Rising sea levels a slow 7.7 billion dollar disaster
Sunday, 17 June 2012 06:00The CCRAC estimates between 18,700 and 28,900 residential buildings in WA to be at risk from a 1.1 metre sea rise, representing $4.9 to $7.7 billion. Image: Stuart Sevastos
SPEAKING as part of the UWA Oceans Institute Dialogue Series, Dr Robert J Nicholls warns a one-metre rise in sea levels could have as great an impact on coastlines as fast onset disasters such as a tsunami.
While the University of Southampton Visiting Fellow would like more international cooperation on climate change, mitigation’s impact on the oceans would be limited.
“Mitigation will reduce and delay sea level rise, but some climate-induced sea level rise will occur irrespective of future emissions,” he says.
This little Dutch boy thinks he can stop sea level rise, and Prince Charles wants to be a tampon.
I vote we send this genius to the beach in Japan or Indonesia for the next tsunami, and he can see how that compares to the non-existent sea level rise WA has been experiencing over the past few decades.
The climate scientific method is
- Ignore real world data. Replace it with hand waving estimates made by a flaming nutjob.
- Don’t do any analysis to see if your proposed mitigation would actually have any effect.
- Go straight to the press with your half-assed analysis, and try to scare people with insulting analogies that make no sense to anyone with an IQ over 12.
At the current sea level rise rate…even at the faster rates some alarmists claim….the buildings will be beyond their expected life span anyway. I work in the architectural field and 90% of the buildings and infrastructure that is supposedly gonna be destroyed, will need replacing by at least 2050 and half of it by 2025. Almost nothing that exists today will last to 2100. We have all the time in the world to relocate and move our cities as the sea rises. To believe that buildings that would be either be tore down or need to be completely rebuilt by 2050 are somehow a negative cost, is to lose all sense of perspective.
Well, if replacing real world data with hand waving estimates made by a flaming nutjob. Mean to retroactively raise the sea levels with faux data or the same with the temps, then, yeh, that’s what they do.
https://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/jason-ii-the-changeling/
Dec/Jan rose about 4mm ……. this spring.
Ed Caryl examines sea level rise, identifies trend breakage in 2005.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/06/18/data-show-sea-level-rise-has-slowed-down-over-the-last-7-years/
Since CAT .6 Hurricane Irene was a $26 billion disaster, a $7 billion diaster is a pittance by comparison. The Great Colorado Trash Fire of 2012 has probably already exceeded that.
At 7.7 billion it is a slow disaster that comes cheaper than CAGW research. We should go with the sea level rise.
“This little Dutch boy thinks he can stop sea level rise, and Prince Charles wants to be a tampon.”
Kill 2 birds with one stone, the little Dutch boy can shove Prince Charles into the hole … any un-PC connotation is your own fault.
Much of Holland is 3m below sea level.
Heaping up piles of dirt is not particularly expensive, and even believing the IPCC (which I don’t) they will be very small heaps.
Added pictures and graphs from WA, http://pindanpost.com/2012/06/19/come-to-the-north-west-professor-we-dont-believe-in-pseudo-science/ give ’em hell, Steven.
$7.7 billion only just covers Gillard’s wasted pink batts insulation and solar panels…
Stop picking on Prince Charles. He is setting a great example by providing much needed warming for the planet. You might say he is doing it in truly Royal style with his four residences including Grosvenor house with its 54,000 square feet. Don’t forget his residence in the Silly (sic) Isles and his penchant for borrowing his mum’s “Yacht” with its gas mileage of 0.2 mpg.