Sea Level Rise - Bases
 

As our number of bases (baskets) is reducing I was wondering about the long term viability of the coastal bases to sea level rise.

I probably should know but is the runway published height above mean sea level?

Long time since I have been to Valley but I remember the Seaking area across the runway as being very close to the sea - literally a stones throw from the apron to the water edge. Certainly vulnerable I'd have thought - Presumably the runway and Hawk area too.

I assume there was a study before they decided to close Linton??

Lossie is a bit harder to tell across the golf course but it feels higher! Not just the hill!

Coastal ranges will presumably vanish - or at least just offer sea targets!

Can't think of anything else of note (still open) on the coast

I know somebody who would wish Coningsby as lower!!

By the time it happens, we will have space travel all sorted. Go to Mars, no problems with water there.

I suppose that exiting RAF Gan seems like a good idea now.

ORAC - same guy in S Vendee too - Vermuyden

If it is the threat that it is hyped up to be, why are they happily planning new nuclear power stations right on the shore ?

'Cause they need cooling water???

I thought Sea Kings could float. And how about more flying boats. Never made a Sunderland but a mess and galley the way to go. For the fighter pilot how about

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_F2Y_Sea_Dart

And travel in spaceships like those in "Wall-E"?

Yes, precisely why. But it still begs the question why they choose to build so close to the shore?
Cooling water can be pumped, but a submerged reactor .......
I think the threat is somewhat exaggerated, but has led to a great deal of money being made ;)

They are called submarines.

Everything is going to relocate to Dunkeswell. :-)

Or Cosford - 400ft ASL.
May however need a runway extension. ;-)

US concerned: https://www.stripes.com/news/retired...evels-1.514107

The nukes is probably lack of foresight. Or perhaps they're over optimistic about the speed at which nuclear power will replace coal.

The threat to low-lying coastal installations is not that the sea will silently rise and cover them, but that they will get increasingly vulnerable to a combination of high tides, strong winds, and low-pressure storm surge. Big waves breaking on land where they weren't expected can easily undermine foundations and roadbeds. Couple of roads I know well here near Auckland are getting cut and having major washouts much more frequently than they did 30 years ago.

In Fukushima the pumps failed due to flooding of the generators. If the reactors had been built lower down then sea water could have been used by gravity.

If the sea it gets too high in Gan the islanders could swim across to Villingili and assemble on Mount Villingili with its elevation of 5.1 metres (16.7 ft).

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmf...7347fe2c86.jpg

My photo from 2014 visit to Gan and nearby islands.

That looks like my sort of mountain Warmtoast - I could just about still manage that one!