<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Chapter Four Excerpt: The Hell and High Water Scenario</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:44:23 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mark Boardman</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/#comment-14034</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Boardman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:35:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/#comment-14034</guid>
		<description>Hi Joe....was wondering if you could publish the reply I posted?

Cheers

Mark</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Joe&#8230;.was wondering if you could publish the reply I posted?</p>
<p>Cheers</p>
<p>Mark</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/#comment-8046</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:43:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/#comment-8046</guid>
		<description>Yeah.  The threat of 40 to 80 foot sea level rise and up to 70% species loss has always been with us -- NOT!  Is that web link the best you can do to dismiss the work and concerns of thousands of scientists?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah.  The threat of 40 to 80 foot sea level rise and up to 70% species loss has always been with us &#8212; NOT!  Is that web link the best you can do to dismiss the work and concerns of thousands of scientists?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/#comment-8045</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:31:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/#comment-8045</guid>
		<description>Climatatic extremes (http://www.agloriousfuture.com/extremes.php) have always been with us, and always will be, we just need to adapt....just shows how insignificant we are really.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Climatatic extremes (<a href="http://www.agloriousfuture.com/extremes.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.agloriousfuture.com/extremes.php</a>) have always been with us, and always will be, we just need to adapt&#8230;.just shows how insignificant we are really.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David B. Benson</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/#comment-8036</link>
		<dc:creator>David B. Benson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:01:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/#comment-8036</guid>
		<description>As you can check

http://www.solar.ifa.hawaii.edu/Tropical/summary.html

no tropical storms seem to have yet reached southern California with any intensity left.  This will change over the next decade.

And don&#039;t forget about Hawaii...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As you can check</p>
<p><a href="http://www.solar.ifa.hawaii.edu/Tropical/summary.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.solar.ifa.hawaii.edu/Tropical/summary.html</a></p>
<p>no tropical storms seem to have yet reached southern California with any intensity left.  This will change over the next decade.</p>
<p>And don&#8217;t forget about Hawaii&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Mashey</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/#comment-8024</link>
		<dc:creator>John Mashey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:14:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/#comment-8024</guid>
		<description>1) I recommend http://flood.firetree.net/ : set 0, +1meter, etc up to +14m [not nice], anything in gray is below sea level [not necessarily underwater, of course.]

For a 1m rise:

2) The East Coast &amp; Gulf Coast have:
a) Much development right on the coast, even on the beaches and barrier islands.
b) Numerous rivers.
c) Flat coastal plains.
d) Hurricanes.

3) The West Coast has:
a) Relatively modest development right on the coast, no barrier islands, and almost nothing built right on the beaches.  The main exceptions would be San Diego... Santa Barbara, Monterey, Santa Cruz, one edge of San Francisco, some pieces of Vancouver [the airport, among others].  Although not on the coast, the San Francisco Bay has issues, as does a piece of the Central Valley [already below sea level].  SF Bay planners are certainly already working on the issues. 

From SF North, until you get to Vancouver, there is relatively little development right on the coast, compared to the Gulf/East Coasts.

b) Relatively few rivers exiting to the coast, and that really helps, because it;s not enough to build sea walls, you have to build levees along the rivers.

c) The West Coast of course has coastal hills and mountain ranges.  In a lot of places, a few meters&#039; rise would wipe out the beaches, but then  there would be 5-10 meters worth of cliff, and thankfully, there&#039;s a lot of open-space preserve or farmland in many cases.

d) No hurricanes.

Even +1m is going to be *really* expensive on the West Coast, but the water problems we worry about most are the supply problems due to worsening snowpack issues.  But, compared to the East Coast, we&#039;re better off, and as for the Gulf Coast....   sad to say, I really can&#039;t see how New Orleans will exist in 2100AD, given that:
a) The land is sinking.
b) The Mississippi does flood, albeit rarely.
c) Hurricanes.
d) And the Mississippi *really* wants to go down the Atchafalaya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchafalaya_River
I&#039;d be astonished if it doesn&#039;t sometime during this century.

Cheap Internet service makes people rich ... except when you need to buy steel, concrete, and earthmoving, which tend to use real energy in the real world, and you may be noticing Peak Oil, which won&#039;t make any of this cheaper.
+1m will be messy and expensive, but you can try +7m (part of Greenland + Antarctic Peninsula), or +14m (some combination of Greenland and WAIS).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1) I recommend <a href="http://flood.firetree.net/" rel="nofollow">http://flood.firetree.net/</a> : set 0, +1meter, etc up to +14m [not nice], anything in gray is below sea level [not necessarily underwater, of course.]</p>
<p>For a 1m rise:</p>
<p>2) The East Coast &amp; Gulf Coast have:<br />
a) Much development right on the coast, even on the beaches and barrier islands.<br />
b) Numerous rivers.<br />
c) Flat coastal plains.<br />
d) Hurricanes.</p>
<p>3) The West Coast has:<br />
a) Relatively modest development right on the coast, no barrier islands, and almost nothing built right on the beaches.  The main exceptions would be San Diego&#8230; Santa Barbara, Monterey, Santa Cruz, one edge of San Francisco, some pieces of Vancouver [the airport, among others].  Although not on the coast, the San Francisco Bay has issues, as does a piece of the Central Valley [already below sea level].  SF Bay planners are certainly already working on the issues. </p>
<p>From SF North, until you get to Vancouver, there is relatively little development right on the coast, compared to the Gulf/East Coasts.</p>
<p>b) Relatively few rivers exiting to the coast, and that really helps, because it;s not enough to build sea walls, you have to build levees along the rivers.</p>
<p>c) The West Coast of course has coastal hills and mountain ranges.  In a lot of places, a few meters&#8217; rise would wipe out the beaches, but then  there would be 5-10 meters worth of cliff, and thankfully, there&#8217;s a lot of open-space preserve or farmland in many cases.</p>
<p>d) No hurricanes.</p>
<p>Even +1m is going to be *really* expensive on the West Coast, but the water problems we worry about most are the supply problems due to worsening snowpack issues.  But, compared to the East Coast, we&#8217;re better off, and as for the Gulf Coast&#8230;.   sad to say, I really can&#8217;t see how New Orleans will exist in 2100AD, given that:<br />
a) The land is sinking.<br />
b) The Mississippi does flood, albeit rarely.<br />
c) Hurricanes.<br />
d) And the Mississippi *really* wants to go down the Atchafalaya:<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchafalaya_River" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atchafalaya_River</a><br />
I&#8217;d be astonished if it doesn&#8217;t sometime during this century.</p>
<p>Cheap Internet service makes people rich &#8230; except when you need to buy steel, concrete, and earthmoving, which tend to use real energy in the real world, and you may be noticing Peak Oil, which won&#8217;t make any of this cheaper.<br />
+1m will be messy and expensive, but you can try +7m (part of Greenland + Antarctic Peninsula), or +14m (some combination of Greenland and WAIS).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David B. Benson</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/#comment-8022</link>
		<dc:creator>David B. Benson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:03:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climateprogress.org/2008/01/12/chapter-four-excerpt-the-hell-and-high-water-scenario-2/#comment-8022</guid>
		<description>What, no pity for West Coast seaports?  Or is it just that these do not (yet) have much prospects of enduring hurricanes?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What, no pity for West Coast seaports?  Or is it just that these do not (yet) have much prospects of enduring hurricanes?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
