The selection of a spit of land bounded by river and ocean invited trouble, in 20/20 hindsight. I empathize with their self-reliance, independence and preservation of traditions. Still, surely there are other villages or unsettled areas where the community could re-settle and pursue economically viable and self-sufficient occupations like fishing, with attendant school, clinic and social and community services. They managed to build a wall, excuse me, berm, but that security venture has not been tested. What are they waiting for? What have they got to lose? Homes, fishing boats and lives, which will be more costly the longer they delay the inevitable re-settlement.
3
I worked in Alaska in the 1980's around the time the ANILCA native lands bill was passed. There were (still are?) significant amounts of funds available to the Native Corporations and I believe that some also get oil royalties. Are these sources of funds available to the indigenous communities to assist in mitigating the effects of the warming Arctic? Perhaps those 'Permanent Fund' monies need to be reallocated to deal with these realities rather than hand out cash to all residents?
4
"Children who in summer play outside long after dark"
dark? in the summer in Alaska?
There is no dark in the summer in Alaska. Official sunset is like one in the morning and sunrise is at four in the morning but it isn't dark.
dark? in the summer in Alaska?
There is no dark in the summer in Alaska. Official sunset is like one in the morning and sunrise is at four in the morning but it isn't dark.
8
It seems like the expression "sink or swim" is going to soon be taking on a contemporary meaning in the age of climate change. People can stand around in groups bemoaning their collective fate, or each individually make a swim for it. This really potends the chaos the future holds for all of us. Most will wait sheepishly while the powers that be hem and haw and wring their hands helplessly, whereas others will take more aggressive measures. It's probably not going to be pretty.
7
Alaska is bigger than Texas, California, and Montana combined. They can move to a safer place for the long term rather than fighting against climate change.
4
A very good article. I have two quibbles and a question.
As far north as this community is, is the author sure that children "play outside long after dark" during the summer?
AFAIK, as sea water warms it expands. Thus, the increased volume of ocean water contributing to the force of storms could be due directly to a change in ocean temperature as well as to the melting of land ice.
Lastly, in all the beautiful pictures in the article there is nary a tree in sight. So where did all those driftwood logs come from? My guess is that they are a result of erosion freeing logs that have been sequestered in sediments for, perhaps, thousands of years. It might be interesting to ask the old timers if there is more driftwood these days. If so, those logs could represent a visual image of the released carbon that is endangering the village's survival.
As far north as this community is, is the author sure that children "play outside long after dark" during the summer?
AFAIK, as sea water warms it expands. Thus, the increased volume of ocean water contributing to the force of storms could be due directly to a change in ocean temperature as well as to the melting of land ice.
Lastly, in all the beautiful pictures in the article there is nary a tree in sight. So where did all those driftwood logs come from? My guess is that they are a result of erosion freeing logs that have been sequestered in sediments for, perhaps, thousands of years. It might be interesting to ask the old timers if there is more driftwood these days. If so, those logs could represent a visual image of the released carbon that is endangering the village's survival.
1
A very plausible reason why Alaska is experiencing unnatural warmth is due to the fact that the initial and strong plume of radiation from Japan's THREE nuclear meltdowns (Fukushima) travelled over Alaska first, blanketing Alaska with radiation. This radiation is HOT and can last from tens to thousands of years.
Here is a video of the plume's path:
you tube
/watch?v=yuUYUJwNmag
And here is a scientific study on Fukushima radiation in Alaska possible being responsible for sick seals in Alaska:
http://www.alaskamarinescience.org/documents/2014%20Abstract%20Book.pdf
Here is a video of the plume's path:
you tube
/watch?v=yuUYUJwNmag
And here is a scientific study on Fukushima radiation in Alaska possible being responsible for sick seals in Alaska:
http://www.alaskamarinescience.org/documents/2014%20Abstract%20Book.pdf
2
I don't think you know the meaning of the word 'plausible.'
5
I knew climate change was a hoax, and this proves it.
This video has been proved to be a hoax.
2
There are hills hundreds of feet high 5 miles to the northwest of Shaktoolik.
Staying where they are, facing the stormy Bering Sea mere feet above sea level, is a recipe for annihilation.
Staying where they are, facing the stormy Bering Sea mere feet above sea level, is a recipe for annihilation.
8
And so why did the majority of Alaskans voted for a climate change denier? Hard to feel too sorry for people who vote against their own interests. They are like all those people who voted for Trump who are whining about maybe losing their Obamacare now. Dim and dangerous.
8
The residents of this remote Alaskan village should consider following in the similar footsteps of Kivalina and Shishmaref. Start making plans to leave. It is not going to be long before Shaktoolik is blown into the sea and taken away by the waves. Staying will mean certain death for them. Evacuation after the fact is too perilous. Go safely while you can. And don't wait for the gov't to help you.
5
"Alaska is warming about twice as fast as the rest of the nation. So what are the dozens of native villages at imminent risk of destruction to do?"
Answer: Take their country back, of course.
Answer: Take their country back, of course.
2
Smart move Alaska! Keep voting for Republicans who deny climate change, and then ask limited government for funding when you suffer the consequences. OR maybe you shouldn't vote against your interests. Just a thought.
16
Alaskans have what they voted for.
10
I lived and worked in this region and it is heartbreaking to see what these folks are up against. The arctic is beautiful, unique and rich in ways that if you haven't spent time there you can't begin to imagine.Those who deny the reality of climate change or the ravages of human activity on the environment - I hope one day you wake up to find your feet wet.
6
1) This looks like a really dumb place to build a town. 2) this is where a river meets the sea, it is well known that these areas have shifting boundaries and the land and sea/river are in constant flux, thus: 3) What proof of any sort is there that this town is being threatened because of global warming? Man made or otherwise, the author treats it as a foregone conclusion which: 4) Illustrates how the times has totally abandoned any illusion of reporting on res science in favor of ramming through a political agenda.
4
$100 million? Ridiculous.
The taxpayers must stop being asked to pay people to live in areas that nature is determined to take for her own. This is just as true for the poor in Alaska as it is for the rich on the Jersey Shores.
Nature will win in the end and the only difference will be another $100 million wasted.
The taxpayers must stop being asked to pay people to live in areas that nature is determined to take for her own. This is just as true for the poor in Alaska as it is for the rich on the Jersey Shores.
Nature will win in the end and the only difference will be another $100 million wasted.
6
Clearly city folks in the lower 48 should decide how to solve
Alaska's problems ....... like they always do.
Alaska's problems ....... like they always do.
5
Nah. They are happy to ignore it as a state full of Trump supporters. Let 'em deal with it themselves. I could not care less at this point. Florida too. Mar-a-lago knee deep.
9
Possibly a tweet or two to our about to be anointed president regarding these matters. He disagrees with virtually the entire global scientific community and has advocated reincarnating a coal mining industry that has contributed mightily to the destruction of the ozone layer that has heretofore protected the planet.
Furthermore , he proposes a new head of the EPA that is also a science and reality denier. His main purpose will consist of dismantling the agency.
Mr. Trump is an aficionado of the Miami Beach area. Possibly another tweet advising him of the beach erosion that continues apace as the ocean's level rises. And maybe a tweet about the obliteration of the bayou system in Louisianna by the invasion of salt water from the Gulf.
How can these people deny what is happening before their very eyes ?
Furthermore , he proposes a new head of the EPA that is also a science and reality denier. His main purpose will consist of dismantling the agency.
Mr. Trump is an aficionado of the Miami Beach area. Possibly another tweet advising him of the beach erosion that continues apace as the ocean's level rises. And maybe a tweet about the obliteration of the bayou system in Louisianna by the invasion of salt water from the Gulf.
How can these people deny what is happening before their very eyes ?
8
This video would work well as an example of the "climate change" the villages and towns located near and on the shores of the Mediterranean faced during the pre-Roman years. In fact, in Augustine's time North Africa was quite the fertile land. Somehow, things changed, but we know it wasn't all those airliners and cruise ships burning man-made fuels that caused it. Something else at work--nature, perhaps?
But the bright side: Given earth's geologic history over so many billions of years, Snowball earth is bound to return and the Alaskans will be enjoying themselves once again.
But the bright side: Given earth's geologic history over so many billions of years, Snowball earth is bound to return and the Alaskans will be enjoying themselves once again.
3
“I wish they’d come and spend one day in one of our storms.”
Yes, and if they did, they would certainly advise the inhabitants to leave. With sea levels rising, it is simply foolish to put money into a narrow strip of land that is rapidly disappearing and will continue to do so and whose only road for evacuation is not safe during the very storms that they would have to flee from. It is one thing to love your home and your heritage but when that love faces insurmountable and growing threats to your life and your children who cannot make their own decisions, when the only source of pure drinking water is being contaminated with encroachment of ocean salinity, it is time to know when to fold. Use the money that is being sought to build berms to fund relocation and keep people safe.
Whether it is the coastline of Florida or Louisiana or New Jersey or the Carolinas or Alaska and Oregon and Washington, we need to begin to think twice about restoring and rebuilding homes when the same flooding and destruction cannot be avoided as the sea levels rise. We are a huge country with vast lands. We have the ability to re-allocate funding to build small relocation housing for those affected. Rather than see huge structures of housing, building small garden apartment units housing 20 families and distribute them around the country so that no given area is dramatically changed and integration into the recipient communities is possible.
Yes, and if they did, they would certainly advise the inhabitants to leave. With sea levels rising, it is simply foolish to put money into a narrow strip of land that is rapidly disappearing and will continue to do so and whose only road for evacuation is not safe during the very storms that they would have to flee from. It is one thing to love your home and your heritage but when that love faces insurmountable and growing threats to your life and your children who cannot make their own decisions, when the only source of pure drinking water is being contaminated with encroachment of ocean salinity, it is time to know when to fold. Use the money that is being sought to build berms to fund relocation and keep people safe.
Whether it is the coastline of Florida or Louisiana or New Jersey or the Carolinas or Alaska and Oregon and Washington, we need to begin to think twice about restoring and rebuilding homes when the same flooding and destruction cannot be avoided as the sea levels rise. We are a huge country with vast lands. We have the ability to re-allocate funding to build small relocation housing for those affected. Rather than see huge structures of housing, building small garden apartment units housing 20 families and distribute them around the country so that no given area is dramatically changed and integration into the recipient communities is possible.
10
Maybe the problem is that these people have left their traditional mobile ways. Now they have houses of wood and metal that locks them to particular location. I'm curious about what economic activity they do to afford the more modern materials, guns, aluminum boats with gas engines (for their "traditional" Beluga hunting) and fleece clothing. These were a flexible, robust and resilient people before some misguided intervention happened. Perhaps its time to return to traditional ways, or move anywhere else they want.
5
This is in the science section of the NYT, but it is not science. Science would be accessing real verifiable sources of climate information, such as NOAA. Virtually every one of NOAAs 17 reporting stations in Alaska show flat to declining sea levels. I'm sure some data is better than others, but that is a lot of data that is in conflict with what is reported here.
4
your statement that Alaska is warming about as twice as fast as the rest of the US is wrong on several points. First, we only started tracking Alaskan temps in 1925 and weather stations are still few and far between. So we don't know if differences in warming are due to measurement issues or if there is something "real" there. Second, using the NOAA data base and comparing Alaska with the contiguous US 1925-present, Alaska's avg temps are growing by .2 F per decade vs. .13 for the US -- that's just over 50% growth over that time frame, not double.
Moreover, there are climate divisions within the contiguous US where the warming rate is equal to or greater than Alaska's for the 1925-present range (e.g. Montana div 3). There are those states where temps have declined (Alabama). So, broad statements like the one the authors made inaccurate in general and in detail. And since we have such a limited temp record for Alaska, to say this is all CC related is a little over the top.
As is assuming that whatever is going on in these towns is due to climate change rather than long term weather and climate cycles.
Moreover, there are climate divisions within the contiguous US where the warming rate is equal to or greater than Alaska's for the 1925-present range (e.g. Montana div 3). There are those states where temps have declined (Alabama). So, broad statements like the one the authors made inaccurate in general and in detail. And since we have such a limited temp record for Alaska, to say this is all CC related is a little over the top.
As is assuming that whatever is going on in these towns is due to climate change rather than long term weather and climate cycles.
6
Destruction? That's an awfully strong word to use. But then for alarmists, no word is too strong, especially when they're about to lose the influence and power they crave.
3
You'll not find a politician willing to spend $200 million on just 250 people, whether they be Republican or Democrat. Native practices and cultural traditions don't make it easier to move massive loads of building materials or get hundreds of skilled workers to make trips up north. This is a sub-arctic region with no roads and a gravel strip referred to as an airport. It'd cost less than half as much to move Shaktoolik's people to a city like Anchorage and pay them each a $3000 per month stipend for 10 years to ease the adjustment, and that sort of handout would never pass a legislature either.
5
This. I have a hunch the biggest horrors facing this country over the next few years will be directly because of climate issues that have been ignored for too long. Remember we our dependent on Mother Earth, but She doesn't need us here.
10
" I have a hunch the biggest horrors facing this country over the next few years will be directly because of climate issues"
I sure hope you are right. With warming of 0.01 deg per year and the ocean rising 0.08 inches per year, I certainly hope that is the world's biggest issue.
I sure hope you are right. With warming of 0.01 deg per year and the ocean rising 0.08 inches per year, I certainly hope that is the world's biggest issue.
3
So now the times is writing stories about people's dreams?
The NY Times has become its own parody. I writes a flashy story about people they never cared about, and then use flashy pictures to mesmerize the liberal elite.
The bottom line is that the NY Times cares nothing about Shaktoolik, Alaska, and they are only using this story in hopes of advancing their political agenda.
And you wonder why people are distrustful of MSM?
The NY Times has become its own parody. I writes a flashy story about people they never cared about, and then use flashy pictures to mesmerize the liberal elite.
The bottom line is that the NY Times cares nothing about Shaktoolik, Alaska, and they are only using this story in hopes of advancing their political agenda.
And you wonder why people are distrustful of MSM?
7
A thoughtful story, beautifully illustrated.
I would have welcomed additional comment on how climate change is affecting the area's wildlife -- and, by extension, the area's way of life.
Increased flooding will surely impact the area's sea animals, which will in turn affect larger animals including bear, moose, seals and whales. And this will in turn affect people's lives.
Thanks for bringing attention to this topic and this part of the world.
I would have welcomed additional comment on how climate change is affecting the area's wildlife -- and, by extension, the area's way of life.
Increased flooding will surely impact the area's sea animals, which will in turn affect larger animals including bear, moose, seals and whales. And this will in turn affect people's lives.
Thanks for bringing attention to this topic and this part of the world.
5
Puffins are being found dead by the hundreds in the Priboloffs; necropsies say they are starving to death.
2
Anecdotal information, regardless of how sad, isn't science.
7
Perhaps some perspective is needed for this story. The native peoples walked to Alaska from Asia because sea level was about 400 feet lower. The sea level rose about 360 feet between 12,000BC and 6000BC. That is a shocking six feet a century, every century, for thousands of years.
The sea rose an inch every 16 months.
If humans never walked the earth, then sea level would be roughly 2 inches lower than the present. This is, of course, somewhat uncertain, but a consensus of climatologists would almost certainly fall in the 0 to 4 inch range (0-100mm). That's the total human contribution of all time.
So, somehow, the people and polar bears survived two inches of rise every 33 months then but can't handle 2 inches in 80 years now.
The sea rose an inch every 16 months.
If humans never walked the earth, then sea level would be roughly 2 inches lower than the present. This is, of course, somewhat uncertain, but a consensus of climatologists would almost certainly fall in the 0 to 4 inch range (0-100mm). That's the total human contribution of all time.
So, somehow, the people and polar bears survived two inches of rise every 33 months then but can't handle 2 inches in 80 years now.
6
How can we judge the impact of humans on sea level rise all-time yet. Time is not over. Humans aren't nearly done with sea levels as we head down a path to eventually doubling or tripling the pre-industrial levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The only questions are how much rise and how soon?
The only questions are how much rise and how soon?
4
Thank you.
1
Americans living in Alaska need help. Meanwhile commenters here in the NYT are dividing those Americans into red versus blue, Democrats versus Republicans. Should we do that now with all states, counties and cities? It seems that hypocrisy runs very deep in some.
6
The question "So what are the dozens of native villages at imminent risk of destruction to do?" answers itself. You move. You do not sit there waiting for someone else to move you - that is just suicidal.
Really does anyone seriously think that the Republicans who control the State legislature and Congress will appropriate money, especially large amounts of money, for global warming mitigation to protect these small towns or move them? While I understand the desire to move as a community, that only seems to be an option if they figure out how to do so on their own. Unfortunately, I think that what will happen is one or a few of these small towns will be destroyed and teh people there killed, and then the others will belatedly realize they have no choice but to move.
Really does anyone seriously think that the Republicans who control the State legislature and Congress will appropriate money, especially large amounts of money, for global warming mitigation to protect these small towns or move them? While I understand the desire to move as a community, that only seems to be an option if they figure out how to do so on their own. Unfortunately, I think that what will happen is one or a few of these small towns will be destroyed and teh people there killed, and then the others will belatedly realize they have no choice but to move.
8
A quick lesson on Alaska politics: rural Alaskans traditionally vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates.
The vast majority of the state lives in Southcentral Alaska and Interior Alaska (Fairbanks), areas which consistently side with the Sarah Palins of the world. But those people are nowhere near the Bering Sea coast, and therefore not impacted at all. But their steady support of the GOP ensures that Alaska votes red in presidential elections.
Some of the commenters here would expect villages with their own traditions, languages and customs to fold up shop, give up their heritage and history, and resettle in those areas that don't care for them in the first place? Good luck making that work.
Also, just a note that asking someone to move from Shaktoolik to Anchorage is the same as asking someone to move from NYC to Raleigh, North Carolina or Cleveland, Ohio (in air miles), only the differences between Shaktoolik and Anchorage are much more stark.
The vast majority of the state lives in Southcentral Alaska and Interior Alaska (Fairbanks), areas which consistently side with the Sarah Palins of the world. But those people are nowhere near the Bering Sea coast, and therefore not impacted at all. But their steady support of the GOP ensures that Alaska votes red in presidential elections.
Some of the commenters here would expect villages with their own traditions, languages and customs to fold up shop, give up their heritage and history, and resettle in those areas that don't care for them in the first place? Good luck making that work.
Also, just a note that asking someone to move from Shaktoolik to Anchorage is the same as asking someone to move from NYC to Raleigh, North Carolina or Cleveland, Ohio (in air miles), only the differences between Shaktoolik and Anchorage are much more stark.
16
Thank you! I can't believe how utterly unsympathetic so many people seem to an existential threat faced by a disadvantaged population with little recourse. These people aren't the ones who elected Trump, Alaskan villages go blue. "Alaska" isn't some monolithic state, any more than you'd blame NYC for the decisions made by upstate NY, or blame Illinois' Rauner on Chicago voters.
2
First thought---if this were an mainland American city perhaps then people would be concerned?
Second--NY Times please fix the link that enables people interested in "keeping up with Climate Change" articles to do so. This one is broken.
Second--NY Times please fix the link that enables people interested in "keeping up with Climate Change" articles to do so. This one is broken.
There are towns that have been colder than normal yet this is not covered. Freedom! And Trump!!
3
Alaska has two Republican senators who are leading experts in shoveling federal tax dollars to their Red State. Once the annual payout has been successfully transferred, Murkowski and Sullivan will join their party in their hootenanny of science hate.
7
For the cost of ONE DAY of our peace-keeping efforts in Iraq/Syria ($10 million) or one drone plane ($13 million), we can build BRAND NEW HOMES for 100 villagers. A small village.
Is war easier to justify, than protecting our homes from natural disasters?
What kind of nation have we become?
Is war easier to justify, than protecting our homes from natural disasters?
What kind of nation have we become?
18
Bet your last dollar that Miami will get government money when climate change starts to really threaten their town. They are rich and white. No help will be there for the beautiful people of Shaktoolik and other towns like it. Trump and Bannon do not consider them part of their 'populist' 'white nationalist' movement.
Given the size of the town it seems that it would actually be doable to move it and relatively affordable compared to other US cities that will need assistance in the future. Perhaps the government should undertake such a feat to more clearly understand all the complexities involved. Surely such experience will be necessary in the future in other areas of the US.
Given the size of the town it seems that it would actually be doable to move it and relatively affordable compared to other US cities that will need assistance in the future. Perhaps the government should undertake such a feat to more clearly understand all the complexities involved. Surely such experience will be necessary in the future in other areas of the US.
6
You have clearly not spent much time in Miami. It has a HUGE hispanic Cuban population, plus a large Puerto Rican population -- a large black population -- it is anything but "all white". It also isn't all RICH; it has many poor neighborhoods and even slums.
However: Miami is a large city with about half a million residents. Shaktoolik is a tiny fishing village with 250 inhabitants. To compare them is ludicrous.
However: Miami is a large city with about half a million residents. Shaktoolik is a tiny fishing village with 250 inhabitants. To compare them is ludicrous.
1
Why not have federal government pay to move the town back to the old site that the government forced the town to abandon?
8
Alaskans deny global warming and whine about its effects. Alaskans are self-reliant and expect outsiders to pay their global warming bills. The entire state government is dominated by Republicans: less government, low taxes, a strong military. All they need to do is eliminate the state senate, cut taxes, and increase the size of the state national guard and they will be fine.
4
"Alaskans are self-reliant." Not in my experience, native villages notwithstanding. Most of the self-identified self-reliant types having the good fortune of a high-paying job, and expressing themselves via a fascination with boats and other lifestyle accessories. All Carhartt and no moose, so to speak. What the CONservative residents and politicians alike are exceptionally good at is whining about government overreach, even to the point of legislating "resolutions" against said overreach, as they hold out both hands to collect federal dollars. Next on their list of despised foreigners are Kalifornia and other pointy-headed liberal states....the ones whose residents ultimately fund their "self-reliant" lifestyle.
1
They can move to California, like everyone else.
1
Real as a heart attack. Deny it, but it is still real. How tall is Trump Tower?
2
Well when they drown may be they'll realize who to vote for. sad...
2
The sea has been rising an inch every 13 years or so. Next time you are at the beach, think about how you might drown from an inch in 13 years.
2
Maybe Sarah Palin could provide some guidance and/or assistance.
4
If Republicans insist that catastrophic climate change isn't happening, how can these fine, upstanding Red Staters be losing their homes and businesses and entire towns to something that's just a "lamestream media" hoax? It must be so confusing when something you don't believe is real sets your sofa afloat.
4
Exxon Mobil earned $1.7 billion in profits during the second quarter of 2016. The $100 million Shaktoolik needs would therefore represent about 5 days of the company's earnings. Seems like the least they could do.
7
Quantitatively speaking, Exxon's share of sea level rise is at most one-tenth of an inch. And Exxon didn't burn much of the oil. That came from the consumers like you.
why do you say that Richard -- just typical anti fossil fuel progressive blather?
1
Any county that voted for a Republican by more than 55% should be allowed to sink into the sea. Conservatives themselves would advocate for this 'tough love' and 'personal responsibility' approach.
2
All the while Alaska is doling out an equal share of oil revenue to each of its citizens in an unfocused way instead of addressing the critical needs of the state. What folly.
8
Exactly. Because "individual citizens know best how to spend "their" money." What passes as wisdom from the wingers in the legislature. Sounds good in theory, but only collectively can we invest in education, a gas pipeline, or other projects that would strengthen the economy. Consider the hundreds of billions that have flowed into state coffers, and yet here we are, still just a petro state, riding the roller coaster of oil prices, and doling out yearly dividends for Alaska Airlines PFD deals. Being the sacred cow that it is, the severity of the state's fiscal crisis is evident in the recent $1000 cap on dividend payments. Not as sacred a cow as the oil industry, however, as they continue to receive preferential tax treatment. That fact has angered many Alaskans who probably would have supported a PFD reduction on its merits. And when you have the legislature proclaiming "I don't think the government should be in the [income] tax business" to explain why education and other services need to be drastically cut, you know you've got the best "government" that oil money can buy. But, there is hope, as the new House has a bi-partisan majority coalition.
2
Boy, if you think a tiny village on a deserted coast, with all the room in the world to relocate behind them, is a "wrenching" problem--stay tuned.
1
There is an obvious ethical source of revenue to support relocation or defense. Big oil companies need to "internalize the externalities" (in economist-speak) of their product. Alaska lives high on the hog off of oil, so the companies raking in the profits should be financing these communities, obviously.
7
Welcome to the POST-TRUTH ERA, where virtually everyone treats almost everything they hear, see, or read (If they read!) with angry skepticism, or worse. How did we get here? Spreading/sharing lies has been standard human practice since recorded time! So what's different now? What's different is that informed people must now be their own "truthers" in a world where +1 Billion citizens can distort/fabricate/opine any kernel of info they wish, and share it instantaneously across the globe! The result? Info consumers are left too fatigued to care about what's True or False as they fight to define and defend their position/status inside this vast Global Cloud!
1
I have three comments:
First, if one scrolls through enough locations where water levels are monitored by NOAA (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.htm) both domestic and international locations show maybe ~1 foot of sea level rise/100 years. Some locations a bit more, some less with quite a few international ones flat. Plus there has been no indication that rates of increased are changing. This hardly demonstrates a crisis, and seems very manageable. Second, that looks like a stupid place to build a town. Typical government thinking and planning. Third, as others have pointed out the numbers on moving these people do not add up. Why was this not questioned by the reporter? Maybe because making it a more expensive proposition makes for a better story?
First, if one scrolls through enough locations where water levels are monitored by NOAA (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.htm) both domestic and international locations show maybe ~1 foot of sea level rise/100 years. Some locations a bit more, some less with quite a few international ones flat. Plus there has been no indication that rates of increased are changing. This hardly demonstrates a crisis, and seems very manageable. Second, that looks like a stupid place to build a town. Typical government thinking and planning. Third, as others have pointed out the numbers on moving these people do not add up. Why was this not questioned by the reporter? Maybe because making it a more expensive proposition makes for a better story?
6
What is so wrenching? You move. End of story.
2
Sad. So the current plan is to wait for a big storm to wipe away most homes and drown most of the people, and then send in search and rescue personnel to remove the survivors to the nearest big city?
And Alaska will declare a state of disaster and ask the federal government to pick up the tab...
And Alaska will declare a state of disaster and ask the federal government to pick up the tab...
3
Heather: The federal government won't have the time or money to help those people. The Trump cabinet is going to be filled with people planning to deport millions of immigrants, suspend habeas corpus to round up a million alleged pro-jihadist online commenters, and close down every marijuana dispensary and arrest every marijuana grower in the country.
The feds will have their hands full with that and won't be able to deal with Alaska except when it comes to shutting down legal marijuana in Alaska that was voted for by Alaskans.
The feds will have their hands full with that and won't be able to deal with Alaska except when it comes to shutting down legal marijuana in Alaska that was voted for by Alaskans.
2
Since Alaskan former governor Sarah Palin doesn't believe in climate change, it isn't happening. Move on.
15
Axel Jackson: “The federal government spends billions on wars in foreign countries." Very true. As a strong supporter of the military, I have to say that we do seem to easily find billions of dollars for unnecessary military actions, with war being one of them.
15
Well, as the former governor said, "drill baby drill" . . . ps
8
As opposed to a former Democratic Presidential candidate who said "frack, baby, frack!"
3
I worked in this village in 1996 - generous , kind people. This is heartbreaking.
14
What are the villagers to do? Well, for starters, a march on Washington D.C.
2
Not to worry. President elect Trump doesn't believe in climate change.
He does believe in revenge and using nukes.
So, keep playing, America, like you have a future to worry about.
He does believe in revenge and using nukes.
So, keep playing, America, like you have a future to worry about.
18
NOAA Chart Number 16200 shows Shaktoolik located in a large marsh formed by the convergence of the Shaktoolik River with Norton Sound. This marsh extends 8 nautical miles to the southeast and 10 miles to the northwest. Higher elevation land is located at these marsh boundaries. Both locations retain access to Norton Sound for fishing, but lack the natural harbor formed by the Shaktoolik-River-Norton-Sound convergence at Shaktoolik. A possible solution to the dilemma facing this community is to spend summers at a re-conceived fishing camp at Shaktoolik, and to spend winters at a new location 8 miles away at a higher elevation at the boundary of this marsh.
There are many historical precedents for this type of seasonal relocation among Native Americans. The solution is not in roads and airports and barriers, but in a return to an even closer connection to the rhythms of nature, even as these rhythms are changing.
There are many historical precedents for this type of seasonal relocation among Native Americans. The solution is not in roads and airports and barriers, but in a return to an even closer connection to the rhythms of nature, even as these rhythms are changing.
8
Well, nothing to fear: president-elect Trump is here.
6
Since there was no legal immigration policy in place 14,000 years ago, maybe Trump will just declare them all illegal immigrants and have the federal government deport them all to Siberia.
2
Even without climate change, putting a village on a strip of land (with no relief) surrounded by water is a horrible idea. Even an amateur land planner can see this is a flood plain.
These people need to move for their own safety, and that $200 million figure to move 250 people has to be a misprint, right?
These people need to move for their own safety, and that $200 million figure to move 250 people has to be a misprint, right?
10
It seems the figure includes costs for a school building, clinic, and other public buildings, in addition to just homes, etc. There would also have to be roads and other infrastructure. And everything has to be trucked all the way over there. They could probably come in for less with some pre fab options, but they get high winds, so, that might not be an option. Still, it seems they could make the initial move for much less and then build more stuff over time.
I want to see the financial model that shows that relocating a rundown village which 250 people inhabit - consisting of buildings that would cost perhaps $100,000 brand new to build today - somehow adds up to $200 million. Just give each person $300,000 to move themselves and free transportation within 1000 miles and you can save $125 million.
5
I've wondered about that, too. In an recent article about a town on a Louisiana island (sorry, can't remember the name), the dollar amounts were similarly staggering.
1
With $200 million for a few families, maybe they move to the Trump Tower?
Sad irony that Alaska voted for Trump and sealed its destiny.
7
The climate up North is and was always harsh. The Inuit were nomads. With good reason.
They had a winter place, sheltered, inland. In the summer though, the ground would melt and it would get swampy.
They had a summer place, exposed, on a rocky island by the sea, for fishing. In the stormy winter, winds were way too harsh.
In the 20th century the US government forced them to settle, so as to provide schools and hospitals. And a small airport. Check the history of every such village.
Settle they did in one of their two places, either of which was unsuitable for half of every year. So the former nomads are now the poster climate refugees, eager to move from their summer to their winter place or the other way around. As they used to.
Sea levels in Alaska are measured and all the data is here.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.htm?gid=1240
Seas are RECEDING in most places, and where they rise the rise is less than 2 mm/year. So sea rise is not a threat.
****
The climate was always harsh. True climate change would be to get more like Malibu beach, surfing and cocktails, but it's sadly not getting there fast enough.
So what is the real point of this lavish article? You can see it in most of the comments. It's ecoreligious.
Alaskans voted for Trump, a climate denier. See now how they are smitten for their lack of climate faith.
How wholesome and satisfying would their climate be, had they only known their interests and voted for Clinton instead.
They had a winter place, sheltered, inland. In the summer though, the ground would melt and it would get swampy.
They had a summer place, exposed, on a rocky island by the sea, for fishing. In the stormy winter, winds were way too harsh.
In the 20th century the US government forced them to settle, so as to provide schools and hospitals. And a small airport. Check the history of every such village.
Settle they did in one of their two places, either of which was unsuitable for half of every year. So the former nomads are now the poster climate refugees, eager to move from their summer to their winter place or the other way around. As they used to.
Sea levels in Alaska are measured and all the data is here.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.htm?gid=1240
Seas are RECEDING in most places, and where they rise the rise is less than 2 mm/year. So sea rise is not a threat.
****
The climate was always harsh. True climate change would be to get more like Malibu beach, surfing and cocktails, but it's sadly not getting there fast enough.
So what is the real point of this lavish article? You can see it in most of the comments. It's ecoreligious.
Alaskans voted for Trump, a climate denier. See now how they are smitten for their lack of climate faith.
How wholesome and satisfying would their climate be, had they only known their interests and voted for Clinton instead.
6
Could it be more likely that the land is rising? What does the satellite data say about global sea levels? Cherry picking any particular area says zero about the total global picture.
1
Darian pointed out that you can look at specific station data on the NOAA.gov website. This is true and interesting. However, it is important know that the NOAA states it is a FACT that sea levels are rising and this is a threat to many coastal cities.
"Since 1992, satellite altimeters indicate that the rate of [sea level] rise has increased to 1.2 inches per decade—a significantly larger rate than at any other time over the last 2000 years. In the next several decades, continued sea level rise and land subsidence will cause tidal flood frequencies to rapidly increase due to typical storm surges and high tides in many coastal regions."
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.htm
"Since 1992, satellite altimeters indicate that the rate of [sea level] rise has increased to 1.2 inches per decade—a significantly larger rate than at any other time over the last 2000 years. In the next several decades, continued sea level rise and land subsidence will cause tidal flood frequencies to rapidly increase due to typical storm surges and high tides in many coastal regions."
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.htm
4
The problem is not that Alaska's climate is harsh. The problem is that climate change is making it more like Malibu -- warm and gentle -- and less like the harsh wintery frozen climate that supports the people who fish and hunt for a living.
Their economy is wrapped up in that frozen harshness and they are going to lose a lot of their economy as climate change makes their state melt into slush.
Their economy is wrapped up in that frozen harshness and they are going to lose a lot of their economy as climate change makes their state melt into slush.
3
Alaska is a Red State.
Alaska voted for Trump.
Climate change in Alaska?
They can always follow their president elects advice for women seeking abortions if and when Roe v Wade gets overturned:
"go to another state"
Alaska voted for Trump.
Climate change in Alaska?
They can always follow their president elects advice for women seeking abortions if and when Roe v Wade gets overturned:
"go to another state"
15
Ignore it because its not real. Palin says so, Trump says so. In reality, anyone who would like the science should get on the internet and do their research. The DOD has some great papers on climate change and the rising oceans. Even if they are highlighting east coast states and military facilities the oceans rise together. This is for The Old Netminder who needs this data ....
8
In New Orleans, St. Louis Cathedral was first built in 1718. It has never flooded, nor are there concerns about flooding. Why? Because they built it on high ground. You don't want to be flooded out, build on the high ground. Get the government out of the flood insurance business. Why does the taxpayer have to pay for peoples' own stupidity.
8
People locating fishing villages on the shoreline where their boats are? That's not stupid. That's just how people dependent on a sea-based economy live.
Should we have built all of our national shipping ports and our naval bases on higher ground? Should the taxpayers just abandon the navy and the shipping industry for their stupidity too?
Trump should have built Mar a Lago on higher ground. Shame on him for building a beach resort right on the beach!
All that's going to be underwater soon. And I bet taxpayers will be cleaning up that mess in the end.
And now let's tell the entire eastern seaboard of the United States that they should have built on higher ground too.
Finger wagging over personal responsibility is not going to save us from the economic fallout of climate change. Especially not when these decisions about where to locate different industries relative to the coastline are not really personal decisions.
Should we have built all of our national shipping ports and our naval bases on higher ground? Should the taxpayers just abandon the navy and the shipping industry for their stupidity too?
Trump should have built Mar a Lago on higher ground. Shame on him for building a beach resort right on the beach!
All that's going to be underwater soon. And I bet taxpayers will be cleaning up that mess in the end.
And now let's tell the entire eastern seaboard of the United States that they should have built on higher ground too.
Finger wagging over personal responsibility is not going to save us from the economic fallout of climate change. Especially not when these decisions about where to locate different industries relative to the coastline are not really personal decisions.
5
Poor people can't afford to buy the good (higher) land. True in New Orleans and in Princeville, NC. Just to name two places. People who depend on fishing and hunting seals can't live inland. It's not a crime to be poor in this country, at least not yet.
4
Climate change is real and it's here in spite of Republicans and Trump's denial. This is a great article. Someone should send it to Trump. Oh, I forgot he only reads Twitter.
10
christv1: One can follow climate change groups on Twitter if one chooses. He'd rather retweet white supremacists instead.
5
A new meaning for "Baked Alaska."
5
I hope every single one of these people sends our new President-elect a postcard reading: "It's Real!"
20
It is more carbon-friendly to send an email rather than a postcard.
i know plenty of people who believe in climate change yet refuse to do anything about it i.e. drive and consume less.
i know plenty of people who believe in climate change yet refuse to do anything about it i.e. drive and consume less.
4
The best thing to to is call. Flood the switchboards. Email they never read. It's easy to delete. When you call, it's better. They can feel the strain on their system if enough people do it at the same time over the same issue.
4
This appears in Science, but it is lacking the science to back up its obvious aim to make it seem that climate change is the main reason these communities have to relocate. The Times has done the same thing with stories about vanishing land in Louisiana and flooding in Virginia, both of which are only marginally related to climate change. Note that the article all but says the ocean is "rising" but doesn't offer sea level data to back it up.
2
May I remind you that the NYT is a newspaper - for citations, references, etc. may I suggest a perusal of any credible science journal.
When I read such pieces in newspapers I do not expect citations; the scientist in me often checks the original sources (when I am so inclined or if the piece appears less than credible).
When I read such pieces in newspapers I do not expect citations; the scientist in me often checks the original sources (when I am so inclined or if the piece appears less than credible).
17
The Times also doesn't offer data on gravity every time it reports on something falling from the sky. Its so obvious to anyone with half a brain, it would be wasting valuable space.
27
I'm not looking for citations; I am looking for basic facts to back up the thesis that climate change and rising waters are chasing these people our, or that it is devouring land in Louisiana (where several other factors are the actual cause) or flooding in coastal Virginia (where the main problem is not the sea level is getting higher but the land is getting lower!) This article cleverly and deliberately implies things that aren't backed by facts presented.
I lived in Kotzebue, Alaska for several years in the early 1990s, and have been following very real threat from climate change to the villages in Alaska.
However, the math on village relocation is sobering. $100,000,000 for the village of Shacktoolik is typical--or $400,000 per resident, or more than a million dollars per household. Since there is very little economic activity in these communities, public funds must be sought.
At this price, it makes more sense to move all the residents of the community to Anchorage, or some other Alaskan urban center.
I fully recognize that this means moving the communities "off the land" and that some will call me "culturally insensitive" (or worse) for making comments like this. But as an engineer, it is a much more economically viable solution.
However, the math on village relocation is sobering. $100,000,000 for the village of Shacktoolik is typical--or $400,000 per resident, or more than a million dollars per household. Since there is very little economic activity in these communities, public funds must be sought.
At this price, it makes more sense to move all the residents of the community to Anchorage, or some other Alaskan urban center.
I fully recognize that this means moving the communities "off the land" and that some will call me "culturally insensitive" (or worse) for making comments like this. But as an engineer, it is a much more economically viable solution.
17
This was precisely my conclusion. Is it ideal? No. But the residents need to face fiscal facts, as we all do. No one is going to fund moving them lock stock and barrel to a new site. They will be forced to abandon their village and move to more habitable places, and the sooner they accept that, the less traumatic that move will be.
No way. They should move for free. Go to where ever they want to go.
$400,000 each? They moving to Brooklyn?
$400,000 each? They moving to Brooklyn?
3
"At this price, it makes more sense to move all the residents of the community to Anchorage, or some other Alaskan urban center."
Sure, and while we're doing it we can relocate the miners from Kentucky to New Orleans and West Virginia to Baltimore.
Sure, and while we're doing it we can relocate the miners from Kentucky to New Orleans and West Virginia to Baltimore.
3
Why will it cost $200 million to move a town with 250 people? Wouldn't it make more sense to give each of the 250 people a sufficient amount of money to move elsewhere?
20
Give them $100k each and moving expenses....... based on the photos, that would be a windfall for most.
5
This is emotionally moving journalism, about a beautiful place and wonderful people who deserve better support from all levels of government. Yet many of the comments seem rather cruelly-motivated staying that helping these good folk costs too much.
Another thing: NYT readers are literate, so what is with the one-sentence, one-paragraph journalism?
Another thing: NYT readers are literate, so what is with the one-sentence, one-paragraph journalism?
2
It makes it easier to read online. Multiple sentences in multiple paragraphs tend to "grey out" on a page, making it harder to read.
Yes, I know; newspapers have always done this. But add the continual flickering of a monitor and it's easier on the eye, as well.
Yes, I know; newspapers have always done this. But add the continual flickering of a monitor and it's easier on the eye, as well.
Unless we get population growth under control, nothing else matters. Stop focusing the attention on climate change and start focusing on curbing population! Climate change will then slow by itself.
7
I have a hard time believing any meaningful population reduction is going to happen. And I'm pretty sure business people and the economy don't want to see negative growth. No, much better to ignore climate change until it "naturally" removes a chunk of the population, especially if that means "brown people living at sea level".
Climate change refugees on our doorstep ... indeed, US Citizens as refugees of climate change ... and still there are climate change deniers extant in our Congress...
12
Two inches of human-caused sea level rise in all of history and they are refugees?
People have lost their minds.
People have lost their minds.
1
Ordinary people, stuck without the means to move out of harm's way, are struggling with planetary violence in crowded places everywhere where luxury is not the normal state of affairs. The old model of using up our earth and moving on doesn't work on a finite planet with expanding population and consumption.
In the face of overwhelming inevitability, after decades of increasingly clear warnings and evidence, many people still think they can vote and fire the messengers to make it untrue. How tragic.
And worse than that, there is a whole industry crafted to bolster the deceit that leads them astray. As is often the case, they turn meaning inside out, claiming that research money is the goal, while themselves funded by the wealthiest industries on earth, big fossil. Unfortunately, though imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, busy people just trying to get by can't spot the difference.
In the face of depressing evidence of refusal to face the facts, it is hard to know what to say. I do know that namecalling and condemnation only hardens resistance, sad as that is.
Here is one useful summary of the fake skeptic industry (they'd argue the hind leg off a donkey; we not "supposed" to use the perfectly good word denial, because that is supposedly accusing them of holocaust denial).
https://ethicsandclimate.org/2016/11/15/the-enormous-damage-caused-to-th...
In the face of overwhelming inevitability, after decades of increasingly clear warnings and evidence, many people still think they can vote and fire the messengers to make it untrue. How tragic.
And worse than that, there is a whole industry crafted to bolster the deceit that leads them astray. As is often the case, they turn meaning inside out, claiming that research money is the goal, while themselves funded by the wealthiest industries on earth, big fossil. Unfortunately, though imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, busy people just trying to get by can't spot the difference.
In the face of depressing evidence of refusal to face the facts, it is hard to know what to say. I do know that namecalling and condemnation only hardens resistance, sad as that is.
Here is one useful summary of the fake skeptic industry (they'd argue the hind leg off a donkey; we not "supposed" to use the perfectly good word denial, because that is supposedly accusing them of holocaust denial).
https://ethicsandclimate.org/2016/11/15/the-enormous-damage-caused-to-th...
6
Susan, you might expand your reading sources. Your post reads like a climate change propaganda manual.
The actual science is quite interesting and hotly debated.
Here is an actual review and discussion of sea level by scientists on a site where free and open discussion takes place.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/23/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
The actual science is quite interesting and hotly debated.
Here is an actual review and discussion of sea level by scientists on a site where free and open discussion takes place.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/23/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
3
According to the Times, 52.9% of Alaskans voted for Trump, who deems climate change a 'hoax'. So 52.9% of Alaskans evidently don't give a hoot about the Inupiat, science, and a groundbreaking global accord that brought together nations who are disparate in many regards (politically, ethnically, socially, economically, geographically, etc). Roughly the same amount of Americans seem completely ignorant of the outside world -- that is the world outside of their immediate sphere and their reality TV and sports programs.
There will never be an informed discourse in America when people are so woefully misinformed. With D----- T---- (I dare not speak or write his name) at the helm, discourse will only degenerate, as will the environment.
How do we break out of this box of fear?
The justice claim of the 21st century is sustainable development. This is a political philosophy centered around community and environmental health, above corporate profits and traditional notions of state security.
You want world peace, get the US army to start building renewable energy infrastructure, and moving communities like the Inupiat to higher ground -- at home and abroad.
There will never be an informed discourse in America when people are so woefully misinformed. With D----- T---- (I dare not speak or write his name) at the helm, discourse will only degenerate, as will the environment.
How do we break out of this box of fear?
The justice claim of the 21st century is sustainable development. This is a political philosophy centered around community and environmental health, above corporate profits and traditional notions of state security.
You want world peace, get the US army to start building renewable energy infrastructure, and moving communities like the Inupiat to higher ground -- at home and abroad.
55
One reason Alaskans vote Republican: They are convinced Democrats will take their guns. Nothing will change their minds.
3
This is capitalism. You, your children and your town are consumables. Thousands of abandoned settlements, graveyards and ghost towns cover this continent, what makes yours more special?
11
Isn't this a State that just voted for a guy who believes that the climate is not changing and that any contrary notion is a Chinese hoax?
49
"Kirby Sookiayak, the village’s community coordinator, sits in his office and ticks off the community’s wish list: an evacuation road; improvements to the water system and the fuel tank farm; increased fortification of the berm; floodlights and lighted buoys for the river; a new health clinic; a fortified shelter for residents in a storm.
The estimated price tag for these improvements? Well over $100 million..."
FEMA estimates 39% of the US population lives in counties subject to significant coastal flooding. We can't afford to spend $100m for 250 people in Alaska. Sorry to sound insensitive, but you need to move.
The estimated price tag for these improvements? Well over $100 million..."
FEMA estimates 39% of the US population lives in counties subject to significant coastal flooding. We can't afford to spend $100m for 250 people in Alaska. Sorry to sound insensitive, but you need to move.
36
We could afford that, and more, if we didn't spend INSANE amounts of money on "defense".
One more time: we spend more than the next NINE countries in the world COMBINED on "defense". We're just throwing our tax dollars away. We have multi-BILLION dollar "development" programs for projects that will never see the light of day, while our biggest enemy rides around the desert in Toyota pickups. Our country is literally falling apart.
What will you say when it's YOUR community that needs survival money?
One more time: we spend more than the next NINE countries in the world COMBINED on "defense". We're just throwing our tax dollars away. We have multi-BILLION dollar "development" programs for projects that will never see the light of day, while our biggest enemy rides around the desert in Toyota pickups. Our country is literally falling apart.
What will you say when it's YOUR community that needs survival money?
21
What I was implying above is that we cannot afford to spend $400k / person to address the consequences of climate change. I was not implying that we should not spend any money to address infrastructure and other challenges in our country today. This is an issue of population density, as the cost per person to address these issues is much lower in highly populated areas.
If we spent the estimated per capita cost for Shaktoolik citizens on all US citizens in coastal flood zones it would cost over $40 trillion, or over 2.5 times the current GDP. This issue has nothing to do with our defense budget.
If we spent the estimated per capita cost for Shaktoolik citizens on all US citizens in coastal flood zones it would cost over $40 trillion, or over 2.5 times the current GDP. This issue has nothing to do with our defense budget.
6
Defense employs tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, across the country (and world). This village is a couple of hundred people. They need to suck it up and move.
2
From what I can see, NOAA has 12 tidal gauges in Alaska, of which 9 show sea level trends to be decreasing, rather than increasing. The 3 stations in which sea level is increasing show trends of 0.92mm, 1.2mm, and 2.64mm per year respectively. The value for the station closest to the Arctic Circle is a paltry increase of 1.2mm per year. Why is any of this alarming?
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
8
Which is only an inch every 10 years...... which doesn't seem like much, but think of the impact it will have on high tides, storm surge, etc.
And 10 inches in 100 years.......
People adapt to change. When the science of a changing climate is echoed in reality these changes need to be openly discussed so that effective and meaningful solutions can be put in place. These people, like an astounding number of communities around the world, may have to move. Denying the problem is real wont change that for any of them.
And 10 inches in 100 years.......
People adapt to change. When the science of a changing climate is echoed in reality these changes need to be openly discussed so that effective and meaningful solutions can be put in place. These people, like an astounding number of communities around the world, may have to move. Denying the problem is real wont change that for any of them.
2
Firstly- 1.2mm per year = 12mm per decade = 0.47 inches per decade = 4.7 inches per century.
Secondly, sea levels are going down, not up, at 9/12 of the stations in Alaska.
Thirdly, the oceans have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age. Not only have they been rising, but the average rate at which they have been rising for the past 150 years or so is equal to or greater than the long term rate at which these gauges show them rising in Alaska. So if you are deeply concerned about the supposed impact of rising seas in Alaska, perhaps you can console yourself by realizing that your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents all lived through comparable, if not greater, sea level increases throughout their lives, while somehow not surrendering to hysteria. Most likely, they didn't even notice the rise of a couple of millimeters a year, since there is no reason why they should have.
Finally, these people may have to move, but these people similarly had to move their town in both 1933 and 1967. No one is denying that they have problems- proper town siting seemingly being among them- but tilting at climate windmills and trying toward off demonic CO2 molecules that supposedly cause all the evils in the world probably won't change that fact for them either.
Secondly, sea levels are going down, not up, at 9/12 of the stations in Alaska.
Thirdly, the oceans have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age. Not only have they been rising, but the average rate at which they have been rising for the past 150 years or so is equal to or greater than the long term rate at which these gauges show them rising in Alaska. So if you are deeply concerned about the supposed impact of rising seas in Alaska, perhaps you can console yourself by realizing that your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents all lived through comparable, if not greater, sea level increases throughout their lives, while somehow not surrendering to hysteria. Most likely, they didn't even notice the rise of a couple of millimeters a year, since there is no reason why they should have.
Finally, these people may have to move, but these people similarly had to move their town in both 1933 and 1967. No one is denying that they have problems- proper town siting seemingly being among them- but tilting at climate windmills and trying toward off demonic CO2 molecules that supposedly cause all the evils in the world probably won't change that fact for them either.
Alaska's two U.S. senators and sole representative are members of the Climate Hoax party. Its state senate is controlled by Hoaxers. The governor currently calls himself an independent but until recently was also a member of the Climate Hoax party. You get what you pay for.
62
Easy: just vote for a climate denier and it will all go away.
55
Done.
2
Florida, South Carolina, Alaska...but yes, by all means, let's keep electing science-denying Republicans!
If the residents of these and other states can't face the realities of what's happening, then I have zero sympathy for them.
If the residents of these and other states can't face the realities of what's happening, then I have zero sympathy for them.
70
Native American/Alaska Native population is 15% of Alaska (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Alaska). They're the ones suffering, but are they the ones voting for Republicans? I don't know.
6
How much do we give to Floridians? $4,000,000 a pop?
4
Yes, but the Native populations in Alaska know, but they are outnumbered when they vote, so have sympathy for them. I know I do.
5
Just looked up the history of this town. It has been flooded on and off for over 200 years. The worst in recent history was 1960. Since then, the town has been moving from it's higher ground center to lower areas, closer to the waters. They have not come together as a community to implement flood resistance (barriers, etc.).
NYTimes, you may want to find a different town to use for climate change proof. This town is in a flood zone, has moved from high ground (not a good idea), and will continue to go through flooding as it has for decades.
NYTimes, you may want to find a different town to use for climate change proof. This town is in a flood zone, has moved from high ground (not a good idea), and will continue to go through flooding as it has for decades.
26
Please offer link, Mary, to where you "looked up the history of this town" including assertion about 1960 flood, which I could not find either by googling the town's weather history or wikipedia. In any case, here is the Wikipedia link for anyone interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaktoolik,_Alaska
Commenters dismissively assume these residents voted for Trump and get what they deserve, though we don't know how they voted or if they voted at all. But it would seem to serve Alaskan indigenous peoples' best interests, those who live in high climate change impact areas, to go to their state capital and rally en mass, to say climate change is real and so are we.
Commenters dismissively assume these residents voted for Trump and get what they deserve, though we don't know how they voted or if they voted at all. But it would seem to serve Alaskan indigenous peoples' best interests, those who live in high climate change impact areas, to go to their state capital and rally en mass, to say climate change is real and so are we.
5
Stay or go? Go!
10
Exactly how much has the sea level risen? Think about it: the central issue
in this article remains untouched.
"Sea level" by definition is "sea level," correct? Not "Alaska sea level", "North Carolina sea level." "Ivory Coast sea level".....I could go on.
The article is an exercise in sloppy thinking, from beginning to end.
in this article remains untouched.
"Sea level" by definition is "sea level," correct? Not "Alaska sea level", "North Carolina sea level." "Ivory Coast sea level".....I could go on.
The article is an exercise in sloppy thinking, from beginning to end.
5
from the article: "With rising ocean temperatures, the offshore ice and slush that normally buffer the village from storm surges and powerful ocean waves are decreasing. Last winter, for the first time elders here can remember, there was no offshore ice at all...The battering delivered by the storms has eaten away at the land around the village"
You were saying something about 'sloppy thinking'?
You were saying something about 'sloppy thinking'?
25
Actually your assumption is incorrect, look it up.
7
Assumption? Not by me. What do the authors say about documented rise in sea level?
Whether it is the sinking Alaska coastline, earthquakes in Oklahoma, fires raging in Alberta and Australia, a huge methane cloud over New Mexico, Miami, New York, Virginia Beach and New Orleans gradually sinking, the entire West heading into drought, or the the massive environmental disaster waiting to happen when Houston gets hit with the next hurricane, the people most affected are the poor and disadvantaged. The story is always the same. The corporations and the wealthy are able to move out of harms way. It is sad to see stories like this of our rapidly changing world. I do not understand why we are so shortsighted given the challenges and the immensity of the climate change dilemma. All other issues pale in comparison to what we are opening up for ourselves by ignoring this all encompassing threat created by a warming planet.
87
Let's see: "...the sinking Alaska coastline...." Huh? Where did this come from?
Certainly not from the above (fatally flawed) article. Are sea levels rising, or are coastlines sinking? Sea level is sea level, is it not?
With respect to Florida and the Carolinas, long-term glacial rebound is causing the respective shorelines to gradually sink, as pressure is removed from the inner continent.
So a warming planet is causing poor and disadvantaged people to move toward dangerous coastlines? Like, say, Sanibel? Palm Beach? Fisher Island? Or, closer to home, Battery Park? (purchase $/sq. ft. @ twice the median national weekly income?)
These are the new huddled masses?
Certainly not from the above (fatally flawed) article. Are sea levels rising, or are coastlines sinking? Sea level is sea level, is it not?
With respect to Florida and the Carolinas, long-term glacial rebound is causing the respective shorelines to gradually sink, as pressure is removed from the inner continent.
So a warming planet is causing poor and disadvantaged people to move toward dangerous coastlines? Like, say, Sanibel? Palm Beach? Fisher Island? Or, closer to home, Battery Park? (purchase $/sq. ft. @ twice the median national weekly income?)
These are the new huddled masses?
2
Shortsighted and overly complacent, indeed. A large percentage of the wealthy - who represent a tiny portion of the entire population, yet have enormous control over much of it - seem to think they have enough money to simply relocate in the face of global, catastrophic disaster. Or maybe they figure they are old enough that they will be long gone by the time things get really bad, so they have no reason to care, even when they have children and grandchildren who have much ahead of them.
Disconnection with people is the same as disconnection with nature. People are part of nature, as much as we try to deny it.
Disconnection with people is the same as disconnection with nature. People are part of nature, as much as we try to deny it.
7