured data. They are not going to protect the nuclear plants by reversing global warming or whatever, but by elevating the ground, or building floodwalls, or something. If someone wants to deny rising sea levels please sell them flat land by the shoreline. They can then deny there all they want.

OK. So we pick sites with higher natural elevations for the 3rd generation reactors that are about to begin construction. Similar story for the 4th generation reactors when they go commercial in 30 years. 1st and 2nd generation reactors at risk can be take off line and the waste stored on these sites can be transferred to the 4th gen reactors to be used as fuel (a nice benefit of 4th gen, consuming old waste).

The at risk 1st and 2nd gen reactors can be replaced, taken off line and their sites cleaned up many decades before we get near that 7 foot increase in 86 years.

It seems as if at risk reactors will be phased out via their normal life cycle, no mounds, walls, etc are needed.

Re:Explain the data (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#47043797)

The sun will rise tomorrow. I have no data for that. So by your logic, that's proof the sun will never rise again.

Re:Explain the data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043831)

Is this what you mean to refer to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_problem

That has nothing to do with useful scientific reporting, which this article lacks.

Re:Explain the data (3, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#47044255)

No, I'd never seen that. It was just coincidence that I picked a problem that's been looked at but not solved before. That's considered an unsolved problem. The answer is "1" but it can't be proven. It's obvious from the data, and questioning the data won't change the outcome. But it makes for a "controversy". A fake one invented by the mega-rich trying to confuse the issue.

Re:Explain the data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044387)

I really don't know how your point is related to the original post. It asked the basic questions any reasonable person would need to ask in order to come to an informed opinion of their own.

Re:Explain the data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043839)

It's risen for millions of years. That's sure is a lot of data.
So by my logic you're a fucking moron.

Re:Explain the data (3, Funny)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#47044247)

Your sources are biased pro-sun activists. They sent emails to someone once, and got paid for it. It's a scandal. A scandal related to pro-sun zealots is proof that they've always been lying.

Re:Explain the data (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 2 months ago | (#47043931)

Obviously, we can only wait and see what happens. I've got ten dollars on the sun rising.

Re:Explain the data (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47043869)

Why do I get reminded of the dead parrot sketch?

A: The sea levels are rising.
B: No, that's just the tide.
A: Look, I know a flood when I see one and I'm looking at one right now!
B: No, no, the levels ain't rising, it's just the tide. Isn't the sea so incredibly blue today...
B: Blue or not, it's rising!
A: No, I told you, it's the tide.
B: Allright, so if it's the tide, the water should be gone in 6 hours!
(waiting, A builds up walls of sandbags to keep the water at bay)
A: There, it's gone.
B: No it's not, you just built a wall!
A: I never!
B: Yes you did!
A: I never, never did anything.
B: (tears down wall of sandbags, water floods the floor)
B: Now that's what I call a flood!
A: No, it's just ... a canal.
B: A CANAL?
A: Yes, you dug a canal through the bags.
B: Yeah, you dug a canal just as the water was retreating.

(and so on, you know the routine)

Re:Explain the data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044165)

Guess that water was pining for the fjords!

Re:Explain the data (4, Funny)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about 2 months ago | (#47044243)

Or Princess Bride [pdztotardi...ssbridehtm] ...

But if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.
I'm afraid so -- I can't compete with your solar and ocean causation. And you're no match for my atmosphere.
You're that effective?
Let me put it this way: have you ever heard of Venus?
Yes.
Forcing at it's finest.
Really? In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.
For the Climate Treaty?
Yes.
To the death?
I accept.
Good. Then pour the biosphere.
Inhale this, but do not touch.
I smell nothing.
What you do not smell is called carbon dioxide. It is odorless, dissolves instantly in liquid, and is among the more deadlier poisons known to man.
Hmm.
All right: where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right and who is dead.
But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what we know of paleoclimate, is this the kind of planet that would be driven by CO2, or merely show indications of varying levels as a consequence of other factors.... now, a clever planet would have evolved several effective 'coping mechanisms' for runaway warming such as a smooth atmospheric gradient and Tropopause water vapor, to dampen and oscillate between extremes. It would not put all its eggs in a trace gas basket or its fate would have been more likely to have been that of one of the dumber planets.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
I'm just getting started!

