Coastal cities face rising risk of flood losses, study says

Aug 18, 2013 by Anthony Lucas
This April 24, 2005 aerial view shows Miami Beach. The world's 136 largest coastal cities could risk combined annual losses of $1 trillion (750 billion euros) from floods by 2050 unless they drastically raise their defences, a study warned Sunday.

The world's 136 largest coastal cities could risk combined annual losses of $1 trillion (750 billion euros) from floods by 2050 unless they drastically raise their defences, a study warned Sunday.

Current are about $6 billion per year, with four cities— Miami, New York and New Orleans in the United States and Guangzhou in China—incurring 43 percent of the costs, according to a report in the journal Nature Climate Change.

World Bank economist Stephane Hallegatte and colleagues composed a loss risk scenario based on city as well as different levels of sea level rise, upgrades and subsidence—the sinking of surface areas often linked to the extraction of oil or other ground resources.

Assuming cities improve their protection to contain the to current levels, and based purely on the projected growth of city populations and the assets accumulated there, the team warned of a nine-fold increase in losses to $52 billion per year by 2050.

When the team adds the -induced and subsidence, the figure increases to between $60 and $63 billion per year.

"With no adaptation (of ), the projected increase in average losses by 2050 is huge, with aggregate losses increasing to more than $1 trillion per year," said the study—a worst-case-scenario outcome that would roughly equate to the 2012 GDP of Iran.

The cities where flood risks in 2005 are largest, when compared with local GDP. Credit: University of Southampton

But even the best protection in the world won't eliminate the risk, said the study.

While higher dykes can reduce flooding, the magnitude of losses when they do occur will continue to rise.

"We have more and more people depending on these protections. That means that if we have a dyke rupture, as there are more people behind the dykes, we will have ever bigger ," Hallegatte told AFP.

This is the 20 cities where flood risks will increase most by 2050. Credit: University of Southampton

With protection upgrades, the cities with the highest projected annual losses by 2050 were Guangzhou ($13.2 billion), Mumbai ($6.4 billion) and Kolkota ($3.4 billion) in India, Guayaquil ($3.2 billion) in Ecuador and Shenzhen ($3.1 billion) in China.

For Guangzhou, this represented an 11 percent rise on 2005 losses and for Kolkota 24 percent, said the authors.

Number six on the list was Miami, with projected annual losses of $2.5 billion, followed by Tianjin in China with $2.3 billion, New York with $2 billion, Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam with $1.9 billion and New Orleans with $1.9 billion.

Rich cities, many of them in areas more at risk from flooding, can generally afford better defences than poor cities which are over-represented among those that risk the biggest losses, said the study.

Amsterdam, for example, has about $83 billion of assets exposed to extreme flooding—yet its average annual loss was $3 million due to having the world's best flood defences.

New Orleans, on the other hand, has annual losses estimated at $600 million, though improvements have been made since Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

According to Hallegatte, the team has calculated that about $50 billion per year would be required to boost flood protection for the 136 cities in the report—"far below" the estimated losses.

"Failing to adapt is not a viable option in ," added the report.

Explore further: Far more displaced by disasters than conflict

More information: Paper: dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1979

Press release

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Sprint 2Q loss expands, revenue flat

Jul 30, 2013

Wireless carrier Sprint's second-quarter losses grew while revenue held steady in its first earnings report under majority owner SoftBank.

Japan quake makes 2011 costliest disaster year

Jul 12, 2011

Japan's earthquake in March is set to make 2011 the costliest year to date for natural disasters, reinsurer Munich Re said on Tuesday, although the number of deaths globally is relatively low so far.

Global warming slows down world economy: report

Sep 26, 2012

Climate change caused by global warming is slowing down world economic output by 1.6 percent a year and will lead to a doubling of costs in the next two decades, a major new report said.

Flood risk ranking reveals vulnerable cities

Aug 21, 2012

(Phys.org) -- A new study of nine coastal cities around the world suggests that Shanghai is most vulnerable to serious flooding. European cities top the leader board for their resilience.

Recommended for you

Last month was hottest August since 1880

2 hours ago

Last month was the hottest August on record for global average temperatures over land and ocean surfaces, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said on Thursday.

