Rising Sea Levels Could Cost World Economy $100 Trillion Annually...

reply to post by sprtpilot

Sea levels have 'risen' dependent upon where a place is. Land also rises or falls, which means the relative sea level may be higher or lower at different places. Let's look at an example, since it is for all intents and purposes doomed in the near future - Miami, Florida.

In Miami, there are salinity-control structures to help control groundwater contamination from seawater, but can be opened in case of flooding. Miami was built on a swamp, so the hydrostatic balance changed and allowed seawater to infiltrate the aquifer where they get their water. The Army Corps built these in response, as this became noticeable by the 1950s. These have gates that have freshwater on one side and seawater on the other, made so that extra freshwater flows over the gates into the sea. When these structures were built, freshwater was about 18 inches higher than seawater. Today, it's only 10 inches higher.

So, in Miami at least (probably due to a sinking landmass as well as a sea level rise), that's an 8 inch local rise in sea level. However, that's not the only thing - do you know what sea level means, terminology-wise? It's the average local height of the water, between high and low tides. Thus, if a place sees 2 ft high tides regularly, and is 2 ft above sea level, it's going to get flooded some.

Worse, there are king tides - an unscientific name for once or twice a year ultra-high tides (ex. perigean spring tide). King tides regularly flood parts of Miami. Storms can exacerbate tides, making them as high as these king tides - or higher. These don't have to be hurricanes - those can cause dozens of feet of tidal surge, if sufficiently strong. Back in the 80s, I think it was, they trucked in a bunch of sand at a cost of millions of dollars to revitalize (recreate, really) their beaches.

So here's Miami's situation - the Everglades are on one side, and the Atlantic Ocean is on the other. Its highest point is about 15 feet above level - a narrow ridge running through the area that averages 12 feet up. Look it up in Google Earth, if you don't believe me - the altitude measurements seem pretty accurate. Miami is already getting flooded by king tides - it will get worse in the near future. Soon, regular high tides are going to flood it. People are going to get sick of it and leave, then the city will die. Maybe they'll try to be America's Venice for awhile, but it's ultimately screwed in the near future.

reply to post by deadcalm

Sea ice doesn't change sea levels, though. It weighs the same. It's already displacing its weight, whether as ice or as water. Melting ice over land is the problem.

reply to post by MysterX


I agree. You can't stop mother nature. The Dutch are the most adept at dealing with water of anyone. But they know you can't totally stop the water. You can at best slow it down. They have begun to shift their focus to floating homes and buildings. They rise and lower with the tides.

This is the only way to deal with this issue. Many coastal cities will go under. No stopping this. We should use the money to adapt.
The Bot

reply to post by SLAYER69


I am sorry but I am going to have to say this is a lie.....This figure seems very,very high. This is more money then all the worlds GDP,s.

SLAYER69

the2ofusr1 ...As humans we have ways of adapting or just plain getting out of the kitchen when it gets too hot .

Simply move Hong Kong, London, NY etc etc etc, not to mention many low lying countries that do not have the means?
I'm not trying to be an alarmist, trust me.

At the time of Hurricane Katrina there was some discussion of the wisdom of rebuilding New Orleans. It was considered unthinkable that we would 'abandon' a great city, but it seemed reasonable to me at the time and still does. As an earlier poster mentioned, we need to be forward thinking and get ahead of what we can for the benefit of all.

Thanks for the thread.

For the USA and EU I can see us adapting and building the necessary infrastructure to deal with it.

But the upcoming economies like Brazil and India? Well I can see then sinking literally and going straight back to the third world. And Africa? Well Africa may very well end up a dead continent

masqua
reply to post by the2ofusr1

 

90% of everything we have comes to us through shipping. Adapting major ports to accommodate the threats involved in rising sea levels is going to be a costly endeavour on a global scale if we want to keep that system going, never mind our desire to live on the coast in places like Venice Beach.

I like the idea of floating ports. That makes a lot of sense. How to get those millions of containers to shore might be problematic though. Mini-containers ships?

