Which cities will be under water in 100 years?

[RollingThunder]

1200 feet huh. Might want to check that, it is indeed in the foothills but it's a long way from 1200 feet up. Looking at a topo map of the area he is between 350 and 450 in elevation. Guess you never bothered to learn how to read a map eh dullard?

LOLOLOLOLOL......hilarious how you change your story, walleyed, and destroy your own cultic myth......first it was you parroting the denier cult myth that VP Gore must be a hypocrite for buying "beachfront property",
"Al Gore himself bought beachfront property in Montecito."
now you admit that his house is at least 350 to 450 feet in elevation
"Looking at a topo map of the area he is between 350 and 450 in elevation."
.......LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......you are such a hypocrite.....

Hey, I was relying on the accuracy of the Huffpo article!

What "Huffpo article", numbnuts??? On this whole thread, no one has cited or quoted any such article. You were actually idiotically "relying on the the (totally nonexistent) accuracy" of your fraudulent denier cult myths.

It's not my fault they suck at reporting!

Actually walleyed, you just suck at
accepting reality,
science,
logic,
reason,
rational thinking,
and sanity.

I didn't "change" my story either. You said I was wrong so I checked it and discovered that you were indeed correct that it wasn't beachfront property, so I ACKNOWLEDGED that you were correct about it being in the foothills,

Well, good for you, walleyed. The first dim hints of rationality should be encouraged. Keep on working on letting go of all of those demented and very fraudulent denier cult myths like you have this one and you might eventually win freed of your current delusional state and emerge into the light of sanity.

but that you were totally wrong as to its elevation.
It's not my fault you're too stupid to read a topo map correctly.

Perhaps. The map I looked at indicated an elevation of about 1200 feet. Show us your supposed "topo map" with the location of VP Gore's house marked.

Of course, in terms of the denier cult myth that Gore hypocritically bought "beachfront property", a myth you happily parroted, it makes little difference whether the house is at 1200 or 400 feet above sea level, your myth is still completely debunked.

 

[Politico]

And still none of them.

 

[RollingThunder]

And still none of them.

Well....LOL....since the question asked in the OP is "what cities will be under water in 100 years?".....obviously none of them are yet.....which just makes you very obviously pretty retarded for even posting such meaningless drivel....

 

[Politico]

Yeah and you know which ones will long after you are dead. Who is retarded?

 

[IanC]

what a stupid thread. what is the definition of underwater? a significant portion of the Nederlands is already below sea level. the same for New Orleans. why does anyone think that a continuation of SLR is going to be anything more than an inconvenience?

ZERO is the number of cities underwater in 100 years because of sea level rise.

 

[skookerasbil]

Read about the image here -

Information is Beautiful: When Sea Levels Attack | News | theguardian.com

Not to worry s0n......you'll be in your box for decades by then!! If it weirds you that much, make some plans now to get a ticket onto Abe's emergency ark!!! You could be the Captain, Nuddly!!!

 

[westwall]

LOLOLOLOLOL......hilarious how you change your story, walleyed, and destroy your own cultic myth......first it was you parroting the denier cult myth that VP Gore must be a hypocrite for buying "beachfront property",
"Al Gore himself bought beachfront property in Montecito."
now you admit that his house is at least 350 to 450 feet in elevation
"Looking at a topo map of the area he is between 350 and 450 in elevation."
.......LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......you are such a hypocrite.....

Hey, I was relying on the accuracy of the Huffpo article!

What "Huffpo article", numbnuts??? On this whole thread, no one has cited or quoted any such article. You were actually idiotically "relying on the the (totally nonexistent) accuracy" of your fraudulent denier cult myths.






Actually walleyed, you just suck at
accepting reality,
science,
logic,
reason,
rational thinking,
and sanity.

I didn't "change" my story either. You said I was wrong so I checked it and discovered that you were indeed correct that it wasn't beachfront property, so I ACKNOWLEDGED that you were correct about it being in the foothills,

Well, good for you, walleyed. The first dim hints of rationality should be encouraged. Keep on working on letting go of all of those demented and very fraudulent denier cult myths like you have this one and you might eventually win freed of your current delusional state and emerge into the light of sanity.

but that you were totally wrong as to its elevation.
It's not my fault you're too stupid to read a topo map correctly.

Perhaps. The map I looked at indicated an elevation of about 1200 feet. Show us your supposed "topo map" with the location of VP Gore's house marked.