Unforeseen dioxin formation in waste incineration

5 hours ago

Dioxins forms faster, at lower temperatures and under other conditions than previously thought. This may affect how we in the future construct sampling equipment, flue gas filtering systems for waste incineration ...

Crowdsourcing could lead to better water in rural India

6 hours ago

With more than 10 million service points, India's rural drinking water system provides a real monitoring headache for public health officials. To help address the challenge, a three-continent research consortium ...

User comments : 49

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NikFromNYC
2.5 / 5 (28) Aug 18, 2013
"losses are about $6 billion per year, with four cities— Miami, New York and New Orleans in the United States and Guangzhou in China—incurring 43 percent of the costs."

(1) MIAMI's tide gauge shows no response to the recent rapid boost in CO₂:
http://www.psmsl..../363.php

(2) The NYC tide gauge also refuses to deviate from the natural interglacial era trend, you know, between ice ages, when ice steadily melts away:
http://www.psmsl....s/12.php

(3) The longest running tide gauge of NEW ORLEANS is Grande Isle and it shows not a steepening of sea level trend but a leveling off:
http://www.psmsl..../526.php

(4) The three longest Chinese tide gauges near to Hong Kong/GUANZHOU which all go back to the 1950s are also defiantly ignoring CO₂:
http://www.psmsl..../727.php
http://www.psmsl..../731.php
http://www.psmsl..../614.php

Same old trends!
NikFromNYC
2.3 / 5 (26) Aug 18, 2013
"Amsterdam, for example, has about $83 billion of assets exposed to extreme flooding...."

(5) Amsterdam's tide gauge record goes way back to 1871 and its natural trend continues except in our high CO₂ era a bunch of negative feedbacks in opposition to greenhouse forcing seem to be stabilizing its otherwise natural rate of rise:
http://www.psmsl....s/32.php

Computer models that represent the backbone of all climate alarm add a massive and highly speculative (3X) positive feedback amplification to the old school CO₂ greenhouse effect, introduced into their code due to an armchair hypothesis that heat causes lots of humidity and water vapor is known to be a truly influential greenhouse gas. Their models assume that clouds only trap heat, never reflect it, which anybody who has had a cloud pass over them knows is the very height of junk science.

When Al Gore's buddies slanderously claim that serious skeptics "deny" the greenhouse effect, you are being lied to.
BaconBits
3.3 / 5 (26) Aug 18, 2013
Your 3 US tide gauge datasets all show a marked sea level rise over the 1930-current interval with a strong upward trend. Did you not even look at the data?

Only the Chinese tide gauge data supports your dismissive, unscientific claim that 30,000 climate scientists over the past 40 years are somehow incapable of measuring the tides, resolving errors and ambiguity in their datasets and determining statistically significant trends.

Satellite data from NOAA
http://ibis.grdl....velRise/

clearly shows a significant upward trend in rising sea level.

So... thanks for your snarky, dismissive, fact free rant. Keep cashing those Koch checks.

Gmr
3.3 / 5 (21) Aug 18, 2013

So... thanks for your snarky, dismissive, fact free rant. Keep cashing those Koch checks.

You misapprehend - Nik sees it as his duty to humanity as a PhD in Chemistry to provide his brilliant light to all other disciplines. Since, after all, a PhD in one discipline is carte blanche to immediate declaration of expertise in anything to which he turns his mind after a short period of reviewing the literature.

See, he needs no Koch brothers' check.

He does it from the heart.

From the heart!
NikFromNYC
2.2 / 5 (27) Aug 18, 2013
BaconBits harped: "Your 3 US tide gauge datasets all show a marked sea level rise over the 1930-current interval with a strong upward trend.

Dude, where has any skeptic, including myself, *ever* claimed that there is no sea level rise as ice melts between ice ages? The point, obviously, is that as CO₂ has rapidly swung upwards, there is no deviation from the natural rate of sea level rise.

The conspiracy theory books you read neglect to mention the non-controversial fact that conservative think tank millions, of which I am still waiting for a check from...are dwarfed by a factor of 1000 by environmental movement, green banking and Arab oil money donations to real PR firms who regularly create massive campaigns.

