Flooding - Global Warming

Tobylvp · August 9th, 2009, 03:02 PM

Using the docks as an anti-flood barrier should be started right now. The Pier Head DOES flood, so this is real.

Catastrophic sea levels 'distinct possibility'
http://www.canada.com/health/men/Cat...723/story.html

PARIS - A breakthrough study of fluctuations in sea levels the last
time Earth was between ice ages, as it is now, shows that oceans rose
some three meters in only decades due to collapsing ice sheets.

The findings suggest that such an scenario -- which would redraw
coastlines worldwide and unleash colossal human misery -- is "now a
distinct possibility within the next 100 years," said lead researcher
Paul Blanchon, a geoscientist at Mexico's National University.

The study, published by the science journal Nature, will appear in
print Thursday.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture07933.html

Rising ocean water marks are seen by many scientists as the most
serious likely consequence of global warming.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted in
2007 that sea levels will rise by up to 59 centimeters (23 inches)
before 2100 due simply to the expansion of warmer ocean waters.

This relatively modest increase is already enough to render several
small island nations uninhabitable, and to disrupt the lives of tens
of millions of people living in low-lying deltas, especially in Asia
and Africa.

But more recent studies have sounded alarms about the potential impact
of crumbling ice sheets in western Antarctica and Greenland, which
together contain enough frozen water to boost average global sea
levels by at least 13 metres (42 feet).

A rapid three-meter rise would devastate dozens of major cities around
the globe, including Shanghai, Calcutta, New Orleans, Miami and Dhaka.

"Scientists have tended to assume that sea level reached a maximum
during the last interglacial" -- some 120,000 years ago -- "very
slowly, over several millennia," Blanchon told AFP by phone.

"What we are saying is 'no, they didn't'."

The new evidence of sudden jumps in ocean water marks was uncovered
almost by accident at a site in Mexico's Yucatan peninsula that had
been excavated for a theme park.

Blanchon and three colleagues from the Leibniz Institute of Marine
Science in Germany discovered the remains of coral reefs that made it
possible to measure with great precision changes in sea level.

Using contiguous reef crests -- the part of the reef closest to the
surface of the water -- as benchmarks, the researchers pinpointed a
dramatic jump in sea levels that occurred 121,000 years ago.

"We are looking at a three-metre rise in 50 years," Banchon said.
"This is the first evidence that we have for rapid change in sea level
during that time."

Only collapsing ice sheets could account for such an abrupt increase,
he added.

The last interglacial period, when sea levels peaked six metres higher
than current levels, was warmer than the world is today.

But as manmade climate change kicks in, scientists worry that rising
temperatures could create a similar environment, triggering a runaway
disintegration of the continent-sized ice blocks that are already
showing signs of distress.

The recent breakaway of the Wilkins Ice Shelf from the Antarctic
peninsula, for example, while not adding itself to sea levels, makes
it easier for the glaciers that feed it to flow straight out to sea.

It is still unclear whether this and other dramatic changes seen in
ice sheets recently are signs of imminent collapse, or natural
processes that have not been observed before.

The Yucatan peninsula is one of only a few regions in the world where
the virtual absence of seismic activity over the last several hundred
thousand years makes accurate measurements of sea level rise during
the last interglacial possible.

"What we have to do now is look at other stable areas, such as western
Australia, and confirm the same reef back-jumping signature we found
in the Yucatan," said Blanchon.

"Once we have done that, we can say our findings are rock solid."

Evertonian · August 9th, 2009, 03:19 PM

You want us to demolish the Echo Arena and dig out the docks to allow for 23 inches of extra water by 2100!?

Nice try.

Pobbie · August 9th, 2009, 03:45 PM

Most of the city centre will be fine. Crosby and Formby however will be in deep shit.

Tobylvp · August 9th, 2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evertonian

You want us to demolish the Echo Arena and dig out the docks to allow for 23 inches of extra water by 2100!?

Nice try.

Hi, if you want to well that is your view.

London would have flooded in 1953 only water heading for London went into Essex as a dyke collapsed.

The conditions will happen again:

Strong rains pouring off the land with the rivers unable to cope and causing local flooding.
Wind pushing water down the North Sea.
High Spring rides pushing water up the swollen rivers.

When that happens London will flood. It is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

With Liverpool:

When the conditions happen:

Strong rains pouring off the land with the River Mersey unable to cope and causing local flooding on the Weaver and upper Mersey.
Winds pushing water across the Irish Sea eastwards.
High Spring rides pushing water up the swollen river.

