Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 06 May 2018, 08:31:43

thanks for that, ol.

The weird irony here is that the rich will ultimately be putting themselves in harms way. Even if they are building on slightly higher ground, their predictions about what will be safe for even the relatively near term are almost surely going to be...optimistic.

Sea level rise is likely to happen much more rapidly than most, even those who fully accept climate science and its sea level consequences, expect, especially along the US East Coast.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17593
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 06 May 2018, 08:45:51

that could definitely be true Dohboi. But, by then won"t other CC consequences already be causing harrowing effects. Such as crop failure. And certainly even more intense hurricanes will have made themselves felt. Would that scare away the rich from the coast? Or maybe extremely expensive or non existant insurance
coverage. One wonders what degree of stubborness some may showcase in ignoring SLR threat given the cumulative evidence.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9546
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 06 May 2018, 08:59:38

diemos wrote:
Tanada wrote:The rotation of the earth has been calculated to slow slightly if all the ice melts but the biggest implication is the equatorial bulge will distribute much of the melt water to the tropics. This will cause mean sea level rise in for example, Brazil or Indonesia to be about double what it is in Scotland, or Alaska. Now we are talking about 270 feet or so maximum average rise so an extra 20 feet in Brazil will not seem all that important and a 250 foot rise in Scotland will still be devastating.


Well now, this is actually an interesting question with a couple of things going on.

The melt water will distribute itself along the geoid, which is the surface of constant gravitational potential and will result in an even sea level rise around the earth.

But the movement of mass farther from the poles will decrease the rotation rate of the earth and that will cause the size of the bulge at the equator due to the centripetal acceleration to decrease. So some of the bulge will redistribute itself away from the equator and toward the poles.

The statement that most of the water will go to the equator is just geometry and is true even if sea level rise is the same everywhere.

Volume = dh 2 pi r cos(latitude) r dlatitude

where dh is the change in height
2 pi r cos(latitude) is the distance around the earth at that latitude
and r dlatitude is the north-south distance between two latitudes

so if dh is the same everywhere the amount of added water from 0 to 5.7 degrees latitude will be the same as the amount from 64.2 to 90 degrees latitude

And then we get into the question of how lost weight of the ice sheets will cause coastlines to rise leading to an apparent lessening of the sea level rise in some locations.



You also have to factor in the distortion to the gravitational constant of the regions effected. The massive ice sheets of Greenland and even more massive ones of Antarctica are just that, MASS. They extert a distortion effect on the gravitational field of the earth just like that caused by the Rocky Mountains or Tibetan Plateau however as those rock masses take about 300 million years to erode they are very stable influences. The ice mass however can redistribute to the ocean in a period of a millennia or five and when they do the gravitational distortion they cause regionally around Greenland and Antarctica are also redistributed. The well trained physics types have calculated the sea level change in Greenland from removing the mass of the ice sheet without adding the water to the sea total would be about 5 meters, almost enough to locally cancel out the melting effect raising sea level 7 meters. In Antarctica the numbers are even larger because the mass is about four to five times as great.

The sum total of this effect is hard to calculate because as you point out their will be isostatic crustal rebound as the ice is melted away, centripetal redistribution of more water mass to the equator and probably a half dozen other factors I have not mentioned or do not even know exist as a lay person interested in the topic.