Gmr: I see little "duty to humanity" here, just a stimulating way to take little breaks during my Sunday work day to learn more about climate "science." My "short period" of delving into the literature goes back to 2008, the same "short time" it took to get PhD from Columbia.
Gmr
3.4 / 5 (20) Aug 18, 2013
See?!?

FROM THE HEART!
DruidDrudge
1.9 / 5 (22) Aug 18, 2013
Your 3 US tide gauge datasets all show a marked sea level rise over the 1930-current interval with a strong upward trend. Did you not even look at the data?

Only the Chinese tide gauge data supports your dismissive, unscientific claim that 30,000 climate scientists over the past 40 years are somehow incapable of measuring the tides, resolving errors and ambiguity in their datasets and determining statistically significant trends.

Satellite data from NOAA
http://ibis.grdl....velRise/

clearly shows a significant upward trend in rising sea level.

So... thanks for your snarky, dismissive, fact free rant. Keep cashing those Koch checks.


I see a linear increase in sea level rise, which is consistent with the current interglacial period.
I was expecting to see an increase in the rate of change due to CO2. (a curve bending upwards.)
are we looking at different graphs?
NikFromNYC
2.2 / 5 (27) Aug 18, 2013
Hey, Gmr, please explain your actual point to the hundreds of casual readers here who are unfamiliar with cranky Reddit users on this site who use snickering irony to group bond.

Also please explain your participation in the use of multiple 2013 registered sockpuppet accounts:
http://postimg.or...tzfp9w7/

BaconBits, I appreciate your sea level link, which is an update of the data I included in a debunking of claims that such satellite data represents a sudden upward trend change away from the boring old natural trend prior to the big postwar and now Chinese boosts in CO₂ emissions:

http://s22.postim..._Two.jpg

Same old trend. Zzzzzzz....
Gmr
3 / 5 (21) Aug 18, 2013
Ahahaha - really, you think I'm a sockpuppet.

Whatever it takes to soothe your ego, I understand. To an extent.

I'm just a programmer who was a comic book artist who likes science, and the scientific method. I'm also a single father, a fan of MST3K, one of many siblings...

But I'm not a sockpuppet. There is no conspiracy, Nik. Just you.

I also, at a loss to understand your motive beyond hubris and narcissism amid feelings of grandeur, am choosing to attribute it to a heartfelt motive to help humanity.

Despite what it may want or need. And despite your actual lack of expertise on the subject.
runrig
3 / 5 (20) Aug 18, 2013
Computer models that represent the backbone of all climate alarm add a massive and highly speculative (3X) positive feedback amplification to the old school CO₂ greenhouse effect, introduced into their code due to an armchair hypothesis that heat causes lots of humidity and water vapor is known to be a truly influential greenhouse gas. Their models assume that clouds only trap heat, never reflect it, which anybody who has had a cloud pass over them knows is the very height of junk science.


Wrong again Nik - the WV feedback is independent of clouds - that is a separate calculation and will be the same as before given the same relative humidity and lapse rate. It is the increase in absolute humidity that is the cause of the increased effect of anthro CO2 ( x2 NOT x3 - as you well know ).
Are you really going to continue to be willfully ignorant of climate science facts. Because willful it is. The only junk science on here is from you and your ilk - ad-nauseum.
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (19) Aug 18, 2013
Proper zoning regulation and good community planning will solve all these issues. Or, not.

The Climate, changes. "The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson
NikFromNYC
2.2 / 5 (23) Aug 18, 2013
runrig, my paragraph was a busy summary of a comment by physicist Lubos Motl, here:

http://motls.blog...ect.html

Lubos recently translated Columbia string theory physicist Brian Greene's book into Czech.

Your dictatorial attempt to force Mother Nature into your theory box mirrors exactly the contemporary state of climatology. "The *calculation* is this, damn it, the *calculation* isn't that, dummy!"

So I post real world data a lot, to see how those black box *calculations* are working out.
Gmr
2.9 / 5 (16) Aug 18, 2013
Proper zoning regulation and good community planning will solve all these issues. Or, not.

