More

Northeast US to suffer most from future sea rise

SETH BORENSTEIN   03/15/09 03:04 PM ET   AP

Global Warming

WASHINGTON — The northeastern U.S. coast is likely to see the world's biggest sea level rise from man-made global warming, a new study predicts.

However much the oceans rise by the end of the century, add an extra 8 inches or so for New York, Boston and other spots along the coast from the mid-Atlantic to New England. That's because of predicted changes in ocean currents, according to a study based on computer models published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

An extra 8 inches _ on top of a possible 2 or 3 feet of sea rise globally by 2100 _ is a big deal, especially when nor'easters and hurricanes hit, experts said.

"It's not just waterfront homes and wetlands that are at stake here," said Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, who wasn't part of the study. "Those kind of rises in sea level when placed on top of the storm surges we see today, put in jeopardy lots of infrastructure, including the New York subway system."

For years, scientists have talked about rising sea levels due to global warming _ both from warm water expanding and the melt of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica. Predictions for the average worldwide sea rise keep changing along with the rate of ice melt. Recently, more scientists are saying the situation has worsened so that a 3-foot rise in sea level by 2100 is becoming a common theme.

But the oceans won't rise at the same rate everywhere, said study author Jianjun Yin of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University. It will be "greater and faster" for the Northeast, with Boston one of the worst hit among major cities, he said. So, if it's 3 feet, add another 8 inches for that region.

The explanation involves complicated ocean currents. Computer models forecast that as climate change continues, there will be a slowdown of the great ocean conveyor belt. That system moves heat energy in warm currents from the tropics to the North Atlantic and pushes the cooler, saltier water down, moving it farther south around Africa and into the Pacific. As the conveyor belt slows, so will the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic current. Those two fast-running currents have kept the Northeast's sea level unusually low because of a combination of physics and geography, Yin said.

Slow down the conveyor belt 33 to 43 percent as predicted by computer models, and the Northeast sea level rises faster, Yin said.

So far, the conveyor belt has not yet noticeably slowed.

A decade ago, scientists worried about the possibility that this current conveyor belt would halt altogether _ something that would cause abrupt and catastrophic climate change like that shown in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow." But in recent years, they have concluded that a shutdown is unlikely to happen this century.

Other experts who reviewed Yin's work say it makes sense.

"Our coastlines aren't designed for that extra 8 inches of storm surge you get out of that sea level rise effect," said Jonathan Overpeck, director of an Earth studies institute at the University of Arizona.

While Boston and New York are looking at an additional 8 inches, other places wouldn't get that much extra rise. The study suggests Miami and much of the Southeast would get about 2 inches above the global sea rise average of perhaps 3 feet, and San Francisco would get less than an extra inch. Parts of southern Australia, northern Asia and southern and western South America would get less than the global average sea level rise.

This study along with another one last month looking at regional sea level rise from the projected melt of the west Antarctic ice sheet "provide a compelling argument for anticipating and preparing for higher rates of sea level rise," said Virginia Burkett, chief scientist for Global Change Research at the U.S. Geological Survey.

Burkett, who is based in Louisiana, said eventually New Englanders could be in the same "vulnerability situation" to storms and sea level rise as New Orleans.

___

On the Net

Nature Geoscience: http://www.nature.com/ngeo

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — The northeastern U.S. coast is likely to see the world's biggest sea level rise from man-made global warming, a new study predicts. However much the oceans rise by the end of the c...
WASHINGTON — The northeastern U.S. coast is likely to see the world's biggest sea level rise from man-made global warming, a new study predicts. However much the oceans rise by the end of the c...
Filed by Nick Graham  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 261
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:00 PM on 03/18/2009
i've a q or 2 for the alarmists here (u know who you r lo..):

just how much CO2 can we put into the atmosphere if we were to burn ALL the sequestered carbon?

it's a finite amount after all and so far we claim responsibility for only 35% of the .038% CO2

that is in the atmosphere now. so when we're done there might be a whopping .040% or .050%?
09:53 PM on 03/16/2009
The main thing this study highlights is the low level of fact that can be surmised from computer models. There are literally millions of things that make up and affect the climate. Taking a few dozen, or even a few hundred or thousand known statistics and try to predict the climate a hundred years from now? How very easy it is to make a computer model say whatever you want it to when you can input only a fraction of the events that affect what you're attempting to 'model'. These models can in no way be considered accurate in any degree. They're the results the modelers want to see. Find me a model that takes into account everything (most likely impossible) and it's worth a look. These are just barely educated guesses taken from 'studies' where the researchers were looking for a particular result. It's hardly surprising they get what they want from it. You can have a fairly accurate 'model' of a building, or a subway system. But the global climate? That's a joke.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:54 PM on 03/16/2009
i have three real life models contradicting the CO2 greenhouse effect:

