Ship of Fools: Waterworld

Thread: Waterworld Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020352

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Is this true?

“Hundreds of millions of urban dwellers around the world face their cities being inundated by rising seawaters if latest UN warnings that the world is on course for 3C of global warming come true.”

If so, how can we prepare for it?

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Oh, thank God! I thought you meant the Kevin Costner film. Really, I did.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'm going to buy a deck chair for when Leicester becomes a seaside town.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Some people predict that the expertise of Dutch engineers will be much in demand. That might help for a while.

The article discusses the effect of a 3 degree rise in temperature and indicates this might lead to a 3 meter rise in ocean level. If the 3 meter rise occurs, the consequences will probably be as bad as they say; people have a tendency to build on land near rivers and bodies of water. The question is whether the 3 degree rise (or more!) is possible, likely or avoidable.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Don't buy waterfront property. There are maps, on line, which will show you how deep the inundation will be at various sea-level rises in any given area. Don't buy property near water without consulting them. I would avoid Florida entirely.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Some people predict that the expertise of Dutch engineers will be much in demand. That might help for a while.

Depends on location. For example, the bedrock under New York City is mostly schist, marble, and gneiss (i.e. non-porous rocks) so you can certainly build dykes and sea barriers around Manhattan. Miami, on the other hand, mostly sits on top of porous limestone. It doesn't matter how well your sea wall is constructed if the ocean can just go under it.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

Not buying land near water is a good idea if you're in the market for property, or are able to move away from the seaside.

However, not everyone can move...and we're talking about urban areas - with lots and lots of people and lots of jobs people have to get to. That complicates it a lot.

I still wouldn't buy waterfront property - at least on the ocean. I wonder if the Great Lakes could be affected at all? The water currently flows out toward the ocean, which is far away, and here in Detroit, we're at 600 ft. above sea level.

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Oh, thank God! I thought you meant the Kevin Costner film. Really, I did.

I thought *of* the film, but knew no one could possibly be proposing anyone discuss it in 2017.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

They keep telling us a shed load of sea ice, glaciers and so on and so forth have already melted.
Where has that water gone? No sign high tide marks altering, or of our local seaside towns being inundated with sea water yet.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

A lot of these water-rise maps you will have to seek out yourself. Your real estate agent is not going to show them to you. There's a lot of intense denial going on in the Miami real estate community, for instance. Caveat emptor.
Here in the mid-Atlantic there are several inhabited islands in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay. Tangier Island, for instance, has been inhabited for 400 years and has been eroding away for just about the same time. It is about six inches above sea level. One good hurricane and the place is history. Nevertheless the (rapidly dwindling) residents are hoping to persuade the government to pay for a sea wall.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
They keep telling us a shed load of sea ice, glaciers and so on and so forth have already melted.
Where has that water gone? No sign high tide marks altering, or of our local seaside towns being inundated with sea water yet.

This points to one of the problems: simplistic understanding. The world's oceans are not like a pot or bowl full of water, where a rise on one side of the pot or bowl equals the rise on the other side. There are issues of tides, temperatures, currents, prevailing winds as well. The rise in one locale does not equal the rise elsewhere. It is unwise to study your local conditions and to try to generalise.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Is this true?

Largely true. The details still need to be seen, but broadly speaking humanity has embarked on a course of action in which the future will see increasing sea-levels. It may be possible to limit the impact to less than 3C temperature rise, and hence less than 3m sea level rise - though it would have been easier (and very much cheaper) to have done that when it was obvious that we were significantly altering our atmosphere leading the global warming some 30 years ago. The later we leave things the more we need to do.

But, the article is right on one point. We can't avoid rising sea-levels, even if we manage to immediately reduce net carbon emissions to zero there's already temperature rises and sea-level rises locked into the system. The best would be to do what we can to cut our addiction to carbon, but we also need to look to making our cities and countryside safe for a world with at least 1m higher sea levels - and good engineering principles of better safe than sorry planning for 5m might be advisable.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Arizonans have often talked of owning beachfront property when California suffers "The Big One" (earthquake). We may not have to wait for an earthquake -- the climate change deniers are speeding things right along.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
They keep telling us a shed load of sea ice, glaciers and so on and so forth have already melted.
Where has that water gone? No sign high tide marks altering, or of our local seaside towns being inundated with sea water yet.

