Now even the Moon is coming to f.ck us up

[lpm]

Thanks moon. What have we ever done to you? Apart from turning you into a golf course and driving a car on you.

Thanks to a "wobble" in the moon's orbit every coast in the United States will face rapidly increasing high tides that will start "a decade of dramatic increases in flood numbers" in the 2030s.

In fact, this just the normal 18 year lunar cycle and it's actually the rising sea levels that makes the 2030s high tide spell a bit worse. And the 2050s will be worse again.

It's a bit silly for humans to blame the Moon when we're flooding ourselves through climate breakdown.

[lpm]

Telegraph:

‘Wobbling’ moon will cause devastating worldwide flooding in 2030s, Nasa warns
Coastal cities under threat from ‘rapidly increasing high tide floods’ which could occur in clusters lasting a month or more, say scientists

Independent:

Wobbly moon orbit will increase flood risks over next decade, Nasa warns

Mirror:

NASA warns the Moon's 'wobbly' orbit will lead to dramatic increase in flooding

USA Today:

Nasa study predicts record flooding in 2030s due to Moon's 'wobble'

[lpm]

Quite hard to blame a foreigner for global warming. But we humans are an ingenious lot and I think we've managed it. If the moon doesn't like it, it can f.ck off and orbit somewhere else.

[Gfamily]

lunacy!

[cvb]

lunacy!

Bravo sir. Bravo.

[Bird on a Fire]

I propose a 55% reduction in moons by 2030, and net zero moons by 2050, in order to mitigate this devastating and unforeseeable threat to humanity.

[dr_S]

I propose a 55% reduction in moons by 2030, and net zero moons by 2050, in order to mitigate this devastating and unforeseeable threat to humanity.

Somehow I have the feeling that zero moons in 2050 is going to be worse than keeping the moon we have.

[monkey]

I propose a 55% reduction in moons by 2030, and net zero moons by 2050, in order to mitigate this devastating and unforeseeable threat to humanity.

The wobble is only about 5°, at 1/72th of a circle, this is hardly anything. The moon moves much further than that as it rises and sets every night. In any case, when I go to the beach, I won't have to walk as far to get a swim, so there's benefits to moons. Moon capture and storage can be used in the case where we get too much moon. Renewable moons don't work.

[plodder]

This is far more interesting than you lot make up. The height of the moon above the horizon at the time of high (or low) tide makes a clearly noticeable difference to the height of the water, so it's clear than small variations in the geometry have an important effect. Furthermore, a few cm on top of a "normal" tide also makes a discernable difference to the risk profile in many locations, especially during storm events. So I think this is interesting and I'm wondering if the tide tables for the 2030s have been published yet, and whether anyone's run the numbers.

[Grumble]

I propose a 55% reduction in moons by 2030, and net zero moons by 2050, in order to mitigate this devastating and unforeseeable threat to humanity.

Don’t be stupid, the problem is clearly with the sun. Are you being paid by Big Sun? All we need to do is shrink the sun a bit.

[Martin_B]

I propose a 55% reduction in moons by 2030, and net zero moons by 2050, in order to mitigate this devastating and unforeseeable threat to humanity.

Don’t be stupid, the problem is clearly with the sun. Are you being paid by Big Sun? All we need to do is shrink the sun a bit.

Big Sun is difficult to tackle, but I've noticed that during the night there is no sun. We need Big Night!

[lpm]

This is far more interesting than you lot make up. The height of the moon above the horizon at the time of high (or low) tide makes a clearly noticeable difference to the height of the water, so it's clear than small variations in the geometry have an important effect. Furthermore, a few cm on top of a "normal" tide also makes a discernable difference to the risk profile in many locations, especially during storm events. So I think this is interesting and I'm wondering if the tide tables for the 2030s have been published yet, and whether anyone's run the numbers.

Yes. But every 18.6 years or whatever it was? That's nothing in the life of infrastructure and property on the coast - it will go through several cycles. Won't the rise in sea level over a couple of decades exceed the impact of this? i.e. we need to build for the sea level rise to 2100 itself, rather than the extra little moon bits in the 2030s, 2050s, 2070s etc?

[dyqik]

Am I going to have to start wearing this t-shirt again?



Anyway, my work could be made a lot easier by getting rid of the Sun, rather than the Moon.

[plodder]

This is far more interesting than you lot make up. The height of the moon above the horizon at the time of high (or low) tide makes a clearly noticeable difference to the height of the water, so it's clear than small variations in the geometry have an important effect. Furthermore, a few cm on top of a "normal" tide also makes a discernable difference to the risk profile in many locations, especially during storm events. So I think this is interesting and I'm wondering if the tide tables for the 2030s have been published yet, and whether anyone's run the numbers.

Yes. But every 18.6 years or whatever it was? That's nothing in the life of infrastructure and property on the coast - it will go through several cycles. Won't the rise in sea level over a couple of decades exceed the impact of this? i.e. we need to build for the sea level rise to 2100 itself, rather than the extra little moon bits in the 2030s, 2050s, 2070s etc?

Well yes, but there's a huge amount of adaptation to do, and it all takes time. So might focus minds a bit. Design life is normally 50 years, that's for the concrete and rock defences. You'll be lucky if shingle stays put for a year. Timber groynes are normally clapped out after about 20 years.

[MartinDurkin]

The Moon needs to be more flexible in its interpretation of the Laws of Motion. These kind of increases in tides are clearly impossible for Earths political leaders to sell to the electorate.

[shpalman]

Gravity is a hoax and the Moon doesn't exist.

[Gfamily]

Given that the Nature Climate Change study has been out for 3 weeks or more, the fact that everyone's writing about it now suggests either that someone decided to promote the paper to give it more traction or someone thought "if we make this all about the Moon and the 18.6 year cycle, then we can pretend it's nothing to do with GCC induced sea level rise"

[JQH]

Gravity is a hoax and the Moon doesn't exist Earth sucks.

FIFY

[Bird on a Fire]

Am I going to have to start wearing this t-shirt again?



Anyway, my work could be made a lot easier by getting rid of the Sun, rather than the Moon.

Is that maddox? He had a good blow up the moon bit.

[dyqik]

Given that the Nature Climate Change study has been out for 3 weeks or more, the fact that everyone's writing about it now suggests either that someone decided to promote the paper to give it more traction or someone thought "if we make this all about the Moon and the 18.6 year cycle, then we can pretend it's nothing to do with GCC induced sea level rise"

I'm guessing that Republican Party headquarters forwarded an email from Exxon to their strategists that work for the Tory party/UK press.

[secret squirrel]

Alexander Abian, vindicated.