[... much later...]

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against a SCIENTIST when DEATH is on the line."...

[...thump....]

Where does 7 feet of water come from? (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47043669)

If you think about it a seven-foot rise in water is not very reasonable to predict - it has to come from somewhere and there is just not that much water locked up in ice anymore.

They are talking about four-five centuries for a massive ice wall in the arctic to melt to MAYBE bring us to four feet of rise. There is other talk of a whole anoretic ice sheet melting and giving us a few inches per century or rise.

Will those nuclear plants still be around in 400 years when a 2-4 foot rise might start to get closer to impacting them? Or will we be laughing at the water from our hover boards as beings of translucent energy ourselves?

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043679)

I vote we do the second one.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (-1, Troll)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 2 months ago | (#47043699)

Alarmist claptrap is alarmist claptrap.

i.e. (1)

publiclurker (952615) | about 2 months ago | (#47043891)

LA-LA-LA. I can't hear you, now take your facts and go away before I hold my breath.

Where does 7 feet of water come from? (4, Informative)

unimacs (597299) | about 2 months ago | (#47043713)

water also expands as it warms.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (0)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 2 months ago | (#47043799)

Not by half.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (3, Insightful)

unimacs (597299) | about 2 months ago | (#47043897)

Not by half.

Not by half of what? The oceans are thousands of feet deep and cover 2/3 of the planet.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1, Insightful)

Barsteward (969998) | about 2 months ago | (#47044183)

i'm afraid that most of these deniers brains cannot compute those sorts of sizes, its the same with creationists not being able to visualise more than a few years

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044439)

i'm afraid that most of these deniers brains cannot compute those sorts of sizes, its the same with creationists not being able to visualise more than a few years

Actually, thanks to Bishop Ussher, god will refrain from smiting us if we visualise anything up to 6000 years you insensitive clod.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 months ago | (#47044443)

Then by all means, enlighten them. Explain these sorts of sizes, and similar sizes to which they are relative.

I'll wait.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044257)

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html

AVERAGE depth of the ocean is 2.65 MILES or 167904 inches so 8 inches is a change of 0.0047% change

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (3, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47043821)

We're looking at an increase overall of 2-4c for the atmosphere. Since the water temperature can't increase beyond ambient, how do you get multiple feet of water level rise out of just a few C difference in water temperature? To see any visible change in a flask of water requires a far larger swing in temperature.

Also remember that underground volcanic action is already dumping a lot of heat into the ocean here and there, so you probably would not even get the total atmospheric rise embodied in ocean temperatures that are already moderating much greater heat.

And also that greater heat means faster evaporation, which in turns means natural cooling...

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1)

unimacs (597299) | about 2 months ago | (#47043909)

We're looking at an increase overall of 2-4c for the atmosphere. Since the water temperature can't increase beyond ambient, how do you get multiple feet of water level rise out of just a few C difference in water temperature? To see any visible change in a flask of water requires a far larger swing in temperature.

Also remember that underground volcanic action is already dumping a lot of heat into the ocean here and there, so you probably would not even get the total atmospheric rise embodied in ocean temperatures that are already moderating much greater heat.

And also that greater heat means faster evaporation, which in turns means natural cooling...

How many flasks of water would you have to stack up to get to the average depth of an ocean? Now imagine the water in each of those flasks expanding by just a little bit. Don't you think the cumulative amount would be noticeable?

Until recently most of the rise in ocean depth has been due to thermal expansion. Now that the ice sheets are melting at an accelerated rate, that is starting to be the main factor, but thermal expansion is still occurring.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47044045)

How many flasks of water would you have to stack up to get to the average depth of an ocean? Now imagine the water in each of those flasks expanding by just a little bit.

Ok then, where are the calculations showing how much EXACTLY that increase is for 2-4c rise in surface temp? How far down do changes surface temp propagate? Where are those facts?

