Google Flood Maps

[I can't believe it's not better]

Can't see if this has been posted on here. Flood Map uses Google Earth to reveal areas of low lying land (shaded in Blue). Enter the increase in sea level, from 1m to 10m or so.

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=51.4469,-2.5845&z=4

Edited May 17, 2006 by I can't believe it's not better

[Scribbler]

Good idea and topical.

Hadn't thought to make a thread out of this - been using it for a while - interesting.

Sobering isn't it, to play at being God?

It's a pity that there isn't some kind of calculation attached to the maps that shows how many people will be affected by each metre rise in sea level. If not then approximately how many homes would be unusable or which main roads would be submerged.

[The Penguin]

Hey, all I need is a 200 feet rise in sea level and I'll be living at the sea-side, with a lovely view over Glasgow Bay!

[Anti-Mild]

Hmmmmm! Yet more propaganda from the GW brigade!*

*Disclaimer: AM does in no way dispute the fact of GW, he merely wishes to express annoyance in yet another one-sided piece of 'research'. He also believes that there is not a snowballs chance in hell of sea levels rising by 10 metres.

[kold weather]

It is indeed a rather intresting piece of software, its scary the way Holland is gone completely as well as a fair chunk of the wash with a 14M rise, also Florida changes a fair amount as well.

[south_holland_uk]

that sucks man all it will take is a rise of 1 meter and my whole village is gone!!!!!!!!

[Gray-Wolf]

I figure I need the Greenland ice sheet and most of the ice from Antartica to flood our valley by which time most of the UK would be submerged (were at 200m absl).

[crimsone]

Only 86 meters ASL here, so I'd only need the Greenland icesheet - a far more achievable "goal" lol

[Scribbler]

It's a pity that there isn't some kind of calculation attached to the maps that shows how many people will be affected by each metre rise in sea level.

I must write out 100 times – “Do your research before you publish.”

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu

Article:

Researchers Assess Risks Associated with Living in Low-Lying Coastal Areas

I quote:

“Ten percent of the world's population lives in coastal areas that are less than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.”

“In addition, about 360 million people live in low-elevation coastal zone urban areas which means that more people will be exposed to hazards such as sea-level rise and storm surges—phenomena that are expected to worsen as a result of global warming.”

That's a hell of a lot of people who'll be looking for somewhere to live.

[Somerset Squall]

7 metres before my village is near enough gone (muchelney, nr Langport)

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Some quotes of interest from scientists out in the field...so where will the water come from to raise sea levels?

SEA LEVEL FALLING, POLAR BEARS STABLE, ICE CAPS THICKENING ...

"I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands has fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific." -- Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, N.Z.

- - -

- - -

"Mr. Gore suggests that the Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005. But 1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland and the melt area of ice sheet was exceptionally low due to the cooling caused by volcanic dust emitted from Mt. Pinatubo. If, instead of 1992, Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new Ice Age is just around the corner." -- Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.

- - -

"The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling.... Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all." -- Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

- - -

"Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening. The temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than one degree C since 1950. And the area of sea ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years." -- Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.

- - -

"From data published by the Canadian Ice Service, there has been no precipitous drop-off in the amount or thickness of the ice cap since 1970 when reliable overall coverage became available for the Canadian Arctic." -- Dr./Cdr. M.R. Morgan, FRMS, formerly advisor to the World Meteorological Organization/climatology research scientist at University of Exeter, U.K.

BFTP (Who accepts a natural cyclical warming has occurred of 0.6c over last century and believes too that natural cyclical cooling will occur sometime soon).

[SnowBear]

I think there is alot we still need to learn and understand about all the climate changes taking place.

Who knows what is really going on with the complexity of the Earth...

Interesting read here on BBC.co.uk today about Arctic sea levels falling on average 2mm per year since 1995 according to ESA's ERS-2 sat data.

They are questioning the data, but have found nothing untoward with regard to errors, etc, and the whole study is subject to comparisons etc with other data sets. Interesting to note though that Russian tide guages seem to be backing up the sats data.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5076322.stm

I am wondering if, as the ice caps melt, those areas will indeed lose sea water to the lower lattitudes due to the centrifugal force of the Earth's spin, and this is why the data is showing a drop in sea level at the Arctic. In the future if this is the case, we could see equatorial areas more subject to raising sea levels, yet areas in say North Canada, Iceland, Northern Russia, Southern America etc, land at higher lattitude, actually see no change or a drop the further north/south you go.

[kold weather]

I'd doubt I'd ever be flooded from GW as I'm a good 50M above sea level, it would take a surge of a cat-5 hurricane power plus a good 50% of the Greenland ice sheet to melt before I'd be flooded!

[Mondy]

Would help if i could find where i stay first

I do see Rockall is a threat though

[I can't believe it's not better]

Tell them to Lettuce the post Mondy, I'm off Northwest to help human kind.

[Gray-Wolf]

I think there is alot we still need to learn and understand about all the climate changes taking place.

Who knows what is really going on with the complexity of the Earth...

Interesting read here on BBC.co.uk today about Arctic sea levels falling on average 2mm per year since 1995 according to ESA's ERS-2 sat data.

They are questioning the data, but have found nothing untoward with regard to errors, etc, and the whole study is subject to comparisons etc with other data sets. Interesting to note though that Russian tide guages seem to be backing up the sats data.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5076322.stm

I am wondering if, as the ice caps melt, those areas will indeed lose sea water to the lower lattitudes due to the centrifugal force of the Earth's spin, and this is why the data is showing a drop in sea level at the Arctic. In the future if this is the case, we could see equatorial areas more subject to raising sea levels, yet areas in say North Canada, Iceland, Northern Russia, Southern America etc, land at higher lattitude, actually see no change or a drop the further north/south you go.

Now wouldnt it be funny if the isostatic uplift of the whole of the Antarctic continent was what was responsible for this 'anomaly'? Any 'thickening of the ice in the central region would, again, be due to uplift and not thickening.

When we finaly see the catastrophic melt from both Greenland and Antarctica dont be surprised to see the sheets eaten away from the bottom up (due to pressure/friction) and that the final 'breakdown' is just that as the ice caverns collapse.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

When we finaly see the catastrophic melt from both Greenland and Antarctica dont be surprised to see the sheets eaten away from the bottom up (due to pressure/friction) and that the final 'breakdown' is just that as the ice caverns collapse.

[Scribbler]

Now wouldnt it be funny if the isostatic uplift of the whole of the Antarctic continent was what was responsible for this 'anomaly'? Any 'thickening of the ice in the central region would, again, be due to uplift and not thickening.

When we finaly see the catastrophic melt from both Greenland and Antarctica dont be surprised to see the sheets eaten away from the bottom up (due to pressure/friction) and that the final 'breakdown' is just that as the ice caverns collapse.

Hi Grey Wolf and BFTP

I’m not so sure that isostatic uplift is yet occurring in Antarctica. Surely that only occurs once the overlaying icecap melts – the loss of weight allowing the land to ‘rebound’.

The Antarctica ice sheet hasn’t lost that much ice to allow any degree of rebound as yet.

I am somewhat curious about the various lakes and rivers that they’re finding beneath the ice in Antarctica though. I know that they’re saying that they’ve been there for millenniums – but how come they’re only just finding them – and in such apparent quantity.

Does their existence have any relationship to your comments about the ice being eaten away from the bottom up?

Collapse of the ice sheets? Most unlikely in the manner that you suggest.

[Gray-Wolf]

GW

I doubt we'll see that...in fact we won't

BFTP

Never say never eh? A trip into limestone country (or chalk of course) may dis-abuse you of your current negativity of the ability of solids to be 'eroded' from the bottom up , both Gordale scar (Derbyshire peaks) and the 'Cheddar Gorge' owe their formation to collapsed caverns that were internally eroded (by water).

The basal lubrication of glaciers is not a + degrees C phenomenon and so the same must be true of the Ice sheets. Once "in motion" the load carried at the base of a couple of Km's of ice will heat up rapidly as it is ground down into 'glacial flour' leading to further melting.

