Where do we go when the seas rise? - BBC World Service
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 янв 2023
- After learning how long it will take the Earth's ice sheets to melt in the previous episode, we continue our journey in Greenland. Listener Johan isn't too optimistic about governments' ability to curb greenhouse gas emissions and get a handle on climate change. So from his coastal perch in Denmark, he has asked where we should live when the poles have melted away and coastlines creep inland.
Click here to subscribe to our channel 👉🏽 bbc.in/3VyyriM
Along with the help of BBC correspondents around the world, Marnie Chesterton scours the globe for the best option for listener Johan's new home.
BBC Mundo reporter Rafael Rojas takes us to a manmade island off Colombia's Caribbean coast to see how we might be able to live with the seas. Meanwhile, reporter Furkan Khan takes us into the high, cold desert region of Ladakh to see if heading for the hills might be the answer.
As Marnie searches for a climate-proof destination, she speaks to conservation biogeographer Matt Fitzpatrick, from the Appalachian Laboratory at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. He's made a map that shows what towns and cities will feel like in 60 years and where you should visit in order to get a preview of your home's future climate. But Matt also tells us that we might not be the only ones on the move.
And as climate scientist Ruth Mottram from the Danish Meteorological Institute tells us, waters are not going to rise evenly around the world. So can Marnie find a place to go, away from the expanding seas?
Check out more videos on climate change and the environment here: • Climate change and the...
Explore the North American map mentioned in the programme: fitzlab.shinyapps.io/cityapp/
You can also find episodes of CrowdScience here: • CrowdScience
----------------
This is the official BBC World Service RUclips channel.
If you like what we do, you can also find us here:
BBC Website 👉🏽 www.bbc.co.uk/worldserviceradio
Instagram 👉🏽 / bbcworldser. .
Twitter 👉🏽 / bbcworldservice
Facebook 👉🏽 / bbcworldservice
Thanks for watching and subscribing!
#BBCWorldService #ClimateChange #Science 
Наука
When the sea rise Hell will freeze and we can all go ice skating
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
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.
"primary contributor" at 1:38 is incorrect or correct depending on the date range, which she couldn't be bothered to say. It was primary contributor before ~1960, about 50%/50% ~1960-2010 and after 2010 ice loss definitely overtook thermal expansion at 2.3 mm / year vs 1.8 mm / year.
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.
that's called building houses on sand..... you know the stuff that errodes
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.
It's too bad most of the visuals are unavailable, and the design moving across the screen makes me feel weird.
Thank you for asking.
Toronto.
"New York as run by the Swiss," is 76.5 metres above (nominal) sea level.
"It takes 1000 Years for all the Ice to melt, scientist say" lets make it 500 years or 200 years. Because I kinda have the feeling that there are still many indicators the scientists didn't observe or found out yet.
Science is conservative by nature. So far, all the predictions that were thought to be pessimistic and 'alarmist' have all been made obsolete by new data and the latest studies and shown to be childishly optimistic.
Tipping points and cascades that lead to exponential warming, such as the AMORC stopping (it is already slowing and weakening, just like The Day After Tomorrow) and melting all the methane clathrate/hydrate, could rapidly melt ALL the ice. We could easily see this during the zoomer generation. Or something like it.
Unless the boffins are sugaring the pill ...
If the claim is 1000 years nobody cares, ditto 500 or 200 years.
However, if in fifty years time we're told it's 100 years still nobody cares ... but ... the idea has been planted so everyone alive then has been indoctrinated into knowing it's going to happen and the population will move away from the then coastal areas to higher ground ... to where governments have allocated "space" for urban development, commercial enterprises and food production etc, etc, etc.
By then we might see significant sea level rises ... and with luck the sceptics will have have long died out.
It may be governments have to sanction mega liners or dormitory vessels and avoid the littoral areas and hopefully not blasted too much by weather.
There again there might be plenty of land for us humans.
It was once calculated, some years ago, that every person could stand in an area the size of the IOW.
In short, if you buy into that stat', then depending on how well the issue is handled then it's not all bad.
However it's having the land area available on which to build hydroponics factories (helps to reduce food wastages and increase efficiency?)
The situation may not be as bad as some pundits predict after all.
There again most of us won't be alive then anyway so realistically who cares?
Suggest we should simply leave our heirs to sort out the tech for themselves.
They may evolve a much more elegant situation by then anyway.
your feelings are meaningless to "climate change"
Your feelings have evidence. OECD Study Dez 2022 on Tippingpoints. It's public. At least - not worth to read. We are dead man walking.
It's a question I (on the small collection of islands called the UK) have constantly pondering for the last 10 years.
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.
Informative introductory and on point atm
'Bonkers to think" is the key to this understand this story telling...
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.
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.
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.
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?
The icebergs floating in the ocean are not going to make any difference to sea level as they are already in the sea and therefore displacing the water (see Archimedes' helpful principle).
