Climate Change: Australians May Be Banned From Living On The Coast

Reuters:

SYDNEY, Oct 27 (Reuters) - Australia needs to adopt a national policy to combat rising sea levels, which may see people forced to abandon coastal homes and banned from building beachside homes, said a parliamentary climate change committee.

Read the whole story: Reuters

Comments

[Cassowaryind]

If, like in Australia, every new home has to have a 3,000 liter fresh water, water tank before the home is approved, was the same across the globe, that would be about 3,000 liters of water for every 4 people, would take an extra 5,022,022,707,750 liters of water out of the oceans. Double the tanks to 6,000 liters would take 10,044,045,415,500 liters of water out of the oceans.

[Cassowaryind]

Only 3.6% of the earths water is ice.
If the all the Ice caps and Glaciers melted it would rise the ocean level by less than 1.6 meters if it went straight up but As the surface area would expand and spread over a greater surface area, the rise would be approximately 50% less, making the level about 0.8 of a meter or 31.4961inches. This is the absolute most the ocean can rise, as all the other water is stored in animals, and plants.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question157.htm

[realpolitic]

I dressed as a climate change denier for Halloween last night and did my best to deny all science!

[gallon]

Hah ha ha!

[Kruddler]

I know that rp likes NASA data so please help me out here. I've looked at their sea level data as shown here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#SeaLevel

I can see no evidence of an acceleration in sea level rise based on the JASON satellite data from 1993 to present as shown, or the tide data from about 1920 to 1993. There is a definite discrepancy between the tide guage data shown on the left (1.7mm per year) and the satellite data post-1993 (3.3mm/year) which might suggest an "acceleration". But there is a clear problem here: comparing two separate data where there is a clear step change at 1993 when spliced together. Are we supposed to believe that sea level suddenly rose at the precise moment that satellite altimetry was introduced? What does the post 1993 tide data say, which significantly been left out of the graph? I found a graphic at wiki with both types of data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

From this graphic, it is clear that there is no evidence of an acceleration in sea level rise for almost a hundred years. Based on this, I would say that talk of "abandoning" coastal areas or "banning" people from them is premature and alarmist. If there is an alternative graph showing an accelerating sea level, please post it.

[realpolitic]

Perhaps you have been reading too much Watts Up With That! The data on sea level rise is confirmed by NOAA as well as NASA. The text underneath your graph, from which you surmise using tide station data alone "it is clear that there is no evidence of an acceleration in sea level rise for almost a hundred years", goes on to state....


"Because of the limited geographic coverage of these records, it is not obvious whether the apparent decadal fluctuations represent true variations in global sea level or merely variations across regions that are not resolved."

Also, "The satellite data indicate a somewhat higher rate of increase than tide gauge data, however the source of this discrepancy is not obvious. It may represent systematic error in the satellite record and/or incomplete geographic sampling in the tide gauge record."

Keep in mind tide station data is highly variable even within short distances.

"Tide gauges in the United States show considerable variation because some land areas are rising and some are sinking. For example, over the past 100 years, the rate of sea level rise varies from about an increase of 0.36 inches (9.1 mm) per year along the Louisiana Coast (due to land sinking), to a drop of a few inches per decade in parts of Alaska (due to post-glacial rebound)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

It seems your analysis just scratches the surface and is limited by ideological thinking!

[Kruddler]

I see you couldn't answer my question. I'm not questioning the validity of the data produced by NASA and you know very well that I'm aware of the fluctuations in tide data records. What I'm asking you to do is to show me where the record demonstrates an accelerating sea level rise since the satellite data as exhibited by NASA doesn't show it. If you don't like the tide guage records, then you should refrain from making your frequent comments about the rate of sea level rise over the last century and stick to the post-1993 satellite data.

"Perhaps you have been reading too much Watts Up With That! " This sort of comment is typical of you when you can't answer a question. Please show me where I have referred to this website in my comment above.

As to your "scratching the surface" remark, don't you remember our discourse on a previous thread where we went over the peer reviewed literature on this subject extensively? If asking questions is a hallmark of ideological thinking then I'm guilty, your honour!

[Richard2]

The Reuters reporter didn't take time to check out any available tide station data in Australia to discover what the actual "mean sea level" trend is in the real world, to find additional support for his article.

He could have considered the wonderful city of Sydney. Lots of people there could be threatened by a sea level rise. So could the famous Opera House. So what does the tide station at Sydyney report?

