EnviroLink Forum

Yes normal sea walls are very expensive. That is because they are in situations where the fury of storms has to be countered.

In the case of a sand bar where the land has been stable for hundreds of years without any human help and will indeed not need any further human interferance at all but the sea wall is still desired for psychological/political reasons a far cheaper wall will do absolutley fine.

The sea wall around an exposed deep water harbour which sits in 40 foot of water is a different matter. A 2 foot high thing is easy.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

It's managed fine with no help for long enough that people have built on the sand bar.

Since there has been so far no significant sea level change an additional bit of protection starting above the high tide point will be easy.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

_________________
Pollution is not the solution

http://nc1812.ncdcr.gov/history_forthampton.htm

Nice account of how the sand bars shift about in an active estuary.

Coastal defense is a costly undertaking because we put expensive things like ports and houses on the coast.

The effect and cost of countering errosion is a lot.

The effect of a tiny sea level rise is tiny.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

All this arguing about the cost of defending ports/towns/a few houses is moot and a waste of time if the results of the ANDRILL project is anything to go by, a few feet is nothing when they have found the sea level rises 20m above present in every interglacial so far. It is not worth wasting money and resources (or energy arguing about it) trying to defend what is going to be flooded in the longer term anyway and relocation is the only option.

Of course there is the question as to why the sea level is not higher if the that is normal for an interglacial and according to the cycle we should be nearing the end of the period unless the added CO2 changes the cycles.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Posting nice looking graphs will not alter the real situation.

The land ice is at present locked into ice sheets mostly in Antarctica. These are so cold that any amount of expected global warming will not melt them.

The one in Greenland is at high altitude and again most of it is safe from anything shy of a 15c degree temperature rise. The edges of this ice sheet may melt a bit but the maximum contibution to sea level rise is going to be a lot less than 20cm by 2100 assuming a less than 6c degree rise.

The basic mechanics of this is clear.

The other source of sea level rise is thermal expansion of the ocean. This is again at worst going to produce a less than 20 cm rise.

I know you really want to believe that we are all doomed but we just are not. Find another doomsday scenario.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein