4 ms·

Just to be clear, I still enjoy and plan on living in the west for a long time. But there are quite a few theoretically possible regime changes that I am aware

by tda 7y ago

Just to be clear, I still enjoy and plan on living in the west for a long time. But there are quite a few theoretically possible regime changes that I am aware of (and probably even more that I am unaware of) to make me concerned about it. Any significant regime change (break with historic trends) will automatically invalidate all models/predictions/assumptions about our safety levels. Current design criterion is we should be safe for 1/10.000 year conditions. And if all goes wrong, you better be in a low population density rich country that can handle a little warming (thinking of Sweden and Norway in particular) Better move there before everyone else does ;)

jacquesm 7y ago
Sweden and Norway are attractive for many reasons, but I don't think any of this will happen soon enough to impact my life in a meaningful way. I'm 54, I haven't exactly been too careful with this body and if I live to 80 it would highly surprise me. But my children likely will see this in full force and I sincerely hope that by then humanity will have come its collective senses.
- tda 7y ago
  I hope you're right, I expect the world to be in a very different place in a few decades and not for the better. I'm still under 40 so I'm keeping my options open; even though the chances are probably very low, the effect is also pretty extreme making the risk (probability * effect) approximately 0 * inf. I estimate the probability to be somewhat higher than 0, so therefore I believe the risk is significant.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    > I expect the world to be in a very different place in a few decades and not for the better Given history to date I would say that is a safe assumption when you are living in a time of prosperity, it is the global equivalent of 'this too shall pass'. But even if NL will be hit hard I highly doubt it will be hit hardest or first. We've been vaccinated in a sense in not trusting nature to leave her boundaries where we'd like them to be, the country is more like a machine than a static arrangement. If we stopped pumping water out you'd be living on the lakeside within a few years, and on the seaside a few years after that.
    - tda 7y ago
      Indeed we won't be hit hardest or first, but consider this. Just about the entire Randstad is in a single "Dijkring" (Dijkring 14). And because a large part of the Randstad is flooded, if any part of the defense goes, it goes entirely. And as the Randstad is the economic heart of the country, the country will not recover. Also because it can't feasibly be evacuated. So flooding will happen in other places first, but the other places are above sea level and will get dry again. Or a few meters of coastline is lost. Not the Randstad, it will be flooded exactly once and stay flooded completely and forever. Lets just hope it will take a long time before it happens.
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        I don't think that will happen that quickly. Yes, it is a single dijkring, but also one of the best protected ones. IJsselmeer is right next door giving a very nice way to get rid of a substantial amount of water with a very convenient canal system and the Oranjesluizen to make that happen. That would take care of a surface area the size of the city with 9 meters of so of water standing above it before this would be an issue. I'm much more skeptical about the delta near Rotterdam/Zeeland and the part where the big rivers enter the country, mostly because of what's on the other side of the border. https://flamingo.bij12.nl/risicokaart-viewer/app;jsessionid=BCBB6885E1126402ED6D05FCB0B296E9/Risicokaart-openbaar?bookmark=338e0a0602034bc9a6d58786eb7bfddd https://flamingo.bij12.nl/risicokaart-viewer/app;jsessionid=... Is a good place to look at, and it more or less confirms exactly what I wrote above.
        tda 7y ago
        Yes, there are a few fringe areas that are likely to flood. But as we know that, that is not a problem. These areas are mostly uninhabited, have emergency procedures in place and are somewhat resilient (houses built on artificial mounds). Dealing with the known unknowns is relatively easy. Sometimes these areas flood, but seldom does it cause significant impact (loss of life, significant impact on economy). Taking into account all the known unknowns we have designed and built the greatest sea defense of history designed for 1:10.000 year conditions. And I am very confident this has been done properly (no expense spared). I believe New Orleans was rebuilt with 1:100 year conditions in mind, and that was after Katrina. Nothing close to 1:10.000. So are we safe then? A few years ago I would have said yes without a doubt. But now? It's the unknown unknowns I'm afraid of because they are by definition left out of the calculations to get to 1:10.000 year conditions, and we are only just beginning to discover what climate change really means. I'm afraid we "ain't seen nothing yet", and extrapolating from the past just won't cut it.

by tda 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago

Sweden and Norway are attractive for many reasons, but I don't think any of this will happen soon enough to impact my life in a meaningful way. I'm 54, I haven't exactly been too careful with this body and if I live to 80 it would highly surprise me. But my children likely will see this in full force and I sincerely hope that by then humanity will have come its collective senses.

tda 7y ago
I hope you're right, I expect the world to be in a very different place in a few decades and not for the better. I'm still under 40 so I'm keeping my options open; even though the chances are probably very low, the effect is also pretty extreme making the risk (probability * effect) approximately 0 * inf. I estimate the probability to be somewhat higher than 0, so therefore I believe the risk is significant.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > I expect the world to be in a very different place in a few decades and not for the better Given history to date I would say that is a safe assumption when you are living in a time of prosperity, it is the global equivalent of 'this too shall pass'. But even if NL will be hit hard I highly doubt it will be hit hardest or first. We've been vaccinated in a sense in not trusting nature to leave her boundaries where we'd like them to be, the country is more like a machine than a static arrangement. If we stopped pumping water out you'd be living on the lakeside within a few years, and on the seaside a few years after that.
  - tda 7y ago
    Indeed we won't be hit hardest or first, but consider this. Just about the entire Randstad is in a single "Dijkring" (Dijkring 14). And because a large part of the Randstad is flooded, if any part of the defense goes, it goes entirely. And as the Randstad is the economic heart of the country, the country will not recover. Also because it can't feasibly be evacuated. So flooding will happen in other places first, but the other places are above sea level and will get dry again. Or a few meters of coastline is lost. Not the Randstad, it will be flooded exactly once and stay flooded completely and forever. Lets just hope it will take a long time before it happens.
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      I don't think that will happen that quickly. Yes, it is a single dijkring, but also one of the best protected ones. IJsselmeer is right next door giving a very nice way to get rid of a substantial amount of water with a very convenient canal system and the Oranjesluizen to make that happen. That would take care of a surface area the size of the city with 9 meters of so of water standing above it before this would be an issue. I'm much more skeptical about the delta near Rotterdam/Zeeland and the part where the big rivers enter the country, mostly because of what's on the other side of the border. https://flamingo.bij12.nl/risicokaart-viewer/app;jsessionid=BCBB6885E1126402ED6D05FCB0B296E9/Risicokaart-openbaar?bookmark=338e0a0602034bc9a6d58786eb7bfddd https://flamingo.bij12.nl/risicokaart-viewer/app;jsessionid=... Is a good place to look at, and it more or less confirms exactly what I wrote above.
      - tda 7y ago
        Yes, there are a few fringe areas that are likely to flood. But as we know that, that is not a problem. These areas are mostly uninhabited, have emergency procedures in place and are somewhat resilient (houses built on artificial mounds). Dealing with the known unknowns is relatively easy. Sometimes these areas flood, but seldom does it cause significant impact (loss of life, significant impact on economy). Taking into account all the known unknowns we have designed and built the greatest sea defense of history designed for 1:10.000 year conditions. And I am very confident this has been done properly (no expense spared). I believe New Orleans was rebuilt with 1:100 year conditions in mind, and that was after Katrina. Nothing close to 1:10.000. So are we safe then? A few years ago I would have said yes without a doubt. But now? It's the unknown unknowns I'm afraid of because they are by definition left out of the calculations to get to 1:10.000 year conditions, and we are only just beginning to discover what climate change really means. I'm afraid we "ain't seen nothing yet", and extrapolating from the past just won't cut it.