tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post2669336134678443523..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Money in the newsMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-3216719146395108772008-09-27T16:05:00.000-07:002008-09-27T16:05:00.000-07:00Netherlands is planning for a maximum of 1.6 m SLR...Netherlands is planning for a maximum of 1.6 m SLR by 2100 CE.<BR/><BR/>Galveston is built on a barrier island; as the seas rise the island will be forced inland by wave action.<BR/><BR/>IMHO hurricanes will become more frequent, but certainly what every hurricanes there are will, on average, be more energenic.<BR/><BR/>So Galvestonians ought to start moving further north. Those moving to, say, Springfield, Illinois, will, in 2100 CE, enjoy the current Galveston climate.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-19968094662155836462008-09-26T22:21:00.000-07:002008-09-26T22:21:00.000-07:00Well, I wouldn't be quite so cavalier about ab...Well, I wouldn't be quite so cavalier about abandoning Galveston, although that's likely the right answer.<BR/><BR/>There's science, engineering, economics, and politics, and there ought to be a coherent process. Maybe there already is one on the Gulf Coast? I hear the Netherlands has a plan for dealing with a possible +4m SLR by 2100.<BR/><BR/>Someone needs to do a joint model, like:<BR/><BR/>a) Science:<BR/>a1) Distribution of SLRs though 2100, maybe 2200.<BR/>a2) Statistics of hurricanes.<BR/>[Yes, I know there's a lot of argument].<BR/><BR/>a3) Generate lots of scenarios based on a1 and a2<BR/><BR/>b) Engineering (civil)<BR/>b1) Select some design strategies for different seawalls & infrastructure.<BR/><BR/>b2) Generate results scenarios based on a1 x b1.<BR/><BR/>c) Economics<BR/>c1) Model economics of b2, generating an ensemble of cost trajectories. Try to use realistic assumptions about energy costs.<BR/><BR/> This is akin to the Monte Carlos illustrated at <A HREF="http://www.stanford.edu/~savage/flaw/" REL="nofollow">Sam Savages's website</A>.<BR/><BR/>One would hopefully come up with<BR/><BR/>c2) Ensemble of what it costs to keep Galveston there for the next 100 years.<BR/><BR/>d) Politics<BR/><BR/>d1) And *who* is expected to pay for it.<BR/><BR/>A lot of people just don't seem to think d) is an issue. I think it is a very tough issue, and will be very painful.<BR/><BR/>I'd expect that David's "abandon Galveston" is the right answer, because I'd guess the results would show "It will be very expensive to keep Galveston there, and the USA will have to pay for it." But I'd feel better if it were arrived at by a coherent process that was pro-active, and longer-range, and warned people in advance.<BR/><BR/>The SLR part of this is just something that most people aren't use to facing [I say most, because sinking land has the same effect, so NOLA and Venice have seen it.]<BR/><BR/>When people are hit by a surprise disaster, others want to help out, and that's good, and being part of a big country is a useful form of insurance.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if disasters are predictable and recurring, sooner or later no one else is going to keep paying for them.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-44484245301021128122008-09-26T15:49:00.000-07:002008-09-26T15:49:00.000-07:00Yes.Abandon Galveston.Yes.<BR/><BR/>Abandon Galveston.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.com