The Mulberry harbour just off the Normandy coast went up and down with the tides, as did the connecting pontoon driveway that connected the harbour to the shore, no need for smaller container ships.

pikestaff

The Mulberry harbour just off the Normandy coast went up and down with the tides, as did the connecting pontoon driveway that connected the harbour to the shore, no need for smaller container ships.

Tides, even if they are increasingly on the rise, can be easily dealt in that manner and I think it's a good model for the future.

However, high winds and strong storm surges can damage all of the supporting port facility, peoples homes included. At some point, the infrastructure has to move to higher ground.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Alright I am calling HOAX............Gross world GDP for 2012.......84.97 trillion. This story is a lie.





Perspective.......100 trillion is more money then the entire world spent in 2012.........THE ENTIRE WORLD.

That is what civilization gets for moving near the coast because they think it looks pretty, and likes to play in the water.

We all know older civilizations that currently sit under hundreds of feet of water.

Mankind will never learn, and it is nothing new, but there is something new about it all.

Never letting a good crisis go to waste it will be used for political agendas to fleece the masses.

SubTruth
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Alright I am calling HOAX............Gross world GDP for 2012.......84.97 trillion. This story is a lie.





Perspective.......100 trillion is more money then the entire world spent in 2012.........THE ENTIRE WORLD.

edit on 21-2-2014 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)

How so ?

When one figures in the loss of economic output, and the destruction to property, and the cost of AID for those people effected.

That's added up easily to tens of trillions of dollars even up to 100 trillion.

reply to post by SubTruth


That dictates the damage that may happen?

How do you figure?

reply to post by neo96


Yup.

Everyone acts like this is some kind of new and unprecidented thing. Are we really that forgetful of human history ?

For 4 billions years, the oceans have risen and dropped, by a factor of at least 300 feet that we know of thus far... and yet we keep repeatedly building along coastlines, time and time again... completely ignoring the civilizations sitting on the ocean floor just a half mile off of these exact same coastal cities.



"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." ~ Albert Einstein

reply to post by neo96




They say 100 trillion every year...........Not possible. This is more money then is spent in the entire world in 1 year.......HOAX.

SLAYER69
reply to post by SubTruth

 

That dictates the damage that may happen?

How do you figure?

Like I said do the math it is not possible. The entire world does not spend this much in one year. The world GDP is lower then 100 trillion.


Don't get me wrong I am sure it could go into the the trillion amount but not 100 trillion. I wonder how much money is in the entire world ......Hmm.

reply to post by SLAYER69


They estimate the total world currency supply at 500 trillion. This story is saying 100 trillion every year.........Not possible.



World GDP= 2012......80 trillion.

100 trillion/year is feasible.

All they have to do is run the printing presses overtime...*cough*

SubTruth
reply to post by neo96

 

They say 100 trillion every year...........Not possible. This is more money then is spent in the entire world in 1 year.......HOAX.

Yeah it is possible considering how much real estate costs these days, and the cost to build.

PLUS the effects to the economy.

What everyone is forgetting when they speak negatively about people living on the seashore is that there's a livelihood to be made there. It's called fishing and nothing historically has ensured survival better than that. Just ask the Haida peoples on the west coast of Canada.

Are we also forgetting about the past millennia when sail meant commerce, wealth and contact with other land masses? There was that British Empire which existed solely because Britain 'ruled the waves'. They didn't amass all that power and wealth by sitting far inland. Neither did the Vikings.

We're on the oceans today because 90% of all the goods we use come to us by ships, so, I doubt the masses of humanity that live on the coasts is a sign of stupidity. Rather, it's a requirement if we want to keep on enjoying the way we live. If anyone is thinking of using air travel instead, I suggest looking into grocery stores up in the arctic regions where it all gets flown in. I already know what that's like because I lived there.

reply to post by masqua


Thats right!

Because of those things called ports located on the coasts.

Where trillions in goods get shipped to,and out of.

That $100 trillion is entirely plausible, and it will effect everyone living in between the coasts too.

CranialSponge
100 trillion/year is feasible.

All they have to do is run the printing presses overtime...*cough*

LOL

Ok that made me spit up my coffee through my nose laughing.

too true and sad...