Moon Wobble to cause Flooding for a decade

Well ain't that a *****... Really interesting occurrence, and this could be a major issue for places already seeing sunny day flooding. But it does look like the concern is due to sea level rise from climate change.

Another clarification is that the current estimate is for this to start in the next decade (not for the next decade). From NASA:

Quote:High-tide floods – also called nuisance floods or sunny day floods – are already a familiar problem in many cities on the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported a total of more than 600 such floods in 2019. Starting in the mid-2030s, however, the alignment of rising sea levels with a lunar cycle will cause coastal cities all around the U.S. to begin a decade of dramatic increases in flood numbers, according to the first study that takes into account all known oceanic and astronomical causes for floods.

Led by the members of the NASA Sea Level Change Science Team from the University of Hawaii, the new study shows that high tides will exceed known flooding thresholds around the country more often. What’s more, the floods will sometimes occur in clusters lasting a month or longer, depending on the positions of the Moon, Earth, and the Sun. When the Moon and Earth line up in specific ways with each other and the Sun, the resulting gravitational pull and the ocean’s corresponding response may leave city dwellers coping with floods every day or two...

The Moon is in the tide-amplifying part of its cycle now. However, along most U.S. coastlines, sea levels have not risen so much that even with this lunar assist, high tides regularly top flooding thresholds. It will be a different story the next time the cycle comes around to amplify tides again, in the mid-2030s. Global sea level rise will have been at work for another decade. The higher seas, amplified by the lunar cycle, will cause a leap in flood numbers on almost all U.S. mainland coastlines, Hawaii, and Guam. Only far northern coastlines, including Alaska’s, will be spared for another decade or longer because these land areas are rising due to long-term geological processes.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/study-p...g-in-2030s

[quote='RiceLad15' pid='17554337' dateline='1628878184']
Well ain't that a *****... Really interesting occurrence, and this could be a major issue for places already seeing sunny day flooding. But it does look like the concern is due to sea level rise from climate change.

Another clarification is that the current estimate is for this to start in the next decade (not for the next decade). From NASA:

[quote]rising sea levels with a lunar cycle will cause coastal cities all around the U.S. to begin a decade of dramatic increases in flood numbers,
[/quote]

you're right about when it starts and I will correct that, but it does last a decade.

(08-13-2021 01:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  [quote='RiceLad15' pid='17554337' dateline='1628878184']
Well ain't that a *****... Really interesting occurrence, and this could be a major issue for places already seeing sunny day flooding. But it does look like the concern is due to sea level rise from climate change.

Another clarification is that the current estimate is for this to start in the next decade (not for the next decade). From NASA:

Quote:rising sea levels with a lunar cycle will cause coastal cities all around the U.S. to begin a decade of dramatic increases in flood numbers,

you're right about when it starts and I will correct that, but it does last a decade.

Oh yeah - didn't mean to suggest something otherwise.

So if you operate a beachfront business your parking lot will be under water twice a day? What if your business is Two blocks inland?

I guess what is missing for me is the amount of sea level rise we expect. I believe last time, about 10,000 years ago, it was about 400 feet - that’s why the Bering land bridge is now hundreds of feet underwater, and Madagascar and Britain are now islands.

(08-13-2021 03:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So if you operate a beachfront business your parking lot will be under water twice a day? What if your business is Two blocks inland?

I guess what is missing for me is the amount of sea level rise we expect. I believe last time, about 10,000 years ago, it was about 400 feet - that’s why the Bering land bridge is now hundreds of feet underwater, and Madagascar and Britain are now islands.

You’d have to look at the study itself and see what modeling was done to evaluate what is predicted to flood and what assumptions were used for sea level rise.

My hunch is that they actually modeled inundation, based on how it is discussed. But none of us likely have the insight into this particular study to provide the details of the methodologies and results you’re asking. But that doesn’t mean those answers don’t exist.

This study says 13 percent of Houston's population (500,000 people) will be displaced by the year 2100. This sure looks like more than 2 blocks will be underwater.

Of course none of us will be around in 2100, but I really don't think many people living along the ocean will be able to pass along their property to their children, or their children's children.

(08-13-2021 06:40 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

This study says 13 percent of Houston's population (500,000 people) will be displaced by the year 2100. This sure looks like more than 2 blocks will be underwater.

Of course none of us will be around in 2100, but I really don't think many people living along the ocean will be able to pass along their property to their children, or their children's children.

Interesting, but my question was more about the rise by 2030, since that is the subject area.

Personally, I think (a). Waterfront/beach property is not a good investment, (b) I said something hung along these lines a few years back and was ridiculed by the leftists, **© No wonder the East and West Coast people are the leaders in worrying about global warming, and (d). This is really less of a long term problem than the increasing scarcity of fresh water.

I predict that flooding will not be a major topic in 2100. Of course, as FBO says, I won’t be around to say I told you so.

**. What I said that drew the ire of the left was that up to about 300-500 years ago, rising seas was not a problem as people just moved their camps back a few hundred feet, but now we have all this major investment in waterfront facilities for large ships that has to be protected.