Of course, in terms of the denier cult myth that Gore hypocritically bought "beachfront property", a myth you happily parroted, it makes little difference whether the house is at 1200 or 400 feet above sea level, your myth is still completely debunked.

Well, this one numbnuts...I understand you are pretty stupid but I figured even you could find this. Clearly I was wrong. Your powers of research are actually inferior to that of a chimpanzee. Good to know!
The last picture in the series....

PHOTOS: Al Gore's New $8.875 Million Montecito Villa

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Thunder.......how 'bout some pics of that emergency ark???

 

[Old Rocks]

what a stupid thread. what is the definition of underwater? a significant portion of the Nederlands is already below sea level. the same for New Orleans. why does anyone think that a continuation of SLR is going to be anything more than an inconvenience?

ZERO is the number of cities underwater in 100 years because of sea level rise.

How many times in the past has a significant portion of the Netherlands been flooded by a major storm. Seems New Orleans was flooded not too long ago. And, with a meter rise in sea level, how do you think we will protect our ports and cities against said storms? And how much is that going to cost? By the turn of the next century, a lot of cities will have seen flooding such as New York saw with Sandy. Only more so.

 

[westwall]

what a stupid thread. what is the definition of underwater? a significant portion of the Nederlands is already below sea level. the same for New Orleans. why does anyone think that a continuation of SLR is going to be anything more than an inconvenience?

ZERO is the number of cities underwater in 100 years because of sea level rise.

How many times in the past has a significant portion of the Netherlands been flooded by a major storm. Seems New Orleans was flooded not too long ago. And, with a meter rise in sea level, how do you think we will protect our ports and cities against said storms? And how much is that going to cost? By the turn of the next century, a lot of cities will have seen flooding such as New York saw with Sandy. Only more so.

Look up The Great Drowning of Men and then let us know how high the CO2 levels were back then....

 

[mamooth]

Another fine Westwall red herring. Here, he implies that because a storm killed people in 1362, sea level rise won't matter. As is usually the case with him, his conclusion doesn't follow at all from his premise. Not that it matters to him, since his goal is to deflect discussions away from rationality.

So, back to rationality. A meter of sea level rise means coastal cities are going to flood much more often. In the case of Miami, it's going to flood every few months, whenever the moon is right and the wind blows briskly. That will make much of the city uninhabitable.

 

[HenryBHough]

So, back to rationality. A meter of sea level rise means coastal cities are going to flood much more often. In the case of Miami, it's going to flood every few months, whenever the moon is right and the wind blows briskly. That will make much of the city uninhabitable.

And this does not represent a major improvement because ______________?______________________.

 

[mamooth]

Actually, the bad neighborhoods in Miami are the ones on the higher ground. Developers, seeing the future, want the land there. But don't count on the inhabitants just rolling over and getting eminent-domained out peacefully. Things will get interesting.

Also, 1 meter sea level rise puts half of the Everglades under the ocean. It's not just Miami, the southern tip of Florida goes away. And Miami ends up with ocean east and west of it.

 

[IanC]

what a stupid thread. what is the definition of underwater? a significant portion of the Nederlands is already below sea level. the same for New Orleans. why does anyone think that a continuation of SLR is going to be anything more than an inconvenience?

ZERO is the number of cities underwater in 100 years because of sea level rise.

How many times in the past has a significant portion of the Netherlands been flooded by a major storm. Seems New Orleans was flooded not too long ago. And, with a meter rise in sea level, how do you think we will protect our ports and cities against said storms? And how much is that going to cost? By the turn of the next century, a lot of cities will have seen flooding such as New York saw with Sandy. Only more so.

NOLA and the Nederlands are not flooded because people choose to stop them from being flooded. storms have always been a threat and they will continue to be a threat.

sea level has been rising for a long time. last century it averaged about 2mm/yr. in the 90's along came satellite altimetry and SLR immediately jumped to 3mm/yr. whether that number is realistic or not remains to be seen. I have grave suspicions that assumptions necessary to calibrate altimetry have led to spuriously high readings. but then alarmists like you come along and declare that there will be a one metre rise by 2100 (when none of us will be around). we have already used up 1/7th of the century and there have already been bogus 'adjustments' just to try and keep the SLR at 3mm/yr (one foot per century) but you guys take it on faith that somehow average for the rest of the century is going to magically quadruple to almost 12mm/yr! and a lot of alarmists consider just a one metre rise to be conservative.

temperatures have been rising since we came out of the Little Ice Age. so have sea levels. and ice has been melting. those things will continue until our climate changes direction and starts to cool again. until then we had better mitigate the negative effects and take advantage of the positive effects. screetching that the sky is falling is causing more damage than the supposed impacts of global warming. and calling for the end of fossil fuels before we actually have the technology to provide energy on demand is equivilent to a child holding its breathe until its face turns blue.

