With the new research on global warming, what will coastal cities & coastlines look like

[Wesley_Clark]

Antarctica is melting faster than expected, and climate change has been hidden due to Chinese pollution.

The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse.

So what does that mean for coastal cities or the coastline? And what timeline would that be?

[CC]

When you find someone who can accurately predict the future, be sure to let him get your investments in order while you’re at it.

[Wesley_Clark]

My money is invested in survival seeds and authentic photographs of Jesus so I’m already set.

[Ulfreida]

interactive map

[GIGObuster]

@Wesley_Clark

Antarctica is melting faster than expected, and climate change has been hidden due to Chinese pollution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/

So what does that mean for coastal cities or the coastline? And what timeline would that be?

Based on the science published, Science Writer Peter Hadfield already reported on the most likely outcome: between 0.8 and 2.0 meters of ocean rise by the end of the century.

Mind you, those were the conservative estimates that did not look much to the accelerated loss of cap ice noticed recently, it is very likely then that the ocean rise by the end of the century will be worse.
There were studies already made just on the costs that the coastal cities will have to face with the new conservative estimates that now point at close to 0.8 of an increase by the mid century..

Floods May Cost Coastal Cities $60 Billion a Year by 2050 | Climate Central

A Nature Climate Change study published Sunday found that costs could rise dramatically if nothing is done to account for rising seas and subsiding land. Assuming sea levels rise 15.75 inches above today’s heights by 2050 and subsidence from human development continues, the study found that losses from flooding in 136 of the world’s coastal port cities could near $1 trillion annually by 2050.

The estimate of 15.75 inches is within the range of probable sea level rise scenarios according to a 2012 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report.

However, if $1 trillion in annual losses sounds implausible, that’s because it basically is. “To get to $1 trillion, we have to basically have places which are destroyed every two years and are rebuilt again and again,” Stéphane Hallegatte, a senior economist at the World Bank and lead author of the study, said. “It’s not a realistic scenario; it just shows it’s impossible to have a scenario that we do nothing.”

Implementing an arsenal of adaptation measures could cut those costs to between $60 billion and $63 billion annually by 2050. In comparison, the study estimated annual average losses from coastal flooding to be $6 billion in 2005.

Of the projected losses in 2050, $52 billion is due to economic and population growth. The other $8 to $11 billion is due to sea level rise and land use change. The reason for the range is the study also factored in a slightly more optimistic sea level rise scenario of only 7.9 inches by 2050.

Well, I’m afraid it is possible to have an scenario were we do nothing, fortunately there is a lot of efforts seen coming from industry and other governments to do something about it. But one thing that I do see coming from the ones that think that nothing will happen is to also think that the industries causing the issue should not be made to pay for the costs that will happen to the coastal cities alone.

[Squink]

@Wesley_Clark

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/

Das TottenGlacier ist tot?

[jezzaOZ]

Last I heard Global Warming had been abandoned in Favour of Climate Change and now Climate Disruption.

However one thing is certain, low lying coral atolls and reefs won’t be drowned. Coral atolls are remarkably good at growing with sea level change. So much so that the hundreds of metres of sea level rise after the last ice-age were matched precisely by the growth of the atolls.

An interesting factoid is that the world’s largest coral reef, The Great Barrier Reef, is only about 5000 years old. It came about in the very late stages of sea-level rise after the last ice-age.

[MrDibble]

@jezzaOZ

Coral atolls are remarkably good at growing with sea level change.

Only if the corals themselves are healthy and aren’t, say, suffering one of the other effects of rising ocean temperatures…

[septimus]

@Ulfreida

interactive map

That map shows that even a 1-meter rise will lead to a large sea just to the west of Interstate-5 near Lodi, Northern California. (Is that just unproductive marshland now?) I suppose a dam across the Carquinez Strait would be almost impossible?

[GIGObuster]

@jezzaOZ

Last I heard Global Warming had been abandoned in Favour of Climate Change and now Climate Disruption.

Uh, no.

Global warming vs climate change

So to sum up, although the terms are used interchangeably because they are causally related, ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ refer to different physical phenomena. The term ‘climate change’ has been used frequently in the scientific literature for many decades, and the usage of both terms has increased over the past 40 years. Moreover, since the planet continues to warm, there is no reason to change the terminology. Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term ‘climate change’ is less frightening to the general public than ‘global warming’. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth “they changed the name from global warming to climate change”.

Watch the video at the end, it is very informative to show how the sources of information that you use are not reliable.

As for the corals, **MrDibble **already has it.

[LSLGuy]

@GIGObuster

… Well, I’m afraid it is possible to have an scenario were we do nothing, fortunately there is a lot of efforts seen coming from industry and other governments to do something about it. But one thing that I do see coming from the ones that think that nothing will happen is to also think that the industries causing the issue should not be made to pay for the costs that will happen to the coastal cities alone.

I think what the previous article meant by “do nothing” is that there’s no scenario where we won’t be stuck paying to rebuild, remediate, or relocate. IOW, there’s no scenario which is cost- and disruption-free. No mater how much the naysayers wish there was.

[Ethilrist]

@septimus

That map shows that even a 1-meter rise will lead to a large sea just to the west of Interstate-5 near Lodi, Northern California. (Is that just unproductive marshland now?) I suppose a dam across the Carquinez Strait would be almost impossible?

Rather than being unproductive marshland, it’s heavily-irrigated farmland. Once the seas rise a meter or two, it’ll go back to being saltwater marsh; I can’t imagine they’d build a levee/dam in time to keep it from flooding; California’s not wired that way. A few meters of sea level rise is going to hose significant parts of the Bay Area: loss of farmland, freeways flooded, both international airports underwater, fresh water supply to San Francisco will be flooded. Ironic, considering that they’re facing a drought…

ETA: And the Netherlands says “Oh, boo hoo…”