wow, thanks for posting that Evan...
That's amazing.... and sad.
Holy crap.
Rounding 6.55 meters upward to 7, here's what Vancouver will look like afterwards.
Meanwhile, in Metro Seattle, rising sea levels are going to put most of Georgetown, White Center, and Tukwila underwater. I guess the SUVs will find it tough sledding traversing SR 99. They're going to need waterproofing, sonar, and snorkels.
I don't mean to be a wet blanket... I have actually made sure to live at least 10m above sea level just in case rising sea levels are indeed endangering us.
but in the case of burma, unless this storm surge completely obliterated the delta, won't the water go back into the ocean, like it did on the Gulf Coast after Katrina?
Which leads me to a larger question... I understand that some islands in the pacific are 'sinking' under the rising sea levels, but outside of these equatorial locations, is there any evidence that sea levels are actually rising in, say, Tokyo or NY? I haven't actually seen any and was wondering if anyone knew of such evidence?
Sea levels aren't rising by yards, so no, you don't really notice it that much so far. It's a matter of inches by decade, not enough to drown a harbour.
And yes, it's a storm surge, so most of the water will go back.
The weird thing is that I was looking at the storm surges and sea expansion in Netherlands just before coming here. And well, look up Zuiderzee on wiki, you'll see suppositions of what the sealine was like in Holland before massive storms and surges destroyed the dune barriers and the shoreline.
The real problem now in Burma, Bangladesh and other delta areas is that storms, typhoons and the like will destroy islands, dunes, mini-hills and other obstacles that stand between the sea and the completely flat land beyond. Then, without sea level rising up, the sea will be able to expand by eroding and eating up blocks of land - as the Dutch have experienced for centuries.
So, the delta isn't totally gone, but in a few centuries the whole area can be destroyed, the delta area will be much reduced, and there'll be sea and water where there was land. Not to mention that their rice harvest is now down the drain, with millions of people without food until the next one in X months, in a situation where most rice-producing countries now ban rice-exports.
And all that without taking into consideration the possibility that sea level might be 1 or more m. higher in 100 years, in which case most of the Irrawaddy delta will indeed be gone, as many islands, and most of Bangladesh - and a nice chunk of Florida real estate.
For Burma, it doesn't help having a ridiculous military dictatorship that's run the country into the ground (see also Mugabe, Zimbabwe).
People of a certain age will remember the disturbing trailer for Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining."
This is the first "preview" I've seen in a long time that matches it for sheer chilling dread. That both depict horrific floods doesn't escape me.
If I used a tragedy to promote my political POV I'd be banned...
"predicts that when"
So much wrong about that statement offered as fact...
Forget Al Gore and see what actual climatologists have to say
IMO, that the resources our gov't could use to help in the aftermath are being pissed away in an orgy for the M/I complex is a little more quantitative.
OTOH less people == less C02 == more polar bears. A blessing in disguise from that angle, right?
IMOS: SLORC isn't accepting any help from the US -- and it took more than two days of negotiations to get them to accept any help at all: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
20...i_n_100747.html
"How long can you tread water?"
- Bill Cosby, "Noah"
Commenting by HaloScan
