Posted on 07/29/2013 1:37:47 PM PDT by Libloather
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
If you believe there is more evil in big cities you are not very bright. Good and evil people are everywhere.
Weak?
Maybe you didn’t see the carnage on TV.
We abandoned and moved inland.
I didn’t know there was conflict among scientists concerning melting off in the North. The dispute centers around the cause. One side blames nature, the other man.
If you believe that there is just as much evil in rural America as there is in big cities... then you are mistaken.
Let me dump you in rural Mississippi and you will be treated well, fed and housed most likely. Let me drop you 70 miles away in New Orleans... but let me know where you want your body sent.
LLS
Guess you thought the WTC was karma.
What is the difference between you and the Palestinians who danced in the streets?
And again, I was very sorry to learn about the loss of your home. It is infuriating that people like Gore can take advantage of tragedies like yours, to push a myth on which they stake their plans to make billions of $'s in profits (Carbon Credit Exchange).
Hurricanes have been occasionally hitting the northeast coast of America for all of recorded history. They are less common than the Caribbean variety but because of the greater temperature differences between the hot Gulf air and what comes in to meet it from Canada they can be exceedingly violent. I rode out one in late 1986 a few days after wife to be and I moved to Bergen County New Jersey from Texas. No matter where you choose to live nature has some kind of possible disaster on tap to send. Here in the Midwest we have tornadoes and blizzards and always will.
Rename “New York”, “New Venice”.
You can call it weak in terms of wind velocity but you would be missing the big picture. The problem was that three fronts met in one place, something that has never been recorded in this area. Toss in that it was a full moon and the utter devastation the area experienced makes sense
Wind statistics were never the point.
So where is all this water going to come from?
Ice, of course!
Try this:
Fill a cup with ice.
Add water to fill to the rim.
Wait billions of years.
Oops...
Nevermind...
Correct, but you cannot call it the worse hurricane to hit the area. Historically there have been worse with higher winds speeds. So Sandy was not just a tropical heat driven hurricane event. There were plenty of other factors. IOW - The devastation had no correlation to global warming. And your area got hit with another one the previous year. That was the Year Bloomberg ordered the evacuation of New York and the Hurricane fizzled.
Not happening, but Manhattan having water streets like Venice - not so bad.
First, I am not claiming man-made global warming is happening. The earth has warmed and cooled many times with ice-ages and corresponding rises and falls in the sea level.
But to your point of ice being less dense so melting lowers sea levels, that is not the complete picture. Much of the world's ice exists as glaciers on land. Melting those places has more water running into the ocean, such as Greenland, Antarctica, etc.
69% of the planet is covered in oceans, how much ice melt do you think it would take for them to rise the 2 to 3 meters (6 1/2 ft to 9 1/2 ft) that they are predicting and where is it going to come from?
It's not going to come from North America, there is none right now. It's not going to come from Central and South America since any snow S.A. receives is in the mountains and it's mostly seasonal.
It's unlikely to come from the Antarcic, which is basically a floating giant iceberg and their average annual temperature is approx. 57 degrees below zero.
That is true but it's also a fact that glaciers exist in higher elevations with subsequent lower temperatures. Most of the melt that occurs on glaciers is from the lower elevations where the temps are higher and it begins on the bedrock where the glaciers end and the sun raises the surface temps high enough to start the melt process.
Glaciers constantly expand and move southward and their continued growth depends on the jet stream dumping more snow as the season allows. If they don't get the sun reflective snow, the glaciers will continue to melt at their lowest altituded.
That's not a very good explanation so let me try this:
Here in Michigan, if I get a 6 inch snowstorm that covers my driveway and then shovel off half of it, the remaining snow covered driveway will begin to melt along the edge of the freshly shoveled part because the bare concrete will absorb the sun's heat that the snow covered part reflects.
So, lack of sun reflective snow fall will also affect glacier meltage at the lower altitude/higher temp edge of the glacier. One heavy winter snow fall or even two consecutive winters will nullify any satellite observable reduction in glacier size........
I understand the facts you state, but I am missing the point you are trying to show me.
And infinitely better than you. You're welcome.
The point I'm trying to make is that the glaciers are indeed melting, as they always have, but it's the reduction of snowfall that's causing that melt.
Fresh snow reflects sunlight, no fresh snow allows the atmosphere to continue to dump heat absorbing dust and stuff which contributes to the rise in ice temperature that creates melt.
It's not necessarily a rise in temperature but rather the old ice's inability to reflect the sun's rays which then causes melt.......
That's the best I can do.......
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.