In Beth Daley’s article in The Boston Globe today, “US lags on plans for climate change” that just by it’s very title indicates that it’s time to think about adapting. We must be in what Al Gore calls, “A time of consequences.” The thousands of scientists who comprise the international last word on climate change (a.k.a. the IPCC) is about to confirm this:
By the end of this century, the IPCC projects global temperatures will rise 3.2 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit and oceans will rise 7 to 23 inches and possibly more, depending on how much carbon dioxide and other manmade greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. As a result, weather will become more erratic and severe.
This is NOT hyperbole.
Even the last few (3?) remaining skeptical holdouts can easily observe:
New England is already experiencing sustained warming and a changing climate that scientists say is consistent with a warming world. Winter temperatures have increased an average of 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 30 years, according to national climatic data, leading to less snow on the ground and ice on lakes. The growing season has extended by more than 10 days in some places, and rainstorms are becoming fiercer.
And of course again, we’re embarassingly out of step with the rest of the world:
Other countries have done far more to get ready for the effects of global warming than the United States. Britain’s far-reaching Climate Impacts Program includes strategies to ensure that construction projects address future climate change and gives communities and businesses specific suggestions to adapt, such as changing building codes. Denmark is designing ways to funnel floodwater away from populated areas during storms. To deal with warming temperatures, Manitoba, Canada, over the last five years has moved more than 300 miles of a winter road system that used to traverse frozen waterways, bogs, and swamps to permanent land.
So now as we enter this period of consequences, we no longer have the luxury of balancing the public’s reaction to simultaneously traveling down the paths of mitigation AND adaptation. We must now do both.
**For clarity’s sake (thanks to comment from joelpatterson) the graphic at the top of the post is also from The Globe. The details indicate that it’s actually a midpoint prediction of sea-level rise, not the worst case, although it does present a very bad weather case with a Cat 2 storm and Boston’s predicted sinking of 6 inches, both of which are likely over the next 100 or so years.
In each case, it was assumed that global warming would cause a sea level rise of 15 inches. That rise was chosen because it is midway between the 7 to 23 inches that scientists project oceans will rise by the end of this century.
does not exempt any of us from the period of consequences. As earthlings, we’re all in this together!
I’d like to point out that the ’15 inches’ prediction is based on the expansion of the seas because they’ll be warmer in 100 years. Just as height of the fluid in your car’s radiator sinks in winter and rises when the fluid gets hot, the seas will rise when they get warmer.
<
p>
This prediction is not accounting for additional water entering the sea if Greenland’s and Antarctica’s ice sheets melt. To consider that possibility, scientists look back to the last time Greenlands ice sheets melted, before the ice age. A hundred thirty thousand years ago, Greenland was 4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, and sea levels were four to six meters higher. Although some of that water level then came from melting in Antarctica, it’s clear that Greenland was a major contributor.
<
p>
If Greenland’s ice goes, we will see rises measured not in inches but meters.
<
p>
So, given that we likely will have a 15-inch rise and we might have a catastrophic loss of ice in Greenland, it would be rational to curb our greenhouse gas emissions and devote more study to the glaciers in Greenland, just so we don’t get surprised by them.
<
p>
An FAQ from New Scientist Magazine.
was the one unresovled issue in the IPCC report. The way I understand it is that any measure of sea level rise in the final report does not even account for changes in Greenland. For the sake of report expediency, I think they punted it to the next report.
<
p>
Excellent comment, JP. Very informative.
The flooding shown is what would happen in 100 years if Boston settles six inches, sea level rises 15 inches, and we get hit by a Category 2 hurricane during high tide. Not merely the 15-inch sea level rise. So, since we shouldn’t expect to avoid a hurricane for the next couple hundred years, we should start expecting policy to deal with such a situation. If Cambridge and Boston flooded as depicted it would take months (if not years) to get the cities back on track after a storm.
Here’s the details behind the graphic.
<
p>
The details indicate that it’s actually a midpoint prediction of sea-level rise, not the worst case, although the Cat 2 storm is the worst case of weather events contemplated.
<
p>
That picture is of a hypothetical Class 2 Hurricane scoring a direct hit on Boston. The 15 inches on a normal day will will not cause flooding.
<
p>
I would like somebody to show me a map of what a Cat 2 Hurricane would do today.
<
p>
With the barrier harbor islands and Cape Cod protecting us in Boston. The scenario looks to be doomsday in origin and has a very remote possibility of happening.
<
p>
As you folks are fond of saying “nothing to see here, move along”.
<
p>
Score one for the inquisition crowd.
If you actually read the post, you’ll see that I made the scenario quite clear. But you’re wrong about the 15 inches. 15 inches is a big deal–ask anyone with a wet basement. Keep in mind too that this predicted measurement is actually quite conservative and doesn’t account for any acceleration in Greenland and Arctic melting which I’ve heard could potentially lead to several FEET of sea-level rise.