Sea ice, more or less into the space that was occupied by the ice.
By an extra-ordinary co-incidence the weight of melted sea ice is the same as the weight of (non-salt) water displaced by the sea ice. The density is less which is why the 10% extra volume is above the water.

The key effect is thermal expansion. From 4-10 degrees it expands by 0.03% (this is when the expansion is slowest). The Atlantic has an average depth of 3.3km.

Non Polar Glaciers are relatively small. I make it that if they all went we're looking at about 3m.

Actually Sea Tide records suggest a rise of 20cm has happened over the last century. While Satelite images show a rise of 8 cm in the last 20.
You don't see that partially because it's spread over time, particularly with the rhythm of time and random variations.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

As the last ice age ended, Hudson Bay was quite a bit bigger, extending west. But because the land is still springing slowly upward because the weight of the glaciers is no more, sea level rise will not be significant in the middle of Canada.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Sorry, meant to add: The UK is also probably experienced glacial land rebound, perhaps this is also involved in the levels of sea not rising there.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

And think of the many, many millions in places such as Bangladesh - a rise of 3m will flood much of the arable land of the country and reduce the availability of locally produced food. Then think of the cost of importing that. We in the wealthy countries, the ones primarily causing the non-cyclical increase in temperature, will need to give much more support than we do now.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Isostatic readjustment is a bit more complex. In Britain, just because it's the area I'm most familiar with, the ice sheets were limited to the north and west - Scotland, Ireland and at times Cumbria and North Wales. When they melted, there was a substantial reduction in weight on these areas causing the north of Britain to lift upwards, with maximum movement now a few mm per year. But, as the north rises the land mass pivots and the south dips down. Even without the effects of climate change the local sea level in the south of England would be rising as a readjustment following the melting of the Scottish and Irish ice sheets.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Bah! God said the world would not be destroyed by a flood again so the rapture will happen before any believers are threatened.

A true response to my comment on believing in humanity causing some level of climate change.

Do you think people look for simple answers as science gets more complex, and it becomes harder for the average person to comprehend? So many discoveries... I love astronomy and can barely keep up with its happenings.

[ 03. November 2017, 21:39: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

As Mirowski makes clear in his book Never let a Serious Crisis go to waste, the neoliberal strategy on this has been from the tobacco playbook - deny and spread doubt. Discredit policy interventions through denial, or supporting interventions that fail, such as carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes, to buy time. And, eventually, the market will sort it out.

Hence the enthusiasm for what is quite literally the stupidest idea I have ever heard (and I have heard some corkers) - SPICE. Does a small group of scientists making a unilateral decision to create a nuclear winter seem like a bad idea? It can't be - it's what the market came up with! And the market is always right.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Meanwhile, our so-called Energy Secretary (who vowed to eliminate the agency, but couldn’t remember its name in a presidential debate in 2011) has just announced that Fossil Fuels Can Prevent Sexual Assault.

quote:
"But also from the standpoint of sexual assault, when the lights are on, when you have light that shines, the righteousness, if you will, on those types of acts. So from the standpoint of how you really affect people's lives, fossil fuels is going to play a role in that. I happen to think it's going to play a positive role."

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

New Yorkers suddenly realized how vulnerable lower Manhatten was when Hurricane Sandy hit. New Orleans, for the most part, is already below sea level and paid dearly for it with Hurricane Katrina. Houston is bearly above sea level and is situated on a marsh.

I just heard on the radio that the Norfolk Naval Base has quietly been raising its piers by about two meters. Some of the service peers are already underwater during storm surges.

My daughter lives about two meters above the high tide mark on the West Coast. Eventually their neighborhood will either have to be bought out, I am afraid.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Meanwhile, our so-called Energy Secretary (who vowed to eliminate the agency, but couldn’t remember its name in a presidential debate in 2011) has just announced that Fossil Fuels Can Prevent Sexual Assault.

quote:
"But also from the standpoint of sexual assault, when the lights are on, when you have light that shines, the righteousness, if you will, on those types of acts. So from the standpoint of how you really affect people's lives, fossil fuels is going to play a role in that. I happen to think it's going to play a positive role."

