Would Your House Be Underwater? Terrifying Map Reveals The Devastation That Would Occur If All The World's Ice Melted

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488452/Map-reveals-devastation-worlds-ice-melted.html

The Earth contains around five million cubic miles of ice and 80 per cent of this is in East Antarctica ice sheet alone

Scientists believe it would take more than 5,000 years for all the Earth’s ice to melt

Earth hasn't been ice-free since the Eocene epoch - a period of increased temperatures 34 million years ago

If this was repeated, sea levels could rise by 216 feet changing shorelines and engulfing entire cities worldwide

National Geographic has created a series of maps showing what continents would look like if the Earth’s ice melted

Surely they should have run with the tagline find out if your house will be beside the sea if all the ice melted and tell people how much a newly located beach front home.

[R K]

Clicking Daily Hate links will turn your brain to mush. Advise against.

If you're terrified of what may happen to your house in 5000 years it's too late - you're mush.

[BLOW FLY]

Fill a pint glass over flowing with cubes of ice, top up to the rim with water and see if it over flows.....

After the ice has melted of course.

[Frank Hovis]

Fill a pint glass over flowing with cubes of ice, top up to the rim with water and see if it over flows.....

Works for sea ice.

Will laugh if that Sandbanks glugs below the waves on every high tide.

[blobloblob]

216 feet? Pah, bring it on.

[ccc]

The opposite scenario - which could also very well happen within the next 5000 year - would leave the entire UK almost fully covered by an ice sheet. Neither sounds great.

However if i had to choose to land in either in a 'planet of the apes' type scenario ?

The warm wet one would certainly seem preferable.

[billybong]

People will just have to pay more taxes and ever higher energy bills for the next 5000 years to prevent it happening.

More taxes and higher bills are guaranteed to prevent it.

Of course then there's the next 5000 years after that to consider,

[snowflux]

Unless we radically curb our CO2 emissions, it's a case of when, not if. That the ice caps will melt is virtually certain; the time scale for this to happen is much less certain, with 5000 years being about the best guess.

[snowflux]

People will just have to pay more taxes and ever higher energy bills for the next 5000 years to prevent it happening.

More taxes and higher bills are guaranteed to prevent it.

Of course then there's the next 5000 years to consider,

What alternatives do you consider would be better for curbing CO2 emissions?

[billybong]

What alternatives do you consider would be better for curbing CO2 emissions?

Sometimes it's necessary to highlight the reason or at least a possible reason for scaremongering articles such as the Mail's even if it's stating a reason for the article already obvious to most people. Nobody can predict the certain outcome of anything in 5000 years.

[FreeTrader]

The Mail certainly knows how to push the right buttons doesn't it? The comments are very entertaining.

Joking aside, the subject of coastal erosion and projected sea level rise around the UK is very interesting and I was going to start a thread on it at some point, although I fear it would simply degenerate into the usual climate change slanging match.

Personally I think the risks to coastal properties in the UK are currently under-appreciated, primarily because the time scale involved is multi-generational. It's easy to become blasé on the issue – property owners assume the Environment Agency will simply chuck a load of money on sea defences and most residential property will be safe, at least for the next century.

Coastal properties are some of the most expensive in the UK, competing with central London, and the question I would certainly ask if I were considering purchasing such a home is:

Am I buying a freehold, or am I in reality purchasing a virtual leasehold of unknown duration?

Sure, the property may be there for 100 years or more, but if at some point it will be lost to the sea, at what point will potential purchasers start to take longevity into consideration, and when might insurers refuse to cover me?

For those who think that global warming is a pile of crock, here's your chance to make a bet on it. Already there a number of desirable coastal properties that on the face of it look extremely cheap until you study the relevant Shore Management Plan (SMP) for that area and realise that the house concerned is likely to be lost to the sea some time between now and 2025/2055/2105 (depending on whether it falls into the short, medium or long term phase of the plan). Some plans talk of possible assistance for home owners through the sale of cheap replacement land and a contribution to rebuild costs, but this is expressed as a desire rather than a promise. In any case, they won't be compensating for the loss of view, which is what gives such properties their premium.

Of course many parts of the UK are sinking anyway due to isostatic rebound but even so, the SMPs are based on the assumption that sea levels will continue to rise as per IPCC projections, and if those projections don't pan out then many coastal properties are going to be around for decades longer than expected – in which case bargains are to be had.