Part of the problem is nearly all papers refer to global averages for things like sea level rise (or global warming) but I do not live just on the globe, I live in a specific region and the most important information is how these global averages will work out in my region, to me! I know that is selfish but my sum total gene pool for the last 10 or so generations is mostly in Western Europe and North America with some offshoots in Australia and other places heavily colonized by Western Europe plus a dash of non Europeans according to Ancestry DNA studies. It is not that I don't care what happens to the people in Bangladesh or Venezuela, I just care more about those I feel kinship with. We have a pretty good idea that here around the Great Lakes things will become warmer and wetter while Ireland and Great Britain will lose about half their land surface, maybe more, maybe less, and France will take a big hit as well as Germany but Denmark and Holland will for the most part cease to exist as geographical land regions. Should I feel worse about Bangladesh than I feel about Holland where I actually know some people who were exchange students in my Uni days? Ultimately they are all going to suffer because of where they live and the species as a whole would be infinitely better off if they were to move NOW to high ground taking all permanent structures with them. The low lands could still be maintained as crop and grazing land until they are lost, but relocate the people and buildings now! Of course people will not admit the likely outcome of the scientific consensus so nothing will be done. If I lived in Hamburg Germany or Boston Massachusetts I would probably resist the idea of relocating just as much as they do. KJ likes to put up a picture of future NYC with a huge dike surrounding it. Maybe that will happen, but who is going to pay for it? The cost of moving those people to higher ground and even physically moving the existing buildings deemed worth saving is incredibly less than building a 75 meter high flood wall and maintaining it indefinitely into the future.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14868
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 19 May 2018, 14:09:35

slr accelerated to 4.6 mm/year after 2010:

https://robertscribbler.com/2018/05/15/ ... fter-2010/
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17593
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 09 Jun 2018, 10:47:22

2017 Broke Records for Number of Flooded Days on U.S. Coasts

https://www.ecowatch.com/coastal-floodi ... 14503.html

... coastal high tide flooding in the U.S. will be up to 60 percent more frequent in 2018 than it was 20 years ago...
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17593
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 18 Jun 2018, 13:39:40

New study: Rising seas could wipe out $1 trillion worth of U.S. homes and businesses


Some 2.4 million American homes and businesses worth more than $1 trillion are at risk of “chronic inundation” by the end of the century, according to a report out Monday. That’s about 15 percent of all U.S. coastal real estate, or roughly as much built infrastructure as Houston and Los Angeles combined.

The sweeping new study from the Union of Concerned Scientists is the most comprehensive analysis of the risks posed by sea level rise to the United States coastal economy. Taken in context with the lack of action to match the scale of the problem, it describes a country plowing headlong into a flood-driven financial crisis of enormous scale.

“In contrast with previous housing market crashes, values of properties chronically inundated due to sea level rise are unlikely to recover and will only continue to go further underwater, literally and figuratively,” said Rachel Cleetus, an economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a report co-author, in a statement. “Many coastal communities will face declining property values as risk perceptions catch up with reality.”

The report defines chronic inundation as 26 flood events per year, or roughly one every other week — enough to “make normal routines impossible” and render the properties essentially worthless. It builds on the group’s previous work to identify the risk of chronic flooding under a sea-level-rise scenario of two meters (6.6 feet) by 2100...


https://grist.org/article/rising-seas-c ... usinesses/

And to localize it:

The dirty word in South Florida’s watery future: retreat


Even in the most modest scenarios, dealing with rising seas in the coming decades will be messy, complicated, and hugely expensive. Taxes will increase. Insurance rates will skyrocket. Lawsuits will proliferate. Salt water will corrode your car. Trees will die. New water-borne diseases will emerge. Biscayne Bay will go murky from the increased run-off and pollution. Racial and class tensions will arise over who gets protected from the flooding and who doesn’t.

So if you live in South Florida, you might ask yourself: Why stick around? And if you own a house or condo, you might think: Why not sell now, while there are plenty of buyers in the market and prices are high?

If you’re a city official in South Florida, this is your nightmare. Once people start to see Florida real estate not as an investment, but as a stranded asset, the real trouble begins. In Florida especially, where there is no sales tax, property taxes are vital to paying for basic services like police and fire departments and schools.

But local governments also need these revenues to pay for infrastructure improvements to defend against rising seas. If Floridians start moving to Asheville and foreign investors start shifting their investments to Costa Rica, property values will fall, which means there will be less money for cops and teachers, but also less money for raising roads and building sea walls.

