Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

The main causes of sea-level rise in the last 100 years are the thermal expansion of seawater due to ocean warming (thermostatic rise) and the increase in water volume due to melting of ice on land (eustatic rise).
Other causes, such as volume increase due to a reduction in salinity (halosteric rise) or water supply from land reservoirs or precipitation play a lesser role.

Greenland's ice wasn't in the ocean before but the water behind the dykes.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

What the Trump administration should do each time it cancels such a policy is to put out information about how the public and industry/business can achieve the same or better standards of environmental care by voluntary best practices.

perhaps when pigs fly. Weve had huuuge industries spend billions on phony reearch that concluded that smoking IS NOT harmful to our health. Were you born yet???

Market forces are the only forces that will stick to the wall.

1 Reply

In Manila and San Francisco, Rising Seas Are a Crisis Right Now

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The order of magnitude is very different. The amount of ice melting in the ocean far exceeds the amount of water pumped out from low areas reclaimed from the sea.

So how much can existing coastlines be extended artificially before they start causing problems for other coastlines that are not artificially protected?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
What the Trump administration should do each time it cancels such a policy is to put out information about how the public and industry/business can achieve the same or better standards of environmental care by voluntary best practices.

perhaps when pigs fly. Weve had huuuge industries spend billions on phony reearch that concluded that smoking IS NOT harmful to our health. Were you born yet???

Market forces are the only forces that will stick to the wall.

You're implying that Democrat regimes are less biased by business interests.

I don't believe that. I think they scapegoat the GOP because it allows gullible people to pretend like the Democrats aren't biased in favor of not only maintaining industrial consumer economies at current levels but growing them to include ever-more people globally.

Yes, they support innovations to reform industrialism/consumerism that will supposedly achieve sustainability, but I think that is the same kind of greenwashing that tobacco companies do when they come out with filtered cigarettes that make people feel like they can go on smoking at the same rate without it making them sick/dead.

1 Reply

Just a reminder.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQsdPdMUwAAa-Na?format=jpg&name=900x900

0 Replies

@livinglava,

where did I anything that fingered the GOP alone??? Dont be naive. Both sides have plenty of guilt to wear.Ill point out when GOP or Dems have to take the blame.

Coal in PaWAS a huuge moneymakr . It was supported by both parties. Now fracking was predominantly a DEM initiative and its just as baad. We are but a few of the states that have a "rape an ruin" attitude via fracking and that was started by Ed Rendell, the DEM governor

0 Replies

@squinney,

"If the screamin won't get your attention, what will?

Who said it could be fixed in a day? But, we might want to start somewhere. "

The problem is those environmentalists don’t seem to be serious about what they claim to be a catastrophic problem. One way for them to demonstrate their concern would be to call for the abolition jet air travel that is something that would not affect the little people of this country much but have a major impact on the elites.

Of course, this couldn’t apply to the military since national defense is paramount. But other than the military all aviation would switch to propeller-driven aircraft. Prop aircraft fly at a slower speed and lower altitude but produce less carbon and produce it closer to the ground not in the upper atmosphere.

But this would mean rich environmentalist elites could not fly their highly polluting gas-guzzling jets to environmental conferences. But if they are serious let it be a first step and a sign of goodwill.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

So how much can existing coastlines be extended artificially before they start causing problems for other coastlines that are not artificially protected?

I won't calculate it but I would guessestimate that hundreds of km square of land reclamation from the sea would need to take place to make the sea level rize in any discernable manner. This is a non-issue.

More important is the question: where, when and how should we move coastal cities uphill, and when and how to protect them with dikes, or raise their level in situ.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I won't calculate it but I would guessestimate that hundreds of km square of land reclamation from the sea would need to take place to make the sea level rize in any discernable manner. This is a non-issue.

The North Sea, to give an example from my closer surroundings, is today a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ocean - in former times it was sometimes land, sometimes flooded and even sometimes a brackish water lake.

The earliest indications of dyke building date from the late Iron Age: during excavations of terps in the Frisian villages of Peins and Dongjum, among others, dyke bodies were found.

