Rising Seas Likely to Flood U.S. History
Ultimately, rising seas will likely swamp the first American settlement in Jamestown, Va., as well as the Florida launch pad that sent the first American into orbit, many climate scientists are predicting.
In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased.
Global warming — through a combination of melting glaciers, disappearing ice sheets and warmer waters expanding — is expected to cause oceans to rise by one meter, or about 39 inches. It will happen regardless of any future actions to curb greenhouse gases, several leading scientists say. And it will reshape the nation.
Rising waters will lap at the foundations of old money Wall Street and the new money towers of Silicon Valley. They will swamp the locations of big city airports and major interstate highways.
[...]
Few of the more than two dozen climate experts interviewed disagree with the one-meter projection. [...] “It’s going to happen no matter what — the question is when.”
Here’s is what a number of US cities can expect.
And then, looking a little further out, oh, say, 250 million years, here’s what we find (for different reasons, of course):
I live in San Diego. All last week we heard how it was going to rain and we were going to get the worst storm since 1986. Well it never happened.
If they cant tell me the weather 3 days ahead, I am sure they are clueless as to what it will be in 50 years.
#11
The eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815 caused the “year without a summer.” in 1816. Your point is valid in that the dust ejected from Tambora (and Krakatoa) did cause periods of global cooling.
andrew, they can tell you what the climate will be months ahead of time. Don’t confuse weather for a day with average weather. That said, the modeling hasn’t held up well at all.
#11 The 1883 Krakatoa eruption in an instant injected cubic miles, millions of tons of greenhouse gases, and aerosols into the stratosphere so by our modelling of global warming today there should have been a measurable increase global temperatures.
Oh, come on…
You use such rational statements in the rest of your posts, and then question why an an eruption ejecting “greenhouse gases” and “aerosols” into the atmosphere didn’t raise temperatures?
Have you read anything about the “albedo” effects of particulate matter ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosols
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate_matter
All aerosols both absorb and scatter solar and terrestrial radiation…
If the aerosols are up in the atmosphere – absorbing & scattering solar radiation – it seems likely that less solar radiation is reaching the surface of the Earth.
A link from the Wiki page on Particulate Matter attempts to define the competing effects on our climate – with some things causing cooling, and others causing heating.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/wg1figspm-3.htm
It seems likely that there was a “year without a Summer” because the heating-effects contributed by the ejected gases were less significant than the cooling-effects contributed by the aerosols.
Mother Earth has evolved a creature capable of returning the Earth to a more temperate (pre Chicxulub impact) climate. Now these creatures decide to go against her by stopping the very process which they were designed for? Hubris I tell you! Let the warming continue!
Anyone willing to go 50/50 on a Citrus orchard on the Montana/Alberta border?
Seems to be global warming could be prevented by ejecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere.
#26 Seems to be global warming could be prevented by ejecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere.
Just like in The Matrix…
Yeah, thats part of the perception problem.
We were all warned about “global cooling” in the 70s – due to the amount of aerosols being released into the atmosphere [and/or the "nuclear winter" caused by aerosols tossed-into the air if the Cold War ever got hot...]
Now that aerosol pollution has been reduced, we are being warned about “global warming” due to green-house gases.
Its no surprise people are scratching their heads & saying: “warming”?? weren’t you just harping-on about “cooling”??
And its compounded by so many people arguing about whether the measured trend is being caused/accelerated by human activity, or is just part of the documented climate-cycle of our planet.
Doesn’t matter if climate has “turned on a dime” in the past, or if it is a natural cycle… why aren’t we having serious discussions about what will happen if the trend continues – i.e. the linked maps?
But I know us, we’ll wait under there is a call for emergency-funding to erect a New Orleans-style system of levees & pumps in Manhattan.
#1,
What what part of SOME are you having difficulty?
#2 – Dave,
You’re right. That is a stupid question. Try the experiment this way. Fill a bucket 3/4 with water. Suspend the ice cubes from a full tray of cubes above the water to simulate the ice on land, e.g. Greenland, Antarctica, etc. Make sure the water is also cooler than the air temperature. As the ice melts and the cool water in your bucket warms, what happens to the water level?
I’ll look back at the rest of the comments in the morning. I just couldn’t believe these first two.
Oh, and bobbo, while I obviously agree with you, I would say it’s a tad impolite to insult iGW before he gets into the fray. Once he does though …
#2, Dave,
When you have a bucket of water amd you put a block of ice in it, the water level goes up. 3/4 of the ice is sticking out of the water. As the ice melts, the water level goes down.
Dave, Dave, Dave, I think your fractions are a little out of whack. ¾ of the ice doesn’t sit about the water level. The fraction of ice poking out of the water will be about 1/9 to 1/10 of the total volume of ice, depending upon both ice and water temperature.
As water freezes (solidifies) it expands about 10%. That makes it less dense than water and thus it will float.
The ice above the surface plus the amount under the surface will always equal the volume of water displaced by the ice beneath the surface.
As the ice melts in a glass, the water level will NOT change. This is because as the ice becomes water its density changes to that of the water it displaced.
RE #29, Oopps, that should have been
3/4 of the ice doesn’t sit above the water level
#15, MM,
Where do you get this “WE” white guy ???
For anyone living near the coast or with friends or family near the coasts, check out this link. Pick your location and it will show you what land will end up under water by how much the sea rises.
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=43.3251,-101.6015&z=13&m=7
TIHZ_HO,
I also hadn’t heard of glaciers melting that fast. I’m not quite sure I believe it yet. There are too many other docs showing that the warming we are experiencing now is much faster than any that came before. Perhaps if I see more such papers, I’ll reconsider.
I’d also point out that I’m reading a lot of data showing that the current warming trend will put the coming temperatures above any seen within the last million years, putting the expected temperature above any seen since the evolution of homo sapiens.
It’s true that the planet was warmer 55 million years ago. But,. we didn’t live through that. In fact, it wasn’t until the earth cooled quite a bit after that that evolution was able to replenish the numbers of species that had been here prior to the comet that took out the non-avian dinos. So, there’s no evidence one way or the other for whether we could survive the expected temps.
Further, since 70% of the planet’s surface is water, and water loses the ability to hold oxygen as it warms, extending the tropical temperatures to much higher latitudes will cause a huge reduction in the amount of live in the oceans, which are, as noted, the bulk of the planet’s surface. So, this will be a huge reduction in multicellular life on this planet. (Note where the rich waters on the planet are today and imagine them in a part of the planet that is much narrower than the wide middle of the planet. Pushing the rich waters toward the narrower poles reduces life.)
A billion people today rely on seafood for the bulk of their protein. I know you think that aquaculture can replace this. But, I don’t see how 30% of the surface of the planet will make up for the other 70%. Further, we are already seeing a reduction in grain production due to global warming and widespread desertification. As we continue to exhaust our aquifers and top soil, what will make up for the growing regions lost?
If you claim the arctic will do so, remember that the enormous lakes in the arctic are there because there is a watertight seal of permafrost below. As the permafrost melts, the lakes will seep away leaving the arctic a warmer desert. This will not increase grain production. What will feed the fish in the aquaculture you expect? What will provide the caloric content for humanity? Certainly, the planet will not sustain 6 billion people. How many people will the planet support sustainably? How many other species will die in the continuation of the sixth great extinction that is already in progress? What condition do we want to leave the biosphere in when we leave?
Funny thing Mr. Fusion. At 7m+, most of Manhattan is still above water. This must be ignoring the effects of the first big Noreaster that comes along during high tide. It must also be ignoring what happens to the subway. Or, will that be the Broadway, 7th Ave, and Lexington Ave Rivers?
Animals are 90% water.
Perhaps we can offset the rising sea levels by cloning tons of new thirsty animals to drink the excess water.
Another benefit is that we will have more water for canals. With the declining price of water, canals construction becomes more affordable.
And — as we all know — canals allow water-based transportation, the cheapest type of cargo transportation. The global economy will boom!
Yes, some cities will go below sea level, but many yearn to live in interesting times. For years, they have searched for the lost city of Atlantis — to no avail.
But in 50 years, we will have new lost cities — like the lost city of Atlanta and the lost city of Boston. Imagine the tourism potential, since we will know in advance where these cities are!
And we know the effects of rising sea levels:
Rising sea levels = more coastline = more fishing = profit!
#35 – hmeyers,
Please tell me this is a complete and utter joke.
1) Animals are 70% water, or at least human animals are, some may have other percentages.
2) Few animals can drink salt water from the oceans.
3) Rising sea levels shrink the coast rather than grow it. Coastlines would be maximal at roughly 50% of the earth’s surface each for land and water. Though irregular coastlines help. Since we have 70% of the surface of the planet covered in water now, reducing land reduces coast.
4) We’re not talking about canals here. We’re talking about oceans. There’s already really just one big interconnected ocean. I don’t see how increasing its size improves traffic on it.
What makes you say the planet cannot sustain 6 billion when China is managing 1 billion on its Eastern one third? Bangladesh has more than 100 million in an area smaller than Texas?
#37 – Think more globally. Where is the food and other resources coming from? Is the topsoil being depleted? How about the aquifers?