Scot Dutchy wrote:

mindhack wrote:

Fallible wrote:

mindhack wrote:The "waterschappen" need to maintain circa 18.000 km of dikes/dams/dunes and more than 200.000 km of water ways, big and small. It's a huge task. It's a rather remarkable feat this living-under-the-sea-business.

I consider it something temporary. We'll lose one day. Feeling safe is silly.

Sounds like the Fens over here. That's all land taken from the sea, and no doubt the sea will get it back one day.

Yes, the Fens pretty much is exactly the same. Not entirely surprising a Dutchmen designed it 300 years ago.

It is called "Little Holland".

aha!

Scot Dutchy wrote:

mindhack wrote:Yes, 2012, Wilnis, evacuated before the dike collapsed. Caused by drought. Luckily it was a small river.

A very small river and town in a very wet area (normally). It is in the gemeente (town council) of the round bogs (Ronde Venen):lol:

Compared to what happened in Britain this year it was a very minor incident. The thing is the Netherlands ia as prepared as it can be. Where else can you say that?

My point was, and is, that feeling secure in the face of numerous overlapping and reinforcing threats is silly. What if you lived in Wilnis. Would you remain confident the system is safe and dandy?

In total some 2000 billion in assets are located in polders or below sea level. It is thinkable that if disaster would strike hard, repeatedly and over a relatively short amount of time, the costs may become too staggering high to keep up the good fight. This possibility is increasingly real because of the reasons I provided earlier.

About preparations. Preparations are limited by risk assessments, available capital and the will to invest. Expert do the assessments but they're still people, with limited knowledge about future events. Politicians are no experts but make decisions about budgets and policies.

Disaster more often strikes where it isn't expected. Living below sea level is inherently hazardous.

I live 5 metres above AP.

My point is as a country this country is one of the best prepared in respect to flooding.

Of course there are restrictions on the amount you can do but everything is possible with these restrictions has been done and is being maintained.

There exist so many GIS computer models that everything has been checked and double checked. I helped to build a few. There is also a computer model of the North Sea which is constantly being updated.

It is risky living below sea level but I am confident that this country will be as safe as possible.

Paula wrote:...I always thought of Miami being quite a prosperous place, how is it a shithole?

Prosperous shitholes do exist.

Essex is one example that springs to mind.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I live 5 metres above AP.

My point is as a country this country is one of the best prepared in respect to flooding.

As it should be. It has everything to lose.

Of course there are restrictions on the amount you can do but everything is possible with these restrictions has been done and is being maintained.

Herein lies a problem. I'll try to draw a comparison.

Compare the system of dikes and canals to a tall tower covered with glass. You're the window washer responsible for keeping all the windows clean. The tower is too large however so no matter how hard you try around 30% of all windows is dirty at any given time. Now substitute tower of glass for water system and window washer for "waterschappen". 30% of dikes lacks proper maintenance.

Add to the above the recent kabinet's budget cuts (a cut of 10% of total budget, 600 million euro) plus the expected rise in damage from severe weather patterns I feel I have to disagree with you.

There exist so many GIS computer models that everything has been checked and double checked. I helped to build a few. There is also a computer model of the North Sea which is constantly being updated.

It is risky living below sea level but I am confident that this country will be as safe as possible.

The models indicate the system needs flexibility more than anything. The current system isn't climate proof, it's a rigid system designed to control all the water, its flows and levels. It's an illusion the system as it is will be sufficient in the future.

A lot needs to be done. For example, certain dikes need to be reinforced, others heightened. Along the main rivers polders should be assigned and villages sacrificed to allow surplus water to flood them in case of heavy rain. The IJsselmeer is an important fresh water lake but is in danger of becoming briny. Europoort and Rijnmond, important economical centers, are hard to protect and to keep operational in case the sea keeps rising, because they require an open connection to the sea. No solution has been found yet for this area.

Investments are needed, but what we see are budget cuts.

I'm not trying to scare you or anything. I think imminent danger is limited, but feeling overly confident and safe reeks of blissful ignorance. No offense.

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:

Paula wrote:...I always thought of Miami being quite a prosperous place, how is it a shithole?

Prosperous shitholes do exist.

Essex is one example that springs to mind.

Innit.

Shu'uuuuup!

Fallible wrote:Shu'uuuuup!

