Stamen Design, in collaboration with Climate Central, shows major areas that could be affected by probable rising water levels in the not so far off future.
The context for this work is: while there are a great many papers, scientific studies, meteorological surveys and other things that fall under the rubric of things that normal people accept as true, there remains a persistent and nagging unreality to the idea that, in something like a normal human timescale, we’ll see and have to reckon with large-scale changes to the world as we know it. It’s one thing to say “the world is changing and all of us will have to deal with it.” It’s quite another to say “7.6% of the people and 9.1% of the homes may very well be underwater in Boston, and so you’ll need to start thinking about that pretty damn soon, is that cool?”
Boston, you better make friends with Kevin Costner. He is key to your survival.
Looks like the water level has a beef with MIT. Harvard only looses their stadium, but the entire MIT campus is underwater. Damn you Harvard!
From the high level, it looked like all of Portland will be flooded. However, once I zoomed in, I saw that there was a small expansion of water around the many bodies of water. Since much of the water in Portland is channeled into concrete, the levels will go up, but the area of the water will not.
I’m not sure if the effect is an artifact of the way the program draws flood areas, or is a genuine attempt to mislead the viewer.
I believe that rising sea levels are a real concern that needs to be addressed (the melting glaciers are undeniable and my company just did a climate change risk analysis for a branch of the military). BUT, this mapping site is over-representing what the data is actually giving them. I live in Boston, so let’s look at Boston at +10 ft.
Based on a Over 1 in 6 (SMALL) chance sea level rise + (PLUS) storm surge (INFREQUENT) + tide (RARE FOR PEAK SURGE TO COINCIDE WITH HIGH TIDE) will overtop +10ft by >2100 (TOO FAR OFF TO ACCURATELY FORECAST BASED ON CURRENT METHODOLOGY AND DATA) at nearest flood risk indicator site: Boston – Boston Harbor, 2.4 miles away (NOT CLOSE), based on that, the map shows as underwater all areas with an elevation 10ft or less. That is quite an overstatement of the the map.
Also, it states that that will be 19.9% of the acreage, and 20.1% of the homes. I know the city pretty well, plus I can zoom in and look at the areas shown underwater. Most of the area is open land or industrial land. There is a small portion of dense housing in the Back Bay underwater, but no way does this 19% of acreage contain 20% of the homes. (check against http://bostonography.com/2012/density/)
With “Gullible Warming” thoroughly exposed as political manipulation and scientists willing to sell out– Why does the ‘melting glacier’ / ‘rising ocean’ mythology persist?
Maybe only so those who cling to it identify themselves as Stalin’s “useful idiots”.
I suppose we should all be Palin’s useful idiots instead? Both sides, you Sofa, and the authors of the above map, want to elaborate or throw out data, or misrepresent it. Or is that giving you to much credit? By labeling other’s ideas as gullible, manipulated, mythology, or throwing them in the boat with a man who was implicit in the starvation, rape, and execution of millions of his own people, you have not given yourself the dignity of being a critical thinker yourself, and are just playing the useful idiot to some other party.
Got me: Doing exactly what the useful idiots do. At least you and I can see it for what it is. I offer it as a ‘teachable example’.)
(And by the way- I did not vote for Mrs Palin… check assumptions. I may be a neutral observer, tired of relentless marxists propoganda.)
All the assumptive ad hominem aside- There is absolutely no data supporting ‘global warming’ or ‘rising sea levels’. There is plenty of data regarding manufactured lies for marxist political purposes. Follow the data!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
Is this post about ‘Flowing Manufactured Political Narratives’? Or ‘Flowing Data’?
“both sides” assumes much.
There is propaganda, and then there are the intended victims of the propaganda. Saying you are on a side, is saying you are pushing an agenda.
Me? I’ll follow the actual data.
And there is absolutely no data supporting ‘global warming’ or ‘rising sea levels’. There is plenty of data regarding manufactured lies for marxist political purposes. Follow the data!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
Thanks for the link. : )
Funny thing. When molecules change from solid to liquid, they seperate slightly. Water is the only element that does not do this, when ice melts, its molecules actually become closer together. Therefore, water takes up less space than ice.
Therefore, it is impossible that waters will rise when ice melts.
So, uh, global warming is kind of flawed.