Global Warming, Rising Seas, and Solutions

[Berzerker]

And no, keeping our atmospheric pollution limited to "natural" parameters is not an option... Please do not even argue for that fantasy as a solution, this thread is about how we prevent the flooding of coastlines all over the world - or not, maybe we just build sea walls and move inland when needed.

Fortunately we wont see the kind of sudden "biblical" flooding that happened as the ice age was ending. But I for one welcome a world that is both warmer and wetter with less ice, especially since lengthy and far more deadly cold snaps are inevitable given climate records.

More ice is gonna melt and seas will rise if we continue down this road... Obviously Greenland will be the main source given its proximity to the N Atlantic and warmer waters. During a "natural" period ~125 kya large chunks of Florida were under water, that'll happen again as the ice sheet on Greenland melts.

Solve our problem!

Who knows what'll work, maybe someone can invent something to turn our pollution "whiter" or we just paint everything white.

Since I've advocated for several ways of dealing with this in past threads I'd like to see what other people can come up with...

 

[Silurian]

As I said in the past thread sea walls and retreat are the cheapest way.

But they will cost $ks per m of defence.

 

[Arwon]

Why only rising seas and not all the other ecological, economic and social consequences of athropogenic climate change?

 

[tokala]

Because there it's very very certain what will happen, the only question is how fast?
Other facets of climate change are much more complicated.

 

[Arwon]

I'm not even sure that "rising sea levels" are even one of the more disastrous or difficult consequences, when you consider:

-increased frequency of severe weather events (in Australia, more drought and bushfires, also more intense flooding when it does occur in La Niña years)
-large-scale refugee migrations
-major damage to agriculture due to shifting temperature and rainfall patterns
-shifting disease patterns
-the economic and social consequences from all the above disruptions to business as usual

But you know, let's deceive ourselves that "build seawalls" is the be-all and end-all of adaptation.

 

[Murky]

One problem with just relocating people inland is that it would make them vulnerable to other disasters that would likely result from climate change. I think we need to make our coasts more resilient where possible. Raise flood-walls. Stop construction in areas that are most likely to be flooded in the future. Have an exit strategy so that people can be evacuated in an orderly fashion. Have disaster teams prepared in advance. Have disaster funding available to help out. There's probably lots more but it should be studied further.

 

[Silurian]

As I noted in the other thread storing the water inland would be a problem.

The trouble is you are going to need a large area.

The USA produces about 18% of the CO2.

If the oceans of the world were to rise by 1m and 18% of that were stored in the USA the whole country would have to be covered to an average depth of 6m. Alternatively Kansas could be surrounded in one massive dam and flooded to an average depth of 285m.

It will be cheaper to raise the sea walls by 1m around cities and other valuable areas and retreat from others.

 

[Berzerker]

Why only rising seas and not all the other ecological, economic and social consequences of athropogenic climate change?

As stated in the OP, this thread is about how we prevent the flooding of coastlines all over the world. I for one welcome a world that is both warmer and wetter with less ice, especially since lengthy and far more deadly cold snaps are inevitable given climate records.

Thats why

And frankly I think the AGW crowd is if they think the world is better off with most of the freshwater locked up in ice and civilization on the brink of freezing if nature takes another dip in temperatures.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

During a "natural" period ~125 kya large chunks of Florida were under water, that'll happen again as the ice sheet on Greenland melts.

Solve our problem!

Mullet and jort land being underwater is bad because...?

 

[Berzerker]

As I noted in the other thread storing the water inland would be a problem.

meanwhile the Dead Sea is drying up



It'll be cheaper to unroll tinfoil in orbit

maybe

 

[Murky]

And frankly I think the AGW crowd is if they think the world is better off with most of the freshwater locked up in ice and civilization on the brink of freezing if nature takes another dip in temperatures.

We're not due for another Ice for a long time. No need to worry about a deep freeze yet.
see Real Climate: The Global Cooling Myth

The problem is not a warmer/wetter world. The problem is a rapidly warming world. Most of the ice scientists are worried about is land ice. When it melts you get more flooding and sea level rise. Also, the slow melting of mountain glaciers provides drinking water to a large portion of the population. What happens when those glaciers disappear?

