From the University of Southampton and the department of potential assorted threats and sundries, comes this claim.
New research predicts that coastal regions may face massive increases in damages from storm surge flooding over the course of the 21st century.
Yes, and a asteroid could hit us, and some errant jihadist might get a nuke and set it off. I worry about those things more than I worry about coastlines and the affluent who build there, especially since Global Tropical Cyclone activity is at 33-year lows.
According to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, global average storm surge damages could increase from about $10-$40 billion per year today to up to $100,000 billion per year by the end of century, if no adaptation action is taken.
The study, led by the Berlin-based think-tank Global Climate Forum (GCF) and involving the University of Southampton, presents, for the first time, comprehensive global simulation results on future flood damages to buildings and infrastructure in coastal flood plains. Drastic increases in these damages are expected due to both rising sea levels and population and economic growth in the coastal zone. Asia and Africa may be particularly hard hit because of their rapidly growing coastal mega-cities, such as Shanghai, Manila and Lagos.
“If we ignore this problem, the consequences will be dramatic,” explains Jochen Hinkel from GCF and the study’s lead author. In 2100, up to 600 million people (around 5 per cent of the global population) could be affected by coastal flooding if no adaptation measures are put in place.
“Countries need to take action and invest in coastal protection measures, such as building or raising dikes, amongst other options,” urges Hinkel. With such protection measures, the projected damages could be reduced to below $80 billion per year during the 21st century. The researchers found that an investment level of $10 to $70 billion per year could achieve such a reduction. Prompt action is needed most in Asia and Africa where, today, large parts of the coastal population are already affected by storm surge flooding.
However, investment must also occur in Europe as shown by the recent coastal floods in South West England. Professor Robert Nicholls from the University of Southampton, who is a co-author of the paper, says: “If we ignore sea-level rise, flood damages will progressively rise and presently good defences will be degraded and ultimately overwhelmed. Hence we must start to adapt now, be that planning higher defences, flood proofing buildings and strategically planning coastal land use.”
Meeting the challenge of adapting to rising sea levels will not be easy, explains Hinkel: “Poor countries and heavily impacted small-island states are not able to make the necessary investments alone, they need international support.” Adding to the challenge, international finance mechanisms have thus far proved sluggish in mobilising funds for adapting to climate change, as the debate on adaptation funding at the recent climate conference in Warsaw once again confirmed.
“If we do not reduce greenhouse gases swiftly and substantially, some regions will have to seriously consider relocating significant numbers of people in the longer run,” adds Hinkel. Yet regardless of how much sea-level rise climate change brings, the researchers say careful long-term strategic planning can ensure that development in high-risk flood zones is appropriately designed or avoided. Professor Nicholls says: “This long-term perspective is however a challenge to bring about, as coastal development tends to be dominated by short-term interests of, for example, real-estate and tourism companies, which prefer to build directly at the waterfront with little thought about the future.”
“New research predicts that coastal regions may face massive increases in damages from storm surge flooding over the course of the 21st century.”
——————-
As usual, they got it ass-backward in order get their “fear factor” in it, ….. because it is not the CAGW that will get them “storm surge” flooded, ……. it’s the Global Cooling that will, to wit:
“THE LITTLE ICE AGE IN EUROPE – Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 that brought dire consequences to its peoples.
During the LIA, there was a high frequency of storms. As the cooler air began to move southward, the polar jet stream strengthened and followed, which directed a higher number of storms into the region. At least four sea floods of the Dutch and German coasts in the thirteenth century were reported to have caused the loss of around 100,000 lives. Sea level was likely increased by the long-term ice melt during the MWP which compounded the flooding. Storms that caused greater than 100,000 deaths were also reported in 1421, 1446, and 1570. Additionally, large hailstorms that wiped out farmland and killed great numbers of livestock occurred over much of Europe due to the very cold air aloft during the warmer months. Due to severe erosion of coastline and high winds, great sand storms developed which destroyed farmlands and reshaped coastal land regions.” http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
“Why isn’t insurance coverage based on this risk? Its not like the people who can afford these expensive homes and real estate cannot afford to pay much higher insurance premiums.”
Ah, now here you hit the nail on the head! The reason is that, at least here in the good old U S of A, the Federal Government subsidizes (and in some cases provides) ALL flood insurance in coastal areas. The reason for that is that private insurers calculated the costs, and the large number of people living their complained, along with the businesses, and as the coastal states are heavily populated, Congress agreed to subsidize all of it since that helped a whole lot of Congressman, from BOTH parties, get elected.