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (2, Informative)

Barsteward (969998) | about 2 months ago | (#47044189)

do your research for the formula. don't keep the attitude that because you don't know it, its not true or possible

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (4, Insightful)

geogob (569250) | about 2 months ago | (#47044407)

I find it very enjoyable, yet irritating, to see people take every single effect/cause independently, somehow analyse them (while actually having no clue at all what they are doing) and come to the conclusion they are too small to be related to a trend, while missing the obvious point that independent effect can be cumulativ. Worse, different effect can promote other and accelerate the trend. And they cook up a counter arguments (again while having no clue, even of the oders of magnitude) and propagate their ignorance to others ready to believe their pseudo scientific facts.

I really have to stand on the side of other posts I read here, stating that most people are simply not open minded or bright enough to understand the data and analyse it. A large part of this is to blame on education, but when basic logic and analytic skills fail (either due to intellectual capacity or to unwillingness to use those skills) I doupt even that would help.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043827)

Ice contracts when it melts.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043989)

So? Much of that melting ice is not floating on sea, but is on ground. On top of that water is heating up, so it's expanding in volume. And there is a lot of it to expand. On top of that some places might simply be sinking, but I'm sure this piece of news has nothing to do with that. Also, in some places the ground is still raising back after the last ice age, or at least that's the best quess as to why it is raising. Might as well be the continents just moving(althought this is happening in an area where that shouldn't be a factor). Things happen. IF they have measured the sea leves locally at some place there is no reason to doubt them. The best quess is the seas will keep their trend. Just build a wall on the shoreline. Ask the dutch how it's done.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 2 months ago | (#47044053)

That is only partially true. As you increase temperature from 0 to 4 degrees C, you are correct that water contracts. But for temperatures above 4 degrees, the water starts expanding again. Above 8 degrees, water takes up more volume than ice.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (4, Informative)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 2 months ago | (#47043721)

If you think about it a seven-foot rise in water is not very reasonable to predict - it has to come from somewhere and there is just not that much water locked up in ice anymore.

Really?! Are you even fucking trying anymore?

If all land ice melted, sea level would rise approximately 70 meters (230 feet) worldwide. [nsidc.org]

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (-1, Offtopic)

Kohath (38547) | about 2 months ago | (#47043781)

Antarctic average temperature is -57C (-70F). It won't be thawing very soon.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (3, Informative)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#47043811)

It's mostly glacier/ice sheets. There are lots of theories that small rises in temp will greatly affect average ice depth. What evidence do you have that all of those predictions are wrong?

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043921)

The melting is primarily happening at the *bottom* of the ice, where it floats on liquid water.

There, the pressures are high (thus decreasing the temperature at which water melts), surface temperature really doesn't come into play, and small changes in the temperature of the water flowing under the ice can have huge impacts on how fast that ice melts (vs. how much is added back to the top of it each year in precipitation).

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 2 months ago | (#47044065)

And despite bitter cold temperatures on Antarctica, it is losing ice at an accelerating rate. Please explain.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044193)

It isn't. The GRACE study is invalid due to calibration issues.

When it comes to sea ice - it's at record levels:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_i... [nsidc.org]

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (3, Insightful)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 2 months ago | (#47044301)

You must have missed the Cryosat data, then. Antarctic sea ice is pretty much irrelevant in the discussion. It is mostly seasonal, and it has negligible impact on sea level. What we care about is the the grounded ice, and we care about the volume, not the area.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (2)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 2 months ago | (#47044317)

It doesn't have to thaw in place, it just has to slide into the ocean.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (4, Insightful)

geogob (569250) | about 2 months ago | (#47044431)

Please stop with the half-assed facts. The average temperature of the coldest region of Antractica is -57C. That has nothing to do with the average temperature overall on the continent. What you wrote is just as stupid as saying nobody will get a heat stroke anytime soon in Pheonix; the average temperature in Vail is 11C (52F) after all.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47043791)

But it's not all going to melt, is it? That's the point. The amount that people are thinking will melt, even at the most panicky, doesn't come near to being seven feet worth of water.

