Claim: 1,700 U.S. cities below sea level by 2100

The Raw Story reports:

More than 1,700 American cities and towns – including Boston, New York, and Miami – will have significant populations living below the high-water mark by the end of this century, a new climate change study has found.

Those 1,700 towns are locked into a watery future by greenhouse gas emissions already built up in the atmosphere, the analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday found. For nearly 80 of those cities, the watery future would come much sooner, within the next decade.

“Even if we could just stop global emissions tomorrow on a dime, Fort Lauderdale, Miami Gardens, Hoboken, New Jersey will be under sea level,” said Benjamin Strauss, a researcher at Climate Central, and author of the paper. But dramatic cuts in emissions – much greater than Barack Obama and other world leaders have so far agreed – could save nearly 1,000 of those towns, by averting the sea-level rise, the study fund.

Read more…

About these ads

9 responses to “Claim: 1,700 U.S. cities below sea level by 2100

  1. There is only one word that sums up this totally unproven claim – crap
    Where is all this water supposed to come from?

  2. From melting ice caps and glaciers. Do you know nothing of climate change?

  3. This is complete nonsense of course. This sort of wildly speculated gibberish is only a sign of extreme delusion and desperation.

    I’ve lived in a city below sea level for 20 years. Its flooded a few times, but life moves on.

  4. I have yet to see the data showing the volume of glaciers converted to sea water and the concomitant sea level increase. Then one would have to calculate how much more water vapor would be in the atmosphere at
    this now elevated temperature due to CO2, expansion of ocean volumes and the like. Non polluting nuclear power is the obvious solution but we never hear from any of the warmists calling for this answer – I wonder why? It could be because the promoters of CAGW are really expressing their anti-capitalist motives. It’s really nothing more than envy of the successful, a corner stone of socialist dogma. If they know CAGW is a real threat they would not be trying to eliminate nuclear power, a proven 100% of the time sustainable source of cheap power. And they would also miss their tax supported income…

    • Howdy dorv562
      You’re correct on nearly every point. I hate to say anything remotely positive about James Hansen, but Hansen has actually advocated nuclear power as an alternative to carbon-based fuels.
      You’re right that very few CAGW alarmists propose anything remotely practical as alternatives and Obama least of any.

  5. Addressing the merits of the sea-level claim, rates of sea-level rise have varied over the last century with no apparent link to CO2 or temperature. The rate has slowed in recent years along with the plateau in atmospheric temps but the link is fuzzy at best.
    Sea level, and sea level relative to a section of coast, is a more complex relationship than more water means higher seas. Land changes can cause an area to rise or fall; this is apparently what’s happening to several Pacific islands that are being advertised as canaries in the sea level coal mine.
    The projected rise in sea levels is far smaller than normal tidal changes. There are well-known engineering adaptations that will protect the cities in question if they’re done properly. Of course, if a city’s government is busy driving off businesses and regulating the size of sodas, chances are poor that real work will get done.

  6. At least we won’t have to wait long for them to be proven wrong.
    “For nearly 80 of those cities, the watery future would come much sooner, within the next decade.”
    That seems like it would require a lot more decadal sea level rise than has been occuring for the last 100 years. That’s even bolder than Hansen’s New York underwater in 20 years prediction…which was later re-described as maybe 40 years…or some such.

  7. The article doesn’t say when the 2.3 meters of sea level per 1 DegC temperature rises might/could occur. Centuries? Man, that’s a projection that the author won’t need to worry about being falsified by empirical data in his lifetime. The article also says that the sea level has risen 12 inches in the last decade. Satellites only show 1.2 inches SLR per decade over the last 2 decades. This guy is either keeping key data hidden because it wouldn’t be conducive to creating a panic, or he can’t do simple math, or both.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s