Once the circumference of the 'stream' is great enough it will start to act as a surface river and meander at it's leisure (with a high pressure sandblaster to cut with). Pretty soon the area 'excavated' will collapse but as we know any cave in will be absorbed by the overlying rock/Ice before it is greater than 5 times the height of the original cave/tunnel in which the original cave in occurred.

This in turn leaves a 'brecciated ice zone' that is 5 times the height of the 'river' currently excavating it so the next pass that the river makes is through an area of lessened resistance increasing the rivers capacity to erode the ice sheet. The next phase of collapse is 5 times the original 5 times height and so the process accelerates logrithmically.

If we are seeing a rapidly warming Arctic/Antarctic then how long would the above process have been running for now and how long (if this method of ablation exists) would you reckon before you'd reasonably expect to start to get giant crevasses present at the surface (observable by satellite)?

Hi Scribbler,

I was led to believe that isostacy was a reaction to load (ice weight) and does indeed have an element of delay in both the suppression of crust/mantle rock and of its uplift. That said how long is a piece of string??? If there was a rapid offloading of weight would the uplift not be equally rapid (within the constraints of plastic deformation) ? If so how quick is quick? If you take the raised beaches around the Scots Tidal Lochs as our guide then the it would be safe to say that the first 50m of isostatic uplift were at an accellerated rate compared to the later isostatic rejuvination showing that, within a 'normal' end of an ice age, the initial climate change leads to a greater ice loss than the subsequent phases of ablation. I would suggest that (seeing as we are technically still in an interglacial) that the current ice loss is at an unprecedented rate and as such the associated isostacy would be likewise.

Edited June 16, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

If we are seeing a rapidly warming Arctic/Antarctic then how long would the above process have been running for now and how long (if this method of ablation exists) would you reckon before you'd reasonably expect to start to get giant crevasses present at the surface (observable by satellite)?

And there we have it, we are not seeing a rapidly warming arctic or antarctic. Arctic is in line with natural warming and Antarctica has been cooling for 50 years.

BFTP

[Scribbler]

Hi Scribbler,

I was led to believe that isostacy was a reaction to load (ice weight) and does indeed have an element of delay in both the suppression of crust/mantle rock and of its uplift. That said how long is a piece of string??? If there was a rapid offloading of weight would the uplift not be equally rapid (within the constraints of plastic deformation) ? If so how quick is quick? If you take the raised beaches around the Scots Tidal Lochs as our guide then the it would be safe to say that the first 50m of isostatic uplift were at an accellerated rate compared to the later isostatic rejuvination showing that, within a 'normal' end of an ice age, the initial climate change leads to a greater ice loss than the subsequent phases of ablation. I would suggest that (seeing as we are technically still in an interglacial) that the current ice loss is at an unprecedented rate and as such the associated isostacy would be likewise.

Hi GW

I’ve always understood isostatic uplift to be a result of the removal of an overload/overburden of ice. This, as you imply, applies to Scotland (among other places) where the land is still rising after the last Ice Age melted away.

I’m not into plastic deformation (who is?) but I have a feeling that since continental rocks are generally not designed to deform, the process would take a seriously long time to become noticeable.

In the Antarctic, the ice loss (assuming one accepts that there is a loss) may be considerable but as a percentage it is a tiny amount. Hence the isostatic uplift (despite the accelerated rate you refer to) would be equally small. In the event of the massive icesheet breakdown that you imply could happen then maybe things might be a bit different.

Rates of Isostatic Rebound

http://www.homepage.montana.edu - Isostasy

“Where rebound is well constrained by Carbon 14 ages, it usually occurs at an exponentially declining rate. The half-recovery time is commonly several thousand years, thus recovery is still continuing around the Baltic Sea and Hudson Bay, albeit much more slowly than it did immediately following deglaciation.

Seaports of hundreds of years ago may now be several kilometers inland and meters above sea level!

Restrained Rebound takes place beneath a thinning ice sheet. As the ice thins the lithosphere will begin to gradually rise in response to decreasing pressure. Evidence of this stage is not commonly preserved, as the land is still covered by ice.”

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe it's restrained rebound that is responsible then