Liverpool will flood.

A temporary solution is use the Liverpool docks as a flood barrier An open empty basin can be there at low tide to absorb flood water. Keep the docks empty at low tide when flood conditions arise, and when the tide is just lipping over the river wall open the river locks to allow water into the empty dock complex, which is interconnected and can absorb amazing amount of water. The river lock gates will have to be replaced to hold back the river waters not just the docks waters. They will need to be capable of being lowered just the correct amount to absorb the flood waters to keep it from lipping over the river walls. It needs to hold back the flooding water by allowing it into the docks only short time at high tide. Many filled-in docks will need to be excavated and others deepened. The same applies to Birkenhead.

The city has no other option and should start on this project ASAP. If there is serious flooding the results would be catastrophic.

Tobylvp · August 9th, 2009, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pobbie

Most of the city centre will be fine. Crosby and Formby however will be in deep shit.

The city will not be fine if measures are not taken to use the docks as a flood basin. You are right Formby will be in trouble. There maybe a need to put a land dyke up preventing water from entering Bootle and Liverpool from low lying areas around Formby and Crosby, going around the dock basin flood barrier. This can be an embankment with a rail line on the top, extending Merseyrail.

HollyBlack · August 9th, 2009, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evertonian

You want us to demolish the Echo Arena and dig out the docks to allow for 23 inches of extra water by 2100!?.

That is the figure due to water expansion alone. It includes nothing for the effects of glacier melting or for ice sheet melting or collapse.

The question is not whether but when. If ice sheets do not collapse then major inundation could reasonably could be 100 to 300 years. But if major ice sheets do collapse it will be less than 50 years. The two ice sheets most in danger are the WAIS (West Antarctic, not to be confused with the larger East Antarctic) and the Greenland. My personal best guess, not worth much, is the the Greenland Ice Sheet may very well be OK (ie it will fail through melting and not through structural collapse). Each of those two (WAIS and Greenland) would contribute perhaps 12 feet or so of sea level rise. EAIS will contribute over 50 feet, but that is safely at least 100 years away, probably longer.

From a practical standpoint then the issue is not "Are sea defenses needed?" but rather "What sea defenses are feasible and in what timescale"?

Formby is a lost cause, no action is needed, it will go when it goes.

Because Ellesmere Port is so low-lying a Mersey Barrage would not help in the long run unless a Dee barrage were built also. But a Dee barrage could be built lower down the Dee, near Parkgate perhaps. A Mersey Barrage needs to be North of the Birkenhead docks. Even then more (relatively small) sea defenses are needed near Bidston.

The alternatives are either to just let it go and move people off low lying coast (not as unreasonable as it sounds it is the most likely outcome) or alternatively to fill the Irish Sea with tidal lagoons in a tidal power project, a civil engineering construction on a wholly new scale. Of course Britain gave up on doing anything on a wholly new scale around 1915.

Scarecrow · August 9th, 2009, 06:33 PM

You want the docks excavating John? Against the tide of the worlds oceans? How ding ding convenient.

Mostly Lurking · August 9th, 2009, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobylvp

The city will not be fine if measures are not taken to use the docks as a flood basin. You are right Formby will be in trouble. There maybe a need to put a land dyke up preventing water from entering Bootle and Liverpool from low lying areas around Formby and Crosby, going around the dock basin flood barrier. This can be an embankment with a rail line on the top, extending Merseyrail.

None of us saw that one coming

Ding Ding.

Evertonian · August 9th, 2009, 08:08 PM

If the water levels rise a few inches is it really worth the money to excavate docks, some of which have 100 million pound buildings built on them?

If water levels rise much, much higher dues to glasiers collapsing, will having a few excavated docks make any difference? I'm guessing that the city would still flood.

The docks aren't ever going to be excavated John so why continue on with this? Can't you go and do something more useful with your time like go looking for UFOs on Pentagon computers???

General Zod returns · August 9th, 2009, 09:14 PM

Holy crap, I'm scared. I currently live in Seaforth. Do I need to move in 90 years time. Please help me everybody.

The world is forever changing. Hundreds of years ago Britain was covered with forest, thousands of years ago it was covered with ice, millions of years ago it was miles under water and billions of years ago it was a smoldering lump of lava. It's called change. Live with it.

Tobylvp · August 9th, 2009, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

You want the docks excavating John? Against the tide of the worlds oceans? How ding ding convenient.

The name is Toby. Get the right person.