Re: Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043843)

No, what you said was that there wasn't that much.

You are off by a large amount on that estimate. Why are we to trust you on the melting now?

You are also leaving off continental subsidence, but that is a separate consideration.

Re: Where does 7 feet of water come from? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044091)

What was said was - where does that water come from. Which you still haven't answered as 2-4c does not mean all that ice is melting.

Which you can't answer, because it's fiction.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47043883)

Don't worry, 5-10 meters should do to flood pretty much anything remotely close to a beach.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 months ago | (#47044033)

But it's not all going to melt, is it? That's the point.

I thought the point was to have the working poor in Middle America build Montgomery Burns a seawall for his seaside mansion?

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044355)

The total collapse of the vulnerable parts of West Antarctica’s ice sheets would raise sea levels by at least 3 metres . The possibility of this happening has now moved from the hypothetical to an unfortunate reality. The ends of many of the glaciers that drain these ice sheets are already significantly below sea level, and the ice sheets are not hemmed in by mountains, as Greenland’s ice sheets are.

Without an anchor on land, the ice sheets' collapse is inevitable and cannot be slowed. We can now only watch as West Antarctica’s ice sheets collapse. The best we can now hope for is that this collapse will be slow and stately, and take centuries to unfold.

If this is the case, then civilizations can probably adapt to the havoc this will cause to coastal communities. However, we have evidence from prehistoric warm periods that this could occur over decades. At this point we don’t know long it will take, but we do know that the climate forcing today is much stronger than at any time in over 50 million years.

Given we have made so little progress on limiting our global carbon emissions, the odds are that ice-sheet collapse will only accelerate. Once this sort of collapse begins, it will not stop. Satellite measurements compiled by UK researchers have shown that Antarctica is losing 160 billion tonnes of ice per year, mainly through thinning of West Antarctica’s ice sheets. The ground beneath the ice is being held down like a massive spring, and as the ice gets lighter the ground will rise quicker leading to more accelerated thinning.

Another way of putting it is that we appear to have crossed a tipping point. There are many other fuses that could be lit, and probably will be, if the collapse markedly accelerates - and these would add to the rate and magnitude of the sea level rise. One of those potential fuses is the Totten Glacier, on the margin of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. In this area, a rift in the Antarctic crust allows sea water to extend hundreds of kilometres under the ice, literally undermining the ice.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043729)

Water like other materials expands when it gets warmer.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043975)

Sure it does .... so I guess doing your own test will prove that.

Put a plastic cup with 1/2 full of water in your freezer. Mark the level on the cup before you put it in. Next day take it out, and see if the water (ice) level is the less or more.

Mark the ice level, and then just let it melt under the sun. And then tell me if water "expands" when it gets warmer.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1)

riverat1 (1048260) | about 2 months ago | (#47044371)

Here's a test for you.

Take a cup with water at 4 degrees C (it's maximum density) and heat it up and measure the change. Then you tell me if water expands when it gets warmer. To help you out here is a graph of how the density of water changes with temperature. [wikipedia.org] Hint, lower density means larger volume.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1)

mc6809e (214243) | about 2 months ago | (#47044057)

Water like other materials expands when it gets warmer.

Just a nit-pick, but water's maximum density is actually at about 4C.

That means as it cools below 4C, it begins to expand again. If it didn't, ice wouldn't float!

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043777)

Fuckwit.

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043971)

Mirror - > You

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 2 months ago | (#47044229)

If you think about it a seven-foot rise in water is not very reasonable to predict

This reminds me of an usenet post circa 1996, which talked about chernobyl and the Bible.

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter."

In the post it was remarked that Chernobyl is linked to Wormwood, and that a star is essentally a nuclear reactor, and it thought the bible might predict the collapse of the sarcophagus built around reactor 4 in the river, *or a nuclear accident involving water*. It exactly describes Fukushima if the catastrophists are right.