The Asega-bôk (Frisian lawbook, oldest known version from ore-1300, the "First Riustring Manuscript" [Erste Rüstringer Handschrift) includes laws from the much older "Lex Frisionum" [first written down around the year 790] mentions the various punishment regarding destroying of dykes and terps.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Unfortunately, the Times wants me to subscribe before I can read that. Could you copy a summary paragraph to the thread?

1 Reply

Never mind, I found this:

https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/02/14/20/in-manila-and-san-francisco-rising-seas-are-a-crisis-right-now

0 Replies

@Setanta,

It's quite a long report, but in short: the rising sea underscores the missteps of the past in the Bay Area and Manila - the planning for the future would be either fortifying their flood defences, restoring wetlands, or making people move.

Related to that report: The Antarctica Factor: model uncertainties reveal upcoming sea level risk

Quote:

Over the long-term, the Antarctic ice sheet has the potential to raise sea level by tens of meters. "What we know for certain," says Levermann, "is that not stopping to burn coal, oil and gas will drive up the risks for coastal metropolises from New York to Mumbai, Hamburg or Shanghai."

3 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

A Dutch government scientist from the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research thinks that giant dams enclosing the North Sea could protect millions from rising waters: dams between Scotland, Norway, France and England would be "a possible solution" to problem of sea-level rising.

Quote:

If climate change is left unmitigated the construction of a 637 km long Northern European Enclosure Dam (NEED) might be the most viable solution to protect Northern Europe against sea level rise.

Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research: A dam right across the North Sea

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society: NEED - The Northern European Enclosure Dam for if climate change mitigation fails

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

What would be the cost of a sea wall around Flordia to keep it from sinking into the sea. And would the republicans be willing to foot the bill in order to preserve its elderly voting base?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
So how much can existing coastlines be extended artificially before they start causing problems for other coastlines that are not artificially protected?

I won't calculate it but I would guessestimate that hundreds of km square of land reclamation from the sea would need to take place to make the sea level rize in any discernable manner. This is a non-issue.

More important is the question: where, when and how should we move coastal cities uphill, and when and how to protect them with dikes, or raise their level in situ.

Everything has to be evaluated in terms of scaleable sustainability over millennia. We can't assume that human development patterns that occur in the present will not continue growing for 1000s of years into the future.

We have to be able to forecast the future tectonic plate movements, what mountain ranges and continents will grow and which will shrink and how the shape of the ocean floor will change over time.

Then we have to make our developments and infrastructure fit within the natural processes of the planet, at all levels.

Humans have to get beyond the assumption that we can just build whatever we want and keep nature out. The Dutch were on the right path back when they used wind for shipping and milling, but I don't think damming the rising oceans are going to work as a solution for long-term sustainability.

Maybe there is a case to be made for it as a stop-gap measure until broader global sustainability is achieved. I'm just asking for transparency regarding any negative effects of such large engineering projects.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Entire nations are threatened, Bangladesh being prominent. The nation wouldn't be flooded entirely, but they'd lose almost all of their farmland. Many parts of England and France would be awash, too. Most of Florida would be gone, and island nations all over the world could be inundated. It's happening a lot faster than was thought, even ten years ago.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Entire nations are threatened, Bangladesh being prominent. The nation wouldn't be flooded entirely, but they'd lose almost all of their farmland. Many parts of England and France would be awash, too. Most of Florida would be gone, and island nations all over the world could be inundated. It's happening a lot faster than was thought, even ten years ago.

You realize by saying this, you are basically advocating paying taxes to the Dutch to build sea walls around all these threatened areas to protect them? Sea walls are a major/expensive export product.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Sea walls are a major/expensive export product.

Really? From where did you get this?

(If you want to look at the latest published data: Nederland Handelsland 2019

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

The problem is that the sea levels will rise steadily for centuries, possibly up to five or ten meters ultimately, so any dam or dyke solution will be temporary. It will buy you a few decades or maybe a century before the thing collapses.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know