Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 272 posts

Re: Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First

#251

Post by irrational »

Scarblac wrote: post #238
irrational wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would a giant sea wall work? No. Miami (and pretty much all of South Florida) sits on top of a sand bar on top of porous limestone rock. The ocean will just come up through the limestone rock and through the sand no matter how tall your sea wall is.

Is that also true if the wall is say 5 km wide? (as some plans for the Netherlands propose).

Of course. The sea doesn't care how wide or tall the wall is. It will just go under it no problem. If the wall were put deep into the ground until it hit bedrock (a quick google search indicates the wall would have to go down at least 20,000 feet), then the water could not get through. But I imagine at that point it would be cheaper to move the entire city.

The Netherlands has a completely different geology, so plans for one place can't be compared with plans for the other.

Re: Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First

#252

Post by supertrope »

psychometry wrote: post #22
erentz wrote: post #3

I’ve never understood how the parts of the country most affected by sea level rise have been so vociferously against it being real. When the BP spill happened and they had all the local mayors and politicians crying about the damage to their coast, I couldn’t understand why no one had the cajones to ask them why they cared so much about their coast being damaged now, when they were completely fine with it being gone…

I think there's been a brain drain happening in a lot of red states in recent decades. The educated people who have the ability and will to leave often do, leaving behind an increasingly ignorant population. It's coincidental that this same geographic region will be most affected by sea level rise, although nowhere on earth will be immune to the effects of climate change.

It's mostly a flight to jobs in cities. A counterpoint is blue metro areas in red states (e.g. Texas, Kansas City, North Carolina)

Re: Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First

#253

Post by jerdimus »

credit_guy wrote: post #236
wizardforhire wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenland is melting. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...

Check this out for real time data about the Greenland ice mass budget. (Spoiler: Greenland is not melting) https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-shee...

You are right, it's not losing mass through melting.

But it is losing mass when iceberg calving is accounted for.

"Over the year, it snows more than it melts, but calving of icebergs also adds to the total mass budget of the ice sheet. Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr."

Edit: And i thought this article on the scale of a gigaton of water was interesting as well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...

Re: Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First

#255

Post by akiselev »

Timmah wrote: post #250
akiselev wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The National Interagency Fire Center stats for fire suppression costs paint a completely different picture [1]. While the total number of fires has decreased by about 10-20% since 1985, the size of the fires in acres and the amount of money spent has skyrocketed. The annual average from 1985 to 1989 is ~2.9 million acres while from 2013-2017 the average was over twice that at ~6.7 million acres. Furthermore, inflatio…

The increasing cost of a service has nothing to do with climate change. The cost of everything has gone up since 1985.

According to Google, after adjusting for inflation, the average price of a new car in 1985 was $21-28k in today's dollars, and the average new car costs $30-40k today. The price of a Big mac: $1.17 in 1985, $3.50 today. Gasoline: $1.50-2/gal, today: $3-4/gal.

We now spend over 5 times as much on fire suppression at the federal level than we did 30 years ago after adjusting for inflation. This growth outpaces cost of living, healthcare, and inflation significantly.

Re: Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First

#256

Post by hfdgiutdryg »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #206
hfdgiutdryg wrote: post #147

The idea that it's 2018 and we don't have solar powered desalination plants for some of our largest, sunny, water-limited southern cities boggles my mind. Los Angeles has a nuclear plant just to the north, but no desalination, and more sun than anyone wants. It's insane.

It’s still a really expensive way to get drinking water.

It's cheaper than having your economy collapse when the aquifers empty, and it's only going to get cheaper if money is invested in it.

