Yeah, but it's dirty. And they love it!
Your home and sea level rises
- Thread starter Miss Chicken
- Start date
That was my dad's view.
At 50m my house become ocean view. However I think it's wrong, it says Hartford will be part of the ocean at about 30m, but there are dams to save it.
Ha! Fucking Romagna. They deserve that.
They do have/had some nice beaches.
Joking aside though, if this projection is correct, even a modest increase in the sea level (1m is sufficient) could be catastrophic there. I didn't know that.
Guess where I am... :P
As the sea levels rises I do ave a good view of the water gradualy coming up my street, but at +5 meters I wouldn't be able to get out the door without scuba gear...
However, I am moving house in three weeks. Let's see how the new house fares... Ah, even worse. Beach in the back yard at +1, sleeping with the fishes at anything higher...
As the sea levels rises I do ave a good view of the water gradualy coming up my street, but at +5 meters I wouldn't be able to get out the door without scuba gear...
However, I am moving house in three weeks. Let's see how the new house fares... Ah, even worse. Beach in the back yard at +1, sleeping with the fishes at anything higher...
Well I guess they don't call it the Lowlands for nothing...
Insert "dike" joke here . . .
Seeing how many people here would be flooded by rising sea levels made me wonder about the population distribution by elevation. I found this figure:
Now I have to wonder why civilization is so clustered at low altitudes. There are certainly historical reasons for it. In the past, cities sprung up and grew the most where trade was concentrated, i.e. where ships could come to shore to offload goods. I suppose water may be more plentiful at lower elevations as well, enabling more food production. Now, though, with modern shipping people can live just about anywhere and get the things they need, so those issues shouldn't be significant factors anymore. Are people now living at those altitudes primarily because that's where the cities are?
Now I have to wonder why civilization is so clustered at low altitudes. There are certainly historical reasons for it. In the past, cities sprung up and grew the most where trade was concentrated, i.e. where ships could come to shore to offload goods. I suppose water may be more plentiful at lower elevations as well, enabling more food production. Now, though, with modern shipping people can live just about anywhere and get the things they need, so those issues shouldn't be significant factors anymore. Are people now living at those altitudes primarily because that's where the cities are?
The beaches are overcrowded, the sea is awful, and everything is way overpriced. But I'll admit this: you go out at night, and you'll have a blast.They do have/had some nice beaches.Ha! Fucking Romagna. They deserve that.
The Po Valley is basically a huge alluvial plain, and most of it is virtually at elevation zero. It's one of the most fertile place in the world, but the risk of flood is significant.
^I for one, could never live far from the ocean, and I know a number of people who feel the same way. I think our species must somehow be instinctively drawn to water.
Plus, that's where the cities are.
Plus, that's where the cities are.
I'm actually stunned my town will remain above water (barely) even at 60 meters! It would become a "port" town with deltas surrounding it to be sure, but the greater downtown region would be "dry". I thought for sure we'd be a small town "Atlantis".
Why 60 meters in particular? Is that number based upon the melting of all polar and glacial ice?
Sincerely,
Bill
Why 60 meters in particular? Is that number based upon the melting of all polar and glacial ice?
Sincerely,
Bill
I just checked. A lot of my town would be underwater. So would quite a bit of 1-405. But my house would be just a few blocks from the lake.
Seeing how many people here would be flooded by rising sea levels made me wonder about the population distribution by elevation. I found this figure:
Now I have to wonder why civilization is so clustered at low altitudes. There are certainly historical reasons for it. In the past, cities sprung up and grew the most where trade was concentrated, i.e. where ships could come to shore to offload goods. I suppose water may be more plentiful at lower elevations as well, enabling more food production. Now, though, with modern shipping people can live just about anywhere and get the things they need, so those issues shouldn't be significant factors anymore. Are people now living at those altitudes primarily because that's where the cities are?
Intresting graph, thanks for posting it.
I don't think they do at all. For example I'm pretty sure the Netherlands will be ok, regardless of sea level rise (unless it's really massive, like 10+ meters), because of their defenses.
In other places though, where there are sand beaches for example, that's not an option, unless they are willing to abandon the beaches; and in other places again, they don't have the means to build adequate defenses (you feel sorry for the thousand people who died in that factory collapse in Bangladesh? See how many people there would be affected by a sea level rise of 5 metres...).
Similar threads
