
Which U.S. coastal areas could disappear due to sea level rise - selamattidur
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday/what-could-disappear.html
======
petercooper
There's been debate over whether volcanic activity in the Canary Islands could
cause a 150ft tidal wave that would cause enough damage on the east coast that
long term sea rises would have little left to do:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami#Canary_Islands>

------
dredmorbius
As Sandy made clear, it's not just _persistent_ rises in sea level, but the
frequency and extent of _intermittent_ rises as a consequence of cyclonic
storms or inland flooding and watershed drainage which are likely to have
significant impacts.

My understanding of carbon and warming predictions is that we've trended
toward the highest (most extreme and dangerous) ends of forecast ranges, which
suggests that the higher seawater rises might be more appropriately used in
disaster planning. And adding a few feet to storm surge, and increasing
frequency of high-surge events, would be disruptive enough if not quite so
much as a persistent 5-10 foot rise in sea levels.

~~~
rwmj
As is also happening right now in the UK ...
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20490999>

(And to think of all the people still denying that climate change is a real
thing).

~~~
yummyfajitas
_And to think of all the people still denying that climate change is a real
thing_

This is a straw man.The dispute is over how much of climate change is caused
by human emissions of CO2, not whether climate change occurs.

~~~
dredmorbius
I've seen denials on several counts. That climate change is occurring, that
it's anthropogenic, and that the mechanism is CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses
released on account of human activities). Much of that confusion being sown by
direct and deliberate disinformation campaigns by carbon-aligned interests.

The evidence to my mind is rather incontrovertible in favor of significant
anthropogenic climate change.

------
mseebach
100-300 years is a _long_ time to build some dikes and flood barriers.

~~~
willyt
Think about the engineering involved. A 25ft rise would require what, a 35ft
high reinforced concrete structure? It has to be capable of dissipating the
wave energy from a storm like sandy. The foundations have to be pretty deep to
guarantee resistance to scour. The buttressing structure will extend back at
least 35/tan(45) ft back. Where and when do you decide to build it? What
political process allows you to demolish all those houses without an
impossible political deadlock about compensation land rights etc? What about
rights of light for all the others? Re-routing subway lines, highways,
utilities etc. How long is one these for New York/Jersey/Long Island? 50miles
100miles 250?

Edit: tan(45)/35 to 35/tan(45), whoops.

~~~
InclinedPlane
We're talking about 300 years from now. Even 100 years from now the global
economy is going to be around 1 quadrillion dollars (in today's dollar) and
technology will be unimaginably advanced. As much as I think long term
planning is often important, I think this is a case where it's better to leave
things to our much wealthier, much more technologically advanced future selves
/ children.

~~~
MichaelSalib
Unimaginably advanced? I'm not so sure. What unimaginable advances have
happened to the jet engine in the last 30 years?

If you spend all day focusing on silicon chips, then it looks like
"technology" moves very fast. But most technologies don't advance at anything
near the rate at which integrated circuits have been improving. And even that
rate appears to be slowing dramatically.

~~~
mseebach
What's the significance of jet engines? I'm not an aerospace engineer, but I'm
pretty sure the 787 Dreamliner would be rather impressive to a 1982 aircraft
designer.

But more relevant to the issue at hand, structural engineering: The height of
the tallest building in the world has doubled over just the past decade. I
don't know if it's downright unimaginable, but it's very real and significant
progress.

~~~
MichaelSalib
The significance is that I have friends in the aerospace industry and from
talking to them, I've learned that technological progress in this area has
been much much slower than in IC fabrication. Would a 1982 aircraft designer
be impressed with a 787? Sure. There have been a bunch of incremental
improvements. But those improvements are on the order of 1%/year rather than
Moore's law.

My point is that if you're spending all your time dealing with Moore's law, it
may not occur to you that Moore's law doesn't apply anywhere else.

 _The height of the tallest building in the world has doubled over just the
past decade. I don't know if it's downright unimaginable, but it's very real
and significant progress._

Really? What technological innovations in structural engineering were needed?
It seems to me that construction costs are not falling very significantly and
that a handful of very tall buildings has more to do with the infusion of cash
to isolated areas where land is (relatively) cheap than it does with major
advances in structural engineering.

~~~
yummyfajitas
1%/year over 300 years is nearly a 20-fold improvement.

Also, while the construction improvements in the past 30 years may not be
major, framed-tube and trussed-tube construction will be 50 years old next
year.

You may be right that we have currently reached the pinnacle of technology,
and that nothing else is possible except in the fields of iPhone games and
social dating sites. The dead end in robotics may be approaching, even though
it has resulting in a 150% improvement in manufacturing productivity since
1985 (we currently produce 70% more with 30% fewer people).

But that's not a bet I'd be willing to take.

~~~
MichaelSalib
_1%/year over 300 years is nearly a 20-fold improvement._

I'm not sure it makes sense to assume steady incremental growth over such long
time frames. I mentioned 1%/yr when considering improvements over the last 3
decades.