The Climate, changes. "The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson

Maybe.

Maybe not.

For sure we'll find out how much flexibility is built into the ecosystem regarding rate of environmental change.
GuruShabu
2 / 5 (23) Aug 18, 2013
Same Eco-Fascism as usual.
GuruShabu
1.8 / 5 (19) Aug 18, 2013
Anyone has read anything about the Agenda21?
Signed in 1992 by G.W. Bush in Rio de Janeiro?
Adopted by BIll Clinton and then being already implemented on 16% of USA territory by Obama?
http://www.youtub...kzQWlXJs
All documents are shown on the video above.
Don't come with the BS of conspiracy theory because there is not such a thing as a secret complot. All documents and meetings dates and details are public and available in the Internet.
NikFromNYC
2.3 / 5 (21) Aug 18, 2013
Gmr's "97% consensus" confirmation non-conspiracy:

"Skeptical Science Forum - The Consensus Project Marketing Ideas
To achieve this goal, we mustn't fall into the trap of spending too much time on analysis and too little time on promotion. As we do the analysis, would be good to have the marketing plan percolating along as well. So a few ideas floating around:
Press releases: Talked to Ove about this yesterday, the Global Change Institute have a communications dept (well, two people) and will issue press releases to Australian media when this comes out. No plan yet for US media.
Mainstream Media: This is the key if we want to achieve public consciousness. MSM is an opaque wall to me so ideas welcome. I suspect this will involve developing time lines, building momentum for the idea and consulting with PR professionals like Jim Hoggan.
Climate Communicators: There needs to be a concerted effort (spearheaded by me) to get climate communicators using these results in their messaging."
Gmr
3.3 / 5 (15) Aug 18, 2013
Same Eco-Fascism as usual.

I'm really surprised that the Economically minded tend to ignore or discount the research pointing to costs of doing nothing.

Up until now, I could see some of this as "it costs too much to remedy what isn't a problem." But it's going to cost regardless. Either to fix it or to forget it.

So, the profit minded should be looking at how to benefit economically from the changing climate, or mediating the changing climate.

If you sit on your hands and stick with the strategy of the Kochs' et al, you'll eventually be in a bear market for your product regardless. As the environment will change, so will the economy - or it will fail.

One cannot shut one's eyes forever. Change comes, unbidden. Trying to stay the same in the midst of that is not the optimal strategy.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (15) Aug 18, 2013
Hey there, all snarky guys above........do as I did & you don't need to worry about sea levels rising, or falling. Eleven years ago I bought the top of a mountain after selling my business for an outrageous profit, took 8 months off to personally build my mountaintop chalet and the flood insurance is real cheap, $0.00. So Open & Toot, what do you think of that?
NikFromNYC
2.3 / 5 (24) Aug 18, 2013
BaconBits mentions: "...30,000 climate scientists over the past 40 years...."

Each billion dollars a year spent on proving Man Made Global Warming * 40 years \ 30K scientists = $1.3M per scientist. Most just study the effects of warming, and need merely look the other way as Team Hockey Stick pulls in their emergency level funding, and make casual reference to Global Warming in their abstracts and grant proposals.

The result of John Cooks recent confirmation of your consensus claim was terribly embarrassing, for shortly after Obama Tweeted about it, the actual scientists whose papers the study was based on, loudly rejected it:

http://www.popula...sts.html

Climatologist Mike Hulme was embarrassed by such activist junk science that his debunking of it lead to a comic:

http://postimg.or...qa77wux/
Grallen
3.1 / 5 (18) Aug 18, 2013
Hey Nik. If you read closely, these cities are already losing enough money to flood damage to justify the call for increase protection. As in the recent past, it has already happened and has kept happening.

Whatever your tidal gauges say, these people need better flood protection.

So. Point one: Between the increase in exposed assets and the increase in extreme weather events lately, that alone is enough.

Now say if the sea were to rise at all with the already insufficient protection: It would be too late... You understand this? This is far more important than the stupid political eco-war.

When you identify a problem you fix it.