<
p>
I wonder how many BMG readers live on the coast. According to this article from The Globe over 60% of our nation’s population is within 100 miles from the coast. Adaptation and mitigation taken together should be one of the top three issues of the next voting cycle.
<
p>
But you’re right about one thing, there may really be “nothing to see here.”
right on the coast. And I’m not worried one bit.
<
p>
One of the problems with boston is it is almost all landfill. So the 6″ subsidation is a bigger problem over time. Look at Venice, it’s not rising sea levels but sinking buildings that will do Venice in.
On top of the highest hill, looking forward to my new oceanfront property on Cape Cod!
I can see you! Just swim north.
Wet Basement = Problem for Global Warming
<
p>
This is the same as the idiotic suggestions that because it is cold today (32 degrees on April 6th is unseasonable cold compared to the average temperature for April is usually the mid 50s) there is no climate change.
Are you saying that it’s idiotic to say that wet basements and rising sea levels are related? I think you read me wrong, or I’m reading you wrong.
Wet basements have nothing to do with sea level rise. Wet basements have to do with a slue of other things such as poor construction, constructing buildings within flood zones (like on the beach), the fact that in order to construct a basement you have to first excavate the soil where the basement is going to be and the soil that is backfilled around the basement is not as compact as the naturally compacted/deposited soil around it so it creates a preferential pathway for water to sit around your basement and seep through the concrete, need I go on?
<
p>
Boston’s problems with rising sea level are a long time in coming. Boston had tremendously poor planning, but what do you expect for the 1700s. You shouldn’t building your city on a filled in water ways. Remember the Back Bay was actually a bay!! As EaBo pointed out, the sinking of 6 inches is a bigger problem then the sea level rise of 15 inches. That will lead to building instability and possible collapse. Which is much more dangerous then the slow methodic rise in the sea level over, what, a hundred years?
<
p>
Also, as EaBo pointed out, when was the last time a Category 2 hurricane hit Boston directly, as is predicted in your map? Bob didn’t, Gloria didn’t, Edna, Carol, anybody else? Those maps might as well be screen captures from The Day After Tomorrow because the chance of the scenario existing that is shown in those maps is as likely as that movie.
<
p>
And while I am on dump statements,
<
p>
<
p>
If you define “live on the coast” as within 100 miles, then pretty much everyone on BMG lives on the coast. 100 miles from the coast is somewhere past Chicopee. And I don’t think living within 100 miles of the coast means your house is going to be flood by the rising sea level. That all depends on the topography of where you live.
that when the rise in sea-level raises the water table up to new levels in someone’s basement, we can just say, “poor construction” and call them idiots for building there? I wonder how all those people in Peabody who have been been subject to FOUR, hundred-year-floods in the last 10 years would feel about that. I don’t think I’d be too happy to hear that, but then again neither were the people of New Orleans.
<
p>
And you’ve created a false argument. Sinking AND sea level rise are both problems and worthy of planning and mitigation.
<
p>
Peabody’s flooding is, as I also said about Boston, due to poor planning, on their behalf and on the behalf of other towns along the Porter River and other rivers in that area. Here is an article that talks about the Charles River and why it doesn’t flood over like the rivers in the Merrimack Valley. In short, there was some better planning that occurred along this river that included the purchasing of the land along the river and leaving it vacant so that “the various parcels of land would act as giant natural sponges during floods, absorbing vast amounts of water quickly, then releasing it slowly as the river receded.” And the four, hundred-year-floods are also affected by the development of these area by creating more hard surfaces (i.e. roads, driveways, parking lots, buildings, etc.) and less area of infiltration for storm waters (i.e. green spaces such as grass, woods, etc.). None of this is related to climate change, which may or may not be man induced, but the increased flooding is most definitely man induced by poor planning.
<
p>
But this is a bit off topic, your initial post regarded the crisis facing Boston by the 15-inch sea level change. To respond to your statement, I am NOT creating a “false argument” as you stated. The sinking is the bigger problem. Cities can survive being below sea level with good planning (take Holland for instance) but a sinking city will require substantially more effort to resolve.
<
p>
Also, as the Globe graphics point out, Boston would be flooded today if a Category 2 hurricane hit it directly. So why show this “stunning” graphic of a flooded Boston? Because this article, the graphics and quite frankly your post are the type of environmental alarmism that takes away attention from those of us that try to focus on real environmental issues and give fodder to people who want to dismiss all environmentalists as “moon bats” and whack jobs.
that these cities never should have been built and try to stop them from sinking while the rest of us moonbats try to figure out what to do about the many climate change challenges ahead. Asking what the chances are that a Cat 2 storm will hit right there completely misses the point. It could hit anywhere up and down the coast, or any coast. It really doesn’t matter–sea-level rise is going to make it much worse. To call this line of thinking that of “whack jobs” is so out on the outer fringe of the right wing and mainstream science that even the White House won’t join you. From tomorrow’s NYTimes about the latest from the IPCC:
<
p>
<
p>
Took ’em long enough although the positive spin is pretty funny, though. You can have the last word if you want it, JK.
