Slashdot Mirror
Sea Level Rise in the SF Bay Area Just Got a Lot More Dire (wired.com)
An anonymous reader writes: San Francisco Bay Area residents have long been aware of the threat that sea level rise poses to their coastal existence -- but things suddenly look a lot more serious. A new study examines the simultaneous phenomena of rising sea levels and subsiding coastal land, and as Wired reports, the situation is pretty dire. Models that factor in just sea level rise predict that at least 20 square miles could be underwater by 2100. Once you add in subsiding land, that jumps to nearly 50 square miles, and could get as bad as 165 square miles. Or, put another way, by the end of the century, half of the runways and taxiways at San Francisco Airport could be submerged.
The study found that most of the Bay's coastline is sinking at a rate of less than 2 millimeters a year -- and while that may not sound like a lot, the millimeters can add up fast. "You talk to someone about, 'Oh the land is going down a millimeter a year,' and that can be kind of unimpressive," says William Hammond, a researcher at the University of Nevada Reno who studies subsidence (but was not involved in this particular project). "But we know as scientists that these motions, especially if they come from plate tectonics, that they are relentless and they will never stop, at least as long as we're alive on this planet."
The study found that most of the Bay's coastline is sinking at a rate of less than 2 millimeters a year -- and while that may not sound like a lot, the millimeters can add up fast. "You talk to someone about, 'Oh the land is going down a millimeter a year,' and that can be kind of unimpressive," says William Hammond, a researcher at the University of Nevada Reno who studies subsidence (but was not involved in this particular project). "But we know as scientists that these motions, especially if they come from plate tectonics, that they are relentless and they will never stop, at least as long as we're alive on this planet."
How will rising sea levels kill millions? These changes don't happen overnight and can be countered with dykes and pumps. However, increased temperatures increase storm frequency and intensity and these may lead to much larger storm surges. This is what may kill millions. Rising sea level change is just a drop in the bucket in comparison.
Also, how will you 'solve' climate change? Do you really think reducing CO2 output will be enough? I live in the Netherlands, we have been building massive fortifications against storm surges for the past 50 years. I suggest other countries that are at risk will do the same. Betting on magically solving climate change (which may or may not be possible) might work, but increased water barriers will definitely work.
No worries - just turn in your SUV and pay higher taxes (oh - and I'm sure giving up your guns will help too somehow) and all these problems are as good as solved.
How will rising sea levels kill millions? ... However, increased temperatures increase storm frequency and intensity and these may lead to much larger storm surges. This is what may kill millions.
I think you answered your own question.
Do you really think reducing CO2 output will be enough?
No I do not. 30 year ago it could have been enough, but there is too much CO2/Methane/etc in the atmosphere already. We are going to have to cut greenhouse gasses significantly, and we will have to build fortifications at every costal city. Even that will not be enough.
SFO airport is indeed at sea level-- it's right on the bay. But you can build runways up if you need to; it's not hard.
No, it's not hard. It's just costly.
Enjoy your $20 runway surcharge tacked on to every flight in and out of that airport. And don't think for a second that cost burden won't be shared.
The American way of life is doomed. It cannot continue as it is. We've passed the tipping point of recovery.
One side here wants to do everything we can to mitigate the problems associated with the change and make as painless as possible.
The other side just ignores it, calls it a Liberal Hoax or Chinese Hoax, thinks if there is a problem but so what it's natural and Jesus will save us. In the meantime life and business as usual. The shock they will experience will devastate them.
Plan for the worst; hope for the best - Winston Churchill.
How will rising sea levels kill millions?
Displacement of people, mostly. Refugees tend to die at a much higher rate than the overall population.
Also, how will you 'solve' climate change? Do you really think reducing CO2 output will be enough?
It will reduce the total sea rise, thus making the problem smaller.
Betting on magically solving climate change (which may or may not be possible) might work, but increased water barriers will definitely work.
I don't think you quite grasp the scale of this issue for larger countries, and the inability to buy dykes and pumps for poor countries. The US would need more concrete than has ever been produced. Making concrete produces a lot of CO2, so producing the unprecedented quantities of concrete will help ensure those structures are ineffective.
If you believe sea levels will rise, sell now. Problem solved. But I expect you want someone else to solve the problem for you by imposing tyrannical restrictions on those people.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yeah, I'm going to have to side with the GP here, on a number of points:
Netherlands
Length of Coastline - 1,914 km
GDP - $770 billion
GDP / km of Coastline - $402 million / km
USA
Length of Coastline - 133,312 km
GDP - $18.57 trillion
GDP / km of Coastline - $139 million / km
So, firstly, the cost to build dykes around the coast of the US would be, proportionally, about 3 times as expensive for them as it is for the Netherlands. Secondly, close to 2 orders of magnitude (well 70 times) more dykes would be required. Thirdly, you keep going on about storm surge being more pertinent than sea level rise, and while technically you're correct here the effects happen to be cumulative.
In fact, in addition to being cumulative, since storm surge is driven by storms (duh) and storms derive their strength from sea temperatures as sea level rises due to warming so to does the size of the storm surge.
I can't really be bothered to go deeply into the topic of materials, as I'm hungry, but again, unless you want to incur unsustainable upkeep costs for those dykes concrete is pretty much the only long term option available - and even then the upkeep will be merely astronomical. And, like the GP says, producing that quantity of concrete, if there's even enough of the right type of sand to make it all, would only exacerbate the problem.
His question is legitimate.
I don't see any question in the AC's comment, just a lot of statements that make no scientific sense at all.
CO2 absorption of IR comes no where close to explaining global warming, as is well known.
Your statement is unspecific enough to have no clear semantics. No, the direct effect off the CO2 increase does not fully explain the observed global warming. But then nobody except maybe some builders of straw men claims that. Arrhenius had identified the major feedbacks more than a century ago. We do have good explanations for the temperature increase, and anthropogenic influences, primary CO2 emissions, are indeed the root cause of the observed warming, and our best estimate is that they explain all the warming.
Perhaps you don't know enough to answer his questions
Maybe I don't know enough. We can all fall prey to the Dunning–Kruger effect. But in this case, again, there were no questions.
Stephan