The only structure a sensible person builds within 3 feet of high tide is a sandcastle. Beyond that, they will get no sympathy from me . . . a hundred years from now . . . if the leftists guessed right on sea level.
Posted on 03/14/2012 6:54:54 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON — Global warming-fueled sea level rise over the next century could flood 3.7 million people in 544 U.S. cities temporarily, according to a new method of looking at risking of rising seas published in two scientific papers.
The cities that have the most people living within three feet (one meter) of high tide — the projected sea level rise by the year 2100 made by many scientists and computer models — are in Florida, Louisiana, and New York. New York City, often not thought of as a city prone to flooding, has 141,000 people at risk, which is second only to New Orleans' 284,000. The two big Southeast Florida counties, Miami-Dade and Broward, have 312,000 people at risk combined.
"Southeast Florida is definitely the highest density of population that's really on low coastal land that's really most at risk," said lead author Ben Strauss, a scientist at Climate Central. Climate Central is a New Jersey-based group of scientists and journalists who do research about climate change.
The studies look at people who live in homes within three feet of high tide, whereas old studies looked just at elevation above sea level, according to work published Thursday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research and an accompanying report by Climate Central. That's an important distinction because using high tide is more accurate for flooding impacts, said study co-author Jonathan Overpeck, a scientist at the University of Arizona's Institute of the Environment. And when the new way of looking at risk is factored in, the outlook looks worse, Overpeck said.
"It's shocking to see how large the impacts could be, particularly in southern Florida and Louisiana, but much of the coastal U.S. will share in the serious pain," Overpeck said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
“...by the year 2100...”
People can’t tell if they’re gonna cough, sneeze, or fart in the next 5 minutes. A lot is gonna happen between now and 2100. Get your doomsday predictions in now while the patsies are fresh and the marks still have money.
LOL, I’d forgotten the million-degree wisdom of Al Gore.
Question here! How many of those 284,000 are currently at risk by building below current sea and river levels. It's cheating to count those currently begging to be drowned again in an article about increased risk.
Even worse - by the end of the century, virtually one hundred percent of those living by the sea will be dead.
Fact.
But... uh... not from drowning.
As long as the kids can hold onto that land in Arizona for a few hundred generations, they might have some valuable oceanview property.
All three are an annual event.
This should be posted in Horoscopes, or Society.
It works well in those cases. But actual ice melt happens over time. Given enough time and diversion to a warm climate such as northwest Egypt, the impact of that water diversion is reduced by a factor of more than a hundredfold.
The water, of course, does not disappear. It evaporates, it is stored in the clouds as water vapor, it soaks into the ground or it is stored in other forms. Throw in water consumed by cropland, forests or other uses, then you begin to see how the model indicated is not only logical, but likely.
Of course, it depends on which climate modeling data you use. If you use the catastrophic chicken little models of the global warming fanatics, we're probably already too late. If you use the more realistic data on global warming trends over time, then you don't even need a full Qattara Depression to accommodate current modest warming trends.
Only one thing is for certain: If some international consortium of companies announced that they were going to begin construction of a Mediterranean Sea diversion pipeline to fill in the Qattara Depression to assist Egypt in agricultural and hydroelectric development and, at the same time, prepare for global warming, you would get a huge outcry in opposition from the same global warming fanatic crowd predicting catastrophic consequences from the sudden lowering of the earth's ocean levels, the destruction of the habitat of some sub species of sand flea found only in that area of the world or whatever other claptrap they could conjure up to obstruct the project.
But wouldn't it be fun to try?
Between the pelting of the Earth with Ice from space and the escape of moisture from out atmosphere, the AMOUNT of water on the Earth hasn’t changed much in billions of years.
What DOES change is the ground. It moves, constantly. The change in sea levels , for instance, in New Orleans is not due to a rise in sea level, but a lowering of the ground.
There are new islands popping up out of the ocean while at the same time there are islands which disappear beneath the waves.
If it was due to sea level change, both things could not occur at the same time. Yet they do.
The only structure a sensible person builds within 3 feet of high tide is a sandcastle. Beyond that, they will get no sympathy from me . . . a hundred years from now . . . if the leftists guessed right on sea level.
All your other suggestions are fine, we can use more energy, more arable land, more cooling evaporation (in case global warming is real), etc. The only problem is suggesting that this flooding will have any impact on sea levels WRT Greenland's ice. I prefer to point to the fact that the melt from Greenland is trivial and there's no reason to believe it will rise unless one is to believe certain climate models which are not driven by physics and cannot be verified.
Amazingly the sea level DOES seem to be dropping but Obama doesn’t want to take credit for what he said he would do, he wants to deny that it is happening!! Didn’t Alice say something about things getting ‘CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER’?
Further, evaporation rates are only a small part of the function on how sea and lake levels will rise and fall. There are vast stretches of low and even below sea level areas in west central Asia (especially around the Caspian Sea) where shorelines are receding, not increasing.
Some of this is, indeed, even man made, particularly the overuse of water resources from the Soviet era. A diversion of even salty sea water to these areas would assist in an ecological recovery, even without regard to global warming.
The Qattara Depression example was cited specifically because it would be a relatively low cost engineering project. A diversion project from, say, the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea would be possible but much more complicated and expensive, but still cheap compared to the type of economic dismantling the global warming alarmists are talking about.
The fact that they won't even discuss ocean diversion projects as part of the solution gives you a clue as to just how phony and invented this problem really is. They are fixated on Marxist and top-down economic solutions only.
However, Marxism is just as much an ecological catastrophe as it is a human and economic catastrophe wherever it had been tried. That's my main point.
The warmists are the antiscientists in this fight.
I keep praying for rising sea levels. Liberal coastal cities from San Francisco to New York to Boston will be wiped out. Flyover country will now sport resort beaches. It is a win-win.
Please Lord, see to it that we can see sea levels rise high enough to inundate all of the socialist coastal cities.
This is a GOOD thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.