As the water rises, quality of life declines, people leave. Those who are left behind tend to be poorer, sicker, more in need of services. It’s the kind of downward economic spiral that is very hard to pull out of.

https://www.theinvadingsea.com/2018/06/ ... e-retreat/
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17593
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 18 Jun 2018, 13:55:35

dohboi – No need to worry: according to the federal govt (HUD) very few if any of those homes will exist by the end of the century. And obviously those homes built 60 or 70 years from today won’t be sitting at the edge of those rising waters...let alone in them. IOW the value of the existing homes will be much closer to $0 then $1 trillion by then end of this century. From

http://www.mcgarryandmadsen.com/inspect ... house.html

“The average age of the housing stock in the United States has been increasing steadily over past few decades and, according to recent data from HUD’s American Housing Survey (AHS), the median age of an owner-occupied home has jumped upward from 23 years old in 1985 to 35 years old in 2011. Also, two out of five American houses are now more than 45 years old.”
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 18 Jun 2018, 17:44:49

Interesting stat. I’ve read the average lifespan of a USA commercial building is about 50 years, then they have outlived their purpose and are torn down and New built.

Our house is about 130.

I wonder what the average house lifespan is. Apparently that’s a tough question, 100 years on average, in Switzerland.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10951
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 18 Jun 2018, 18:04:01

A new apt building in Miami.

MUSEUM-QUALITY HALF & FULL-FLOOR RESIDENCES
IN DOWNTOWN MIAMI FROM $5.6M

http://1000museum.com/pages/
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10951
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby dissident » Mon 18 Jun 2018, 18:04:56

ROCKMAN wrote:dohboi – No need to worry: according to the federal govt (HUD) very few if any of those homes will exist by the end of the century. And obviously those homes built 60 or 70 years from today won’t be sitting at the edge of those rising waters...let alone in them. IOW the value of the existing homes will be much closer to $0 then $1 trillion by then end of this century. From

http://www.mcgarryandmadsen.com/inspect ... house.html

“The average age of the housing stock in the United States has been increasing steadily over past few decades and, according to recent data from HUD’s American Housing Survey (AHS), the median age of an owner-occupied home has jumped upward from 23 years old in 1985 to 35 years old in 2011. Also, two out of five American houses are now more than 45 years old.”


The issue is not the house, it is the property. Last time I checked in Canada and the USA you needed a private lot to put up a house. Houses get rebuilt on a routine basis on the same lot. So your $0 claim is utterly inane. Right now in Toronto, a 25' x 100' lot by itself goes for $700,000 Canadian. Submerged lots will be a very real financial loss.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5277
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby jawagord » Mon 18 Jun 2018, 22:41:02

dissident wrote:
The issue is not the house, it is the property. Last time I checked in Canada and the USA you needed a private lot to put up a house. Houses get rebuilt on a routine basis on the same lot. So your $0 claim is utterly inane. Right now in Toronto, a 25' x 100' lot by itself goes for $700,000 Canadian. Submerged lots will be a very real financial loss.


I think those $700,000 lots in Toronto sitting on Lake Ontario are safe from sea level rise! And for some unknown reason they're still buying swamp land condos in Miami, WTF??

Since 1979 we have been able to measure sea level itself with satellites. However, the accuracy of such measurements depends critically on such factors as the precise shape of the earth. While the satellites show slightly greater rates of sea level rise, the inaccuracy of the measurement renders the difference uncertain. What the proponents of alarm have done is to accept the tide gauge data until 1979, but assume that the satellite data is correct after that date, and that the difference in rates constitutes ‘acceleration.’ They then assume acceleration will continue leading to large sea level rises by the end of this century. It is hard to imagine that such illogical arguments would be tolerated in other fields.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/18/ ... d-lindzen/

And there’s more good news ahead. George Jalil, a Miami broker is quoted as sying that “Miami condo pending sales are up 13.6 percent, which indicates another strong month of sales on the horizon.”

Total Sales Volume up 18%
Total sales volume for all properties catapulted 17.8% , from $1.01 billion to $1.19 billion. Existing condo sales rose almost $155 million to $565.4 million (+40.8%). Stats show as well that there are more condos listed for sale at the end of April.

