"W[h]ile I compose a proper reply you might like to read this..."

Foul - either parse and structure the content of your references and present them in the debate or leave them out.

@entropic

'Adaptation to even current rates of change would not seem to be easy for those faced with the immediate prospect.'

Sure. I never said it would necessarily be easy. But a (relatively) few folk having some tough difficulties is not at all the same as 'a threat to civilisation'.

I guess nearly everybody would be happier if the sealevels didn't rise at all. But unless we can go back in history and eliminate the Ice Ages, it's something we have to deal with. Your contention is that we can't. Mine that we can.

PS Reuters cites Dieppe in France as being particularly vulnerable. Maybe so, but Dieppe is a town I know well, visit and stay in several times a year, and I have never seen or heard rising sea level as being seen a threat to the inhabitants. Their main worry is that Le Havre gets all the port trade and that the Newhaven/Dieppe ferry is eventually withdrawn. That would truly leave Dieppe as an outpost with no future. That is the existential threat to the town. Not melting glaciers.

In the real world, 'climate change' considerations do not feature highly in people's thoughts. You need to persuade us that they should.

http://medias.photodeck.com/791c275e-030d-11e2-be8e-ab85031753ab/Dieppe_Harbour_1_2773_xlarge.jpg

"Adler is German for eagle. You should be flattered."

How very EM.

Latimer Alder

Interesting that you apply a 3ft rise to London.

I came across this description of London's long term flood defence plans. The cover a range of options and consider four case studies. The first assumed a 3ft rise to 2100 and reckoned that, with some raising of sea walls and over rotation of the Thames Barrier, the existing sea defence infrastructure was just sufficient.

Larger contingencies required upgraded barriers and new sea walls. The largest anticipated rise of 4 metres required a new barrier at the end of the estuary and evacuation of considerabl low lying land to create intertidal water storage areas.

London might even get away with a 3ft rise. As the Greenland ice cap mellts, its gravitational influence will decrease and sea level within 1000 miles actually fall, while the released water raises sea levels elsewhere. London is just beyond the neutral point.

Lapogus

That avalanche of links is called a Gish Gallop . If you want replies from me, please concentrate on one point at a time.

Incidentally, resist the temptation to cherry pick individual tide gauges. You can show very low or very high rates of change. Note that in the Reuters link the highest rise was 32" and the greatest loss 39". That is a local variation of 71"

The old lady in the bungalow should have taken the offer. But what of Mullion Cove? I take it that you are in favour of subsidising sea wall repairs or compensating the house owners.

Martin A

It is called humour. You should try it sometime.

Latimer Alder

Dieppe looks a pleasant place. I hope it survives.

Persuading people that a distant problem needs attention now is never easy. Humanity has a "sufficient to the day is the evil thereof" approach which makes it very difficult to recognise and deal with long term problems. Sea level rise s such a problem. Reducing the rise in a century's time can only be achieves by reducing CO2 produxtion now, but politicians and people are unwilling to pay an upfront cost to reduce a larger cost downstream (witness Lima). I've about given up hope of persuading them otherwise.

@Entropic

Just to remind you of this:

'Latimer, I am quite happy to follow Richard Betts suggestion that we accept a possible 0.5M to 2M rise to 2100 and discuss the implications.'

When can we expect to see you discussion of these points? So far you haven't mentioned anything to do with them.

Remember that you are trying to prove that they are 'a threat to civilisation'.

It is a big claim that will require big evidence.

@entropic

'Reducing the rise in a century's time can only be achieves by reducing CO2 produxtion now, but politicians and people are unwilling to pay an upfront cost to reduce a larger cost downstream (witness Lima)'

You have yet to demonstrate that the costs are in the ratio you describe. That will, presumably, be part of the argument we are so eagerly awaiting from you? After you have shown that the whole 'problem' is a 'threat to civilisation'

Can you give an ETA on when we may expect your considered argument that it is?

EM, it is not enough to write in a civilized tone to debate. You have to offer actual counters to points raised.
There is no evidence that anything close to even .5 meters is possible in the next 100 years, you offered an example that confuses erosion with slr, you don't seem able to differentiate between subsidence and slr.
Can you address at least some of these?
TIA

Entropic says to Lapogus

'That avalanche of links is called a Gish Gallop'

Strange. I thought it was called 'doing your staffwork'.

Autre temps, autre moeurs?

BTW, EM your link to London's flood defence plans comes up as 'forbidden' to me.

Can you please post sthg I can read? Доверяй, но проверяй. Thanks.

EM, The east coast is not a good place to base evidence on the effects of sea level rise on your motion that sea level rise is a threat to civilisation. Whilst the story is tragic for one or two property owners it has little or nothing to do with sea level rise.

First the east coast is one of the most rapidly subsiding areas as a result of isostatic readjustment (1 to 1.5 mm per year subsidence). So whilst local sea level changes are 4", eustatic rises are on the order of 50mm (2") over the past 40 years. Secondly this part of the east coast has been in retreat for over a century. Historical data shows that over this period the total retreat is between 1 and 2km. Witness the effects on Dunwich in Suffolk which was largely lost to the sea between the 13th and 18th centuries. The onset was a major three day storm and North Sea surge in the 13th century.

If it were not for the constant retreat of the soft glacial till cliffs on the east coast then we wouldn't have the magnificent spit of Blakeney, the beaches along the north Norfolk coast and the salt marshes for which the area is famous

For as long as I can remember there has been a debate about wether or not to defend properties and the coast in this part of the world. The keyword is managed retreat. Of course this is difficult foir property owners on the cliff tops but it is inevitable, with or without sea level rise that these properties are going to fall over the edge as the coastline retreats.

I see no vlaue of this example in buttressing the motion of your debate.

Entropic man
Gish Gallop also used by Raff when presented with more than one link to data which contradicted his view. Why start a debate when you haven't the time or inclination to answer valid questions on data which would contradict your view? Perhaps you feel there are only certain people here worthy of your full attention?

The Greenland question is interesting as the sea level rise you so fear depends on Greenland's ice melting and raising sealevels and altering the Earths rotation at the same time, all leading to an horrific catastrophe. In order not to overwhelm your FIFO memory here is a link to the DMI DMI Current Surface Mass Budget of the Greenland Ice Sheet which suggests that you might be worrying about natural variation and a poor model as much as anything else.

The model has been updated 20 May 2014 and now gives a better picture of what happens with the meltwater. Earlier a large amount of the meltwater was treated as loss in the form of runoff from the ice sheet. The new model is better at taking into account the part of the meltwater that refreezes on its way to the coast, and this then remains a part of the ice sheet.

Any further contributions from Richard Betts after his single posting to "guide" discussion?