11 ms·

NASA Is Facing a Climate Change Countdown

116 points by cryptoz 11y ago

robschia 11y ago
For those unable to see the article: add it to Pocket, then switch to Article View.
clishem 11y ago
"As climate change threatens, NASA has options that include hardening facilities against the rising seas with barriers and structures adapted to storms and flooding, or if adaptation is not possible, to strategically retreat." This article makes it seem as if protecting against rising water levels is an almost impossible feat. For everyone who thinks it is, I invite them to come to the Netherlands. The majority of the Netherlands lies under sea level, yet because it is completely protected by dikes/levees no floods have taken place for decades. In fact, all places that indexed by direct economical damage were a flood to take place; and get protected accordingly. A highly populated area or industrious zone might get a rating that only a flood every 10.000 years is acceptable, while for some rural areas may get a rating that a flood every 300 years is acceptable. https://www.rijnland.net/downloads/floodcontrolrijnland-1-1.pdf https://www.rijnland.net/downloads/floodcontrolrijnland-1-1.... I wonder what rating Dutch dike safety experts would give to the NASA launch platform, but seeing such an important economical site with hardly any protection against floods certainly boggles me.
- czechdeveloper 11y ago
  Rising water is no problem in comparison with big storms which are not known in Netherlands. At least as far as I understand.
- cryptoz 11y ago
  The NASA facilities are routinely subjected to hurricanes! Is the Netherlands prepared to handle huge surges of 30 feet of water all at once? Is the Netherlands prepared to handle the 10-15 feet of base sea level rise that is coming in the next century? I'm not so sure that they are. In fact, aren't the Netherlands debating similar questions, about building much bigger walls, or, in fact, retreating?
  - merpnderp 11y ago
    "10-15 feet of base sea level rise in the next century" Maybe if you go by the NOAA histrionics. But if you go by scientific consensus, we're looking at 1-3 feet.
    - cryptoz 11y ago
      Estimates of sea level rise are very difficult and always changing. New research suggests that it could be "several meters", as published in a paper a few weeks ago. There is no scientific consensus on how much the sea level "will rise" - since it depends very much on our behavior as a species in the near future. > Without a sharp reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the global sea level is likely to increase “several meters over a timescale of 50 to 150 years” https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-rise-james-hansen-climate-change-scientist https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-ri...
      - at-fates-hands 11y ago
        >> Estimates of sea level rise are very difficult and always changing. Trust me, I'm pretty sure the people in the pacific islands are going to be a bit more paranoid about these changes than we are. And yet, some of the predictions have been wildly off the mark. Remember the United Nations Environment Programme who said in 2005: Imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas. The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee, by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.” Whoops. When I read stuff like this, it makes hard for objective people like myself to determine where the hype ends the facts start.
- nkrisc 11y ago
  Storm surges during hurricane Katrina reached heights of nearly 12.5 meters in some places. Would Dutch protections have held against that?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - gozur88 11y ago
    Did Florida's? If you're planning to deal with multi-meter storm surges there's no point in worrying about a 1-3 ft increase in MSL.
- jfoutz 11y ago
  Netherlands whole coastline is what, 450 miles? For a 850 billion gdp it makes sense to have a high quality system in place. You guys are facing a billion euro/year to just update the existing system [1]. Nasa needs to protect 70 miles, 1/6th of you're whole country's coast. That far south in the Atlantic has much more extreme weather. So in addition to building a system, they'd need to build a much more robust system, compared to the Netherlands, to deal with the extremes. Is it possible? Hell yeah, they're smart people. Is it worth it? eh. Maybe just move and have a few more mars explorers instead. The big buildings and tracks are cool, but offices hangars and tracks are much simpler (and cheaper!) to build than a hurricane proof levee system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands#Current_situation_and_future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlan...
  - dalke 11y ago
    Plus, as the NYT article points out, KSC "sits in the middle of a vast wildlife refuge", which limits what can be done. Also, the ground is permeable - it doesn't help to build a dike if the water can seep up through the ground.
    - duaneb 11y ago
      Hey, in Colorado we have plenty of open space a mile above sea level. This is not an impossible barrier.
      - dalke 11y ago
        I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment. Are you switching to NASA's other option, which is to "strategically retreat", and suggesting CO?
        duaneb 11y ago
        I am not commenting on NASA's options; I am hardly qualified. I'm simply pointing out that there are plenty of areas on the continent far away from sea-level issues (although as other posters have commented there are other reasons to avoid the area). I'm enjoying the commentary on why the option is untenable.
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  "The majority of the Netherlands lies under sea level" Clarification: "26 percent of the country is below sea level" http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-seas-idUSTRE61C1V420100213 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-seas-idUSTRE61C1V4...
  - Joof 11y ago
    How we use language vs reality. It's still a lot though!
  - clishem 11y ago
    Thanks for your correction! I was genuinely unaware and made a mistake interpreting a map. The majority of the Netherlands (55%) is actually at risk of flooding. Fun fact I found while checking the source of my mistake; the IPCC report of 2007 also made this error: http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/content/correction-wording-flood-risks http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/content/correcti...
- justanother 11y ago
  I am not familiar with the geological features of the Netherlands, but much of the Florida coastline is formed from porous oolitic limestone, meaning you can build as many dikes and dams as you want, and the water will go under them and appear to come up from the ground on the side where it is not wanted. This is why so many coastal wells here in Florida have such problems with saltwater intrusion.
  - Terr_ 11y ago