According to the NOAA website, the long term sea level rise at Sydney is only 0.59 mm per year, which equates to roughly 2 inches per century! Also, there is no sign in the Sydney data of any recent accelerated sea level rise, just a modest long term sea level rise that has existed for many decades.

Does the Reuters reporter think the Opera House is threatened by a 2 inch per century sea level rise? Does he think the great city of Sydney will have to be entirely relocated because of this looming threat?

[realpolitic]

Again, you did not read the report. Australia already pays a heavy price for coastal flooding.

" Tropical Queensland state was the most at risk, with almost 250,000 buildings vulnerable. Next was the most populous state New South Wales (NSW) with more than 200,000. Coastal flooding and erosion already costs NSW around A$200 million a year."

"But the report warned a mean sea level rise was not the major threat to coastal property, but more frequent storms and sea surges on top of higher sea levels posed the greatest risk."

"The gradual rise of sea level will continue to be almost imperceptible," it said. "Elevated sea levels will lead to an increase in the potential impact of extreme sea level events caused by storm surges and heavy rainfall."

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSYD485609

Climate deniers never usually read past the headlines!

[Richard2]

Yes, the threats to coastal properties come from storms and unusually high tides, not from a two inch per century rise in sea level. The daily swings from high tide to low tide are much greater than that.

And what force of nature is responsible for the uneven swings in high and low tides? Is it man-made global warming? Is it how much CO2 we release?

No, it is the orbit of the moon that causes the swings in the ocean's high and low tides.

Is there anyone in Australia who thinks Sydney needs to be relocated because of global warming? If not, who are the people on the Parliament climate change committee? Don't they read tide data charts?

[realpolitic]

R2, Australia is almost ground zero on the front of climate change and has see some of its worse, most magnified events. Limiting a discussion to tide data charts is ridiculous and just a denier's game plan. According to the L.A. Times,

"Australia appears to be experiencing the effects of climate change earlier and more dramatically than most of the other inhabited parts of the globe..... Even as the tropical north is deluged by flooding and warmer ocean currents are spawning more powerful cyclones, the parched south and interior have turned into baking dead zones. The results: vast brush fires, killer heat waves, increased tropical diseases, ruined crops, loss of livestock, severe water shortages and quickening species extinction."

"The country's biggest tourist draw, the Great Barrier Reef -- among the world's most biologically diverse places and the largest structure built by living organisms -- is vanishing before Australians' eyes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that this astonishing natural wonder will be "functionally extinct" by 2050."

"If Australia serves as a harbinger of things to come for the rest of the world, its political response shows how difficult it will be to solve the problem."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-australia11-2009apr11,0,5613275.story

[RTIII]

The change isn't likely to be gradual.

There's enough ice locked up in a positive feed back loop in the Ross Ice Shelf, Antarctica, to raise sea level more than 30' and it's likely to go almost all at once.
.

[Richard2]

Before anyone gets banned, perhaps people will actually go down to the sea to check whether the sea level trend is the same modest, very slight increase over time, which everyone can live with, or whether the sea level is spiking up at a sharply accelerated rate.

In California and most other places, the sea level rise over the past ten years has either stopped or slowed down considerably.

Even the sea level rise in Copenhagen has remained at its modest, two inches per century rate.
Think those Aussies will check the local data before moving.

[RTIII]

All the world's oceans are linked. We scientists don't talk about sea level rise as a local phenomenon in this context because it isn't. Local sea level does vary with not only tides but local gravity, temperature, salinity and other variables. However, they are minor in comparison with what's sliding into the ocean at the Ross Ice Shelf.

Before you go bury your head in the sand, you might want to consider what a positive feedback loop is and educate yourself a little.

The truth is, NOBODY knows what an event like the collapse of the Ross Ice Shelf will look like - and I say will because its demise is virtually certain now - but it could happen that truly gigantic quantities slip into the ocean in mere seconds. We're talking about kilometers thick by tens of miles - possibly more than 100 miles - wide chunks here. It is easy to hypothesized that it will create a tsunami greater than mankind has ever seen which will travel world-wide, and very possibly initiate other events unknowable like earthquake, landslide, etc, which may also wreak havoc, in addition to mere rise by possibly tens of feet at a time.

Is this certain to happen? The collapse of the Ross Ice Shelf seems VERY likely at the rate it's moving and the rate at which we aren't doing anything. What the collapse looks like? It's anyone's guess.

.