Scagnetti: I was born and spent the first part of my life in Essex.
Dwight McClusky: That's funny, you don't have the accent.
Scagnetti: I don't wanna talk like those assholes.
Dwight McClusky: My mother was from Essex!
Scagnetti: I meant those other assholes.

trubble76 wrote:

Miami, New Orleans, Tokyo and New York have been named as some of the world cities which could face trillions of dollars of flood damage in the future.

Experts have produced data analysing which global cities are most at risk from extreme rainfall, both in terms of population and also the huge financial cost.

And the alarming figures show that by 2070, Miami will have assets worth $3.5 trillion (£2.16 trillion) exposed to a '1-in-100 year' flood event, with Guangzhou, China, and New York the second and third cities with the most assets at risk.

Continues here.

This thread took an almost immediate big sidetrack and never did return to the topic. So maybe I'll do that now.

The story really has to do with sea level and the rate at which it's rising and can be expected to rise over the near term and the long term.

The world's sea level was remarkably stable through the Holocene climate epoch, having risen from its low during the last Glacial Maximum and found an equilibrium with earth's temperature, its energy balance. In more recent times, the centuries old stability of SL gave way to an almost imperceptible rise. But the trend is clear. The question now is will it accelerate and rise faster? And the answer appears to be an unequivocal "yes," but the rate of acceleration is in dispute, or I should say hasn't been settled yet. There's no broad agreement on what we can expect.

And that's because modeling the sea and its behavior in differeing climate scenarios remains one of the few really tough nuts to crack in climate science, on par wth estimating climate sensitivity. In the IPCCs 2007 AR4 report they predicted a rather modest sea level rise by he year 2100 of around three feet. Not good for some parts of the world but certainly no global catastrophe. Some climate scientists thought this projection was much too conservative and that by the year 2100 we'd be seeing a much larger rise, 20 feet or more.

The modelers have been going bonkers since trying to gin up something in which we can have confidence, or at least more confidence in than what we have in IPCCs AR4. That's just science at work. I know a guy runs a shop with 250 climate scientists all but one of whom is working on this problem exclusively. And that's just one shop, there are dozens rounbd the world.

Given the discussion around SL modeling that's erupted in the scientific community, it will be interesting to see the what the IPCC says about SLR in its upcoming Assessment Report, AR5, which is due to be published this year.

I saw a map the other day that showed given areas of the globe after a 20 foot rise in sea level. I was surprised to see that Florida did not just go entirely under, its east coast remained above SL all the way from Daytona down almost to Miami Beach, and its West coast remained in a similar state, above sea level. But the central part of the State was inundated, flooded all the way from the tip of the peninsula all the way up toward Kissamee. A lot of that is the Everglades swamp, which lies right at SL today.

I'd say it'll be three years before the modelers have what they want and can make some pretty accurate predictions regarding sea level and its ongoing rise. And when they do we'll know just how much deep shit we're in. But until they do, we don't hardy know Jack about what sea level is going to do beyond the fact that we know it's going up. The questions of by how much and by when remain to be answered in any sort of reasonably definitive way.

My home sits at 1,750 feet above SL, so I think I'm cool.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Miami, New Orleans, Tokyo and New York have been named as some of the world cities which could face trillions of dollars of flood damage in the future.

Experts have produced data analysing which global cities are most at risk from extreme rainfall, both in terms of population and also the huge financial cost.

And the alarming figures show that by 2070, Miami will have assets worth $3.5 trillion (£2.16 trillion) exposed to a '1-in-100 year' flood event, with Guangzhou, China, and New York the second and third cities with the most assets at risk.

Continues here.

This thread took an almost immediate big sidetrack and never did return to the topic. So maybe I'll do that now.

The story really has to do with sea level and the rate at which it's rising and can be expected to rise over the near term and the long term.

The world's sea level was remarkably stable through the Holocene climate epoch, having risen from its low during the last Glacial Maximum and found an equilibrium with earth's temperature, its energy balance. In more recent times, the centuries old stability of SL gave way to an almost imperceptible rise. But the trend is clear. The question now is will it accelerate and rise faster? And the answer appears to be an unequivocal "yes," but the rate of acceleration is in dispute, or I should say hasn't been settled yet. There's no broad agreement on what we can expect.

