Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
It might be better to comment on what has been said rather than concoct hyperbole that has been "unsaid". This should be purely a scientific discussion not a political one. Unfortunately 'global warming' (or more correctly now 'climate change') has become a huge industry and if we look at how it is funded we find not big business but government money. Whoever is funding research has their own agenda and so future grants depend to a tangible extent on results produced. Let's take the IPCC figures from the fourth assessment report earlier this year. Their most recent measurement of sea level rise is 3.1mm/year. So if we take the upper limit of 1.4m quoted by Kristof this would take not 92 years but more than 450 years at the current rate and if you look at the previous measured rates, it is difficult to see how you could ever project the increase in rates to get the required average rate of 15mm/year. So somebody is seriously over-egging the pudding here. Talking about over-egging, it seems you took Kristof's 1.4m and added your own Brewster factor to make this up to 1.5m (that's another 32 years of our lives you added or threw away depending on how you look at it). What I find amazing is that some folks want to take an impossible worst-case scenario and then make it even worse. Even so, a 1.5m rise in sea level over 93 years would not be the end of civilization, as we know it, nor will it significantly impact our grandchildren?s lives, nor will it lead to starving masses.
Posted on: 2007/8/20 17:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
 
|
This is all part of my long term plan to turn New York into "the Venice of North America." I suggest you invest in gondolas.
Posted on: 2007/8/19 4:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
What's most amazing about global warming denyers isn't that they sound so much like tobacco shills denying that cigarettes are bad for you, it's that some of them are actually the same people and psuedoscience "institutes" touting corporate america's desire to keep doing the same old profitable but destructive crap. So now that the republican & corporate party line has given up on actually denying warming, their talking points are "it's not as bad as those silly scientists say". The unsaid part is "so keep lighting them up, burn that coal and line our pockets, we'll have lived out our wealthy privileged lives by the time the then completely irreversible process destroys the world of your grandchildren. Our grandchildren will be hereditary oligarchs who will retreat to their fortified compounds in Aspen, far from the drowning cities and starving masses".
Posted on: 2007/8/19 2:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
 
|
none of the computer models quoted here about sea levels rising take into account the possibility that FAB will be bathing in the ocean on a particular day or during certain phases of the moon. it is all flawed science.
Posted on: 2007/8/18 4:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I prefer not to get my science from op-ed pieces In case you missed the May edition of "Geophysical Research Letters," an article by five scientists has the backdrop. They analyze the extent of Arctic sea ice each summer since 1953. The computer models anticipated a loss of ice of 2.5 percent per decade, but the actual loss was 7.8 percent per decade ? three times greater. The article notes that the extent of summer ice melting is 30 years ahead of where the models predict. I assume the IPCC and others are updating their data all the time, so how do we ever get to be thirty years out of date. Makes no sense. The actual volume of melting floating ice is replaced by a similar volume of water so the melting of the arctic ice sheet is not very significant in terms of sea level changes; we should be looking at melting ice elsewhere. Science magazine reported in March that Antarctica and Greenland are both losing ice overall, about 125 billion metric tons a year between the two of them ? and the amount has accelerated over the last decade. To put that in context, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (the most unstable part of the frosty cloak over the southernmost continent) and Greenland together hold enough ice to raise global sea levels by 40 feet or so, although they would take hundreds of years to melt. We hope. Yes, they are mostly located in areas where the temperature is well below zero and will not be affected by a few degree rises in temperature over the next hundred years, so congratulations on getting that one right. The most significant increase in melting ice over the next few decades will come from the melting of mountain ice caps and glaciers With the effects of this and the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets I recently saw upper forecasts of 56cm rise in sea level by 2100. In January, Science reported that actual rises in sea level in recent years followed the uppermost limit of the range predicted by computer models of climate change ? meaning that past studies had understated the rise. As a result, the study found that the sea is likely to rise higher than most previous forecasts ? to between 50 centimeters and 1.4 meters by the year 2100 (and then continuing from there). This is nonsense. Forecasts have been revised both upwards and downwards since the 80's to the current day. Remember all computer models have a huge component of guesswork so you can pick and choose what result you want really although if you push the envelope too far you may be risking ridicule from your scientific peers. Hmmm, In the earlier paragraph Kristof was concerned about predictions being out by 300% as if that was a heinous crime but he doesn?t seem too concerned about quoting a prediction that allows for 300% error here. Science Express, the online edition of Science, reported last month that the world's several hundred thousand glaciers and small ice caps are thinning more quickly than people realized. "At the very least, our projections indicate that future sea-level rise maybe larger than anticipated," the article declared. Which also means it could be less than we anticipated and have to be revised downwards as they have been in the past. Quote:
In the short term flooding is much more likely due to freak weather conditions and inadequate drainage than it is due to increased sea levels And just remember that there are ~92.5 years to the end of the next century. A period of time that probably nobody reading this has experienced. So in human terms a very long time. Not only will we all be dead in 2100, but also most of our children and many children who havent even been born yet will have lived and died. So It's a long time, OK? But the trick is by saying that there will be an x increase in temperature/sea level by date y the alarmist can make it seem as though this all happened at once or in the blink of an eye. While we probably will not live long enough to see if these predictions for 2100 were correct, we might all live long enough to see if the current trends continue or are part of a natural cycle as has happened in the past that would make this all moot.
