Show us the US maps too.
18
No money for a green new deal but somehow we will have trillions for seawalls? Last year we increased our national debt by a trillion dollars, does anyone know what we got for that? Oh, and btw do you guys happen to have maps for Tampa Bay, Savannah, NewYork And Boston?
9
Lol, I heard this back in the 80's. Right now my child hood home should be underwater, the houses sitting on the beach are still there, the beaches are still there.
All lies
13
What about NYC; Miami?
3
And where are the pictures from the US coasts? Shocking lack of tough love on the part of the article’s authors and publishers.
5
Extreme Weather - What We Need To Know
https://ecohustler.com/culture/extreme-weather-what-we-need-to-know
Goosebumps break out, and my stomach churns to see this, thinking of friends, family, fellow humans and the countless flora and fauna that will be submerged.
We are unprepared. We are fragmented, ill equipped to handle such planetary peril that will spawn more conflict.
Who will unite us? The UN? Captain Planet? It sadly will not be America.
276
As long as there is a dollar to be made today by doing nothing, nothing will be done.
330
Imagine if this level of destruction - if this level of destruction CAN be imagined - were caused by terrorists.
Governments would respond immediately, with monumental resources; massive resources would also be dedicated to preventing further attacks. Civilian populations would be called upon to come together and make substantial sacrifices; it would be thought a patriotic duty, and honor, to do so.
Walt Kelly was wrong. We have met the terrorists, and they are us.
But we don't have to be. Vote blue!
47
I feel like this study may still be undershooting how much land will be lost. As the sea level rises the salt water will penetrate further inland killing off trees that stabilize the land, lending the land to be eroded quicker by waves. Even if the land is technically above high tide. This is already happening in places, like the Solomon islands were many smaller islands have been wiped off the map.
220
@Dennis It will probably be necessary to plant mangroves along the coasts to address that risk.
9
@Dennis YIKES!
5
This isn't "new research" ... merely a private party's re-calculation of existing data that is known to be incorrect.
79
@Sequel Your comment suggests it might be a good diea to buy up shore-line real estate in Boston. H'mm.
64
The fundamental problem is too many Homo sapiens wanting too many things. We're in for really bad times. It's too late to avoid that. But perhaps the biggest question, for those who want Humans to persist, is whether or not coming generations will somehow reduce human population numbers and learn to live in moderation with nature.
193
Everything about this is worse than originally thought. 10 years from now the projections will be far more dire than what we are reading here. This disaster is accelerating exponentially, at a faster rate than even the most expert climatologists seem to be able to forecast.
714
@Gerry The intense disinformation campaign orchestrated by GOP, denial campaign, DJT, Dark Money, and everyday inertia and distraction have cloaked the magnitude and immanence of this tectonic shift in human and Earth history.
The coming decade will provide frustrating dithering, but the schism between ideology and reality will climax. The subsequent historical period will get ugly as Disaster Crony Capitalism and reactionary movements exploit their opportunities to shove their agenda down our throats. Migrants, the Earth, and dispossessed multitudes will be pummeled into submission.
38
@Gerry - eventually it'll balance out. More water and less land will eventually mean a cooler planet, that will leader to frozen tundras, less run-off and receding oceans by (say) 2150 according to my analysis. So don't panic - buy 12 miles out to the sea and place the deed in a trust fund till 2150...
13
@Chris B. Please link to you published peer reviewed paper of your analysis
85
And we think we have an immigration challenge NOW?
Read this book for a glimpse into a very possible future:
The Wall by John Lanchester https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40180117-the-wall
3
Relevant fiction here: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/kim-stanley-robinsons-latest-novel-imagines-life-in-an-underwater-new-york
1
So this is an important study but the article is flawed, and a little bit of an embarrassment for the Times. It fails to account for subsidence in those regions. Journalists appear to have rushed this to publish by not sending the study to an outside subject matter expert.
2
Lololol I’ll
Aren’t we all supposed to already be underwater. Al Gore swore we would all be dead by 2015. Hahaha. You guys are comical
5
Having worked in humanitarian settings where people are really desperate for their next meal or their next bit of drinkable water, I can say that the will to survive is unstoppable. And it is often not pretty. People clawing and trampling their neighbors when they believe the last bag of rice or wheat is about to be given out -- and that their family may be left out. This is what we may face on a global level with rising seas, unpredictable weather (drought, floods, etc.) that makes agriculture a crap shoot and some land uninhabitable. Walls and barbed wire will not keep desperate from fleeing their grim circumstances. Seems like addressing climate change NOW might be the wise move (understatement).
4
"We could have saved the Earth but we were to damn cheap." ~ Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
2
The satisfaction of owning "beach front" property near Atlanta. Awesome. Unfortunately, these "scientists" are never right.
1
I presume your next article will show the catastrophic effect on the United States. The Gulf States and those states along
both seaboards are in for major problems too.
1
Where are the maps for New York, Boston, Washington, DC, Miami, New Orleans, etc.?
America needs it’s head forcibly removed from the proverbial sand and far away places will not have the same effect as a map of home.
2
What about Florida, Louisiana and other coastal areas in the US?
2
Please have another article demonstrating how rising seas will affect coastline major cities of our hemisphere.
1
Why no maps of countries of Europe and North America ?
2
Of course, this new assessment is based on some assumption of sea level rise, which is not stated in the article. Although dramatic seal level rise has been projected by climate alarmists for the past 30 years, the seas have paid no attention and continue to rise at the slow rate seen since the end of the little ice age 200 years ago.
5
Amazing how these scientists can predict a flood 30 years from now but can’t get the forecast for tomorrow correct - similar maps of future flooding were used in 1920s Louisiana to lobby for a Mississippi River levee and now we know that the levees have only made land loss worse. Point being that special interests use bought scientists and confusing data all the time to get what they want. All all the libs that want to do something - stop supporting globalism and it’s environmental destruction
4
It is likely the earth's population wil have crashed by about a quarter by 2050. Much of this will be in Asia. So there will be places to move to. Building dikes and sea walls is a fool's errand. Countries that face these environmental threats would do better by building new cities and villages at higher elevations.
1
As a Florida resident, I can remember former Gov. Scott and Senator Marco Rubio, who has small children!!, say "I am not a scientist" to somehow try to 'explain away' their justification for not doing their duty to protect the environment and citizens. In some way their conscious neglect to their moral and political duties is more obscene than Trump's, whose ignorance and self-preoccupation is so profound that he probably doesn't understand. Regardless, this issue alone - to say nothing of their obsession with wars and defense spending, will be proven by history to show that the Republican Party will have had so much more of a profound effect on the decline of our Republic and the prosperity of later generations than ISIS or some other 'imagined' enemy. Shame, shame on all of them.
5
google “china co2 output” and look at the graphs. their increase in co2 output in the last 20 years is greater than the U.S. and Europe combined. China is in the adolescence of their industrial revolution with over 1,000,000,000 people, AND they don’t believe in or care about climate change. they love the increase in standard of living pumping out co2 brings them and they have zero intention of slowing down, just like the west 100 years ago.
even if the U.S. and Europe’s co2 output went to zero, the east including China and India would increase that amount in another 20 years.
what we do in the west is 100% meaningless when it comes to climate change. that is the inconvenient truth no one talks about.
7
People, people - PLEASE!!
We do not need to spend gazillions of $$ in order to take the most important step toward reducing (too late for "stopping") the damage we're creating.
20% of global peeps (including almost all Americans) consume 80% of global energy. And here in the US of A, we WASTE 2/3 of our energy, including 75% of transportation energy. We WASTE half our food and all it's embodied energy. We WASTE - blithely and thoughtlessly!
We build Yuge, under-insulated McMansions then overheat/cool them. We make little attempt to reduce our buildings' energy leaks. Reducing leaks is not rocket science, BTW - we're talking about a tube of caulk, for Goddess' sake! We leave unused lights/TVs/computers running. Night-time photos of the globe show our cities lit up like Xmas trees - all night, every night.
We buy 4WD urban SUVs/pickups instead of smaller, fuel-efficient sedans, because, you know, cheap (subsidized) fuel. We don't plan/consolidate our trips, we commute in single-passenger vehicles and whine about the jam-packed highways. Whenever we can score cheap tickets, we hop on a plane for that "badly-needed" long-weekend vacation, because we work oh-so-hard. Transportation has now surpassed electricity generation as our largest source of GHG creation and we party on as if there's no tomorrow - Hint folks, there's not gonna' be one for our precious progeny.
Each of us can take steps - today - to help solve our problem. Do we care enuf' to do so??? Tick, tick, tick…
5
I hate to be a pessimist, but the cake is baked. Not much will be done until the wolf is not only at the door but in the foyer.
2
I guess oil and gas are more important than our real estate.
So it seems Andrew Yang was right about rising sea level & its worse than we think. But why no EU & NA or SA maps from the article?
Whether you are an evolutionist or creationist, humans have based their existence and advancement on burning things, wood, coal, oil, gas, for a very, very long time. We have finally reached a point in our evolution where we can break these chains and move forward. All it will take is a simple decision to do so.
However, corporate greed and their hold on governments are a major roadblock. And then there is the populace themselves, which just like heroin junkies, are addicted to fire driven tech that allow things to continue. And just like junkies, will be in denial until disaster is upon them.
1
This is only a teaser. The real fun starts when the East Antarctic ice cap melts!
Dr Kulp,
Is there or will be a Google Maps app available soon? This would be the most effective method of providing your data to the public.
Thank you.
Erased vs inundated? What will be in 2030, 2040? Does a certain milestone need to be achieved before it is a problem? The trajectory is certain.
This new study may be confirmed by more studies and interpretation of existing data. This study was published by "Nature Communications", an open access (basically on-line) journal, established in 2010 and a division of "Nature" (one of the most highly regarded scientific journals on the planet). Scientists by nature are conservative and ardently avoid exaggeration and hyperbole, so it is not surprising that the predicted effects of climate change in recent years have proven to have been conservative. In short we need more studies, but our response to older or newer predictions of the carnage to come, should be the same---keep it in the ground.
3
This article failed to include graphic. convincing visual images of densely populated cities closer to home like New York, LA, San Francisco, Boston, and Miami. Also curiously missing were images of major European cities at risk. I hope the absence of these images doesn't create a sense of lassitude for people living in other coastal areas. It would great to present the global picture including port cities in Central and South America and Africa. It was a great article, one that really makes you think.
1
Before the monumental changes needed to possibly save humanity from extinction, the rules of the game of the global 1% have to go from "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind: Everything for us and noting for the rest" has to go (Adam Smith, 1776, "The Wealth of Nations". Humans and the sedentary societies we formed, only, about 11,000 years ago, have plundered the earth and its peoples. We must come to see ourselves as privileged visitors of the earth, preserve its bounty and beauty, and care for one another. If we wrest power from the global 1%, a tall order and a necessary upheaval, will we succeed in saving ourselves?
1
Land under water is the most obvious evidence of encroaching seas, but the water table under the land is affected first. Here in New Hampshire, many families rely on wells for their freshwater. Along the coast, some of those wells are already tainted with salt water. Everything looks OK on the surface but the sea level is rising from deep under the ground.
10
"Externals" are not free. Mother Nature will collect the debt, one way or another.
Where are the projections for the US Gulf States?
1
this is fascinating and i love these maps, but i wish they had shown the one for nyc as well.
1
Yesterday’s local newspaper announced the end of Swiss glaciers for 2050. We mourned the loss of the first one last summer. The great European rivers Rhine and Rhône come from our mountains and already there are problems appearing.
4
We are currently in an 'oil bubble', and like all bubbles, will burst someday leaving investors high and dry. Already, I'd like to point out that industries are quietly moving away from the oil sector. For example, MS, GOOGLE, and AMAZON boast how their computer centers are now carbon-free. Quietly, quietly, these industries and others are on the march. Why? The marginal cost of electric fuel is now approaching zero. (The sun gives it to us for free).
Stranded oil assets are estimated at 100 trillion dollars, and when the bubble bursts, this money disappears.
So doesn't it make sense for investment companies, stockholders, insurance companies, and others to move their portfolios away from the oil sector? From a risk management point of view, smart money certainly says it does.
And does 'investment' in coastal real estate make any sense now? It would appear no as well.
5
Questions
1) According to this recent projection, how much are world sea levels projected to rise at high tide?
2) Is this same rise predicted to occur in the Tidal Basin in Washington, DC?
3) What is the current difference in elevation between high tide in the Tidal Basin and the level of Independence Avenue in Washington DC?
4) When the Tidal Basin begins to overflow Independence Avenue, might US leadership that uses Independence Ave. to commute to their offices in DC from suburban Virginia begin to get the picture?
4
It's interesting that this article says nothing about the threat to coastal cities in North America. What will be the fate of New York City for example? Any degree of persistent flooding would make the whole region uninhabitable.
3
Seawalls, rip-rap, levees, flood gates, these are all put forward as urgent projects. Yet in many places, such as Florida, geology says no. Increasingly heavy, flooding rains say no. Most Floridians live on a rocky sponge, the water comes at us from all directions at once. Humane leave-taking of vulnerable areas becomes the only rational way of coping. This is not what people want to hear, so they simply deny there is a problem. In places where the geology supports earthworks, there is still the issue of how much should be spent on a temporary solution, and who benefits. It's usually the wealthiest inhabitants who benefit, and they often pay the least.
9
@Mary - "This is not what people want to hear, so they simply deny there is a problem."
Bingo!! I'm repeatedly shocked at our hubris, our myopia, our self-denial.
Chatted yesterday w/ a self-proclaimed "enviro" pal who slaps bumper stickers on her 4WD urban pickup truck, sends checks to The Sierra Club (which continues to pimp international "adventure" travel, BTW) and recycles (essentially pointless, as we now know) and then stews about the (R)s who are "destroying our environment".
When I pointed out that we Fossil Fuel consumers are the problem and that we can all change our over-consumptive ways, she said she didn't want to talk about it because she wanted to enjoy her day - and left in a huff. Sheesh!!
1
Florida will be hit big time too, along with the entire East Coast. Much of the coast is very low. Millions of buildings on the sea level water today will be under water in 30 years because the warming won't be linear. It will turn into a positive feedback mechanism with seas expanding faster and faster, and Greenland melting faster and faster.
6
Interesting that most comments assume 'something can be done' to change what is predicted by 2050.
Sorry folks, it's far too late for that. While we actually argue about economic migration (as though it was a useful subject) environmental migration is poised to change the planet in ways we can only imagine.
Of course we need do what can be done, but expecting a political solution is madness.
10
The real problem is that the corporations that fund the right look at these maps and see dollar signs. What great infrastructure projects for Halliburton, great opportunity for the Koch’s to sell bottled oxygen, etc. desperate customers are the best customers. These entities will keep pumping Fox News with a false narrative that their low info base will eat up and they will never allow real climate legislation. Even when the Dems hav majority House and Senate they filibuster everything. Personally I don’t have any hope the US will play a positive role. These maps are great for maximum bottom lines in their eyes. Unfortunately they are missing the fact that when chaos ensues all their profit models will fall apart.
7
@Mike Globalist corporations and governments on both political sides are solely responsible for this - if you support globalism, you are the problem
1
The environmental/climate crises we have been waiting for is here, now.
2
What is going to be inundated is much of the most fertile arable land on the planet — the alluvial fans. Simultaneously, the food value of field crops is going to fall as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels increase. Ocean production is forecast to decline as fisheries are over-harvested, stocks dwindle and oceans acidifying and become less supportive of species we once took for granted. In addition there will be increased and prolonged droughts and increased and prolonged flooding of lowlands and former wetlands, all affecting food production at the same time population growth demands more food than we produce globally now. Meanwhile, we fiddle furiously and dance the fandango of denial while our home burns down around our ears. Climate emergency is an understatement. “As ye sow, so shall ye reap.” Thus far, we seem to be over-seeding for stupidity.
9
At least I will be dead by 2050. (Or 106 years old, which is very unlikely). But I fear for the world we are leaving to our children and grand children.
The worst thing is that we know better, but still drive our SUVs and our government prevents people all over the world from getting access to birth control and abortion.
Sad.
7
@Jay Lagemann SUVs are the number one seller in America even in the land of liberals and progressive. We are doomed.
1
This article makes me think of Bob Dylan's song "The Times They Are A Changin'" From 1963. If you're not familiar with the lyrics, I invite you to read them.
2
Unfortunately being a student of human nature I am a cynic about this. We never seem capable of reacting off forecasts of doom. Our ability to react off future potential events stops at the tip of our noses. We only do so once it is in our face. As a species we're myopic like that.
Therefore, while beginning to lurch into view from over the horizon, it's still too blurry to see so doesn't yet qualify as a significant threat. I'm leaving aside my personally opinion that this is stupid in all the ways only our species can be so inclined. Even birds sense weather changes setting up and know to fly away.
We're not reacting appropriately to the given size of this looming problem. In fact, given its global size and scale, it's already too late. All the control rods and systems, all those natural processes that have made our terrarium so comfy for our species these past few millennia, are now beginning to move as a consequence of all our pushing.
Inertia alone means these implacable processes cannot now be stopped. No amount to tech genius can, though perhaps some of the impact can be mitigated. But never fear, I have the solution for everyone living in low-lying areas. It's quite easy. Move. And now would be advisable; while you can still control the process.
John~
American Net'Zen
5
Climate Change is a Global Concern, Houses near the Sea Shores in Karachi,Pakistan have started getting flooded with Sea Water. It has never been reported before.
1
@Maaz Ahma Ironic that globalism is the cause, no?
This study and its projections will be completely ignored by the current Administration.
5
@Alan Day - …the current "Population".
I'm not a scientist BUT I reckon a lot of folks are going to have to swim to work and live on a boat.
3
All the more reason to get rid of Trump as soon as possible and get on to the serious business of climate adaptation in a massive international effort. There's no planet B.
4
I love it.
All this hysteria with no solutions!
According to NOAA and others, satellite data shows that the oceans are rising and the speed has increased in the past 50+ years and it is now 1/8 inch a year, or 96 years for a foot.
Who on Earth thinks we can stop it or reverse it?
The best we can do is adapt to the new reality.
4
Most projections we have seen are pretty conservative. I imagine it will be far worse than what these maps show. I also think it will happen much sooner than 2050, especially, if we don't cap emissions within the next 10 years. If Trump is re-elected, there is very little hope. I wish they would have showed maps of the US because under old projections 26 million would have been displaced. I wonder what the revised number is for us.
3
In high school biology class, we performed the following experiment: fill a test tube with molasses, water and yeast. Put a stopper in it.
Each day, we took out a drop or two, put it under a microscope, and counted the yeast cells. Then we plotted the new data. The curve showed a exponential population increase over the weeks.
Then, suddenly, the population counts dropped, and fast. Within a few days, the entire colony died, exterminated by its own waste products, alcohol, and an exhaustion of nutrients and food.
This experiment has never seemed more relevant to me than it did 40 years ago.
5
I’m wondering why there was no mention of the effects from rising seawater on major US cities. Miami experiences regular flooding which the current mayor is desperately pulling money together to try to protect the city. When it’s “over there” it’s far to easy to think it is only affecting those places. We need to bring the message home. That said, in general, people don’t change until the cost (and not just financial) of remaining the same is greater than the cost (or fear) of the change.
3
Sorry, but this is daft. Long before this careful and studious rise in sea levels, tipping points will have been reached, tropical storms will have had compounding effects, the forests will be ablaze, ecosystems will have collapsed.
It is madness to see these things in isolation.
6
How did we get the land levels wrong in places like Iraq? Not a great tree coverage I suspect...
Plus in large metro areas one could use existing survey data rather than satellite imagery.
2
What about Manhattan, Miami?
Fun times ahead.
The most probable result of our "progress" as a species is that we will get the future we deserve. Mass starvation, epidemic disease, mass extinctions, uncontrollable flooding and fires on a scale we have not yet even imagined. The land, sea, and air will all turn deathly for us and for most other species.
The human population will certainly plummet, our infrastructure will collapse, and our ability to continue our laying waste to planet earth will diminish to a shadow of itself. That, I believe, is the immediate future. There isn't any legitimate evidence to the contrary, frankly.
4
@kms Globalists gov’ts and corps must pay dearly for their environmental destruction
Why don't they show maps of the U.S.?
3
@grmadragon - Go to their website. It's all there. Most US coastal cities have a few more geological seconds b4 going under.
2
I’ve been telling friends down here in South Florida that we are no more than 5 years from peak real estate. I would say in about 5 years banks won’t write 30 year mortgages on property that will be declining in value over that time horizon as the water rises and costs of fighting it will raise taxes to levels never before seen. And of course there is there is the obvious need to eventually abandon the area.
9
@Chris Yes.
I've wondered if that and other instances of coastal real estate roulette might start an economic cascade.
Values drop to zero.
6
Beyond the immediate financial disasters that will certainly come as a result of this, just for a moment, consider the impact of the mass migrations that will ensue. Europe has turned itself politically inside out as a result of a few million Syrian refugees. What will happen when 165million Bangladeshi's are on the move? 40million Vietnamese? 80million Philippinos? Or 150million Indonesians? Nation states will disappear, their neighbors will collapse, borders will cease to exist.
Here in Jakarta, the government just announced (to shockingly little fanfare) that they will be moving to Borneo... The clock is ticking on the central government abandoning the entire city and it's anywhere from 9-30million inhabitants to the rising tides. We are running the "boiling frog" experiment on ourselves; but this one won't be an urban legend.
9
Current turmoil in the LE has caused refugee crises that are straining the political stability of more northern states. This issue is only to get worse.
Have to read to the end....The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot", according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway.Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
Washington Post, November 2, 1922, 96 years ago.
5
Fine work!
Excellent graphics.
Thank you.
Sea level rise is an emergent phenomenon, as are severe fires, obesity & diabetes epidemics, species extinction, micro-plastic & assault rifle proliferation, to the catastrophic wounding of the oceans, rainforests and more.
These phenomena are some of the more prominent symptoms of exponentially accelerating complexity.
We've generated relationships / environs we can't process, that both our biological and cultural coding do not fit.
Complexity increases weaken the efficacy of code, whether genetic, legal, monetary, software, etc.
Consider This:
Fundamentally, we've been creating vast global relationship structures (doing selection) with the world's dominant information processing mechanism or app -- humans deploying monetary code -- for centuries.
The app's information processing specs are far too weak now -- given the relationship complexity generated by our unprecedented numbers, powers and concomitant reach.
Both our biological and cultural coding (relationship infrastructure) are increasingly non-selectable.
World culture and the Geo, Bio & Eco networks it's built upon resemble an immune system being overrun by novel pathogens.
We're experiencing an acceleration of failed relationships, symptoms of the emergent complexity apocalypse.
3
@anthropocene2 The main problem with the money-app is that the vast majority of its users believe that money is wealth. That's like beliving a measuring tape is distance. Or that a thermostat heats your home. Or that a set of weights makes you rich.
As unfortunate as it may be, these types of studies need to include more often major cities of the major economies. It is the nature of humanity to focus on problems that are closer to home (especially conservative leaning thinking), and since the major powers dictate global policies, we need to include cities from the G8.
@T Have to read to the end....The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot", according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway.Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
Washington Post, November 2, 1922, 96 years ago.
1
The USA needs to start preparing for this and protect our country as never before. The mass migration will think they have a right to come here anyway they can.
If not, we will not have a country.
As for the countries and cities expected to be impacted by this, they need to start moving to safer areas before it's too late.
1
How big a rise in sea level does the study assume? It's a basic fact the story should convey. I've been to many of these places. They are flat, but they are not THAT flat. It would take a rise of more than a foot or two in the sea level to make most of these new flooding maps make any sense. I
Sadly, vast majority of common people are not aware about this imminent danger. The consequences will not spare any powerful or rich. Equality will prevail at the time of Climate Disaster,which is forthcoming. Every moment is slipping out of our hands. At individual level, just by adjusting Lifestyle, the masses can do a lot, and simultaneously strong decisions and imposition of the same need to be initiated on WAR FOOTING basis by Global Decision makers who are mostly remained blindfolded and hearing impaired till this date. Energy & Water Conservation are extreme need of the hour.
2
@Avijit Ghosh Have to read to the end....The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot", according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from the Consulate at Bergen, Norway.Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard of temperatures in the Arctic zone.Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
Washington Post, November 2, 1922, 96 years ago.
3
@Zach And your point is that the Washington Post made a mistake in 1922? What scientific data does this refute?
2
We need to return C02 to below 350ppm; there needs to be a new Green Revolution, never mind a Green New Deal. Each copuntry has to now start addressing its ecological and industrial crabon debt; we have to return Co2 from the atmosphere to the soil; there has to be a new UN track that has Co2 falling back by 2050. How an earth given the fact that we are at 1.5c now and ecological impacts are visibly accelerating is anything else acceptable as methane starts to release from the Arctic tundra ?
3
Battling this requires action from the top of governments down along with international cooperation. Banning gasoline and diesel automobiles would be a start. But who is willing to do that or stop the cattle economy giving up your MacDonald burger? Or stop chopping down trees and forests for huge sprawling subdivisions, mining, pulp production and sugar cane? Or telling the chemical companies to stop plastic products?All that is going on is a lot of talk, corporate politics and the human species is way behind in the battle largely of its own making. The wealthiest nation on earth can't even admit it's huge role in heating up the planet. A lot of countries just kill environmentalists as nuisances. Lots of luck humans.
4
Battling this requires action from the top of governments down along with international cooperation. Banning gasoline and diesel automobiles would be a start. But who is willing to do that or stop the cattle economy giving up your MacDonald burger? Or stop chopping down trees and forests for huge sprawling subdivisions, mining, pulp production and sugar cane? Or telling the chemical companies to stop plastic products?All that is going on is a lot of talk corporate politics and the human species is way behind in the battle largely of its own making. The wealthiest nation on earth can't even admit it's huge role in heating up the planet. A lot of countries just kill environmentalists as nuisances. Lots of luck humans.
1
I live is southern Delaware how will we do with the rising seas. How far inland will be safe to move to ? We are in denial in Delaware real estates sales are expensive as ever and these real estates agents should be telling the buyers we may be under water. Isn’t this a crime yet by not saying anything? It should be.
1
@D.j.j.k. - here's a link to Delaware's assessment of how climate change will affect things. It includes a link to a sea-level rise review.
https://dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/climate-coastal-energy/climate-change/
I'm going to take a contrarian view. Sinking cities is not a problem but an opportunity. We already have the technology and the know-how of building cities with a net-zero carbon print if we can build cities from the ground-up. It is retrofitting sprawling and decaying cities that are making carbon-neutral cities all but impossible. All models show that building mitigations for cities such as Mumbai and Miami is already a lost cause. The fact of the matter is that less than 10 percent of the land on earth inhabited by humans. The only practical solution is to build new cities right now and build from group-up for a sustainable future.
3
@UC Graduate What will happen when those cities submerged? Where do you think all the sewage, pollutants go?
Would somebody please show a map of how this will impact Russia. It is one of the few large counties that will benefit from global warming. I'm sure Putin is looking ahead 50 years.
1
@Robert L. Bergs - one of the things to consider is how many people in Russia live near the coastlines. St. Petersburg in particular will likely be threatened as will most of the cities in the southeast. Russia's biggest issue is likely to be fresh water.
2
@Marston Gould
It is now 17 million square kilometers of mostly frozen ground (think Siberia). It will thaw and thrive as the southern lattitudes roast.
2
@Robert L. Bergs Permafrost turns into swamp when it thaws.
Not terrifying at all.
3
Sometimes I just wish a giant meteor would hit us. Problems solved.
2
Once again another article about global warming which omits the contributions of India and China to our predicament.
5
@D. Arnold No doubt China and India contribute significantly to the total increase in emissions. However, China is now a larger producer of renewable energy than the United States - and their investment in this area is tremendous. It will also be interesting to see what happens when the hundreds of millions of well educated Chinese and Indians begin to face the climate challenges much sooner than we here in the United States. It is entirely conceivable that they will develop solutions more quickly simply because they will have no choice.
8
@D. Arnold - India creates 1/3 of the GHG that we do, and 11% per capita.
China creates more total GHG than we do, but less than 1/2 per capita. Much of China's GHG production was out-sourced from the US as American corporations moved their production facilities because, you know, cheap labor…
1
@D. Arnold. At least can we agree that this problem is real, and not a “hoax,” as is being alleged by our President? Step one is to acknowledge that there is a problem, which the Republican Party has yet to do. The flood of money from the fossil fuel industry into the GOP will prevent any consideration of science, so the US will take no action, while the wealthy will just turn the AC up.
3
We have a solution in Florida, wait until 2049 and sell your waterfront property to a Yankee at low tide.
4
As societies fail, chaos breaks out. Alternative govts and power centers pop up - like mafia / criminal groups, religious extremists, power hungry leaders. When people are desperate, what little reason and sanity is washed away in the rising tides.
The real dikes will be the dikes between groups who are sane and reasonable, hoping to avoid being overrun and raided by desperate, hungry people. There will be no time to talk, just shoot or get shot. The lion will not lie down with the lamb. Human nature is driven by the need to survive, have sex, have power, have a future. Not platitudes or odes to higher values. Fight, flight or die. Our kids will experience this chaos. Most of us will be gone. Our madness, selfishness, and simplicity cursed. Bleak indeed!!
5
i've suggested several times that, as a signal of science affirmation and public service, the NY Times publish the daily Mauna Loa CO2 reports in its "weather and stocks" box; a YTD increase would be useful to add.
around two years ago, the NY Times also published flood maps for coastal regions of the USA, the same maps that several readers request in their comments here. i've suggested the NY Times consolidate its reporting into a single subdomain archive (climate.nytimes.com) useful to reader and student education.
a third suggestion is that the NY Times produce a "climate sunday" edition in which all its opinion columnists -- climate deniers such as Brooks and Stephens to lead, but also Cohen, Bruni, Kristoff, Krugman, Dowd and all the rest -- explain their position on the issue. it's time the opinionators actually opine on the greatest issue of our times.
scientists, economists and policy wonks should be given space to talk about solutions such as a carbon tax (or equivalent). Lawrence Summers and Alan Greenspan should explain their support. corporate executives and military chiefs should share their forecasts.
i am speaking here of editorial policy that currently dilutes debate, piecemeals coverage, scatters resources and treats climate change as a routine issue. if this were a shooting war we'd be getting daily front page reports.
the NY Times senior editors are sitting on their hands and on the fence. it's time for them to stand up for our future.
6
It's so important that we elect a president in 2020 that believes climate change is real! This has nothing to do with party, yet when you have an administration covering up relevant facts that show climate change is getting worse, and burying key statistics, it's frightening and worrisome to say the least. This is not a government for the people; to protect the people. It's the complete opposite.
A good economy can't protect us and our future children from unprecedented weather events that continue to escalate in size get more intense. These events will strip away any good economy. They will affect our food supply, our housing, insurance, mortality rate, our work and careers..
To think an entire side of the aisle, along with our president would deny what nearly every scientist and specialist states as truth is just incomprehensible.
Four more years of denial will exponentially increase our chances of complete devastation.
Please consider this when you go to vote in 2020. Even if you must vote outside your party, please do it. This is the gravest thing affecting our planet, our people, our cities and we must come together to try to stop or slow it before it's too late.
5
Important to note that the 150 million number assumes the RCP 4.5 pathway. Under the RCP 8.5 pathway, which looks increasingly likely, the situation would be significantly worse.
6
These projections are certainly dire, and far more concerning than many were previously aware of. As an older American (65), I can see the the early stages of the tidal rise impacting well within my projected lifetime. Still, these tides are not the main concern. Changes in climate have already triggered dangerous migrations, including Syria's historic drought, where farmers losing their livelihoods crowded into cities, and their desperation led to civil war. Here in the Americas, Honduras and Central America have seen similar changes making subsidence farming impossible, and their resulting migration has been fuel for right wing reactionaries, who have taken our nation in a frightening direction. The rising ocean tides will come soon enough. We are already seeing a "rising tide of chaos" as a result of regional climate changes, and this is the tide that raises the ships of autocrats and dictators, which is what we must fear the most.
8
@Ray of Light A thoughtful response. Thank you.
3
In the 1970s, computer models predicted world economic catastrophe because we would run out of oil and other energy sources by the year 2000. If modern scientists expect to be believed, they need to address the failures of forecasts in the past. To say, "oh we know so much more nowadays" would seem to embody the same hubris as their scientific ancestors.
5
@PaleMale
Economics is not science.
5
@PaleMale - climate models are not oil availability models, or do you think "scientist" is generic? That would be like going to a psychologist because you had gangrene from untreated diabetes. After all a doctor's a doctor, right?
Save us from people who deny a couple hundred years of science, in myriad disciplines from solar physics to cellular biology, that all make the basic predictions clear.
More greenhouse emissions WILL change climate, weather patterns, sea levels and also intensify precipitation, and lower pH in lakes and oceans.
Hubris is thinking we can increase greenhouse emissions without the expected response from nature.
5
@PaleMale - science is a process of continuous improvement. When I worked at NASA many years ago, one of the huge limitations was how much data needed to be processed in order to make the kind of calculations necessary. The atmosphere/soil/oceans were broken down into 3D grids that frankly were huge in the scheme of things. Yet even at that level of fidelity, the models would take days and weeks to run to provide results and in many cases they would run out of memory (either storage or processing)- or some condition would be violated that would make the model less likely to be true. Now add to this the need to add probabilistic outcomes and you'd be beyond technological capabilities. Today my phone has more processing power than the massive mainframes we submitted jobs to. The computational power available today is now allowing scientists to run their models at far more fidelity and this itself has required field teams to discover all sorts of interactions predictable today and witnessed that were never even thought of 30 years ago. Yet the basic principles of science such as the Laws of Thermodynamics have not changed and continue to be as valid today as they were then. I would expect in 30 years hence, the knowledge we will have should provide some level of exponential informed value. The real question is - how bad does it have to get before you too become the boiled frog.
7
I anticipate these refugees from environmental displacement will seek higher and drier ground. I’ll be dead by then but TODAY I am working with neighbors to try to work together and plan for not only the growth we have NOW but the growth this article illustrates so vividly in these maps. We are opposed by neighbors worried about “traffic”, “losing their yards” , losing their “idea” of what their neighborhood “is”, et cetera when the idea of modest density/TOD is proposed, even just as a recommendation. Honestly, I want to shout from the roofs tops: this is not for you! It is for your children. We don’t deserve this beautiful planet.
4
Recent observations of methane release in the Arctic shows that the methane bomb is happening. Methane is 150x more potent than CO2 in immediate warming impact.
That means that methane should overwhelm the CO2 effect, and become the main driver of global warming.
If so, then the current projections are obsolete. The warming will come faster and be more extreme than is imagined today.
Arctic Ocean will become ice free year round. Permafrost will melt almost completely. Global CO2 will exceed 600 ppm, not seen since the Cretaceous.
Sea levels will begin their inexorable rise to eventually be 200+ feet deeper than today, as the ice at both poles melt completely.
At least this is what I expect.
2
We need to start regularly showing the New Projections for places people in the US can relate to: no more Miami, no more New Orleans, no more lower Manhattan, no Back Bay Boston, buh-bye Biloxi, and so on. I don't know how else we drive the point home, other than actually knocking people's houses down and then saying "hey, a Cat 5 hurricane would've done this in the next 5 or 10 years anyway, we thought we'd rip the band-aid off for you."
3
It looks like the Garden of Eden (upriver from Basra) will turn into a giant swamp. This will probably be seen as a very bad sign from God, by any true believer of an Abrahamic faith.
The authors of the paper quoted assume that very soon seas will start to rise 20 times taster than now.The estimates used are not from actual papers, but
Quote:"Via a structured elicitation of opinion"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z
Similar papers a few decades ago have predicted that most of NYC would be under water by now, part if not most of the time.
3
@novoad - and I'm certain you will reply here with citations to the peer-reviewed literature that supports what you made up about NYC.
Title, author(s), journal and publication date, please, so we can verify your remarkable claim. Real scientific journals, please, not blogs or news magazines.
6
@novoad There were no peer reviewed scientific articles - even in worst case scenarios that would have put NYC underwater by 2020. Certainly there were studies that would show that increasing sea levels could have detrimental impacts due to large weather events. I'm sure if a rare CAT 4 or 5 were to hit NYC the impact would be far worse today than it was in 1980s. The predictions made by folks like Dr. James Hansen were actually remarkably accurate given the limitations in computational capability of the day.
7
Regarding the last paragraph;. OF COURSE it is more than an " environmental problem". JC on a surfboard, EVERYTHING is connected to and affected by the environment. This is hubris at its finest. Our failure to respect that basic concept and be truly good Earth stewards is going to destroy humans. We deserve it. BTW.....30 years is just a shout away.
3
Typical Climate Central's climate fear mongering. Not one mention that the real problem has been land subsidence due to groundwater extraction
1
@bigjimsteele - funny! So where the global ocean surface is measured as rising at over 3mm a year in the satellite record, that's what, groundwater pumping across the abyssal plains in all the seas?
Subsistence is a factor where groundwater is being pumped, or where fill is compacting, or erosion isn't replaced during river floods, or where isostatic adjustment is lowering rather than raising ground elevations.
But the oceans are also expanding, from measured runoff from melting ice on land, and from measured expansion as oceans warm.
Multiple factors, but sea level rise is the global one that acts along with local factors along all coasts, no matter what some denier blogs say.
2
@b fagan Pumping out groundwater not only causes lands to sink, it increases the oceans’ volume. China’s Huanghe Delta is sinking 10 inches a year. Southeast Asian cities battle sinking rates of 1.2 to 2.4 inches per year. Regions around Houston, Texas had sunk 10 feet by 1979; a disaster waiting to happen where hurricanes commonly generate 15-foot storm surges. Likewise, New Orleans was doomed by sinking 1.4 inches per year. Built on marshland, San Francisco’s airport sinks 0.4 inches per year.
If you read the scientific literature you'll find the satellite data shows oscillating sea level that fell from 3.1 down to 2.5 fro 2003-2011. Many adjustments to satellite data. MIT's top oceanographers estimated only 1.6 mm/yr. Read Decadal Trends in Sea Level Patterns: 1993–2004, Wuncsh 2007 . Earth’s rotation “suggests stable, to slightly falling” sea level 1972 to 2012. Read SEA LEVEL CHANGES PAST RECORDS AND FUTURE EXPECTATIONS Mörner 2013 ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 24
There is much uncertainty to be worked out to determine global sea level. But no doubts about land subsidence
@bigjimsteele
Sea level rise data compensates for land subsidence. Urban areas--where water extraction is prominent-- are small compared to the entire planet.
Uncertainty on sea level rise is well documented--there is zero doubt sea levels are increasing.
1
The POTUS says climate change is a hoax. He withdrew us from the Paris agreement. He has loosened or ended environmental protections. He has a oil executive in charge of what's left of the EPA. If this isn't evil villainy, then what is? And his GOP henchmen? What of them? Support for these earth-killing, people harming policies? They celebrate them.
We need to have more marches, protests and rallies, as often as possible. There is no room to be complacent now -- we MUST be angry, motivated, vigilant and committed to end the nonsense foisted upon us by the GOP. Corporations that contribute to pollution should be penalized and the officers (now and from the last 15 years) should be JAILED.
Will anything change? Only if we elect Democrats in both houses and as POTUS. Amazing, alarming and significant.
V O T E!
1
It is galling at times to be an "ant" who bikes to work, eats almost no meat, and strives to live a no-waste lifestyle, while being surrounded by "grasshoppers." These folks fly multiple times per year, drive 10-20 mpg SUVs, and consume meat near daily.
The families of these cities will suffer in a few decades' time -- financially, health-wise, and in many other ways -- because the "grasshoppers" of today continue to ignorantly consume far more water, food, and energy than they need, fiddling away finite resources.
Rather than grasshoppers, better to call them locusts. Tax the locusts. Reward the ants.
2
There's opportunity here. Houseboat sales will be big.
1
Please! I agree with so many commenters!
We need to see what will happen to ALL major cities and coasts!
Americas! Africa! Europe! The many islands in the Pacific and Caribbean!
Most of us have loved ones in one or more of these areas and our fates are all intertwined!
1
Look at it this way. Our use of fossil fuel will go way down. All the refineries here on the Gulf Coast will be under water. (At least, those that survive the hurricanes).
3
And yet... local, state, and federal government in the USA won’t fund public transit and safe bike lanes properly, because personal cars always take priority. 40% of our emissions are from transportation. What if we funded public transportation to such a degree that it was a better option in most cities and towns than driving? What if every kid in the USA had a safe and protected bike route to school? What if we could all safely bike to short errands near home? This is not rocket science. But we’d rather collectively drive our SUVs into oblivion, in neighborhoods where the only option is driving.
5
Regarding our unrealistic aspirations for 1.5 °C, consider two items.
The paleoclimate record clearly showing that a rise in temperature of 1.5-2 °C over preindustrial temperature commits the system to 6-9 meters of sea level rise.
Already it appears that at just 1 °C temperature rise we're seeing the irreversible retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and marine sectors of Greenland's ice sheet and the waking up of the much larger East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
5
@Erik Frederiksen Why did something like this not show on the sea levels already?
They are measured carefully at the shore for two hundred years. No place shows any acceleration. There are peer reviewed papers on that.
The authors of the paper quoted here assume that suddenly sea levels would start to rise 20 times faster, very soon.
2
@novoad
Sea level rise data
1870-1924 0.8mm per year
1925-1992 1.9mm per year
1993-2012 3.1mm per year
Currently around 4.4mm per year according to this paper. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/104007/meta
graph of sea level rise through 2012 https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/hansen-sea-level-rise.png
graph of post glacial sea level rise, http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/post-glacial_sea_level.png , note the curve at Meltwater Pulse 1A.
Ice sheet mass loss, notice the lines curve downwards indicating acceleration.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/IceSheet/IceMass.png
8
1.) For those screaming to stop climate change or to reverse climate change, it can't be done. Look up how many different ice ages there have been before humans, and how many times the ice caps have either been mostly melted or completely melted.
Now we have that misconception out of the way, onto part two.
2.) Though climate change is natural, what isn't natural is the acceleration of the natural climate changing process. Meaning plants and animals may go extinct because they are not being given enough time to adapt to the climate changes. Though this part is caused by humans, again climate change can never be stopped or reversed because it goes in cycles like the seasons. With that said, this doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to the situation. We still need to do our fair share to work with the earth and not consume it's natural resources until there s nothing left.
Now going off tangent, as far as the grand schemes of history goes, the abundance of fossil fuels will phase out and be considered a blip on human history. Reason for this is, though fossil fuels are technically a renewable source, it's not recognized as one because humans consume fossil fuels far faster than the earth can naturally produce. This means oil supplies will be so low, alternative fuels and energy will be needed/required and not just a desired option.
@Nate -- the amount of additional warming and the effects of same ARE based on what we do, because what's happening now is only "natural" in that it's nature responding to a surge in greenhouse gases. It so happens that surge is entirely from us, so nice try.
There's sea-level rise already built in, but a rapid phaseout of fossil could make a difference between meters and tens of meters of rise, and similarly for temperature increases.
One bright spot is that it is now looking like fossil fuels will be left in the ground as renewables, storage, demand management and efficiency make them obsolete. The price curve is against coal already, and for long-term investments like, for example, new gas-fired power plants, the risk of stranded assetts is increasing.
4
Climate changes in response to forcings. We know this thanks to physics, chemistry, glaciology, and oceanography. You know, the sciences denied by people who espouse "it's natural."
3
From the paper quoted
"global mean sea level rose 11–16 cm in the twentieth century" which is correct.
One can check the NOAA data on tide gauges. The sea rise now, after a century of big industrial emissions, is at the same rate, that is 4 - 5 cm by 2050, 30 years from now.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z
The authors use instead a sea level rise of 2m, that is rise at a rate 20 to 25 times bigger than the rate measured. How was that figure chosen?
Quote:"Via a structured elicitation of opinion"
And physically, how would something increase by a factor of 20 without any trace of it happening now?
Quote: "rapid sea-level rise because of unstable ice-sheet dynamics"
Why did that "unstable ice-sheet dynamics" manifested itself so far? After all, there were a lot of industrial emissions.
That is not discussed.
In the NYT article, the "structured elicitation of opinion" has become certitude,
"Rising seas WILL erase more cities by 2050"
So, see, if you assume that seas would start to rise 20 times faster, like, next week, (it has to start soon, as they need time to rise till 2050,) then by 2050 there would be a lot of trouble.
Why not continue? If there were 20 times more snow, then the US North would become uninhabitable. If the summer temps would grow from winter 20 times more than now, we would all boil. Just the only good thing is if we all got our salaries 20 times bigger. Without a 20 times inflation, that is.
5
@novoad
The trend in sea level rise doesn't bode well for coastal areas.
1870-1924 0.8mm per year
1925-1992 1.9mm per year
1993-2012 3.1mm per year
Currently around 4.4mm per year according to this paper. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/104007/meta
When you graph the above it looks very much like the beginning of a very non-linear upward curve.
graph of sea level rise through 2012 https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/hansen-sea-level-rise.png
graph of post glacial sea level rise, http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/post-glacial_sea_level.png , note the curve at Meltwater Pulse 1A.
Ice sheet mass loss, notice the lines curve downwards indicating acceleration.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/IceSheet/IceMass.png
4
@Erik Frederiksen Your data is changing the way of measuring, like changing from sheep to cows, and concluding that all lifeforms became 10 times bigger.
If you look at any coastal gauge, there was no acceleration for 150 years. See for instance NOAA for NYC
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
Same rate now as in Abe Lincoln's time.
I cannot put 1000 links here for you, But I assume you can click. That site has ALL the NOAA data. No place shows a 5 times faster rate, as you claim.
Try to find one. If there were a 5 times increase it would show SOMEWHERE. But it does not.
In modern science, measured data is all that matters.
2
@novoad
"No place shows a 5 times faster rate, as you claim."
Nope. Counterintuitively sea level rise is not uniform globally for many reasons such as land subsidence and lift, ocean currents and winds and even the strong gravitational field of the massive ice sheets.
The gravity from the ice sheet pulls the ocean towards it, as it loses mass the ocean relaxes away, so for example the loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would cause global mean sea level rise of around 3.3m, but over 4m in the North which has a more populated coast.
Parts of the N Atlantic have seen falling sea levels while parts of the W Pacific have seen 5 times the global average for the last decade which would be a distinct problem were that to continue for those areas.
3
How about Kolkata? How long will my city survive? I wonder why cars and ACs are not being banned. Stop commercial production of cars and ACs all over the world. Only cars to be allowed should be ambulances and police vans. Stop non emergency Air travel. Ensure every city in the world has cycle tracks and trams. The mobile towers are killing all the birds in many countries which might be contributing to global warming. Let's have cable communication networks where mobile devices can be connected to wires in bus stands, railway platforms for people to send texts. That only can save this planet.
1
Move to higher ground. Adapt or die.
1
I'll be retired in Madrid. Good luck burying your heads in the sand
@msa
You're assuming that with food shortages, the Spanish government will want to feed foreigners.
The important thing is to do nothing
2
South Vietnam? What about Miami Beach?
1
While rising seas and flooded regions will be a problem, leading to massive migrations and massive pollution - underwater cities and, possibly, underwater nuclear plants will not improve water quality - it is tempting to ignore it if you don't live in a region at risk or are rich enough to move away. Yet, because rising seas will come alongside other challenges, the world will become less hospitable for everyone. It won't be just 'move to higher ground and resume life as usual.' Water scarcity, food scarcity, an increase in tropical diseases and mosquito borne viruses, as well as economic turmoil, will negatively affect societies and individuals.
7
We need some new tunes to whistle past the graveyard.
1
Is there a projection for Florida? I have family there
Meanwhile, the human population explosion continues unabated.
4
@JMWB - rate of population increase peaked decades ago and is declining. Multiple nations are now at below replacement levels and birthrates in the developing world are slowing, too.
Not to deny we're expecting two or three billion more people, but not the four or even six billion more as projections not too long ago were seeing.
@b fagan
Yet the world's population is expected to hit 9.7 billion in 30 years, and 11 billion by 2100.
3
This IS real! Al Gore .....oh! So long ago told us! And people laughed and joked about Al! Knowing Al Gore I know he is NOT laughing!
2
All of this is very sobering. While nations need to coordinate on a global response, cooperation is not certain. Therefore, the next question that should be asked is what mitigating actions can be taken by those affected locations? Damns, upgrades sewer systems, relocation etc. How much would that cost? What countries will need help with any mitigation costs? When do they have to start taking action?
Unfortunately, due to the Electoral College rules, the United States will do little until after it is directly impacted AND only if certain parts of the country suffer the consequences.
2
Do they talk about what all that saltwater will do to the farms that typically abut river deltas like South Vietnam? You can kiss all those rice paddies good bye.
2
Hmm, I wonder where we can see the new projections for the USA, UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand?
1
A very informing article, thank you :) Does anyone know which research paper this article is based on?
@Sanjay Vadiraj - it is linked in the article and appears to be open access.
These new estimates are too conservative. The oceans have been 200 feet higher than at present. History will repeat itself and there is no sense in denying it.
Sure, because everyone will just stand by and drown. Given the choice between living in the Stone Age or innovating and adapting to change I think most living beings choose the latter
All of the projections appear devastating, and imagining the loss of so much human life resulting from rising sea levels is sickening. In addition, the loss of the associated cultural artefacts, including the Alexandria Library, will be incalculable.
3
We have one political party in the U.S., arguably the most influential nation (if it had the will) that could lead a global effort to combat the effects of climate change.
But that party, the Democratic Party, is confronting the possibility that it will continue to lose ground against the forces of ultra-nationalism and low taxes, to wit, the Republican Party.
I'd say it's well past time for a real political sea change in 2020.
5
The authorities in Vietnam were nonchalant about the reality in Mekong delta since they have been trying to keep the statistics and information to avoid massive overreaction or even a crisis in the area. Denying it and all the farmers and local citizens are drowning.
6
I think we should all be prepared for mass migration. People will be chasing survival. If we think migration is bad now with people fleeing their circumstance, we’ve really no clue. A border wall will NEVER work.
9
@A. Harris
Under the circumstances of mass migration due to climate warming a wall certainly will not stop people; but a National ID card which would be required for employment, school attendance, welfare benefits, renting an apartment etc. would keep our country stable.
The US would certainly be able to accommodate a large number of people but that number is finite.
1
For those who think this prognosis is not correct, please say why it is not correct. is it not true that CO2 concentrations are going up, the glaciers are not melting, the North Pole not getting more open water. So Mr. naysayer please explain why this is all happening and if not what proof do you have it isn't.
2
@dave
Because you asked--
Source: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
"Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year."
Yes, that's 1/8 inch/year.
1
@bored critic , the global average change masks the catastrophic effect in already vulnerable areas. In the same article you cite, NOAA goes on to state “Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers. In urban settings, rising seas threaten infrastructure necessary for local jobs and regional industries. Roads, bridges, subways, water supplies, oil and gas wells, power plants, sewage treatment plants, landfills—virtually all human infrastructure—is at risk from sea level rise.”
Wake up.
5
All those empty cities China built in the middle of nowhere don't look so crazy now........
On the other hand places like Battery Park City don't look so smart.
5
Charleston, Savanna and Hilton Head adieu. Miami adios. Lower Manhattan the New Venice ? Happy now Exxon ?
4
Strongly recommend "The Uninhabitable Earth" book by David Wallace Wells, or even just the New York Magazine article by the same name.
5
Show some US cities, please. Especially, NY
6
What are we waiting for?
@David
A way to monetize it.
Unless it can be profitable for corporations, which after all, have the legal status of a human, then a response to climate change is simply off the table.
2
@Deborah Altman Ehrlich We are doomed...eating grapes while Rome burns.
1
So it looks like the West will survive this and the East will be lost.
@J
The Great Lakes will be a haven, with 20% of the world's fresh water. And much empty property from years of economic decline.
@Northcoastcat Floods and coastal erosion, EEE, West Nile Virus, polar vortex. That's Michigan now. What will happen tomorrow? It's a much bigger problem than 'just' rising seas.
1
May I suggest chapter 17 of Mark Twain’s “Life on the Mississippi”.
Better to just stick my head and deny the science.
The unspoken "solution" here is that there will be inland refugee camps, housing coastal refugees. And you can bet that Republican politicians will find a way to exploit them as "the other," rather than fellow Americans. Look no further than the southern boarder and the "solution" Trump has provided for immigrant refugees: private detention centers and family separations while waiting for adjudication of their claims.
4
This is important, but needlessly alarmist. It basically says that cities in Asia will start to look like cities in the Netherlands.
A lot of New York City’s critical infrastructure is already well below sea level. A few more feet isn’t going to make a great difference.
There will be some costs in dealing with the rise in sea level, but as global warming goes, it’s one of the most predictable (and therefore solvable) problems. The real problems are being seen in places like California, and they’re going to get a lot worse.
HeLLLOOO Bangladesh!?!
145+ million people, in an entire country that is slated to be entirely subsumed by the ocean.
India is already building a wall; already has a shoot-to-kill order that they are enforcing on their border. What will the Bangladeshi people do, when their land is swept away?
What will WE do?
4
This needs to be treated as if a asteroid was going to hit the earth in 2050 and the protections estimated half of humanity would perish. Climate change is threat to human civilization. Millions will die evidently.
3
What will be the impact of thousands of refugees on those who are lucky enough to be unaffected ? This will not only affect those displaced ,it will drastically affect those directly unaffected. The refugees will not just disappear , they must be provided for.
1
Don't you want to show us where the chaos will be in the USA? Sea water on land. How does that work for a farmer?
3
This is real. This is happening now, where I live. We had a president that united every country on earth -- wrap your mind around that -- to solve this issue and Trump tore it up.
IMHO, the single greatest achievement in human history, is that every, single country decided to work together and SACRIFICE for the global, greater good.
It has never happened with an issue of this magnitude. GOAT = OBAMA.
5
This is dire. By the time Ho Chi Minh City and Alexandria sink into the sea, I'll be pushing 70. Not young enough to do anything about it anymore, but not old enough to (hopefully, anyway) be completely incapacitated by illness so I'll still be among those on the planet who are active and adversely impacted by this hideousness. If there's some sort of disaster or forced migration from the coasts in order to escape this here, I hope I'm still able-bodied enough to make/survive the trip. But frankly, I'd prefer not to see us all in such a situation.
At least I can say I have lived partially in a time where this wasn't an overarching threat, that I got to enjoy nature rather than fear it, etc. Most of my friends' and cousins' kids range from babies to elementary school aged, so if these predictions play out because of our lack of action, these kids will be in their 30s/early 40s when Mumbai becomes a memory and the world becomes a very dangerous place for mankind. They won't have the kind of adulthood that is even anything approaching normal, and that's a travesty.
It doesn't have to be this way, but we must act. We all know Donald Trump doesn't care, and Greta Thunberg can't do it all by herself. We must work together. I'm appalled that so many people think climate change is fake and that the Times is stirring the pot by reporting on it. I'm appalled that so many people are refuting science because of stupidity and greed. This is our home that we're losing. Wake up!
10
1000 years from today people will look back upon these writings and think of them like we do of the book of revelations. Doomsday prophecies that never came true.
3
Because by 2035 humanity ceased burning fossil fuels and by 2040 began large-scale capture and sequestration of atmospheric carbon?
1
@Kevin what research leads you to that conclusion. Have you been following what is happening around the world because of climate change? Oh , of course that is just a left wing conspiracy.
5
@Kevin - Wow, a predictor of the future! Tell us more, wise one. Why should we bother listening to eminent scientists when we have you, Kevin in San Diego, making broad predictions about life on earth in 1,000 years' time? And you were even obnoxious enough to predict what our descendants will be thinking about concerning this very subject of climate change! I didn't think there could be so much hubris in a two-sentence post, but you proved me wrong.
5
"We know that it is coming". No. The truth is we do not know what is coming.
2
@Fishoutofwater - But we have scientific evidence to prove that climate change on a drastic scale is indeed coming in thirty years' time, if not sooner. The truth is, some people are choosing to ignore it. We can work to try to prevent it from happening, or we can just throw up our hands and say "well, we don't know what's coming", and continue to do nothing. Eventually, doing nothing will rob all of us of our homes and we will all be, much like you, fish out of water.
2
After successive wrong predictions over the last 25 years, does anyone actually believe this any more?
7
@Prof Emeritus NYC what wrongbpredictions professors? Yes predictions not dire enough!
1
I notice you don't refer to any "wrong predictions."
In case, like a typical denier, you're talking about models, Zeke Hausfather analyzed model-based projections since 1973. He found: "Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account." https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
4
Yes, the predictions have been wrong. They have so far all projected a slower rate of sea level rise. What the scientists projected to happen in 5, 10, even 20 years hence is happening now. Do you actually read the science or just make it up as you go?
6
Why isn't this the top story of the day? Hundreds of millions of lives are at stake and still we mindlessly follow 45's tweets. I concur with the other commenters who bemoan that we never had a President Gore. Tragic.
5
@Mazama
"Why isn't this the top story of the day?"
Because it is all a hoax. Obama bought a home on Martha's Vineyard this past year. Do you really think he would buy ocean front property if it would be flooded?
1
Tragic. And coming back to the U.S. from a couple of months in Europe is sobering. The Trump administration is rolling back mileage requirements for autos, which means more CO2 released into the atmosphere. Americans are driving around in huge trucks, eating more meat, and in general acting like spoiled child. Europeans are putting solar panels everywhere and building a charging infrastructure, while one-use plastics are banned and they zoom around on fast trains. I wonder when this place will wake up, if ever.
8
75% of the coal burned on Earth is burned in Asia.
The USA is still the largest producer of CO2, but China is
catching up rapidly.
Fires in coal mines contribute about 3% of the CO2 released in the world.
The total fertility rate in most areas of the world outside of Sub-saharan Africa is close to 2. This is true in countries where the Catholic religion is dominant and in those where Islam is the only religion. It is less than 2 in 75 countries including US, China, UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. Africa's share of CO2 production is negligible.
So let's stop ranting about the population explosion, which is a real problem but not main the climate change issue. Transportation (cars and trucks) has to be changed from fossil fuel to electricity and coal burning has to be reduced by at least 90%. Pumped storage has to be expanded to use renewable intermittent sources. Buildings must be insulated, incandescent lighting abolished.
So why did people freak out when Andrew yang said, rightly, that it’s time to move people to higher ground? This is within our lifetimes folks.
1
Suddenly Minnesota seems like the best choice in location one could ever make. Lucky me and my progeny. But i am so sad at the thought of so much lost everywhere--the displacement, the history, artifacts, architecture...I felt this way when ISIS destroyed beautiful Palmyra and other incredible sites. World leaders had better step up so future generations do not tear us apart for being the most shallow, superficial, selfish generation of them all.
2
Uncertainty is not our friend.
3
And we have a bloc of elected and appointed officials who not only try to discredit this information but also want me to trust in their 'infinitely wise and all-knowing God'. ... all the while they fill their pockets.
4
What's bad for us might just be good for the planet. After all, why should the planet care about us?
Property values will rise or fall, depending on where you live, until people come to take your property, and then all bets are off.
In a thousand years, there will be no homo sapiens left on the planet. End of story.
1
Now overlay these maps with the ones NYT published a short time ago of areas affected by drought due to climate change. We need to look at the whole picture that we're facing.
1
I wonder if some future American government will be subject to a Crimes Against Humanity trial due to its inability to ameliorate climate change. If there's any money left in the US treasury by 2050, foreigners may tap US resources for further aid. Fortunately, I won't be around to be subject to such losses.
To a somewhat informed person it seemed, even a couple decades ago, that civilization was in trouble And, that civilization was unlikely to act soon enough. I’d sent an, unpublished, letter to this newspaper suggesting that planning be started in methods of reducing solar energy striking the earth - to buy us time for its inhabitants to understand the seriousness of our world heating.
There have been many proposals for geoengineering - including injections of molecules/things into the atmosphere. A more reversible, modifiable, method is the ‘far-out’ idea of a reflective ‘space umbrella’. I thought its diameter could be adjusted, as needed. Obviously, this would be be huge, and hugely expensive. More expensive than the estimated trillions in damage with coastal flooding, crop loss,.....?
Only worried about rising seas? MIT/Media Labs says there's something worse than that: the release of greenhouse gasses with the melting of the permafrost in the Arctic.
They estimate there's more greenhouse gasses there than currently in our atmosphere. One remedy, they say, is to import soil to cover the exposed permafrost. Hence, the phrase "soil is the new oil".
1
@David Forster
Given that Alaska is mapped at being 43% permafrost soils, I seriously doubt that 'covering them up' is anything other than an MIT dream. Better would be to take advantage of the inevitable thawing by turning as much prior permafrost as possible into fast carbon sinks, growing hemp and perennial grasses where possible and willows, alders and other fast growing tree species (native to Alaska, no need to import potentially invasive species) on more marginal lands.
4
I worry about this a great deal, though admittedly my mind wanders to the places I grew up along California's coast. In the Pacific Northwest, in particular, those coastal communities are cash-strapped and in no way have the means to prevent their towns, roads, and other infrastructure from slipping under the sea. It's sad to think that future generations will not know those places. And sadder still that our government has done nothing to address this problem, but is instead lead and influenced by affluent people too self-interested to follow the recommendations of scientists and the larger public.
4
Maps like this are quite simply a waste of time. Humans are not wired to react to existential threats occurring 30 years in the distant future as evidenced by the fact that, other than some demonstrations in the streets and at the United Nations, mankind (governments, business, industries and individuals) has done nothing to counteract the growing threat. Much like world wars it will take a ‘Pearl Harbor’ or 9/11 of climate change to get the masses to rally and change our power systems and begin making real changes to eliminate carbon gases. But by that time it will be too late and irreversible damage done. I have positioned myself for the inevitable and live in the mountains of Colorado, far away from the rising tides. I only hope that those that live in coastal cities do not start mass migrations to my back yard. Are boat cities sustainable?
1
With hundreds of millions of climate refuges in south and southeast Asia, there simply is no place for them to go. 60 million displaced in Bangladesh? They're not going to be welcomed with open arms in Assam, Bihar, or West Bengal.
What kind of feedback would you receive if you showed the cities around the Gulf Coast. All those Non Believers in Florida would be underwater, New Orleans, parts of Texas, the Carolinas. Need I go on? As long as you display "other countries", those who dismiss Climate Change will continue on burying their heads in the sand.
4
Here are some facts as we actually know them. From NOAA (reliable govt source): https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
"In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year."
Did something just occur that put all the current predictions into the trash? There is no science cited as to why the new predictions are so drastically different. It also doesnt indicate who funded this new research. I believe in climate change, but this new research seems a bit sketchy.
5
@bored critic
Nothing in the climate predictions changed. The accuracy of land elevation in these regions changed.
3
NOAA data for the Battery in NYC - which uses a continuous datum since 1850 and optical measurements, which are going to be far more precise than satellite, show an average sea level rise of 2.84 mm/yr. Which is .9 ft/100 years.
The 2.6 inches over 21 years reported in your link is 3.14 mm/yr - a difference of .3 mm/year = 30 mm of extra sea level rise over the next 100 years - basically an extra .1 ft. Hardly a reason to sell the beach house.
Always a good idea when plotting data is to check your Y scale and have some idea of the error bars (precision).
3
@Dennis
That was my point. Thank you.
Not to make light of a real crisis, but if the Republicans don’t want brown people they certainly aren’t going to like getting yet more shades of brown and yellow. But you can’t have it all. You can’t burn, baby, burn, whether coal or oil, you can’t turn your back on the world and then expect to be left alone when crises hit. These climate refugees have our very own instincts — survival. They’ll want our rich tables and rich farmland and sense of safety. They will need a place to land, it’s that simple. This will lead to wars.
2
The possible disappearance of cities, since they are not just places where many people live (a matter that well likely continue to be of less concern to policy-makers, though it will upset activists partly for moral reasons), but also places of business and engines of economic growth and wealth, is good news from one point of view:
It likely will mean that global elites seeking to preserve the capitalist system, however modified (no alternative has yet quite emerged, whatever artificial intelligence and the decreasing need for labor in many economic sectors portends) will try to stop or limit global warming.
One question, then, is whether this is possible within capitalism. And if it is, will that not likely mean the same kind of inequalities, maybe even worsened, and the police states and constant wars that will surely go with it?
If so, we must take account of the disturbing possibility that global warming will indeed be contained (and there is no reason why necessarily problems caused by uses of technology cannot be solved by more or new technologies), but at the price of the solidifying of a world that economically, socially, and politically (it will not be very democratic) is little changed from as now, and maybe worse. Expect moralistic eco-policing of individuals.
Under this rubric may be infotech and nonrenewable energy sources facilitating more a eco-friendly post industrial world. (Unless they lower wealth and profits).
@William Heidbreder Whenl you write "global elites," you mean rich people, right?
Politicians - who have money - we don't like? They are the elites. Professors with their sinecures,? Definitely elites. ;-)
The common thread to this change in the English language is a dislike of people with plenty of money.
Maybe I missed it in the article. What is the level of sea level rise by 2050 that these maps are based on?
I think that would be good information to have in the article. Thanks!
4
@Independent
There was this from the Nature paper:
"Central estimates in the recent literature broadly agree that global mean sea level is likely to rise 20–30 cm by 2060."
But also this later:
"We elect to use a water height of 2 m above MHHW (roughly and generally corresponding to a bad flood in the nearer term or an extreme sea-level scenario for 2100) as a case study."
I'm not 100% sure what they did to create their maps and wished the NYT article explained the paper better. I don't doubt these areas will flood at some point, but in climate terms, 2050 is pretty soon.
The consequences of global warming remind me of the movie "Road Warrior." The most important point of that movie was that there was no place outside the catastrophe that could give aid, that could stabilize the situation. The full extent of the ecological crisis is the "mother of all consequences" that we would be well advised to keep in mind.
4
Back in 1968 John Mercer warned us that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) could be a problem for sea level rise within 50 years due to "industrial pollution of the atmosphere". 46 years later, in 2014 two independent teams of scientists reported that the WAIS had likely already begun an irreversible retreat.
Perhaps within a few decades it will collapse, dumping 3.3 meters of sea level rise equivalent of ice into the ocean in decadal time scales or less, according to the most respected glaciologist in the US, Richard Alley.
4
Interesting how they reported remote far away countries. Guess the government doesn't want panic here.
In 30 years we could build new cities which would boom the economy. But no one will do this until they are absolutely forced to.
4
@Csegal What land would we take to build new cities? How would we pay for it, boom or no boom? How would we transition millions from their homes to new ones?
How will we replace millions of acres of fertile farm land lost to global heating?
This will be a catastrophe on a world-wide scale.
@Csegal - Can you imagine what fun it is going to be kayaking along 5th Avenue in New York?
1
@Dave Wyman how did Japan and Germany rise from the ashes to become the world powers that they are today?
No one will worry about $$ when we just have to recreate new cities...
Farm land...now that could be a problem....
So, the war in Vietnam was for naught as the seas will cover it.
5
It is quite telling of our nation's political impasse that one of our largest military bases, the Norfolk, Va., Navy base also stands to be lost forever under the Atlantic. In fact, much of Virginia's Tidewater region, which also includes Yorktown and Langley Air Force Base and much more also faces inundation. The Outer Banks of North Carolina is also going to be lost to the rising sea as will much of the Delmarva Peninsula. So the majority party in the White House and Senate presses on with the "hoax" propaganda.
3
Meanwhile, in the United States, our president fights California's efforts to minimize carbon emissions. Who knows, maybe he hopes those pesky sanctuary cities just disappear beneath the waves.
1
@Tom Q
California carbon emissions are a disgrace. Besides all the cars sitting in traffic, they enact legislation that exacerbates the fires. Now they are burning the forests and cant put them out. Maybe they should work on that. Allow forest thinning and shrub clearing which is currently not allowed and creates a tinderbox. Then they could address their homeless situation. Please, do not use CA as a "what to do" example.
1
What about the map of the Eastern seaboard of the USA? 30 years is at the end of the projection. Can we see 20 years i.e., 2040? Please. These images make it appear as if the oceans of the world will predominantly effect foreign cities. What is in the report about New York City? Washington DC? South Florida if not all of it?
Inquiring minds want to know....
2
They should show the maps for New York City, Boston, Houston, Miami, San Francisco, and Los Angeles if they want Americans to pay attention. (Also, as many REPUBLICAN American cities as possible).
4
Call the Dutch! Sadly it is their time.
We (not me) voted for him.
So you can have religion in politics.
So a woman cannot decide for herself in matters of most solemn categories.
So science cannot proceed in stem cell exploitation.
So we have ostrich management of the climate issues.
Vote
2
An organization called “Climate Central” uses their own error correction algorithm on current satellite data to suggest that many coastal cities will be inundated in just 30 years. Trouble is, the scientific consensus is that global warming is causing a 3 mm per year rise in sea levels. That is about 10 cm. (4 inches ) in 30 years. The tides go up and down 9 times that amount every day.
The city of Rotterdam sits about 5 m below sea level, so I am sure these cities will be able to deal with 10 cm. Most of them are sinking into the ocean from their weight and groundwater extraction faster than the ocean is rising.
So can we please have a moratorium on these outlandish scare stories on climate change from obviously biased sources?
5
@Ian Gatensby
It’s not the current rate of sea level rise which concerns glaciologists, but a rate from 15,000 years ago when the ocean rise 4 meters per century for 4 centuries.
1
@Erik Frederiksen
So what was the change in atmospheric CO2 15,000 years ago that drove that sea level increase.?
@Dennis . It was the precession of the earths axis that caused it. He is referring to the emergence from the last Ice age. It is unrelated. However it is interesting to note that humans dealt with this increase (if the facts are correct) with nothing but stones and spears, and in fact flourished in the interglacial period, but with all our present capabilities we are panic stricken by a sea level rise 10 times less severe.
Deniers will continue to be “skeptical” until they drown. Their view is the same as saying, “Yuh, the neurosurgeon says I have a brain tumor but I’ve read a lot in the internet that says that brain tumors don’t exist. Neurosurgeons just say that to make money.” Deniers think that all you need to have an opinion about advanced climate science and climate change is a mouth. No need to listen to tens of thousands of true experts with decades of training and peer reviewed observations and data. Not to mention the evidence in front of our eyes. People who view the world through magical thinking glasses or ideological blinders have destroyed the future with their arrogant ignorance.
9
What about the rest of the world?I I dread the forecast for my native Puerto Rico...I heard that Miami will be under water by 2050 as well.
1
This is truly horrifying. We are on a road to total destruction because of the greed of a few. Time to act. We need to get rid of the Republican agenda that denies climate change because that denial fills their pockets.
4
Maybe Mumbai should not have been built on a series of islands. Aren't there already risks from water?
1
@Bob Mumbai has been a city for centuries. Maybe New York should not have been built on a series of islands centuries ago.
3
The rising seas will also greatly affect the eastern and western coastlines of the United States. Not to forget the Gulf of Mexico and the Florida Keys. Much of the American coast line will be equally devastated as will the homes, businesses and lives of the inhabitants.
We are facing a catastrophe and the science deniers of today who will be long gone by 2050 won't have to be concerned. But the generations following those neanderthals will have to face the consequences of global warming. Instead of going to the Jersey shore for vacation residents of PA will simply have to drive to where the Delaware River used to flow. The Chesapeake Bay will be devastated as will millions of other estuaries.
We should not look away from the devastating affect this will also have one South America and of course Africa and the Mediterranean. We're facing major global upheaval.
Maybe Republican conservatives should learn how to swim.
4
The world needs to challenge our makers of technology with incentives to provide solutions which remove carbon in the air like those already invented and working in Switzerland. We don’t need to destroy our way of life if we harness and support the intellectual capacity of our science community to bring new inventive ways to clean our world.
The Trump administration kept a scientist's water rise models off of the national parks interactive website, holding her 5 years of work hostage until she removed the part about man made climate change. She said no, lost her job but held her ground. Americans love our national parks, better make those bucket list trips sooner rather than later, before they are immersed.
4
The average life of a city building is about 50 years. We could make tremendous leaps forward if we just rezoned for changing conditions––moving to higher ground, using fire resistant materials, etc.
Nevertheless, we continue to accelerate building in places we shouldn't, and with wholly inadequate design and materials, guaranteeing repeated costly losses.
6
The very atmosphere -- once it might have been seen as the sky gods -- is obviously upset with humankind. Natural forces bear down on us from all sides. The oceans -- the friendly oceans -- show their menacing, malignant aspect slowly creeping up on slumbering, insolent humanity inch by inch encroach on man's habitat.
Can we hear the message? Can we read the signals?
It seems not.
Greta is right, or will be proved right. When she is just 28 tender years old man's reckless actions will cause a chain reaction and the collapse of whole ecosystems.
Now I'm depressed. Please, people, do something!
3
I fear the worst for human beings and climate change. We're just not equipped to do much about it anytime soon. It requires effort from everybody but it's much too abstract for most people.
2
If I read this paper correctly, it assumes a temperature rise by 2050 of 2C. The Paris Climate Agreements are an attempt to limit the rise to 1.5C but we are currently more likely on track for 4C if we continue as we are. Som2C is very optimistic. I understand that 4C might mean 9 metres of sea level rise, way beyond what this paper assumes.
Incidentally, why did the NYT decide not to include maps of the impact on the US? The US is actually one of the countries that will br hardest hit. Trying to avoid an accusation of scaremongering?
4
Nothing about coastal cities in Europe, North and South América?
3
People who believe in fairytales should not be able to vote anymore.
I have family members who are born again Christians who have spent their lives hoping in 'things unseen'. Things that are unverified. It is an unhealthy practise unable to let people understand what is real and what is not.
4
The most dangerous thing the Republicans ever did is not the Iraq war or support Donald Trump, but their ongoing denial that global warming is happening.
3
This article is factually incorrect. It fundamentally and improperly cites the journal Nature Communication -- but this study is for 2100. The projections and data cited in the NYT article states that this flooding occurs by 2050 -- yet the published Nature Communication study is based on 2100 (50 years later).
4
I am not aware of any climate scientist moving away from the coastal areas. Maybe they do it during the night so they do not create panic.
3
@Gabi
How would you know the retirement plans of climate scientists? or of those who are aware of the consequences of denial?
Enjoy the view from under the sand. It will eventually be under water.
Glaciers at 32degrees are solid. At 33 degrees they melt to become liquid water, raising the level of the seas.
3
Turns out there was no need to send soldiers to get South Vietnam, you just had to use your car and buy as much stuff as possible. How fit that a Mr Ionesco should comment, human destiny is quite absurd indeed.
On the plus side, a lot of Chinese, Indian and Vietnamese factories will have to be relocated to, let's say Colorado. Then Americans from other states will comment that they will stop polluting when Colorado stops polluting, typing on their Made in Colorado laptops, surrounded by their Made in Colorado furniture, and drinking coffee from their Made in Colorado mugs.
2
Antarctic Ice Sheet mass is very likely controlled by the temperature of the ocean at the depth of the grounding lines of the marine terminating glaciers which drain the ice sheets.
And we know we’ve put a lot of heat content into the ocean.
And increased westerlies in the Southern Ocean are driving already warm circumpolar water into contact with these grounding lines.
Bad combination.
1
Any predictions that I read now will also be proven to have underestimated the speed of climate change.
I now mentally halve the years predicted for any climate effect in any study. they are discussing.
The different complex systems that affect weather have feedback loops to all of them, accelerating the changes faster and faster.
I'm writing this at a friends house - evacuated from the north bay fires for the second time in 2 years.
3
Some of these coastal cities are also sinking. Bangkok is built on highly compressible layers of soft clay. The sheer weight of the massive buildings is causing the city to sink by as much as 3/4 of an inch per year. Add rising sea levels to that and Bangkok is probably doomed. 15 million people may have to move!
3
Here is a New York Times article from 1969 where the scientists were worried about the approaching new ice age
https://www.nytimes.com/1969/02/23/archives/science-worrying-about-a-new-ice-age.html
In fact, the big fear in the early 1970's was the approaching ice age. Time and Newsweek ran cover stories about the approaching ice age. This is not without reason. The earth has spent 99.9 % of its life in various ice ages that last on the average 100 million years where it is covered by glaciers, punctuated by inter glacial warming periods that last 10-20 thousand years. The entire human civilization is based in this warming period when the last ice age ended 10 thousand years ago. Nobody fully understands why the earth slips in and out of ice ages and what will trigger the next ice age. In the late 1970's, Margaret Thacher and the Tories got elected to rule Britain. They were confronted by the striking coal miners led by Arthur Scargill. They decided, the best way to break the backs of the miners was to close the money losing coal mines. Overnight, they created the bogey of Global Warming and labeled coal as the dirty fuel. The miners were defeated but Global Warming had come to life with endless summits, conferences and named chairs. When real evidence is lacking it morphs into something nonsensical like climate change. Every time there is a big storm, the worry warts crawl out of the wood work with their doomsday predictions all 20 years away after they comfortably retire.
4
@Rahul
“A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.
"Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus..." the reviewers remarked.“
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html
3
@Erik Frederiksen
Thank you Erik for disputing the fallback rhetoric regarding past errant predictions of an ice age return spouted by climate change deniers.
2
Within another few years it is likely that these new projections for the inundation of cities and lowlands by the sea will be revised into an even more dire picture. Meanwhile California is ablaze and record heat waves keep coming. Our birds and insects are dying by flocks, murmurations and swarms. And the tone of human invective and panic continues to reach new lows month after month. And our Executive and Legislative branches, along with huge swaths of our benighted states, are in denial about the havoc we are wreaking on this poor globe of ours. It is enough to make a person misanthropic.
7
It is too late now to do whatever we should have done 20 or 30 years ago. the priority now should be defense, mainly moving populations and Financial and Industrial centers away from all-but-doomed areas. But we won't do that either.
What will actually happen is that individuals, groups, businesses and government will start moving to higher ground moments before the water forces them to. It will be disorganized and chaotic.
It will begin in the next 20 years, or sooner.
5
@Thinks Well, we can all be grateful that Ronnie Reagan tore Jimmy Carter's solar panels off the White House to avoid hurting Big Oil's tender feelings.
2
We have been hearing this prediction since 1970, the timeline keeps moving by 20 years. When I was a college student in India, in the 80s, it used to be reported Bangladesh will be under the ocean by year 2000. Guess what, Bangladesh is still there, intact, with nary a speck of land claimed by the ocean. This so called new research will prove as bogus as the one from 70s/80s which made the same predictions.
4
@Rahul 1) an error of 20, 30, or 50 years is statistically insignificant in these models of global impacts of climate change; 2) climate science has improved since those earlier estimates, and will continue to do so.
5
@Rahul
You clearly missed a big point of the article. Calculations 50 years ago were off. The technology now exists to make very accurate predictions.
You can stick your head in the sand, and you’ll end up underwater.
2
@Adam Ben-david
Very accurate predictions. How do you know that? You will not know how accurate they are till the time comes. You seem to confuse computing power and PhD with accuracy.
What is clear is that the vast majority of computer generated environmental predications have never panned out.
Check out the bet by Julian Simon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon–Ehrlich_wager
If you want some real howlers , try the Population Time Bomb by Ehrlich and Holdren. Its almost as funny as Refer Madness.
A sound government could mitigate the impact relocation of its people by simply taking the problem seriously and incrementally, and NOT waiting for economics to force it. Enough with the religion of economics already. The purpose of science is make predictions so we can plan a less painful future, and the predictions are in.
But I haven't see anyone talking about the stewardship of these new underwater shores. Our cities are basically toxic leach fields once you bury them in water. Without aggressive programs to remove buildings and waste won't our coasts become a toxic slurry for at least half a century? Massive cleanup will be needed as we leave our old coasts.
Nothing humans proactively do ever comes close the the amount of investment that will be needed to prevent that. But I hope we do it anyway and surprise ourselves.
9
We are past the point of preventing major global warming and climate change. Now we are in the stage of adapting to climate change and making plans for future adaptation. Massive displacement of human populations is unavoidable, yet conflicts and wars resulting can be reduced and mitigated. But only with planning.
1
Satellite data on the true ground level is meaningless unless you provide the projected sea level rise by 2050. You cannot assess the conclusions of the research without that number.
1
If we were serious we'd form a one world government, abolish private property and begin to manage resources instead of exploiting them.
Let me know when that happens, and, in the meantime, don't have children in anticipation of human extinction by 2100.
Cool...we have thirty years.
Do you know how much fossil fuel we can burn by then?
Do you realize how much money we'll make?
Why does everybody only see the negatives?
9
The flood has already arrived. I am flooded with worry and despair and outrage. And I am flooded with shame—for whatever part, wittingly or unwittingly, I and other members of my middle-aged generation played in fueling this incipient nightmare. That we stood by limply and allowed this to occur and gather steam is an unforgivable sin. That our legacy to our children and grandchildren is a world awash with unnecessary ravages is the greatest sin of all. I am sorry.
6
NOAA says sea level will rise between 8 inches and 6 feet by 2100. That's a lot of wiggle room, 5 feet 4 inches. Are those models now discredited? Last week the nytimes predicted sea level rising over 35 feet but there is nothing here saying about what this "new study" is predicting. The article says Basra to be flooded. It's over 7 feet above sea level. Is that the study they are quoting? Does it offer any proof for the accuracy of its model?
I know the nytimes mission statement is to create hysteria regarding climate change but are the new scientific models on climate change as reliable as what the media publishes on psychology and cannabis.
What do you think? Ban all fossil fuels by 2025? Doable?
5
@JoeG
You are trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic" it's happening, it's accelerating. The effects are either very bad or very, very, very bad.
I find it amusing how people just believe everything reported on “man made global warming” as fact. Giving no mind to the fact that scientists are funded by many entities, some with highly questionable agendas.
If scientists research does not fall in line with those agendas, they lose funding.
People also pay no mind to the fact there are countries around the world that would like nothing better than to see America destroyed economically.
We have progressive liberals in America who are not much different in ideology to socialist in our government and in control of the democrat party.
To fundamentally change anything like the foundation of American. They must first destroy what is already present.
Nothing the alarmist have predicted that will happen in the last 30-40 years have any basis in reality what do ever.
Yes’ there has been research from various entities over the years that have been caught pencil whipped data to push the man made global warming agenda.
To say there has not been is a denial of a fact that is well known.
There are many people like me who think for themselves and look at the big picture.
I say it’s all about ultimate power and un-wielding control over the masses and resources.
To say anyone can predict what will happen in 50years with 100+ years of agenda influenced climate data is laughable.
5
@Jay
Or you let Fox News and breitbart think for you. I would guess much of your news is gotten from these literal fake news outlets.
1
Where will 150 million people go? What geo-political crises will this create? Who is planning for this?
I'm glad I'll be gone.
3
@sophia Not me. This boomer is thinking of his grandchild––and everyone else's––every day. We have to put the brakes on!
It is ironic that Trump may be impeached for trying to dig up dirt on someone who may well not even get nominated to run against him. Casting doubt on global warming is a much more serious offense.
3
Where is New York on this map ? Here is a link on modeling Sea Levels. I understand that the data set might not be to all cities. http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=48.3416,14.6777&z=13&m=3 (In this case I set it to 3 meters (10 ft) Sea Level Rise which is likely IMHO by 2035
2
Shift the paradigm
Before we’re out of time
Dereliction, ergo doom.
1
The problem is the Americans. Without their political support for change in energy and consumption patterns, and international agreements, little will ever get done. Most Americans couldn't find these places on a large-print map. If they could they don't give a rat's about those people. They aren't going to buy a Prius or eat one less steak to save a Bangkok resident from getting washed away. They don't even care that much about other Americans if their support of social programs is any indication. And they blithely dismiss the warnings from insurance companies, reinsurance companies, petroleum companies, banks, 200 heads-of-state, 99% of climate scientists, and their own Defense Department. I have a hard time being optimistic.
14
Other than America and Europe ,all will submerged. Great article.
3
@Guru
New York will be submerged.
As soon as the rich start losing their shorefront properties, and as soon as the risks of climate engineering are smaller than what's actually happening, we will take action as a species.
2
The Golden Rule should guide us all. Globalism is the right way to address sea-level rise. In contrast, Nationalism, and Capitalism, will result in devaluing others' souls, with the ultimate result being global instability, war, famine, genocide, and traumatic mass migration. Let's find a Global solution based on the Golden Rule. We will face a cost comparable to a World War, but so long as no group tries to profit from it, costs will not ruin any of us. I'm optimistic that We can become a species worthy of survival if We do this right.
1
This is frightening, but the real problem seems to be that the deniers have gone from disputing climate change altogether to disputing that humans are to blame for it to any significant extent. To the deniers, this is just part of the normal changes wrought by nature and needs to be accepted as inevitable. There needs to be much more focus on educating folks on the cause rather than on the consequences.
3
Trump won't care unless the last pictures means he can't get to the oil. It's all about the oil, and his "team" doesn't even see the cause of climate change being directly correlated to that oil.
We desperately need to address climate change NOW.
This is in 30 years.
If you have children in your life that you care about this is the world they will be living in.
There are all the weather events that will lead up to this destruction with the rising seas flush with freshwater, warmer waters and dryer lands; these events will be horrible (remember that tsunami in 2004 that washed away nearly 5,000 people, injuring another 8,500 and costing over 15 million in damages, our future weather incidents will make this seem like a rainy day), powerful beyond anything we can comprehend, they will impact the poorest people first, they will wipe out our systems for cleaning and delivering fresh water to billions of people on our planet. We need to cut our carbon emissions now and to make these cuts permanent because the current carbon in the atmosphere is still there and will be for a while and that will impact our ability to live on this planet.
Consider this every time you vote, every time you purchase something out of season at the grocery, every time you choose to drive somewhere you could walk or bike to, every time you impulse purchase from Amazon.
Because in 30 years it won't matter. In 30 years you will be seeking water to drink, trying to fight for a place to live that is safe, scraping to buy food because our planet can't grow any more crops and there won't be any more forests to burn for cattle to graze in. Be careful with your choices because they do have an impact.
6
One of the reasons I fear for the future is because of the great COST of removing/decommissioning such facilities as nuclear plants, oil storage tanks, etc, as well as their waste products, from the retreating coastline. And what shall we do when failed state, of which we can be sure there will be many, fail to follow with the necessary proceedures. Truly, this is a catastrophe on TOP of a catastrophy. And it also augurs ill for the health of the seas and in particular the photoplankton we depend upone to recycle carbon dioxide to oxygen.
6
One problem with sea level rise is that the closer sea level approaches the top of a coastal defense the greater the risk of a storm surge breaching the defense and the damage occurs as in New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina.
As a result many coastal areas won’t go slowly with the drip, drip, drip of sea level rise, but swiftly in catastrophic storms.
We saw what Sandy’s storm surge did to lower Manhattan. Later this century the seas may rise higher than that and not go down again for hundreds of thousands of years.
6
When people leave their coastal towns in search for dry land,work and fresh water what will they take with them ?
I beleive that what they leave behind on our Shoreline will be left to be absorbed by our oceans. More then likely our oceans will be so poluted they will not be able to sustain the life forms they now do.
4
The fact that our species has known about but done nothing to address this problem likely means it will take a lot of suffering to convince people to change their ways. I’m not sure democratic governments are up to the task of forcing citizens to reorient their lives to deal with climate.
6
Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. But a global solution would require global cooperation. Given our hardwired tribalism and the absence of any precedent for sustained global cooperation - cooperation among ALL major countries of the world - our chances of stopping climate change are just about zero.
This leaves only the question of how we best deal with the fact we are all on a sinking ship. Do we keep bailing water the best we can? Or do give up and stare at the ceiling until the inevitable moment arrives?
7
@Robert One thing we CAN do, perhaps the ONLY thing, is use the experience to become more spiritual beings. We will not be able to cope with the future with our old skill set. Throughout history, a few of us have transcended the usual course of human life to be saints and sages. I am hopeful that may be a kind of a goal. As the usual goals of wealth, comfort, etc., become increasingly unrealistic.
2
This new study offers very little to support this new and "more accurate" way of measuring elevations other than attributing it to "artificial intelligence." I'm skeptical. Furthermore, for a research study claiming such a dramatic increase in the land areas that it predict will be erased, it's surprising that the study appears to focus only on Asia and the Middle East, not addressing the US or Europe.
5
I'm disappointed that the Times didn't include more info about the temperature assumptions used to create these predictions. Reading the study shows that these maps assume a 2C increase in temperature by 2050. This is consistent with baseline scenarios that do not consider policies enacted to limit global warming. If countries enact policies to limit greenhouse gasses, it's possible that a 2C increase is either avoided, or delayed until much later than 2050. Unfortunately, people may look at these maps and think nothing can be done to stop it, which is far from the truth.
2
A word of caution. This is one paper by one research group. It’s claiming something sensationally awful, which is extremely important if they are right. However, one paper does not make a scientific consensus on an issue. Let’s give this field time to evaluate this finding and then see where we stand. I hope the NYTimes will write a follow up article once this analysis has been further evaluated by other groups.
PS: I am a scientist. I think the climate crisis is the most important issue facing humanity today. I also think that clear and accurate reporting on this issue is absolutely essential. Climate scientists should continue working hard to make the overall context of their individual findings clear to reporters and the public.
10
Some people have been saying this for many years, with no effect. After all, it will be in the future. Will it suddenly be different? After all, it is still in the future.
End of civilization amidst inundation, starvation, unprecedented migration, and war? It looks like it, so far.
5
At the dawn of mankind, climate change had zero impact on humans: migrants moved where food was, and decamped when conditions were bad.
In premodern cultures, permanent settlements were created and organized around the development of agriculture. Climate change came with the end of our last Ice Age, at around 6500 BCE. Rising sea levels flooded many areas; their remains are actively being studied in locations including Doggerland and off the shore of the Black Sea. Many cultures developed "flood myths" that some attribute to these climate events. The effects were locally devastating, but the had little impact on surrounding higher ground.
In our modern era, climate change (let's not quibble about the causes--natural or man-made) will be very complicated. How many billions of people live within lands that are subject to flooding? In this next crisis, we won't be able to pack up our tents and migrate somewhere else--trillions of dollars of permanent infrastructure will be made useless when underwater.
In this next crisis, there will be nowhere for the displaced to go; they will have to abandon their infrastructure and resources. Conflict WILL happen. The effects will have impact on non-flooded areas. Which will breakdown first: our agricultural network, our energy network, or our social network?
6
@Cheapskate I agree with your analysis except that it is worth quibbling over the causes. This era of climate change is caused by us and we can take actions to try to mitigate whatever we can. If we hadn’t been arguing about this for
The last 30 years and taken action decades ago we would be in a vastly different situation. Yes, the past is the past but we should at least learn from it to address today’s situation.
3
I am shocked that land subsidence does not enter into these calculations. Many coastal cities with huge populations are built on deltas in which subsidence due to overuse of groundwater are an order of magnitude more rapid than global sea level rise. See, for example, Syvitski et al., 2009,Sinking deltas due to human activities:
Nature Geoscience 2:681-686; also Rodolfo, K. S. and Siringan, F. P., 2006, Global sea-level rise is recognised, but flooding from anthropogenic land subsidence is ignored around northern Manila Bay, Philippines. Disasters 30 (1), 118-139.
The problem is much worse that this paper depicts.
7
What's so panicking is not so much the data anymore, than the knowledge that our collective fate is not ultimately, in the hands of everyday people.
Sure we can use boycott to force industries to take action, but that requires an amount of sudden awareness that doesn't seem to be coming any time soon, at that point. Feels like screaming underwater to me.
I'd argue, too, that the typical NYT reader is not the one that needs convincing here.
7
...while the other headlines read " General Motors, Fiat Chrysler and Toyota side with Trump against California emissions limits "
10
The climate change apocalypse is upon us. God I hope I'm wrong, but this is just the beginning of the Sixth Extinction. Humanity's binge on emitting CO2 into the atmosphere is drawing to an end. Get your affairs in order. Love and say goodbye to those closest to you. This is the beginning of the end.
7
I wish this article had contained images of the U.S. coasts as well, to help bring the problem home.
15
We need to treat this as an existential crisis comparable to the one we faced from Hitler and Tojo during World War II. We need a Green Manhattan Project and we need to give it all of the scientific, technology and industrial resources we can muster for carbon free electricity generation from renewables and nuclear (yes nuclear) for all of our power plants. We need ways to use this renewable electricity for things like long-distance transportation and retrofitting carbon emitting all meeting units and the like.
We also need to research ways to simulate the effects of a large volcanic eruption to reduce the amount of heat that reaches the Earth's surface. This will allow us to reverse some of the warming effects we have already experienced and deal with countries that are unable or unwilling to become carbon neutral.
Certainly these suggestions are unpalatable, but the alternative is near certain catastrophe. Even if the world became carbon neutral tomorrow, the warming we have already experienced and the associated feedback loops would continue to do damage. I have not seen any projections about what 2050 would be like if we became carbon neutral tomorrow, but I imagine the projections would not be that pretty.
550
@ehillesum " Many of us do not believe the adjustments are scientifically justified"
Many of us works out to 3% of qualified scientists.
What are YOUR qualifications?
96
@ken G A 401(k) rich in petroleum stocks, maybe.
35
@Doctor T thanks for sounding the obvious alarm so clearly. At a bare minimum, I will not support a Democratic presidential candidate who does not lay out his/her plans for an Operation Save Mother Earth. Is this not worth summoning our best minds, our resources, our political will to stem the tide (literally)? One of the reasons I support 37-year-old Mayor Pete, who has long championed such an approach on the simple grounds he will be around in 2050, unlike many of us.
32
I don’t see the problem. There is more than enough remaining land for people to relocate.
4
@Stefan, we need that land for agriculture, forestry, mining, protected areas and other land uses. Relocating millions of people places extreme pressure on these already strained and degraded resources. It will have a collosal knock-on effect, so pretty catastrophic change.
7
@Stefan I hope you are kidding. If not, how is this massive and rolling re-location of people from land that they own (but which is presumably going to be worthless) to land that they do not own supposed to occur? How is it going to be funded and carried out, how much is it going to cost to build supporting infrastructure, where are they going to work, where are their children going to go to school, who is going to teach them, etc. etc.?
5
@Stefan
Those by the coast will have to move while being unable to sell their houses and you don’t see a problem.
6
Overpopulation. Nature always wins.
3
What has happened to us that we lose all empathy and consideration for those people who live in threatened areas? Oh! There is plenty of land. People can just move. How many people will need to flee? Where is the hospitable empty land they will migrate to? There are a few countries at least that are not welcoming to migrants.
1
Will Mar-a-Lago be under water also by 2050?
5
It will be the most beautiful underwater hotel anyone has ever seen.
1
If readers would like to see US projections, google “Surging Seas”, then click on “Maps and Tools”, and find the tool “Ocean at the Door.” There you can set assumptions for humanity’s level of response and select either 2050 or 2100 for a projection. Under a moderate level of response, my subdivision in the Florida Keys will be largely underwater by 2050, though my individual house, being a tiny bit higher, may not be. Of course, I’d have to drive through a lot of salt water to get here. Good luck to all of us.
7
Interested especially in the prediction for Tokyo since it is so densely populated and, selfishly, I have family there.
1
It’s not caused by my SUV! It’s all the other SUVs.
8
I sincerely hope that climate change is given more attention in future Democratic debates. It wasn't even mentioned in the last CNN/NYTimes debate. Every debate ends up being 50% debating minute intricate differences in healthcare plans and then 50% everything else shoved into the last remaining hour.
Don't forget to save time for the Ellen question.
3
I hope there is light at the end of the tunnel for my children.
The social condemnation is mounting against the entrenched internal combustion engine transportation system. Already, there is a trend in auto manufacturing towards electric. The coal industry should be taxed for carbon emissions both at the mine gate and at the electric plant. We have sufficient science and engineering expertise to de-carbonize. We have sufficient social justice knowledge to devise a fair path to a sustainable population. To miss this chance for a better world --would be tragedy and condemn us as a failed species.
3
I never thought of myself as a "survivalist." But now I find myself thinking about how I live inland in an area of the U.S. with ample water. The Great Lakes basin holds 90% of the country's fresh water supplies. Those of us who are prescient will buy land and move to Wisconsin, Michigan, central/western New York State, etc to have access to ample fresh water (if we can keep it clean and safe from toxins like from Harmful Algal Blooms) and well above sea level. We might avoid the worst of the tornadoes and hurricanes, and certainly won't suffer from those devastating wildfires in the west. Our "bugs" may not be as nasty up this way as they are in the south, spreading diseases. I may not live to see 2050, but establishing a firm foundation here might give future generations of my family a chance.
7
Let’s see how quickly the mostly wealthy, well-educated coastal landowners around the world sell their very valuable property. But don’t hold your breath. The archives of this very newspaper would, should you take the time to review them, show that scientists have been predicting global freezing and then global warming since late in the 19th Century. And the oceans have shrugged their watery shoulders and gone on very, very gradually rising at a constant rate through growing glaciers and melting glaciers and through the rising amount of CO2. These scientists will be long gone when their predictions are shown to be way off the mark. And the few who remain will know doubt find some way to explain why their models and predictions were wrong. Check the unadjusted temperature records for the last 120 years. It was much hotter in the 203, 30s and 50s. And as I write, we had a very cold Fall 2018 to Spring 2019 in the US and Denver is experiencing perhaps the coldest recorded day in history for October. Try this: if you live on the coasts, look at 100 or 125 year old pictures of your area and compare to today and after adjusting for anywhere (like parts of the northeast) where land may be sinking a bit, compare. We need to save the earth. But facts, not what passes for them in this mega-hyped world, must be considered.
5
@ehillesum
All your assumptions are incorrect.
1
@ehillesum
You're wrong.
Talk of "What floats your boat?" may develop a sense of urgency. It may be that millions may have to adapt by living in floating homes and conducting the other activities of life on structures that are mobile and can adapt to changing sea levels.
2
Whether one believes that climate change is naturally-occurring or made worse by the hand of man, make no mistake, this will happen. Where once there were wide rivers and shallow seas, there are now fertile valleys and arid deserts, and sooner or later, but most likely sooner, they will change back into rivers and seas. We, as a species, have survived for upwards of 400,000 years, through many Ice Ages and warming spells, and we will survive this, too, but only if we do what homo sapiens and other resilient species do, and move and adapt.
8
@Jackie
This has not happened before. Survival of humans is NOT a sure thing at all. Survival of our civilization is doubtful.
3
@Jackie
I don't know Jackie. In these 400,000 year, so the scientists tell us, the climate has never had CO2 levels this high.
https://www.engadget.com/2019/05/13/co2-levels-415-ppm-highest-human-history/
And the rate of change is Faster then in at anytime since 65 million years ago when there was a global cataclysm.
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html
Two problems. One, even if we stopped all CO2 output tomorrow, the planet will till warm because of global inertia. It's a big system and does not respond in human late-for-work time, but in geological time. Two, the other problem is that a tipping point may be coming. At what point does any human mitigation become bootless. Then it is not a matter of resiliency; it is a matter of Mad Max dystopian survival!
4
@Tuck Frump 5000 Many civilizations have come and gone. So you're right, the survival of our own particular civilization is not a sure thing. But humans as a species have survived. Not all of us, certainly, and when the seas rise and the rivers flood, and the number of hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and brush-fires, a good portion of our global population will go the way of the dinosaur. But in my humble opinion (as someone who is perhaps blindly optimistic), the smart money is on reducing CO2 emissions, developing sustainable energy, quit polluting the environment, moving to the high ground, and learning how to run small farms and businesses that work with Nature, not against it.
If the story said that in 2050 a gigantic meteor was scheduled to wipe out these cities, you can bet there would be a coordinated worldwide effort to do something.
The difference is that there are industries (oil) standing in the way, wanting to make profits no matter what the social costs. And yes, of course, people changing their habits is difficult too. But this is a solvable problem, if people could sacrifice a bit, while governments worked together to develop the best technology and override the worst industries.
11
@Treetop "If the story said that in 2050 a gigantic meteor was scheduled to wipe out these cities, you can bet there would be a. . ." . . concerted denial of such a "hoax" by the DJT White House.
The idea that countries would need to spend even more on defensive measures or mitigation rather than raising overall quality of life, will be the new super highway for far right movements whose fuel is the absence of hope.
2
Where are the projections of sea level rise? How many centimetres/inches? What is the basis for the sea level rise and why is it projected at far greater than the IPCC rate? I think these projections are highly questionable.
4
@Gary Part of the problem is that ice sheet collapse is very difficult to project.
We may expect 3 feet of sea level rise by 2100 if the ice sheets behave themselves, but if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapses, which it is poised to do sometime over the next 30-100 years, then we'll likely get multi-meter sea level rise in decadal time scales or less.
9
@Gary
Gosh! Gary the climate scientist with multiple original studies and published scientific papers doubts these findings!
Or, are you a different Gary?
3
@Gary And, you are...a scientist actively working on effects of climate change or (b) a layman who believes he really understands this better than really smart people who have dedicated their lives to this?
My recommendation: troll out
2
I hesitate to bring this up, but unless everyone makes an authentic commitment to changing their lifestyles quite drastically, nothing is going to change. Relying on our government and their corporate constituencies to make change is not the answer.
Stop complaining about how much you love cheese and go vegan at least some of the time. Stop replacing what’s not broken and fix things. Stop your desire to have in hand what you want at the moment you want it.
I’m sure not perfect, but I do challenge myself to imagine explaining to my children, that even with the research at hand, my sense of entitlement is far more important than their futures.
11
@Lesley
Personal efforts to reduce one's own carbon footprint are useless.
”A target of 2½ °C is technically feasible but would require extreme virtually universal global policy measures." From William D. Nordhaus https://www.scribd.com/document/335688297/Nordhaus-climate-economics
Without those policy measures we will take the climate beyond human experience and adaptive capacity no matter how much you recycle.
7
@Erik Frederiksen
Respectfully, recycling isn’t really the point and hasn’t been for quite a while.
Agricultural subsidies are a huge part — while France lowered its dairy subsidies due to decrease in demand, our government offered our dairy industry a bailout with our tax payer dollars.
Corporate constituencies rule the US government, rule what most people eat, rule how most people treat their bodies, and rule how we contribute to climate change — unless we chose to learn from the rest of the world and believe in research.
At least I can go to sleep at night knowing my tiny corner of the world isn’t quite so full of waste and entitlement.
5
@Erik Frederiksen
You ignore the possibility that a much simpler lifestyle could catch on if people finally start to notice that an unstable climate is a matter of life and death. This would be especially useful in the United States, where average carbon footprints are so high. In other words, although gas-guzzling SUV's are available now, imagine the difference if almost the entire population stopped driving them. Imagine the difference if almost everyone stopped eating beef, gave up vacationing abroad, etc., etc. These changes seem useless only because so many people still see them as unthinkable. On a large scale, they'd be a useful addition to whatever governments do.
3
It's not like this process will happen gradually; there will be precursors in the form of storms, with the area of devastation corresponding ever more to the eventual flood plain. Even with that advanced warning, people and governments will be loathe to react. Noting that financial centers will be affected might get the attention of the wealthy, who will demand action out of pure selfishness. Whatever works.
10
We live in interesting times, don't we?
5
We need to get "climate refugee" added to those who can seek asylum here. As we are a huge contributor to rising seas, we need to open our doors to those who will literally have their land stolen out from under them so they have a place to go.
19
@Jeff S. The seas are barely rising and the rate has been pretty constant for a very long time. Climate refugees are and will be as common as unicorns and fairies so we need not be concerned.
1
There is nothing more toxic than human overpopulation.
Our species has DOUBLED just since the 1960s.
58
@Maggie yet this is hardly ever mentioned.
4
@Maggie
World population will reach around 11 billion by 2100 and then decline. Are you actually saying you want the power to reduce the population of toxic humans? How will you do it?
1
@JoeG , perhaps tax policy encouraging smaller families; perhaps the Catholic Church should promote contraception; perhaps other fundamentalist religions should also encourage contraception; a wholesale change in some cultures to encourage fewer children.
6
What about the US? What will happen in Alaska? Hawaii? The East and West Coasts? The Gulf and Caribbean?
15
@VisaVixen
Here is Boston with 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise:
https://seeing.climatecentral.org/#12/42.3601/-71.0589?show=lockinAnimated&level=4&unit=feet&pois=hide
You can search for any world city.
1
@VisaVixen We’re building a sea wall. Mexico is going to pay for it.
4
I also wish for inclusion of current info on U.S. coasts. Until then, these tools are informative:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/
https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr.html
https://choices.climatecentral.org/
9
@jlafitte, yes, a global assessment would be invaluable, to estimate what the total number of lives impacted could be.
1
Is there a website where these and other countries' projections are posted? We should be able to peruse them and find out what's coming to other localities... Thank you
5
It baffles me how news like this, complete with visuals, isn't causing the world's alarms to go off. I guess it's too abstract for the human mind. Until the waves are lapping up on the shores, swallowing beaches, cities, in some cases whole countries, we just can't seem to get our heads around it.
The resultant political tensions it causes could end civilization as we know it.
19
@Chris There aren't any alarms! It isn't projected with huge headlines because we have been watching it happen for at least forty years & each new estimate, making the forecast even more dire, is just swallowed into the process of chalking up another calamity, that no one else seems to be getting worked up over. It won't happen tomorrow, & we have umpteen other emergencies already in progress. The scientists who really know this stuff have been cautious, partly because it is the politicians who should be steering public response, & partly because scientists think the thing to do is figure out a response, & not lose your cool by jumping up & down in the streets. The people who *are* figuratively jumping up & down are relegated to just one more opinion, among those others who are ignoring or denying or underestimating because there isn't any media voice or national agency (under the GOP) willing to rock the (economic) boat as hard as necessary. It's kind of a 'perfect calm' of inaction, with bureaucracies waiting for more passion, the business world happy to keep profiting from the status quo for as long as possible, many average people waiting for someone else to take the lead & the passionate getting burnt out & cynical. Count me among the latter. The response has to be on an enormous scale. The course correction will need to be drastic, & the longer we wait, the worse the outcome, even if we do manage some sort of global response. Basically, it's lack of leadership.
5
@will b Lack of leadership - that just about sums it up. The rest of your analysis is also spot on.
2
No big deal. Reliable data confirms that I'll be gone long before 2050.
4
@Sang Ze
But your children won't.
2050 is one generation from now. It's tomorrow.
11
The Department of Defense (DoD) did similar studies in the early 1990s.
Clearly, climate change and its human/social population effects were already projected to be gasoline on the pyre of increasing human population and conflict.
Good going everyone ! Let's keep staring into our "smart'phones !
7
Be nice if US Coasts were added. However we may not want to view because now my lowland near water house is in one of the few sections in California that is not burning and also has power as we speak. You will need to add zones you shouldn't live in if you don't like to flee from fire for you life every other year too. Earthquakes zones are the least of worries right now.
5
Current lawmakers and global leadership won't act. Why? Because they know they will all be dead before it gets really bad. That's not a strategy, nor is it leadership.
6
Regarding the pressures on countries and the massive displacement of people, surely many if not most will want to migrate to the U.S. in preparation for this catastrophe. And surely we must absolutely take them all in and give them free healthcare.
1
@cari924 What makes youthinkthat the US will be immune to these effects? Because we are "Christian" nation?
1
Why is this not the top story in the boldest of type? Why is climate change not the biggest, loudest, most screamingest headline in every newspaper, every day?
The general citizenry will remain in denial if the press doesn't step up, and fast.
125
@Scotch Hudson
The information has been widely available for some decades now. WIDELY available. It isn't the media's fault. It is human greed, shortsightedness, and plain self-destructive stupidity, colossal and unstoppable.
3
Can you do a revised projection of the coasts of Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana and Texas? You know... areas where climate change will have direct impacts, yet most of the residents are either climate change deniers or support climate change deniers.
9
I have a house on Cape Cod that's on top of a hundred foot sand dune. The good news is that it will soon be oceanfront property. The bad news is I will have to take a boat through shark-infested waters to get anywhere.
7
If anyone really thought this was true, then real estate values would reflect it. Instead, coastal real estate values continue to escalate. Talk is cheap, but the money flows suggest that most consider these warnings to be unlikely to occur. The market is nothing if not efficient in discounting all known information to arrive at the market value for a given asset, in this case coastal real estate. Maybe when the same people urging more government control over everything as the solution to this “crisis” stop buying seaside vacation homes, the masses will actually believe that these scare tactics are more than just that.
7
@Brad The market IS starting to reflect climate change concerns. My wife and I helped our son buy a condo just south of Boston. We looked at many very enticing waterfront units and passed because FEMA and other maps showed they would be underwater by 2050. Or, their access roads already regularly flood with high tide storm surge and town do not have mitigation plans. We started to notice units on the market for months, with multiple price reductions. It may be a function of education, but more buyers are going to factor in climate change, and this increasing awareness can accelerate with surprising rapidity. In the end, markets are only aggregations of people, who do not always act in rational self interest. Sadly, most people are not very smart, disciplined, thrifty or virtuous. It takes an economic 2X4 to the temple to get their attention. By the way - our son bought a nice place on a high hilltop in Weymouth, MA.
5
@Brad
Markets are not that efficient when government flood insurance subsidizes much of the financial risk.
4
@Brad - First it's reflected in the insurance market, then the real estate market.
3
Lots of tall buildings in many of these cities, and the better suites will be well above the water.
2
@Robert David South I hope you are kidding. In most cities much of the vital infrastructure (electricity, transportation, etc.) is underground. Doesn't do you much good to be on a high floor if the elevators -- and lights, air, etc. -- stop working.
6
We need not pause and ponder global warming. 2050 is a distraction. The 3 P's are half gone in my lifetime, phytoplankton, pollinators and plants potentially billions will starve and migrate causing war, chaos, and mayhem like the world has never known It's already begun and food prices are rising. They will flood all areas long before the high tides of global warming, it's inevitable. If only we protected the 3Ps and let them do their job sequestering CO2, making oxygen and feeding everyone we would have plenty, and time enough to improve our energy sources for the day fossil fuels are truly gone because without them we can only feed one billion of us. We need to get the science right, right now. This is no time to destroy more trees for solar panels, or wind farms, forget the Green New Deal and electric cars they won't save us. We must FIRST stop toxins from killing phytoplankton and the pollinators and stop cutting the rainforests for Big macs.
49
@horsedrag: it’s not either-or. We need both.
5
@Annette Dexter And we will do neither.
Bear in mind that researchers have been very conservative in their estimates regarding rising oceans. I'm appalled by the lack of concern shown on the East coast of the USA. Some well known and highly respected global warming scientists are now warning of catastrophic sea rise by mid century.
16
If you compare the map of Bangkok in the article to an elevation map of the city (https://bkkbaseface.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/bangkok-flood-elevation-map/) it appears that areas as high as 1.5 meters above sea level will be flooding at high tide in 2050. So, they must be expecting a sea level rise of around 4.5 feet at that point. Given that the projections for future sea level rise keep increasing, I would count on more than 4.5 feet.
5
@LisaH
Projections for future sea-level rise may keep increasing, but the actual measured rate of rise has not. According to NOAA tide gage records (which provide a reliable record back into the mid- to late-1800s), there has been a steady rate of global mean sea-level rise of about 1.75mm per year and no acceleration. That equates to about a 2-inch rise by 2050 -- nowhere near 4.5 feet. To achieve the doomsday predictions relayed in this article, the current rate would have to accelerate by a factor of 2700% -- instantaneously and continuously for the next 30 years.
To be fair, tide gage records vary from location to location and are subject to changes in topography (i.e., rising or sinking of local land masses unrelated to what the oceans are doing). So, it's possible that certain locations will experience more challenges with encroaching tides than other places, but that has little to do with climate change. In addition, sea levels have been rising for the last 20,000 years since the peak of the last glacial maximum of the current ice age (and -- for much of that time -- at much higher rates than we're currently experiencing). This process is nothing new and is not spiraling out of control due to ever-present climate change as articles like this imply. All of this is to point out that our policies must be directed at the most practical and effective results and not feel-good actions that have little chance if mitigating the challenges ahead of us.
3
For every person who is directly effected by flooding or "inundation" due to rising sea levels and other impact of global warming, there are likely to be many others who are displaced due to salt water encroachment and contamination of their fresh/ground water supply.
51
SO question, when will property prices reflect data for flooding or eventual destruction? I mean coastal areas still cost a premium. At what point will the value of the land/house go down to reflect it eventual destruction?
I am curious how loan companies will factor this in. I mean would it make sense to give a 30 year loan on a house in one of these areas next year? What kind of liability would the lender incur for giving a loan knowing the underlying asset was going to be destroyed. Plus since the national flood insurance program is currently running in the red, what are the chances of getting the capital out of the house?
I am fine with people arguing about how high the water will rise there will be some level of difference from any model. My question is who will be accepting the financial risk of the people who gamble in these areas? Just imagine a lender in one of these major cities suddenly loosing 20/30/40% of their assets underlying the loans. Are these the toxic assets of the next major financial crisis? I would love to hear someone more educated and experienced than me chime in on the ramifications with some data.
16
@Steve The little bit of sea level rise we've seen to date has already erased billions of dollars in coastal real estate values.
9
@Steve Not to worry, these second beach mansions are government insured for the full inflated "value."
5
@Steve in addition, after the hurricanes and flooding on the coasts destroy house on or near the beaches, the owners just rebuild, probably with fema loans and federal insurance.
4
Denial is a natural defense mechanism. People check their investments a lot more often when the market is up not down. However, it's wise to lift your head out of the sand, so you can see the tide coming in and prepare. Here in Hawaii, there is talk of abandoning some roads because there's no money to raise them. Thousands here will need to relocate to higher ground by 2050. Then it will really start to cause trouble, and I won't be here anymore to help my kids or grand-kids. Makes me ANGRY! Please don't be a Climate Science Denier anymore. Mahalo/Thanks!
616
@Steve Parsons Oh well, you just dashed my dream of moving to HI to flee the California fires. But I am still visiting every and wising the locals well. Most beautiful place on earth and climate deniers are willing to lose it by putting their heads in the soon to be gone sand.
23
@Steve Parsons If you have more than 2 kids, or more than 4 grand-kids, you don't have to look very far to cast blame. The fact is that someone childless, driving a Hummer, and eating all the steaks they wanted would contribute FAR less to carbon emissions than they would if they produced one child in the developed world. There is literally no decision you can make more destructive to the environment--none even remotely close--than the decision to put another person on the almost 8 billion person pile. Have one less American child: save an average of almost 59 tons of CO2 per year. Go without a car: save an average of almost 2.5 tons. Quit eating meat: save an average of less than one ton.
52
@Steve Parsons I lived on Anini for a year after Iniki, so I know how you feel. Hanalei is heaven on earth. I remember a stormy afternoon, bodysurfing in the bay, water up to my chin, and I could see little fish swimming around my legs. Out to sea, surfers were coming in on 30 foot swells as the tour boat was going out, escorted by spinning dolphins. And behind Hanalei town, there were 19 waterfalls (I counted), some with rainbows. Then it started to rain, and the rain was warm and clean and tasted perfect. And now Hanalei will be under water by mid-century. I know how you feel.
23
For exposed coastal areas in the US, the banking and insurance industries will be harbingers of change long before too many people’s feet are getting wet. Smart people will sell their coastal properties and move before they become completely uninsurable and banks won’t offer 30-year mortgages on them anymore. These places will be effectively done not when they are underwater but when they are abandoned by finance and insurance.
Of course, homeowners, developers, and commercial property owners will turn to state and local governments, i.e.: taxpayers, to subsidize their insurance and then fund the works to keep the seas at bay. Let’s hope we have the good sense to resist these follies or at least be strategic regarding what can be saved and what cannot.
596
@Joe Bob the III
Even better, take billions from the military budget to build a non-carbon economy, pronto. Oh, I guess not.
37
@Joe Bob the III : Insurance companies should, right now, stop insuring new building on any sea level American coastline. But they aren't. Why not? That, at a minimum,should be happening now. All kinds of building happening in Florida! Right on the water.
42
@sophia
Maybe they don't know how to run their business. We should teach them.
Here in California the few ocean front properties that exist still command exorbitant prices. Don't these guys read the papers? Amazing.
29
Keep in mind the impact this will have on agriculture and the availability of fresh water. Both are essential for human survival.
This is what's forecast within our, or at best our kids', lifetime. We haven't set the table very well for them.
But keep in mind also that there are a number of things they haven't considered--e.g. coastal erosion--which is likely to exacerbate the loss of dry land.
Estimates or warming, glacier and ice sheet loss, and rising water levels have typically been very conservative. It's likely to be worse that what they have forecast.
14
These projections are terrifying, to anyone who has any sense, or children. But show what happens to FL, to NYC and DC. Then you MIGHT get some politicians off their duff.
21
@PT I would love to see a map of projected impacts on the US coastal regions.
4
Rampant over population is literally killing Earth. That is a fact.
82
@Kevin, not sure why you jumped to overpopulation when this is terrifying enough, but this will also make population issues worse.
2
@Andrew My point is that the root cause of this environmental devastation is grotesque over population of the human species.
16
@Andrew This is a result of global overpopulation, the climate change fiasco is but a symptom of that.
7
Goodbye, Vietnam?!... Those maps make me want to cry.
8
Where are the US cities?
21
@T
I was wondering the same thing
2
@T unchanged. See climate central
@Mr. JJ
Google is your friend. I've been seeing these maps for fifteen or so years now. They are widely available for those who care to know the real news.
If you read the published paper, they say sea level rise by most central estimates could be 20-30cm by 2050. Are we to understand that they're just now finding out that multiple large coastal regions around the world are less than 30 cm above sea level?
The NYT maps don't show any elevation scale or assumptions made. What am I missing?
3
@M Monahan the maps show the portion of land area which will be underwater at high tide, which can vary quite a bit even within a single area. So, it's not that all of these areas are less than 30 cm above sea level, it's based on the movement of water over the land.
1
@M Monahan
12 inches
30 years ago what were the predictions for this year. I believe they the sea rise predictions were quite dir?
@M Monahan Sea level rise around the world isn't uniform. America's eastern seaboard has more than our western seaboard, for example. And mean sea level rise is a lot less than sea level at high tide, and that isn't as high as during king tides. And then there's storm surge.
That how lower Manhattan was inundated by sea water during Hurricane Sandy, despite being well above the world mean sea level.
The maps here specify showing high tide marks.
2
Good God. What are we doing to ourselves?
7
@raynernycz
Darwinian self-selection. But not in any good way it appears.
1
Interesting maps. I would like to see those for Miami, New Orleans, the Bay area, and NYT...or is the prognosis so bad that we are not ready for those yet?
22
Why no predictions for the west; I am very interested on how North and South America will be affected.
We already know that Asia is hurting now.
Show us also the predictions for Africa and Madagascar.
6
I would like to see our American east coast maps . What cities will be under water. I am sure Mar la go will be one and put this in the news often during the. 2020 campaign . Add this is what Trump and the GOP caused by their continued use of coal and fossil fuel. If they still have a base at election those supporters will be reaping what they sow. Our Pope Francis said to oil men recently you harm the environment you harm humanity. Trump needs to b charged for crimes against humanity . He caused all this and his GOP.
17
@D.j.j.k. Florida and South Carolina will probably see extensive damage.
3
@D.j.j.k. Did it occur to you that the wonderful Pope presides over a religion that is greatly to blame for one of the underlying factors of global warming: overpopulation. Much more of an issue than what the pontiff said to some Houston money grubbing oilmen.
2
I have have noticed is that regions and countries which are potential victims of climate change, sea level rise, global warming aren't doing enough to raise awareness amongst general public of their respective territories. There are tendencies to avoid and ignore responsibilities. It's a shame!
5
As much as I commend the scientists for their work, and the Times for publishing their research, the fact that nearly all the affected populations mentioned in the article are (a) poor and (b) nonwhite will just make the Republicans stick their fingers even more firmly in their ears.
8
@Fred Well, Shanghai is included, and if China continues to innovate and dominate in the world economy, by 2050 it will be American cities that are poor. Including a few that will be goners way before then, like New Orleans, much of New York City, Miami...
6
A geography professor told me recently that if a person can actually see the ocean from wear they live, there is a good chance that spot will be underwater in the next 50 years.
7
@Sue That's kind of silly. Most places with ocean views are high above the coast. My house is a quarter mile away from the ocean, but at least 500 feet up. I'm worried about my beaches, but not my house.
2
To quote Donovan's "Atlantis", from 1968:
"And as the elders of our time choose to remain blind,
Let us rejoice and let us sing and dance and ring in the new.
Hail Atlantis!
Way down below the ocean, where I wanna be, she may be.
Way down below the ocean, where I wanna be, she may be."
3
Needless to say, this is horrible. More and more, I think it is too late. So sad. What we as a species have done to the ecosystems of the world breaks my heart.
12
Exponential catastrophes. This continues to get worse. Oh, I forgot. In 1994 the UN Climate committee reported we were all going to be fry from Global Warming in 20 years. Then, when that did not happen, we moved it to Climate Change. And, in the 1980s did not that famous musician write a song about rain. Something like 'acid rain" and we would escape underground evading the bad rain!.
Please, just sell me your oceanfront property. I'm willing to give you at least 50 cents on the dollar. Think about it...it is a bargain.
2
@KK the reason acid rain hasn’t been a problem is we took action to deal with it. But we haven’t anything like enough to combat climate change.
9
@KK Mr. Climate Denier, you know quite well that that 20 prediction was a window for doing something about the problem to avoid drastic climate change in the next hundred years. The predictions have actually proved to be conservative, and we are well on our way to a global disaster that will affect billions of people by mid-century.
6
Sorry to break it to you, but it's already too late. Been following this since 1985 and no significant progress has been made in all of those years. The best we could hope for is a bit of mitigation of levels, but even that will be too little too late for most of the world's low-lying lands.
33
2050 marks the midpoint of the 21st century. We have already lost the opportunity to fight global warming during the first 20 years of the 21st century. What will we do during the next 30 years?
We do not have an endless series of opportunities that can be seized to reverse global warming, but we do have the opportunity to elect a Democrat President and a Democratic Congress. The time has come to seize the opportunity.
14
@OldBoatMa, I believe we have missed our chance to stop climate changes; we should have acted back in the 1980’s . We cannot stop this process at this point.
Too much over population and too many airplanes; every time the USA drops a bomb in the Middle East we mess with the climate and also all the planes in the sky will not be changed.
Even if we throw 5 trillion dollars at the sky or whatever AOC wants to do, it will not change this awful problem.
Scientists by their nature understate outcomes as to stay within the parameters of provable results. Safe to say everything that is predicted with be MUCH MUCH WORSE.
39
@Sid Jagger
And the scary thing is even if the world stopped emitting carbon tomorrow it would not make any difference.
5
@Sue Well, not any difference for US. That's the sad part about all this: we can only help future generations, and, shoot, who wants to give up all their "lifestyle" stuff, to help people who won't even be born for decades? Not gonna happen! But those future generations will look upon our generation with contempt.
2
Kind of like the US Senate and Trump.
1
I question the method used, " artificial intelligence to determine the error rate and correct for it". I work in geomatics and find modeling to be insufficient. I wonder how they tested the model data generated by the AI compared to existing ground measurements. Anywhere there has been road design or any infrastructure for that matter should have topographic data collected before the design phase. I would be interested to see how that data compared to the model they are using.
2
@Joe Of course modeling is insufficient. That is why it is called modeling! Some modeling is less sufficient than others. You should be asking questions about how the models were run. And like specs, topi work often (not always) do not reflect the exact final work that was completed. New measurements are required over time.
1
Nicely shows the importance of satellite remote sensing for analyzing environmental problems. We should increase resources for NASA, other space agencies and associated agencies to be able to do these kinds of analyses.
28
@Glenn
I may be wrong in this, but didn't President Trump forbid NASA from assisting with ground research? My guess is that this research was built on data gathered years ago.
6
The Trump adminstration has scrubbed "climate change" from Federal website and won't allow use of the phrase in any government reports.
1
I suspect no one here actually read the article this is NYT article is based on. I did. As usual in climate studies it is a lot of computer models with very little ground truth data.
Data from NOAA for NYC clearly shows sea level rising at about 1 ft ever 100 years for the last 170 years. I cannot see any point of inflection showing a change?
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
The article is using new methods to estimate Digital Terrain (elevation) Models (DEM's). The problem with this is you mix sea level rise with land subsidence. Subsidence is the larger, and manageable, problem. Just stop pumping water and oil. Not so easy in third world countries with expanding coastal populations and limited infrastructure . That may explain the third world bias here. The NYC area does not have a subsidence issue, Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf Coast do and have done for a long time.
What happens locally is an issue of ground water management. Going to zero carbon will not change this.
Hate to let data get in the way of a good story.
7
@Dennis
Wrong.
The trend in sea level rise doesn't bode well for coastal areas.
1870-1924 0.8mm per year
1925-1992 1.9mm per year
1993-2012 3.1mm per year
Currently around 5 mm per year https://www.euronews.com/2019/09/22/watch-live-scientists-present-new-report-on-climate-change-effects-ahead-of-un-summit
When you graph the above it looks very much like the beginning of a very non-linear upward curve.
graph of sea level rise through 2012 https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/hansen-sea-level-rise.png
graph of post glacial sea level rise, http://vademecum.brandenberger.eu/grafiken/klima/post-glacial_sea_level.png , note the curve at Meltwater Pulse 1A.
Ice sheet mass loss, notice the lines curve downwards indicating acceleration.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/IceSheet/IceMass.png
15
@Erik Frederiksen beware of trends extrapolated from the terminus of a data series. They are usually just wishful thinking.
4
@Erik Frederiksen
Did you actually look at any of the data you posted?
I can read a data set quite well. I do it for a living. Reference the NOAA data for the battery and show me there this acceleration has taken place.
3.1mm/year. The NOAA data gives 2.85 mm/year over 170 years. Splitting hairs.
Thanks
5
One can always check NOAA Technical Report:
GLOBAL AND REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS FOR THE UNITED STATES. Published in January 2017.
1
It will only mean something when insurance companies start refusing to issue flood insurance. Unfortunately, that will mean the government will be forced to cover the losses. No way for the average taxpayer to not foot the bill.
9
@David more then likely Flood will go 10X in 10 yrs and no longer insure high risk areas at all....
1
@David Or perhaps by then, not even the government will cover flood policies and then homeowners will be unprotected.
1
If only the old predictions come through, they will still be catastrophic, and thirty years are nothing. We need world leadership to start planning seriously for a fast and realistic way to change our living, working and consuming habits. The time for maybe is over, it's happening.
19
@Jgrau
This in a time of historically bad 'leadership'
- except from certain 16 year olds...
10
Maybe its time to stop building in those areas and start relocating to higher ground... ya think?
42
I know several real-life, gainfully employed, voting American citizens who adamantly maintain that all of this is lies - that climate change is a conspiracy cooked up by a nefarious group of shadowy interests and hyped by the liberal media elite as part of a campaign of disinformation, and that the real truth is easily found with a google search.
Again: several, just among my acquaintances. Real people. Who vote. And will not hear anything to the contrary.
Of course, all of those people, without exception, are old enough that they are unlikely to see 2050. But their votes will determine the future for the billions who do. Thanks again, Rupert Murdoch.
283
@Glen -
Even should these predictions be provable and quantifiable, the fact that NOAA and other agencies appeared, or actually tampered with the raw data, temperatures, etc., makes some folks question if the science is real or just fear mongering. How do you attempt to convince folks of a looming problem when "trustworthy" governmental agencies look like shysters?
3
@Mstrdiver
Where is your evidence that ‘data was tampered with’?????
26
@Mstrdiver How much data and independently voracious studies must be done for people to stop caring about the political agenda of any one agency? These agencies aren't trying to create a situation that assures their relevance, they're trying to get us to save ourselves. Seriously, I'd LOVE to be among those eating crow if this is all some great hoax: but we know we as humans have created what was entirely preventable but now impossible to reverse climate change. Can we stop bickering about the degree of projection and just get to mitigating this with EVERY resource available?
25
Please publish pictures of the USA maps, too, especially the coasts. Your response to several letters requesting this data was that the information is "well known". People need to see these maps on a regular basis. Please include in ALL articles on rising sea levels.
898
Your state GIS service may have such maps available. Rhode Island has a whole slew of maps depicting flooding, for example.
6
@Dodi, you can find them here: https://choices.climatecentral.org/#13/40.7128/-74.0060?compare=temperatures&carbon-end-yr=2100&scenario-a=warming-4&scenario-b=warming-2
It doesn’t look good for New York or Boston.
35
@Dodi
Completely agreed - need to bring the message home!!!
22
Interesting that no European or American coasts were included here. London, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, etc., etc., will all be under water.
Even Mira Lago, now known as Mira Glub Glub won't be spared, unless, of course, the stable genius can turn back the waters in a climate change he doesn't believe in.
22
@George Dietz Looking at the map, I'm seeing that of the cities you list, the only one that could be substantially under water is London. (That's according to the map's projection.) In the US, the state with the worst impact is Louisiana. New Orleans looks to be almost wiped out along with most of the entire Mississippi Delta. The San Francisco Bay seems to have expanded east and north all the way up to Sacramento, also an alarming development.
3
@George Dietz And dear ex-president-to-be will be sitting on his golden throne, commanding the tide to go out.
@Bob
No, he won't—he'll be in jail.
1
Good info on why the old maps were wrong (measuring the height of buildings and trees). I would have liked to see corrections for New York and Miami or were those elevations correct already?
And it's kid of weird but I have _ever_ seen anything about how rising sea levels will affect the dikes in The Netherlands. Are they more prepared for some reason?
8
@MikeM Yes, NYT covered a few years ago the fact that The Netherlands has a sophisticated system already in place to combat flooding and water rise.
1
And yet the US President and his party deny the very existence of climate change. It's hard to imagine anything more negligent and irresponsible.
34
@Andrew One of many reasons why we'll get rid of them..
3
@Andrew : Trump is a national security threat on many levels.
3
"according to the research, which was produced by Climate Central"
Climate Central?
"Climate Central is a national group based in New Jersey where researchers, science communicators and journalists work together"
science communicators?
journalists?
"For a text story, we help craft a feature in a way that puts climate change in appropriate and accurate context. For broadcast media, we provide story and interview suggestions and help develop and review scripts."
https://climatecentral.org/pj-cover-images/climate_central_partnership_approach.pdf
Sounds more like climate "propaganda"....as opposed to climate "science".
10
@John what else do you need to hear or read or see to help you understand that there's a problem? Do you really think the vast majority of scientists are concocting a big conspiracy? To what end? Don't bring your opinions, bring data.
5
I also wanted to see some US cities, so I followed the link and checked out the interactive map (http://coastal.climatecentral.org/?smid=nytcore-ios-share)
For example, SF, LA and NYC don’t have projections that are nearly as dramatic as the ones in this article. But they’re not great either.
1
@Steph
Thanks for the link, some US metros like New Orleans are largely inundated while Miami, FL is unaffected, which seems odd given the tidal flooding already being experienced there.
This map also probably doesn't account for seasonal events like king or spring tides or storm surges that add to base high tide levels.
Most of the US Navy bases around the world will be affected, implying trillions in adaptation costs. But Congress has instructed the Navy not to use "climate change" in their future budget estimates.
2
Thanks anti-science Trumpers and Boomers.
Nice to know you're looking out for the next generation, but hey, you got yours (at the Walmart) so cheers!
7
@Nick Even if there were consensus that climate chance is real (and it is, of course), I wonder if anything can truly be done? I fear even with the most drastic changes, the water, ahem, is already under the bridge.
3
Can we have an article on the same topic with maps of North American cities? This would be much more useful.
4
Interesting article, but I wonder how correct it is.
I live in southern Queens and looked at some areas that currently flood at high tide but the interactive map does not show them as flooded under worst case conditions in 2016.
They may have some useful new information, but I would have thought that the Times would have done better fact checking.
3
@Eugene
Correct the date. 2016 should have read 2060!
For those looking for potential sea level rise in the US, I suggest looking at NOAA's Sea Level Rise Viewer, an interactive tool:
https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr.html
Leonardo DiCaprio funded this work. Just an interesting fact.
1
This will obviously destroy many major real estate markets and major airports and tourist destinations and port cities, etc.
The ultimate result will be a global economic and social meltdown beyond our comprehension.
11
@Craig Millett Except for the new future real estate opportunities in waterfront arbitrage! If only the Koch brothers could have live so long to see where the free market will take us.
The estimates with the old projections was that it would create 600 million climate change refugees in the world, half being able to relocate within their borders, the other half (300 million) needing to immigrate to another country.
My question is with this new projection, how many would become climate refugees and which country will take them in as all of them are preparing to close their borders?
For those wanting to see a map of the US, Florida is gone, New York is gone, and a few hundred miles of coastline along the East Coast. This is all within the next 30 years.
Countries won't be able to afford wars when their cities are drowning.
87
@James Wallis Martin
I'm afraid that your final sentence, "Countries won't be able to afford wars when their cities are drowning", is wishful thinking.
Throughout history we humans have proven to be a very resourceful, murderous bunch. Nothing will stop us from periodically killing the "others" among us.
It's just our way.
16
@James Wallis Martin
I’m afraid loss/lack of resources is one of the primary reasons WHY countries go to war. The expansion of Germany, Japan’s loss of oil are but two relatively modern examples. The current, almost overwhelming demand upon destination countries by Syrian and other refugees will not even compare to the hundreds of millions of persons displaced if these projections are even moderately accurate.
7
@MichaelH This is exactly right -- we will have climate refugees and climate wars.
6
Here is something we can do: DON'T buy a GM car! https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/climate/general-motors-california-emissions-trump.html?searchResultPosition=1
It may not much help but at least it's a choice which is something those 150 million won't have.
198
@Harry Or Toyota!
7
@Harry Or a Toyota.
7
@Harry
Or a Chrysler
5
Bye, bye, love. Bye, bye happiness. Hello emptiness.
I feel like I could die.
Bye, bye my love, goodbye.
Who could have imagined?
Gosh. Its not like anybody gave any warning!!!
19
Why does this article contain no photos of cities in the US and Europe? The projections here are scary(especially for Vietnam) but it seems odd to only focus on a handful of foreign regions.
211
@Eric
I agree.
@Eric Those maps have already been made available for a while. You can look up your city here: https://choices.climatecentral.org/
2
What will happen to the new "Eko Atlantic City"?lt is built on a sand filled parcel of land in front of the ocean.The developer's did not put the environment into consideration.Click YouTube.
2
To all those saying, “hey, let’s see some other cities/areas.” If you read the article you’ll see that the info comes from an organization called “Climate Central” and if you go to the site you’ll find an interactive map.
https://climatecentral.org/news/report-flooded-future-global-vulnerability-to-sea-level-rise-worse-than-previously-understood
54
@saucier -- thank you for the link. I read the findings of climatecentral and the maps shown here are depicting the areas projected to be hit the hardest. Primarily China, Vietnam and India/Bangladesh.
2
Why aren’t US cities included? Don’t we need to see what the projections are for New York?
As a reader it’s impossible to glean anything from this very important topic.
2
Just reading through the comments. I wish the NYT would build an explainer for the non scientist like me that shows how /why seas are rising and more importantly explains the many impacts we are already seeing today. I'd also like to understand the "denyers and hoaxers". What motivates people to believe conspiracy theorists. Could it be convenience? Or fear of sacrifices? Lively hoods at risk?
5
@Emily HBO'S new documentary "Ice on Fire" explians a lot and is done very well. Totally worth your 1hr/45mins of your time. https://www.hbo.com/documentaries/ice-on-fire
2
@Emily Scientists have been warning us for decades. The seas rise because the Artic and Antartic snow fields,and other glaciers are melting due to global warming ( a cycle that occurs every 11 to 15 thousand years, we humans have accelerated this phenomenon by our carbon releases , burning of coal, oil over the last 200 yrs, So by by to Florida, East and West coast areas less than 170 ft, above present sea level. Can you imagine where all those people will go to, let alone disappeared islands and countries like Bangladesh etc. We should collectively be building cities underwater and finding new planets to populate, the latter never to be seen again, though maybe heard by radio!! Wake up humanity, before it is too late. Thank you NYT for publishing the article.
3
@Emily The reason why the seas are rising is two things that are happening. One: the ice on the planet is melting as the planet heats up and as water heats up it expands. Quite simple. Those who deny climate change have a vested interest financially in it not being so. And some are just ignorant.
1
This is the looming (ecological) World War III without bombs for which human beings are impotent, unless they agree for a long-term cooperation, and this, anyway, to have its effects in a matter of decades later.
During WW II USA suffered a total loss of some 418,000 civilian and military deaths combined, compared to the 24 millions of former Soviet Union to fight a now resurgent Nazism.
Both USA and Russia should leave apart blatant hacking, ri-armament, national egoisms and fear, until now deployed, done and felt, because these clear coastal forecasts render them by now as mere petty intrigues carried on by fool Neanderthalian human beings.
An ecological roadmap to be strictly followed in conjunction with other big emitting countries, such as China and India, should be implemented accepting to downgrade our way of life (I mean the one of the richest) for the life of the not yet born future world citizens.
And, by the way, both doctors and eco-scientists, advice not to eat much meat: better for health and environment.
8
Remember when Martin O'Malley said climate change is a driver of terrorism and conflict in the Middle East and everyone laughed?
20
The Real Estate industry has been lying to us for decades.
It's not location, location, location.
It's elevation, elevation, elevation.
133
There are many posts here asking about the effect of sea level rise on US cities. Here are two links that cover that:
https://archive.epa.gov/epa/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-coastal-areas.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/here-s-how-rising-seas-could-swallow-these-coastal-cities-ncna872466
3
@Scott Werden
Except that those are based on the most conservative estimates produced by climate change modeling which all climate change scientists and modeling experts have already said are woefully inadequate. It is reasonable to expect far worse loss of land for coastal cities.
9
What is the predicted sea level rise by 2050? How can anyone write an article without stating sea level rise used to generate these predictions?
5
Good to know the us has no high water problems. Those other countries are far away and I suppose will absorb the new high water. Thank you for the breadth of water science
1
We've got to get serious about this issue. Maybe flooded cities will get people to wake up and take their heads out of the sand? Global warming needs to be the top issue in next year's U.S. presidential and congressional elections.
7
@Paul Smith how to convince the masses to both make concerted sacrifices in their everyday lives as well to only vote in politicians who actively will work to reinstate policies that will curb our carbon dioxide and methane emissions! All other issues will soon be moot. We are screaming inside as we write these things in lowercase for those with the power do something.
3
@Chris,
We all know that we are in this disastrous climate situation due to all the airplanes and population growth; none of that will change; private planes should be banned from the skies but it wont happen.
Floodwaters on the upper Missouri River are projected to freeze over this winter before the water goes down, and yet Asia and the Middle East are the only areas projected to have rising water problems?
What about the Gulf of Mexico - Houston and New Orleans? What about Miami and New York City?
2
We will simply state to the water, in a firm and clear voice, that we do not believe in climate change.
38
@Daniel,
Thank you, best comment of the day!
1
Just as Ronald Reagan was precisely the wrong president to be in power as the HIV/AIDS crisis began--when the CDC felt it could be halted, but he refused the funds--President Denial is in power at absolutely the wrong time for this.
Should Obama have done more? Yes, but DT would probably have unraveled it all by now.
10
Notice New Orleans, Miami, Annapolis, Norfolk, and New York are missing from this assessment.
1
Only showing impact maps for U.S. coastal areas where the vast majority of our population lives will, maybe, get American voters to understand the risk of continued inaction. Bangkok, Shanghai, Saigon and Bombay are too far for too many Americans to comprehend the risk.
Please NYT, either show similar maps for Los Angeles, Seattle, Miami, Houston, New Orleans, Pensacola, Manhattan, Long Island, Boston, Savannah, Charleston, Annapolis, the greater Chesapeake Bay area, New Jersey and Delaware, etc., or at least provide links.
2
Almost as a throwaway line, "The projections don’t account for future population growth" touches on a key fact. There are already too many people in the world. Adding a few million here, a few million there, and the chances for catastrophe increase even more.
10
The threat of social upheaval caused by climate change leading to violence is only mentioned with respect to Basra and Iraq. If we are uprooting well over 100 million people just by coastal inundation, as well as disrupting their food, water, sanitation, and energy systems, there could be much wider social upheaval. Today's fossil fuel beneficiaries are not properly accounting for how hard their lives could get in a few decades as hundreds of millions of people seek the same remaining refuges in a warming world.
20
Humans have evolved to prioritize immediate problems over long-term worries. So, we'll take action on rising sea levels only when it's too late, when the water is coming in under our doors.
7
This is a great article heavy on factors for consideration, but lighter on considerations and even lighter still on deductions:
- What about coastal lowlands in developed countries?
- How much of the world's economy and real estate is leveraged in the future Atlantises of the Earth? What is this cost?
- How do banks perceive this risk to their investments if their capital might be washed away?
-Displacement was well considered, but still lacked deductions.
Here is my deduction: If this model is anywhere in the realm of the accurate, then our targets to address climate change will coincide with the the onset of the catastrophe. In other words, it may already be too late.
10
@Adam Carriere "Lighter on considerations and even lighter still on deductions"
This is a newspaper article. What you are describing is a book.
2
I'm a typical self-centered American, so I couldn't care less about the millions of people that are going to be underwater in other parts of the world - just tell me about the coastal regions of America.
Oh wait, as a typical American, I don't actually live on the coast in any of those regions either, so actually I don't care, just forget it. You're probably are just using this as an excuse to raise my taxes.
(Shakes head about future of humanity)
157
@Andrew Your location says New York City?
3
@Andrew Could have guessed that you don't live on the coast based on your narrow-mindedness. Can probably also estimate that you have never dared to venture to any of these places due to your Americentrist views and attitude. Quite sad if you ask me, as you are missing out. Looking forward to the day when our borders are freer and many of these people you deem not to "care" about become your neighbors.
6
@Andrew
Look out when all those coastal types pitch tents in your yard....
4
See the paper here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z
Its listed in the article though not at the beginning where you would expect.
This piece doesn't cover the US because the paper doesn't. They are just reporting on the paper.
7
Alarming.
2
First, we will spend enormous amount of money on dikes and seawalls, then as the water rises further we will spend trillions to move millions of people in land to..where? Kansas? ..and of course the locals will be thrilled to host thousands of refuges. But spend money now to stop global warming?? Are you crazy?
1171
@otto I moved to Maine, the new Georgia (in about 20 years' time I'm guessing).
41
@otto Just build a wall. Someone else will pay for it. Oh, wait. Is the wall to keep people out or water?
75
@otto
Otto, wait...Trump is a head of the game here and is planning on building a sea wall in Colorado. He is a visionary if I ever seen one.
180
Sorry being so stupid. I just dont believe it. I am not a believer in this new religion. There are only pseudo proofs.
7
@Karl Napp Totally agree. So tired of all these "theories" Some tree-hugger was trying to convince me of something called "germ theory" the other day. I told him if it's just a theory, I'm not interested. Plus he had a nasty cold I didn't want to catch.
29
@Karl Napp Me too. In theory the Sun is expected to rise tomorrow - I just don't believe it.
10
@Karl Napp
I live on in a high area not threatened by sea rise although I am very concerned about climate change and think that should be our main focus. You live in Florida. Have you even looked at the modest projections of the Florida coastline and beyond?
4
Oops. There goes the planet! Can you say, 'You've got some new neighbors!'?
1
Perhaps the most important thing to keep in mind is that the sea will be rising during the second half of the this century, most likely at an increased rate, and will continue to rise for at least hundreds of years. To stop sea level rise carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will have to be reduced to below 350 ppm and even then some of the ice melting appears to be irreversible particularly in West Antarctica. The study doesn't seem to be about the effects of storm surge but clearly storm surge will cause much more damage as the sea level rises and would appear to be a bigger threat than high tides although the greatest threat is storm surge at high tide.
9
@Bob I believe the levels are already at ~ 450 ppm. Most of humanity has no idea what is in store in a couple of decades hence.
3
And why not show a few American cities as well?
12
@Sea Jay
The US has very accurate data for coastal elevations and the effects of sea level rise are well documented for the US. The point of this study is to look at the areas of the world that do not have such accurate elevation maps of low lying areas. The authors went back to satellite data that exists and reexamined it, calibrating it with the highly accurate US data.
13
@Scott Werden
"The US has very accurate data for coastal elevations and the effects of sea level rise are well documented for the US."
And these documents can be located where?
1
Can you please share a link to do simulations for the US and Europe?
3
@Chicksdigcagefree
Neither the US nor Europe needs this sort of "simulation" as was used in this study. Both of those areas have highly accurate elevation data already.
3
Did I miss something? No mention of measurements. How many inches, centimeters, feet or meters above current levels are driving these maps? This article disappoints for lacking such key information.
3
@B Williamson
If you click on the Nature article linked-to in this piece, it has the details you are looking for.
1
So, any pretty pictures of the projections for coastal U.S. cities?
New York, Boston, ... ?
We should have had a President Gore.
783
@Jean We likely did, but that's another (sad) story.
76
@Jean Al Gore should not have walked away.
52
@Jean Thank the Revlon Reptile (the Florida secretary of state who wore enough makeup to keep several companies in business), the Supreme Court, and of course the delusional Ralph Nadir (intentional misspelling) for that.
69
why not a projection of NY, Boston and LA?
2
Um. What about North America?
1
I’m surprised Chicago is not on the list
It would be good to see a couple follow-up pieces, one on Europe, and one on the Americas. In the U.S. alone, a few candidates for these maps would be Boston, New York City, the Hamptons, the Delmarva Peninsula, Charleston, Savannah, all of Florida, New Orleans, and Houston. Maybe add in a few smaller towns like St. Genevieve, Missouri.
14
@Sidewalk Sam: I agree, but at the same time I suspect that projections for European and American cities don't need to be corrected the same way that those for Asian cities did. According to the article, this study used artificial intelligence to correct for estimates of elevation based on satellite data. I'm guessing that scientists had more reliable data for European and American cities. But I might be wrong.
4
1997, Al Gore said we had 10 years before Global Warming would melt the glaciers and our cities were under water.
2019, Al gore said we have 10 more years ...
I do believe that if this was an issue, cities would build sea walls. If it happens at all.
6
AutumnLeaf,
Climate science continues to advance and scientists have a lot more data to work with than in 1997. Although past warnings about carbon emissions were generally correct, they overestimated how fast disaster would strike and underestimated its severity.
Focusing on Al Gore is a red herring - climate change is already worsening the impact of hurricanes, floods, desertification of dry areas, and wildfires. And the worst effects will result from disrupted food and water supplies. What do you think is going to happen to drinkable freshwater supplies to millions of people in those areas that will be periodically inundated by rising seas?
The climate is changing, but the world is not a Hollywood movie where disasters strike overnight. That may be why climate change is incomprehensible to most people. But people ignore climate change at their own risk. It is real and its impact will get exponentially worse with each year of inaction.
10
@AutumnLeaf Glaciers are melting. 150 glaciers in Glacier National Park in 1920, 30 glaciers today. 80% of the snows of Kilimanjaro have melted since 1912. Glaciers in the Himalayas also melting. Greenland’s ice sheet shrinking. Arctic sea ice shrinking by 10% in 30 years. Ground subsiding more than 15 feet in parts of Alaska due to thawing permafrost. I could go on and on and on.
6
AutumnLeaf, also, "cities would build sea walls" with what money? People already don't want to pay a carbon tax or even an extra dime in taxes for much needed repairs and maintenance for our existing infrastructure. How likely are they to agree to taxes for sea walls? And never mind that wholesale sea walls around the cities of the east, west and Gulf coasts is even less tenable than a border wall on the Mexican border.
3
I would be interested in seeing the predictions for New York City, Long Island, New Jersey and the coast of New England.
4
@Connecticut Yankee Trumbull The data is better for the US. You dial up how inundation you expect with this tool https://ss2.climatecentral.org/#11/40.7657/-74.0142?show=satellite&projections=0-K14_RCP85-SLR&level=7&unit=feet&pois=hide
1
Now show us the impacts of these projections on the coastal areas of the United States.
1
Paolo Bacigalupi's novel, "The Windup Girl," deals with the fate of Bangkok in a future where the city is far under sea level. It's a fascinating read.
4
@Eye by the Sea Fascinating and terrifying. I loved that book.
2
@Eye by the Sea
I'm pleased to see another person to recommend "The Windup Girl" here (I beat you to it by about an hour, heh).
It is indeed the image of Bangkok underwater that makes you think of the book right away.
1
@Leonid Andreev
Just saw your comment! Love that more people are being introduced to his work. Yes, it's an image (like the rest of the book) that's hard to forget...
Each day, Trump and his Republicans act to make our planet less & less inhabitable for our children and grandchildren.
The window of opportunity to effectively mitigate Climate Change is rapidly disappearing.
The remaining 2020 Democratic Candidates will try to cut & paste portions of Governor Jay Inslee’s comprehensive & actionable Climate Change Mitigation Plan.
We must go with the Real Deal.
The winning Democratic Party 2020 Ticket: President Warren (build a green economy) + Vice President Inslee (save a blue planet)! W+IN 2020!
95
@Phillip Stephen Pino , it is important to look in the mirror than Trump. Rather, (a) look at your recycling/trash bin to see how much plastic waste you generate (b) look at your gas mileage (c) the bbqs and beef you consume (d) the lights you leave on (e) the hot showers you take. All of this consumes energy and contributes to the problem.Then, decide what you will give up to save Vietnam, China, Egypt, Iraq, and other places. That is the crux of the problem.
Trump has been and will be inconsequential since he is simply an adept politician exploiting our unwillingness to work together and resorting to tribalism.
The Democrats are no better with their lip service to win elections.
7
Please. Individual consumption or lack thereof will end the planet's problems? Doubtful. What is needed is governments, all of them working together to save this planet. Let's keep our eyes on the ways to actually save the planet.
15
@Linus This is what got us Trump and will lead to even worse: the notion that a party which doesn't make progress against enormous obstacles quickly enough is "no better" than a party which dismantles whatever progress was made and drags us headlong in the wrong direction.
10
Please tell us what the expected sea level rise these projections are based on. Knowing that we could analyze other areas on our own. Leaving that data out is unconscionable reporting
1
If you read the nature paper they give the projections. All based on very wide ranging IPCC models which do not match the reality of the measured data.
I know I am being completely selfish when I write that I am 70 years old and will likely be dead and gone before all these calamities really begin to hit our planet. I think it is going to be more apocalyptic than anyone really can imagine.
70
@Danwood
I'll be gone, too, by the time the worst happens, but the effects of climate change are already here and already making me sad. Bird and insect populations are dropping, and I can see it happening in my own hometown. Many of the "critters" that filled my childhood with wonder are gone. Example: I saw two ladybugs over the entire summer. There's calamity in the future, but wonder is already disappearing from the world. For me, that's already a disaster.
30
@Danwood If you are in reasonably good health, you may well live another 20-25 years and possibly longer after age 70 which would bring you pretty close to the article's 2050.
2
@E
I have been noticing a definite, continuing, and increasing reduction in birds and insects. The decrease in morning birdsong this year has been especially noticeable.
14
How big are the changes in elevation? How do they compare with ground-truth (surveying)?
Is it time to buy land in the Saharan desert for future agriculture businesses?
@Kassis
I think the only places that come out ahead are parts of Russia. The Sahara is just going to get bigger hotter and drier.
Interestingly enough the Sahara is a good example of human (and goat) caused climate change about 6000 years ago.
1
Could this be expanded, please, to show which of the US coastal cities will be below the sea in 2050?
3
Why is this in other news? This should be a headline story. These are the real issues that will be with us long after Trump is gone. We are facing a crisis largely under-reported by the media while it favors reality TV politics. Greta is right. Come on, NYTimes, focus more on the major issue of our times-- the climate crisis.
46
I suspect that many people in the US just aren't gonna get too excited when they read about Ho Chi Minh City or Mumbai going underwater.
Until maps and projections such as those in the article include places with names like Miami, Boston, and Charleston, people will bury their heads in the sand, or should I say quicksand.
4
At the risk of being self-centered, can we see a similar series of maps showing the effects of sea-level rise on U.S. cities? This article makes it seem as though the catastrophe is only going to affect Asia, the Middle East and North Africa.
4
@Kim Johnson The data is better for the US look at Surging Seas web site https://ss2.climatecentral.org/#9/37.5174/-121.4484?show=satellite&projections=0-K14_RCP85-SLR&level=7&unit=feet&pois=hide
3
If you think the movement of refugees is bad now, it will be a huge problem as the ocean rises. This is why young people are outraged.
31
I’d appreciate seeing similar updated projections for America's coastal cities.
1
Jesus... America, vote in Warren. Impose sanctions on other countries that are not acting.
We are literally running out of time.
22
We would have to start by sanctioning ourselves.
4
I would love to see the maps for the coastal cities of the USA. we live in Boston, and I often wonder how bad it will be.
130
@Susan
Here is Boston with 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise:
https://seeing.climatecentral.org/#12/42.3601/-71.0589?show=lockinAnimated&level=4&unit=feet&pois=hide
You can search for any world city.
4
Presidential candidate Andrew Yang was lambasted for saying that we need to move to higher ground in some instances in a pragmatic blog article he published on his campaign website in August. (Google 'Andrew Yang Climate Change' to find the article)
Even with draconian emissions reductions, we will still see human caused climate change for decades, so we do need to invest in protections for people and property.
A great irony of this, is that a main ingredient in one solution the article proposes, sea walls, is a horrific carbon emitter. Concrete is a very carbon intensive product. Building sea walls is carbon intensive. At this point though, the only alternative is to move to higher ground.
9
How about some measurements for these new projections, former projected increases in centimeters vs. the new projected increases in centimeters? Knowing, for example, that an additional ten centimeter projected increase in sea level meant losing an additional 500 square miles of Mumbai would give a lot more understanding of how tiny changes in sea level can create seemingly inordinate changes in dry land mass.
10
And what will be the scene for major industrial cities?
Certainly there will be changes there; why aren't they included in this study? It's woefully incomplete.
3
@djehutimesesu The study is here, open access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z
They mapped these particular parts of the world because this is where the data weren't previously available. All studies are "incomplete" because if every study had to include everything, nothing would ever get published. One of the major synthesis reports, like the ones from the IPCC, would probably answer your questions.
@djehutimesesu
Surging Seas lets you search by city. This link shows it set to NY.
https://seeing.climatecentral.org/#13/40.7128/-74.0060?show=lockinAnimated&level=4&unit=feet&pois=hide
That is a depressing story. It is good to get that information out. Not sure what we can do to stop this. Seems like it is a forgone conclusion it is going happen.
13
In norther CA at 30 feet above sea level, this makes me feel a bit less secure. The San Francisco Bay Area is going to change a lot.
3
30 years is a very small period of time in the broad expanse of human history. That is one human generation. In just one generation most of the world's coastal cities will be either destroyed or saved by giant seawalls. This too is only a tiny fraction of what is being transformed by the anthropogenic warming of the last half century. The Greenhouse gases threaten not only coastal ruin but widespread destruction of the earth's forests, ranch and agricultural lands, the fragile Arctic ecosystems and most worrisome of all the vast and vital oceans. All of this is at grave risk from rising temperatures, the corrosive effects of CO2 and the sweep of chemical pollution poisoning the land, sea and air. Armageddon really does await us if we can't remedy this situation. It should be remedied, but not in time to witness serious damage to the life world including ourselves. This is just a fact.
89
@Yankelnevich Deep regrets but no feasible remedy is likely. Oh, and Disaster Crony Capitalism will profit. Reactionary movements will thrive. One generation away. Watch closely.
5
No maps regarding the West and East coast, or European close to the sea?
I would have liked to know more about it. It probably means a lot more to us European and American readers.
It will probably scare us a little bit more, too.
352
@Matt D. According to the scientific study this article is summarizing, high-accuracy maps are already available for the coastal United States, much of coastal Australia, and parts of Europe, but are lacking or unavailable in most of the rest of the world. This new satellite-based map makes coastlines in the rest of the world more accurate. In other words, the maps we have right now for USA and Europe are up-to-date. Check them out in other articles!
15
@Matt D.
Maps for the US came out a few years ago.
Popular summary:
https://www.wired.com/2015/10/map-shows-sea-level-rise-will-drown-american-cities/
Interactive maps: https://choices.climatecentral.org/#12/38.9784/-76.4922?compare=temperatures&carbon-end-yr=2100&scenario-a=warming-4&scenario-b=warming-2
Original scientific paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508
27
@Matt D.
Projections of when Mar-A-Lago slips beneath the waves would be especially appreciated!
242
Is this something that can be reversed or have we crossed the point of no return— and we should be spending resources on mitigation and not reversal?
10
@James Whether or not the sea level rise projected in this report is inevitable, there's much more sea level rise to come after it, plus many other terrible effects from climate change and carbon pollution: ocean acidification, droughts, floods, lethal heat indices, mass extinction, climate refugees, etc. We should do everything we can to bring emissions of greenhouse gases to zero, and at the same time, implement carbon negative strategies. That is the only way we can leave our children and grandchildren a habitable planet.
8
@James, you could get all your food from regenerative farmers who rotate their livestock on fresh grass every day so that they sequester carbon back into the ground. Tell your friends!
2
What are we going to do about it? For all the doom and gloom, I haven’t seen very many hard solutions anywhere. Currently the US is 15% of global CO2 emissions. If we stopped all fossil fuel use tomorrow, it’d be a drop in the bucket in the scope of rapidly increasing global emissions - not nearly enough to stop the future foretold by these projections. Forget about a Green New Deal that won’t take a serious look at nuclear energy - that immediately disqualifies what could’ve been a worthwhile initiative as partisan nonsense.
What are we going to do about this problem?
15
@boyer The United States needs to be the leader in the goal - which means leading by example. The United States must develop green technology and make it free to other nations. The technology should be open source. The United States much help other nations implement green technology in other nations.
17
@boyer 15% is quite substantial, but even close to that wont happen. The western world is to blame for most of the beginning of global climate increases. What they do in the next 5 years will determine if we see the worlds
worst loss of life and wars of survival in all corners.
2
@boyer Such a despicable attitude
"Oh, we're only 15%, so we shouldn't make the effort".
Do you have no sense of personal responsibilty? Do two wrongs make a right? If your neighbor does something wrong is it ok for you to do the same? Of course not!
The US produces 3 times as much greenhouse gas per capita as Europeans. 6 times as much as Asians.
There are many things you could do tomorrow that would make a huge difference, lead by example, do what you can. Hope that enough people in these other countries do the same.
Vote for people who don't deny climate change.
Buy an electric car if you must have a car
Put solar panels on your roof
Cut down or eschew beef and lamb
Don't fly unless you absolutely have to
Insulate your house
Just doing that cuts your emissions massively.
Now...if only 100 million Americans woul do that.
19
And it could be worse:
From a conversation held a few months ago with Michael Mann and the renowned glaciologist Richard Alley. A few comments by Alley below.
“If we don’t change our ways we’re expecting something like 3 feet of sea level rise in the next century, and it could be 2 and it could be 4 and it could be 20.
The chance that we will cross thresholds that commit us to loss of big chunks of West Antarctica and huge sea level rise is real.
So when you start doing “Well you’re not sure,” but there’s a chance of really bad things and the uncertainties are mostly on the bad side, could be a little better or a little worse or a lot worse, but we’ll be breaking things.”
https://youtu.be/l2yclMcDroQ?t=47m4s
The same may be said about many impacts from global warming, could be a little better than we think, a little worse, or a lot worse.
There’s no a lot better.
48
@Erik Frederiksen And, to reinforce what you're saying, 'a little better' than forecast is still a lot worse than where we are right now.
One thing that worries me is instability of the ice fields caused by sea level rise--i.e. rising seas I undermining the ice sheets and glaciers, particularly in Antarctica and Greenland.
I don't know if that's a realistic fear or whether current projections include the impact of such a phenomenon, but I suspect that the potential consequences are unpleasant.
3
Recommended reading:
The Windup Girl, by Paolo Bacigalupi.
It's science fiction; but beautifully written and creepily real in its description of the post-climate calamity civilization.
25
@Leonid Andreev Yup, specifically Bangkok living under an extreme version of the Dutch dikes, dams, and floodgates.
@Leonid Andreev
Much earlier, John Wyndham's "Out of the Deeps" (UK version, "The Kraken Wakes") has alarming scenes of London and much of the UK inundated. In that novel, it's aliens, melting the Greenland glaciers.
But we have met the aliens, and they are us, to paraphrase Pogo.
3
When I lived along the Mississippi River, about a 7 hour drive north of New Orleans, I looked at a map of projected sea rise and the cities along the Mississippi, except ones up on bluffs, were underwater clear to St. Louis. All the towns and cities along major rivers were underwater. For instance, the map showed most of Portland under the Columbia River. The sea water will go up the rivers and drown inland towns.
111
@Linda and salt water incursions into alluvial agricultural land will destroy it.
24
@Linda Portland is about 500 feet above the current sea level. Doubt the seas will rise that much in the next 100 years.
1
@Jon Orloff just for the record, Portland's elevation is 50' (not 500')
27
"... and possibly a military problem, too."
The US military was tasked with understanding and preparing for these eventualities (population displacements, refugees, civil wars) in the 1950s. Much of the early work on "climate change" was by the ONR (Office of Naval Research).
Surprising how our "conservative" and "pro-military" Republicans have forgotten all of that. Maybe they never knew.
362
@John The DOD has been aware and advising the Deep State for years on this issue. You are right, the GOP simply ignores its own experts when inconvenient. Look what happened to the USDA under Perdue - don't like the results of the research, get rid of the scientists.
75
@John It wouldn't surprise me that they know and have chosen to ignore
13
@John: The military most definitely has a problem – starting with major coastal installations domestic and foreign that are at risk of inundation, high tide flooding, and increased storm surge exposure. For example: much of Naval Station Norfolk and Parris Island are both less than 10 feet above sea level. There are at least a dozen other major domestic military bases at risk due to sea level rise.
29
I’d like to see graphics projecting population movements provoked by these inundations. The real problem won’t be a loss of real estate or farmland, it will be the mass movements of displaced people. Who are they? Where will they go? What will the reaction be of the people they in turn displace? What will happen to the economies, local and worldwide? The list of questions is huge.
556
@inkydrudge I think we are looking at the collapse of large scale businesses and a focus on survival oriented local initiatives. Cities will be uninhabitable. Keep that old wood stove folks, and forget your IRA.....
20
@inkydrudge
The refugee situation in Europe during the past few years is but a small example of the mass migration that will ensue as a result of rising seas.
107
@Munjoy fan
The pollution from that wood stove is one of the big factors driving climate change and sea-level rise. Buy a good solar power system and batteries instead.
47