Global Sea Level Likely to Rise as Much as 70 Feet for Future Generations

[dabize]

An important aspect that has not been considered here is the effect of CONTINUAL sea level rise on the practical aspects of maintaining coastal cities at all - Are we to keep moving them every 50 years?

Could get expensive if we get anything like the same rate of sea level (i.e meters per century) rise that accompanied the melting of the LIE ice sheets (Laurentide, Scandinavian etc.).

[hazwoper]

how do you relocate the American Museum of Natural History? the Metropolitan Museum of Art? Time Warner? American Express?

where is the housing for the workforce? the infrastructure? the public school facilities?

your replies make it sound like all this needs to be done in an instant or all will be destroyed in a sudden mass flood that engulfs the city. my guess is something will be done in the next several hundred to a thousand years so that it won't be a concern. that, or we will have already killed ourselves off via world war 3.

relax

[hazwoper]

My point is that officials had been aware of the threat to New Orleans for years prior to the inundation, and rather than take the needed preventive measures, they applied inexpensive 'band-aid' solutions hoping that these would suffice.

I don't believe that government will act substantially differently as other coastal city's become increasingly vulnerable.

As problems unfold, the forces that insist that this is nothing to worry about will, through organizations such as the Heartland Institute, continue a well financed disinformation campaign that will be powerful enough to halt any efforts at preventative measures sufficient to save any of the low lying cities in America.

Last year saw a mass evacuation of portions of New York City - Is this year seeing a massive build project to increase the sea walls so that they will be capable of withstanding a storm surge at least as big as last years was feared to be? Are subway lines being elevated to prevent last year's feared flooding?

Last year New York was lucky - I lived in Las Vegas for decades, and can tell you that suckers relying on luck are what keeps the lights burning.

Right, cause they aren't doing anything in New Orleans these days to help protect the city. Again, you post about things you have no clue about. Stick to climate doomsday posts unless you research what is being done by the Corps,

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/hps/ContractsVE/VirtualEarth.aspx

[TerryM]

Haz

They tried band-aids on New Orleans - it didn't work - and I haven't addressed what's happened since the disaster in that area. As you pointed out, I really don't know.

I have noticed what has been happening in New York City since last year's scare - that's what I was referencing, that's how I expect things to continue.

[SVT450R]

uh, New Orleans floods with regular thunderstorms, and that work can't stop the garden variety t-storm flooding.

whatever. it's clear a bunch of you are in here just to ruin factual discussions.

I find that hard to believe you just make that up?

[LithiaWx]

I find that hard to believe you just make that up?

It's true, N.O. floods sometimes during abnormally heavy summertime thunderstorms. It basically rains so hard that the pumping system can't keep up. The waters eventually do recede as the pumps catch up. Summertime T-storms are not heavy enough to flood/shut down the pumping stations though. I remember back in 1993 or 1994 I was there and some areas were submerged under 6 feet of water, those amounts were isolated but much of the city was submerged under 6" to a foot. All due to training summertime thunderstorms.

[SVT450R]

It's true, N.O. floods sometimes during abnormally heavy summertime thunderstorms. It basically rains so hard that the pumping system can't keep up. The waters eventually do recede as the pumps catch up. Summertime T-storms are not heavy enough to flood/shut down the pumping stations though. I remember back in 1993 or 1994 I was there and some areas were submerged under 6 feet of water, those amounts were isolated but much of the city was submerged under 6" to a foot. All due to training summertime thunderstorms.

Then i stand corrected and from what your saying this doesn't happen from your run of the mill t Storm but from multiple training storms.

[WeatherRusty]

Another aspect to consider is the loss of property values. Insurance companies are not in the habit of underwriting structures carrying high risk or certain to be lost. What about the potential for lost tax revenues to municipalities at the same time they will be expected to "remedy" things?

[FPizz]

Why did nyc decide to build 1 world trade? It will be under water soon enough.

[A-L-E-K]

uh, New Orleans floods with regular thunderstorms, and that work can't stop the garden variety t-storm flooding.

whatever. it's clear a bunch of you are in here just to ruin factual discussions.

the truth

[NittanyWx]

uh, New Orleans floods with regular thunderstorms, and that work can't stop the garden variety t-storm flooding.

whatever. it's clear a bunch of you are in here just to ruin factual discussions.

Are you trying to claim that a 70 foot rise in Sea-levels is a fact? Just from experience, it's dangerous to categorize prediction as fact. I'm a neutral in this thread, but people play fast and loose with "facts" in this forum. Goes for both sides.

[hazwoper]

the truth

the truth, huh?

I posted what is being done by the Corps in New Orleans since Katrina. Not sure how I am ruining factual discussions with.......facts???????

[TerryM]

the truth, huh?