Tobylvp · August 9th, 2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evertonian

If the water levels rise a few inches is it really worth the money to excavate docks, some of which have 100 million pound buildings built on them?

There are quite a few docks that can be excavated. Harrington, Toxteth, Trafalgar, Victoria, Bidston, Wallasey, etc. Many can be made deeper.

Quote:

If water levels rise much, much higher dues to glasiers collapsing, will having a few excavated docks make any difference? I'm guessing that the city would still flood.

The levels will not rise overnight. Using the docks as flood basin can give 10 to 20 years of protection, before other measures can be implemented.

Quote:

The docks aren't ever going to be excavated John

The name is Toby and only Toby. Wrong person. You are odd, you want a city and town flooded. Well it takes all sorts.

Tobylvp · August 9th, 2009, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Zod returns

Holy crap, I'm scared. I currently live in Seaforth. Do I need to move in 90 years time. Please help me everybody.

A lot sooner. The Pier Head has already flooded a few times.

Tobylvp · August 9th, 2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mostly Lurking

None of us saw that one coming

Ding Ding.

Well putting your trams on top is not an issue now as they just about ditched.

General Zod returns · August 9th, 2009, 11:09 PM

Toby, the point remains as someone pointed out earlier, allowing the docks to flood to eleviate global tide levels isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. You are right in the fact that the worlds waters will rise but a different solution needs to be found. The docks don't hold much water to take care of this problem.

Mostly Lurking · August 9th, 2009, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Zod returns

Toby, the point remains as someone pointed out earlier, allowing the docks to flood to eleviate global tide levels isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. You are right in the fact that the worlds waters will rise but a different solution needs to be found. The docks don't hold much water to take care of this problem.

John doesn't let the facts get in the way of his crazy ideas.

Tobylvp · August 9th, 2009, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mostly Lurking

John doesn't let the facts get in the way of his crazy ideas.

The name is TOBY. An easy name to remember. Try.

General Zod returns · August 9th, 2009, 11:16 PM

Oh well, I trust our government to forsee this problem before Toby/John and sort it out. I voted them in so I didn't have to worry about these problems. Ah, back to Britain's got tallent.

Tobylvp · August 9th, 2009, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Zod returns

Toby, the point remains as someone pointed out earlier, allowing the docks to flood to eleviate global tide levels isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. You are right in the fact that the worlds waters will rise but a different solution needs to be found. The docks don't hold much water to take care of this problem.

The docks will be an initial solution. The levels will not rise 30 foot over night. I doubt if the current governments will be eager to pay to build dams to cope for what may happen in 50 years time. The docks only have stop one flood and all would have been worth it.

You will be amazed at the volume of water they can collectively hold. They only have top act as drain until the tide recedes. How long is the tide at full level?

General Zod returns · August 9th, 2009, 11:35 PM

The docks won't be an initial solution. The Mersey is linked to the Irish sea and the Atlantic which are huge. I'm sure you are fond and proud of Liverpool's docks but the logic in your argument is hugely flawed. It's like putting an ice cube tray on the floor of your bathroom to cope with your tub overflowing.

