It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
SLAYER69
CranialSponge
100 trillion/year is feasible.
All they have to do is run the printing presses overtime...*cough*
LOL
Ok that made me spit up my coffee through my nose laughing.
too true and sad...
From refrigerated freighters and container ships to car carriers and supertankers, the world’s shipping industry has played an incredibly key role in transporting 90% of the world’s food, products and energy while helping to transform the global economy along the way. Each year, some 86,000 ships move more than 9 billion tons of cargo – more than a ton for each person on the planet – across our seas each year.
www.forbes.com...
Typically the cost of transporting a TEU containing more than 20 tonnes of freight from Asia to Europe is roughly the same as a one-way Economy Class flight along the same route. This weight in everyday goods such as electrical appliances in most cases represents a transportation cost of less than 1 per cent of the selling price.
worldoceanreview.com...
Los Angeles, a metropolis perched on the edge of a coast, can expect to experience sea level rise of as much as two feet due by 2050 due to climate change, according to current projections.
In anticipation, a team from USC partnered with the City of Los Angeles to gauge the impact of the rising tides on local communities and infrastructure. The results, according to a report that was released today, are a mixed bag -- but at-risk assets can be protected by proactive planning and early identification of adaptation measures, according to the report's authors.
"Some low-lying areas within the City's jurisdiction, such as Venice Beach and some areas of Wilmington and San Pedro, are already vulnerable to flooding," said Phyllis Grifman, lead author of the report and associate director of the USC Sea Grant Program. "Identifying where flooding is already observed during periods of storms and high tides, and analyzing other areas where flooding is projected are key elements in beginning effective planning for the future."
www.sciencedaily.com...
Problem is, as we have already seen with the floods here in the UK, successive governments keep cutting funding for the programmes that are needed, preferring to spend £Billions in propping up the criminal bankers and other hair brained schemes to maintain the elites in their ivory towers.
masqua
What everyone is forgetting when they speak negatively about people living on the seashore is that there's a livelihood to be made there. It's called fishing and nothing historically has ensured survival better than that. Just ask the Haida peoples on the west coast of Canada.
Are we also forgetting about the past millennia when sail meant commerce, wealth and contact with other land masses? There was that British Empire which existed solely because Britain 'ruled the waves'. They didn't amass all that power and wealth by sitting far inland. Neither did the Vikings.
We're on the oceans today because 90% of all the goods we use come to us by ships, so, I doubt the masses of humanity that live on the coasts is a sign of stupidity. Rather, it's a requirement if we want to keep on enjoying the way we live. If anyone is thinking of using air travel instead, I suggest looking into grocery stores up in the arctic regions where it all gets flown in. I already know what that's like because I lived there.
edit on 21/2/14 by masqua because: (no reason given)
Buiding mega cities along one of mother nature's well understood beasts of unpredictability makes about as much sense as building a nuclear reactor on an earthquake prone fault line....um.... "oops" ?
During the last glacial period, much of northern Europe, Asia, North America, Greenland and Antarctica were covered by ice sheets. The ice was as thick as three kilometres during the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago. The enormous weight of this ice caused the surface of the Earth's crust to deform and warp downward, forcing the viscoelastic mantle material to flow away from the loaded region.
At the end of each glacial period when the glaciers retreated, the removal of the weight from the depressed land led to slow (and still ongoing) uplift or rebound of the land and the return flow of mantle material back under the deglaciated area. Due to the extreme viscosity of the mantle, it will take many thousands of years for the land to reach an equilibrium level.
Confidence in projections of global-mean sea level rise (GMSLR) depends on an ability to account for GMSLR during the twentieth century. There are contributions from ocean thermal expansion, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets, groundwater extraction, and reservoir impoundment.
Progress has been made toward solving the ‘‘enigma’’ of twentieth-century GMSLR, which is that the observed GMSLR has previously been found to exceed the sum of estimated contributions, especially for the earlier decades.
The authors propose the following: thermal expansion simulated by climate models may previously have been underestimated because of their not including volcanic forcing in their control state; the rate of glacier mass loss was larger than previously estimated and was not smaller in the first half than in the second half of the century; the Greenland ice sheet could have made a positive contribution throughout the century; and groundwater depletion and reservoir impoundment, which are of opposite sign, may have been approximately equal in magnitude.