If you don't want people to live in areas that will flood (or burn, or quake, or whatever), stop subsidizing their risks in doing so.

Eliminating risk is a fool's errand. Eliminating the subsidization of risk and eliminating barriers to adjusting to risk makes much more sense.

(08-13-2021 07:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  If you don't want people to live in areas that will flood (or burn, or quake, or whatever), stop subsidizing their risks in doing so.

Eliminating risk is a fool's errand. Eliminating the subsidization of risk and eliminating barriers to adjusting to risk makes much more sense.

To an extent, absolutely. The current flood insurance program does not adequately price in the risk people face by living in coastal communities.

At the same time, the proposition of uprooting large swaths of people, across all income levels, in many different areas, is a social nightmare. Especially those of lower income who live in these coastal communities and can less likely afford the transplant process. Buy outs can help with that, but money can only go so far when replacing community.

No perfect solution, but I agree that any solution has to recognize that fact, that there are greater costs to living in coastal communities due to the risks of flooding (or other areas where other natural hazards are present as you mentioned).

(08-13-2021 07:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  If you don't want people to live in areas that will flood (or burn, or quake, or whatever), stop subsidizing their risks in doing so.

Good bye, California.

(08-13-2021 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  If you don't want people to live in areas that will flood (or burn, or quake, or whatever), stop subsidizing their risks in doing so.

Good bye, California.

My gut says portions of it due to wildfire risk being under valued. I don’t know if their earthquake risk or other hazards are that undervalued.

But you’d also say goodbye to significant coastal communities along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic seaboards (and not just the fancy, rich ones) and many areas within Harris County. To me, coastal communities are the “worst offenders” when talking about this, especially in areas where hurricanes form.

(08-14-2021 08:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  If you don't want people to live in areas that will flood (or burn, or quake, or whatever), stop subsidizing their risks in doing so.

Good bye, California.

My gut says portions of it due to wildfire risk being under valued. I don’t know if their earthquake risk or other hazards are that undervalued.

But you’d also say goodbye to significant coastal communities along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic seaboards (and not just the fancy, rich ones) and many areas within Harris County. To me, coastal communities are the “worst offenders” when talking about this, especially in areas where hurricanes form.

Yeah, I wasn’t saying that only Cali is at risk. Thought I didn’t need to clarify that n a Rice board.

Wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, mudslides, sea levels rising, giant tides. Coastal California has a lot of ills. But I did have a cousin from the Bay Area tell me he would scared to live in Texas because of the tornadoes.

Rather, I saying that large increases in sea level plus giant tides will wipe out lots of expensive shoreside enterprises, worth a lot of money to a lot of people. And money talks, and elects candidates. Was sea level rising 10,000 years ago? Yep. Was there an outcry to stop it, to reverse it? Nope. People adjusted to the Earth, rather than trying to force the Earth to,adjust to them. Nobody had their wealth tied up in docks and shipping facilities. Worrying about sea level change is a modern phenomena.

(08-14-2021 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 08:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  If you don't want people to live in areas that will flood (or burn, or quake, or whatever), stop subsidizing their risks in doing so.

Good bye, California.

My gut says portions of it due to wildfire risk being under valued. I don’t know if their earthquake risk or other hazards are that undervalued.

But you’d also say goodbye to significant coastal communities along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic seaboards (and not just the fancy, rich ones) and many areas within Harris County. To me, coastal communities are the “worst offenders” when talking about this, especially in areas where hurricanes form.

Yeah, I wasn’t saying that only Cali is at risk. Thought I didn’t need to clarify that n a Rice board.

Wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, mudslides, sea levels rising, giant tides. Coastal California has a lot of ills. But I did have a cousin from the Bay Area tell me he would scared to live in Texas because of the tornadoes.

Rather, I saying that large increases in sea level plus giant tides will wipe out lots of expensive shoreside enterprises, worth a lot of money to a lot of people. And money talks, and elects candidates. Was sea level rising 10,000 years ago? Yep. Was there an outcry to stop it, to reverse it? Nope. People adjusted to the Earth, rather than trying to force the Earth to,adjust to them. Nobody had their wealth tied up in docks and shipping facilities. Worrying about sea level change is a modern phenomena.

Well, you did only mention California, when there are other communities that are far more at risk and under priced. Seemed like an odd state to single out.

I remember talking about this before - coastal communities are far more than just “expensive shoreside enterprises,” so we are also worried about average and low income communities that will be affected or displaced. Politicians and researchers are interested in understanding and mitigating that risk as well.

I think it’s a modern phenomenon because we understand the processes better, it’s happening faster (and we know that), and coastal communities are much larger than 10,000 years ago. But is worrying about sea level rise being a modern phenomenon a problem?

(08-14-2021 09:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 09:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 08:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 08:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 07:53 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  If you don't want people to live in areas that will flood (or burn, or quake, or whatever), stop subsidizing their risks in doing so.

Good bye, California.

My gut says portions of it due to wildfire risk being under valued. I don’t know if their earthquake risk or other hazards are that undervalued.

But you’d also say goodbye to significant coastal communities along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic seaboards (and not just the fancy, rich ones) and many areas within Harris County. To me, coastal communities are the “worst offenders” when talking about this, especially in areas where hurricanes form.

Yeah, I wasn’t saying that only Cali is at risk. Thought I didn’t need to clarify that n a Rice board.

Wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, mudslides, sea levels rising, giant tides. Coastal California has a lot of ills. But I did have a cousin from the Bay Area tell me he would scared to live in Texas because of the tornadoes.

Rather, I saying that large increases in sea level plus giant tides will wipe out lots of expensive shoreside enterprises, worth a lot of money to a lot of people. And money talks, and elects candidates. Was sea level rising 10,000 years ago? Yep. Was there an outcry to stop it, to reverse it? Nope. People adjusted to the Earth, rather than trying to force the Earth to,adjust to them. Nobody had their wealth tied up in docks and shipping facilities. Worrying about sea level change is a modern phenomena.

Well, you did only mention California, when there are other communities that are far more at risk and under priced. Seemed like an odd state to single out.

I remember talking about this before - coastal communities are far more than just “expensive shoreside enterprises,” so we are also worried about average and low income communities that will be affected or displaced. Politicians and researchers are interested in understanding and mitigating that risk as well.

I think it’s a modern phenomenon because we understand the processes better, it’s happening faster (and we know that), and coastal communities are much larger than 10,000 years ago. But is worrying about sea level rise being a modern phenomenon a problem?

Well, not eve4y seaside state also has problems with wildfires and earthquakes. Connecticut, for example, or Louisiana, don’t have the myriads of problems Cal faces. But it is your choice to misinterpret.

Of course, in Cali and/or elsewhere, there are both rich and poor communities, rich and poor people. In nearly every one, the seaside properties are the most valuable, both commercially and residentially. They are generally owned by wealthier individuals. People with money wield political influence. Do you have a problem with my logic so far?

So when the wealthy people are worried about sea level rising, the politicians are worried for them.

Again, 600 years ago if the ocean level rose, they just moved the village back. No environmental movement. But now, the movers and shakers have something to lose. Environmental movement.

Not saying the waters won’t rise. In fact, I am saying they will. But it won’t be the homeless who impacted the most.

As good a place as any for this exercise in hypothetical thinking.

An environmentalist friend just gleefully told me that this past July was "the hottest July in all of recorded human history". After I made the point that we have not been recording temperature measurements for that long, and that in any case even "all of human history" is considerably less than "all of the history of the Earth", I asked what would happen if next year, we got the coolest July in "all of recorded human history"? Would AOC declare there was no need for the GND, or would the environmentalists double down on the need to take emergency action?

I think no matter what, too many people have too much personal and actual capital invested in environmental actions for anybody to reverse course for any reason. JMHO.

Of course, the combinations of excessive heat and high tides lapping at the doors of Lovett Hall may have dire consequences for Rice University.

(08-14-2021 06:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Of course, the combinations of excessive heat and high tides lapping at the doors of Lovett Hall may have dire consequences for Rice University.

Will there be calls to move Willy's statue to higher ground?

(08-14-2021 06:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As good a place as any for this exercise in hypothetical thinking.

An environmentalist friend just gleefully told me that this past July was "the hottest July in all of recorded human history". After I made the point that we have not been recording temperature measurements for that long, and that in any case even "all of human history" is considerably less than "all of the history of the Earth", I asked what would happen if next year, we got the coolest July in "all of recorded human history"? Would AOC declare there was no need for the GND, or would the environmentalists double down on the need to take emergency action?

I think no matter what, too many people have too much personal and actual capital invested in environmental actions for anybody to reverse course for any reason. JMHO.

Of course, the combinations of excessive heat and high tides lapping at the doors of Lovett Hall may have dire consequences for Rice University.

Maybe Rice can convert HRS to a lake when the field is under water and give fishing scholarships?

(08-14-2021 10:40 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 06:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As good a place as any for this exercise in hypothetical thinking.

An environmentalist friend just gleefully told me that this past July was "the hottest July in all of recorded human history". After I made the point that we have not been recording temperature measurements for that long, and that in any case even "all of human history" is considerably less than "all of the history of the Earth", I asked what would happen if next year, we got the coolest July in "all of recorded human history"? Would AOC declare there was no need for the GND, or would the environmentalists double down on the need to take emergency action?

I think no matter what, too many people have too much personal and actual capital invested in environmental actions for anybody to reverse course for any reason. JMHO.

Of course, the combinations of excessive heat and high tides lapping at the doors of Lovett Hall may have dire consequences for Rice University.

Maybe Rice can convert HRS to a lake when the field is under water and give fishing scholarships?

Sailing or kayaking.

Maybe classes in the Campanile?

Two different issues, made fairly clear in the article.

Melting polar ice caps would cause a general rise in sea levels. The 'wobble' (as I understand it) will cause higher high tides and lower low tides.