Blackpool and fylde underwater by 2050...?

[JJpool]

This must be one of the most disingenuous clickbait scaremongering bullshit articles I've seen since..... the last article came up of the same thing in lancs live...

Now its Manchester evening news trying to mislead people.

I'm am not a climate change denier, we absolutely need to cut emissions and plant more trees etc but this is bollocks.

The towns that could end up underwater because of rising sea levels

These areas could vanish by 2050 as the climate crisis continues, new research shows

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Rising sea levels could see parts of Blackpool, Lytham and Morecambe vanish

The maps are based on predictions if we make no cuts to emissions

www.lancs.live

Firstly its based on some unknown doomsday scenario and doesn't actually tell you how high sea levels will rise to in the article.

Secondly to get the picture they show on their site if you actually go on.... https://coastal.climatecentral.org/...ble&refresh=true&water_level=5.1&water_unit=m

...and adjust the setting to water level and crank it up you have to raise sea levels by approx 5m to get that picture.

I searched the web quickly and there's different estimates from anywhere from a foot to a meter or so by 2100.

Here are 2 sources fairly recent.

Sea levels could rise more than a metre by 2100, experts say | Sea level | The Guardian

Oceans rising faster than previously thought, according to survey of 100 specialists

amp.theguardian.com

Here it says...

'In the worst-case scenario – with rising emissions and global heating of 4.5C above pre-industrial levels – the study estimates the surface of the world’s oceans in 2100 will be between 0.6 and 1.3 metres higher than today, which would potentially engulf areas home to hundreds of millions of people.'

So 1.3 meters by 2100 yet the articles above make out by 2050 it will be aprox 5m, come on.

Here's another...

Even in the extreme scenario 50 years later than 2050 only half of the required rise would occur for the picture they showed to be even close.

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.

www.climate.gov

Lastly, its only showing land that may be below sea level, not that it will be underwater, also its if nothing happens no improvement to sea defences, nothing done at all on any level.

If you go down to the sea in South shore for eg. When the tide is in it only comes upto aprox half way up the sets of stairs to get down to the beach. It would probably have to rise over 3m just to breach the stairs. If there were any weak points along the coast its not like nothing would be done. So in some respects it doesn't matter that some land further back is slightly below seal level as the picture shows, as its protected.

Yes we should do all we can as climate change is more than sea level, its animals, its changing weather etc.

But these articles are the biggest load of bollox I've seen in a while. Seemingly intent on scaring and misleading people in a scenario that is many times beyond the worst case stated in other places, its so far fetched its ridiculous.

 

[Wizaard]

Stanley Holloway, Three ha'pence a foot.

All about flooding on the Fylde coast

 

[tommytwojags]

This conflicts with the Oxford scientists working on the Skippool excavation whose report was posted on here last year. Their calculations showed that a rift between Skippool and Lytham would result in Blackpool being cut off by the inland waterway and becoming an island. Blackpool and the promenade strangely would not be flooded, but Poulton, Kirkham and most of the Fylde would be under water.

 

[JJpool]

This conflicts with the scientists working on the Skippool excavation whose report was posted on here last year. Their calculations showed that a rift between Skippool and Lytham would result in Blackpool being cut off by the inland waterway and becoming an island. Blackpool and the promenade strangely would not be flooded, but Poulton, Kirkham and most of the Fylde would be under water.

Find it all hard to believe.

But the above i posted in particular, was complete rubbish.

None of it will be underwater for as long as anyone today is alive and beyond.

 

[Bamber]

My Geography teacher told me that East Anglia would be underwater by 2020, I feel cheated!

 

[BigHandsOliverKahn]

This conflicts with the scientists working on the Skippool excavation whose report was posted on here last year. Their calculations showed that a rift between Skippool and Lytham would result in Blackpool being cut off by the inland waterway and becoming an island. Blackpool and the promenade strangely would not be flooded, but Poulton, Kirkham and most of the Fylde would be under water.

I can understand Blackpool becoming an island. A look at the Environment Agency floodmap shows how low some of the inland areas are compared to nearer the sea front. However, Kirkham is 24 metres above sea level. If you drive up the M55 or cycle on the A road to Kirkham, you will see its uphill so not sure that would suffer so bad.