    Ctrl-f'ed for "limestone", not disappointed :) More info in "The Siege of Miami": http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-mi... > I asked everyone I met in South Florida who seemed at all concerned about sea-level rise the same question: What could be done? More than a quarter of the Netherlands is below sea level and those areas are home to millions of people, so low-elevation living is certainly possible. But the geology of South Florida is peculiarly intractable. Building a dike on porous limestone is like putting a fence on top of a tunnel: it alters the route of travel, but not necessarily the amount.
- pilsetnieks 11y ago
  > A highly populated area or industrious zone might get a rating that only a flood every 10.000 years is acceptable, while for some rural areas may get a rating that a flood every 300 years is acceptable. Or until a king decides to flood the country to stop an army from advancing.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  Sea level rise at the Netherland coast will not be as high as the sea level rise in Florida. They could be lucky and their coast is just at the sweet spot where the sea level will neither decrease (which would suck for Rotterdams harbour) nor rise.
- douche 11y ago
  You know, they could go to south Texas, where there's plenty of inland areas with low population density east out to the Gulf. It'd be on the same, or lower, lattitude than KSC. It'd also be closer to Johnson Space Center, where they already have Mission Control and astronaut training. It's probably cheaper to rebuild/move everything from Kennedy than to try to save Florida. The only thing that might be a problem is if the political pork-barrel process can't stomach not distributing NASA money across two areas instead of one.
codecamper 11y ago
How about this thing that will be under the surface of the water? Cactus Dome, Runit Island http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/runit-dome-pacific-radioactive-waste http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/runit-dome-paci... Basically, it's all the nuclear waste from 12 years of 1950s nuclear bomb testing, sitting at sea level under 18 inches of concrete. You can see it on satellite view here: https://goo.gl/maps/EMRphCjir142 https://goo.gl/maps/EMRphCjir142
jamesblonde 11y ago
In related news, global warming will be worse than we thought https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11449976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11449976
willholloway 11y ago
The modern economy is in for extreme contraction unless we get a handle on this quick. It's time for civilization to control carbon emissions the way it controls nuclear proliferation, actively and aggressively. For example, Indonesia can not be allowed to engage in uncontrolled burning the way it is now. Indonesia fires release more carbon than the entire United States [1] We also need to begin a global carbon capture and sequestration effort, along with increased subsidies for solar and wind. Zoning laws need to change. All new single family construction needs to be net zero energy for example. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is the only technology that can bring atmospheric carbon back down to a safe level like 350ppm. We are currently over 400ppm and we are seeing melting and increased extreme weather. [2] We have to genetically engineer hyper efficient algae, have it soak up atmospheric carbon, burn it for energy and sequester the carbon emissions on a massive scale. The alternative to doing this is simply unacceptable economically, and politically. A world at 500ppm will be unstable, war torn and out of control. Quite simply, we will all be poor. Markets will contract, insurance prices would skyrocket and food insecurity would be the norm. [1] http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/carbon-from-indonesia/2207404.html http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/carbon-from-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture...
- jessaustin 11y ago
  ...actively and aggressively. ...Indonesia can not be allowed... Here I was, worrying about the fortunes of the USA military-industrial complex, once we taxpayers realize what a scam the currently-hyped "threat" is. Those guys are so creative, to already have another scapegoat lined up, especially such a large Muslim nation populated by not-white people! It's like a perfect mash-up of Iraq and Vietnam! Bravo, defense lobbyists!
  - knowaveragejoe 11y ago
    It's like you stopped reading immediately after the second quotation.
- theworstshill 11y ago
duncan_bayne 11y ago
Did I misread this article? It pointed out that the coastline has been receding, that it's been due to erosion, and that if climate change models are correct, it'll get worse in the future due to AGW. Headline seems sensationalist.
zkhalique 11y ago
This reminds me of a video I saw recently whete Ted Cruz, along with other republican senators, politically attacked NASA for studying Earth's climate! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=peL7Qecg3qQ http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=peL7Qecg3qQ
okyup 11y ago
Climate Change = Fear-mongering. Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? It's a miracle the Empire State Building isn't underwater already as some predicted. There's been no global warming for over a decade. All of those models used to predict disasters that never happened turned out inaccurate and wrong. But that doesn't stop corrupt organizations who have perverted "science" from continuing to use these "theories" for their political ends. Ocean levels have been rising for thousands of years and will continue to do so until the next ice age (barring human intervention to prevent it from occurring - might be a good thing?), so NASA would be wise to use technologies such as levies to prevent flooding of their facilities. They might've been even smarter to build them at higher elevation to begin with.
- fritzer_pitzer 11y ago
  I don't think the scientific consensus was ever for that much sea level rise during the last few decades. The fact is that greenhouse gases are undeniably increasing the earths temperature and this is destabilizing the major ice sheets. Exactly how fast these ice sheets will melt is uncertain but there is no doubt that the rate of their melting is accelerating.
- dalke 11y ago
  > Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? What you suggest was far from a generally accepted prediction. The IPCC's 2001 report was for <1 meter rise over the entire century. See http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/429.htm#1151 http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climat... . It emphatically was NOT a "foot to meter per year seawater rise." Do you have evidence that it wasn't just kooks saying what you suggested? > "as some predicted" Who predicted that? Some guest on Coast to Coast AM who also thinks alien UFOs create chemtrails? > use technologies such as levies to prevent flooding As brought up several times in this thread, levies won't work at KCS. Water would simply go through the porous rock under any such levy. If these statements of your are false, or at best straw man arguments, why should anyone believe the rest of what you write?
  - 11y ago