Hurricane Irma is history and the rebuild has been an economic shot in the arm. And given a strong economy, rising wages, and that Florida’s no tax status is still alive, buyers and investors are finding big value in buying Florida real estate. See the Housing Market in Florida 2018 report.

https://gordcollins.com/real-estate/mia ... -forecast/
jawagord
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 09:49:17

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 19 Jun 2018, 01:15:01

jawagord wrote:They then assume acceleration will continue leading to large sea level rises by the end of this century. It is hard to imagine that such illogical arguments would be tolerated in other fields.


If you have a process that is accelerating, it is illogical to assume it will suddenly stop.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21496
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby kiwichick » Tue 19 Jun 2018, 06:39:12

as average global temperature increases , more positive feedbacks start multiplying the effect of the initial temperature increase, therefore average temperature increases further......rinse and repeat.....

leading to accelerating sea level rise

Hansen's 5 metres by 2100 was working on the rate doubling every decade .....the amount of ice melting from Antarctica more than doubled in the last 5 years

and we are only at plus 1 degree C .....so far....
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2257
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 19 Jun 2018, 19:24:34

rockdoc123 wrote:As to you correcting me it would be interesting to see where you actually think you did that correctly


We've been discussing your claim that global sea level would rise by only ca. 30 cm by the year 2100, based on your bizarre idea that current rates of sea level rise won't increase over the next 80 years However, the latest numerical model --published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (link provided in my original post on this topic) projects sea level rise of more than 650 cm, or more than 20 times your number.

I've tried to explain to you multiple times that physical processes won't suddenly stop just because you don't understand them. The acceleration of sea level rise is mostly a function of increased ice loss from terrestrial glaciers and thermal expansion of the oceans. Both of these processes respond to continued global warming, which in turn is driven by greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere.

More greenhouse gas in the atmosphere every year = more global warming = more ice melt and thermal expansion of the oceans = continued acceleration of sea level rise.

Get it now?

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21496
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 19 Jun 2018, 20:22:06

We've been discussing your claim that global sea level would rise by ca. 30 cm by the year 2100, based on your bizarre idea that current rates of sea level rise won't increase over the next 80 years However, the latest numerical model


do I really need to quote what you said? Come on? What was being discussed was if the current rate of sea level rise continued for 82 years it would amount to 30 cm. Which is exactly true. Somehow you suggested that 3.5 mm per year times 9 years would add up to 30 cm. It's there for all to see, not once but twice so I'm not sure how you think you can dodge this one.

well I guess I'll do it anyway:

Your first post:

As I said, you can't do math, and as a result you make dumb mistakes post wildly inaccurate numbers. In this case you are so wrong it is absurd. The annual rate of sea level rise is now about 3.5 mm per year. That means there will be 30 cm of sea level rise in just 9 years.....not the 82 year you postulate. So now your math is wrong by a factor of 10.


and your second post:

Your just making a complete fool of yourself on this one.

Your claim it will take 82 years to generate 30 cm of sea level rise in year 2100 is moronic. Right now sea level is going up something like 3.3 to 3.5 mm per year. Do the math...its will take about 9 years to get ca. 30 cm of sea level rise.

Do you get it now: If so, then please man up and acknowledge your error.


based on your bizarre idea that current rates of sea level rise won't increase over the next 80 years


I didn't claim that, in fact the calculation that I showed was for Antarctica using the Shepherd et al, 2018 suggested acceleration and carrying it out to 2100. Still minimal additions to sea level. What I spoke to was if rate of global sea level rise continued (didn't say it would) at the current rate the calculation is easy (except apparently for you) and yields a number close to 30 cm (which it does). But apparently, you can't read any better than convert units.

I've tried to explain to you multiple times that physical processes won't suddenly stop just because you don't understand them. The acceleration of sea level rise is mostly a function of increased ice loss from terrestrial glaciers and thermal expansion of the oceans. Both of these processes respond to continued global warming, which in turn is driven by greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere.