It's like you're telling people who are getting shot at to wait until they are hit to duck. You might not intend this, but moderate your fanaticism.
NikFromNYC
2.4 / 5 (23) Aug 18, 2013
I've translated Gmr's precautionary principle tunnel vision, that in an era of antibiotic resistance sees basic science R&D funding being funneled into green boondoggles:

"One cannot shut one's eyes forever towards Catastrophic Global Warming theory falsification. Climate change comes, unbidden. Trying to stay the same temperature in the midst of that is not the optimal strategy."

Wither cancer research? Or safer nuclear plant designs that will let all countries emulate France's 80% electrical power policy? Where did the jobs for chemists and biologists *go*?!

I think Gmr might know.
NikFromNYC
2.3 / 5 (24) Aug 18, 2013
Gralken, every million spent on junk science fantasy is a cool million stolen from flood mitigation engineering. You don't get to build a thousand high maintenance windmills *and* build levies. Why is there no vast effort to promote nearly emissions free nuclear power if you really believe there's a climate emergency? If there's really a problem, isn't Greenpeace the real villain here? Their co-founder certainly thinks so:

http://www.google...clear%20
Gmr
3.1 / 5 (14) Aug 18, 2013
Now on phys.org comment forums: The False Dichotomy.

Please do stay tuned for our other specials on Logical Fallacies, including Argument from Authority, fallacious version: an old favorite.

Brought to you by the Credentialism foundation. Because PhD's are better than the rest of us.
NikFromNYC
2.4 / 5 (23) Aug 18, 2013
Is it coincidence that "Climate Communicator" arguments here exactly coincide with the interests of Saudi Arabia? I wonder if PR firms are involved. That James Hogan's PR firm that runs the DeSmogBlog smear site mentioned above was established with money from a convicted online gambling money schemer who went on to make solar cells is...curious.

Maybe Phil "Hide The Decline" Jones of Climategate infamy knows more about this than I do:
http://mpc.kau.ed...nes.aspx

Or Al Gore who just sold his greenie cable TV channel for a half *billion* Arab petrodollars.

What's the time? I often get pleasantly lost in the glow of an iPhone. Ah, still time for ice green tea and Asian dumplings across from Tom's diner where lights are never on at night in James Hansen's old office above. Lots of happy gals there enjoying the boppy tunes till 11:30PM, never a climate "scientist" to be seen, just Columbia students, mostly real STEM majors.

It's a local for me, Gmr.
BaconBits
3.3 / 5 (21) Aug 18, 2013
Nik... whatever your motives they dovetail perfectly with corporate and libertarian billionaires.

"Billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science.

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.

The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more."

CO2 absorbs & re-emits infrared. That's basic chemistry. Where's that heat going?
BaconBits
3.4 / 5 (22) Aug 18, 2013
BTW: A dude with a Chemistry degree and an email account feels he knows (I guess intuitively, since he's never done the research or participated in developing the science) that sea level is following a natural inter glacial pattern.

And then there's what NOAA says:

"There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

...

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years. "
NikFromNYC
2.4 / 5 (23) Aug 18, 2013
...there's what NOAA says...."


What a favor their Climate.gov web site was!
http://postimg.or...lvpqpuv/

The simple average of world tide gauges was added to the standard study of sea level by Church & White (Surv. Geophys., 2011). I extracted the yellow plot, converted to black and added a trendline:
http://tinypic.co...&s=7

Thus neither the global average T or the global average sea level show any of the claimed increase in trend. You parrot a precisely worded claim of the NOAA press office that the systematic mismatch between the pencil straight 150 year tide gauge record and the also straight satellite record represents a trend change! That's the "Hide The Decline" Climategate issue that converted the whole Republican party into skeptics and ended the Copenhagen treaty: pasting oranges onto apple trees.

That sea level established its current steady linear trend way *before* the postwar CO₂ boost falsifies alarmist headlines.
NikFromNYC
2.4 / 5 (23) Aug 19, 2013
BaconBits, what do right wing think tanks have to do with thermometer and tide gauge records? If the oldest thermometer or tide gauge records formed CO₂ influenced hockey sticks then there would be no debate indeed, just a few anti-science Republicans being their gruff selves.

