To what extent can technology protect communities from climate extremes through early warning and disaster response strategies and by having appropriate building plans, codes and drainage infrastructure? Here's a comment from Paul Williams who's been thinking about the situation in South Australia:
"Scientists such as Tim Flannery, the CSIRO, our Premier Mr Rann and the editorial staff of the Advertiser all tell us that climate change is coming, and it's all due to human emission of greenhouse gases.
Droughts will increase and sea levels will rise. Apparently the science is settled and the evidence is incontrovertible.
The response to this coming disaster is to call for lifestyle changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The problem is that South Australia emits only 0.15% of global greenhouse emissions, and greenhouse emissions by other countries (and other Australian States), still affects the atmosphere and climate of South Australia. In other words, South Australian greenhouse emissions have no effect on global or South Australian climate, and reduction of greenhouse emissions by South Australians will not reduce the degree of climate change we must undergo.
Assuming Mr Rann is sincere in his desire to protect South Australia from the effects of climate change, it seems the only actions which will be of any practical use, as opposed to merely symbolic, will be engineering solutions.
For instance, if sea level is definitely going to rise by up to seven metres by 2100, why not begin construction of dykes to protect coastal infrastructure? After all, Holland has been doing that for hundreds of years.
Similarly, why not run computer simulations to study the effects of flooding the Lake Eyre basin with sea water? Computer models are apparently sophisticated enough to predict Australia's rainfall and sea level changes for the next 100 years, so they should be adequate to assess any benefit from an inland sea.
If the science really is settled, then Mr Rann needs to take effective action, not simply enact legislation that plays well with the inner city environmentalists."
It's not just in South Australia that politicians are calling for emission reductions rather than proposing some more practical adaptive solutions.
Just yesterday Queensland Sunshine Coast independent MP, Peter Wellington, proposed a notice of motion calling on the Queensland Parliament to acknowledge climate change is a threat and take immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Come-on! There must be something more practical that Mr Wellington can propose for coastal Queensland assuming "the science is really settled" and we face catastrophic climate change and dramatic sea-level rise?
The current IPCC projections are a sea level rise of 0.1m to 0.9m this century. Media reports suggest that the next IPCC report will reduce this to 0.09m to 0.43m. As sea level rise has been about 2mm per year for 150 years and melting artic icecaps would add 0.5mm a year, the reduction seems emminently sensible.
The Queensland coast doesn't seem at much more risk anytime soon.
I keep suggesting that we improve habitat by removing weeds and ferals, link habitat strategically, restore rivers and riparian areas and get the fire regime right. This provides an adaptation strategy that seems more important than building dykes anytime soon - as well as improved ecological outcomes.
Schiller, I agree with much of what you say, but I wonder at what point the risk/cost/benefit of doing nothing about a possible problem are outweighed by the risk of not doing something/ a lot.
You have asked before I think about solutions vs adaptations. Since it appears obvious that we will not know if the AGW proponents are actually right for quite some time...by which time it may be too late....it seems foolish not to be weighing up the risks, costs and potential benefits of actually treating it as a genuine problem.
I am all for spending money helping get access to clean water in the third world and trying to solve poverty,AIDS etc, but it does seem prudent to be trying to find some solutions or adaptations to the potential problems of climate change.
I guess what I am saying is that at some point the risk has to warrant some sort of action which means at some point the 'precautionary principle' has to become valid.
"but at least we'd be doing something"!!??!?!
heh heh heh, good one.
Well maybe it wouldn't work, but at least we'd be doing something.
For those who think flooding Lake Eyre might help the climate as well as provide beach frontage.
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/downloads.aspx?file=7873544F7372482F626E66715171744C504B4E69464430704C323332757850313252537852437742677A4C43394E6D3273392F61527744715835584A6C6D4146
If I recall correctly Paul, sometime during the 1950's (about the time there were nuclear tests in Oz), some in government and the CSIRO were proposing the use of nuclear devices to blast a channel from the sea into the Lake Eyre Basin. Their rationale was that the creation of an inland sea once again would substantially alter the local climate and provide much higher (and more reliable) rainfall leading to the production of vast areas of high value farmland and also open up large new areas suitable for urban settlement.
Luke writes on Greenland ice melt and its potential: “Such doomsday scenarios are well rehearsed, but — expressed in this way — not necessarily accurate. If cold areas such as the centre of Greenland warm up, it might actually snow more. That would, in turn, thicken the ice sheet and remove water from the global oceans. The very different densities of snow, ice and water mean that measuring the volume of the Greenland ice sheet does not provide the complete answer as to whether it is growing or shrinking. The ideal method is to measure how the mass of the ice sheet is changing with time”
If the global surface average temperature rises two degrees the whole damn lot will slide under soon enough. The rate of free ice melting everywhere is the only question given the rate of warming overall. If hot spots like SE Australia are a true indication of all yet to come then we are indeed round the corner on the hockey stick and past rates of anything don’t apply any more. Looking backwards gives only false impressions of what can come on our way to the next peak. Extra heat is currently being soaked up in core ice and the sea. Rapid change in melt rates at any junction is the key.
Personally I reckon flooding Lake Eyre would be more fun than a lousy sea wall. Think of all that new beach front property!