1~ clear nights get as cold as they ever have despite a 35% increase in CO2

2~ clear days are 3 degrees F cooler for every 1000 feet of altitude

3~ and venus is only 900 degrees F with a 95% atmosphere meaning @ .095% it

would be .9 degrees F on venus, and we have .038% CO2 + oceans + a greater distance

from the sun!! so where's the heat?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
08:01 AM on 03/17/2009
We have done a good deal to clean up other pollutants besides CO2, for example, like taking lead out of our gasoline years ago. Wouldn't this go along way to explaining clear nights? Mexico City reported much cleaner skies after banning lead in the gasoline, although their air is still pretty dirty. i don't know which studies say that with warming the nights would no longer be clear. Isn't it kind of a straw man argiument?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
08:31 AM on 03/17/2009
Regarding Venus, 95% is .95 and not .095.

"Though Venus shares several features in common with our planet – hence its sometimes being called Earth’s “sister planet” – it differs in one crucial aspect: the amount of CO2 in its atmosphere."

"In fact, many of unique characteristics of Venus can be attributed to the fact that its atmosphere has such a large mass of CO2 – roughly 97 percent of it. This may help explain why its average surface temperature – around 462°C (or 735°K) – is so high, though there are certainly other factors at play. (The comparison isn't perfect, of course, since the two planets' atmospheres differ in other respects, but Venus' atmosphere does demonstrate that there is a link between higher CO2 levels and higher temperatures.)"

http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-handbook-carbon-dioxide-climate-change

Fumes, brush up on that math, Mr. Pilot!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
07:57 AM on 03/17/2009
How do you know anything about the models used by climate scientists? Have you read anything about them? I doubt it! They most often explain past climate variations very well. You state: "They're the results the modelers want to see." No, rather I think your statement reflects what you want to believe.
03:46 AM on 03/28/2009
I apparently know a lot more about them than you seem to. It's a perfect 'garbage in garbage out' ' example. Climate models are just that....models. They are routinely totally off base. The quality of information needed for an accurate climate model are not available even fractionally. Believe what you want because you have no scientific fact to argue, only theory.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fredisfred
06:58 PM on 03/16/2009
Wait a minute! Both Rush and Hannity said global warming is a hoax, so it can't be true, can't it?
07:07 PM on 03/16/2009
This will happen sooner then later. NYC is also on a fault line and there is a expected big earh quake to take place soon. We did not buy here for many reasons but now for sure i would not buy anything because i do NOT trust the insurance companies
06:13 PM on 03/16/2009
our grandchildren (for those of us under 40) are gonna have alot to contend with at century's end.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:56 PM on 03/16/2009
I'm not disputing the substance of the science, but the characterization of "suffering" in the headline above. Even if Northeasterners in the U.S. experience what's described above, they will not suffer more than residents of small tropical islands, who will have to leave land that will cease to exist.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fredisfred
07:03 PM on 03/16/2009
Well, losing your home to a storm surge could be described as "suffering." Just ask anybody who used to live in Port Bolivar, TX.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
seehowtheyrun
I have a dog and I vote.
03:54 PM on 03/16/2009
This just can't be. M. Stee.le says the earth is cooling.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
08:31 AM on 03/17/2009
Yes, I've never known him to be wrong!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:50 PM on 03/16/2009
Only anecdotal, but having lived very close to the Atlantic coast for 25 years, I've noticed, at least where I live, the beaches that were there back in the early 80's, are now pretty much gone. High tide seems higher.
07:52 PM on 03/16/2009
An 'American Heritage' article I read fifteen years ago showed the bluff where Emerson walked on a path near the ocean. The place where the path had been, said the article, was now some fifty feet in the ocean, and had been for some time.

We call that "erosion." Global erosion.
03:48 PM on 03/16/2009
Row, Row, Row Your Ford

Hope is the very last one standing,
and she’s getting weak in the knees.
When Earth has lost its permafrost,
will cars then ply the seas?

-- From my collection of quatrains
entitled "Views From Over the Hill"
Gasparilla
buy your local newspaper
02:07 PM on 03/16/2009
fumes, I guess you're looking to play semantics games. Your words below, in answer to me: "and because we change the climate...we can control it?"

If we can "change the climate", it therefore must follow that we can "control" it. Because you are admitting that human factors can indeed change it, then if you control the factors, therefore you can control the change. There's no way of getting around that.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:12 PM on 03/16/2009
and i say that that thinking is non sequitur because

we as a species have had no luck in controlling

our behavior to date regarding anything else.
Gasparilla
buy your local newspaper
02:32 PM on 03/16/2009
Non sequitur? Are you serious? You're comparing "behavior" to the fact that if you can scientifically change something, you therefore can control it?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:37 PM on 03/16/2009
{{{crickets}}}???

gasp.. where'd ya go?
Gasparilla
buy your local newspaper
02:50 PM on 03/16/2009
I didn't go anywhere. As you can see below, I answered your post of 212pm at 232pm, 5 minutes before you're asking where I went. Obviously you're determined to make this about anything but the subject.
01:58 PM on 03/16/2009
Talk about forcing views onto others....if you think we can stop global warming, then do it. Stop using electricity (to pump water to and from residence also), stop driving or using transportation that uses fossil fuel (includes electricity), and stop purchasing food that has been shipped to where you live. Think of the differences you will make and if all the people that think like you do this, global warming WILL be reversed (according to "your"scientists).
Please stop preaching your rel1g10n about how we could all have better lives if we only followed your ideas. You are following a belief and trying to force the rest of us to bankroll your faith.
Show us by example...when your neighborhood become "Oz", the rest of us will join you.
Gasparilla
buy your local newspaper
03:11 PM on 03/16/2009
It's not either or. You want to present it as we can't do everything, so therefore we can't anything. That's your claim, not anyone else's.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:56 PM on 03/16/2009
Do you have any problem believing that a very small drug or chemical dose can alter a whole body? If you've ever taken vitamins or medication, the idea must make some sense to you.

And, in a way, you're right. In the Grand scheme of things, our altering the planet by a few degrees and raising the ocean levels by a few feet won't mean a whole lot to whoever will be around 50 million years from now. The Earth will still look the same from space. But down here, for those who care about our society and the current crop of Earthly species, it does matter.
01:15 PM on 03/16/2009
Greetings from Louisiana. As so many Northerners said after Katrina, "Shouldn't have built where it floods!"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:32 PM on 03/16/2009
Said the man wading through his living room to the guy who "may" see some localized flooding in 75 years
12:29 PM on 03/16/2009
I'll believe climate change is real when Florida makes it illegal to build on the beach.
photo
MikeDu
Both salubrious and lugubrious concurrently.
01:04 PM on 03/16/2009
About building on the Beach, I'm reminded of that old Marx Brothers film where Grougho is an unscrupulous Florida real estate salesman. A potential customer asks about the building facade "Can I get stucco?" Groucho replies "Ooooh, you CAN get stuck-o alright".
According to this report much current Florida beachfront property is going to be several miles off the coast soon. And I'm sure they'll keep building until the moment the waves are lapping against the foundation.
08:09 PM on 03/16/2009
Hey, no problem, AIG will have everyone on the coast insured!
House gone underwater -- call AIG, they'll pay, they get bail outs.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
08:33 AM on 03/17/2009
Insurers will no longer insure that beach front property. The government will probably discontinue any benefits for rebuilding, if it hasn't already.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:10 PM on 03/17/2009
Admittedly it's been several weeks since I was in Florida, but when I was there in Feb, there were Hotels in the process of being built on the beach in Clearwater. I sincerely doubt that anyone is venturing that sort of capitol on a building that cannot be insured.
Gasparilla
buy your local newspaper
11:43 AM on 03/16/2009
But.but, but, ....you can't change the climate. No one said there aren't natural changes, but if you add enough pollutants and green house gases, then you are going to change the chemical composition and nature of the atmopshere. It's called basic middle school science. Saying man can't affect the atmosphere is simply denial of that science.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:48 AM on 03/16/2009
uh-huh..

and because we change the climate..

we can control it?

lol.. apples and oranges!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Exusian
Nature bats last
12:06 PM on 03/16/2009
Fumes, I'll agree with you that we can't *control* climate, which is exactly why we shouldn't change it. Unfortunately, it's much too late for that.
Gasparilla
buy your local newspaper
12:13 PM on 03/16/2009
I'm not exactly sure what you're saying, Fumes. What is your point? If you're admitting that we can change the climate, then the obvious fact is that we can indeed control it to the extent that we're adding pollutants from non-natural sources.
11:38 AM on 03/16/2009
Canada isn't mentioned in this article. It's almost as if the world ends at the border, and nothing exists beyond that.
01:14 PM on 03/16/2009
Don't worry - as temperatures increase, more Americans will soon discover that Canada has a heck of a lot of fresh water.

We may not want the attention they'll give us then...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
GOP is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing!
08:36 AM on 03/17/2009
Great point!