"ECF partners include the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, which awarded a $460,800,000 donation to another partner, the ClimateWorks Foundation in 2008…plus $100 million more to them this year. ClimateWorks presents itself as "a global family of affiliated organizations that support public policies that prevent climate change and catalyze sustainable global prosperity."

That's *just* for climate issues, whereas your "Billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups...." represents the *total* given to right wing think tanks and lobbying firms, which spend perhaps 10% opposing environmental extremism, a mere $12m. The Hewlett Foundation alone thus dwarfs the whole right wing by ~50X.
NikFromNYC
2.3 / 5 (22) Aug 19, 2013
Score! Leave it to a chemist to distill skeptical community knowledge and conversationally insert a good fraction of it into a single thread during a work day, now placing it at the top of phys.org and thus way further up in Google hits for the climate debate than any little blog I might create could hope for. Thanks, Gorebots, some of you sincere, but like dandelions in front of a mower.

I did come up with the desired advance today when I got out for dumplings. I may have solved an adhesion problem in which my gold surface had textured artifacts from the polymer film I was using and it turns out there is another version of it that has a smooth inkjet receptive coating instead of a surface texture! Off to Ebay to look into graphic arts heat presses though, since UV cured epoxy just wont cooperate, so...UGH, I dunno...3M has dry film adhesives. My dad worked at 3M after the Space Race turned into the Missile Crisis, so he quit Honeywell Aerospace to design optics for stop lights.
ubavontuba
2.4 / 5 (23) Aug 19, 2013
Funny thing, there doesn't actually appear to be any clear, observational evidence for recent sea level rise. Even the British Geological Survey answers the question, "Is there evidence for recent sea level change?" with talk about uplifting continents! ...weird.

http://www.bgs.ac...nce.html

NikFromNYC
2.1 / 5 (21) Aug 19, 2013
The most recent IPCC report doesn't mince words, like the NOAA evidently does:

"Based on the few very long tide gauge records, the average rate of sea level rise has been larger during the 20th century than the 19th century.

No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."

http://www.ipcc.c.../409.htm

This confirms my teaser plots here:
http://s23.postim...andy.gif

The labeling of global average charts as "sea level" that contain not corrections to errors but hypothetical "corrections" to *actual* sea level that try to compensate for the lack of actual trend change by adding water contained not in the oceans but in dams, while forgetting to likewise subtract fresh water runoff from deep well pumping, well, that sort of thing would get you fired, banned from further funding, and possibly arrested as a geneticist, chemist, physicist, biologist, research doctor, or astronomer.
vlaaing peerd
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2013
"Amsterdam, for example, has about $83 billion of assets exposed to extreme flooding...."

(5) Amsterdam's tide gauge record goes way back to 1871 and its natural trend continues except in our high CO₂ era a bunch of negative feedbacks in opposition to greenhouse forcing seem to be stabilizing its otherwise natural rate of rise:
http://www.psmsl....s/32.php


You're deliberately confusing highest ever measured levels with average levels. Those have risen near the Dutch coast (A'dam is just a tiny part of the total coastline) significantly since the 1950's . #1 contributor: CO2

http://www.zeeinz...ned.jpgs

(lowest to highest projections and measurements) Unlike you we consider it a proven fact and have no intent to let this issue become a political debate, we just don't have the luxury if joking around when it comes to sealevels.
vlaaing peerd
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2013
research and plans are done independent of seated governments and no lobby is allowed, many plans were even governed by the (back then) crown prince of our royal family, which secures us from any political influence as they may hold no political preference.

We trust the scientists and professors from our universities that conducted the research. Not even one research denied the fact of rising levels due to CO2, only in the projections there is variance in the severity, but even lowest projections show that action needs to be taken.