Dear God in Heaven, please send him to Clue Bat Rehab and Sanitarium for a nice long stay. For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

AIUI, some South Pacific islands are already in danger.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Some people predict that the expertise of Dutch engineers will be much in demand. That might help for a while.
Depends on location. For example, the bedrock under New York City is mostly schist, marble, and gneiss (i.e. non-porous rocks) so you can certainly build dykes and sea barriers around Manhattan. Miami, on the other hand, mostly sits on top of porous limestone. It doesn't matter how well your sea wall is constructed if the ocean can just go under it.

Parts of San Francisco are built on landfill, mostly around the edges. Back around the Gold Rush, IIRC, there were lots of abandoned or damaged ships in the bay. So someone got the bright idea of sinking them and using them as landfill. Then building on top of them.

This is not wise in earthquake country. Probably also not a good place to put a sea wall.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Not buying land near water is a good idea if you're in the market for property, or are able to move away from the seaside.

However, not everyone can move...and we're talking about urban areas - with lots and lots of people and lots of jobs people have to get to. That complicates it a lot.

It's complicated further by the fact that in most places waterfront property commands a premium, and in lots of localities with large amounts of waterfront property, developers have a lot of local political power and pull.

[ 04. November 2017, 08:51: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

quote:
Parts of San Francisco are built on landfill,

Very true. I remember the World Series Earthquake in 1989. The ground basically turned to jello.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I wonder if the Great Lakes could be affected at all? The water currently flows out toward the ocean, which is far away, and here in Detroit, we're at 600 ft. above sea level.

Portland, Oregon has been experiencing drought. Hard to see when you visit, as even the moss has moss growing on it. But the rising temperatures are causing less snow on the mountains year-round, meaning the water runs down the slopes, into the rivers and out to sea rather than fill aquifers and reservoirs.
The effects of temperature rise are often broader and more subtle than people expect.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It doesn't matter how well your sea wall is constructed if the ocean can just go under it.

Invest in desalination plants.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
AIUI, some South Pacific islands are already in danger.

Villages already lost, salt water intrusion into water sources, fields poisoned by salt water.
Good news though! They are all foreigners (savages with brown skin) so nothing to worry about.

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

And now the Republicans new tax bill will end the rebate for electric cars too. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
They keep telling us a shed load of sea ice, glaciers and so on and so forth have already melted.
Where has that water gone? No sign high tide marks altering, or of our local seaside towns being inundated with sea water yet.
This points to one of the problems: simplistic understanding. The world's oceans are not like a pot or bowl full of water, where a rise on one side of the pot or bowl equals the rise on the other side. There are issues of tides, temperatures, currents, prevailing winds as well. The rise in one locale does not equal the rise elsewhere. It is unwise to study your local conditions and to try to generalise.

Simplistic understanding and denial are the tools I use to get up in the morning, turn the key on a carbon-propelled vehicle and go to out and do some further carbon boot print stomping. If I really had to accept these activities were causing hardship and grief to folk on the other side of the planet then what would I feel to need to do, other than stay in bed and hold back farts.

We have been here many many times before.
As in what exactly are Countries, societies and individual folk, (completely locked into consumer-binge economies), supposed to do in order to prevent sea level rises?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
And now the Republicans new tax bill will end the rebate for electric cars too.

But, according to the Trump administration, that's good news!

One of the new White House appointees to a critical environmental panel once said that the air these days is just too clean to promote good health.
[Help]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

As in what exactly are Countries, societies and individual folk, (completely locked into consumer-binge economies), supposed to do in order to prevent sea level rises?

Change and demand change from politicians.

Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Meanwhile, our so-called Energy Secretary (who vowed to eliminate the agency, but couldn’t remember its name in a presidential debate in 2011) has just announced that Fossil Fuels Can Prevent Sexual Assault.

tis true, I'm sat in front of a coal fire and am too sleepy to molest anyone...