Where I used to live, in Kent in the UK, there is a place called Tenterden. This place is a memeber of the Federation of Cinque Ports. To any who have visited Tenterden, it's pretty obvious that it's nowhere near the sea and in addition to that, it's at the top on a very large land mass, a steep and long hill being traversed in order for you to drive to the coast at Rye. Clearly, a few centuries ago, Tenterden was indeed a port but ceismic movements have altered the topography and I'd be prepared to guess that the sea has receeded also.
Ten thousand years ago ( a blink of an eye in terms of the Earth's age) one coule walk to France from the English south coast (perish the thought!).
So my point is, the Earth's climate and systems are dynamic and have always been in in a state of flux and will always be so.
During the mini-iceage in England from the mid 1700s to the mid 1900s, the Thames froze and was populated with merchants' stalls and sea going ships could not use the ports due to the ice present.
A cursory glance into the subject tells stories of extended periods of freezing weather, there populations froze to death or starved due to crop failures and live-stock dying from starvation. Warm periods were also mentioned...
So, in order not to die from panic induced from all the sensationalisation currently the vogue, let's embark on a little history delving and hopefully, some of us may glean a little solace from it.
You seem to forget that the rate of change is considerably faster due to human ignorance. I see this still continues.
@@tsunamis82 adapt or perish. Warm climate is better global aggregate for plant life. That's foundation of all ecosystems.
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😅
I live in Suggan Buggan 760 meters above sea level, that should be a safe distance
I'll be glad when they finally do then I can be done hearing about it
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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
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
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!
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...
"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........
❤ O exemplo impressiona muito mais a mente e o coração do que as palavras. São João Batista de La Salle.
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 ….
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
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.
Head for the hills. The other possibility is to build floating cities. At my home, we are looking forward to having a beach at the foot of the hills.
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.
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 !!!!
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
it's all nonsense ask google bard or chatgpt what the highest recorded tide was for your nearest beach and see how long ago the date was
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.
@@user-zo5zy3lr4x a reality if you only measure about 80 years......
@@user-zo5zy3lr4x 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.
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.
Were you going to link Part-1 somewhere?
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.
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.
it's all scare mongering, ask one of the chat bots for the highest recorded tide for a beach near you and I bet the date will be about 100 years ago
@@anonymousone6075 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.)
@@jackrice2770 no they arent... your speaking rubbish . I LOOKED AT HISTORICAL DATA they were higher in the past
29:30&that sound 🎁🧩
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.
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.
❤❤❤
yea ask one of the AI chatbots for the highest ever tide at your local beach... when it comes back with a date around 100 years ago.. stop listening to this rubbish
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
Monte Verde - State of Minas Gerais - Brazil .
You dearly Marnie Chesterton you’ve got beautiful voice 😊❤
Rising seas and heat-waves; sounds great.
Les far drive to the sea.
So i wil poluted a lot less to drive to the sea
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
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.
Stephen Baxter’s ”Flood” and ”Ark” (audio)books tell in pretty good detail what is going to happen soon.
Reminds me of ages ago when Leif the Lucky headed west to find a New World
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 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.
reminiscence movie with hugh jackman was a cool seting for the end of the world setting. be neat to see that writer expand on that senerio with action movie or somthing set before or after.
My drink with ice stay 2 hours cold, as soon as no more ice, it last 5 minutes warm up 20Cº
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?
I feel sorry for future generations.
Nobody else did.
Just like the last 25000+ year we move to higher ground. 14000 years ago the sea was rising at 40mm a year, right now it is 3mm. Even at 10mm a year we replace buildings faster. No need to panic.
Complicated question with a simple answer.
Inland
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
The future of humanity will live within the ocean
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.
😅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.
Im going back to the himalayas in Nepal- no roads no electricity no government there. just mountains trails and small villages... and its the highest Mountain range I know of...
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.
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
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.
1 minute 36 seconds in and the statement is, when water gets warmer, it expands ?
Thanks a lot
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 was expecting usual fear mongering about co2 but they seem to have taken it up a notch or two
Showing calving as melting again.
It's not just the ice. It's the moon as well that's moving away
Amazing
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 ...
BBC.............total tripe and a forgettable broadcast on this topic with superfluous interviews. Don't bother.......
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.
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 live on a river but building the land up over one meter atm.
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.
When the water rises, go uphill.
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 -RUclipsrs.
@@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.
Legend has it that the color waves are still ongoing.
Really Beautiful
Very informative
Over the last 140000 years we have been in a perpetual state of displaceme by the sea. Nothing has changed.
We're On the ack foot and that needs to change.
Ocean levels rising 1cm per year is NOT an emergency, there's plenty of time to move to high ground
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
We adapt like always
Where do you go? Take 2 steps backwards.
There’s you go.
Head for the hills (or the mountains).
Netherlands has been coping with the rising sea for hundreds of years.
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.
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
It's obviously that it's step by step procedure first under water then breathing stops after you give up on idea of drinking all sea empty