 

[Lala]

This must be one of the most disingenuous clickbait scaremongering bullshit articles I've seen since..... the last article came up of the same thing in lancs live...

Now its Manchester evening news trying to mislead people.

I'm am not a climate change denier, we absolutely need to cut emissions and plant more trees etc but this is bollocks.

The towns that could end up underwater because of rising sea levels

These areas could vanish by 2050 as the climate crisis continues, new research shows

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Rising sea levels could see parts of Blackpool, Lytham and Morecambe vanish

The maps are based on predictions if we make no cuts to emissions

www.lancs.live

Firstly its based on some unknown doomsday scenario and doesn't actually tell you how high sea levels will rise to in the article.

Secondly to get the picture they show on their site if you actually go on.... https://coastal.climatecentral.org/...ble&refresh=true&water_level=5.1&water_unit=m

...and adjust the setting to water level and crank it up you have to raise sea levels by approx 5m to get that picture.

I searched the web quickly and there's different estimates from anywhere from a foot to a meter or so by 2100.

Here are 2 sources fairly recent.

Sea levels could rise more than a metre by 2100, experts say | Sea level | The Guardian

Oceans rising faster than previously thought, according to survey of 100 specialists

amp.theguardian.com

Here it says...

'In the worst-case scenario – with rising emissions and global heating of 4.5C above pre-industrial levels – the study estimates the surface of the world’s oceans in 2100 will be between 0.6 and 1.3 metres higher than today, which would potentially engulf areas home to hundreds of millions of people.'

So 1.3 meters by 2100 yet the articles above make out by 2050 it will be aprox 5m, come on.

Here's another...

Even in the extreme scenario 50 years later than 2050 only half of the required rise would occur for the picture they showed to be even close.

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.

www.climate.gov

Lastly, its only showing land that may be below sea level, not that it will be underwater, also its if nothing happens no improvement to sea defences, nothing done at all on any level.

If you go down to the sea in South shore for eg. When the tide is in it only comes upto aprox half way up the sets of stairs to get down to the beach. It would probably have to rise over 3m just to breach the stairs. If there were any weak points along the coast its not like nothing would be done. So in some respects it doesn't matter that some land further back is slightly below seal level as the picture shows, as its protected.

Yes we should do all we can as climate change is more than sea level, its animals, its changing weather etc.

But these articles are the biggest load of bollox I've seen in a while. Seemingly intent on scaring and misleading people in a scenario that is many times beyond the worst case stated in other places, its so far fetched its ridiculous.

I do admit I read it yesterday and was a bit concerned

 

[gjr69]

I totally believe that we need to look after the environment, the health of the planet should always take priority over the wealth of a few. But if the ice caps melt why does the sea level raise so significantly?
If an ice cube melts in your drink is there not still the same volume of water there?
I'm probably being thick and missing something obvious!

 

[Mark_GT]

This conflicts with the scientists working on the Skippool excavation whose report was posted on here last year. Their calculations showed that a rift between Skippool and Lytham would result in Blackpool being cut off by the inland waterway and becoming an island. Blackpool and the promenade strangely would not be flooded, but Poulton, Kirkham and most of the Fylde would be under water.

I can't see the good burghers of PLF standing for this kind of effrontery. Sources tell me you get a knock on the door if you put the wrong bins out

On a more serious note regardless of the authenticity or lack of it of the article the effects of climate change are startling. For instance Dengue fever is now making it into southern Europe and we saw what was happening in Siberia a month ago while we were unseasonably cold here.

 

[Jaffa_The_Hut]

I’ll be able to boat fish from my back garden.

 

[Johnno]

This must be one of the most disingenuous clickbait scaremongering bullshit articles I've seen since..... the last article came up of the same thing in lancs live...

Now its Manchester evening news trying to mislead people.

I'm am not a climate change denier, we absolutely need to cut emissions and plant more trees etc but this is bollocks.

The towns that could end up underwater because of rising sea levels

These areas could vanish by 2050 as the climate crisis continues, new research shows

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Rising sea levels could see parts of Blackpool, Lytham and Morecambe vanish

The maps are based on predictions if we make no cuts to emissions

www.lancs.live

Firstly its based on some unknown doomsday scenario and doesn't actually tell you how high sea levels will rise to in the article.

