(May 11, 2012 at 7:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Lets say, in our theoretical New York scenario, that water comes up a fraction of an inch a year. That's ample time. If it rushes over the seawalls all at once 80 feet high, it is not. The first is human stupidity, the second is ACC. The first is conceivable, the second, not quite so much.
IOW, does the ocean get stormier? Where, and by how much? How would we make boats more seaworthy after establishing these two variables at the very least? That would be good policy. Millions will die because the sky is falling, not so much.
Let's look at Cyclone nargis that hit Burma in 2008, or Bhola cyclone that hit banglordash in 1970. Both cyclones hit highly fertile, densely populated lands that are well known to be prone to flood catastrophically in cyclones. The first killed about a quarter million, give or take, the second killed half a million.
Both can be counted amongst the back ground rates of casualty to normal climactic caprices. It is estimated Bhola like cyclones hit once twenty - years or so in the refion On average each occurrence kills about a hundred thousand. Ie the region can expect a million casualties attributable to cyclones per century.
Let's say ACC raise the sea level a few centimeters, doesn't flood anything when everything is calm, but increase deadly cyclone related flooding to once every 15 years. On average that increase the casualty over a century by about 200000.
That counts as casualties of ACC
