The false link between global warming and worse tsunamis

From science writer David Appell:

I'm starting to see stories claiming that tsunamis will be worse in a globally warmed world, such as this one from China (via ClimateWire). What a mistake that is--it's exactly the kind of easy opportunism that leads to the right making fun of the left. Roy Spencer has already done that on TechCentral Station. (Hey, what's a legitimate scientist doing writing for an industry-sponsored Web site, anyway?) Sure, sea level is rising--about 2 mm/year--and is expected to be about 10-80 cm higher by 2100, according to the IPCC. That's a lot on relatively flat beaches such as in south Asia, where one meter of sea level rise might cause beachside activity to be pushed back a hundred meters or more. But people will adapt to that by gradually moving away from the beach as the sea encroaches. (I'm not saying that is a good thing, I'm saying it will inevitably happen.) So I don't see tsunamis (singular events caused by earthquakes) being much worse then than they are today. If the same tsunami as just happened were to occur in 2100, I don't see that there'd be much difference in terms of loss of life and material. (That's not to minimize the tragedy that has just occurred, of course.) Am I wrong?

Because I have to wonder why a science writer has no supporting documentation or linked facts. He believes in gradualism and slow processes. I would have to see his position on the melting of the Ross Ice Shelf and it's effects on undersea fissures and stuff like that.

Right now, his comment that there won't be a problem because people will gradually just move away is the statement of an idiot. People don't abandon their homes until too many get killed defending them. So, yes, it will be really bad. He just isn't capable of facing the human cost.

On edit, I notice he isn't denying that the tsunamis will be happening. He's just denying there will be any people on the coasts to hurt. He is definitely an idiot.

On edit, I notice he isn't denying that the tsunamis will be happening. He's just denying there will be any people on the coasts to hurt. He is definitely an idiot.

He's not denying there will be people on the coasts; he's arguing that people won't be any more vulnerable than they are now (which is, obviously, very vulnerable), because they will adapt to gradually-rising sea levels by retreating along with the shore. So by this argument, tsunamis 100 years from now will still be very bad, just not "worse."

Perhaps his assumption of a gradual retreat with gradually-rising sea levels is incorrect. But it is plausible, and it certainly isn't the statement of an idiot.

--Peter

Ocean beach property I have seen in South Carolina built just above the high tide mark(I would not build there if I were you) get wiped out by just a few bad storms. So they rebuild with taxpayer assistance only this time up on pilings. Hurricane comes wipes that away too. No problem with taxpayer assistance they build higher and stronger. Next Hurricane comes along takes that house away and this time the beach too.

But that will not deter their determination to have ocean front property. How dumb can you get?

Useless observation into human nature.

180

:kick:

Not according to the disaster planning expert (and coastal geomorphologist) down the hall from me. He points out that there are plenty of cases where people have rebuilt in exactly the same spot, in areas that were destroyed by storms etc. -- unless there is some kind of law (written or otherwise) that prevents them from building near the water, they will do it. Thailand, by the way, does have coastline development restrictions, which are frequently waived by tourism operators. That's one of the reasons why so many hotels were smashed. And it's not as though there haven't been smaller-scale tsunamis or typhoons in the region before, so people know that shorelines are dangerous.

If global warming means that sea levels will get higher, and a storm or other type of surge goes hundreds of yards further inland -- much broader areas would be affected than today. Just walking down by the shore, people might not notice that the water levels are higher than they were several decades ago. But the potential for more damaging waves is definitely there.

And added to this is the fact that coastal populations continue to grow. A hundred years ago, this disaster wouldn't have affected as many people, simply because the world population was under 2 billion. We're going to be around 8 or 9 billion by mid-century.

As an environmental scientist, I would bet against Appell. If present development patterns continue (and that's what the trends predict, unfortunately) -- there would be more casualties and more property damage, if the same area were hit in 100 years and there are no significant changes in development policy or warning/evacuation systems.

This is why the big insurance companies are concerned about the potential impacts of disasters -- even before global warming became a public issue, they knew that the expansion of built-up areas could mean more potential losses for them.


http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1360362,00.html

And when you get wiped out, again and again, you go running to the public teat for your bailout, again and again.

Lots of sloppy shitty UFO/alien-abduction Tesla BULLSHIT gets posted on this site, wrapped in the gleaming skin of "science". Glad you're not the only one who's noticed! :hi: