Jax & Fla. Are Rising Ocean Ground Zero Per New Maps

[jaxlongtimer]

Just released, newly revised estimates with corresponding maps for rising ocean levels by 2100.  Florida makes up 60 percent of top population numbers to be submerged with Jacksonville #16.  And, that's 2010's population, not the increasing numbers of the future.  See below for view of Mar-a-lago in 2100 .  Irony is we have federal, state and city leaders in denial with no planning for the inevitable.  Also, no need to lose sleep over planning Downtown, Shipyards, District, Ponte Vedra, San Marco, etc.  - all may be joining the underwater city of Atlantis!

Should a newly published sea level rise scenario come to pass, hundreds of American landmarks, neighborhoods, towns and cities would be submerged this century, at least in the absence of engineering massive, costly and unprecedented defenses and relocating major infrastructure. Ocean waters would cover land currently home to more than 12 million Americans and $2 trillion in property.

This extreme rise scenario, considered unlikely but increasingly plausible, was published together with other projections in a technical report by the National and Oceanic Atmospheric Administration in January. NOAA added "extreme" as a new sea level category in the publication, supplementing high, intermediate and low categories that have also been used in past reports. The new term reflects recent research suggesting that some parts of the Antarctic ice sheet may begin to collapse much sooner than scientists had previously anticipated, particularly if ongoing emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide and methane remain high.

The extreme scenario would mean roughly 10 to 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100, depending on location, for all coastal states but Alaska — a significant departure above the global average projection (just over 8 feet).

Detailed local projections are available from NOAA.These findings all reflect local sea level projections through 2100. However, under the extreme scenario, the sea would not stop rising that year. Rather, it would continue to add more than 1.5 feet per decade, and exceed 30 feet by 2200 for all coastal states except Alaska, where some locations might see 5-10 feet less. Thus, this report should not be used to judge whether some U.S. coastal places might survive 10-12 feet of rise. Rather, the analysis provides a snapshot in time to give some indication of how threatening an extreme sea level scenario could be this century. It would be far worse next century.

The extreme scenario is considered unlikely, but it is plausible. NOAA's report and Antarctic research suggest that deep and rapid cuts to heat-trapping pollution would greatly reduce its chances. Specifically, a prominent March 2016 paper indicated that a peak in annual climate pollution within several years, followed by an immediate and sustained decline steeper than the past few decades of emissions growth, could limit Antarctica's sea level contribution this century to several inches instead of feet. Scientists are still uncertain about the chances of an extreme outcome this century, even under continued high emissions rates; understanding the likelihood better is an active area of ongoing research.

What is well understood is that ice loss from Antarctica leads to sea level rise in the U.S. well above its global average effect. The reasons have to do with subtle changes in the Earth's shape, gravitational field, and rotation due to the loss of mass from Antarctica and its transfer to ocean. One important factor is that ice sheets are large enough to exert a big gravitational pull that draws water toward them. Diminish an ice sheet, and the ocean pulls away some, leading extra water to gather toward the opposite side of the planet, which, in the case of Antarctica, includes the U.S.. Coastal states would see almost 2 to 4 feet of extra rise above the global average in the extreme scenario due to this effect, and due to sinking land in many areas, such as the Mississippi delta and the Mid Atlantic. Only parts of Alaska would see less rise than the well-publicized global average projection of 8.25 feet, due to rising land and the loss of mass, and thus of gravitational attraction from the state's own glaciers.

See detailed Jax map and more info at:  http://www.climatecentral.org/news/extreme-sea-level-rise-stakes-for-america-21387

[vicupstate]

Haven't you heard, it's all a Chinese hoax.

[fliving]

Haven't you heard, it's all a Chinese hoax.

To make American manufacturing uncompetitive.

[Elwood]

"This extreme rise scenario, considered unlikely"...

[bill]

Just released, newly revised estimates with corresponding maps for rising ocean levels by 2100.  Florida makes up 60 percent of top population numbers to be submerged with Jacksonville #16.  And, that's 2010's population, not the increasing numbers of the future.  See below for view of Mar-a-lago in 2100 .  Irony is we have federal, state and city leaders in denial with no planning for the inevitable.  Also, no need to lose sleep over planning Downtown, Shipyards, District, Ponte Vedra, San Marco, etc.  - all may be joining the underwater city of Atlantis!




From 1976

Should a newly published sea level rise scenario come to pass, hundreds of American landmarks, neighborhoods, towns and cities would be submerged this century, at least in the absence of engineering massive, costly and unprecedented defenses and relocating major infrastructure. Ocean waters would cover land currently home to more than 12 million Americans and $2 trillion in property.

This extreme rise scenario, considered unlikely but increasingly plausible, was published together with other projections in a technical report by the National and Oceanic Atmospheric Administration in January. NOAA added "extreme" as a new sea level category in the publication, supplementing high, intermediate and low categories that have also been used in past reports. The new term reflects recent research suggesting that some parts of the Antarctic ice sheet may begin to collapse much sooner than scientists had previously anticipated, particularly if ongoing emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide and methane remain high.

The extreme scenario would mean roughly 10 to 12 feet of sea level rise by 2100, depending on location, for all coastal states but Alaska — a significant departure above the global average projection (just over 8 feet).

Detailed local projections are available from NOAA.These findings all reflect local sea level projections through 2100. However, under the extreme scenario, the sea would not stop rising that year. Rather, it would continue to add more than 1.5 feet per decade, and exceed 30 feet by 2200 for all coastal states except Alaska, where some locations might see 5-10 feet less. Thus, this report should not be used to judge whether some U.S. coastal places might survive 10-12 feet of rise. Rather, the analysis provides a snapshot in time to give some indication of how threatening an extreme sea level scenario could be this century. It would be far worse next century.

The extreme scenario is considered unlikely, but it is plausible. NOAA's report and Antarctic research suggest that deep and rapid cuts to heat-trapping pollution would greatly reduce its chances. Specifically, a prominent March 2016 paper indicated that a peak in annual climate pollution within several years, followed by an immediate and sustained decline steeper than the past few decades of emissions growth, could limit Antarctica's sea level contribution this century to several inches instead of feet. Scientists are still uncertain about the chances of an extreme outcome this century, even under continued high emissions rates; understanding the likelihood better is an active area of ongoing research.

What is well understood is that ice loss from Antarctica leads to sea level rise in the U.S. well above its global average effect. The reasons have to do with subtle changes in the Earth's shape, gravitational field, and rotation due to the loss of mass from Antarctica and its transfer to ocean. One important factor is that ice sheets are large enough to exert a big gravitational pull that draws water toward them. Diminish an ice sheet, and the ocean pulls away some, leading extra water to gather toward the opposite side of the planet, which, in the case of Antarctica, includes the U.S.. Coastal states would see almost 2 to 4 feet of extra rise above the global average in the extreme scenario due to this effect, and due to sinking land in many areas, such as the Mississippi delta and the Mid Atlantic. Only parts of Alaska would see less rise than the well-publicized global average projection of 8.25 feet, due to rising land and the loss of mass, and thus of gravitational attraction from the state's own glaciers.

See detailed Jax map and more info at:  http://www.climatecentral.org/news/extreme-sea-level-rise-stakes-for-america-21387

[MusicMan]

Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

[bencrix]

Note that the much of the economic value of these areas would be gone well before the "extreme" sea level is reached (i.e. due to increasing nuisance flooding from high tides, storm surge events, etc.). Lenders, insurers, etc. will be long gone by then.

[Jim]

Uh....Stockton, Ca?

[DrQue]

Note that the much of the economic value of these areas would be gone well before the "extreme" sea level is reached (i.e. due to increasing nuisance flooding from high tides, storm surge events, etc.). Lenders, insurers, etc. will be long gone by then.

Agree, once the trends are more accepted/established we will start seeing weaknesses in low lying property markets, and it could occur sooner than we think. 

Think about if you were in the market for a waterfront home today, and you planned on living there for 30+ years. Even if sea level rise is not expected to affect an area materially until say 50 years out, that is something today's buyer should be thinking about because the next buyer will certainly be thinking about it. If a home's ability to hold its value over the long term becomes questioned, that will cause a ripple affect. 

That's just a buyer's perspective. It will be interesting to see when lenders begin to question 30-year mortgages in vulnerable areas.

[remc86007]

Lenders will only question when insurance drops out. Insurance will only go away when congress decides that the country should not subsidize and therefore enable the rich to build too close to the water. I'm all for the government's involvement in reinsurance like the FHCF, but the NFIP, as it is now is just bad public policy.

[bencrix]

My point is that nuisance flooding, king tides, and storm surges, which occur "on top of" rising seas, will be responsible for major losses well before any land is permanently under water due to sea level rise. Thus, insurers, lenders, etc. will be out of the game long before then.

I could be wrong, but I don't think there will be sufficient subsidies for insurance. I'd expect subsidies for buying damaged land and putting it into "conservation," as is already going on in parts of S. Florida.

[SettledinJAX]

Uh....Stockton, Ca?

The Sacramento Delta.  Not unlike Louisiana delta in geography and in culture.  Ive sailed near there.  At points you can lock down, over the levy, to the (and and cows) below you.  It''s Sunnyvale CA that'll be the real disaster though. The heart of silicon valley.  Where people pay 1.5$ for a condemned shack.

[Jim]

Uh....Stockton, Ca?

The Sacramento Delta.  Not unlike Louisiana delta in geography and in culture.  Ive sailed near there.  At points you can lock down, over the levy, to the (and and cows) below you.  It''s Sunnyvale CA that'll be the real disaster though. The heart of silicon valley.  Where people pay 1.5$ for a condemned shack.

Sure but over Baltimore, DC, Philly, New Orleans, Seattle....