116 points by cryptoz 11y ago

For those unable to see the article: add it to Pocket, then switch to Article View.

"As climate change threatens, NASA has options that include hardening facilities against the rising seas with barriers and structures adapted to storms and flooding, or if adaptation is not possible, to strategically retreat." This article makes it seem as if protecting against rising water levels is an almost impossible feat. For everyone who thinks it is, I invite them to come to the Netherlands. The majority of the Netherlands lies under sea level, yet because it is completely protected by dikes/levees no floods have taken place for decades. In fact, all places that indexed by direct economical damage were a flood to take place; and get protected accordingly. A highly populated area or industrious zone might get a rating that only a flood every 10.000 years is acceptable, while for some rural areas may get a rating that a flood every 300 years is acceptable. https://www.rijnland.net/downloads/floodcontrolrijnland-1-1.pdf https://www.rijnland.net/downloads/floodcontrolrijnland-1-1.... I wonder what rating Dutch dike safety experts would give to the NASA launch platform, but seeing such an important economical site with hardly any protection against floods certainly boggles me.

czechdeveloper 11y ago
Rising water is no problem in comparison with big storms which are not known in Netherlands. At least as far as I understand.
cryptoz 11y ago
The NASA facilities are routinely subjected to hurricanes! Is the Netherlands prepared to handle huge surges of 30 feet of water all at once? Is the Netherlands prepared to handle the 10-15 feet of base sea level rise that is coming in the next century? I'm not so sure that they are. In fact, aren't the Netherlands debating similar questions, about building much bigger walls, or, in fact, retreating?
- merpnderp 11y ago
  "10-15 feet of base sea level rise in the next century" Maybe if you go by the NOAA histrionics. But if you go by scientific consensus, we're looking at 1-3 feet.
  - cryptoz 11y ago
    Estimates of sea level rise are very difficult and always changing. New research suggests that it could be "several meters", as published in a paper a few weeks ago. There is no scientific consensus on how much the sea level "will rise" - since it depends very much on our behavior as a species in the near future. > Without a sharp reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the global sea level is likely to increase “several meters over a timescale of 50 to 150 years” https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-rise-james-hansen-climate-change-scientist https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-ri...
    - at-fates-hands 11y ago
      >> Estimates of sea level rise are very difficult and always changing. Trust me, I'm pretty sure the people in the pacific islands are going to be a bit more paranoid about these changes than we are. And yet, some of the predictions have been wildly off the mark. Remember the United Nations Environment Programme who said in 2005: Imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas. The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee, by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.” Whoops. When I read stuff like this, it makes hard for objective people like myself to determine where the hype ends the facts start.
nkrisc 11y ago
Storm surges during hurricane Katrina reached heights of nearly 12.5 meters in some places. Would Dutch protections have held against that?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gozur88 11y ago
  Did Florida's? If you're planning to deal with multi-meter storm surges there's no point in worrying about a 1-3 ft increase in MSL.
jfoutz 11y ago
Netherlands whole coastline is what, 450 miles? For a 850 billion gdp it makes sense to have a high quality system in place. You guys are facing a billion euro/year to just update the existing system [1]. Nasa needs to protect 70 miles, 1/6th of you're whole country's coast. That far south in the Atlantic has much more extreme weather. So in addition to building a system, they'd need to build a much more robust system, compared to the Netherlands, to deal with the extremes. Is it possible? Hell yeah, they're smart people. Is it worth it? eh. Maybe just move and have a few more mars explorers instead. The big buildings and tracks are cool, but offices hangars and tracks are much simpler (and cheaper!) to build than a hurricane proof levee system. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlands#Current_situation_and_future https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_control_in_the_Netherlan...
- dalke 11y ago
  Plus, as the NYT article points out, KSC "sits in the middle of a vast wildlife refuge", which limits what can be done. Also, the ground is permeable - it doesn't help to build a dike if the water can seep up through the ground.
  - duaneb 11y ago
    Hey, in Colorado we have plenty of open space a mile above sea level. This is not an impossible barrier.
    - dalke 11y ago
      I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comment. Are you switching to NASA's other option, which is to "strategically retreat", and suggesting CO?
      - duaneb 11y ago
        I am not commenting on NASA's options; I am hardly qualified. I'm simply pointing out that there are plenty of areas on the continent far away from sea-level issues (although as other posters have commented there are other reasons to avoid the area). I'm enjoying the commentary on why the option is untenable.
tosseraccount 11y ago
"The majority of the Netherlands lies under sea level" Clarification: "26 percent of the country is below sea level" http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-seas-idUSTRE61C1V420100213 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-seas-idUSTRE61C1V4...
- Joof 11y ago
  How we use language vs reality. It's still a lot though!
- clishem 11y ago
  Thanks for your correction! I was genuinely unaware and made a mistake interpreting a map. The majority of the Netherlands (55%) is actually at risk of flooding. Fun fact I found while checking the source of my mistake; the IPCC report of 2007 also made this error: http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/content/correction-wording-flood-risks http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/content/correcti...
justanother 11y ago
I am not familiar with the geological features of the Netherlands, but much of the Florida coastline is formed from porous oolitic limestone, meaning you can build as many dikes and dams as you want, and the water will go under them and appear to come up from the ground on the side where it is not wanted. This is why so many coastal wells here in Florida have such problems with saltwater intrusion.
- Terr_ 11y ago
  Ctrl-f'ed for "limestone", not disappointed :) More info in "The Siege of Miami": http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-mi... > I asked everyone I met in South Florida who seemed at all concerned about sea-level rise the same question: What could be done? More than a quarter of the Netherlands is below sea level and those areas are home to millions of people, so low-elevation living is certainly possible. But the geology of South Florida is peculiarly intractable. Building a dike on porous limestone is like putting a fence on top of a tunnel: it alters the route of travel, but not necessarily the amount.
pilsetnieks 11y ago
> A highly populated area or industrious zone might get a rating that only a flood every 10.000 years is acceptable, while for some rural areas may get a rating that a flood every 300 years is acceptable. Or until a king decides to flood the country to stop an army from advancing.
tobltobs 11y ago
Sea level rise at the Netherland coast will not be as high as the sea level rise in Florida. They could be lucky and their coast is just at the sweet spot where the sea level will neither decrease (which would suck for Rotterdams harbour) nor rise.
douche 11y ago
You know, they could go to south Texas, where there's plenty of inland areas with low population density east out to the Gulf. It'd be on the same, or lower, lattitude than KSC. It'd also be closer to Johnson Space Center, where they already have Mission Control and astronaut training. It's probably cheaper to rebuild/move everything from Kennedy than to try to save Florida. The only thing that might be a problem is if the political pork-barrel process can't stomach not distributing NASA money across two areas instead of one.

