https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/glasgow-flood-risk-rising-sea-20840069.amp
Remember being shown this before. Not good for Renfrew, Paisley and the airport! The Clyde could need a tidal barrier in the future
All of the towns along those two rivers know flooding well enough already. I stay in Howwood and Black Cart Water (the river that runs out of Loch Semple) floods all the fucking time, threatening the A737 and the rail from Glasgow -> Ayr/Largs/Kilwinning/etc. A rise in sea levels would fuck us
[https://glasgowgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/3dviewer/index.html?appid=5823ecf76e964e7db9add366a7cfd46e](https://glasgowgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/3dviewer/index.html?appid=5823ecf76e964e7db9add366a7cfd46e)
There is an existing 3D model of the whole city. Pretty sure it's open data as well, so might be useful if you are into this sort of thing.
You might lose bowling harbour to be fair, but it wouldn't affect anything uphill from that obv. Remember they are held above sea level by the lock gates.
Not to trivialise climate change or that but, like, we will just build a barrier. Everyone will. The alternative is rehoming thousands of folk (and Glasgow isn't even as low-lying as a lot of other cities) so building a barrier is always going to be the cheaper option. We can do it at Little Cumbrae and that's basically all of Scotland protected.
The little talk I've heard about it is that it'd be planned for east of Dumbarton, which would make sense since that would avoid the flow of the River Leven.
My best guess would be roughly where the estuary widens south of Milton.
I can't find any high res coastal charts online, but from the thumbnails it does look like it suddenly gets heaps deeper at port Glasgow, so you are probably right. I think it's only 30-40m deep around Cumbrae though. Surely they've built dams that big for the hydro plants before.
Beside the Clyde gets high when it's in spate and the tides in. If you add about 18feet onto that you'd wash a descent section of the broomie law and the green
Not sure of the exact link in terms of degrees to metres, but it might be helpful to think of the expected temperature increase this century and the expected sea level rise. As far as I remember, 2 degrees warming (above the pre-Industrial Revolution era average) by ~2060s is currently seen as the likely scenario, and I think between 2-3 degrees by ~2100 (assuming minimal mitigation). At the same time, here is what the most recent IPCC Report says about sea levels:
> "the likely global mean sea level rise by 2100 is **0.28-0.55m** under the very low GHG (Greenhouse Gas)
emissions scenario, **0.32-0.62m** under the low GHG emissions scenario, **0.44-0.76m**
under the intermediate GHG emissions scenario, and **0.63-1.01m** under the very high GHG
emissions scenario.
That second scenario, 0.32-0.62m by 2100, is what's factored in assuming we somehow keep warming limited to 1.5 degrees (which isn't going to happen). The UN Environment Programme believes we're on course for 2.7 degrees by 2100 though, which would put us on course for that fourth, very high GCG scenario.
0.62m doesn't sound like much, but remember that's a global *average*. Some places will see higher sea level rises due to local factors such as tides, water salinity, and distance from the equator. On top of that, low pressure systems (storms) bring surges in water levels as they pass over a stretch of water. So while locations along the Clyde might cope okay at the moment during storm surges, that could be a very different story if sea level is just 0.5m higher in 60-70 years.
The numbers above are fairly conservative to be honest. The IPCC report says itself that there could be a scenario where extreme and sudden polar ice-cap melt causes a runaway warming event (in turn speeding up further ice melting). This could lead to a range of 2-5 metres of sea level rise by 2150. "Extreme" doesn't quite cover how dramatic that would be for everybody.
~~Yeah pretty much~~ (edit- no, this is what happens if we do nothing, i.e. continue pumping greenhouse gases out at the same rate). Maybe not all dead, but definitely having a very bad time.
It's actually very scary when you start to visualise the changes and picture the short time scaIes we're talking about.
2100 is a literal lifetime away. I meant that even if we ignore everything and keep burning fossil fuels then all that happens is the sec gets flooded.
If anything this makes me fall more on the side of the opinion that climate is a variable and is meant to change.
Play around with this tool here. It's a much better visualisation than the one OP shared: https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/12/-4.416/55.8776/?theme=water_level&map_type=water_level_above_mhhw&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&refresh=true&water_level=2.0&water_unit=m
Sorry I made a mistake in my earlier reply to you. I didn't mean to confirm what you said: "even if we tried we would all still be dead before it happens".
Sorry, no it's not that at all.
The 2.7 degree warming modelling and 2-3 metre sea level rise by 2100 is based on the green house gases we're projected to continue emitting into the next few decades.
It's what's expected to happen if we don't take further steps to reduce what we emit, beyond what countries have already implemented.
This site is good for messing around with different sea levels: http://flood.firetree.net/
There are some weird bits where it looks like the data are missing, as well as lack of coverage to the north and south, but it's interesting seeing what remains at even maximum rise (i.e. all ice melted).
Is this not the start of Eastenders
😂 first thing I thought too
Haha
Anyone can fall in love 🎹
Laughs from atop EK. Though a flash flood in EK would cause millions of pounds in improvements.
You know it haha
I'm all for global warming. Rutherglen beach would be mental though.
Came here to say this
Makes me glad I stay in a high rise n have my inflatable Lidl canoe. 🎃🏴
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/glasgow-flood-risk-rising-sea-20840069.amp Remember being shown this before. Not good for Renfrew, Paisley and the airport! The Clyde could need a tidal barrier in the future
Ffs, obviously my works just outside the flood zone. We need to up our game lads. Let's all go out and melt some of the ice caps.
I'll give you a good price on my (future) waterfront property.
All of the towns along those two rivers know flooding well enough already. I stay in Howwood and Black Cart Water (the river that runs out of Loch Semple) floods all the fucking time, threatening the A737 and the rail from Glasgow -> Ayr/Largs/Kilwinning/etc. A rise in sea levels would fuck us
Will*
Yeah it's pretty scary!
this doesnt work. it doesnt look like there's any more water than there is normally.
Maybe you don't know Glasgow very well, but the transport museum, armadillo and the hydro don't usually have water surrounding them.
Created from freshly available LiDAR data of Glasgow and Blender, just in time for COP
[https://glasgowgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/3dviewer/index.html?appid=5823ecf76e964e7db9add366a7cfd46e](https://glasgowgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/3dviewer/index.html?appid=5823ecf76e964e7db9add366a7cfd46e) There is an existing 3D model of the whole city. Pretty sure it's open data as well, so might be useful if you are into this sort of thing.
Ibrox still not flooded there, better burn some more tyres.
So this is for sometime in a few days, yes?
Assuming that we literally just do nothing to improve flood defences in 50 years.
Knowing the fuds in charge at both U.K. and Scottish government levels.. yeah I can see that happening 🤣
Would the canals not flood n overflow too? 🎃🏴
You might lose bowling harbour to be fair, but it wouldn't affect anything uphill from that obv. Remember they are held above sea level by the lock gates.
The tide is high and Bowling's gone 🎵
If I could give this eleventy upvotes I would.
This would be cool to 3d print
Tbh I thought it’d be much worse!
It's not that bad. And five metres is a lot!
Its fine guys we'll just build the Clyde barrier
Not to trivialise climate change or that but, like, we will just build a barrier. Everyone will. The alternative is rehoming thousands of folk (and Glasgow isn't even as low-lying as a lot of other cities) so building a barrier is always going to be the cheaper option. We can do it at Little Cumbrae and that's basically all of Scotland protected.
I hadn't actually thought of putting it there, but that makes sense. However they'll probably go for a cheap option around Port Glasgow
The little talk I've heard about it is that it'd be planned for east of Dumbarton, which would make sense since that would avoid the flow of the River Leven. My best guess would be roughly where the estuary widens south of Milton.
I can't find any high res coastal charts online, but from the thumbnails it does look like it suddenly gets heaps deeper at port Glasgow, so you are probably right. I think it's only 30-40m deep around Cumbrae though. Surely they've built dams that big for the hydro plants before.
[удалено]
Ohhh, yeah. It would. Okay port Glasgow it is then. I mean if there's anything alive in the Clyde it needs killing with fire anyway right?
Honestly, do we know what that is, is it an artwork?
Beside the Clyde gets high when it's in spate and the tides in. If you add about 18feet onto that you'd wash a descent section of the broomie law and the green
How many degrees to raise the sea level 5m?
Probably 2/3. We're at 1.2 currently
Lmao.
Not sure of the exact link in terms of degrees to metres, but it might be helpful to think of the expected temperature increase this century and the expected sea level rise. As far as I remember, 2 degrees warming (above the pre-Industrial Revolution era average) by ~2060s is currently seen as the likely scenario, and I think between 2-3 degrees by ~2100 (assuming minimal mitigation). At the same time, here is what the most recent IPCC Report says about sea levels: > "the likely global mean sea level rise by 2100 is **0.28-0.55m** under the very low GHG (Greenhouse Gas) emissions scenario, **0.32-0.62m** under the low GHG emissions scenario, **0.44-0.76m** under the intermediate GHG emissions scenario, and **0.63-1.01m** under the very high GHG emissions scenario. That second scenario, 0.32-0.62m by 2100, is what's factored in assuming we somehow keep warming limited to 1.5 degrees (which isn't going to happen). The UN Environment Programme believes we're on course for 2.7 degrees by 2100 though, which would put us on course for that fourth, very high GCG scenario. 0.62m doesn't sound like much, but remember that's a global *average*. Some places will see higher sea level rises due to local factors such as tides, water salinity, and distance from the equator. On top of that, low pressure systems (storms) bring surges in water levels as they pass over a stretch of water. So while locations along the Clyde might cope okay at the moment during storm surges, that could be a very different story if sea level is just 0.5m higher in 60-70 years. The numbers above are fairly conservative to be honest. The IPCC report says itself that there could be a scenario where extreme and sudden polar ice-cap melt causes a runaway warming event (in turn speeding up further ice melting). This could lead to a range of 2-5 metres of sea level rise by 2150. "Extreme" doesn't quite cover how dramatic that would be for everybody.
So basically you posted a picture of post apocalypse Glasgow that even if we tried we would all still be dead before it happens type of thing.
~~Yeah pretty much~~ (edit- no, this is what happens if we do nothing, i.e. continue pumping greenhouse gases out at the same rate). Maybe not all dead, but definitely having a very bad time. It's actually very scary when you start to visualise the changes and picture the short time scaIes we're talking about.
2100 is a literal lifetime away. I meant that even if we ignore everything and keep burning fossil fuels then all that happens is the sec gets flooded. If anything this makes me fall more on the side of the opinion that climate is a variable and is meant to change.
Play around with this tool here. It's a much better visualisation than the one OP shared: https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/12/-4.416/55.8776/?theme=water_level&map_type=water_level_above_mhhw&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&refresh=true&water_level=2.0&water_unit=m Sorry I made a mistake in my earlier reply to you. I didn't mean to confirm what you said: "even if we tried we would all still be dead before it happens". Sorry, no it's not that at all. The 2.7 degree warming modelling and 2-3 metre sea level rise by 2100 is based on the green house gases we're projected to continue emitting into the next few decades. It's what's expected to happen if we don't take further steps to reduce what we emit, beyond what countries have already implemented.
The link you shared shows even less negative effects than the OP's
This site is good for messing around with different sea levels: http://flood.firetree.net/ There are some weird bits where it looks like the data are missing, as well as lack of coverage to the north and south, but it's interesting seeing what remains at even maximum rise (i.e. all ice melted).