Re: Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First

#257

Post by scarejunba »

martinpw wrote: post #195
Analemma_ wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They absolutely are. 99 Percent Invisible recently did an episode about the Outer Banks islands in North Carolina, which would be eroding naturally anyway even without sea level rise because they are barrier islands, which are always impermanent. Interviews with the residents there made it clear that they feel that a) there is no problem and b) if there is a problem, they are entitled to unlimited government funds fo…

Same in LA: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-del-mar-sea-leve... Herb Montgomery and his wife, Janet, have lived in Del Mar's low-lying Beach Colony just east of Camino Del Mar for 20 years. He knows the ocean is creeping closer to his property and he says the city has an obligation to protect his home, valued at $3.2 million, from the rising waters Things are going to get ugly down the road.

Haha, this is pretty clever. They’re going to make every other taxpayer subsidize projects for the rich. I only regret I’m not brazen enough to eat my fellow man like that.

Re: Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First

#258

Post by nikdaheratik »

fabricexpert wrote: post #80

This article is kind of infuriating. Just bring the facts up and talk about them, instead of describing people. I think this is one of the more critical parts (along with the stuff about water supply getting contaminated): > Barring a stupendous reversal in greenhouse gas emissions, the rising Atlantic will cover much of Miami by the end of this century. The economic effects will be devastating: Zillow Inc. estimates…

Well one of the issues is that no one knows what the sea level rise will be in Miami in 100 years but we do know that the average rise won't necessarily be evenly distributed. Also that geology and geography are against the city in those respects (as they are against Venice, or New Orleans).

And the point of the article isn't strictly limited to global sea rise, but rather the multiple issues facing Miami's water supply due to its history of development, the fact that most of its freshwater comes from underground sources, and its geography. I didn't find the article to be either misleading or "fluff" though it isn't something that would be helpful to a geologist or someone who is already familiar with alot of this already.

Your point about the title is also misleading since, in nearly all news outfits, the editor picks the title not the author. To me, the main story the article is trying to tell isn't "the city is drowning", but rather that if you're considering investing in Muni-bonds for Miami (as a typical Bloomberg subscriber might), then you need to do more research compared to other cities as there are alot of issues under the surface. The same probably goes for real estate and other development (also typical subscribers to Bloomberg).

Re: Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First

#259

Post by nikdaheratik »

adameast9000 wrote: post #164
slg wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure it is reasonable for every article about the effects of climate change to start with the evidence that climate change is real. If you come to this article from the angle of "climate change is a myth", a single article from Bloomberg was never going to be the turning point in your belief anyway.

I think it would be better for the writer to provide specific evidence for the specific pretext. You don't need to convince me that climate change is real, but climate change is a general term. I'd rather see some evidence backing up the sea level increase in Miami claim.

Which claim exactly are you taking issue with? If you're going to be pedantic, you need to also be specific, otherwise you're basically asking for some kind of blanket trigger warning about climate change.

The article itself did not focus on making predictions on global warming. The title, while a bit sensationalised, is not wholly inaccurate and was probably picked by the editor not the writer. The other two claims that I could find were about the potential damage of a six-foot sea level rise, which was probably accurate even if it didn't list out the likelihood of such a rise, and the article by the Union of Concerned Scientists which made a claim about the likelihood of increased flooding that seemed reasonable to me.

Re: Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First

#260

Post by nikdaheratik »

lakechfoma wrote: post #154
slg wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure it is reasonable for every article about the effects of climate change to start with the evidence that climate change is real. If you come to this article from the angle of "climate change is a myth", a single article from Bloomberg was never going to be the turning point in your belief anyway.

Probably not but I think GPs point is that if the rhetoric of the article was different and better data included then stuff like this would be harder to tear up and dismiss. This happens on both sides on all issues.

I think most of the people making this criticism are misunderstanding both the intended audience for the article and the point the writer was trying to make. The article was focused on problems Miami will likely be facing in the next 40 years due to rising sea levels and their pattern of development over the past 50 years.

It is not trying to make the case for/against global warming to a non-scientific audience. It is trying to make the case against bullish development in S. Florida to investors who subscribe to Bloomberg. The point is basically, "Even if these guys don't end up under the ocean in 50 years, they're still going to have to pay more in taxes and water rates just to keep the city afloat"

Post reply on HN