On a more serious note, the countries that are already being affected are the lowest lying Pacific Islands inhabited by people who are dirt poor in the eyes of anyone with influence. High tide in these islands, which are mainly in the Solomon Archipelago have an income which is probably lower than one rich, seafront, real estate owner in the most desirable parts of America or South West England or the Mediterranean.
Most of us are in a position to move up above the 5m contour mark because we have one.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

As in what exactly are Countries, societies and individual folk, (completely locked into consumer-binge economies), supposed to do in order to prevent sea level rises?
Change and demand change from politicians.

It won't happen from the top, it will happen from the bottom. Stuff like this is pretty good. And this. When alternatives are cheaper.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Dark Knight wrote:

quote:
As Mirowski makes clear in his book Never let a Serious Crisis go to waste, the neoliberal strategy on this has been from the tobacco playbook - deny and spread doubt.

American neoliberal strategy (with some support in Australia). Without that word it becomes a self-refuting thesis. Part of its resilience is its diversity elsewhere.

To add to Jay-Emm's summary, there is also the polar and near-polar icecap melt, e.g. Greenland and Antarctica. Unlike the ice shelfs which are where most melting is right now, melting here really will kick sea-level rise up a gear.

Reading for you.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

quote:
Portland, Oregon has been experiencing drought

I believe the drought has been broken. The rains started in the middle of October. They are expecting another cold, wet winter in the Pacific Northwest.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

To add to Jay-Emm's summary, there is also the polar and near-polar icecap melt, e.g. Greenland and Antarctica. Unlike the ice shelfs which are where most melting is right now, melting here really will kick sea-level rise up a gear.

Reading for you.

Yeah, the bits in the centre of antartica (which don't already displace water at the moment) are further South and so starting from a bit colder. We had a bit of a warning buffer before that starts affecting things.

I was surprised that the effect is already so high.

[ 04. November 2017, 22:30: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Dark Knight wrote:
quote:
As Mirowski makes clear in his book Never let a Serious Crisis go to waste, the neoliberal strategy on this has been from the tobacco playbook - deny and spread doubt.
American neoliberal strategy (with some support in Australia). Without that word it becomes a self-refuting thesis. Part of its resilience is its diversity elsewhere.

Um, no. Perhaps read the link I posted, as the geoengineering I was talking about isnot based in America.

Neoliberalism does not break along national lines, as you are suggesting. There are differences between the ordoliberals and Hayek and the Mont Pelerin Society, but their resilience is NOT down to their diversity elsewhere, but their capacity to offer a number of strategies which appear different, but actually serve the goals of the ideology.

If you read Mirowski's text, which I encourage everyone to do, he makes this clear.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

quote:
Portland, Oregon has been experiencing drought
I believe the drought has been broken. The rains started in the middle of October. They are expecting another cold, wet winter in the Pacific Northwest.

I do not know in their case, but drought doesn’t typically work like that. And the perception that it does is part of the problem.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Following a link from somewhere else, I found this film about how fast the glaciers are disappearing in Alaska, melting away in months. (Assuming you don't get the film on the repercussions of Section 40 on free speech first.)

The Thames Barrier is being used to mitigate the consequences of the water levels in London rising, but there needs to be another barrier soon. A significant area of London is at risk.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Following a link from somewhere else, I found this film about how fast the glaciers are disappearing in Alaska, melting away in months.

Over water, ice sheets displace their mass so as they melt they don't add to sea level rise. What ocean ice sheets do do is they hold back the flow of ice into them from sources on land. If that ocean ice sheet was removed (by melting, or calving into large bergs) then the ice flow from the land accelerates rapidly - thinning the glaciers, which means they melt quickly. Studies of the retreat of the glaciers in the Minch (between Lewis/Harris and Caithness) at the end of the last glacial maximum* has shown slow retreat along the Minch over a century or more ... then the feeder glaciers off the mainland disappear practically at one go - within the time resolution of the dating, a few years.

* Happens to be what a colleague has been studying recently.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Interestingly, John Quiggan notes that it looks like 2013 was "peak coal". It's a short post, but the tl;dr version is:

World coal production has been falling since 2013
This is primarily due to China buying/using/producing less coal

Note that "peak coal" is not the same as "peak fossil fuel", but it seems like coal is on track to become the first obsolete fossil fuel, assuming current trends hold.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

quote:
I do not know in their case, but drought doesn’t typically work like that. And the perception that it does is part of the problem.

