How do you react to dire predictions of rising ocean levels and flooded coastlines?

Here is a list of largest cities by population.

Each of the top 10 are on the coast. They are fucked.

ETA; except Moscow.

Not to mention the political issue that humans aren’t very motivated to engage in extremely intense efforts to alleviate slow moving long term problems at the best of times. And even if/when the problem becomes fast-moving enough to inspire such efforts, those affected will be too devastated to afford to do what is required and those unaffected may be wealthy but won’t be motivated to make the effort.

Well, I live in the Netherlands. As a matter of fact, I already live roughly 10-12 feet below sea level.

The Netherlands has contingency plans for what to do when the sea level rises. They have already designated “sacrificial zones” – areas of the country that will be allowed to be flooded if it becomes impossible to keep the sea at bay, concentrating the available means into protecting more easily defended zones in other areas, in order to preserve as much of the population, industries and agriculture of the “RandStad” as possible (the “Randstad” is an area of the Netherlands where 60% of the population lives and basically all of the industry is located).

The evacuation plans are already drawn and ready to use at a moment’s notice. Roughly 15% of the population of the country would require relocation to other areas (~2,500,000 people). The main problem for the Netherlands is not just that the sea level could rise, but that the land itself is definitely sinking.

The “Delta Works” are a network of sea barriers (both fixed and mobile), dikes and other measures that protect the South of the country from the sea (the project was begun in reaction to the catastrophic floods of 1953, and took roughly 40 years to complete – the first structures were built in 1958, and the last piece in the network was finished in 1997). The works were calculated to withstand floods that happen once per millenium, on average.

However, in recent years they have been working to make the sea barriers in the Delta Works higher. Given the expertise of Dutch engineers in that respect, I very much doubt that they miscalculated the height of a once-per-millenium flood in 1970.

At some point it will become too expensive to keep the sea away. At that point the plans to sacrifice a good portion of the country will come into play. Will I see it with my own eyes? I have no idea. But at least I can be comforted with the thought that I currently live in a country that has experience dealing with an invading sea.

Edit to add: Oh, also – I forgot to mention that the Dutch have developed floating neighborhoods, and quite a few already live in boats… I guess that they are preparing for every eventuality!

Thank you Stranger - we can always rely on you for a deep answer.

The poster-child for flooding is Bangladesh. This nation in poverty already experiences deaths in the tens of thousands from flooding every monsoon season. But the poor in their millions have no place to go. They really are the damned.

The effect on First World countries of the sea level rise is trivial by comparison. The US has vast areas of land - virtually the entire continent - to withdraw to. Try living on a Pacific island with no money. Which is standard across the Pacific.

The risk is not just flooding from rising sea-levels, it’s about the total effects of climate change on agriculture and the less-developed societies that depend on it, whose governments and social systems may well not be resilient to cope and adapt. If you think the first world has a problem responding to migratory pressures from crime and conflict, well, this could be much, much worse.

Not only are governments and people unwilling and unlikely to prepare for a future event (and some are heavily invested in not believing in, anyway), but the events are likely to catch them unawares.

Sandy gave us an early taste of coastal flooding. not only the oceans, but rivers reached historic highs. New York City subways flooded. The Hudson rose and drowned out businesses well upstream of the ocean. My home town in New Jersey – many miles inland – experienced higher river flood levels than ever recorded, ruining entire neighborhoods and businesses. So did other nearby towns. It wasn’t just along the seashore that such things occurred.

So if people think of sea level rise as a gradual process that will slowly creep up, and that can be protected against, a nit at a time – Uh-Uh. Along with the gradual rise will be occasional dramatic storms and catastrophes that will have a much greater impact than they would have had in the absence of a sea level rise. And it’s not going to affect areas just a few inches above mean high tide, but will, however briefly, inundate areas feet above that tide level.
Have a look at one of those websites showing the effect of a couple of feet rise in sealevel. A lot of things built on landfill will go under. Lower Manhattan, a lot of Brooklyn, Boston’s Back Bay, coastal areas of San Francisco, and most of Washington DC (which is basically built in a swamp) will be subject to intermittent flooding long before mean sealevel rises that high.
There’s a High Water Line Project that has been drawing contours marking where the shore will be with a few feet rise in cities like Miami, New York, Philadelphia, and London. Mami’s got a lot of coverage:

How Far Will Sea Levels Rise? In Miami, They Drew Lines On The Pavement To Find Out | The Weather Channel!

