8 ms·
"As climate change threatens, NASA has options that include hardening facilities against the rising seas with barriers and structures adapted to storms and floo
by 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 agoRising water is no problem in comparison with big storms which are not known in Netherlands. At least as far as I understand.
- cryptoz 11y agoThe 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 agoEstimates 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.
- Houshalter 11y agoSome people do blame the civil wars in the Middle East on climate change, though its a bit indirect. That worse weather caused food prices to soar that year. That did happen around that time and caused a refugee crysis.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoThat sounds bad, but they've got a whole century to deal with it. That rate works out to only 1-2 inches/year. Also, they've got a millennium of experience. They'll probably be fine.
- scott_s 11y agoThe recent analysis argues that it is unlikely to be a linear process.
- Fritsdehacker 11y agoI never heard retreat as an option, but the issue it is definitely discussed here. In 2010 the "Delta" program started, making place along the river sides for the water to flood when needed [1]. There are also projects started to strengthen the dikes and dunes. I live in the Netherlands and I'm not worried. [1] http://www.klimaatportaal.nl/pro1/general/start.asp?itemid=350 http://www.klimaatportaal.nl/pro1/general/start.asp?itemid=3... (in dutch)
- kchoudhu 11y agoI believe so. The Dutch Delta Works were instituted as a result of the 1953 North Sea Storm, which resulted in a storm surge of (I think?) 20 feet. I'd imagine they built in some excess capacity in the surge protection system as well.
- nkrisc 11y agoStorm 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 agoDid 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 agoNetherlands 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 agoPlus, 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 agoHey, in Colorado we have plenty of open space a mile above sea level. This is not an impossible barrier.
- dalke 11y agoI'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 agoI 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 agoHow we use language vs reality. It's still a lot though!
- clishem 11y agoThanks 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 agoI 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 agoCtrl-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 agoSea 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 agoYou 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.