Posted on: 2007/8/18 4:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That may be overly optimistic. From Nicholas Kristof's NYTimes op-ed yesterday: In case you missed the May edition of ?Geophysical Research Letters,? an article by five scientists has the backdrop. They analyze the extent of Arctic sea ice each summer since 1953. The computer models anticipated a loss of ice of 2.5 percent per decade, but the actual loss was 7.8 percent per decade ? three times greater. The article notes that the extent of summer ice melting is 30 years ahead of where the models predict. Three other recent reports underscore that climate change seems to be occurring more quickly than computer models had anticipated: ? Science magazine reported in March that Antarctica and Greenland are both losing ice overall, about 125 billion metric tons a year between the two of them ? and the amount has accelerated over the last decade. To put that in context, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (the most unstable part of the frosty cloak over the southernmost continent) and Greenland together hold enough ice to raise global sea levels by 40 feet or so, although they would take hundreds of years to melt. We hope. ? In January, Science reported that actual rises in sea level in recent years followed the uppermost limit of the range predicted by computer models of climate change ? meaning that past studies had understated the rise. As a result, the study found that the sea is likely to rise higher than most previous forecasts ? to between 50 centimeters and 1.4 meters by the year 2100 (and then continuing from there). ? Science Express, the online edition of Science, reported last month that the world?s several hundred thousand glaciers and small ice caps are thinning more quickly than people realized. ?At the very least, our projections indicate that future sea-level rise maybe larger than anticipated,? the article declared. Checking out that interactive flooding map, the interesting one for us is a 6 meter surge, which is totally within expectations of a big storm. Also, it only takes 1m to put JFK out of commission.
Posted on: 2007/8/17 23:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I would not bet a single penny that our government will do ANYTHING to protect my property or well-being.
Not a single penny. Having said that, I enjoy living where I am living right now, and if the shyte hits the fan in the future, very likely I will be dead already. In the unlikely event that I will not be dead, I will be able to afford to just walk (or paddle) away from my submerged Port Lib condo. I'd worry if I had kids and estate wills, but I don't.
Posted on: 2007/8/17 22:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
You miss my point about our reactive govt. Sure they\'ll do it, but only after trillions of dollars are lost by a 20 foot storm surge inundating NY harbor and the entire \"Gold Coast\". This concerns me because my property and possessions will be in those trillions. And Federal Flood insurance only covers actual destruction of the structure, not your possessions.
Posted on: 2007/8/17 22:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Speaking of Venice-- Venice floods. Its also sinking. But the Italians, surprisingly, have not surrendered. Instead they are building a series of flood gates to project the city and control the rising tides.
Venice Tide Barrier Project http://www.icivilengineer.com/Big_Project_Watch/Venice/ http://www.salve.it/uk/news/f_news.htm New York Harbor and the surrounding land could easily be protected through flood gates between Perth Amboy-Staten Island, Staten Island-Brooklyn, and Westchester-Long Island. It wouldn't be cheap, but for now at least, we're the wealthiest nation on earth. I am not worried in the least.
Posted on: 2007/8/17 20:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Yeah, we have worried about this.
Here is a great world wide map to play with -- (adjustable) for sea level change but only goes by meters. Click here for MAP Most scientists are predicting is only .2 meter rise over the next 100 years, 2100 ( or just under 8 inches) but most predict only 4 inches or less. Click here for science article Click here for UN Predictions Also it is hard to believe this but the Arctic Sea level has been falling! Click here for BBC 1 And the Antartic Ice is growing. Click here for BBC 2 It is much more likely Downtown Jersey City, Manhattan and the boroughs will get really flooded by a nor'easter someday -- although there are some wacky people that think the government should try to nudge storms away from big cities ... Click here for Video Click here for wacky article Click here for Texas article Even if it was possible can you imagine the lawsuits from those that get hit. Hey, worse-case scenario we could market ourselves the new Venice. 
