Global Warming

[ibis]

There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that An Bord Pleanala have any concept of the dangers of rising sea levels in their conduct during their planning decision on the Greystones Harbour and North Beach Development.

The inspectors report on the Greystones Harbour and North Beach development concluded the following in regard to building high rise appartments in the sea at Greystones:

"While Section 6.18 of the Wicklow County Development Plan states that the Local Authority will protect private investments by limiting any new building or development within 50 metres of a soft shoreline, indicated on map 35B, this is not at issue with the proposed development. Where development occurs the new scheme will be protected by breakwaters and the sea wall. This will halt any further erosion. This section of coastline would therefore no longer be a soft shoreline. The proposed development therefore does not contradict Development Plan policies."

An Bord Pleanala therefore will allow building on soft shoreline as long as the developer builds a pier thereby converting the soft shoreline into a non soft shoreline. The logic of this completely escapes me.

The development will have under building car parks ar 1.5 metres OD - substantially below the 4 metres OD recommended. These car parks will become potential death traps should they be flooded.

You could say that the logic is that the developer thereby gets to build, I suppose. However, it illustrates the problem with simplistic guidelines - the reasoning behind the 50m (half of what is actually recommended by studies) is the accelerated erosion from faster sea-level rise, but you can get around the guideline by adopting methods that don't address the actual problem, only the guideline. It also illustrates the problem caused by lack of Coastal Zone Management Plans - is a hard sea defence appropriate here? What effect will it have on the South Beach, for example?

[Lennon]

You could say that the logic is that the developer thereby gets to build, I suppose. However, it illustrates the problem with simplistic guidelines - the reasoning behind the 50m (half of what is actually recommended by studies) is the accelerated erosion from faster sea-level rise, but you can get around the guideline by adopting methods that don't address the actual problem, only the guideline. It also illustrates the problem caused by lack of Coastal Zone Management Plans - is a hard sea defence appropriate here? What effect will it have on the South Beach, for example?

The EIS did not examine the impact on the South Beach.

The EIS did however state that the erosion on the North Beach would worsen significantly as a direct result of the large breakwaters. The developer, to mitigate this impact, will be dumping 12,000 tonnes of quarried gravel on the North Beach annually. Professor Andrew Cooper (University of Ulster) in his submission at the second oral hearing cautioned against the placement of large breakwaters on the shoreline and the unsustainability of beach nourishment on this beach.

Bord Pleanala ignored all the evidence given when making their decision.

[ibis]

You could say that the logic is that the developer thereby gets to build, I suppose. However, it illustrates the problem with simplistic guidelines - the reasoning behind the 50m (half of what is actually recommended by studies) is the accelerated erosion from faster sea-level rise, but you can get around the guideline by adopting methods that don't address the actual problem, only the guideline. It also illustrates the problem caused by lack of Coastal Zone Management Plans - is a hard sea defence appropriate here? What effect will it have on the South Beach, for example?

The EIS did not examine the impact on the South Beach.

The EIS did however state that the erosion on the North Beach would worsen significantly as a direct result of the large breakwaters. The developer, to mitigate this impact, will be dumping 12,000 tonnes of quarried gravel on the North Beach annually. Professor Andrew Cooper (University of Ulster) in his submission at the second oral hearing cautioned against the placement of large breakwaters on the shoreline and the unsustainability of beach nourishment on this beach.

Bord Pleanala ignored all the evidence given when making their decision.

Yes, you have to ask whether a development that requires the dumping of 12kilotonnes of gravel annually is actually "sustainable" in any meaningful sense of the term.

[mryoungdan]

IPCC figures - metres rise over the next century:

B1 scenario 0.18 – 0.38
A1T scenario 0.20 – 0.45
B2 scenario 0.20 – 0.43
A1B scenario 0.21 – 0.48
A2 scenario 0.23 – 0.51
A1FI scenario 0.26 – 0.59

These are "model-based range excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow" - which is to say that they are the conservative estimates of sea-level rise based on no Antarctic and no Greenland ice-sheet melting, and no noticeable increase of ice flow into the oceans.

Greenland: "Contraction of the Greenland ice sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100. Current models suggest ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9 to 4.6°C. If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m."

Source.

How is that sea rise coming along.

I can't wait a 100 years for that inch to kick in. Why the Statue of Liberty will be submerged in a scant 10 million years if things are as bad as you say