As temperatures are projected to climb, polar ice to melt, and oceans to swell over the coming decades, Boston is likely to bear a disproportionate impact of rising sea levels, government scientists report in a new study.
The seas along the East Coast from North Carolina to New England are rising three to four times faster than the global average, and coastal cities, utilities, beaches, and wetlands are increasingly vulnerable to flooding, especially from storm surges, according to the US Geological Survey study published Sunday.
Comments
Question: How does 2-3mm/year translate to a 2 foot (~700mm) rise over the next 88 years? Would be interesting to hear a little more about the accelerating pace of ocean level rise. Will it really increase in rate by 3x, as your #s imply?
hey - note: the graphic has "2.5 feet" rise selected by default - but the graphic shows the 7.5 foot visualization by default.
Your picture of the sand dune being breached north of Rodanthe, NC south of the Bonner Bridge on Hatteras Island is not a very good example of illustrating that the "seas are rising" (despite Obama's election promise). They call it Hatteras Island for a reason, Until 1960 you took a ferry (haven't you seen the chick flick?). It would be as if the state of Mass. built a bridge in the opening across from Chatham Light 10 years ago so that tourists could drive from Nauset Beach in Orleans to the southern tip of Monomoy. And then blamed global warming for the 2009 breach off North Chatham.
Your picture of the sand dune being breached north of Rodanthe, NC south of the Bonner Bridge on Hatteras Island is not a very good example of illustrating that the "seas are rising" (despite Obama's election promise). They call it Hatteras Island for a reason, Until 1960 you took a ferry (haven't you seen the chick flick?). It would be as if the state of Mass. built a bridge in the opening across from Chatham Light 10 years ago so that tourists could drive from Nauset Beach in Orleans to the southern tip of Monomoy. And then blamed global warming for the 2009 breach off North Chatham.
"Ellen Douglas, an assistant professor of ocean sciences at the University of Massachusetts in Boston who has mapped the potential consequences of rising seas on the city, said the findings are alarming. She noted that greenhouse-gas emissions are higher than the highest estimates by an international panel of scientists who monitor climate change, with little promise of substantial reductions anytime soon". And global average temperatures are also far below the hockey stick projections of these AGW alarmists. But didn't they say that higher greenhouse gases would certainly increase average global temperatures? Anybody out there have an appetite to fund more studies?
Any lunkheads still think this is a hoax? It's a pretty soggy one. I'll take the surfboard concession in Worcester...
Yep. More studies mean more information. I hope you live long enough to suffer the consequences of your ignorance.
Pilgrim Nuclear in Plymouth...same design as the one at Fukashima. I hope they put those extra batteries in a safe place.
Great article, David Abel. One question: you site a range of 2 to 5 ft for average worldwide sea level rise, while Seth Borenstein in the AP story uses 3.3 ft as the comparable figure. Can you explain why you used the range and do you know where he got his figure? Great to see this on the front page too, where it belongs.
I wonder if those of us in Western Mass will be forced to bail out Boston.
How could this be? No less a figure than Jeff Jacoby has assure us that global warming is a liberal scam.
"global average temperatures are also far below the hockey stick projections of these AGW alarmists" You're just repeating standard misinformation and throwing in some name calling for good measure. Temperatures are rising *despite* a solar minimum from 2007-2009 and relatively low solar output in the 2000s. Anybody who calls people who are rightfully concerned about something that could cause major problems in the world an "alarmist" without any real understanding of the facts is part of the problem. Almost all climate scientists accept AGW as reality. But most of them are also not bought and paid for by the energy industry.
Many thanks to the Globe and David Abel for this front-page article. It should help raise consciousness among all the people who agree that climate change is a problem but list it 20th out of 20 in urgency. Let's hope those in charge of the airport, the tunnels, and everything else pay attention and start taking precautions. But even more let's hope that someone in Washington puts this together with all the extreme weather we've been having and does something quickly to cut emissions instead of playing games with other countries about who goes first.