“now cynics claim a little of the cash has gone astray,
but that’s not the point, my friends!!!”
– “Evita”, lyrics of “And the money kept rolling in”
So even though we are supposedly “worried” about coastal flooding, are government provides massive subsidies yearly to encourage both people and businesses to both move into those areas, and to build more, and more, and more.
Our government in action. If you suggest this isn’t right, well then you are just one of those nasty anti-government types who no respectable people like to talk to.
Obama launches ‘climate hubs’ to help farmers and communities
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/197487-obama-launches-climate-hubs-to-help-farmers-communities-battle-climate
The Obama administration will announce the establishment of regional hubs focused on mitigating climate change on Wednesday.
The hubs are the first-ever regional centers that will focus solely on risk adaptation and climate change solutions at seven locations across the country.
“On the heels of passage of the farm bill, the administration will take executive action to help farmers, ranchers and rural communities combat climate change and adapt to extreme weather and other damage it causes,” a White House official said in an email ahead of Wednesday’s announcement…
…The seven designated locations for the hubs will service the surrounding region with climate change information and outreach.
The new climate hubs will be established in Iowa North Carolina, New Hampshire, Colorado, Oklahoma, Oregon New Mexico.
There will also be three sub-hubs in Michigan, Puerto Rico and California.
Building along the coasts during a 30-year lull in cyclical patterns = Massive increase in damage. Quick make that prediction as a result of climate change so people will think the damage is a result of climate change when they’re concluding that “something must be done.” Transparent, yet always at least partially effective. Especially when politicians are behind you.
There seems to be a new industry of scaring the heck out of people and then offering to help by selling them mitigation strategies. Here in South Florida we have a couple of pundits saying that 4ft of SLR is probable. When asked about their numbers, they blabber-on about catastrophic acceleration of west Antarctic glaciers…. I’m trying to think of my own strategies to mitigate the BS, but the PR films of calving glaciers are hard to compete with.
Google search string: ” hit a tipping point of uncontrollable retreat ” brings up about 24,000 hits… reference is to a glacial retreat, but the author’s implication… that glaciers might otherwise be controllable?
What does expanded flood risk have in common with Obamacare? … one of the biggest lobbying efforts on earth, by insurance companies.
Brian says:… reference is to a glacial retreat,
OT but I can’t count how many times I’ve challenged the whole meme by asking the simple question – which kind of glacier provides more water for rivers to support life downstream, ones that are melting and retreating – or – ones that are staying frozen and advancing?
Mike M which kind of glacier provides more water for rivers to support life downstream, ones that are melting and retreating – or – ones that are staying frozen and advancing?
Mike, even Glaciers which are advancing melt at their terminal giving rise to glacial meltwater. Glaciers which have a increased bulk have more potential ice to melt into water. Glaciers which are retreating do produce lots of water, but only for a limited time. As the glacier shrinks, so does the water source.
Bollox.
People, this is simple math. “…$100,000 billion per year by the end of century, if no adaptation action is taken.” That’s $100 trillion, which is greater then the GDP of planet Earth.
So, on an annual basis, all production on the planet and then some will be lost due to “storm surge damages”. This is dire news indeed! Immediate action must be taken!
But for the low, low cost of ~$40b, we can reduce the damage to ~$80b, which has an ROI of almost 2,500 to 1. Now, I want to know where I can invest my $1 and get a return of over $2,000.
We need to promote this story far and wide. It’s such good fodder. Any 4th grader should be able to see the idiocy of this claim.
Eric
New research predicts .
I predict it won’t.
Easy fix to the problem. Encourage people to take responsibility for their own decisions. I would not object to our government financing the posting of 10,000 signs along all of the possibly affected coastlines (probable cost of about $1million at $100 per sign). The signs would read:
“WARNING! The IPPC and government paid scientists have predicted that in combination with the observed 1.8mm/yr rise in sea levels and their failed climate models, that sea level rise will quite likely lead to CATASTROPHIC flooding. Build in this area at YOUR OWN RISK”.
This is cheap, the truth and forces people to accept responsibilities for their own actions.
Oops….. should be IPCC not IPPC… need more coffee.
Gareth Phillips says:
My question asked which kind produced more water not more “potential” and your “limited time” (which you conveniently do not quantize), is not necessarily true if a warmer atmosphere produces more precipitation in the mountains which will eventually be coming down as “pre-melted glacier” (aka – rain).
So, to your “As the glacier shrinks, so does the water source.” – bollox. THE source is precipitation itself so even when the glacier is completely gone – the precipitation will continue.
