- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,991
- Reaction score
- 1,698
Yeah this seems like needless hype for something that isn't actually a problem. Now everything outside of the Charles River Dam IS subject to sea level rise and should be a priority.
A dutch style storm barrier connecting Winthrop to either Long Island or Hull is the obvious solution to rising sea levels. Honestly I don't even know why everyone is talking about anything else. Boston's not going to abandon half the city along the harbor, or flood the back bay and some of the best parkland in the world with canals. It just doesn't make sense.
I came across the image below, which illustrates what davem mentioned. It seems like an attractive option that would open up a lot of new land. The land wouldn't necessarily be for development, but for travel & recreation. It definitely won't be cheap, but it's not unprecedented.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/06/06/defending_boston_from_the_sea/
FK4, I don't think you realize how large a volume this is.
Let's assume the world's oceans uniformly rise 10 cm. This represents approximately an excess of 36,000 km^3, a volume nearly twice that of all of the great lakes combined. The weight is 36 QUADRILLION kilograms.
Sending into space is absolutely insane in terms of energy cost (cost per kilogram to send to low earth orbit is something like $25k, and this would presumably need to go farther) and freezing (refrigeration would require and active transport are also (albeit, comparatively less) crazy. Cooling that much water from 25 C to 0 C would require, assuming perfect efficiency, about 4x10^21 Joules, about the 10 times the total power consumption of everyone on Earth in 2008. Gravity-assisted transport (i.e. canals and dams) are basically all we can do.
Well, I figured it was a huge volume, but thanks for the numbers. Nonetheless, we aren't talking about a one time, sudden scenario where the level rises so abruptly. Walling off entire coastlines around the world sounds pretty extraordinary as well - I have no idea what the projected cost would be - maybe nowhere near comparable - but what about all the coastal towns and cities and villages that wont get their concrete barriers and have to relocate? You're talking about the most massive translocation of people, ever. THAT is another cost, and one that is unfathomably expensive. So it would seem to be that some other solution - removal in some way - is worth considering. Maybe not - but I would have to see some detailed analysis of price comparisons before jumping to any conclusions. The space idea seems least likely, of course... but I still wonder about some form of diversion.
FK4, I don't think you realize how large a volume this is.
Let's assume the world's oceans uniformly rise 10 cm. This represents approximately an excess of 36,000 km^3, a volume nearly twice that of all of the great lakes combined. The weight is 36 QUADRILLION kilograms.
One of many possible places for storage: the Aral Sea has lost about 870 quadrillion kg of water. If we filled that sucker back up (and that would take is pumping and pipelines), we'd be covered for 7 ft of sea level rise. That doesn't even seem very far fetched.
One of many possible places for storage: the Aral Sea has lost about 870 quadrillion kg of water. If we filled that sucker back up (and that would take is pumping and pipelines), we'd be covered for 7 ft of sea level rise. That doesn't even seem very far fetched.
So is sea level rise actually (partly) the product of the Russians putting what was essentially "fossil" water back into circulation?
In keeping with Crazy Transit Pitches, I would like our seawall to include some sort of circumferential transit, like maybe it takes a NS rail link from South Station to the eastern route to Maine
The water was diverted to agriculture. Being in an endorheic basin, I doubt there was much global effect purely from the diversion. Maybe the amount of evaporation has changed or some other effect (and the albedo has also been affected, both negatively by desert land becoming green and positively by water becoming desrt land) Locally, the lack of a big sea has of course changed the climate.So is sea level rise actually (partly) the product of the Russians putting what was essentially "fossil" water back into circulation?
How do you get the rail through Winthrop and Hull/Quincy? The connection points for a barrier don't seem to lend themselves to mass transit or a high volume road.
How do you get the rail through Winthrop and Hull/Quincy? The connection points for a barrier don't seem to lend themselves to mass transit or a high volume road.
The Aral Sea has a historical volume (in 1960) of 1100 km^3 (according to Wikipedia), which corresponds to 1.1 quadrillion kg, or less than half a centimeter of global ocean rise.
To combat rising sea levels, we are much better off affecting feedback loops, which will have exponential rather than linear response. Disclaimer: I am no climate scientist (but I am a physicist).
Being a mathematician would be the perfect excuse for being three orders of magnitude off. Anyway I just used Google... volumetric conversions are hard.And I am no mathematician. I was three orders of magnitude off in my conversion. Dammit.
I'm not sure, building flood barriers is relatively straightforward, but obviously it's not going to be feasible everywhere. This seems to have cost significantly less than the Big Dig:I still say: there HAS to be a better way. But I definitely am not the guy who will figure that way out.
Nope.