Three feet! That’s wher it’s supposed to be (by some predictions) by 2100. But it’ll flood over those lines well before then.

In northern Europe land is still rising because it was pressed so hard during ice age: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sweden-the-land-of-the-rising-coastline-8373787.html

So easiest option is to move on the coast of the Baltic sea, sit on your porch, open a beer and relax.

I’m in agreeement; you can already see some examples of similar projects from about 1900 forward in the Galveston area, after the 1900 Storm, which to this day, remains the most devastating natural disaster to ever befall the United States, with an estimated 10,000 out of 38,000 inhabitants killed, and a majority of the city destroyed.

In the aftermath, they built a 17 foot seawall on the Gulf side of the city, and (get this!) raised the entire city to match- jacked up buildings and pumped fill underneath, block by block, until the entire city was roughly at the seawall level (it actually slopes downward toward the bay some)

Ever since, no storm surge has topped the seawall significantly- the flooding damage in Ike was due to rising sea levels in general, not storm surge waves overtopping the seawall. That’s why Galveston had flood damage without major structural damage, and the adjacent Bolivar peninsula communities, without a seawall, were utterly destroyed. Similarly, inland a few miles, the cities of Texas City (with 5% of the nation’s refining capacity) and La Marque were protected by a levee system engineered to withstand a 15 foot storm surge. Other than a couple of weeks without power, nothing major happened during Ike there (my grandmother lives there and waited the storm out).

I can’t imagine that something similar won’t happen in threatened areas around the world as the sea levels rise, especially if there is a lot of money threatened.

Flooding in Binghamton NY I the wake of Tropical Storm Lee in 2011 significantly overtopped the flood walls around the Susquehanna River when the water rose above expected levels, The historically high waters inundated a huge area, effectively destroying many major businesses. The walls were high enough in some places (like around the hospital, fortunately), but it was a devastating hit.

Flood walls might not be any help if the water surges higher than you expect.

That is what I do expect too, but there is a tiny, insignificant problem. [Sarcasm]

One party in the USA is even denying that this will be a problem in the future, meaning that even more expenses will take place. And even if we get lucky and most people finally understand that the weakest link is related to how they vote the big problem will be: Who pays for all that?

The problem with relying on “optimism in human ingenuity” to solve the problem later is it gives justification for not doing what we can do today to limit the degree of the problem, e.g. developing and shifting our fuel and energy production infrastructure to reduced carbon and sustainable renewable modes. We could be developing alternatives to petrocarbon fuels and coal, but we’re only doing so at a very low level. California had a pilot program back in the 'Nineties of methanol-based commuter vehicles and fueling stations that was very successful; despite the low energy content of methanol, the thermodynamic efficiency gains were giving comparable mpg to gasoline engines, and this was with cars originally designed to burn gasoline. DME production could potentially replace diesel and CNG applications as a fuel with fungible production methods ranging from natural gas reduction to synthesis directly from CO[SUB]2[/SUB] (assuming some kind of cost-effective sequestration process), and yet, the US is doing almost no research in the area.s (China, which is very cognizant of its dependence on foreign oil to fuel its economic developing, is investing heavily in DME and other synfuel research.) We won’t stop using petrofuels today, but we could be working toward a phase out of most fossil fuel sources in the next two decades and achieving a near carbon neutral infrastructure soon thereafter.

Yes, I read your link. Their full scale system would remediate the equivalent CO[SUB]2[/SUB] per day as emitted by 100 cars over a year. That’s remediation of 36,500 car-years of CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. Given the approximate 253 million cars in the US alone, that means they would need to operate about 7,000 separate facilities, all powered by…what? Even if the system is workable, which is yet to be demonstrated, it is not a magic bean.

Stranger

It will make it easier to visit the Oregon Coast.

More knowledge must be gained before any action is taken, like knowing the difference between three feet and three metres.

I suppose you think that because you’re Australian.