OH give us all a break. I understand the processes and I read the papers (which you do not do). All you are doing here is trying to dodge and point somewhere else...oh look a squirrel. Do you actually think everyone here is that stupid?
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6115
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 19 Jun 2018, 23:06:55

rockdoc123 wrote:the current rate of sea level rise continued for 82 years it would amount to 30 cm.


Again, your assumption that the rate of sea level rise will magically stop increasing and stay at the current rate is totally illogical. The rate of sea level rise has been progressively increasing for over a century. The processes that are causing the rate of sea level rise to increase are well understood. Your suggestion that the rate of sea level rise will stop increasing and remain constant at current rates for another 82 years is just silly.

As I've explained to you several times now, this means that your prediction that sea level will rise by ca. 30 cm by the year 2100 is almost certainly wildly wrong. I suggest you check out the recent paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that I linked to above. This paper takes into account the increasing rate of sea level rise through time, and estimates sea level rise through 2100 will be more like 650 cm --- more then 20x your estimate.

Image
But rocdoc said sea level would only go up by 30 cm!


Cheers! :)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21496
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 10:23:14

jawagord wrote:They then assume acceleration will continue leading to large sea level rises by the end of this century. It is hard to imagine that such illogical arguments would be tolerated in other fields.

Your intuition is what is illogical, like the vast majority of the AGW denier arguments.

So let's pretend that there are no accelerating changes in nature, re your "other fields" argument.

So let's pretend that animal populations never rise or fall exponentially, due to environmental changes and feedback loops.

Let's pretend that change on earth generally isn't accelerating rapidly in MANY areas such as technology, culture, etc.

Let's pretend that the changes that end the life of a large star don't occur on an accelerating time scale.

And on and on.

For the umpteenth time, denier arguments re "it's hard to imagine", i.e. your limited intuition finds it hard to imagine, are in ANY WAY a valid criticism of the science.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby onlooker » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 10:34:32

Yes. This exponential acceleration has been ascertained by Science as well as it can especially due to the fact that it has happened already on Earth. Which makes it pretty convincing
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9546
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Sea Level Rise Pt. 2

Unread postby Cog » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 11:00:28

What was the sea level change last year and for the past ten years? To speculate on meter rises when millimeter rises are actually occurring is simply ludicrous doomerism.
User avatar
Cog
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10742
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: When will the mass dieoff begin? Pt. 3

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 11:06:40

Again, your assumption that the rate of sea level rise will magically stop increasing and stay at the current rate is totally illogical. The rate of sea level rise has been progressively increasing for over a century. The processes that are causing the rate of sea level rise to increase are well understood. Your suggestion that the rate of sea level rise will stop increasing and remain constant at current rates for another 82 years is just silly.

As I've explained to you several times now, this means that your prediction that sea level will rise by ca. 30 cm by the year 2100 is almost certainly wildly wrong. I suggest you check out the recent paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that I linked to above. This paper takes into account the increasing rate of sea level rise through time, and estimates sea level rise through 2100 will be more like 650 cm --- more then 20x your estimate.


How many times does one have to post your stupidity?
I never claimed sea level would stay at any given rate. What I said was IF it were to stay at the current rate the total contribution by 2100 was a measely 30 cm, not that it would stay at that rate. And as I said I already took into account acceleration in Antarctica when I quoted the 117 mm contribution by 2100.

And you are completely making up the idea that somehow you were arguing 30 cm wasn't the right number because there would be acceleration. That wasn't what you said at all, for crying out loud I just posted your quotes. Are you now claiming you never said that? That somehow these quotes weren't yours? They are there for anyone who wants to see them. Are you claiming now that you did not say that 3.3 mm per year current sea level rise would not result in 30 cm in 9 years time?
What kind of moron does that?

Do you honestly think everyone here doesn't see through your BS? Give it a break and stop digging yourself deeper.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6115
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests