Bloody hell! I'm getting you all riled, aren't I! You have consciences?

Ok - I can only deal with you all one by one, and some responses might have to be deferred.

Ozme52: Define 'sensible measures'.

After all, what is sensible for Holland may not be sensible for Tibet or Mongolia or Switzerland.

If they get none of the advantages why should they want to pay any of the costs when their money might be better spent on other endeavors.

There is nothing wrong with the sea levels rising save that it impacts how and where humans will live.

If TWYD were 100% altruistic in his outlook (as he wishes all of us were...) he would be happy to let the sea rise and watch the new niches fill with new species taking advantage of new resources. It's very selfish to deny them opportunities by trying to maintain the status quo just to alleviate a little human suffering.

(Obviously I'm being fascetious... just amused that the pro-ecology stance has changed to a 'save the human habitat' stance.)
Of course different nations will need to take different measures. In all probablility, inland contries will be faced with an influx of people from the "old" coasts. Should they receive them into their country as citizens, or put them in transit camps until somewhere else is found for them (or they die of disease), or should they just shoot them as their heads appear over the hills?

Sensible measure, then, are chosing between maintaining sea defences or migrating large populations for one country, and maintaining armed defences or accomodating large influxes of people in another country. Sensible measures include international co-operation on a significant scale. Sensible measures include a choice of Peace over War. That means the strongest nations taking part rather than leaving the weak to cope by carrying the whole burden themselves. I used the phrase "I'm alright, Jack" earlier in this thread. It's a badge of shame, but USA and Canada seem to wear it with pride.

I'll treat your faseciousness with the contempt it deserves, but I would point out that I am prepared to change my position publicly, as I have already done earlier in this thread: openly and honestly. However, I fail to see why wanting to save the human habitat is different from being pro-ecology. I don't recall ever saying that humanity must sacrifice its own existence for the benefit of other species, although I might have advocated that humanity make some sacrifices for their benefit.

----------------

js207:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo
Now somebody here - it wasn't you, was it, js207? - said that the cost of building massive defences would be exorbitant and possibly counter-productive. Something about an inch or two more on sea walls over the next hundred years would be unmanageable. Ah! Yes it was.

Nope. Read again. It's the cost of delaying the rise by a trivial amount which I think is prohibitive, compared to the cost of dealing with a rise in a rational way.


Quote:
Maybe in America, but the Dutch, you allow, might want to build an extra foot or two on their existing defences rather than surrrender 12.5% of their country back to the sea. That's one eighth of their land, for those who like fractions. I agree, they very well might want to do that.

It's not the cost of a few inches of brick where needed which is prohibitive, it's the economic dislocation an enlarged Kyoto would require to make a trivial different to sea level which is. You say the Dutch already have 23 foot sea walls; I can hardly imagine they'd balk at making that 24 or 25 feet in the year 2100. Remember, according to the IPCC, that 'extra foot or two' is the WORST CASE SCENARIO for the year 2100.


Quote:
according to the American University, Washington DC, "global warming has the potential to increase sea levels by as much as 20 feet (6.1 metres)."

Where on earth did they get that figure, and over what timescale? Perhaps extrapolating the IPCC worst case scenario into the year 3000 would give that kind of rise, but that's just silly.


Quote:
Bearing in mind that Holland's lowest city lies at 7 metres below sea level (that's 23 feet - much lower than New Orleans) and the sea defences would have to be at least 43 feet higher than that. Holland would be in the shadow of the sea wall until after midday! Obviously, not even the plucky Dutch could not possibly maintain sea defences on that scale. So they would have to move inland. Holland is, by the way, one of the world's most densely populated countries, with a propulation of 16 million or so. Where would they go? Germany? Denmark? Belgium? Britain? Well, if Holland is losing land to the sea, so too will those other countries be. They'll have less room to receive them and accomodate their own displaced population too. And something makes me suspect they'll be less than welcome if they try to settle in USA.

Correct that to the actual worst case scenario for the year 2100, 2 feet higher instead of 43, and your scenario becomes very different. They'll probably be able to find the necessary two feet of bricks, meaning they lose no land at all and nobody is displaced. End of problem.


Quote:
OK 43 feet is extreme. And it would probably take a very long time for sea levels to rise that far. But, according to the American University's figures, an 8 or 9 foot rise by 2100 is the best we can hope for.

Any reason even to take those figures seriously, when they are so far different from the IPCC consensus that's supposed to be the best available? You say they are claiming the "best we can hope for" is 4-5 times worse than the "worst case scenario" assembled by the world's experts in the subject?


Quote:
So, I've thought about the impliactions, js207, and I'm more convinced than before that political agreement at an international level, where global interests are put ahead of national ones - especially by those who can most easily afford to make sacrifices, is already overdue and is becoming more urgent by the hour.