And that's because modeling the sea and its behavior in differeing climate scenarios remains one of the few really tough nuts to crack in climate science, on par wth estimating climate sensitivity. In the IPCCs 2007 AR4 report they predicted a rather modest sea level rise by he year 2100 of around three feet. Not good for some parts of the world but certainly no global catastrophe. Some climate scientists thought this projection was much too conservative and that by the year 2100 we'd be seeing a much larger rise, 20 feet or more.

The modelers have been going bonkers since trying to gin up something in which we can have confidence, or at least more confidence in than what we have in IPCCs AR4. That's just science at work. I know a guy runs a shop with 250 climate scientists all but one of whom is working on this problem exclusively. And that's just one shop, there are dozens rounbd the world.

Given the discussion around SL modeling that's erupted in the scientific community, it will be interesting to see the what the IPCC says about SLR in its upcoming Assessment Report, AR5, which is due to be published this year.

I saw a map the other day that showed given areas of the globe after a 20 foot rise in sea level. I was surprised to see that Florida did not just go entirely under, its east coast remained above SL all the way from Daytona down almost to Miami Beach, and its West coast remained in a similar state, above sea level. But the central part of the State was inundated, flooded all the way from the tip of the peninsula all the way up toward Kissamee. A lot of that is the Everglades swamp, which lies right at SL today.

I'd say it'll be three years before the modelers have what they want and can make some pretty accurate predictions regarding sea level and its ongoing rise. And when they do we'll know just how much deep shit we're in. But until they do, we don't hardy know Jack about what sea level is going to do beyond the fact that we know it's going up. The questions of by how much and by when remain to be answered in any sort of reasonably definitive way.

My home sits at 1,750 feet above SL, so I think I'm cool.

Interesting post, thanks. According to earthtools.org I live 30 ft above sea level.

I'm 265.7, apparently.

Fallible wrote:...Sounds like the Fens over here. That's all land taken from the sea, and no doubt the sea will get it back one day.

Actually it's only the land around the Wash that was actually claimed from the sea itself; the Fens proper were claimed from.. ..well.. ..fenland.

That said however, it all doubtless will be under the sea once the retreat of the ice caps steps up a gear.

Fallible wrote:I'm 265.7, apparently.

I'm crossing my fingers that I'll have an exclusive beachfront property soon.

All round mine for daiquiris and beach volleyball this summer?

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:

Fallible wrote:...Sounds like the Fens over here. That's all land taken from the sea, and no doubt the sea will get it back one day.

Actually it's only the land around the Wash that was actually claimed from the sea itself; the Fens proper were claimed from.. ..well.. ..fenland.

That said however, it all doubtless will be under the sea once the retreat of the ice caps steps up a gear.

Look, I don't expect to have my bullshitting exposed on a rational forum.

trubble76 wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm 265.7, apparently.

I'm crossing my fingers that I'll have an exclusive beachfront property soon.

All round mine for daiquiris and beach volleyball this summer?

Aaah, summer in England. Everyone optimistically turns up for a lunchtime barbecue but by 3.00 there isn't a patch of blue sky in sight and you're all huddled under the garden umbrella in overcoats, smoking fags and warming your hands on mugs of tea while Gavin tries in vain to get the damn grill to light in a force ten gale and driving rain. You could go inside and cook on the stove, but dammit, this is England and you're going to have a fucking barbecue if it kills you.

Fallible wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm 265.7, apparently.

I'm crossing my fingers that I'll have an exclusive beachfront property soon.

All round mine for daiquiris and beach volleyball this summer?

Aaah, summer in England. Everyone optimistically turns up for a lunchtime barbecue but by 3.00 there isn't a patch of blue sky in sight and you're all huddled under the garden umbrella in overcoats, smoking fags and warming your hands on mugs of tea while Gavin tries in vain to get the damn grill to light in a force ten gale and driving rain. You could go inside and cook on the stove, but dammit, this is England and you're going to have a fucking barbecue if it kills you.

That's why Plan B is always enacted before Plan A. Personally, I'm always pissed by 3, I like to assume a lovely time was had by all.

Edit: to remove tourettes style repetition of always

Good to see the dutchies spat. As an earth science type, I am vaguely on mindhacks side. Anyway its good to learn about my heritage. Aw shucks!

Factman you cant be serious about being on topic with a thread title like this. It is begging to be messed with.