I posted what is being done by the Corps in New Orleans since Katrina. Not sure how I am ruining factual discussions with.......facts???????

How does talking about what has been done after a disaster add anything to a discussion about what was or was not done before a disaster?

Would rambling on about what a wonderful tow truck service an area has have any place in a discussion about whether the speed limit on a dangerous stretch of road should be lowered?

We're discussing prevention - You're talking clean-up

[NittanyWx]

obviously I'm not "trying to claim" that as I have written nothing of the sort.

I find it hard to believe you are "netutral" on this when your first contribution to it is an overt misrepresentation of what I have written.

Your previous three posts were in reference to relocating the entirety of NYC. Specifically the Museum of Natural History, the Met..etc.

[PhillipS]

Right, cause they aren't doing anything in New Orleans these days to help protect the city. Again, you post about things you have no clue about. Stick to climate doomsday posts unless you research what is being done by the Corps,

http://www.mvn.usace...rtualEarth.aspx

You may want to follow your own advice and research before you post.

As others have pointed out, the New Orleans levee system, rebuilt at a cost of about $10,000,000,000 of taxpayer money, is not a robust defense against even thounderstorms nuch less inevitable storm surges. The system received a poor rating by the Army Corps of Engineer last year [source]. From the article:

Preliminary rankings obtained by The Times-Picayune show that the corps believes there’s still a significant risk of flooding from major hurricanes or river floods that are greater than the design heights of Mississippi River levees and hurricane levees on both the east and west banks. In both cases, the levees were rated Class II or “urgent (unsafe or potentially unsafe),” on a scale of I to V, with V representing normal or “adequately safe.”

Billions of dollars more will be required to correct deficiencies around New Orleans. And the flow of taxpayer funds doesn't stop there. Lousiana recently approved a $50,000,000,000 coastal protection plan, much of which involves building ring levees around communities. For example, $81,000,000 is budgeted for a 16-foot (5 meter) ring levee around the town of Slidell. According to Wikipedia, Slidell has a population of 27,068 - which works out to a per capita cost of about $3,000 for the levee. (I found that surprisingly cheap.)

That gives us a figure for some rough order of magnitude calculations. Miami, FL, has a population of 2.5 million and lies, for the most part, less than 10 feet above MSL. A 5 meter levee around Miami, if it could be built at the same per-capita cost as the one around Slidell, would cost about $7,500,000,000. But, of course, the levee will need to be much higher, at least 20 meters, to protect Miami against a projected sea level of 20 meters - so it will be correspondingly more expensive. Much of the cost of building levees is the material used and the cost of labor to move it. The amount of material in earthen levees increases as the square of the height, i.e. doubling the height requires four times as much material, tripling the height requires nine times as much material, because you can't exceed the critical slope for the material used. Raising a levee from 5 meters to 20 meters will increase the materials needed sixteen-fold. Which would up the cost of the Miami levee to roughly $100 billion. Given the amount already spent on New Orleans' shorter and lower levees, that's probably a reasonable estimate.

Now the exercise for all of the skeptics out there is to use the Miami levee = $100 billion estimate to calculate the amount of money it will cost to protect ALL of the Noth American coastal urban areas from the projected sea level rise. Extra credit will be awarded for doing the same exercise for Europe and Asia, too. Still think BAU is the most cost-effective approach?

[PhillipS]

Are you trying to claim that a 70 foot rise in Sea-levels is a fact? Just from experience, it's dangerous to categorize prediction as fact. I'm a neutral in this thread, but people play fast and loose with "facts" in this forum. Goes for both sides.

The 70 foot sea level rise is not a fact, it's a projection - a projection based on observed melting (including the GRACE satellile data), on the ice present in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and on the paleo record of the melting that occurred the last time GHG levels were as high as they are today. This is pretty straightforward physics and thermodynamics.

So what do you dispute about the porjection? Are you claiming that the melting is not happening? Are you claiming that there is not enough ice available to melt to raise sea level by 70 feet? Or are you claiming that GHG levels aren't higher today than they've been in hundreds of thousands of years?

Or can you suggest a physical process that would halt the melting? And, if so, how much higher will the sea levels rise before they stabilize under that scenario?

[hazwoper]

You may want to follow your own advice and research before you post.

As others have pointed out, the New Orleans levee system, rebuilt at a cost of about $10,000,000,000 of taxpayer money, is not a robust defense against even thounderstorms nuch less inevitable storm surges. The system received a poor rating by the Army Corps of Engineer last year [source]. From the article:

Preliminary rankings obtained by The Times-Picayune show that the corps believes there’s still a significant risk of flooding from major hurricanes or river floods that are greater than the design heights of Mississippi River levees and hurricane levees on both the east and west banks. In both cases, the levees were rated Class II or “urgent (unsafe or potentially unsafe),” on a scale of I to V, with V representing normal or “adequately safe.”