It is possible to reconstruct the time series of GMSLR from the quantified contributions, apart from a constant residual term, which is small enough to be explained as a long-term contribution from the Antarctic ice sheet. The reconstructions account for the observation that the rate of GMSLR was not much larger during the last 50 years than during the twentieth century as a whole, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing.
Semiempirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of the authors’ closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the twentieth century.
www.marzeion.info...
TIDE GAUGE LOCATION AND THE MEASUREMENT OF GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE
We therefore study individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) during 1807 – 2010 without recourse to data reconstruction. Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year.
Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year.
pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il...
CranialSponge
Ports, harbours, and fishing villages, sure.
Either of which could be easily adapted to ocean level variations.
But what about the needless mega cities all along the coastlines that inhabit millions upon millions of people ? What purpose are they serving in terms of economic waterway logistics ?
The point is: they don't serve a purpose. I think it's safe to say that 3/4 of the populace that live on the coastlines are only living there because it's "pretty".
Buiding mega cities along one of mother nature's well understood beasts of unpredictability makes about as much sense as building a nuclear reactor on an earthquake prone fault line....um.... "oops" ?
deadcalm
reply to post by SLAYER69
This reminds me of a speech that Al Gore gave 6 years ago when he stated that
[T]he entire North Polarized cap will disappear in 5 years
So now I look at the ice pack figures for the Arctic and it would seem that the ice is still there....and growing.
Artic ice pack up a whopping 50% percent this year...
Given that so very many of these gloom amd doom climate predictions have not come to pass, makes me extremely sceptical about claims like this. The UN climate commission's predictions have been wildly off for the last 20 years.
Business as usual + sea level rise = losses of up to 9% of global GDP
But losses should be less if we're not dumb enough to keep building on coasts.
by John Timmer - Feb 10 2014, 2:55pm EST
EARTH SCIENCE PHYSICAL SCIENCES
179
Although New York City would have flooded due to Sandy no matter what, the extent of the flooding was exacerbated by the sea level rise of the last century.
Climate.gov
Things like extreme weather and droughts are the high-profile impacts of climate change—they are easy to see and understand. Sea level rise is much more subtle and slow-moving, but it's inexorable. Even if we stabilize our climate at a new, higher average temperature, the seas will continue to rise for centuries as the added warmth slowly melts ice and causes the water in the oceans to expand in volume.
However, since so much of human infrastructure is built right on the coasts, the rising ocean levels have the potential to cause more disruption than any other factor. Recently, some researchers attempted to quantify just how damaging sea level rise will be. At its high end, the costs are staggering: a touch over nine percent of the global GDP by the end of this century. However, that number assumes we'll keep building right on the coasts—and we're not really that shortsighted, right?
Projecting the costs involved with sea level rise by the end of the century is a difficult challenge. To begin with, the height of the seas will depend on the rate of warming, which will depend on the trajectory that emissions (and thus temperatures) take. So there are both cultural uncertainties—will we get our carbon emissions under control or not?—and scientific uncertainties about the rate of warming and how that rate will be reflected in ocean levels.
Once you have scenarios for the change in coastline, you have to start thinking about what that actually means. And that analysis depends on measurements of the current status, such as how much infrastructure we already have that will be at risk in the future. It also depends on models of the future: how much will we build near the coastline in the near term, and how much will we be willing to spend on protecting it in the longer term?
To give one practical example of the issues confronting the authors, it's instructive to consider one of the relatively simple factors involved in their study: the elevation of land near the coasts. One of the data sets available on land elevation was generated using the Space Shuttle. The Shuttle measured elevation with a technology that overestimated the true elevation because it registered the height of the tops of foliage and any ground cover. The authors generated estimates with both the Shuttle data and a separate measure derived from satellite sensing, and they included the difference as part of their uncertainty estimates.
(One of their data sets, used to measure the amount of infrastructure already in place at the coasts, comes from the delightfully acronymed Global Rural–Urban Mapping Project, or GRUMP.)
Based on these estimates alone, the value of assets within the reach of a 100-year flood event will range between $17 trillion and $180 trillion by the end of the century—and that's under an emissions scenario that's unrealistically low. Under business-as-usual emissions (the IPCC's RCP 8.5), the figures will range from $21 trillion to $210 trillion. We'll naturally lose some of that infrastructure to flooding each year. Even under the unrealistically low emissions scenario, the losses could reach up to five percent of the global GDP annually. For the business-as-usual, it ranges from a low of 1.2 percent to a high of over 9.5 percent.
arstechnica.com...