The flip side of this is that the projections may turn out to be materially understated (e.g. due to a current lack of understanding of ice sheet dynamics). This would likely be devastating for many owners of coastal properties. The extent to which the risks of coastal flooding increase with rising sea levels is not generally appreciated, but hopefully the following table will give some insight. It shows the change in the expected return period for an extreme high sea which in 1990 had a return period of 100 years. This is under a projection of an 81cm sea level rise by 2100 with no change in land height.

The current SMPs for the UK (the latest versions were formulated in 2010) assume that funding for sea defences will be available when required. In many of the plans it is stressed that there is no guarantee that the funding will be forthcoming.

[snowflux]

Sometimes it's necessary to highlight the reason or at least a possible reason for scaremongering articles such as the Mail's even if it's stating a reason for the article already obvious to most people. Nobody can predict the certain outcome of anything in 5000 years.

The reason for melting ice caps is basic physics. It is entirely predictable and will happen unless we curb CO2 emissions; this is obvious to anyone prepared to look at the science. It's just the timescale that is tougher to nail down.

[billybong]

The reason for melting ice caps is basic physics. It is entirely predictable and will happen unless we curb CO2 emissions; this is obvious to anyone prepared to look at the science. It's just the timescale that is tougher to nail down.

There are different opinions regarding the science and what determines climate. The Mail has opted to demonstrate just one extreme possibility. Like any prediction of the future the science along with the physics behaviour is far from predictable or fool proof on a subject like that.

[beccles]

London under water?

**Turns thermostat up**

[snowflux]

There are different opinions regarding the science and what determines climate. The Mail has opted to demonstrate just one extreme possibility. Like any prediction of the future the science along with the physics behaviour is far from predictable or fool proof on a subject like that.

There are different opinions on everything, some of which are more worthy of attention than others. There is virtually no dispute whatsoever within the scientific community that increasing CO2 concentrations will lead to rising sea levels. What dispute does exist is almost entirely politically motivated.

Edit: The timescale for melting is very much disputed in the scientific community; almost no-one disputes that the melting will happen though.

[MrPin]

There has been some daft building on land that tends to get flooded. Crew's Hole, in Hanham, Bristol has markers up on the wall, indicating how hight the water got, in which year. Now filled with lovely luxury waterside developments. OK? if you live on the top floor, and have a boat?

[MrPin]

Fill a pint glass over flowing with cubes of ice, top up to the rim with water and see if it over flows.....

After the ice has melted of course.

Ice is actually less dense than water, so when making ice cubes they always pop out a bit!

[tomandlu]

Ice is actually less dense than water, so when making ice cubes they always pop out a bit!

Indeed (otherwise they wouldn't float). The point that BF is making is that, given the Archimedes principle, sea ice melting will not raise sea levels. However, BF is ignoring land ice (which will raise sea levels).

[pyracantha]

This is a useful site if you want to check rising sea levels. You can see what anywhere on earth would like with a user adjustable setting of between a 1m and 60m rise.

http://flood.firetree.net/

It's surprising how much of an effect there is with even just a 1m increase. I wouldn't want to be in the Netherlands...

[onlyme2]

In perspective.

Design life of current housing bog standard housing is 50/60 years. So no your house won't be flooded, but the land it happens to stand on may be.

This is the north sea 8,000 years ago.

[SpewLabour]

In perspective.

Design life of current housing bog standard housing is 50/60 years. So no your house won't be flooded, but the land it happens to stand on may be.

This is the north sea 8,000 years ago.

Doggerland? Is that where Stan Collymore lives?

[PopGun]

Unless we radically curb our CO2 emissions, it's a case of when, not if. That the ice caps will melt is virtually certain; the time scale for this to happen is much less certain, with 5000 years being about the best guess.

Why don't you write a letter to the Chinese government then?! I'm sure they'd immediately halt their power station and ghost city production.

[SirGaz]

Edit: The timescale for melting is very much disputed in the scientific community; almost no-one disputes that the melting will happen though.

What Rot.

I can confidently predict based on past events that at some time in the future CO2 levels will fall to a much lower level than they are now and the UK will be under an ice sheet about 5 miles thick.

I don't know when though

A stopped watch and all that....

[SirGaz]

Why don't you write a letter to the Chinese government then?! I'm sure they'd immediately halt their power station and ghost city production.

Maybe we could tax them, could be a nice little earner

[ccc]

What Rot.

I can confidently predict based on past events that at some time in the future CO2 levels will fall to a much lower level than they are now and the UK will be under an ice sheet about 5 miles thick.

I don't know when though

A stopped watch and all that....

Indeed.

Some people just want to focus on one possible outcome when there are clearly more than one.

I find it very odd.