Now, before you steer this into a religious debate consider that the abilities of making predictions are obvious consequence of an hypothetical god, but are not proof of it. In fact IIRC in the Bible, possibly to prove that God > Destiny, God's predictions are not fulfilled (except the one in Genesis: Adam indeed dies because with the knowledge of good and evil he made himself responsible, able to sin instead of driven by instinct).

Re:Where does 7 feet of water come from? (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 2 months ago | (#47044273)

Wait, a seven-foot rise is not a reasonable prediction but our being beings of translucent energy in 400 years is? Allrighty then.

yuo FaiL It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043691)

Standpoint, I don't code sUharing sure that I've empire in decline, long time FreeBSD said. 'Screaming the official GAY

86 years (1)

Kohath (38547) | about 2 months ago | (#47043751)

How can anyone expect to move anything in only 86 years?

"NOAA's *worst case scenario*" (-1)

Chas (5144) | about 2 months ago | (#47043757)

That says it all right there.

This is like the military drawing up plans for kaiju attacks and zombiepocalypses.

"If we detonated every nuclear bomb on the planet over the poles to heat them into water, the seas could rise X-much and we'd all be royally boned."

Re:"NOAA's *worst case scenario*" (1)

flaming error (1041742) | about 2 months ago | (#47043955)

"This is like the military drawing up plans for kaiju attacks and zombiepocalypses.":

No, those are tongue-in-cheek thought experiments.

What we have here is scientists using empirical data to project a range of future possible outcomes. No mythical creatures involved.

B-b-but! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043775)

Rush told me climate change is a myth!

Re:B-b-but! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043783)

HuffPost told me climate change isn't a myth!

Re:B-b-but! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043837)

So, HuffPost and the vast consensus of climatologists are in agreement then.

Re:B-b-but! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043875)

"vast consensus of climatologists"

And how many people is that? Are each of their opinions independent of one another? Do any of them have vested interest?

*I don't even disagree with "climate change is not a myth", but the reasoning behind this sub-thread is retarded.

Re:B-b-but! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043893)

Yeah, they are in consensus that it's been getting a little warmer and humans contributed a little to that.

Everything else is unscientific FUD.

Re:B-b-but! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47043887)

*flips coin*

Well maybe it'll (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043787)

rid us of the Nomenklatura who are spreading this propaganda. ;)

seriously (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043855)

Enough with the "climate change" tomfoolery

Re:seriously (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 2 months ago | (#47043981)

Climate change - go away,
Come again another day.
Koch brothers want to play.
Climate change - go away.

Climate change - go away,
Come again another day.
Don Blankenship wants to play.
Climate change - go away.

Climate change - go away,
Come again another day.
Exxon Mobil wants to play.
Climate change - go away.

Climate change - go away,
Come again another day.
Lord Monckton wants to play.
Climate change - go away.

Climate change, go away,
Come again another day.
James Inhofe wants to play.
Climate change - go away.

Climate change - go away,
Come again another day.
Congress wants to play.
Climate change - go away.

obsolete (5, Interesting)

stenvar (2789879) | about 2 months ago | (#47043877)

The idea that these nuclear power plants are still relevant in 86 years should scare people more than any sea level rise. All those nuclear power plants are completely obsolete. If they need to be torn down and rebuilt elsewhere with new, safer, more efficient technology, we're all better off.

Re:obsolete (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47043943)

because we have such a great record in actually decommisioning sites to the extent where they are allowed to get flooded...

Even after the site is decommissioned, the site is still a mess. It needs to remain quarantined for tens (hundreds?!) of years beyond when things are dismantled and you've got to make sure that storm surges aren't sloshing through the area for that time too.

Just ask the British how their decommissioning program is going... (Hint: it sounds a lot like "Oh my, what a mess, can we talk about it later instead?")

Re:obsolete (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044027)

The article was about flooding during a storm and if you bothered to read the article, it used 2046 as a reference date.

Re:obsolete (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 2 months ago | (#47044275)

I did bother to read the article:

NOAA's worst-case scenario, meanwhile, predicts that the oceans will rise nearly 7 feet in the next 86 years.

NOAA worst case for 2046 is 21.48 in, or less than 2 ft. The graph below is misleading, and the "0.9 ft Storm" bar is a guess by the HuffPost journalists, not a scientific result.

The whole thing is pure FUD anyway. Nothing magical happens when nuclear power plants end up below sea level; you can build a dike around them, a negligible expense compared to the rest of the plant. The Dutch have built nuclear power plants below sea level to no ill effect.

Fukishima's problem wasn't flooding, it was poor design and outdated safety measures.

Re:obsolete (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 2 months ago | (#47044237)

If they need to be torn down and rebuilt elsewhere with new, safer, more efficient technology, we're all better off.

You say that like decommissioning a nuclear power plant and moving it wouldn't take the better half of a century.

Re:obsolete (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 2 months ago | (#47044289)

It's unfortunate that there really isn't a threat of impending flooding and disaster; maybe if there were, it would spur the bureaucrats and "environmentalists" into action. Causing a bit of sea level rise would be worth it just for that.

In any case, decommissioned or not, these plants won't be producing power anymore in 30 years, let alone 80 years.

CO2 and climate: my take (4, Interesting)

TheRealHocusLocus (2319802) | about 2 months ago | (#47043993)

I am a fan of both Anthony Watts' site Watts Up With That [wattsupwiththat.com] *AND* John Cook's Skeptical Science [skepticalscience.com] ... both are run by real people who go the extra distance find the best links to their sources (not some blog chain) and both are considerate of the reader.

Here's a small research journey: Direct CO2 rise causes temperature rise (CO2drivesT)? YES or NO?

There has been a demonstrated correlation between CO2 and temperature shown by Antarctic ice core data (within ~800-1000y). If a rise of CO2 in this data should consistently lag behind rises in temperature then CO2drivesT is not ruled out (both may be responding to some other factor but at different rates) BUT CO2drivesT has fallen down a notch... it now requires more extraordinary proof.

Even though human-driven global CO2 has risen 'terrifyingly fast' to 400ppm -- empirically speaking I am not terrified -- because the temperature rise that should accompany such a SHOCK by any reasonable interpretation of CO2drivesT, and to any reasonable extent, has not arisen. The effects of this 'causation' are missing.

Which is to say the historical correlation is broken.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. It's a thing,
Something we should be concerned about.
The rise to 400ppm is definitely humans' fault. It is 'massive'.
Temperature has not risen.
So such a causation, if any may exist, is unlikely to be significant.
We'd see it by now.

For example, head for Skeptical Science [SS] [SS] CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean [skepticalscience.com] which acknowledges that CO2 lags behind temperature but introduces 'CO2 amplification' which asserts a feedback where "the increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming.". This in itself is another extraordinary claim. While such a feedback might certainly exist I cannot just swallow it as a flat-fact when pursuing a simple answer to the CO2drivesT question. Where are the computer models incorporating this feedback that match observed temperature?

There is a stir these days among CO2drivesT proponents that some mechanism must exist that is hiding or delaying the warming that the models predict. Immature 'skeptics' jeer at this, implying that it is all about protecting the sacred forced-feedback hypothesis at any cost. Immature CO2drivesT proponents accuse them of attempting to derail the scientific method. There is a germ of truth in both. I think everyone should grow up a little.

Aside from the modern lack of warming, one thing seemed odd about amplification. In the Vostok ice core CO2+T [skepticalscience.com] graph clearly at ~75,000YA there is a massive injection of CO2 (~225-230ppm) that I think is Toba era volcanism [wikipedia.org] . If such amplification exists and is significant, that would have been a fine time for CO2 feedback to jump in and 'save the day' with a slowing or a plateau of the declining temperature trend. Or even a rise? But 6,000 years after its onset -- on the Vostok graph at ~220ppm temperature and CO2 are once again in lock-step, both in steep decline. After some six millennia of 'higher' CO2 and 'lower' temperature. Plenty of time for particulates to settle and 'amplification' to occur. If it does. Did it?