Billions of dollars more will be required to correct deficiencies around New Orleans. And the flow of taxpayer funds doesn't stop there. Lousiana recently approved a $50,000,000,000 coastal protection plan, much of which involves building ring levees around communities. For example, $81,000,000 is budgeted for a 16-foot (5 meter) ring levee around the town of Slidell. According to Wikipedia, Slidell has a population of 27,068 - which works out to a per capita cost of about $3,000 for the levee. (I found that surprisingly cheap.)

That gives us a figure for some rough order of magnitude calculations. Miami, FL, has a population of 2.5 million and lies, for the most part, less than 10 feet above MSL. A 5 meter levee around Miami, if it could be built at the same per-capita cost as the one around Slidell, would cost about $7,500,000,000. But, of course, the levee will need to be much higher, at least 20 meters, to protect Miami against a projected sea level of 20 meters - so it will be correspondingly more expensive. Much of the cost of building levees is the material used and the cost of labor to move it. The amount of material in earthen levees increases as the square of the height, i.e. doubling the height requires four times as much material, tripling the height requires nine times as much material, because you can't exceed the critical slope for the material used. Raising a levee from 5 meters to 20 meters will increase the materials needed sixteen-fold. Which would up the cost of the Miami levee to roughly $100 billion. Given the amount already spent on New Orleans' shorter and lower levees, that's probably a reasonable estimate.

Now the exercise for all of the skeptics out there is to use the Miami levee = $100 billion estimate to calculate the amount of money it will cost to protect ALL of the Noth American coastal urban areas from the projected sea level rise. Extra credit will be awarded for doing the same exercise for Europe and Asia, too. Still think BAU is the most cost-effective approach?

I

I see you neglected to include this from the article, typical.

"Corps officials also say that the rating system itself may be changed before it is formally released next year to meet concerns addressed by local levee sponsors, which also could result in an improved score for New Orleans levees."

[PhillipS]

I

I see you neglected to include this from the article, typical.

"Corps officials also say that the rating system itself may be changed before it is formally released next year to meet concerns addressed by local levee sponsors, which also could result in an improved score for New Orleans levees."

Changing the rating system to make the local big wigs happier doesn't make the levees one iota more robust - it's pure politics.

[TerryM]

I

I see you neglected to include this from the article, typical.

"Corps officials also say that the rating system itself may be changed before it is formally released next year to meet concerns addressed by local levee sponsors, which also could result in an improved score for New Orleans levees."

By God you are droll, I thought you really believed the bile you were spouting.

Changing the rating system to get a higher score instead of actually making something that works better. It would be hilarious if it weren't so serious.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

[hazwoper]

By God you are droll, I thought you really believed the bile you were spouting.

Changing the rating system to get a higher score instead of actually making something that works better. It would be hilarious if it weren't so serious.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Whatever Terry, keep insisting things like "nothing has been done to further renewable energy since the Carter admin". I know who the true droll is..........

[WeatherRusty]

Whatever Terry, keep insisting things like "nothing has been done to further renewable energy since the Carter admin". I know who the true droll is..........

Since we are discussing the impact of global warming as the basis for the need to "further renewable energy" the progress you allude to is much to painfully slow. Nothing less than a wholesale, rapid transition to renewables is what is called for, and this must occur in all economies large and small, world wide.

We have already pumped to much CO2 into the atmosphere to maintain a climate similar to what generations before us developed in and at the rate we are going emissions are only going to increase.

We're screwed, OK maybe not us, but our decedents. On top of global warming we are not even addressing the converging decline in fossil fuels with the growing demand for the same. Yes companies pop up here and there, but we need a wholesale, worldwide, governmental commitment. If we can't do it, and I am betting we will not....then we are screwed. .......................................and other non-renewable resources our economies depend on are also running down. We need two Earth's to supply raw resources at the rate we are using them up. We're screwed..................................

[LakeEffectKing]

Since we are discussing the impact of global warming as the basis for the need to "further renewable energy" the progress you allude to is much to painfully slow. Nothing less than a wholesale, rapid transition to renewables is what is called for, and this must occur in all economies large and small, world wide.

We have already pumped to much CO2 into the atmosphere to maintain a climate similar to what generations before us developed in and at the rate we are going emissions are only going to increase.

We're screwed, OK maybe not us, but our decedents. On top of global warming we are not even addressing the converging decline in fossil fuels with the growing demand for the same. Yes companies pop up here and there, but we need a wholesale, worldwide, governmental commitment. If we can't do it, and I am betting we will not....then we are screwed. .......................................and other non-renewable resources our economies depend on are also running down. We need two Earth's to supply raw resources at the rate we are using them up. We're screwed..................................

