4 ms·

It's an odd thing to quibble about, but 200km is quite a distance, and not what I'd say 'coastal'. I'm 135km from the coast (I'm north west of Sydney, AU) but

by Jedd 4y ago

It's an odd thing to quibble about, but 200km is quite a distance, and not what I'd say 'coastal'. I'm 135km from the coast (I'm north west of Sydney, AU) but that's a 2h5m drive away. I'd not claim to be coastal. 200km means no one in the UK could be considered not coastal -- IIRC it's impossible to be more than ~115km from the coast. I think a more telling statistic is that in Australia, more than 85 per cent of people live within 50 kilometres of the coast - mind, even 50km inland wouldn't fit what I would think of as coastal dwelling.

DoreenMichele 4y ago
Nah, it's not an odd thing to quibble about. I did try to word it such that it wouldn't be misinterpreted as me saying "200km is the same as coastal."' I appreciated the info in the GP comment and I realize Australia is likely more extreme than average, but one of the reasons humans are so concerned about rising seas and eroding beaches is because it impacts so many lives. If 90 percent of people lived more than 200km from the coast and it was sort of "a handful of weirdos" that lived near the beach, I think humans wouldn't be so distressed by these things. It would be "Meh, nature out there can do what it wants. My house is safe and life goes on."
- Jedd 4y ago
  I still fondly recall my English teacher at high school (several decades ago) describing our population here as 'like the scum around the edge of an empty bathtub'. Despite that I do remember him as a cheery chap. Anyway, I'm sure most of the population lives near water, mostly oceans, but sometimes (inland) along rivers. Proximity to the coast is very misleading, as obviously the risk is predominantly down to elevation. As I noted, 100% of the UK live within 120km of the coast, and my weirdo assessment of their populationi aside, with an average elevation of 160 metres, most of the land will be fine. London's screwed, of course, with even only minor sea level rises. They're an exceptional case in all kinds of ways. Let's move on. Best info I can find is an NPR article that suggests some research 15 years ago estimated about 600M people lived within 10 metres of sea level. So, if Greenland goes, they're all displaced. Anyway, this doesn't really contest TFA's point, which seems to be 'large aggregate will slow down erosion'. Obviously holding your soil in place doesn't help much if it's held in place under 10 metres of saltwater.
  - DoreenMichele 4y ago
    Most people live near water and in flood plains. Water is essential to life and essential to growing food, plus waterways get used for transport. I used to get all up in arms about "Why! Do people live There! When it keeps flooding???" Then I looked at the data etc. We could stand to do a better job of working with the environment and building things more able to survive known issues for specific places. I'm always interested in clues to how we can do this better, but there is no place on Earth without some kind of natural disaster that routinely threatens the area. It's a case of pick your poison.
bell-cot 4y ago
> ...but 200km is quite a distance, and not what I'd say 'coastal'. Yes - viewed from your location, 200km definitely isn't. But in the "from orbit" view - 200km away still has huge effects on the geology, climate, economy, etc. of a place. Or - ask someone who grew up in western Kansas, then joined the Navy.

by Jedd 4y ago

DoreenMichele 4y ago

Nah, it's not an odd thing to quibble about. I did try to word it such that it wouldn't be misinterpreted as me saying "200km is the same as coastal."' I appreciated the info in the GP comment and I realize Australia is likely more extreme than average, but one of the reasons humans are so concerned about rising seas and eroding beaches is because it impacts so many lives. If 90 percent of people lived more than 200km from the coast and it was sort of "a handful of weirdos" that lived near the beach, I think humans wouldn't be so distressed by these things. It would be "Meh, nature out there can do what it wants. My house is safe and life goes on."

Jedd 4y ago
I still fondly recall my English teacher at high school (several decades ago) describing our population here as 'like the scum around the edge of an empty bathtub'. Despite that I do remember him as a cheery chap. Anyway, I'm sure most of the population lives near water, mostly oceans, but sometimes (inland) along rivers. Proximity to the coast is very misleading, as obviously the risk is predominantly down to elevation. As I noted, 100% of the UK live within 120km of the coast, and my weirdo assessment of their populationi aside, with an average elevation of 160 metres, most of the land will be fine. London's screwed, of course, with even only minor sea level rises. They're an exceptional case in all kinds of ways. Let's move on. Best info I can find is an NPR article that suggests some research 15 years ago estimated about 600M people lived within 10 metres of sea level. So, if Greenland goes, they're all displaced. Anyway, this doesn't really contest TFA's point, which seems to be 'large aggregate will slow down erosion'. Obviously holding your soil in place doesn't help much if it's held in place under 10 metres of saltwater.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  Most people live near water and in flood plains. Water is essential to life and essential to growing food, plus waterways get used for transport. I used to get all up in arms about "Why! Do people live There! When it keeps flooding???" Then I looked at the data etc. We could stand to do a better job of working with the environment and building things more able to survive known issues for specific places. I'm always interested in clues to how we can do this better, but there is no place on Earth without some kind of natural disaster that routinely threatens the area. It's a case of pick your poison.

bell-cot 4y ago

> ...but 200km is quite a distance, and not what I'd say 'coastal'. Yes - viewed from your location, 200km definitely isn't. But in the "from orbit" view - 200km away still has huge effects on the geology, climate, economy, etc. of a place. Or - ask someone who grew up in western Kansas, then joined the Navy.