codecamper 11y ago

How about this thing that will be under the surface of the water? Cactus Dome, Runit Island http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/runit-dome-pacific-radioactive-waste http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/runit-dome-paci... Basically, it's all the nuclear waste from 12 years of 1950s nuclear bomb testing, sitting at sea level under 18 inches of concrete. You can see it on satellite view here: https://goo.gl/maps/EMRphCjir142 https://goo.gl/maps/EMRphCjir142

jamesblonde 11y ago

In related news, global warming will be worse than we thought https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11449976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11449976

willholloway 11y ago

The modern economy is in for extreme contraction unless we get a handle on this quick. It's time for civilization to control carbon emissions the way it controls nuclear proliferation, actively and aggressively. For example, Indonesia can not be allowed to engage in uncontrolled burning the way it is now. Indonesia fires release more carbon than the entire United States [1] We also need to begin a global carbon capture and sequestration effort, along with increased subsidies for solar and wind. Zoning laws need to change. All new single family construction needs to be net zero energy for example. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is the only technology that can bring atmospheric carbon back down to a safe level like 350ppm. We are currently over 400ppm and we are seeing melting and increased extreme weather. [2] We have to genetically engineer hyper efficient algae, have it soak up atmospheric carbon, burn it for energy and sequester the carbon emissions on a massive scale. The alternative to doing this is simply unacceptable economically, and politically. A world at 500ppm will be unstable, war torn and out of control. Quite simply, we will all be poor. Markets will contract, insurance prices would skyrocket and food insecurity would be the norm. [1] http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/carbon-from-indonesia/2207404.html http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/carbon-from-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy_with_carbon_capture...

jessaustin 11y ago
...actively and aggressively. ...Indonesia can not be allowed... Here I was, worrying about the fortunes of the USA military-industrial complex, once we taxpayers realize what a scam the currently-hyped "threat" is. Those guys are so creative, to already have another scapegoat lined up, especially such a large Muslim nation populated by not-white people! It's like a perfect mash-up of Iraq and Vietnam! Bravo, defense lobbyists!
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  It's like you stopped reading immediately after the second quotation.
theworstshill 11y ago

duncan_bayne 11y ago

Did I misread this article? It pointed out that the coastline has been receding, that it's been due to erosion, and that if climate change models are correct, it'll get worse in the future due to AGW. Headline seems sensationalist.

zkhalique 11y ago

This reminds me of a video I saw recently whete Ted Cruz, along with other republican senators, politically attacked NASA for studying Earth's climate! http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=peL7Qecg3qQ http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=peL7Qecg3qQ

okyup 11y ago

Climate Change = Fear-mongering. Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? It's a miracle the Empire State Building isn't underwater already as some predicted. There's been no global warming for over a decade. All of those models used to predict disasters that never happened turned out inaccurate and wrong. But that doesn't stop corrupt organizations who have perverted "science" from continuing to use these "theories" for their political ends. Ocean levels have been rising for thousands of years and will continue to do so until the next ice age (barring human intervention to prevent it from occurring - might be a good thing?), so NASA would be wise to use technologies such as levies to prevent flooding of their facilities. They might've been even smarter to build them at higher elevation to begin with.

fritzer_pitzer 11y ago
I don't think the scientific consensus was ever for that much sea level rise during the last few decades. The fact is that greenhouse gases are undeniably increasing the earths temperature and this is destabilizing the major ice sheets. Exactly how fast these ice sheets will melt is uncertain but there is no doubt that the rate of their melting is accelerating.
dalke 11y ago
> Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? What you suggest was far from a generally accepted prediction. The IPCC's 2001 report was for <1 meter rise over the entire century. See http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/429.htm#1151 http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climat... . It emphatically was NOT a "foot to meter per year seawater rise." Do you have evidence that it wasn't just kooks saying what you suggested? > "as some predicted" Who predicted that? Some guest on Coast to Coast AM who also thinks alien UFOs create chemtrails? > use technologies such as levies to prevent flooding As brought up several times in this thread, levies won't work at KCS. Water would simply go through the porous rock under any such levy. If these statements of your are false, or at best straw man arguments, why should anyone believe the rest of what you write?
- 11y ago