[dohboi]

Good points about reduced flood plains, dol. We saw a lot of the results of that in action earlier this year in southern England.

People have pointed out that at this point we have to prepare for the GW that we know is coming our way.

But mostly not only are we busily making global warming worse with higher and higher emissions every year;

not only have we also mostly not preparing for the broken world we have created through those unabated emissions;

we have also in many areas made our settlement patterns more vulnerable to the devastating effects of GW that are now starting to rain down, so to speak, around our heads.

From overbuilding and limiting floodplains, to overbuilding too close to coasts, to creating buildings that are unlivable without massive energy inputs to heat and (especially) cool them...

we have been digging our own and our children's graves in enormous, elaborate and ingenious ways.

[Strummer]

If this is so, then many parts of western Europe are in trouble due to the developments along most of the rivers here have reduced flood plains to the point now that most of them would overflow into nearby towns at the first hint of above average rainfall.

Not neccesarily. The 2013 Danube flood, which was among the largest in recorded history, caused much less damage than expected due to the wide-scale preparations commisioned after the 2002 floods.

There were some towns which were completely overwhelmed, like Passau in Germany, but that was mostly due to their unfortunate geography and impossibility of building proper counter-measures.

[dolanbaker]

If this is so, then many parts of western Europe are in trouble due to the developments along most of the rivers here have reduced flood plains to the point now that most of them would overflow into nearby towns at the first hint of above average rainfall.

Not neccesarily. The 2013 Danube flood, which was among the largest in recorded history, caused much less damage than expected due to the wide-scale preparations commisioned after the 2002 floods.

There were some towns which were completely overwhelmed, like Passau in Germany, but that was mostly due to their unfortunate geography and impossibility of building proper counter-measures.

The point that I was making and proven by the photo is that expensive flood defence measures are needed to protect some towns but not all can be saved.

[dohboi]

And it looks like just a foot higher or so and even those impressive walls would be breached. And of course it only takes one boat or one largish tree ramming into them with the right force and the right place to punch a hole in it--only one hole needed to flood the whole town.

That does look pretty impressive, though.

[Strummer]

And it looks like just a foot higher or so and even those impressive walls would be breached.

Nah

And of course it only takes one boat or one largish tree ramming into them with the right force and the right place to punch a hole in it--only one hole needed to flood the whole town.

These walls have been deployed in many cities along the Danube and nothing like that happened. The flow on the river edges even during such flood is too calm to ram the floating trees agains the walls with any substatial force, and there's a complex monitoring system in place to prevent eventual damage by ships (by sinking the loose ship if necessary).

We'll see what the following years will bring, but 2013 was really impressive when it comes to damage mitigation. One of the problems is that the whole river has to be protected this way, across multiple countries, because the walls amplify the flooding downstream.

[BobInget]

US feds spent zilch on Climate Change preparation.

WE did spend 29 billion on a fence to keep out Mexican farm workers.

For the second year in a row it doesn't look good for Mt Ashland Skiing.
(southern Oregon, 5,400' elevation)

"Due to the recent rain and warmer temperatures, Mt. Ashland will not be open until the return of cooler weather and significant snowfall. We will keep you posted on our operating plan. Thank you and Happy Holidays".

WE, in Southern Or are getting plenty of warm rain. No snow pack to speak of.

[dohboi]

"These walls have been deployed in many cities along the Danube and nothing like that happened."

Good to hear. Hope that record holds.

"One of the problems is that the whole river has to be protected this way, across multiple countries, because the walls amplify the flooding downstream."

That's exactly the problem with these efforts--it pushes the problem down stream, so they have to build even taller and stronger walls than they would have if the river could have expanded into more floodplains upstream.

Good point about the skewed priorities when it comes to wall building in the US, Bob.

[GHung]

"We've built walls and huge pumps all around the city and New Orleans has never flooded like that since."


"Manhatten has the most expensive infrastucture in the world and has never flooded in modern times."

[dohboi]

For nearly every effect of GW, there will be ways that the human infrastructure made it worse (rarely better). And so there will always be those who will be able to point to these shortcomings and claim that these are the true causes.

[ROCKMAN]

Wetter, warmer and prone to flooding. So, world, welcome to my bit of the universe in S La. LOL. Just had that discussion with a Cajun coworker: it's always damp, rains a lot and occasionally floods. Too much? So move. BTW Cajuns and Creoles don't tend to move. And when we do we'll still visit often.

