Which suburbs will climate change sink?

Via The New Daily:

Some of Australia’s most densely populated suburbs, major cities and crucial pieces of infrastructure, such as Sydney airport, could be underwater in just decades, according to an alarming new prediction.

A newly developed map of Australia, based on data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) in the US, shows places like Port Melbourne, Sydney’s Double Bay, the Gold Coast, Cairns and Byron Bay, are at risk of becoming uninhabitable in a matter of decades.

Sydney, Brisbane and Hobart airports are also in danger of being swamped, according to the predictions.

In a new report, NOAA projected the global sea level to rise a maximum of two metres by the year 2100, if greenhouse gas emissions continue at “business as usual” levels.

Map creator Nathan Eaton said the fresh information revealed that the estimated worst case scenario, predicted in a 2013 report, is now the most likely outcome.

In that report, the maximum rise was predicted at 74 centimetres.

“We want to give people a chance to prepare and having this information available is the first step to becoming aware of what challenges their community might have to face,” Mr Eaton said.

The map, made available on the website Coastal Risk Australia, shows the estimates from 2013 layered against the new information at a high tide scenario.

The year 2100 might seem too distant to worry about; but Mr Eaton said he wanted to showcase a year that would see a heavy blow.

“The current generation that’s being born will have to deal with this, so it’s actually not that far away if you think about it,” he said.

Action is already being taken.

The Gold Coast, for instance, has already begun building a seawall to strengthen the city’s defences against erosive wave action and wild weather.

Australian Coastal Councils Association executive director Alan Stokes said the map reinforced that all levels of government needed to start taking sea level risks seriously.

“Anybody in their right mind would have to be worried about what impact that sort of inundation is likely to have,” Mr Stokes said, adding that he is frustrated that the Federal government neglected to address emissions levels in the latest budget.

Around 85 per cent of Australia’s population live near the coast.

Mr Stokes said those looking to buy in these areas, should proceed with “open eyes” and to take all factors into account.

“It’d be difficult to ignore the potential risk for people buying into these coastal suburbs. You really need to do your research, have a look at the maps and know what the risk is,” he said.

If unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions continue, a two-metre rise in sea levels is not a matter of if, but when, according to University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre’s Professor, John Church.

A major reduction in the world’s carbon emissions would “substantially reduce what level we’re likely to get to”, he said.

The map, however, does not take into account local conditions.

Australian National University ocean and climate change expert, Professor Eelco Rohling, said while the map was a useful tool to communicate the threat of climate change, it is too simplified to be used effectively by city planners.

“The general public wants to be shown, but not told, the details,” Professor Rohling said.

“The danger is that you’re under-informing people. I find that a bit of a shame.”

He adds that two main factors influencing the rate of sea level rise should have been taken into account when putting the map together: glacial isostatic adjustment (when the Earth’s crust bounces back from the weight of a glacier after it has melted) and the different scenarios of melting in Greenland and Antarctica.

Professor Rohling said these two factors could change the local sea level rise by tens of centimetres.

She’ll be right mate, just ask Andrew Bolt:

Comments

  1. LabrynthMEMBER

    So imagine all that supply being taken out of the market, what will that do to rents!!!

    It is only a matter of time before you will not be able to take out a mortgage on a property in these areas.

    • Hurry!
      Now is the time to buy that prime beach property in Mascot cause in 10 years it will be out of the reach.

    • cant see how if the co2 story is truth that govts have not got excited nor any developers etc with skin in the game. CO2 story is pathetic, sun in different part of its orbit (Denser medium so sun glowing white, sunspots right down and solar hibernation in effect) more cosmic rays hitting earth being pulled as in a comets tail after the sun, cosmic ray input to plasma core so earth growing hence more volcanic and seismic activity, uranus and jupiter paths closer to earth so gravitational pull larger so out away form sun to an extent.. looks like a reduction in heat from sun and much much more, more mutations too. Lot of scientists saying this but they lose careers if vulnerable. Effect will b more ice snow etc in parts, erratic extreme weather, tropical effects lower down on Aus, droughts and extreme weather.. rivers of water in the sky.. already seeing this in north america and europe. Had grapefruit sized hail in Sydney in January and snowing Middle east deserts, people freezing to death. If a weird mini ice age there will be lower ocean. One side of antartica is braking down another side growing.

