Even if you dont live nearthe coast, How many airports , hospitals rail systems will be affected?

yes, Florida is already in a bit of bother

Melbournes own Desal plant comes on line in 2011, at a huge cost in Greenhouise gasses

The Pacific Institute did a study of what would happen to the coast if there was a moderate sea level rise of 1.4 meters. You can view the overall map, which lets you click on individual maps here.

The two most upsetting/astonishing ones, IMHO, are Huntington Beach (my boss lives here; his house would be flooded), and the Bay Area (which encompasses several maps). There are several other areas that would be significantly impacted as well.

I have been down to watch a game at the University of Miami and it is beautiful around there. I think you are gonna be OK for at least another 100 years with the sea level so don't worry....
I am considering moving to an area that is East of Tampa so we both may need to learn how to float.

Of course many Pacific island nations will go under much quicker than that....and be declared refugees

To the OP: I see nothing realistic that can or will be done about this. The idea that humanity will curb its appetite is absurd; it won't, warming will continue. There will be no point in time when it will seem feasible to move any of the world's major metropoli upstream, rather fortification will always be the choice of the day and that will eventually fail.

This was very noticeable in 2006. A trip down the Grand Canal at night revealed many darkened palazzi; those lit were mostly musei or government offices.

[There was a public transit strike when we arrived in the early evening. So workers in Venice were forced to use private transportation to commute home on the causeway; one of the all-time traffic nightmares that I have ever seen.]

That same year in Venice I saw an exhibit/protest against Berlusconi's mega-euro project off the lagoon to stem flooding. Criticisms were from all sides of the matter; efficacy, environmental impact, and cost.

Crypts of some of the older churches already have salt-water intrusion.

I thought I heard yesterday that the storm moving up the east coast had just beat 100 year records for storm surge.

JG-- I didn't know that!! Too bad this wasn't about 13 years ago!! Most of my work when I lived there was in Coconut Grove, Coral Gables, or down in Ocean Reef at the norther tip of Key Largo!

I think I'll be heading to Venice (ya not california heh heh) to see if they've started putting the glass on sale yet

Igloochic-- The thin face mounted glass tile is the same thing.

I own an ocean front condo that got wet inside (not from tidal surge but from a roof leak which could have been prevented) during the nor'easter this week. We have to replace about 1000 square feet of carpet.

Bill, want to swap some tile work for a week or so at the beach?

Sadly...yes. What's that old saying - "there are none so blind as those who cannot see?"

What are we discussing here? Coastlines and sea-level, throughout the world. Complex subject. Coasts erode in some places, augment in others. Plates rise in some places, sink in others. It appears certain that sea water is experiencing thermal expansion - at present the main factor in the small amount of rise that has occurred since 1850. There is much talk of storm-surges. These are not a new development. What is new is an enormous amount of man-made infra-structure very near vulnerable areas. Much of it is much less than a century old, so it stands to reason that 'hundred-year' storms are going to cause immense damage to such constructs, to say nothing of much bigger events.

Sea-rise is not required for much of what we have done in the past 30-40 years to be destroyed or severely impacted. Since I have lived on this island, for example, thousands of houses have been built in areas that will have zero protection from hurricane winds straight off the ocean. Some are also within reach of direct-strike hurricane storm-surge. There has not been a direct strike from a major hurricane here since the 50's. Most of that construction will undoubtedly be wrecked in the next fifty years without taking into account any rise in sea-level.

The simple fact is that human development is now so exponentially fast that massive amounts of stuff is built in fragile positions before weather and climate can destroy it. On our time-scale it looks like it's somewhat permanent, but it isn't. Depending on chance, most of us will see some of it be destroyed.

Here, with the 'exceptional' drought of 2002 and the huge forest fires, you couldn't buy house insurance if the address was within certain zip codes. Given that zip codes around here can be an entire county.....

It is a bit illogical, I think after we get the big hit this island will be un-insurable.

jlhug-- where abouts are you?

The storm surge flooding in the Norfolk area was exacerbated by the fact that sea level has risen and the land has subsided significantly over the past century. Over the past 60 years, absolute sea level along the coast of Virginia has risen by about 2.6 mm/year. However, the relative sea level has risen by 4.44 mm/year since 1927 (Figure 4), meaning that the land has sunk by about 1.84 mm/year. The net result is that the ocean is now about 1.16 feet higher at Norfolk than it was in 1927. The Norfolk tide gauge shows the highest rate of relative sea level rise of any gauge on the U.S. East Coast (though relative sea level rise is much higher along the Gulf Coast, with rises near 3 feet/century at New Orleans). Thus, today's 5+ foot storm surge brought water more than a foot higher in Norfolk than the 5+ foot storm surge of the 1933 hurricane. Storm surge damages will steadily increase along the entire coast this century as sea level rise accelerates and coastal development continues. It is urgent that government take action in coming years to limit development in vulnerable coastal regions. The ocean is going flood our sand castles that we are building in harm's way, at an ever increasing rate.

Coastal erosion and loss of protecting barrier reefs and islands have contributed to the increased destruction. We have eliminated most coastal marshland through dredging,channelizing, and infilling. Marshlands are not only the nurseries of marine life cycles but also sediment traps and defensive barriers.

One of the things I learned a long time ago is that the weight of a building, rock etc causes the land under it to shrink into a bowl shape. Even the smallest building will do this after a number of years. The ground may either compact or with vibration move outward. So with more building on the coasts and flood plains the lower the ground in those areas will become.

Some beaches in Florida were planning on trucking in sand to restore the areas hit by hurricanes.

Mfluer, I think the subsidence of soil under buildings will depend on soil type. Clayey and silty subsoils could subside, I suppose, under a big building. Of course, that's what engineered footings are all about. An average modern house is built with far more footing than it could ever need (short of a flood undermining). Around here, well-drained glacial tills do not subside at all, or more accurately, the shrinkage happens right away, just from the weight of the footing itself.

Dave, I think that low-lying areas are going to have trouble soon, as they are having inconveniences already. The tidewater region is one, certainly. Of course parts of the gulf have been having difficulties for quite a while, but outside of a few big ports there is not a comparable amount of infra-structure there. I doubt the florida east coast is as vulnerable as is popularly imagined, in terms of ports, though keeping the beaches fixed is a losing battle.

This last Nor'Easter was every bit as bad as a hurricane, and for me personally unpleasant, as I got a power surge that fried my computer and damaged my TV.

I fully expect that it won't be long before downtown Norfolk, which has a series of canals, will be deluged.

As for the dikes in Holland, there were suggestions made that this system should be tried in the New Orleans area, after their major hurricane. Too costly???

The reason they look the same is because they have all been restored at the cost of millions and millions of dollars to the taxpayer (St. Augustine was $17 million). $$ coming out of the taxpayer's pocket. Beaches are meant to evolve and change - instead we replenish the beaches to keep them attractive to the tourists and to protect the rich guys whose homes are right on the beach.

The thing about these storms is that they sometimes create better beaches, but in other areas destroy what beach there is. Here along our rivers folks go to enormous expense to put up "rip rap" as barriers to the water, to save the shoreline, but with recent storms, that's money wasted and spent to no avail.

Virginia Beach's sand is partly up against the boardwalk and partly swept out to sea.

Even though we aren't in a flood zone, we have flood insurance.

I dont think you are getting it. Insurance wont save you if the insurance companiee go bust.

Its not about getting more insurance.

Do you think insurance will fix those South Pacific countries which are being inundated as we speak?

There are other problems that might have some timely solutions.

As for the South Pacific islands, they are beyond help at this point. Even if everyone in the world planted a tree and stops driving today, it would take decades for the situation to stabilize and reverse itself. I recommend that they either elevate their houses or build up their land to deal with it in the short term.

But eventually, they will have to move.

This is a global warming issue, so the solutions to global warming apply. Raising public awarness is part of forcing Governments to act on greenhouse emissions.

ClumsyG does that give you comfort?

what makes you think you will HAVE a stable Government in 30 or 40 years?

think outside the square

and Peanutbrown my forum name is left over from my rose days "Youngquinn" is the name of a rose...actually I am 56 (FYI)

I don't really understand your position. At one end of your post, you seem to want the government to act on global warming and then on the other end, you so doubt the stability of your government that you feel it will collapse in our lifetimes.

So which is it?

World Governments still have tiome IMO....to get their acts together to radically address Global Warming.
If they dont ...unstable and drastic weather patterns, ice melts,etc etc will make food production much more tenuous than it even is now.
in 2050 there will be at least 2 billion more of us on the planet.
competition for food will be fierce.
I dont think there is much room for having comfort that your flood insurance thingy is Governement backed....we really dont know what form Governewmtent will take in the future.
you do the figures...

What I don't understand is how you think that the goverment can stop global warming and pollutions. No international environment policy has amounted to anything so far. To be honest, it is my position that no government now existing nor conceived in the future will be adequate. So dealing with the problem by mitigating ones losses is also wise.

As for the future of the planet, the true solution will not come from the United States or even the United Nations. What the planet needs someone who has the will and the power to force the world to change, as well as the know-how to judge what to change and by how much.

Until that comes along, we might as well be realistic.

a world dictatorship to fix it? and you say IM unrealistic!

Actually it is not the government that must cure the problem but each of us in our small ways. We can not cause much of a reduction in global warming but we can help slow down the floods by leaving a strip of unmown grass or a planting that slows down the runoff. I am going to do an experiment with small plantings to form U shaped diversions.

What should happen is that people should become more aware of where they are building and personally accept the consequences. Won't happen but I am tired of providing money thru FEMA and other organizations to people that knowingly build or remain living in an area that floods or has fires every year.

Judging from what we know about how the world order is established, how much change to the "moral compass" do you think will be allowed before the Empire puts a stop to it?

Remember, every nation supports environmental initiatives so long as no nation is obligated to do anything.

In the context of this thread, I'd be curious to know exactly whose consumption or whose decisions are causing oceans to rise, continental edges to subside, and shores to erode. IOW, it's rather absurd to suggest, as the OP seems to be, that certain groups are at 'fault'. I think YQ is as responsible as anyone, and yes, perhaps should prepare in whatever way is best, including having some water-wings on hand.

Oh, and how'd ya know I adore peanut-butter, YQ? That's uncanny; with such meta-physical powers one would think reversing ocean-rise would be a snap......

in case you hadnt read it here is a quote
"The federal government says its alarming new report on rising sea levels underlines the need to have an emissions trading scheme agreed to without delay.

The Climate Change Risks to Australia's Coasts report says up to 250,000 Australian homes are at risk of inundation by the turn of the century.

The findings are based on a sea level rise of up to 1.1 metres by 2100, and more extreme weather events.

As a result, the report says, more than $60 billion worth of residential property faces flooding.

In addition 120 ports, 1,800 bridges, power stations, water treatment plants and airports close to the coastline are also under threat.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the findings can't be ignored.

"The science tells us our climate is changing faster than first projected and the impacts are likely to be more severe," she told reporters in Sydney.

Australia must immediately reduce its carbon emissions, she said.

"Which is why we are determined to pass the Carbon Pollution....."

of COURSE we are al in this together.
Do you think I ammmsomehow blaming America?

this is a result of global warming ...and we all need to urg our Governemtns to act.
mine , yours , everyones

but its bigger than a few coastral dwellings being at risk.....much bigger

think infrastructure....roads , rails etc.

Beyond all that is the issue of what do we really know, as I had a thread on a while ago. Lately I have begun to question the idea that there are experts who have synthesized all the boggling array of super-specific studies over the past 50 years or so by thousands of researchers in all the different fields, and somehow can translate that into an accurate forecast. This report referenced in the OP of this thread being a case in point. Different stats can easily be found. Different conclusions by other panels and other experts can easily be found.

What do we really know? And if we do know something specific, about something awful, what can we do about it? We do know that there are places right now where humans are starving to death. What can I or you do other than give money to some relief org and hope a tiny part of it reaches a hungry belly? Donating food to one's local food pantry probably has more direct impact than that. Oh yes, one can be a political and social agitator, ceaselessly write to politicians, attend the rallies, travel and burn up fuel, or more admirably and far less often take publicity walks or bicyclings over great distances. Not to be a dreadful pessimist, but it changeth nothing. It is something to do, no worse than other amusements. People have to live, people want what they want, some people get in the wrong place at the wrong time, other people are oozingly rich, and in the final analysis shite happens, we'll all die, oceans rise and fall.

It's a sublime world, why waste time mucking about in vague guilt and worry?

You understand well that there are "experts" for hire to justify any action or inaction. There are "experts" willing to refute scientists and their research no matter how rigorous the research and analysis and how widespread similarly trained scientists accept the research being denied or denigrated. Good PR should not trump good science, including throwing out the science because the results of commercially or politically unacceptable.

I've already written of my deep pessimism about the willingness of human beings and human societies to adopt more rational actions and longer-term strategies to cease degrading the biosphere. Your attitude expressed above is a classic response, IMHO. People got to life. People live and die.