Slideshow: Photos Show Global Warming Overtaking Cities

Edward Mazria wants people to know how rising sea levels -- made worse by global warming -- will affect residents along U.S. coastlines...

Mazria isn't a climatologist. He's not even a scientist. He's an architect who gave up running his company in January to devote his time to a nonprofit group he founded several years ago. Called Architecture 2030, the organization tries to bring attention to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that the building sector contributes to global warming through inefficient electricity use, lighting, heating and cooling...

To demonstrate Mazria's point, Architecture 2030 has compiled a report that features images depicting the dramatic effects of sea level rise -- from about 3 to 16 feet -- on 21 cities around the country.

Read the entire article here.

See a selection Architecture 2030's images below.

• • • • • • • • New York All Photos from ABC News/2030, Inc./Architecture 2030' and Google

All Photos from ABC News/2030, Inc./Architecture 2030' and Google

Comments

[VogonsCryptolect]

A couple picture book things for the less intelligent to get an idea about global change:

http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/maps.htm

http://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/antarctica/ideas/gondwana2.html

For the more thoughtful among you I offer this interesting article:

http://www.hindawi.com/GetArticle.aspx?doi=10.1155/S1173912601000153

It helps to indulge a bit in real science and gain true perspective especially when discussing something as big as global climate change.

A homework assignment:
I would additionally suggest that you look at global temperature in different time frames so as to get an honest perspective.
May I suggest you start inside Al Gore's snapshot time frame and move outward let's say 50 years-
100 years-
250 years-
500 years-
10,000 years-
50,000 years-
150,000 years,
250,000 years
500,000 years.
(Pay particular attention to the cycle you see emerging here.
Realize the hoax being perpetrated on you in two ways :
1. A ground assumption that constancy in earth's climate exists inside some arbitrarily narrow temperature range observed in the modern era.

2. Using a small data sample to support the contention that such constancy exists and that a significant anomaly is occurring outside of a normalized statistically relevant time frame.

Recall and reflect on the fact that modern humans have only emerged in the last 70 to 100 thousand years and that civilization is only about about 10% of that number.

Write 200 hundred times: "I will not be fooled by charlatans pretending at science without doing my homework first."

[VogonsCryptolect]

Two additional notes for my friend Fume the antiskeptic:

1: All Nobel laureates are not climatologists or even informed on climate. (A Typical Fume style deceptive fallacy.)

2.Your unscientific confirmation bias and willingness to pass off correllation arguments as causal arguments demonstrates, again, the pathos of your intelligence.

[VogonsCryptolect]

Sorry I haven't had my coffee yet...
Correction:
1.Not all Nobel laureates are climatologists nor are all Nobel laureates informed on climate.

[bobh]

Maybe now we can have gondolas in NYC; it will be very romantic.

[MaxBob]

oooooooo, that's 'scary' stuff. I need to recycle more. Lessen my 'carbon footprint'. Take more 'Beano'.

[loki]

Damn, I just posted on the comment. Crap, I hate that.

[loki]

By the way, does anyone know what Rummy the Cheshire Cat is up to now that he is so called "retired"
Im sure he has his fingers in this somehow. Would be interesting if someone could find out..

[larry278]

Trolls-why argue about what's causing ice caps to melt & also raise the level of oceans. Think of the liberals who will be wiped out as the oceans flood & destroy much of NYC & other coastal plains. The east coast's plains are where a great number of liberals live. The liberals who don't drown are going to become refugees. Neo-cons can build concentration camps for liberal refugees displaced by flood & keep liberals from leaving the camps. Often prisoners in concentration camps starve to death or are killed by epidemics which sweep through relocation camps. Neo-cons will be rid of liberal pests.
You can't blame neo-cons for floods that are acts of nature. There won't be any need to round up liberals. The coastal floods will drive the liberals to relocation centers. You can easily keep the liberals in the camps where stavation & epidemics will kill off the liberal pests in less than 3 years.

[ceasenake]

How much has the sea level risen in the past 125 years?

About 8 inches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

[watchingthings]

It looks like in the near future a lucrative business in coastal cities would be in the selling of small rowboats, canoes and kayaks.