 _You may be right that we have currently reached the pinnacle of technology_

This is not a claim I've made.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Either you believe technological progress will make building dikes/etc easier
in 200-300 years, or you don't. Which is it?

------
tsotha
By then we won't care

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/03/sea_level_rise_barel...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/03/sea_level_rise_barely_30cm_by_2100/)

~~~
ximeng
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_sea_level#Potential_to_E...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_sea_level#Potential_to_Exceed_1_m)

Unless we got our sums wrong and the ice melts quicker than we thought.

------
brianchu
Long-term real-estate play: buy land near urban areas that will be soon
submerged (100 year time frame) and near the "new" coast.

~~~
flexie
I find it implausible that some of the richest and most densely populated
cities in America would just passively await submersion for decades when this
could be averted with good old levees.

What I do believe is that a major UN climate conference is starting today in
Doha and that their PR people yet again managed to sell the idea of disaster
to the newspapers.

~~~
jarek
Just have the levees built and maintained by private enterprise rather than
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and you should be all golden with no unexpected
problems or failures

------
nhebb
1\. Set up a booth outside Yankee Stadium, display the Boston map, and sell
coal-powered anything.

2\. Repeat at Fenway Park with the NY map.

3\. Profit!

------
dawidw
could = may or may not

what's the aim of the article which claims that something may or may not
happen? Of course besides to scary people of 'global warming' or how it is
nowadays called, because scientists are not sure if the temperature is going
up or down, 'global changes'? And of course, when people are scared, they'll
pay whatever money to ecoterrorists to save 'the environment'

------
rdl
Interesting just how little this matters to San Francisco (they'd need to put
a wall around SFO, OAK, and maybe SJC, and not sure about the parts of
Mountain View and Menlo Park where tech offices are).

Unfortunate that DC doesn't have more flooding planned.

~~~
rachelbythebay
At 25 feet, it looks like the shoreline moves up (at least) to highway 101,
but that map doesn't go far enough south to really be sure. Look at this and
you can really see the impact: <http://cal-adapt.org/sealevel/>

Just at a glance, I'd write off Oracle, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Moffett,
Alviso, the new 49ers stadium, lots of Cisco buildings around Tasman, and that
industrial park up in Fremont where they shot the T2 Cyberdyne office scenes.
The inundation of the SJ/SC water treatment plant would also make things even
worse, I imagine.

Plus, you know, everything else in between.

~~~
mseebach
Unless you spend a few billion dollars on a flood barrier across the bay mouth
next to Golden Gate bridge.

~~~
rdl
That might be complex, at least without killing the #4 port in the US. I guess
maybe you could build a lock or something?

~~~
daniel-cussen
Move the port out past the seawall, move the hipsters in to the abandoned
industrial flats.

------
gadders
I can't remember the exact figures, but Bjorn Lomborg has argued that during
the 19th century sea levels around New York rose by tens of feet, to no great
impact.

~~~
adaml_623
Would it be too much to provide a reference for those claims. And tell us if
you think it's relevant to the future.

For those of us who are only passingly familiar with New York it doesn't
really seem like a new increase of 10 feet would not be a disaster.

~~~
gadders
My google-fu was weak today :-(

------
sjs382
The New Orleans projections _assume_ a levee breach.

"If levees breach, almost all of the city would flood. The surrounding region
is also mostly flooded."

~~~
dredmorbius
No precedent there ....

New Orleans is already almost completely below mean sea level. In many places,
the highest geographic point _is the Mississippi River_. Building levees and
flood-control structures directly contributes to the further erosion and loss
of delta lands in the Gulf. The very structures that would save New Orleans
also doom it. John McPhee's writing on the Atchafalya Old River Control
Structure is fascinating.

[http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1987/02/23/1987_02_23_039_T...](http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1987/02/23/1987_02_23_039_TNY_CARDS_000347146)

------
charonn0
Note to self: move to higher ground/buy a canoe.

~~~
chao-
And rather than pass it down to your children, consider selling any property
in Galveston, New Orleans or Miami Beach. Even on the lower-end estimates,
those areas are thoroughly deluged. Or pass it on and let them sell it,
whichever is smarter from a tax perspective.

~~~
charonn0
Thanks, but I rent :)

------
mturmon
I had no idea how low-lying some cities are. Especially in the southeast US.

------
frozenport
Are the great lakes effected by global warming.

~~~
altcognito
Winter ice helps to protect lake water from evaporation and keep water levels
high. In recent years ice hasn't been as plentiful:
[http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/31/455612/great-
lak...](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/31/455612/great-lakes-ice-
cover-down-71-since-1973/)

Keep in mind that 2012 was an very, very warm winter even compared to the
years leading up to it.

------
brador
Anything similar out there for Europe or Asia?

~~~
ack
this: <http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:SeaLevel> and:
<http://www.elstel.com/SeaLevelRise.html#Maps>

~~~
brador
That first link is exactly what I hoped existed. Thanks.

------
randall
Brought to you by jashkenas no doubt.