Now, now my friend....keep your chin up...don't give up on adaptation....and maybe the general "stupidity" that you have ascribe to our species is just what the doctor ordered to keep population down....Hopefully the smart ones come out of this OK, and it ends up just being the dumb ones that perish. Good ol' natural selection should work wonders!! Smartening up the dumb one's hasn't worked so well.......(/sarc)

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1291786/thich_nhat_hanh_maybe_in_100_years_there_will_be_no_more_humans_on_the_planet.html

[hazwoper]

Since we are discussing the impact of global warming as the basis for the need to "further renewable energy" the progress you allude to is much to painfully slow. Nothing less than a wholesale, rapid transition to renewables is what is called for, and this must occur in all economies large and small, world wide.

We have already pumped to much CO2 into the atmosphere to maintain a climate similar to what generations before us developed in and at the rate we are going emissions are only going to increase.

We're screwed, OK maybe not us, but our decedents. On top of global warming we are not even addressing the converging decline in fossil fuels with the growing demand for the same. Yes companies pop up here and there, but we need a wholesale, worldwide, governmental commitment. If we can't do it, and I am betting we will not....then we are screwed. .......................................and other non-renewable resources our economies depend on are also running down. We need two Earth's to supply raw resources at the rate we are using them up. We're screwed..................................

Rusty, on this we agree

Unfortuanately politics being the way they are these days, furthering renewables is a tough task. Just last week an amendment to the transportation bill that would have extended the production tax credit for another year was defeated. Another bill was introduced earlier this week to extend it for 2 years. Lets hope they can pass some sort of an extension by the end of the year or it will put a complete halt on the industry and result in large scale job loss, including manufacturing jobs we only recently got in this country due to the renewables sector.

We really need a national renewable portfolio standard modeled after the states.

[WeatherRusty]

Rusty, on this we agree

Unfortuanately politics being the way they are these days, furthering renewables is a tough task. Just last week an amendment to the transportation bill that would have extended the production tax credit for another year was defeated. Another bill was introduced earlier this week to extend it for 2 years. Lets hope they can pass some sort of an extension by the end of the year or it will put a complete halt on the industry and result in large scale job loss, including manufacturing jobs we only recently got in this country due to the renewables sector.

We really need a national renewable portfolio standard modeled after the states.

Excellent response to my rattling of the cage! These same representatives find no difficulty in maintaining subsidies to the oil companies though do they?

[WeatherRusty]

Now, now my friend....keep your chin up...don't give up on adaptation....and maybe the general "stupidity" that you have ascribe to our species is just what the doctor ordered to keep population down....Hopefully the smart ones come out of this OK, and it ends up just being the dumb ones that perish. Good ol' natural selection should work wonders!! Smartening up the dumb one's hasn't worked so well.......(/sarc)

http://www.theecolog...the_planet.html

It's never wise to leave one's self boxed in without an escape route/strategy. I'm not saying people are stupid. We all sink or swim together. We know what needs to be done, we just need to figure out a strategy to make it happen. Burying heads in the sand is not the answer.

EDIT:

I hope with the inclusion of that link your are not implying that the threat of climate change is some sort of religious belief. Don't go there.

[LakeEffectKing]

It's never wise to leave one's self boxed in without an escape route/strategy. I'm not saying people are stupid. We all sink or swim together. We know what needs to be done, we just need to figure out a strategy to make it happen. Burying heads in the sand is not the answer.

EDIT:

I hope with the inclusion of that link your are not implying that the threat of climate change is some sort of religious belief. Don't go there.

No, lol.....I happened to stumble on the story after my post....and just added it for humor....I know you guys are more serious than that!!

[TerryM]

Wasn't there a study about the albedo change of the Greenland Glacier that showed us going from a -9 to a -2 in a very short span of years, and where 0 represented a tipping point before a 'runaway' situation ensued?

Can't locate the link, or recall the details.

[LocoAko]

Wasn't there a study about the albedo change of the Greenland Glacier that showed us going from a -9 to a -2 in a very short span of years, and where 0 represented a tipping point before a 'runaway' situation ensued?

Can't locate the link, or recall the details.

?

[TerryM]

http://www.americanw...__fromsearch__1

?

Thanks - That's the thread!

With Greenland's ice cap darkening at a measurable rate, whatever insolation that reaches it is being converted more efficiently into heat. If we reverted to temperatures that at one time allowed the ice sheet to remain in equilibrium, this would no longer be sufficient to stop the melt.

At present the cap is melting from increased heat atmospheric heat as well as by lower albedo induced internal heating, and the albedo is apparently being driven ever lower by the melt process itself. This feedback has to lead to an increasing rate of melt. - and that's if things do not get warmer.

If Arctic temperatures increase at anything like what we have experienced over that last few decades, the Greenland Ice Cap can not have a long future. - and even it temperatures remain as they are the feedback is already in place.

Terry