[shockmagog]

Don't forget "window surfing."

[researcher]

please tell me it will overtake washington dc.

[reece5309]

No

[reece5309]

This is nothing more than typical media behavior. Nothing more than typical media distortion and really what it is, is constant focus on crisis. If somebody they think is credible, a scientist or an expert, comes out and says, "We got global warming. It's going to happen," you had a former vice president with a movie out there, they love it. It's crisis. It sells newspapers! It gets ratings! It promotes liberalism! It promotes big government! I don't think, folks, based on where some of our thermometers are that take official temperature readings in this country and around the world, I don't think we can possibly know for sure whether it's getting warmer or colder climate-wise worldwide. How can in the middle of global warming we set record lows in the summertime and have record highs in the winter? Some of these things just don't make sense. But aside from all that, you don't factor precipitation, you throw the sun out of the equation, and you only factor in rich countries and wealthy human beings and then point the finger of blame, you don't think that's liberalism? That's liberalism to its core, combined with a compliant media that is focused not on facts and truth and open exchange of ideas, but just promoting crisis, pure and simple. Don't fall for it. It's a hoax!

[shockmagog]

You are all confused again. The articles you cite recount the best data at the time that reflected natural climactic cycles. The "cycles" remain. Only now, though, the monkey wrench of human causation has been thrown in. Therein lies the rub.

You must not have caught the definition of Liberalism:

‘But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."’
-John F. Kennedy

“…a compliant media that is focused not on facts and truth and open exchange of ideas, but just promoting crisis, pure and simple.”

Seeing as how the American Media was a force in convincing many citizens of the United States to "elect" the worst president in history (heading the most corrupt and inept administration in history--and do it not once, but twice!); and seeing as how the American Media has been instrumental in beating the drum for the Bush Administration’s incredibly dangerous and stupid invasion and occupation of Iraq, I see you may have a point about the media.

[reece5309]

Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth's surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning 'the earth is steadily growing warmer.' After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled 'Climate – the Heat May Be Off.' As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature. The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: 'A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.'"

[reece5309]

"It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of 'geologists.' Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming -- it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age. The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be 'wiped out' or lower crop yields would mean 'billions will die.' Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting -- blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature. Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, 'Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.'

[reece5309]

an analysis of the last 100 years of journalism on global warming puts the blame for all of this hysteria on global warming exactly where it belongs, and that is the media! Now, for a hundred years we've had wacko scientists trying to advance agendas, and if the agenda happens to fit the media -- and the agenda here, by the way, is chaos. The agenda is crisis. That is why in 1979, Newsweek had run a cover on global cooling, the coming ice age, and there was a cover story on some magazine of a glacier, totally surrounding Manhattan with only Empire State Building protruding. Just as today, Algore's movie has a flood wiping out Manhattan. It doesn't matter, global cooling, global warming; it's crisis; it's we're in trouble; it's we need big government to fix it; we need to punish people; we need to control their lives. People are causing this. It's been going on for 100 years.

[Mark701]

Fact is anyone can deny global warming if they please. Just like you can stand on a set of railroad tracks and deny the light coming down the tunnel is not a train. In the end it doesn't matter what you "believe" because if you don't step off the tracks, you're dead.

[maxfusion]

Please, in the words of Howard Dean, EEEEyaaaaaaewhaaaaablaaaaaaooooooooCCheeeeKahoooobabybllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[HumeSkeptic]

Read more at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm

Bush aide says warming man-made
By Roger Harrabin
Environment analyst, BBC News



Professor John Marburger (left) is Mr Bush's top science advisor
The US chief scientist has told the BBC that climate change is now a fact.

Professor John Marburger, who advises President Bush, said it was more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame.

The Earth may become "unliveable" without cuts in CO2 output, he said, but he labelled targets for curbing temperature rise as "arbitrary".

[malarson2]

This entire argument is SO 2005 (Kind of like thinking Hillary would be a good president). I thought we had already moved past all this and were going in the direction of fixing it and fighting making it worse....