... unless we're hit by an asteroid first.

TYWD

Looking at this, I'm still convinced that developing sensible measures to deal with the extra foot or so of water over the course of this century is the rational thing to do. Forget "political agreement" - what on earth is that supposed to achieve? The best they've managed so far is a scheme to make a trivial difference at astronomical cost, without the slightest attempt to deal with the sea level rise which would happen anyway!

The Dutch will, in the worst case, need to upgrade their 23 foot walls into 25 foot walls. That doesn't need international anything or the involvement of a single politician, just some more bricks and cement. Meanwhile, your preferred strategy has delivered an idea which might reduce that to a 24 foot 11 and a bit inch wall in the year 2100, at a cost of trillions of dollars. I know which horse I'm backing there.

The first thing to do is to correct your misconception that the Dutch have 23 foot sea walls already. The truth is, I don't know how high those walls are right now, but 23 feet is a helluva wall. Besides, I was being disingenuous by suggesting that a 40-50 fooot wall would be needed at any time. After all, it doesn't really matter how far below sea level a city is, if the sea walls can contain the sea in all weathers. It is enough to build walls high enough and strong enough to hold back the North Sea (which has very powerful storms for a large part of the year, and mountainous waves comparable to all but the largest ocean waves). So the sea walls will only have to be as high as the highest waves after the sea level has risen to the greatest height Dutch technology can stretch to in order to contain the sea. That WILL be high, and that WILL be strong. Therefore, it WILL be expensive, and the Dutch could well be forgiven for deciding to move back inland instead ... to where? Remember, I pointed out that 1/8th of Holland lies below sea level. Over half the country lies at less than 3 feet above sea level, and the remainder's not much higher.



Strangely, Kyoto seems to be prohibitive to the most wealthy nation there is, but not to poorer ones. A nation that is already noted for its frugality in its foreign aid. A nation that seems to have adopted an nineteenth century attitude of "glorious isolationism" to run its twenty-first century international relations - where every nation is left to its own devices unless US interests are prejudiced. (Actually, you'd better know now that it isn't glorious, as Britain found out to its cost.)

As for where the American University got its figures from, how am I to know? Reliable sources I'm sure. I quoted them because I thought you'd trust figures presented by an American Institution. However, I would again confess that you have uncovered another little misdirection on my part. The potential sea rise is over the entire warm period that we have just entered. I have no idea how long it will last - 10-20,000 years? More? Less? Anyway, I suspect the changes will accelerate as we reach the peak of warmth. The last warm period produced sea level changes of a similar magnitude.

The next confession is not to a misdirection, but to an error. By 2100 sea levels are predicted to rise by 0.4 metres (16 inches) at best, not the 8 or 9 feet I claimed (http://www.american.edu/ted/ice/dutch-sea.htm). The mistake was mine; I don't know how I reached that figure and I apologise. But that's still a significant rise, and you cannot just dismiss the situation as "no problem" - it's a severe problem. It's just a problem you don't want to know about. I suspect it will be enough to cause huge population shifts if it isn't managed properly; or maybe that's how it will be managed. "Managed" being the key word. I trust there will be enough co-operation within the EU to allow that to happen.



I agree that, by correcting my 2100 figures the situation seems less severe, but, really, it isn't. First, Holland isn't the only low-lying country in the world. What happens to Holland will happen to every costal region, Canadian and American ones included. And those places aren't nearly as well prepared as the Dutch already are. I suppose the USA thinks, well, we've got plenty of land, we can afford to lose some. And so can the Canadians, our near neighbours. And it won't be hard to keep the Mexicans out (oh really?). So it's a problem we can contain: so no problem at all!

Political agreement is meant to do precisely what it says. Mind you, agreement is only possible if the parties are willing to reach an agreement. So far, the majority of countries in the world have reached an agreement, including, now, Australia (welcome to the club, Bruce). America is staying out for reasons of self-interest alone (I've no idea what Canada's reasons are, unless it's just copying USA). The USA only attends the conference to maintain face, and it only consented to participate in trying to reach an agreement what the next stages will be so that its own conference on climate change later this year won't be boycotted.


Oh - and referring back to an earlier post (not that it matters anymore), I would mention here that he first house I attempted to buy was well over 100 years old - and that was 35 years ago. The same house is still lived in and is likely to remain so for at least another 50 years. 100+ year old houses are not uncommon over here. What time scale did you have in mind for housing stock to be turned over?



Thorne: Hate to tell you this, TYWD, but Hollands sea wall is generally on the WEST side of the country. They would get plenty of morning sun. Sunset, on the other hand, would tend to come rather early.
You are right, of course. But that comment was made humorously. And as you will realise from the comments above, there never would have been a wall that high anyway.

Do you analyse all jokes the same way?

TYWD