  2. Just rename all that flooded area “the French Quarter” and rake in the tourist bucks.

  3. HadronCollision

    would love to see the byron map to see what areas they think will flood

    Ballina would be interesting too

    I’ll bet there’s swathes of cities 20-50k that are in danger

      • HadronCollision

        Sure, I have time to click every link

        the article mentioned BB in the lede then didn’t show it

        That’s all

        Back in your box

      • Not really a lot of work to click a link for something you’d “love” to see, that would be very “interesting”

        I’m just wondering if you ever did click the link, or if you have stubbornly refused to in order to not give me the satisfaction

  4. “Some of Australia’s most densely populated suburbs, major cities and crucial pieces of infrastructure, such as Sydney airport, could be underwater in just decades, according to an alarming new prediction.”

    Why does this have that eerie resemblance to tabloid articles that always start with “Scientist (Rersearchers) have found that 1 cup a (coffee/wine/spirits/milk/juice…) is good for your heart/lung/bladder/brain/learning/eyes/legs…”
    until the next year when a new study reveals it is less than correct assumption.
    No doubt climate change is an issue, no doubt shallow articles are, well, shallow

    Hold on, The News is indeed a tabloid.
    Oh, well… my apologies for being rude

  5. Can we just block off Port Phillip Bay and turn it into a big lake? Build the port somewhere else right on Bass Straight, Melbourne is stretching down there already; run a rail line up into the city.

    • Imagine going Dutch way and actually siphoning the water leaving behind something resembling that Saudi faux islands in the ocean…

  6. We’ve got water gauge readings and chart datum going back hundreds of years. How does the current rise in sea levels compare with the long term trend?

    Anyone?

    Beware of faux science, usually recognisable by extensive use of couched terms such as “could”, “may” and “might”.

      • Cheers JohnR.

        Yes, it had run its course.

        William of Ockham dot com might be of interest though.

    • darklydrawlMEMBER

      Heh.. Might be tricky to get accurate seal level chart data for any of the Aussie coastlines going back “hundreds of years”. The white folks haven’t been here that long. I suspect a person trained and educated in this field could use the landscape itself to figure out historical tidal high water marks and make some reasonable assumptions (?).

    • drsmithyMEMBER

      Beware of faux science, usually recognisable by extensive use of couched terms such as “could”, “may” and “might”.

      Indeed. Because if there’s one thing “real” scientists love to do, it’s speak in absolutes.

      • “Indeed. Because if there’s one thing “real” scientists love to do, it’s speak in absolutes.”

        Fair point. The science is never settled.

        There’s enough chart-reading expertise on this site to help us; what’s that CSIRO graph telling us? About 10cm every 40 to 50 years going back to 1880.

        Data exists for the Mediterranean early than that; Nelson charted vast swathes of Corsica and Sardinia while waiting for the French to leave port prior to the Battle of Trafalgar. The chart datum from those surveys haven’t been changed on modern GPS and depth-sounded surveys… for good reason.

        How much CO2 was being pumped into the atmosphere by humans back in the 1800s?

        So, about 20cm a century is the long and medium term trend confirmed by multiple data sources yet we’re going to see a rise of “two metres by the year 2100”, or 10 times the current trend?

        I can smell something and it isn’t carbon dioxide.

      • “Indeed. Because if there’s one thing “real” scientists love to do, it’s speak in absolutes.”

        is this a silent admittance that AGM “could” or “may be” wrong ’cause they do not talk in “absolutes”?

      • “I can smell something and it isn’t carbon dioxide.”

        It could be carbon monoxide?

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Why would you assume a linear trend ? Even a Mk.1 eyeball can see the curve in that graph.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        is this a silent admittance that AGM “could” or “may be” wrong ’cause they do not talk in “absolutes”?

        Of course it “could” or “may be” wrong. Just like, say, Evolution or Thermodynamics.

        It’s highly unlikely that one of, if not the, most intensely scrutinised fields of science in history is fundamentally wrong, but it’s not impossible. That’s how science works.

      • @TNA Fair point. The science is never settled.

        Rubbish.
        CO2 is a greenhouse gas – proven, the science is settled.
        Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes the earth to warm – proven, the science is settled.
        Humans are emitting CO2 – proven, the science is settled.
        Humans are the major contributors to the earth warming – proven, the science is settled.

