An Inconvenient Truth

NASA oceanographers announced this month that sea level rose, on average, 3 millimeters (0.1 inches) per year between 1993 and 2005. They think about half came from melting ice and half from thermal expansion as the ocean soaks up heat from global warming. The trend line seems pretty obvious.

Equally obvious are the perilous implications for coastal, sea-level cities like Venice. Venice's countermeasures, including the MOSE dike system and the raising of the lagoon-facing quays, can forestall flooding. But if the trend is relentless, we're really just buying a few ticks on the geologic time game clock. And unless we begin to actively think about what can be done to reverse the trend itself, we will have to consider accepting Venice's eventual surrender to the sea.

Ah, but the linear trend is not that spooky, right? Let's see, an inch every 10 years or so ... less than a foot a century, right? Maybe we'll just roll up our pant legs a bit and build higher walls.

Unfortunately, there's reason to believe the trend may become curvilinear, ascending in a graceful, lethal upward swoop. Earth's floating glaciers function as a kind of mirror, reflecting some of the sun's energy out of the atmosphere and into space. But as the floating glaciers melt from the effects of global warming, this mirror effect disappears and the sun's energy can directly heat the ocean previously beneath the glaciers . And the ocean retains, rather than reflects heat.

So while we may be seeing a gradual sea rise due to glacial melt, once the glacial is gone, things may get hot fast. Very fast. And the bathtub quickly overflows.

Please see the film An Inconvenient Truth. It's in theaters across the country right now. It lays bare the incredible peril in which human-derived global warming has placed our planet. It doesn't matter what your political persuasion is, or for that matter, what side of the global warming issue you find yourself. See the film, judge for yourself. I guarantee you'll be moved, if not radicalized.

The film follows former Vice President, Al Gore, as he trudges from city to city across the globe making a stunning multimedia presentation of what he calls our "planetary emergency". Gore has redirected his stumping skills, and instead of campaigning for himself, he's asking us to vote for the Earth in a bid to raise consciousness and stir political action. The film is frightening, hopeful, extremely intelligent and very, very motivating.

Politics and politicians polarize. I have no idea of your political POV, but there's about a 50% chance, in this country, it's different than mine. Al Gore has advanced a liberal Democratic agenda his whole life. Forget that. For real. He is not selling anything in this film other than defense of the planet.

I was fortunate enough to see Gore's presentation live last February at the TED Conference. Afterward, I spoke to him about Venice, a city he also loves. I told him a bit about the controversy around the MOSE floating dike project, and he talked about the lumbering political processes that are needed to galvanize people around real solutions.

I'm hoping this film quickens the step.

Comments

[pgmd]

For more discussion on this, and of the debate to be held in London this evening (12 June) see an article in The Times published on 10 June. You can find it on www.timesonline.co.uk Search for "Venice" and it will bring up the article "Venice: a city beyond price."

The article was mentioned in yesterday's Il Gazzettino which, if my appalling Italian enabled me to understand it correctly, was rather sneeringly saying that as the same edition of The Times contained advertisements for expensive apartments for sale in Venice, the motivation was business rather than ethics.

[pgmd]

Also, in today's (12 June) Daily Telegraph there is a very good article by AN Wilson who will be speaking at the debate this evening discussing some literary references to Venice.

The website is www.telegraph.co.uk & you need to search for "A.N. Wilson". The article is called "City of dreams, death and decay".

Glyn

[pgmd]

At the debate on the motion "Enough money has been spent saving Venice" held yesterday I would briefly summarise the arguments as follows:

Professor Sir David King, the UK Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, argued that without adequate action to address carbon dioxide emissions and consequent global warming and rising sea levels, Venice is doomed anyway so further expenditure specifically on Venice is futile;

Professor John Kay, a distinguished economist, argued that the number of tourists coming to Venice is so large at the moment, and will rise further with greater prosperity in Africa and Asia, that what is required is proper management of the existing resources, or resources derived from the tourists, not an injection of external finance;

Professor Rrykert, an architectural historian, made a speech which was either incoherent or so subtle that I failed to grasp its message;

AN Wilson argued (probably most congenially to readers of this Blog) that Venice is the most beautiful City in the world and that we should do whatever we can to preserve it.

Anyway, voting numbers on the resolution were 157 for, 425 against and 34 abstentions: so London is in favour of spending money to save Venice.

Ciao

Glyn

[marisa]

Rising seas are a problem but Venice has been dealing with rising seas since they first started to settle in the lagoon on the island of Torcello. On the National Geographic Channel last year they did a piece on Torcello and they found that the Venetians just built higher and higher to adjust for the seas. They found at least three levels below ground near the church.
===================
Please see the movie. Then tell me what you think. Its thesis is that compared to the naturally occuring climate variations that have occurred over millennia, what we have seen since in the last 30 years is way, way, off the charts. Venice, or the world's coastlines for that matter, could face disaster of a scale not seen in modern history. Venice's margin for survival is thin. It couldn't stand a 3 foot rise in sea level, let alone something higher.

Piling cities on top of cities is not a coastal phenomenon, as you know. Mayans, Egyptians, Rome, Jerusalem, on and on. The dust of ages and all that. Torcello was subject to lots of marine engineering by the inhabitants (and was, many think, eventually depopulated because of it).

How did I miss the National Geographic documentary is what I want to know. I'm Googling it as soon as I type this period.

[marisa]

Since you wanted to check out the documentary, I remembered it was not Nat Geo but PBS/Nova. They have a full transcript of the show. Check it out--It was NOVA-The Sinking of Venice--Air date 11/19/02. I only saw it recently, I didn't realize it wasn't recent. But it was facinating because they talk about the gates and the environment of the lagoon.
================================
Aha. I searched like a maniac for the Nat Geo thing. I have the Nova on my TiVo, stored permanently. Excellent show.

[buy cialis]

This is a must watch documentary, he speaks indeed of an inconvenient truth.