So we did. http://www.rijkso...%5D.html

Meyer
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2013
Someone should come up with a business where property owners can pay an annual fee, and they will be compensated for losses in the case of a disaster such as a flood (up to some predetermined limit). The business could base each customer's fees on their risk of losses. Maybe they could offer incentives for customers to develop their property in a way that limits the expected cost of a disaster in exchange for lower fees. Has anyone considered starting such a business?
vlaaing peerd
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2013


So to me it seems bizarre how a worldwide acknowledged problem still is debatable in political context up to a point that facts are ignored and the people are put at risk for sake of politics. Since when do politicians know more about environmental issues than well respected scientist who put their reputation on the line for the results of their research?

and considering how you stated yourself as an expert on the subject thanks to your Phd in something something...
, you are being lied to.
nah, you're lying to us and you know it damn well.

vlaaing peerd
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2013
@Meyer,

such things already exists, it's called a collective insurance. We should prefer to prevent rather than getting paid after the damage though.
antialias_physorg
3.3 / 5 (12) Aug 19, 2013
So to me it seems bizarre how a worldwide acknowledged problem still is debatable in political context

It's unfortunate, but rather understandeable: Politicians are owned by companies (note: only millionaires are politicians - find that surprising?)
Companies get rich by not caring (for environemnt, people, safety , health, ... ) because caring costs money and stuff that costs money doesn't make you rich.

So paying people to make political decisions (and paying others to flood the web with disinformation) tends to be a lot cheaper than actually acknowledging a problem. In the end, they figure, it'll be the common man who bails them out (financial bailouts are only the start.)

Money solves everything. Especially a bad conscience (or, for people like Nik, the responsibility a PhD brings with it)
BadBizMan
1.8 / 5 (16) Aug 19, 2013
There is NO Sea level rise. All you have to do is go ask your local county commissioners, "please tell us exactly how high has the sea level risen"? Not one of those socialists will be able to answer you. Why? Because there is NO data proving such an occurance. This is all made up crap by the likes of Al Gore and other Statists who are looking to take more of your property rights away and this will be their vessel. It has nothing to do with facts all to do with power over you and your property. Don't fall for it! Even University of Florida is promoting this and when I asked them how high has the sea level risen, they throw copious amounts of studies and data at me suggesting that, "in the future...bla bla bla" with NO statistics proving otherwise. So now even colleges are in on the scam because it means more "Grants" for them. Get it yet people? Wake up!
ThomasQuinn
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 19, 2013
NikFromNYC:
Dude, where has any skeptic, including myself, *ever* claimed


You, sir, are not a skeptic. You are a negationist.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (13) Aug 19, 2013
There is NO Sea level rise. All you have to do is go ask your local county commissioners,

There's quite a number of island nations that are in the process of disappearing (to the point of the likes of Cateret island which has become uninhabitable) that would like to disagree on that.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2013
Score! Leave it to a chemist to distill skeptical community knowledge and conversationally insert a good fraction of it into a single thread during a work day, now placing it at the top of phys.org and thus way further up in Google hits for the climate debate than any little blog I might create could hope for. Thanks, Gorebots, some of you sincere, but like dandelions in front of a mower.


Did someone use the term "narcissist" about this poster?

A more kindly interpretation might be simply "a little full of himself"
DruidDrudge
1.6 / 5 (13) Aug 19, 2013
what the cataret islanders did, apparently, was dynamite their reef to allow more fish in. But this also allowed the big Pacific rollers in – and they were washing the islands away. The sea level wasn't rising; the Carteret Islands were sinking.

There is NO Sea level rise. All you have to do is go ask your local county commissioners,

There's quite a number of island nations that are in the process of disappearing (to the point of the likes of Cateret island which has become uninhabitable) that would like to disagree on that.

runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2013

Your dictatorial attempt to force Mother Nature into your theory box mirrors exactly the contemporary state of climatology. "The *calculation* is this, damn it, the *calculation* isn't that, dummy!"

So I post real world data a lot, to see how those black box *calculations* are working out.