        So, about 20cm a century is the long and medium term trend confirmed by multiple data sources yet we’re going to see a rise of “two metres by the year 2100”, or 10 times the current trend?

        You obviously did not notice that uptick in the graph? The graph is non-linear, you are reading it as a linear graph. There are events that will cause the sea level rises to increase.

      • “Why would you assume a linear trend ?”
        Why would you assume an exponential (10 x) change in the data trend in the next 83 years? Pop the data into Excel and see what you’d have to do to the future trend to make it hit 2,000mm as the article claims.

        “Rubbish.”
        Not an argument.

        “There are events that will cause the sea level rises to increase.”
        In the absence of observable data to support this statement, that’s faith not science. You could “uptick” that trend by a factor of 2 and still not get within 25% of the article’s predictions.

        Great chatting with you all. See you again in a couple of years.
        #echochamber

      • “Why would you assume a linear trend ?”
        Why would you assume an exponential (10 x) change in the data trend in the next 83 years? Pop the data into Excel and see what you’d have to do to the future trend to make it hit 2,000mm as the article claims.

        The PAPER that the article was an explanation explains why the sea level rise will be non-linear (feedback loops, water expanding because of heat, melting ice sheets melting at exponential rates!) That is the whole point of the paper & article. We have known for a while that the sea level rise will be non-linear. The paper is suggesting that the rate of increase has probably been underestimated.

        “Rubbish.”
        Not an argument.

        Did you not read the bit below that where I explained why your statement was rubbish.

        “There are events that will cause the sea level rises to increase.”
        In the absence of observable data to support this statement, that’s faith not science. You could “uptick” that trend by a factor of 2 and still not get within 25% of the article’s predictions.

        Faith? No observable data? There is only no observable data if you are (being paid to be?) blind to it. Maybe you could, you know, read the article? Or read the paper that it is based on? Here is a more technical explanation: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jan/19/sea-levels-could-rise-by-six-to-nine-metres-over-time-new-study-warns

  7. and every city in the world fills in their harbours,ocean fronts, plus makes islands to gain land etc, it’s only a small drop in the ocean but everything counts and adds to the rising walter levels. Why isn’t this stopping if rising sea levels is such a big issue.

    • Compare the changes required to deal with this over the next 50 years, to the change that has occurred over the last 50 years, and I suspect it doesn’t look as serious.

  8. MichaelMEMBER

    Well I could see them damming Port Phillip bay, Sydney Harbour and Botany Bay, but no such luck with the Gold Coast, Central Coast or Newcastle.

  9. The NASA satellite data indicates sea levels have been falling since February 2016:
    ftp://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/merged_alt/L2/TP_J1_OSTM/global_mean_sea_level/GMSL_TPJAOS_V4_199209_201702.txt

    That is consistent with increasing land ice accumulation in both northern and southern hemisphere:
    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
    http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png

    The contribution from ocean temperature rise to sea level is small:
    http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#temp

    So with more water as ice on land and oceans now cooling, the downward trend in sea level will continue.

    The globe may need a new Venice because the existing one is at risk of turning into muddy laneways rather than canals:
    https://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/01/water-levels-in-venice-are-at-record-lows/21290625/

    On the other hand this is all just weather that has a tendency to vary from day-to-day and decade-to-decade.

  10. DominicMEMBER

    Not much to lose on the Gold Coast by the look of things – that place is the dregs anyway.

  11. Will,

    Ominous word choice considering professor Church is a “sea rise expert” and of whom has no place in suggesting climate change (a false flag for the non event of global warming of which he is clearly referring to) will do anything remarkable by a certain date given it is not his field of expertise.

    Junk science,

    Nice pictures though, MS paint?

  12. It’s thoroughly agreed by IPCC and climate physics that climate is erratic and that forecasting future climate is not possible.

    His pictures depict the outcomes of something not agreed apon whilst using authority he dose not have to assert outcomes that run counter to the experts of which he is not yet pretends to be.

    Right…..

  13. What you really want to look at is key infrastructure that has toxicity issues, say effluent treatment plants or industries Mfg stuff…

    disheveled…. go long on effluent bonds…..