Secondly to get the picture they show on their site if you actually go on.... https://coastal.climatecentral.org/...ble&refresh=true&water_level=5.1&water_unit=m

...and adjust the setting to water level and crank it up you have to raise sea levels by approx 5m to get that picture.

I searched the web quickly and there's different estimates from anywhere from a foot to a meter or so by 2100.

Here are 2 sources fairly recent.

Sea levels could rise more than a metre by 2100, experts say | Sea level | The Guardian

Oceans rising faster than previously thought, according to survey of 100 specialists

amp.theguardian.com

Here it says...

'In the worst-case scenario – with rising emissions and global heating of 4.5C above pre-industrial levels – the study estimates the surface of the world’s oceans in 2100 will be between 0.6 and 1.3 metres higher than today, which would potentially engulf areas home to hundreds of millions of people.'

So 1.3 meters by 2100 yet the articles above make out by 2050 it will be aprox 5m, come on.

Here's another...

Even in the extreme scenario 50 years later than 2050 only half of the required rise would occur for the picture they showed to be even close.

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.

www.climate.gov

Lastly, its only showing land that may be below sea level, not that it will be underwater, also its if nothing happens no improvement to sea defences, nothing done at all on any level.

If you go down to the sea in South shore for eg. When the tide is in it only comes upto aprox half way up the sets of stairs to get down to the beach. It would probably have to rise over 3m just to breach the stairs. If there were any weak points along the coast its not like nothing would be done. So in some respects it doesn't matter that some land further back is slightly below seal level as the picture shows, as its protected.

Yes we should do all we can as climate change is more than sea level, its animals, its changing weather etc.

But these articles are the biggest load of bollox I've seen in a while. Seemingly intent on scaring and misleading people in a scenario that is many times beyond the worst case stated in other places, its so far fetched its ridiculous.

I’ve used a sea level app a while ago that brought up the same (ish) map, but it was nearer an 8m rise.
Your thoughts on sea defences are a bit off though, if the water rose that much it would come in behind the defences at the Wyre and the Ribble.

Edit to add: my house (top of Bloomfield) looking like prime real estate, bring it on!

 

[Johnno]

I totally believe that we need to look after the environment, the health of the planet should always take priority over the wealth of a few. But if the ice caps melt why does the sea level raise so significantly?
If an ice cube melts in your drink is there not still the same volume of water there?
I'm probably being thick and missing something obvious!

Some of the ice cube is above the water level, as it melts the water level rises.

 

[20togo]

they've been saying this for a couple of decades now. Scaremongers.

 

[Trammo]

Refrigerate the melting areas of the Arctic . I believe this is being looked at by scientists to see if possible though no doubt if so some will moan about governments controlling the weather lol

 

[BFC87]

Even more “narco subs” arriving up the river ribble!

 

[Stony Hill]

Some good/interesting data/info in all this. Yes, sea levels are rising. There are risks/dangers but perhaps not in our lifetimes.
However, we should be aware and proactive. We are a well developed nation and in a position to respond. Holland is the most developed nation with parts below sea-level. They will already have plans in process. On the other hand, Bangladesh is at far greater risk, being similar in lack of altitude to Holland but it’s population is almost x10 bigger and way behind in ability to react.
Another string of geo/climatic coincidences (as 1953) could have the North Sea flooding as far as Doncaster. I’m sure the authorities are taking heed.

 

[AllezBlackpool]

Codwood already have plans in place

 

[Lost Seasider]

The big question is what to do about it?

China annually pumps out more CO2 than the UK has done in its entire history, the annual growth in Chinese CO2 output equals the total UK annual output.

Thus any and all efforts we make at de-carbonisation are essentially wasted.

 

[Davepick]

It won't bother me either way.

 

[JJpool]

Refrigerate the melting areas of the Arctic . I believe this is being looked at by scientists to see if possible though no doubt if so some will moan about governments controlling the weather lol

I thought of this but my idea was pumping water back inland to the antarctic to freezing in the centre, nuclear powered, would be one hell of a project.