But I am not foolish enough to think that the complete reversal of global warming tomorrow – which is partially a natural phenomenon based upon ice cores and other evidence – will eradicate relatively mild Cat. 2 hurricanes. The points about sinking and coastal flooding are accurate.
<
p>
Do you actually think if global warming is stopped hurricanes will go away?
Good! And there’s nothing you’ve said in your comment with which I disagree. I also supported that sinking and coastal flooding as valid. I’m not sure though what I said that made you infer that I felt that stopping global warming would completely stop hurricanes. Of course not.
<
p>
Probably nobody coming by the diary anymore now anyhow, but I’m still glad you jumped in.
Well at least we’ll still be able to fly out of Login
and we all know what that means. They have a big picture of it in the article with this caption:
<
p>
<
p>
Wasn’t sewage a big issue in NOLA? ewww.
In a class last night, a professor showed us some impressive graphics from the Times-Picayune. Boston will have problems with a 15 inch rise in sea level, but take a look at NOLA’s history and the flooding during Katrina.
<
p>
I’ve studied the history of city planning, and I realize it was a historic fact that we had to have cities at the mouths of rivers. If you ever read Isaac’s Storm, by Eric Larson, you learned why Galveston, TX did not continue to grow after a devastating hurricane in 1900. A lesson learned, perhaps.
<
p>
San Francisco’s quake and fire in 1906, the great fire of London in 1666 – I wonder how New Orlean’s experience will stack up against past tragedies? I wonder whether the list of ruined cities will become so lengthy over the next 100 years of coastal flooding that we will be less sympathetic to each new tragedy?
Wowie! That map of NOLA is amazing, sound effects and all. Thanks for posting it, shack. I think I’d like to sign up for that class.
If you ever read Isaac’s Storm, by Eric Larson, you learned why Galveston, TX did not continue to grow after a devastating hurricane in 1900.
<
p>
I haven’t studied the history of urban planning, nor have I read the book, but I would almost be willing to guess that one reason why Galveston did not continue to grow is that it was situated on what was essentially a barrier island and that it had nowhere to grow. Except possibly to the mainland.
<
p>
Regarding San Francisco’s quake and fire in 1906, let’s just say that that allowed for urban renewal. Sad, but true. Something like what happened with some of the bombed-out cities in Germany after WWII. Some of the cities did it better than others. Cologne is a disaster. Hamburg and Munich, excellent. And the “urban renewal” included not only buildings, but also public transportation infrastructure that any city in the USofA would envy.
At the risk of reigniting a flame war, I would like to chime in in response to the exchange between lori and JK, above, stated most succinctly in JK’s statement:
<
p>
<
p>
It’s worth discussing whether a picture such as the potential flooding of Boston is whacked, or whether it is an effective way to capture the attention of more people who are burning fossil fuels on a daily basis.
<
p>
It does seem to me that a major reason to participate in blogs is to share information and opinion that is not effectively represented in the mainstream media. Or, at least, to add one more source of information to the growing discussion of a problem. I also think that a high-quality color graphic like this – especially accompanied by written words to explain what it represents – is a great way to grab the attention of people who hear only “blah, blah, blah” when they listen to or read reports about global warming.
<
p>
I don’t know how you would define a “real” environmental issue if you think rising sea levels are not a real threat.
<
p>
Maybe I misunderstood somewhere along the thread – if the flare up was focused solely on the red herring about flooded basements, then ok. I think we understood lori’s point about 15 inches mattering, and I didn’t think that comment detracted from the overall message.
Why is vigorous discussion of issues considered a flame war. When did Americans become so soft, that when they disagree and argue in a rational manner it becomes distasteful?
<
p>
I’m being serious here. It seems that everytime a person with a differing point of view tries to portray that view, they are villified, even if they have not made a personal attack. Are views really that dangerous?
<
p>
Maybe I’ve just become able to accept that there are people whose views of the world are different than mine. Heck in Massachusetts, I wouldn’t have that many friends if I didn’t right?
Can I ask a question.
<
p>
The problem that commenters have, is that they are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.
<
p>
There is a difference, a very real difference, that more than a few people here and elsewhere wish to ignore. You may wish to marshall the facts that support your opinion but don’t complain that other people marshall other facts that support the opposite opinion.
<
p>
Stop complaining and pay very close attention to the facts.