If this was aimed at me - I would respond by saying that it is me that is the Meteorology expert. Not you. And (if) there are any dictatorial attempts to force "mother nature into my theory" then it is because Mother nature does indeed do that. I return to exposing the naked emperor that heads your ideology. I simply give my knowledge of the subject, which in most cases is self-evident to me as ( I imagine - as you harp on about it so much - that your Phd in whatever ) gives you the knowledge to deny any rubbish I may ( I wouldn't dream of it ) espouse about chemistry. Get it? No silly question.
In other words I wouldn't call you "asshole" for talking about your expertise. As you did m
GuruShabu
1.6 / 5 (15) Aug 19, 2013
Fraser Island here in Australia was underneath the sea level when the first aborigines arrived only 60000 years ago.
Noe you can drive over the largest sand island in the world.
One day I am sure it will be again under the sea level and another time it will be exposed...such is the climate in this planet...
Gmr
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2013
Folks mentioning insurance: Insurance doesn't want to lose money. They don't want to place a losing bet on things that will be most affected by climate change. Worse still than major events are a slew of minor events due to something called "reinsurance." Insurance companies are themselves insured against major events that cause certain claims levels to be surpassed. Mind you, this is measured by single event. So, if you have a lot of small events (like what happened in the 2011 year timeframe) you have a lot of insurance companies paying out more than they ever do for a few devastating hurricanes, because reinsurance never kicks in.

This is an ongoing worry for the insurance industry. They bet against risk - which is why they won't insure homes on floodplains.
vlaaing peerd
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2013

Politicians are owned by companies (note: only millionaires are politicians - find that surprising?)


Yes, I'm sorry it does. We apply maximum wages for politicians, secondary incomes and expenses are severely limited and monitored. If you want to become rich you go into business, if you believe your ideology can help the country, you go into politics. Companies are allowed to do public lobbying but if a party's ideology (we have around 20 of them) doesn't match what the company's lobbying for, it won't get them anywhere.

I saw a 90's movie once "distinguished gentlemen", a comedy about the US senate and it's lobby. I guess it's more true than appears on the oustide.

Anyhow, it still seems unbelievable some are plainly denying what is happening before their eyes. We have an age old "NAP" meter, worlds oldest sea level meter, it shows an average rise of 1,5mm/year since 1850 and the last 50 years with increased speed.

ThomasQuinn
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2013
Yes, I'm sorry it does. We apply maximum wages for politicians, secondary incomes and expenses are severely limited and monitored. If you want to become rich you go into business, if you believe your ideology can help the country, you go into politics. Companies are allowed to do public lobbying but if a party's ideology (we have around 20 of them) doesn't match what the company's lobbying for, it won't get them anywhere.

I saw a 90's movie once "distinguished gentlemen", a comedy about the US senate and it's lobby. I guess it's more true than appears on the oustide.

Anyhow, it still seems unbelievable some are plainly denying what is happening before their eyes. We have an age old "NAP" meter, worlds oldest sea level meter, it shows an average rise of 1,5mm/year since 1850 and the last 50 years with increased speed.



You can't say that! Those are facts that don't match the negationists' agenda, so they must be a liberal hoax!
vlaaing peerd
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2013
reason: volume increase of the north sea due to risen temperatures and added amounts of sea water due to melted ice caps. Though gravity still keeps most of the water near the ice caps, it is making up an increasing part of the sea level rise.

In this perspective we have little interest for whatever comes with current day climate science, we are mostly pragmatically concerned with the safety of our coastal lines. It is such a general issue that even the greatest 20th century scientist of our country have been concerned with it. Amongst others Lorentz, Kamerlingh Onnes and Van der Waals which are well respected here and even known abroad. We see no reason to assume such men and many great others falsify data or compromise their integrity in favour of personal gain or political involvement.

And so all this data is not new to us, we're working with it for more than a century (actually more than 500 years).

We do something about it or we drown. It couldn't be more clear.
vlaaing peerd
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2013
Folks mentioning insurance: Insurance doesn't want to lose money. They don't want to place a losing bet on things that will be most affected by climate change.


a collective insurance usually insures risks within a certain society, profession other common group in which there is increased risk. Let's use American footballers as an example, they have increased risk of sustaining injuries and therefore should have additional insurances to cover for that. Their union can enforce such insurances become mandatory within a certain group.

Such insurance companies are actually a good pointer to evaluate risk vs costs/danger. If the costs of fixing injuries become too high or are just too dangerous, perhaps it's time to consider alternative measures like protective clothing, helmets, those plastic ballthingies, etc.

Same with sea rise related disasters, if you can cover it, it's ok. If it will be too exensive to cover, find something to prevent it or even better, remove the cause.