But never mind, it's all changed, that [SS] Lag, what does it mean? [skepticalscience.com] page also said something astounding: "In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase." 90%... is that a fact.

Since when?

Which led me to the next step where the game-changer is supposed to be [SS] Shakun et al. Clarify the CO2-Temperature Lag [skepticalscience.com] which asserts for the last interglacial period (at least), and in the Northern hemisphere (at least), temperature has lagged CO2.

Which is another extraordinary claim. Apparently it is the extraordinary result of Jeremy Shakun et. al., which was obtained by aggregating a cocktail of ~80 sources of temperature proxy data, which led Willis Eschenbach down a rabbit hole into state of apoplexy (apoproxy?) as he attempts to dis-entangle the proxies [wattsupwiththat.com] , lay out some criteria for validating this approach [wattsupwiththat.com] and (fairly) pointing out problems with ice core CO2 measurement, then fails to use their data to prove [wattsupwiththat.com] that warming began South and progressed Northwards as claimed, finds only 8 out of 80 of the proxies which show a clear trend [wattsupwiththat.com] and fails to find the proof, even pointing out that their Antarctic curve might be off by 2,000 years. While I'm no expert, in Eschenbach's analysis I discern a great deal of due diligence, little nit-picking and mostly a sense of astonishment that such an amalgamation of proxy-data could refute globally the trend that is so clear in the stable Vostok signals.

As a layman would I personally be ready embrace the idea that these disparate ~80 proxies taken together in the way that Shakun presented them, can give a truly accurate and comparable temperature record? Not lightly. The errors and side-channel noise of some of the proxies relegates them to the realm of the interesting but not the accurate and incontrovertible. If Eschenbach's analysis proves anything it may be that this CO2-lags-temperature issue is surely not settled. Does it take a so-called 'skeptic' to delve deeper?

So I am left with the CO2 following not leading temperature in paleoclimate, not proven otherwise to my satisfaction. I am left with a purported 'amplification' effect with no direct observation of it happening despite CO2 rising to 400ppm.

The clear and extraordinary proof required to show that there is a direct causation and steeply rising CO2 is causing warming to a degree beyond historical norms... as yet, still waiting.

The folks at Slashdot who jeer and mod 'troll', turn the water white with foam and gnashing of teeth when they smell skepticism about this topic -- well, that is another phenomenon...

Oh yeah, that sea level rise stuff, it's a real hoot. It's hard for a realist to be terrified of centimeters of rise over centuries when twenty-foot waves might arrive tomorrow: welcome to Earth. Only shocking and exciting to people who have already built on (flood, storm surge, below sea level) plains, never factored in natural subsidence and are looking to have their flood insurance premiums subsidized by evil energy companies. Ice changes/shelf calvings at the poles: welcome to Earth. Even the most compelling arguments sound (to me) like all the creatures of Bambi's forest scurrying in terror after someone farts.

___
Bumps to Thorium Remix [youtube.com] and my own letters on energy,
To The Honorable James M. Inhofe, United States Senate [scribd.com]
To whom it may concern, Halliburton Corporate [scribd.com]

Re:CO2 and climate: my take (1)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 2 months ago | (#47044069)

If CO2 is following temperature, what is your explanation for the fact that CO2 is now at a milion-year record high ?

Re:CO2 and climate: my take (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47044109)

If CO2 is following temperature, what is your explanation for the fact...

If CO2 is *NOT* a following temperature, what is your explanation for the fact that temperatures are not rising along with it?

That's what I've been saying for a while. Enough time has past and lots of CO2 has been emitted, to know with certainty that CO2 is not doing what it is claimed to do - cause a greenhouse effect. Which could have been foreseen anyway by the very low percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to water vapor which plans a far greater role in any such effect... historically we are at a very low point in atmospheric CO2 and temperatures did not runaway uncontrollably then either.

If there is no uncontrollable increase in heat from CO2 it eliminates a lot of reason to panic, and instead simply leads one to mull over what changes will come and how to adapt to them - which should be quite easy given the actual slow rate of change.

