Posted on 03/04/2024 4:38:33 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Sea levels surrounding New York City are expected to rise at least 6 to 9 inches in the 2030s and potentially up to 13 inches in some areas due to climate change, according to state projections.
The assessment done by the state Department of Environmental Conservations also claims that sea levels in the lower Hudson River could swell by 23 inches in the 2050s and up to 45 inches in the 2080s.
The DEC posted its projections of sea levels in the New York State Register, based on studies of global climate models. The agency is required to periodically post sea-level projections under the Community Risk and Resiliency Act.
“New York is leading the nation to address the impacts of climate change, which include heatwaves, floods, more frequent storms, and sea level rise,” the DEC said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
NYC can become the American Venice.
Better yet, American Atlantis.
Go climate change.
That looks to be about the ONLY way.
could... might... possibly...
I predict there will be numerous terrorist attacks in the US before any of Obama’s waterfront mansions are flooded.
These anti-scientists need to give it up! Enough with the constant lying and fear-mongering. The best thing they can do for society is jump in the ocean and drown.
Or a shift in ocean currents.
But it probably relies on assumptions of things which aren’t happening.
I’ve been hearing this for decades.
I know Wall Street moved their operations off lower Manhattan...but I think real estate is still kind of expensive there.
Is NY sinking or sucking?
There are a few things that keep the ocean from being ‘level’, even excluding the wind-blown waves.
1. denser rock or materials causes a hump near the shore, most especially noticeable around islands. Even denser parts of the ocean floor cause the water to hump up above these spots or regions.
2. Ocean currents create what are essentially standing waves. These ocean currents shift, thus moving the peaks and troughs in certain areas over the course of years.
These effects add up to a couple of feet each way.
The first isn’t going to change appreciatively over reasonable time scales assuming there is no volcanic activity.
Yeah, I am starting to trend in that direction.
I used to try to sooth their hysterics with facts but now I just don't care.
A little of both!
Don't know what kind of a hump you are talking about but water will always seek it's own level.....That's basic physics.
You understand that the earth is neither a sphere, nor a perfect ellipsoid, yes? And that the earth has areas of more and less density?
Well those areas protruding out further from the center as well as those areas of higher density slightly distort the local strength of the gravitational field and direction in a minute amount, which alters the surface of the water.
The “level that water seeks” is the level where gravitational attraction to the water by the planet is equal, which is not completely smooth, due to the above factors (beyond just the earth spinning).
It’s not much, but it is measurable. It is also not something which changes rapidly, and is not what the posted article refers to.
Here is a map of the differences in gravitational strength:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GRACE/page3.php
The rises from the flow of ocean currents are a larger source of distortions, but together then can reach a couple of feet of variation.
All of that is basic physics too, just with a bit more detail.
After further reading on this subject, yes I do. What you are saying is that there may be a rise in ocean height more in one location of the globe than in another location on the globe.
I will accept that but then add, where is all the water going to come from to raise the ocean levels to the anticipated heights stated in the article?
My answer is, it ain't going to happen based on my prior post.
The primary projected rise in sea level is simple thermal expansion of the water already in the ocean. This has not been well-predicted, as the oceans have not warmed in the manner the models expected - so while there is some continued increase in volume, it has not at all fit the predictions.
In addition comes some continued glacial melting, though that makes up an ever smaller proportion of the added water.
Many of the early claims would say something like “If the ice cap on Greenland melted it would raise sea levels x amount”, while failing to mention that even a 10C warming would only melt a small amount of the two mile high Greenland Ice Cap which is mostly contained within the bowl-shaped mountainous terrain. Similar issues exist with the Antarctic ice mass: The bulk of the ice is just too high of an altitude.
The dreaded “Could” word.
When will we stop believing any forecasts that deal with sea levels, fresh water, Oil, temperatures, etc.?
The sea level changes every day because the tide comes and goes.
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.