Mass dredging, tree planting, carbon reduction.

All these things over years and an effect should be seen.

 

[JJpool]

I totally believe that we need to look after the environment, the health of the planet should always take priority over the wealth of a few. But if the ice caps melt why does the sea level raise so significantly?
If an ice cube melts in your drink is there not still the same volume of water there?
I'm probably being thick and missing something obvious!

A lot of the ice is land bound and sliding into the sea and there's a shit ton on the huge continent of Antarctica.

 

[JJpool]

I’ve used a sea level app a while ago that brought up the same (ish) map, but it was nearer an 8m rise.
Your thoughts on sea defences are a bit off though, if the water rose that much it would come in behind the defences at the Wyre and the Ribble.

Edit to add: my house (top of Bloomfield) looking like prime real estate, bring it on!

Well obviously they will plug any weak spots but the land is higher in places round the coast which is why the sea doesn't come right up in places.

But this will be a gradual rise so no surprises and plenty of time to react with sea defences.

To get the ridiculous article scenario governments would just be sitting by watching as water slowly takes over and doing nothing.

 

[dodgy_surname]

The mighty tower won’t ️

 

[Plumbs]

Personally I think Layton on sea has a nice ring to it.

I'm off to buy a bucket and spade.

 

[dodgy_surname]

Personally I think Layton on sea has a nice ring to it.

I'm off to buy a bucket and spade.

And a hand grenade

 

[gjr69]

A lot of the ice is land bound and sliding into the sea and there's a shit ton on the huge continent of Antarctica.

That will be a problem!

 

[Matesrates]

I totally believe that we need to look after the environment, the health of the planet should always take priority over the wealth of a few. But if the ice caps melt why does the sea level raise so significantly?
If an ice cube melts in your drink is there not still the same volume of water there?
I'm probably being thick and missing something obvious!

I take your point, but I don’t think it’s the same, the ice in Antarctica is part of the land effectively, and will drop off and melt.

 

[Matesrates]

If we become an island, can we vote for independence?

 

[Plumbs]

And a hand grenade

I see where you're going with this- ambush Imposter BASIL as they sneak past on the 10.23 from Marylebone

 

[Johnno]

I totally believe that we need to look after the environment, the health of the planet should always take priority over the wealth of a few. But if the ice caps melt why does the sea level raise so significantly?
If an ice cube melts in your drink is there not still the same volume of water there?
I'm probably being thick and missing something obvious!

I owe you an apology, you are completely correct about floating ice not raising the sea level if it melts. It’s Greenland and Antarctica that are the problem, their ice is land based.
Also, as water gets warmer it expands, I’ve just read an article suggesting around half of the sea level rise in the last decade is due to water temperature rising.

 

[Wizaard]

Technically, the West coast is still rising from the pressure caused by the last Ice Age. There was that much weight of ice, this side of the country is still bouncing back from it.

The Fylde has had serious flooding at both Fleetwood and South Shore in relatively recent times, so any rise in sea level is a cause for concern.

 

[gjr69]

I owe you an apology, you are completely correct about floating ice not raising the sea level if it melts. It’s Greenland and Antarctica that are the problem, their ice is land based.
Also, as water gets warmer it expands, I’ve just read an article suggesting around half of the sea level rise in the last decade is due to water temperature rising.

No problem pal, it's all a lot clearer to me now.

 

[JJpool]

Massive "Doomsday Glacier" May Be More Stable Than Initially Feared

Study sheds light on the future of the massive Thwaites Glacier. The world’s largest ice sheets may be in less danger of sudden collapse than previously predicted, according to new findings led by the University of Michigan. The study, published in Science, included simulating the demise of West

scitechdaily.com

Funnily enough this came up in my news feed.

 

[Shandypants]

The big question is what to do about it?

China annually pumps out more CO2 than the UK has done in its entire history, the annual growth in Chinese CO2 output equals the total UK annual output.

Thus any and all efforts we make at de-carbonisation are essentially wasted.

I've got a solution, give me the code to nuclear weapons and I'll happily nuke 'em. Actually best be careful the Chinese will be monitoring this.