Re:CO2 and climate: my take (1)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 2 months ago | (#47044137)

But temperatures are rising. Your argument is invalid.

Re:CO2 and climate: my take (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044207)

They haven't risen in 17 years. That's longer than the period used to claim that temperatures _were_ increasing due to CO2 (15 years).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/pe... [forbes.com]

Re:CO2 and climate: my take (1)

WhiteZook (3647835) | about 2 months ago | (#47044403)

Depends on where you look. Part of the heat has temporarily gone into the oceans. This becomes clearer when you separate the La-Nina years from the El-Nino years, and plot separate trend lines for them: http://blog.chron.com/climatea... [chron.com]

Re:CO2 and climate: my take (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044239)

CO2 has been rising sharply in the past 17 years.

Meanwhile temperature has remained flat.

If CO2 were so directly linked to temperature we would have seen obvious effects from the large increase in the (nearly) two decades since warming decided to take a break.

The problem is that none of the alarmist models predicted this, at all - they all relied heavily on more CO2 = more warm. The fact that this has failed means the models are failures and need re-thinking from scratch. Even IF the heat is being held somewhere else magically, the models still did not claim that beforehand so they are invalid.

Re:CO2 and climate: my take (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 2 months ago | (#47044411)

If the only thing which affected temperature was CO2 you'd have a point. As there are many things which affect global temperatures, you are not only wrong, but wrong and you managed to show everyone you know very little about this. Well done.

Re:CO2 and climate: my take (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 months ago | (#47044115)

Thank you for the clear and thoughtful post. Like you, I prefer to read multiple sources, not just ones that are attached to one side or the other.

Re:CO2 and climate: my take (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044337)

"Multiple sources", that's pretty rich. He's referenced exactly two, both of which are essentially vanity sites from people who feel butthurt because the scientific concensus is they're crackpots.

Gulf Coast in trouble (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 2 months ago | (#47044087)

The US areas that are in trouble are mostly the Gulf coast, especially the Mississippi River flood plain and Florida. Florida is just barely above sea level now, and is very flat.

Slight rises in sea level cause problems all along the Mississippi. Hurricane and storm driven flooding are already getting worse.

The West Coast isn't so bad off, because there are cliffs along most of it. SF, LA and San Diego do have low spots, but they're a few miles long, and seawalls could be built. It might be necessary to dam the SF bay, with something like the Thames Barrage at the Golden Gate.

With more water comes... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47044209)

With more water on Earth, comes more clouds, and more rainfall inland. Warmer temperatures allow for longer growing seasons. Can you imagine if the reverse were true? Would you prefer an ice age? Who needs to grow food? Stay warm? WTF cares about sea level rise? Here's a thought, pick up and move. No one said your land 2 inches above sea level in Florida was gonna stay above sea level. New Orleans? Why yes, by all means, we'll keep the ocean out. Lemme get my pail. We are humans, and to sit here and throw a fit and panic over such stupidity is just absurd. Deal with it. If the Earth froze over, then yes, we'd have a problem. Damn hard to feed 10 billion people on ice cubes.

Non-issue (0)

Stardner (3660081) | about 2 months ago | (#47044253)

Floating nuclear power plant technology will resolve this issue long before it even becomes a problem; there are already prototypes in production. There are far more pressing issues brought about by rising sea levels... All the more reason to join the Seasteading [seasteading.org] movement and be among the first to migrate to a floating city!

Re:Non-issue (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about 2 months ago | (#47044285)

Prototypes? We've had operational floating mobile nuclear power plants for about 50 years, US Navy. :-)

Re:Non-issue (1)

Stardner (3660081) | about 2 months ago | (#47044385)

I don't know how much energy a nuclear sub could provide, but there must be a good reason why we don't normally wire them into the power grid? I was referring to the floating nuclear plants [discovery.com] that have been getting more attention lately. Using the ocean as a heat sink certainly won't help with rising sea levels, though!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...