Unfortunately most of the third world won't have that option.

[Alaska_geo]

Wetter, warmer and prone to flooding. So, world, welcome to my bit of the universe in S La. LOL. Just had that discussion with a Cajun coworker: it's always damp, rains a lot and occasionally floods. Too much? So move. BTW Cajuns and Creoles don't tend to move. And when we do we'll still visit often.

Unfortunately most of the third world won't have that option.

It's easy to be flippant about it Rock, but given the well documented continuing coastal loss in Louisiana a lot of your Cajun buds will have little choice but to move, whether they want too or not.

[dohboi]

Well put, Alaska_geo, and welcome to the fray!

[ROCKMAN]

Alaska - "...but given the well documented continuing coastal loss in Louisiana a lot of your Cajun buds will have little choice but to move, whether they want too or not.". Not being flippant. You might want to get your head out of your butt for a few minutes and do a little online research on Gulf Coast subsidence. The coastal areas of S La. have been slipping under the waves for millions of years...very "well documented continuing coast loss". It's why we build houses on stilts in the swamp: the relative sea level is going to rise even with no AGW. Folks in my part of the world knew and accepted that reality many, many generations ago and dealt with it.

As I pointed out we came to terms with Mother Earth long ago and are able to adjust. And those that didn't care to deal with the inevitable moved away. But, as I non-flippantly pointed out, many in the world especially in the poorest regions won't have that option. And in their case they can't blame nature and Mother for their problem so it should rightfully sting a bit worse.

[dissident]

I hear lots of talk about adapting to changing climate conditions. This is an ignorant frame of thinking usually from delayers or deniers who assume that changes will be small amplitude and nothing will be pushed beyond its tolerance limits. So somehow we are supposed to feed ourselves even though we will lose agricultural land (as a productive system for crops). Well, we'll eat seaweed. Right.

Actual small perturbations in local climate conditions have destroyed previous civilizations routinely. For example the Maya. There other examples but it is routine to invoke the usual comfortable reasons:

http://environment.yale.edu/envy/storie ... -collapse/

We are headed for a climate perturbation that humanity has not experienced since the last deglaciation episode. That is, before civilization. Before humans started to rely on agriculture for survival. Do not think for one second that humanity can simply go back to the nomadic period. We have destroyed the flora and fauna that supported that lifestyle. And only a few percent of the humans alive today could be sustained by such a lifestyle assuming the conditions were there.

Of course, we will find a techno fix. Like we have found one all the times before. LOL.

[kiwichick]

@ diss.......+1

Agriculture is highly susceptible to changes in climate; having lived in inland Australia my partner (dairy farmer) and I have seen how as little as 100 mm rain over the growing period for a crop (say barley or wheat or oats ) can mean the difference between getting a grain crop or having to just make it into silage or hay , and the having to wear the financial loss

but most agricultural regions are similar in that relatively small increases or decreases in rainfall/ temperature can be devastating.

[Synapsid]

Alaska_geo,

Good to see you again. You'll know not to let ROCKMAN get under your skin, if you're from the old TOD. He gets proprietary when people who don't live in conditions of grotesquely high humidity, bloodsucking insects, and fattening food have the audacity to comment on the region he hails from.

He's very informative, and courteous, most of the time.

And: anything you have to say about oil and NG in Alaska would be very welcome to this reader. Sneak it in to an appropriate thread, or, better yet, start your own.

[ralfy]

Alaska - "...but given the well documented continuing coastal loss in Louisiana a lot of your Cajun buds will have little choice but to move, whether they want too or not.". Not being flippant. You might want to get your head out of your butt for a few minutes and do a little online research on Gulf Coast subsidence. The coastal areas of S La. have been slipping under the waves for millions of years...very "well documented continuing coast loss". It's why we build houses on stilts in the swamp: the relative sea level is going to rise even with no AGW. Folks in my part of the world knew and accepted that reality many, many generations ago and dealt with it.

As I pointed out we came to terms with Mother Earth long ago and are able to adjust. And those that didn't care to deal with the inevitable moved away. But, as I non-flippantly pointed out, many in the world especially in the poorest regions won't have that option. And in their case they can't blame nature and Mother for their problem so it should rightfully sting a bit worse.

