The scientific consensus is that given the way global temperatures are going, we're going to see a one-meter (three feet) rise in sea levels over the next century, and there's nothing that can be done about it.
According to this projection map of coastal Louisiana, most of southeastern Louisiana will cease to exist by the end of this century. New Orleans isn't even close to being near where the new coastline is projected to be.
A serious question: why rebuild the devastated parts of New Orleans, if climate change (man-made or not) has signed a death warrant for the place? Shouldn't we be trying to save what can be saved? It's not a matter of indifference to or hatred for New Orleans. How can anybody stop nature? And if we can't stop nature, what should we do? Hoping for the best isn't a strategy. Thoughts? I mean, hell, if my mom and dad's place stays in the family, my grandchildren will inherit property that'll be close to the beachfront. It's not a hundred or so miles inland.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"No, it doesn't work that way."
You mean hypothetically dumping the proportional amount of freshwater melt required to jack sea levels 3 meters in a century would not produce a desalinating effect on the Gulf Stream, and thus its relative density, as well as that of the global THC of which it's a part?
Or that sufficient oceanic/atmospheric cooling in the Laurentine latitudes and elsewhere as a result of the Gulf Stream (and other segments of the THC) shutting down or becoming sufficiently morbid would not increase snowfall over eastern Canada, the Greenland ice sheet, and Northern Europe, as well as the Arctic, (and elsewhere) locking up water and thus making it unavailable for sea level rise in the closed system?
Maybe I was wrong; I did think that's the way it supposedly worked.
For the record, Rod was using scientific predictions for New Orleans that relied on a slightly more than three FOOT sea level rise (ONE meter), NOT three meters.
If the sea rises three meters in the 21st century, lower Manhattan and large chunks of New York City and northeast New Jersey (not to mention all of Atlantic City and its casinos) are toast, just in my area. Guess they'll have to move the Venetian wholesale from Lost Wages to the East Coast to keep gambling going in A.C.
My apartment complex along the tidal section of the Raritan River would be ancient history. Not to mention the horrific effects on other coastal cities all over the country and world.
And in Louisiana, Rod can forget his hopes of a beachfront resort in what is now Cajun country. The sea would advance close to ... well, who knows, maybe Jena? (Sigh.)
"For the record, Rod was using scientific predictions for New Orleans that relied on a slightly more than three FOOT sea level rise (ONE meter), NOT three meters."
Correct; my bad. Three feet remains quite extraordinary itself without my grotesque misquote.
Brad
You mean hypothetically dumping the proportional amount of freshwater melt required to jack sea levels 3 meters in a century would not produce a desalinating effect on the Gulf Stream, and thus its relative density, as well as that of the global THC of which it's a part?
Or that sufficient oceanic/atmospheric cooling in the Laurentine latitudes and elsewhere as a result of the Gulf Stream (and other segments of the THC) shutting down or becoming sufficiently morbid would not increase snowfall over eastern Canada, the Greenland ice sheet, and Northern Europe, as well as the Arctic, (and elsewhere) locking up water and thus making it unavailable for sea level rise in the closed system?
That is probably the craziest idea I've ever heard. Yes, as the ice melts, the THC might shutdown, and that might result in larger snowfalls in various northern areas, but the idea that it would result in new large enough permanent glaciers to trap enough water to counteract the melting in Antarctica is just the slightest bit silly.
There are 2 formulas for this decision:
1. You (USA) built it (Flood Protection "System" (ahem) of New Orleans), you own it; if it breaks, you fix it; if you build it badly and it breaks, you fix it AND you fix (make whole) the people harmed by your bad levees. It's not charity, it's duty.
2. You're looking at a 100-year term for your investment in New Orleans. Can you get a better return anywhere else? Don't confine your imagination to merely government expenditures - I know there are a lot of poor people there. Think about how much commerce moves through New Orleans. You can't get the same kind of maritime traffic anywhere else. The infrastructure is already there: wharves, warehouses, rails, roads, locks, canals, the intracoastal waterway, the river, the gulf. Put a little money into the levees and the housing, and New Orleans is back on line. It will take decades to establish Baton Rouge or Gonzales or somewhere else to replace New Orleans, if - IF - the predictions of 1 meter sea level rise come to pass.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.