A rapidly wetter world isn't good either. More inland flooding is bad for business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Thailand_floods

 

[Core Imposter]

Even if this sort of outcome manifests, obv. nothing will be done in advance nor will governments cooperate in large scale projects. Migration is what you will see.

 

[BasketCase]

Half of San Francisco is already built on land claimed from the ocean.

Seems to me humans have already solved the problem.

 

[Silurian]

meanwhile the Dead Sea is drying up



It'll be cheaper to unroll tinfoil in orbit

maybe

Are you proposing that the US invade Israel and Jordan and flood the Jordan valley up to sea level. You know that would flood the whole valley nearly to Lebanon.

From Wiki

The river drops rapidly in a 75 kilometre run to swampy Lake Hula, which is slightly above sea level. Exiting the lake, it drops much more in 25 kilometres to the Sea of Galilee. The last section has less gradient, and the river meanders before entering the Dead Sea, about 422 metres below sea level, which has no outlet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_River

 

[Arwon]

And frankly I think the AGW crowd is if they think the world is better off with most of the freshwater locked up in ice and civilization on the brink of freezing if nature takes another dip in temperatures.

What an odd thing to say.

 

[Synobun]

Best thing Humanity can do is further its technology to allow themselves to cope with the changes that will come at a much more rapid speed than naturally. Renewable energy, less dependence on oil, more efficient technology, etc. There is no point in trying to play God over this planet, so all you can really do is try to adapt as best you can.

 

[Arwon]

"play God"?

 

[Cutlass]

As stated in the OP, this thread is about how we prevent the flooding of coastlines all over the world. I for one welcome a world that is both warmer and wetter with less ice, especially since lengthy and far more deadly cold snaps are inevitable given climate records.

Thats why

And frankly I think the AGW crowd is if they think the world is better off with most of the freshwater locked up in ice and civilization on the brink of freezing if nature takes another dip in temperatures.

There is no risk of an ice age in the foreseeable future. As it no risk at all. It's not going to happen. So you warm the world, you destroy trillions of dollars of property, you force the relocation of a couple billion people, and for all of that you get the grand benefit of less fresh water available for human use.

The human races loses in every single respect.

 

[Berzerker]

We're not due for another Ice for a long time. No need to worry about a deep freeze yet.

The problem is not a warmer/wetter world. The problem is a rapidly warming world. Most of the ice scientists are worried about is land ice. When it melts you get more flooding and sea level rise. Also, the slow melting of mountain glaciers provides drinking water to a large portion of the population. What happens when those glaciers disappear?

A rapidly wetter world isn't good either. More inland flooding is bad for business.

More inland flooding enriches soil depleted by farming, but if an increase in volcanic activity can trigger a little ice age I see no reason why a similar increase in activity would not cool us off. Combined with decreasing upper latitude insolation and solar output, it might be our ghgs that ward off a disaster. Glaciers dont supply much water, the mountains that create the glaciers also create the rivers.

Are you proposing that the US invade Israel and Jordan and flood the Jordan valley up to sea level. You know that would flood the whole valley nearly to Lebanon.

Yeah, thats what I'm proposing.

There is no risk of an ice age in the foreseeable future. As it no risk at all. It's not going to happen. So you warm the world, you destroy trillions of dollars of property, you force the relocation of a couple billion people, and for all of that you get the grand benefit of less fresh water available for human use.

The human races loses in every single respect.

How does the melting of ice result in less fresh water?

So what is your solution?

Thats what I'm looking for, solutions...

 

[Cutlass]

How does the melting of ice result in less fresh water?

How many times do we have to go over this? You melt Greenland and Antarctica, you get salt water, not fresh. You raise the ocean level, you destroy coastal fresh ground water by salt contamination. So you get less fresh water. You have more violent storms, and you have more floods that wash the water down to the ocean, and you have less fresh water as the aquifers do not get replenished. You get more desertification, as heat bakes the water out of the ground and plants. You destroy forests, and the ground can contain less water, so you have more rushing to the oceans, and less where people can use it.

No one has ever presented a warming scenario that I have ever seen where warming means anything other than less water for human use.

So what is your solution?

Thats what I'm looking for, solutions...

The costs of controlling greenhouse gases is trivial compared to the costs of living with global warming.