August 9th, 2009, 03:02 PM	#1
Tobylvp In the brig Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 449 Likes (Received): 0	Flooding - Global Warming Using the docks as an anti-flood barrier should be started right now. The Pier Head DOES flood, so this is real. Catastrophic sea levels 'distinct possibility' http://www.canada.com/health/men/Cat...723/story.html PARIS - A breakthrough study of fluctuations in sea levels the last time Earth was between ice ages, as it is now, shows that oceans rose some three meters in only decades due to collapsing ice sheets. The findings suggest that such an scenario -- which would redraw coastlines worldwide and unleash colossal human misery -- is "now a distinct possibility within the next 100 years," said lead researcher Paul Blanchon, a geoscientist at Mexico's National University. The study, published by the science journal Nature, will appear in print Thursday. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture07933.html Rising ocean water marks are seen by many scientists as the most serious likely consequence of global warming. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted in 2007 that sea levels will rise by up to 59 centimeters (23 inches) before 2100 due simply to the expansion of warmer ocean waters. This relatively modest increase is already enough to render several small island nations uninhabitable, and to disrupt the lives of tens of millions of people living in low-lying deltas, especially in Asia and Africa. But more recent studies have sounded alarms about the potential impact of crumbling ice sheets in western Antarctica and Greenland, which together contain enough frozen water to boost average global sea levels by at least 13 metres (42 feet). A rapid three-meter rise would devastate dozens of major cities around the globe, including Shanghai, Calcutta, New Orleans, Miami and Dhaka. "Scientists have tended to assume that sea level reached a maximum during the last interglacial" -- some 120,000 years ago -- "very slowly, over several millennia," Blanchon told AFP by phone. "What we are saying is 'no, they didn't'." The new evidence of sudden jumps in ocean water marks was uncovered almost by accident at a site in Mexico's Yucatan peninsula that had been excavated for a theme park. Blanchon and three colleagues from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science in Germany discovered the remains of coral reefs that made it possible to measure with great precision changes in sea level. Using contiguous reef crests -- the part of the reef closest to the surface of the water -- as benchmarks, the researchers pinpointed a dramatic jump in sea levels that occurred 121,000 years ago. "We are looking at a three-metre rise in 50 years," Banchon said. "This is the first evidence that we have for rapid change in sea level during that time." Only collapsing ice sheets could account for such an abrupt increase, he added. The last interglacial period, when sea levels peaked six metres higher than current levels, was warmer than the world is today. But as manmade climate change kicks in, scientists worry that rising temperatures could create a similar environment, triggering a runaway disintegration of the continent-sized ice blocks that are already showing signs of distress. The recent breakaway of the Wilkins Ice Shelf from the Antarctic peninsula, for example, while not adding itself to sea levels, makes it easier for the glaciers that feed it to flow straight out to sea. It is still unclear whether this and other dramatic changes seen in ice sheets recently are signs of imminent collapse, or natural processes that have not been observed before. The Yucatan peninsula is one of only a few regions in the world where the virtual absence of seismic activity over the last several hundred thousand years makes accurate measurements of sea level rise during the last interglacial possible. "What we have to do now is look at other stable areas, such as western Australia, and confirm the same reef back-jumping signature we found in the Yucatan," said Blanchon. "Once we have done that, we can say our findings are rock solid."

August 9th, 2009, 06:33 PM	#7
Scarecrow Revolutionary Man Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Outside Society Posts: 7,166 Likes (Received): 106	You want the docks excavating John? Against the tide of the worlds oceans? How ding ding convenient. __________________ SSC is Full of Bad Wools

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

August 9th, 2009, 03:19 PM	#2
Evertonian BANNED Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,319 Likes (Received): 0	You want us to demolish the Echo Arena and dig out the docks to allow for 23 inches of extra water by 2100!? Nice try.

August 9th, 2009, 03:45 PM	#3
Pobbie BANNED Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Somewhere Posts: 8,234 Likes (Received): 20	Most of the city centre will be fine. Crosby and Formby however will be in deep shit.

August 9th, 2009, 08:08 PM	#9
Evertonian BANNED Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 3,319 Likes (Received): 0	If the water levels rise a few inches is it really worth the money to excavate docks, some of which have 100 million pound buildings built on them? If water levels rise much, much higher dues to glasiers collapsing, will having a few excavated docks make any difference? I'm guessing that the city would still flood. The docks aren't ever going to be excavated John so why continue on with this? Can't you go and do something more useful with your time like go looking for UFOs on Pentagon computers???

August 9th, 2009, 09:14 PM	#10
General Zod returns Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 107 Likes (Received): 12	Holy crap, I'm scared. I currently live in Seaforth. Do I need to move in 90 years time. Please help me everybody. The world is forever changing. Hundreds of years ago Britain was covered with forest, thousands of years ago it was covered with ice, millions of years ago it was miles under water and billions of years ago it was a smoldering lump of lava. It's called change. Live with it.

August 9th, 2009, 11:09 PM	#15
General Zod returns Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 107 Likes (Received): 12	Toby, the point remains as someone pointed out earlier, allowing the docks to flood to eleviate global tide levels isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. You are right in the fact that the worlds waters will rise but a different solution needs to be found. The docks don't hold much water to take care of this problem.

August 9th, 2009, 11:16 PM	#18
General Zod returns Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 107 Likes (Received): 12	Oh well, I trust our government to forsee this problem before Toby/John and sort it out. I voted them in so I didn't have to worry about these problems. Ah, back to Britain's got tallent.

August 9th, 2009, 11:35 PM	#20
General Zod returns Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 107 Likes (Received): 12	The docks won't be an initial solution. The Mersey is linked to the Irish sea and the Atlantic which are huge. I'm sure you are fond and proud of Liverpool's docks but the logic in your argument is hugely flawed. It's like putting an ice cube tray on the floor of your bathroom to cope with your tub overflowing.