 

[JJpool]

Guess who's back, now its these areas could be underwater by 2030, just 7 years....

Absolute nonsense...

These areas of Lancashire could be underwater by 2030

Blackpool, Morecambe and Fleetwood are some of the areas in Lancashire that are at risk of being underwater by 2030.

www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk

 

[Tangerinemoss]

This conflicts with the Oxford scientists working on the Skippool excavation whose report was posted on here last year. Their calculations showed that a rift between Skippool and Lytham would result in Blackpool being cut off by the inland waterway and becoming an island. Blackpool and the promenade strangely would not be flooded, but Poulton, Kirkham and most of the Fylde would be under water.

That was really interesting, showing actual levels for somewhere I thought I knew so well.

The problem with the sea defences is that they can be literally got round, Skipo and Lytham marshes Siri g to mind.

Still agree it’s click bait, though

 

[Matesrates]

As long as Bloomfield Road is safe.

 

[Davepick]

Bugger. I won't be around to see it.

 

[rockontommy]

I remember years ago having a uni housemate screaming at me that sea levels would make most of the UK underwater by 2020. Absolute horse shit.

 

[JJpool]

I remember years ago having a uni housemate screaming at me that sea levels would make most of the UK underwater by 2020. Absolute horse shit.

A bit like oil would be running out each decade.

For me change is obviously happening, it's the level of the emergency that's debatable and the speed it's happening.

As shown with the article I posted in post 35, it's blatantly scaremongering.

The headline reads "Lancashire areas at risk of being underwater by 2030"

Oh shit, people might think.

But again you open it up and click the site and it's the same old site from the op back in 2021.

Where to get the danger scenario pictured, you have to set it to 10m above the high tide line. (Obviously a lesser amount is still very bad).

That's absolute madness. Although it does say "A water level of 10.0 meters above the high tide line could be reached through combinations of sea level rise, tides, and storm surge."

But you'd need some serious rise in the oceans and the perfect storm of weather to get there.

Plus that's of people did nothing, no additional defences as the sea levels went up.

The amount of water needed to raise global sea levels by even 1m is obscene. 7 years is ridiculously short even for a meter.

It's a bit like the doomsday covid modelling again this, but far worse than even that. But it's the like of lancs telegraph who keep pushing it with the fake news headlines.

 

[OWTW]

As long as Bloomfield Road is safe.

It should be.

Shit floats doesn’t it

 

[Eternaloptimist]

This must be one of the most disingenuous clickbait scaremongering bullshit articles I've seen since..... the last article came up of the same thing in lancs live...

Now its Manchester evening news trying to mislead people.

I'm am not a climate change denier, we absolutely need to cut emissions and plant more trees etc but this is bollocks.

The towns that could end up underwater because of rising sea levels

These areas could vanish by 2050 as the climate crisis continues, new research shows

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

Rising sea levels could see parts of Blackpool, Lytham and Morecambe vanish

The maps are based on predictions if we make no cuts to emissions

www.lancs.live

Firstly its based on some unknown doomsday scenario and doesn't actually tell you how high sea levels will rise to in the article.

Secondly to get the picture they show on their site if you actually go on.... https://coastal.climatecentral.org/...ble&refresh=true&water_level=5.1&water_unit=m

...and adjust the setting to water level and crank it up you have to raise sea levels by approx 5m to get that picture.

I searched the web quickly and there's different estimates from anywhere from a foot to a meter or so by 2100.

Here are 2 sources fairly recent.

Sea levels could rise more than a metre by 2100, experts say | Sea level | The Guardian

Oceans rising faster than previously thought, according to survey of 100 specialists

amp.theguardian.com

Here it says...

'In the worst-case scenario – with rising emissions and global heating of 4.5C above pre-industrial levels – the study estimates the surface of the world’s oceans in 2100 will be between 0.6 and 1.3 metres higher than today, which would potentially engulf areas home to hundreds of millions of people.'

So 1.3 meters by 2100 yet the articles above make out by 2050 it will be aprox 5m, come on.

Here's another...

Even in the extreme scenario 50 years later than 2050 only half of the required rise would occur for the picture they showed to be even close.

