Tim the Plumber wrote:
My point is that you cannot use any single nation's cost of coastal protection and then multiply that by the world's coast line.
Sure you can if you need a rough idea of the costs. Averages work wonders for things such as that.
Just as you can organise words into sentences which have no meaning and are utter gibberish you can and have done the same with numbers.
Since have given no numbers and tossed out unsupported wild guesses, I suppose you think that is a better way to deal with an issue?
My position on the costs of a sea level rise of less than 2 feet over a centuary is that it does not sound very catastrophic.
Open heart surgery does not sound that catastophic to some either. It is not what somethign may or may not "sound", but what the evidence shows us and you have no evidence to show outside of some wild guesses.
It sounds like something that will be extreemly easy to deal with.
Maybe to you, but sounding as if it might be easy and actually being so are two very different things.
As has been pointed out the Dutch have very high dykes which allow them to use land which would natually be below sea level. Some of these are (I think) 10 - 15m heigh. They might have to put an extra metre on them, but since it was economic to build them in the first place it will be easy to finance the improvement.
Maybe and maybe not. You speak as if adding a meter to the height is just that and there would be no additional base supports required. To someone who has no experience with force and vector mechanics that might make sense, but in practice it does not.
Also I provided the data for the English protection costs for a portion of the coast, which has no such high dikes that cost so much, but still has an impressive price tag.