Conditions now are a lot different, i.e., with the current middle class counting on an expanding consumer market in the Third World to maintain its own living standards, a far larger global population, environmental damage on a significant scale, and multiple effects of global warming coupled with other crises, such as peak oil and increasing debt.

[Alaska_geo]

Alaska_geo,

Good to see you again. You'll know not to let ROCKMAN get under your skin, if you're from the old TOD. He gets proprietary when people who don't live in conditions of grotesquely high humidity, bloodsucking insects, and fattening food have the audacity to comment on the region he hails from.

He's very informative, and courteous, most of the time.

And: anything you have to say about oil and NG in Alaska would be very welcome to this reader. Sneak it in to an appropriate thread, or, better yet, start your own.

No worries. I've had a few discussions with Rockman over the years back on TOD. He gets grumpy when anyone calls BS on him.

Rock is correct that the Gulf Coast has been subsiding since long before people came on the scene. However, he conveniently forgets some other key factors. That subsidence creates what geologists call "accommodation space". Meanwhile, the mighty Mississippi has also been delivering vast quantities of sediments to the delta. In the past, those sediments to varying degrees filled in that accommodation space, hence offsetting much of that subsidence. But for the last hundred years or so we have been modifying the river flow with levies, dredging, etc, in order to improve navigation on the river. The problem is that this is causing much of that sediment coming down the river to be deposited further offshore in deeper water, rather than being deposited in and around the wetlands. Thus there is much less deposition to offset and balance out the subsidence.

A second big factor is, of course, sea level rise due to melting ice. While that is only a few millimeters a year, it is increasing. And a few millimeters a year adds up over a few decades. When you live virtually at sea level to start with, even a small sea level rise makes a big difference. And there is every indication that the rate of sea level rise will increase.

While less clear, changes in storm patterns will probably also play an increasing role as time goes on. I recently finished a fascinating book about hurricane Sandy called "Storm Surge" by Adam Sobel. He is a highly regarded climate scientist at Columbia. A guy who actually knows something about how weather and climate works, as opposed to geologists like Rock and I, who like to pretend we know something about climate. What I found interesting in the book is Sobel's take on what climate change means for the future of hurricanes. Interestingly, he says current research say that a warming climate may in fact lead to fewer hurricanes. However, those that do occur may be much more powerful. In other words, not as many total hurricanes, but a much higher percentage of Cat 4 or 5 storms. This is very interesting from a geologic perspective. Geologists of mine and Rockman's vintage were raised to worship the gospel of "Uniformitarianism". That is very tiny changes happening over a very long time frame. But modern sedimentology is showing that much of the geologic record is the result of much more intense, but less frequent events. One really big storm may in fact have more effect on the geologic record than hundreds of years of less intense weather.

Taken together, changes in sedimentation at the mouth of the Mississippi, together with accelerating sea level rise, possibly with effects of more powerful hurricanes does not bode well for the Cajun homeland.

When things calm down after the holidays, I may try to start a thread about North Slope Gas. In the meantime, I will leave you with what I saw on a bumper sticker:

"North Slope Gas is the fuel of the furture! (And always will be.)"

[basil_hayden]

Uniformitarianism's cousin is catastrophism. They work together at rates we can't perceive, so we make them two different things. Diss's post above is another example of that - we're currently living the exception not the rule, and it's likely that this uniform period that allowed the birth of 7 billion or so humans will be punctuated with some catastrophe. But that still doesn't make it anthropogenic, nor unsurvivable by the species. Stuff happens, we adapt.

Same as it ever was.

[dohboi]

"doesn't make it anthropogenic"

Just (slightly) curious--which dots do you find so hard to connect?

--The absorption spectrum of CO2 (established over 100 years ago and now basic physics)?
--The fact that we have dumped some trillion tons of extra CO2 into the atmosphere and continue to do so at an increasing rate (most recently about 37 billion tons per year) mostly by burning ffs?
--The fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen some 40% since before the industrial revolution and continue to rise at accelerating rates (now at about 400ppm)?
--The fact that global average temperatures have increased by nearly a degree C from pre-industrial levels (recently re-re-confirmed yet again by the BEST study)?

The other 'dot' more directly relevant to this thread is that, on a planet mostly covered by water, any increase in average global temperature is also going to result in an increase in average global atmospheric water vapor levels, which we have seen--about 6% increase so far. Is that one particularly difficult for you?