This is the most recent Oregon Drought Map.

This morning the Oregon Coast is experiencing quite a storm that is supposed to track Northeast through Central and Eastern Washington. Unfortunately, central Oregon will remain dry.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

quote:
I do not know in their case, but drought doesn’t typically work like that. And the perception that it does is part of the problem.
This is the most recent Oregon Drought Map.

I'm struggling to see your point. First, of course, drought is a state caused by a prolonged period of reduced rainfall. A single storm, even if intense, doesn't mark the end of a drought.

Added to which, drought-like conditions may also be the result of increased water usage even without a reduction in rainfall.

And, your link doesn't seem to support your argument, since it clearly show that there is no drought in Oregon.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It shows a snapshot of current conditions.

Link Link
2016 was apparently a very wet winter and sufficiently cold top hold snowpack. It does not change the trend towards drought in recent years, caused in part by higher temps.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Alan

quote:
And, your link doesn't seem to support your argument, since it clearly show that there is no drought in Oregon.

LilBuddha had previously commented that he believed Portland Oregon was suffering from a drought.

I replied that the drought in Portland was broken when the rains came back in Mid October.

LilBuddha said just because the rains came back, it does not mean the drought is broken (in so many words.

To which I supplied the current drought map of Oregon that shows the current drought was broken.

Now, long range, I agree with lilBuddha that the seasonal droughts will be hotter, dryer and longer as time goes on. Even the current drought map of central Oregon shows it is abnormally dry Central Oregon is largely high desert in the first place, so for that reason I would say it does verge on drought conditions there, but for the time being, the drought conditions have lifted in Portland

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The problem with reading those reports is that they are not designed for laypeople. So,whilst technically Oregon is not in drought conditions this year, this does not mean that the troubling trend is over.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

quote:
Parts of San Francisco are built on landfill,
Very true. I remember the World Series Earthquake in 1989. The ground basically turned to jello.

Yup. "Liquefaction", IIRC.

I forgot to mention the Millenium Tower in SF. It's along the bay, near the Embarcadero. Big, expensive, big-deal condo complex. Sinking and tilting. Lots of online coverage; but "60 Minutes" had a good TV segment Sunday night. Lovely basement pics of cracks. The building is concrete. Per the show, it sits on:

--rubble from the 1906 earthquake, which can include anything and everything;

--compacted sand;

--landfill from the Gold Rush, as I mentioned earlier;

--and bedrock.

The building isn't fastened to the bedrock.

Evidently, per regulation, it doesn't always have to be. But, since the building is so tall and heavy, it should've been. Huge legal and engineering mess. Lots of the condos were sold. Not sure if anyone is still living there. Situation is so bad, there's talk of taking off the top floors of the building to reduce the weight.

The show spoke to some engineers--one in particular, an older, retired man--was rather blunt about what he thought.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

So what causes anyone to enter the building - wishful thinking?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Invested money, I think.

Don't know how many people are still living there, if any. But AIUI the problems weren't public until people had already bought their condos and moved in.

There are lots of articles online about the Millenium Tower, so more details are out there.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Is this true?

“Hundreds of millions of urban dwellers around the world face their cities being inundated by rising seawaters if latest UN warnings that the world is on course for 3C of global warming come true.”

If so, how can we prepare for it?

Your post asks two questions. The answers are “Yes” and “Move”.

Seriously, I’m just resigned to the idea that the people with the power to do anything will actually do nothing till it’s way too late - assuming it isn’t already. I was a very junior researcher in climatology in the late 80s. We warned about this then, when, perhaps, something substantial might have been done, but wasn’t. I’m not up to date on the numbers, but I suspect that by now the best we can hope for is some amelioration of the utter catastrophe.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And think of the many, many millions in places such as Bangladesh - a rise of 3m will flood much of the arable land of the country and reduce the availability of locally produced food. Then think of the cost of importing that. We in the wealthy countries, the ones primarily causing the non-cyclical increase in temperature, will need to give much more support than we do now.

In what form?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

And then there are stories of people buying inexpensive homes in Florida (at one time) and then every few years having to rebuild with government grants after a hurricane comes through, wiping their house out. New houses worth more than what the original house would have been through normal equity growth.

What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0