Climate Change: Global Sea Level

Sea level has risen 8-9 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating thanks to glacier and ice sheet melt.

www.climate.gov

Lastly, its only showing land that may be below sea level, not that it will be underwater, also its if nothing happens no improvement to sea defences, nothing done at all on any level.

If you go down to the sea in South shore for eg. When the tide is in it only comes upto aprox half way up the sets of stairs to get down to the beach. It would probably have to rise over 3m just to breach the stairs. If there were any weak points along the coast its not like nothing would be done. So in some respects it doesn't matter that some land further back is slightly below seal level as the picture shows, as its protected.

Yes we should do all we can as climate change is more than sea level, its animals, its changing weather etc.

But these articles are the biggest load of bollox I've seen in a while. Seemingly intent on scaring and misleading people in a scenario that is many times beyond the worst case stated in other places, its so far fetched its ridiculous.

I’ll bet all those people who purchased houses on the coast probably thought it was disingenuous click bait scaremongering bullshit when they got told their property would be eaten up by the sea in so many years.
Ridicule it all you like but it will happen in time and there will be naff all anyone can do about it.

 

[JJpool]

I’ll bet all those people who purchased houses on the coast probably thought it was disingenuous click bait scaremongering bullshit when they got told their property would be eaten up by the sea in so many years.
Ridicule it all you like but it will happen in time and there will be naff all anyone can do about it.

Your replying to an old post, but it won't be underwater by then at all, the most recent article says 2030 that the area could be underwater, which is bollocks.

It's not that sea level rise isn't happening but its not happening on the timescales mentioned. The info they use use is just showing what it will look like if for eg10 meters rise happened, not that it will.

Or do you think Blackpool Wrye and Fylde will be under in 7 years?

If you look it's clickbait scaremongering articles using the same map index, which yes when you adjust to very high levels that aren't predicted,of course it looks bad.

It even says it doesn't even factor in us reducing emissions, anything else we do or sea defences.

It's a pointless scaremongering article.

 

[Macseasider]

Bugger. I won't be around to see it.

I dunno Dave. You've already seen the Boar War, the industrial revolution and 2 World Wars!

 

[Bennys_was_a_mob]

Guess who's back, now its these areas could be underwater by 2030, just 7 years....

Absolute nonsense...

These areas of Lancashire could be underwater by 2030

Blackpool, Morecambe and Fleetwood are some of the areas in Lancashire that are at risk of being underwater by 2030.

www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk

That lady needs to get a grip on reality. What an absolutely ridiculous article, she ought to be ashamed to have her name against scaremongering rubbish like that.

 

[JJpool]

That lady needs to get a grip on reality. What an absolutely ridiculous article, she ought to be ashamed to have her name against scaremongering rubbish like that.

The antarctic ice would have to melt at unprecedented levels and speeds for it to be accurate.

If there was any shred of truth or even close it would be huge news and no one would be buying houses etc in the area.

The truth is it is melting and will casue smaller rises but will take many decades.

We do need to do all we can but silly scaremongering nonsense articles like this one piss people off.

 

[Shandypants]

I totally believe that we need to look after the environment, the health of the planet should always take priority over the wealth of a few. But if the ice caps melt why does the sea level raise so significantly?
If an ice cube melts in your drink is there not still the same volume of water there?
I'm probably being thick and missing something obvious!

I assume its ice on the Antarctic land mass and maybe other land masses such as Greenland etc? The Arctic as you say is frozen sea.

 

[Malced]

Never mind 2050. The population of Blackpool are currently drowning every meal with Mayonnaise. What’s being done about that?

 

[glasshalffull]

Never mind 2050. The population of Blackpool are currently drowning every meal with Mayonnaise. What’s being done about that?

You’re it I’m afraid, Malced. It’s down to you. A one man crusade against a great tidal wave of man made mayonnaise.

 

[Malced]

I’m no expert but if each of us were to fill just one bottle with sea water and put it on a shelf or under the sink or wherever you choose cos the actual storage place isn’t really the key factor here, wouldn’t that drop the sea level?
Not only would we save low lying areas from being engulfed, but it may also lead us to finally discover what happened to flight MH370.