It's unfortunate to see that denial works even at this stage of economic impact.
The Siege of Miami
11–20 of 24 posts
Re: The Siege of Miami
#12[deleted]
Re: The Siege of Miami
#13I'd like to check this statement from the article: "'Many geologists, we’re looking at the possibility of a ten-to-thirty-foot range [of sea-level rise] by the end of the century,' he told me." I have not seen any published figure that high.
I've actually been rather surprised at how LOW many predictions of sea-level rise are for the century ending in the year 2100. The United States Environmental Protection Agency writes,[1] "Since 1870, global sea level has risen by about 7.5 inches. Estimates of future sea level rise vary for different regions, but global sea level for the next century is expected to rise at a greater rate than during the past 50 years. Studies project global sea level to rise by another 1 to 4 feet by 2100, with an uncertainty range of 0.66 to 6.6 feet." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change document on sea level rise[2] projects a lot of uncertainty, but doesn't seem to predict such major changes in sea level.
[1] http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html#sealev...
[2] https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf
Re: The Siege of Miami
#14So, basically, we should restructure our entire economy so some multi-millionaire's luxury vehicle and lawn won't flood on an island? Or ... spend hundreds of billions to save a wealthy municipality hundreds of millions?
As the article says, this is a much bigger problem than just Miami.
> Globally, it’s estimated that a hundred million people live within three feet of mean high tide and another hundred million or so live within six feet of it. Hundreds of millions more live in areas likely to be affected by increasingly destructive storm surges.
Re: The Siege of Miami
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Syria is bad because of their location, and the interest of major powers. Unfortunately, unless China and/or India take an interest, Bangladesh lacks the money or military power to do anything to disrupt the rest of the World. We can sit back and ignore them dying, and I'm afraid that's what we'll do.
Can't the people migrate or try to? That's a large part of what forced the Syrian issue.
It's going to suck for India. Otherwise they're kind of boxed in by the south-east Asian jungles and the Himalayas.
Re: The Siege of Miami
#16So, basically, we should restructure our entire economy so some multi-millionaire's luxury vehicle and lawn won't flood on an island? Or ... spend hundreds of billions to save a wealthy municipality hundreds of millions?
It's one thing when Miami Beach gets flooded. As you said, it's a small wealthy suburb, and it can afford to protect itself against rising sea levels. On the other hand, the entire country of Bangladesh isn't much farther out of the water than Miami Beach. If you think the instability in Syria is bad now, what will happen when a country with literally ten times as many people becomes uninhabitable?
Syria is bad because of cultural and political issues mainly.
Re: The Siege of Miami
#17I'd like to check this statement from the article: "'Many geologists, we’re looking at the possibility of a ten-to-thirty-foot range [of sea-level rise] by the end of the century,' he told me." I have not seen any published figure that high. I've actually been rather surprised at how LOW many predictions of sea-level rise are for the century ending in the year 2100. The United States Environmental Protection Agency w…
I think you have a good point about the generally-accepted ranges for sea level rise being smaller than the figure Wanless mentions.
The thing that has people worried is that the mass losses from glaciers are large, not well-accounted for, and they could accelerate. (The sea level rise from volume increases due to temperature rise of the oceans are much smaller and much easier to account for.)
Looking carefully at the IPCC summary (your [2]), it seems that 1m is the current top of the likely range for rise by 2100, even including possible loss of Greenland and the Antarctic glaciers.
Here's a sample of the reactions to a recent, high-profile paper that put forward a 3m rise by 2100: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150721-james-hans...
Re: The Siege of Miami
#18I'd like to check this statement from the article: "'Many geologists, we’re looking at the possibility of a ten-to-thirty-foot range [of sea-level rise] by the end of the century,' he told me." I have not seen any published figure that high. I've actually been rather surprised at how LOW many predictions of sea-level rise are for the century ending in the year 2100. The United States Environmental Protection Agency w…
I think you have a good point about the generally-accepted ranges for sea level rise being smaller than the figure Wanless mentions. The thing that has people worried is that the mass losses from glaciers are large, not well-accounted for, and they could accelerate. (The sea level rise from volume increases due to temperature rise of the oceans are much smaller and much easier to account for.) Looking carefully at th…
The fundamental problem is that iceberg collapse usually follows an exponential model, but as with all exponential formulas, a small change in the constants yields humongous differences in the long run.
Re: The Siege of Miami
#19There's also the issue of Floridians pumping fresh water out of a very porous aquifer that then fills with salt water and erodes the bedrock even more. Most of Florida is sinking.
Re: The Siege of Miami
#20If this happens during a high tide... what happens when a storm comes? I'm not talking about 10+ feet from a hurricane... just a moderate gale should produce a couple feet on top of high tide, and wouldn't that just be the end of things?
I remember having the same general thought when I was in Miami beach...