 

[westwall]

Another fine Westwall red herring. Here, he implies that because a storm killed people in 1362, sea level rise won't matter. As is usually the case with him, his conclusion doesn't follow at all from his premise. Not that it matters to him, since his goal is to deflect discussions away from rationality.

So, back to rationality. A meter of sea level rise means coastal cities are going to flood much more often. In the case of Miami, it's going to flood every few months, whenever the moon is right and the wind blows briskly. That will make much of the city uninhabitable.

No, it refers to your claims that what we are experiencing now is "unprecedented" I am merely pointing out to you that there were no SUV's back then and yet there were 30,000 people drowned in Europe in a storm when CO2 levels were "safe", there was no industrialization, and surprise surprise the sea levels were a tad higher BACK THEN!

As usual the facts fly right over your tiny little head.

 

[polarbear]

what a stupid thread. what is the definition of underwater? a significant portion of the Nederlands is already below sea level. the same for New Orleans. why does anyone think that a continuation of SLR is going to be anything more than an inconvenience?

ZERO is the number of cities underwater in 100 years because of sea level rise.

How many times in the past has a significant portion of the Netherlands been flooded by a major storm. Seems New Orleans was flooded not too long ago. And, with a meter rise in sea level, how do you think we will protect our ports and cities against said storms? And how much is that going to cost? By the turn of the next century, a lot of cities will have seen flooding such as New York saw with Sandy. Only more so.

NOLA and the Nederlands are not flooded because people choose to stop them from being flooded. storms have always been a threat and they will continue to be a threat.

sea level has been rising for a long time. last century it averaged about 2mm/yr. in the 90's along came satellite altimetry and SLR immediately jumped to 3mm/yr. whether that number is realistic or not remains to be seen. I have grave suspicions that assumptions necessary to calibrate altimetry have led to spuriously high readings. but then alarmists like you come along and declare that there will be a one metre rise by 2100 (when none of us will be around). we have already used up 1/7th of the century and there have already been bogus 'adjustments' just to try and keep the SLR at 3mm/yr (one foot per century) but you guys take it on faith that somehow average for the rest of the century is going to magically quadruple to almost 12mm/yr! and a lot of alarmists consider just a one metre rise to be conservative.

temperatures have been rising since we came out of the Little Ice Age. so have sea levels. and ice has been melting. those things will continue until our climate changes direction and starts to cool again. until then we had better mitigate the negative effects and take advantage of the positive effects. screetching that the sky is falling is causing more damage than the supposed impacts of global warming. and calling for the end of fossil fuels before we actually have the technology to provide energy on demand is equivilent to a child holding its breathe until its face turns blue.

In response to the part of your comment which I highlighted in red:
FAQs - Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents

NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 53) shows estimated widths of the 95% confidence intervals derived from all the calculated trends at long-term CO-OPS water level stations. A 30-year data set should provide a trend with a +/- 1.5 mm/yr confidence interval; a 60-year data set should provide a trend with a +/- 0.5 mm/yr confidence interval.

So as you can see, your suspicions were right. A 20 year data set has an error range of +/- 3 mm and a 30 year set +/- 1.5 mm.
And there is no way that the extended data set which uses primitive tidal gauges with a poorer than +/- 1.5 mm precision can improve the certainty range.
If the +/- noise is washed out then there is nothing left of the signal.
A major contributor to the noise seems to be atmospheric pressure and I have my doubts if that can be "compensated" for in the extended data set which uses vintage instrumentation.
That still applies to the tidal gauges we use on coast lines.
Neah Bay Wash. shows a trend of - 1.63 mm/year and right next door at Friday Harbor it`s + 1.13 mm/year
Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides & Currents

Changes in Mean Sea Level (MSL), either a sea level rise or sea level fall, have been computed at 128 long-term water level stations using a minimum span of 30 years of observations at each location

Interesting is that the trend for Alaska and Canada is overall negative.
For example @ Churchill the trend is down by - 9.48 mm/year and at Juneau Alaska it`s dropping by a whooping - 12.92 mm/year.