Posted on: 2007/8/17 20:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2005/11/18 10:02 Last Login : 2014/8/4 14:09 From Journal Square, duh!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
144
 |
Usually the "long term" changes happened over night. In The Netherlands there is a large swamp in the middle of the country, and it didn't grow in a thousand years. Actually it shrunk in the last 1000 years due to people's efforts, but otherwise it appeared over night where there were dry lands and some tens of thousands of people before.
Posted on: 2007/8/17 19:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
There are two different things at issue here. One is a long term rise in sea level, which effects all coastlines of the world equally, at the same time, over a long period of time. The other is a catastrophic, ephemeral event.
Posted on: 2007/8/17 19:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
I have a friend who works for the JCMUA and when I was recently thinking of buying a condo downtown he kept telling me , "make sure it is not on the ground floor". I firmly believe it will not be dealt with, until something like a new orleans tragedy were to happen here.
Posted on: 2007/8/17 18:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Rising sea levels are a slow process. Humans are quite adaptable. Given then that rising seas will be a century long process, it stands to reason society will be able to adapt to the changes. More importantly, the United States has the financial prowess to pay for the systems necessary to protect our shoreline. Locally, the value of real estate is astronomical, which means its commercially viable to protect the coastline.
Posted on: 2007/8/17 17:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2005/11/18 10:02 Last Login : 2014/8/4 14:09 From Journal Square, duh!
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
144
|
Quote:
Well, projects like this are usually with EU money. Most European pay large (and I mean large) taxes to the state instead of giving their money away to big box stores.
Posted on: 2007/8/17 17:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
there go the subways
Posted on: 2007/8/17 17:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The same thing happens every time - the government only acts after a crisis occurs - terrorism, Katrina, bridge collapse. My point is, don't expect the federal government or the city to do anything until after a major flooding event or sea rise occurs.
Posted on: 2007/8/17 12:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
"But the way the city gives the finger to the neighborhoods when it comes to sewers is a pointer of where it's going to go."
Brewster, you and Mrs B. aren't alone in having these conversations, I talk to myself about that often, especially during thunderstorms. That you point out that the neighborhoods (see above) are not being helped has occurred to me too. Maybe the city wants the historic districts gone - flood 'em out, declare buildings structurally compromised, screw 'em on compensation and turn all of JC below the Palisade into highrises - then we'll fix the sewers. Projects like the Lower Thames flood project and the work that The Netherlands has done are nationally and regionally run. The same would have to occur here, so maybe there is a chance for concern and competency and a sense of proaction. I used to live in a town that is considered to have one of the best flood prevention program in the US - Davenport, Iowa - know what they do?
Posted on: 2007/8/17 12:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42 Last Login : 2022/2/28 7:31 From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
4192
|
Think New Orleans and keep your flood insurance paid and up to date. You just have to ask yourself how my CENTURIES has flooding been a problem in JC/NJ and what the authories have done in that time to correct the problem!
I wonder if the Hudson river bank, is higher on the NY side then on NJ - who will get flooded first?
Posted on: 2007/8/17 10:06
|
|||
|
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Oceans rising: move to high ground?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
My wife and I had a serious discussion tonight about our investment and life in Downtown JC. We have always planned to keep this multifamily property as a paid off cash cow in our retirement. Every time the subject came up of rising sea levels and low lying real estate, I just said "we're not alone, there's many $billions in property here, and eventually something will be done to protect it" But the way the city gives the finger to the neighborhoods when it comes to sewers is a pointer of where it's going to go. A Downtowner now refers to her neighborhood as the "lower 9th ward", how long before her grim joke is no longer even ironic? But while a less corrupt city could fix the sewers, they couldn't touch the rising sea level problem.
I saw a prediction of 1.5 meters rise by century's end, and they're finding most of their models of melting icecaps are being outpaced by the actual melt. The Feds need to copy the Europeans and build gates on the Verrazzano Narrows and the East River to keep out storm surges and eventually just the high tide, but they won't spend those billions till trillions have been lost around the harbor to a flooding disaster.That's the way our country works now, reactively only. If only we lived in a parliamentary democracy we could start a new political faction, "the Dry Party" Maybe the next RE cycle will peak in 13 years after my kids graduate high school, and we'll look for some high ground.
Posted on: 2007/8/17 3:59
|
|||
|
||||