@ur momisugly Mike M. My question asked which kind produced more water not more “potential” and your “limited time” (which you conveniently do not quantize), is not necessarily true if a warmer atmosphere produces more precipitation in the mountains which will eventually be coming down as “pre-melted glacier” (aka – rain). So, to your “As the glacier shrinks, so does the water source.” – bollox. THE source is precipitation itself so even when the glacier is completely gone – the precipitation will continue.
Thanks you for your considerate and civil response.
I can see you are a but rusty on this issues of hydrology so I’ll try and keep it simple.
1) When precipitation falls on a mountain, it runs downhill, water generally follows that behaviour. 2) When it stops raining for a few months, the water has mostly run off into the sea.
1) Now imagine if you can a mountain range where is rains heavily for half the year, but not for the other half.
2) The half a year when it is dry leaves people liable to drought. The other half leaves them liable to floods and landslides ( are you still with me?)
So how do we address this challenge of evening out the water supply?
Well what we do in developed countries is build reservoirs or dams. The water reserve fills up in the rainy season, and it is gradually dispensed over the dry season when it is needed.
However, in many countries such as India or Pakistan, they don’t have this infrastructure, however what they do have is a natural reservoir of water, known as a Glacier.
What happens is this, the precipitation falls as snow, which does not immediately run off downhill, it takes a while to get down to lower levels, years in fact, then melts at a much slower rate at the terminus of the glacier.
This runoff from the melt is remarkably steady, it does not cause floods, and will continue to run even when the in the middle of the six month drought period. So considering the above points, ask yourself these questions.
1) What happens to the water supply if the glacier disappears?
2) Will the precipitation you mention be just as useful without a glacier?
Complex stuff I know, and it is far easier to shout and swear instead of thinking it through, but hang in there and let me know if you get stuck. I’ll be marking your homework on Friday.
Why doesn’t WUWT provide a link to the actual study being discussed?
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/01/29/1222469111
The study seems pretty reasonable with one major exception- it assumes that sea level may rise by almost 5 feet by 2100. There is zero reliable evidence to support that belief.
Well on average, tropical storm Sandy didn’t really do much damage.
Even when it was out in the ocean on its way from Africa, and even reached hurricane status at some point, it just stirred up a bunch of water, which just settled right down behind it after it was gone, and didn’t harm a thing; not even the fishes that had to swim faster to keep up with it.
It’s only if you cherry pick the data, and select only the portion of TS Sandy’s life, spent near humans, that anything got bent.
If you only judge by the occasional breakage of some stuff, and ignore the rest of the ho hum boredom of being even a large hurricane for part of your existence, you can be mispead; but on average, not much is happening.
the only equation to model here:
more population + more development + high tide + storm = more damage = more cost
Well, never mind the “trillions” (that’s just a modern evaluation of property values on the coast). It’s real simple, as it’s been for eons, if you want to avoid storm damage to your seaside property, move away from the coast! TaaDaa! What idiotic blather.
The ocean continues to try and erode all the land! Steps must be taken! Laws must be passed! Taxes must be raised! How can anyone doubt this?
Follow the source. Always follow the source.
In this case, it’s the Global Climate Forum. A quick check of their where site tells us that Carlo C. Jaeger is the Chairman. Carlo and the GCF are all about Sustainable Development…
“to deal with ongoing changes in society in an evolutionary manner so as to influence these ongoing changes in terms of speed and direction:”
“the search for governance for sustainability, and by reflecting on the role of science in sustainability transitions.”
The role of science in changing society. They need climate change to be catastrophic in the minds of society to create policy changes….
Always follow the source…trust me, it always comes back to Sustainable Development and the Millennium Development Goals…including with all the big players ie: Hansen, Schmidt, Pachauri, Sachs and Soros that can all be linked to the Earth Institute out of Columbia…..which NASA GISS is part of. Look up their mission and look up their Board of Advisors and look up Sach’s Bio….it’s all there….and spreads out everywhere. Others: RealClimate part of Fenton Communications, ProPublica and on and on….in all aspects of governance, education and society. It’s the big picture folks.
Here’s link to book Carlo Jaeger edited…
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-19202-9_7
Gareth Phillips says: “2) When it stops raining for a few months, the water has mostly run off into the sea. ”
Yeah right, just like we see happening with all the NON glacial fed rivers in the USA every year… (ever hear of aquifers?)
And besides – it could STILL snow every winter and then all melt throughout the summer resulting in there being no glacial formation but nonetheless represent the same ‘reservoir-like’ release of water as a glacier.