Study: Sea Rise Threatens Northeast U.S.

(AP)  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.

[tateofpa]

Will CBS news do it job and report the fallacy of global warming before it cost all of us a boat load of money, and making government even larger.

[j_mcdonald-2009]

Here's a very simple exercise anyone reading this can do:

Go to the site given below, which records the deviation of arctic ice from the 1978-2000 mean. It's a rather long graph, so use the slider on your browser to quickly scan from the start (1979) to the present (2009). Make your own assessment as to whether the trend is towards more or less ice. Then you can put into context the comments by louiville2 about the difference in ice for some random dates he cherry-picked to deceive you. That could help you assess his credibility on other points.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg

[TommyCraig]

"Do you not have Google Earth, are you just stupid or do you think things like global warming is some type of liberal political agenda and not a scientific reality?

Man some of you people are soooooo stupid it is really beyond belief".
Posted by lostreef at 11:48 AM : Mar 16, 2009

Don't use google earth to check the ice pack! It does not show the northern caps Ice very well.

[parisdakar]

Cool. I won't have to drive so far to go to the beach.

[cheetah-man7]

Most of you idiots should get on the bus with Sarah Palin: The earth is only 4,000 years old, dinosaures were servants of Satan and god created the universe as we now know it.

Posted by lostreef
_________________________

Servants of Satan? What Assembly of God church do you get your brainwashing from? P.S. Don't you know to always spell God with a capital "G" ? And you call us stupid?

[rf35]

Now after watching all the idiots who for whatever reason cannot see mans effect on our planet I realise that about half of the planet is still populated by morons that let the government and the church manipulate them.
Posted by lostreef

Actually, the governments and some churches are the ones spouting the AGW line, so who's being manipulated? Also the name-calling doesn't help you position, it just makes you sound bitter and desperate.

...Do you not have Google Earth...
Posted by lostreef

No.
In any case, the point I'm making isn't that global warming isn't occurring; it's only that man's role, if any, is being greatly exaggerated. The climate changes, deal with it. I'm also all for green power and energy independence for the USA. I just don't think some of the ideas that are being tossed around, such as carbon taxes and "cap and trade" systems are going to do anything useful other than line a few already well-lined pockets of the very "evil corporate demons" that are currently doing the polluting. It'll just give them an excuse to raise prices even beyond what would be needed to cover their increased costs. Without comparably priced alternate sources in place, the consumer gets screwed (again). Give me an HFC car, solar panals on my roof, and a windmill in my back yard, but don't tell me I have to buy carbon credits or start shelling out $1.50/KWh for electricity in order to "solve" a natural climate shift.

[barbaradurkin_1]

Identifying the scare tactic; 'Sea Rise Threatens the Northeast', that elicits a drastic response, particularly in the Northeast, soonest to be swamped, with subliminal message detected, "Unless Cape Wind is permitted the Northeast will be swamped".

I Googled: Jianjun Yin of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies
to learn who funding his research.

Research Grants

?U.S. Department of Energy, 2007-2011?

http://coaps.fsu.edu/~yin/cv.pdf

EPA response (CEQ #20090006) to the MMS Cape Wind MMS Final Environmental Impact Statement of February 17, 2009:

Cape Wind is ?not economically viable? as the EPA comments on the MMS Cape Wind FEIS to MMS James Bennett confirm:

?Alternatives?

?EPA?s comments on the DEIS noted that the DEIS was not clear on how the scale of the smaller project alternative was established and whether it was based on economic consideration (for example where up front project capital costs were expected to equal project revenues) or other factors. We asked MMS to address this issue and whether this or another intermediate size alternative would perform substantially better economically or environmentally. We also noted that discussion about economic viability of the smaller scale project are complex given statements in the DEIS that the proposed project and other sites are not economically viable. The discussion of economic viability provided in the FEIS in Section 3.2.1.2. is the same as the DEIS, Section 3.2.1.2. of the FEIS states that the site of the proposed action in Nantucket Sound ?has the greatest potential?. In addition, the information contained in the Economic Model in Appendix F remains unchanged.?

Appendix F:

?Given the estimated COST OF ENERGY IS $122/MWh, TWICE THAT OF THE CURRENT MARKET AND THIS IS AFTER THE FULL BENEFIT OF TAX AND RPS INCENTIVES, the prospects of entering a long-term purchase power contract would seem low.?

Source: http://www.mms.gov/offshore/AlternativeEnergy/PDFs/FEIS/
Appendix%20F%20-%20Economic_Model.pdf

World's largest wind turbine manufacturer Vestas President and CEO Ditlev Engle stated of the Cape Wind project proposal to the Boston Globe: "And, therefore, I am really wondering why anybody wants to put them up offshore because it?s twice the price. So just as an outsider, I am just scratching my head saying, ?Why??

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/09/21/the_answers
_to_him_are_blowing_in_the_wind/

'Green lobby must be treated as a religion'
Financial Times 09 January 2007

"Windmills on roofs and cycling to work are insignificant in practical consequence, but that is to miss their point. Every ideology needs rituals of observance which demonstrate the commitment of adherents.

Business should treat the environmental movement as it treats other forms of religious belief. Business leaders do not themselves have to believe its doctrines. Indeed we should be wary if they do: business linked to faiths and ideologies is a sinister and unaccountable power."

http://www.johnkay.com/general/479

I would add, "...business and "agencies of federal government" linked to faiths and ideologies are sinister and unaccountable powers."

[louiville2]

Andrew Bolt
Friday, December 19, 2008 at 12:16am


GLOBAL warming preachers have had a shocking 2008. So many of their predictions this year went splat.

Here?s their problem: they?ve been scaring us for so long that it?s now possible to check if things are turning out as hot as they warned.

And good news! I bring you Christmas cheer - the top 10 warming predictions to hit the wall this year.

Read, so you can end 2008 with optimism, knowing this Christmas won?t be the last for you, the planet or even the polar bears.

1. OUR CITIES WILL DIE OF THIRST

TIM Flannery, an expert in bones, has made a fortune from books and lectures warning that we face global warming doom. He scared us so well that we last year made him Australian of the Year.

In March, Flannery said: ?The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.?

In fact, Adelaide?s reservoirs are now 75 per cent full, just weeks from 2009.

In June last year, Flannery warned Brisbane?s ?water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months?.

In fact, 18 months later, its dams are 46 per cent full after Brisbane?s wettest spring in 27 years.

In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney?s dams could be dry in just two years.

In fact, three years later its dams are 63 per cent full, not least because June last year was its wettest since 1951.

In 2004, Flannery said global warming would cause such droughts that ?there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century?s first ghost metropolis?.

In fact, Perth now has the lowest water restrictions of any state capital, thanks to its desalination plant and dams that are 40 per cent full after the city?s wettest November in 17 years.

Lesson: This truly is a land ?of drought and flooding rains?. Distrust a professional panic merchant who predicts the first but ignores the second.

[louiville2]

2. OUR REEF WILL DIE

PROFESSOR Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of Queensland University, is Australia?s most quoted reef expert.

He?s advised business, green and government groups, and won our rich Eureka Prize for scares about the Great Barrier Reef. He?s chaired a $20 million global warming study of the World Bank.

In 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg warned that the Great Barrier Reef was under pressure from global warming, and much of it had turned white.

In fact, he later admitted the reef had made a ?surprising? recovery.

In 2006, he warned high temperatures meant ?between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland?s great Barrier Reef could die within a month?.

In fact, he later admitted this bleaching had ?a minimal impact?.

In 2007, he warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were again bleaching the reef.

In fact, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network last week said there had been no big damage to the reef caused by climate change in the four years since its last report, and veteran diver Ben Cropp said this week that in 50 years he?d seen none at all.

Lesson: Reefs adapt, like so much of nature. Learn again that scares make big headlines and bigger careers.
3. GOODBYE, NORTH POLE

IN April this year, the papers were full of warnings the Arctic ice could all melt.

?We?re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time,? claimed Dr David Barber, of Manitoba University, ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free.

?It?s hard to see how the system may bounce back (this year),? fretted Dr Ignatius Rigor, of Washington University?s polar science centre.

Tim Flannery also warned ?this may be the Arctic?s first ice-free year?, and the ABC and Age got reporter Marian Wilkinson to go stare at the ice and wail: ?Here you can see climate change happening before your eyes.?

In fact, the Arctic?s ice cover this year was almost 10 per cent above last year?s great low, and has refrozen rapidly since. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been increasing. Been told either cool fact?

Yet Barber is again in the news this month, predicting an ice-free Arctic now in six years. Did anyone ask him how he got his last prediction wrong?

Lesson: The media prefers hot scares to cool truths. And it rarely holds its pet scaremongers to account.
4. BEWARE HUGE WINDS

AL Gore sold his scary global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth, shown in almost every school in the country, with a poster of a terrible hurricane.

Former US president Bill Clinton later gloated: ?It is now generally recognised that while Al Gore and I were ridiculed, we were right about global warming. . . It?s going to lead to more hurricanes.?

In fact, there is still no proof of a link between any warming and hurricanes.

Australia is actually getting fewer cyclones, and last month researchers at Florida State University concluded that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years.

Lesson: Beware of politicians riding the warming bandwagon.

[louiville2]

5. GIANT HAILSTONES WILL SMASH THROUGH YOUR ROOF

ROSS Garnaut, a professor of economics, is the guru behind the Rudd Government?s global warming policies.

He this year defended the ugly curved steel roof he?d planned at the rear of his city property, telling angry locals he was protecting himself from climate change: ?Severe and more frequent hailstones will be a feature of this change,? he said.

In fact, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits ?decreases in hail frequency are simulated for Melbourne. . .?

Lesson: Beware also of government advisers on that warming wagon.
6. NO MORE SKIING

A BAD ski season three years ago - right after a great one - had The Age and other alarmists blaming global warming. The CSIRO, once our top science body, fanned the fear by claiming resorts such as Mt Hotham and Mt Buller could lose a quarter of their snow by 2020.

In fact, this year was another boom one for skiing, with Mt Hotham and Mt Buller covered in snow five weeks before the season started.

What?s more, a study this year in the Hydrological Sciences Journal checked six climate models, including one used by the CSIRO.

It found they couldn?t even predict the regional climate we?d had already: ?Local model projections cannot be credible . . .?

It also confirmed the finding of a study last year in the International Journal of Climatology that the 22 most cited global warming models could not ?accurately explain the (global) climate from the recent past?.

As for predicting the future. . .

Lesson: The CSIRO?s scary predictions are near worthless.
7. PERTH WILL BAKE DRY

THE CSIRO last year claimed Perth was ?particularly vulnerable? and had a 90 per cent chance of getting less rain and higher temperatures.

?There are not many other parts of the world where the IPCC has made a prediction that a drop in rainfall is highly likely,? it said.

In fact, Perth has just had its coldest and wettest November since 1991.

Lesson: As I said, don?t trust the CSIRO?s model or its warnings.