[realpolitic]

Of course, R2 may know more than the Australian government and scientsts as he seems to know more than everybody. if he would have read the article though, he would have noticed that ...

"But the report warned a mean sea level rise was not the major threat to coastal property, but more frequent storms and sea surges on top of higher sea levels posed the greatest risk."

"The gradual rise of sea level will continue to be almost imperceptible," it said. "Elevated sea levels will lead to an increase in the potential impact of extreme sea level events caused by storm surges and heavy rainfall."

With climate change 100 year storms are happening much more frequently and with higher sea water levels storm surges will be more destructive and threaten those on the coast. Heavier rainfall associated with warming means increased runoff, landslides, and flooding. As a place where most live by the seashore, Australia is very smart to plan for rising sea levels.

[Richard2]

Can you cite any time in human history when the sea level changed by the magnitude that you are describing? Has such an event ever occurred in human history?

[fcsakes]

About time - the earth and all its people would be better off if no one had been allowed to live within 500 feet of any coast on any body of water....from the smallest stream to the biggest ocean. But my gosh, that's hindsight. Could have done without the clear cutting too.

[PlayTOE]

Before the carbon fuel was locked up in earths crust it was the carboniferous age.
Very hot and mostly wet. Plants were free to grow and made a forest.

so we should expect to see a similar climate .. except that the forest is getting cut down, so we can have a big desert.

When the ice sheets have all melted we will see an ocean 200 feet higher than it is now.
and they are meting ..

at some point, we might ask ourselves if we should change ... *(we could be driving electric cars and powering the grid from wind ... we have the technology )

[RTIII]

...More like 184 feet or so, but you're not that far wrong...
.

[confidance government]

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that a global rise in sea level of some 80 cm (31.5 inches) is possible by 2100."

This is why you don't buy beachfront property.

[Calinative]

The IPCC lies.

[TParrish]

Why do you think they would be interested in lying to you?

[swift goat pet for truth]

what is the down side if they are wrong?

what is the down side if they are right?

[Richard2]

So why did the most famous building in Australia, the Sydney Opera House, get placed on a point of land in Sydney harbor, which is certainly ocean front property?

[realpolitic]

Because they did not know about the great climate hoax conspiracy? You tell me!

[mergina]

Finally, a voice of reason, and acknowledgement that we are all about to lose a whole lot of our land mass. California. Florida. NEW YORK CITY. All going to face the challenge of our lifetime in the not too distant future.

[confidance government]

80 cm rise over 90 years will not cause a large loss of landmass, just the landmass that is the most densely populated. The bright side is as this occuring gradually (not in a geologic sense, but it seems gradual to us), humans have the chance to adapt to the change in conditions by doing what they did in the past, migrate towards higher ground.

[sviolette]

Can't we stop them from migrating? There won't be enough land left for them to live on.

[mtracy9]

Wow! And America's Re!ch-wing almost had me convinced that global warming was a h0ax.

[Calinative]

Deleted again?... Shocking?... Not really.

It's like sending a letter to the editor at Itar-Tass.

[morganhoyle]

Well, this could be good news for the Barrier Reef.

[RTIII]

Not.
.

[deluk]

For their own safety all Australians should be relocated to the geographical centre of their vast country, a long way from any international airport.

[Kruddler]

I guess I'll stay in my aussie beach-front house. At 3mm a year, I'll be waiting a while...

[openhand]

Turn around, have a look at your farmland. Notice a drought maybe? Ever asked yourself where the water went? Maybe you should watch your supercilious backside.

[Kruddler]

Don't be ridiculous. Drought has been part of the Australian landscape for thousands, if not millions of years. Whilst the south east (where I live) is still currently in drought, mean Australian rainfall has remained generally constant since records began- look it up if you don't believe me www.bom.gov.auu).

[Dynamohum]

What was that humongous orange cloud and orange dust across most the continent recently?

[Kruddler]

It was cultivated land that lost it's topsoil due to high winds. The last significant dust-storm that I can remember was in about 1983 when large swathes of mallee topsoil was dumped over melbourne. Don't be so quick to blame climate change; it is certainly acceptable to blame human activity, though.

[MrGovtCheese]

The key is to try and figure out how far the water will come in so you'll end up with the new beachfront property.

[openhand]

Cute, but the key really is to understand that this is about a system that has the potential to cause huge poverty, starvation, migration... around the world. Like any holocuast, slavery etc.. it's not really funny.