This is really an absurd and ignorant view. When scientists (as opposed to idiots who just form opinions based on shit they read) talk about rising sea levels, they aren’t talking about just causing a nuisance to people who have summer beach homes along the Jersey Shore. They are talking about major cities, most of which are along the coast, becoming inundated to the point where they are unlivable. How is the population of New York, Seattle, Boston, New Orleans, Washington, DC., all of Florida going to just suddenly (or even slowly) “up and move inland”?

And that’s just the US.

As to “when” it’s happening, the answer to that is “now”. We have already seen a preview of what will happen with New Orleans after Katrina and New York after Sandy. That’s 2 events in a ten year period.
It’s not an “opportunity” for the same reason breaking all the windows in your home isn’t an economic opportunity. Yes, it provides work for the window maker, but you could have used that money to buy something new instead of replacing something you broke.

I’m just being pragmatic. Assuming the scientific predictions and maps of the projected flooding are accurate. The cities on the coast will have to be abandoned. Either that or their inhabitants will die after the flooding begins.

Fortunately the interior of the US has a declining population. Small towns have been losing population and dying for decades. My hometown is one of them. The interior could absorb the coastal population. Entire metropolitan cities could be built. Sure it would come at a massive cost. Lives will be massively disrupted and It might even bankrupt the US. But what choice is there?

Look at the maps. Some cities are already considered beyond saving. They will be flooded. The only question is when. Many more get added to the list in the next few decades.

Maybe the science is wrong. Maybe these predictions are crap. I wouldn’t stake my life on it.

Right now is the time for our leaders to seriously look at this and make long range plans.

A 2-3 metre rise will mean I’ll be in a beach front suburb instead of 25km from the coast.:smiley:

The majority of the world’s population does not live in the United States, and there are many people living in low laying areas who have neither the means or the freedom to spontaneously relocate.

Do you have any sense at all that there is an entire world beyond your daily existence?

Stranger

My focus is on my own country and my fellow countrymen. Leaders in other countries can figure out their own solutions.

Heck, we’re talking about events many decades from now. There is time to start planning. Study the science first. Is it wrong? Is it only partially right? Pin down more precisely the extant of the flooding. Then make plans and implement them gradually. Obviously focusing on cities that will flood first.

Ideally it should be addressed at a global level. But somehow, I doubt the world’s leaders will do that. I’m not even sure my own government will do anything until we lose the first city.

This is for future generations to solve. We’ll all be dead in 80 years anyhow. Its our grandkid’s problem.

My personal canary in the coal mine is when the US, EU, Japan etc start seriously talking about building a lot of new nuclear power plants AND they are being pushed by the various green organizations to do so, who are screaming for the things and have a full court press on to get the public behind the idea THEN I’ll really think we are fucked. Sadly, it will take until we are fucked until any of that happens. In the mean time, it will be the same old same old…folks on the AGW side will talk about solar and wind and how we need to cut back our emissions all the while dancing around why we don’t do nuclear when it’s clearly the only choice available today to seriously address this issue, while the denier types will basically be in the ‘don’t worry, be happy’ category and most everyone else will be on the fence, not really knowing what to think of all the smoke and fury…all the while, the clock is ticking.

What do I plan to do? I plan to be dead in the next 20-30 years max, and I live in New Mexico, so it’s doubtful I’ll live to see the really bad shit, and unlikely I’ll be directly affected in any case (except perhaps by nastier droughts…I’d be REALLY worried if I lived in Arizona where I think a water crisis is a’commin’…). The only tangible down side I see in my lifetime is going to be higher and higher taxes to pay for the various disasters, and all the hot air being blown about as we vacillate on this issue for the next 20-30 years. I do expect technology to make strides to mitigate things. There will most likely be a paradigm shift in personal transport in the next 10-20 years, assuming the price of oil starts going back up again (which I’d guess is a good bet). I expect solar and wind to continue to make strides, though I don’t expect either of them to have the scale we really need. I hope fusion comes about, but not holding my breath on that score. Maybe it will make a difference. :frowning:

The science will never be so clear that those disinterested in hearing what they don’t want to hear will accept it. Action should be taken before that point.