Originally posted by Zythryn:
If I understand your statement, you are correct. At some beaches on the east coast a one foot rise will erode about a hundred feet of beach.
I don't know the answer to this one, but am curious. How high would sea level need to go to reach a subway entrance in NY?
im afraid i dont have the answer to that. one thing to consider though, those entrances are relatively small. i really believe that there would have been some consideration of how high the water might get. those areas nearest the beaches would be on softer sandy ground, which you could not build a subway though. they are likely to be higher. also it would be easier to put something around them (likely sand bags at first, and concrete steps later) to stop storm surges. likely the first things to have problems would be the sewers and storm drains.
Even if everyone affected in the US was 'rich' (which I disagree with) that was directly affected, it would still be an economic catastrophe.
again, its a manner of how fast it happens. considering that they are talking about this happening over a century, it would not be that catastrophic. nor did i say they would be the only ones affected, just the vast majority would be the rich sea shore owners. they would find their homes losing value year after year. not that much, just continually over 2 or 3 generations. the real problem with the land would be the lost of wetlands. at least until the rivers made new ones.
weather rich or poor, displacing large numbers of people causes hardship. In countries in southeast asia the numbers of people displaced is staggering.
yes, those in se asia would be the ones that suffered. part of my problem with the way da made the statement is that he seem to be saying that america would be the hardest hit and would suffer most. Its india that would take the greatest damage.
