Home | About | Donate

'When Rising Seas Hit Home': Hundreds of Towns Threatened by 2100

'When Rising Seas Hit Home': Hundreds of Towns Threatened by 2100

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

As an iceberg the size of Delaware broke away from an ice shelf in Antarctica Wednesday, scientists released findings that up to 668 U.S. communities could face chronic flooding from rising sea levels by the end of the century.

"We hope this analysis provides a wake-up call to coastal communities—and us as a nation—so we can see this coming and have time to prepare,"
—Erika Spanger-Siegfried, Union of Concerned Scientists

Shit’s about to get real.

In the meantime, the power center in our government doesn’t believe it’s even happening.

Sweet Baby Moses, I’m glad me and the Missus decided not to have kids.


Again… another headline that targets or refers to the year 2100. Rising seas are affecting communities NOW. It makes it sound like everything will be fine until 11:59PM on December 31, 2099. Humanity doesn’t grasp the law of exponential function. Rising seas, just like the heat we have locked in with our rising CO2 emissions, will only rise faster and faster, year over year. The headline we will soon be reading is, “Miami Uninhabitable and Under Water Much Sooner Than We Thought!”


So if you could be convinced that our current COP2 emission were something that later generations will pay dearly for (the scientific consensus), you would not be very motivated to take action now?

Of course I am motivated to take action. It’s tomorrows generation that will bare the terrible state of the planet thanks to our wreckless ways. We all need to do something.


So what?–given that our species may be extinct by 2040!

1 Like

Also, it should be pointed out that unless we get below 350 ppm CO2 that sea level rise will continue for hundreds of years. And if the global temperature gets high enough sea level rise could continue for thousands of reach and reach about 250 feet.

1 Like

Previous to the last ice age the ocean levels were 410 ft. higher. Not to worry though, it wouldn’t become a “Waterworld”. Besides, we will all be dead by then anyway. Best course of action, buy a blue water sailboat and head for the arctic ocean.
Let’s see, …whats Amazon got in the way of sailboats? Hmm.

Yes. Just we need to be careful about this sense that we need to exaggerate the time scale of the threat becasue we are afraid that people won’t take it seriously. That could backfire.

Can you provide a citation for that? Sea level was about that much lower than present during the last glacial maximum. But I don’t think it was that 410 ft higher than present in the Eemian interglacial (the interglacial before the present one) it was only about 6 to 9 meters higher than today.

It is not only about taking action. It is also about the big big money in real estate, which is virtually worthless in these areas if the real times and days of flooding were published more clearly.

1 Like

Well, living in Gulfport, MS will get more interesting some day.

I’m sure we’ll be nailed by another Cat Enormous 'cane before then.

1 Like

Florida is pretty flat and low across the whole state. Maps don’t do the water surface area justice, particularly in the South and the Everglades. The only land I remember being over ten feet high when I was a kid there was the bridges. Ours was the only plot of land that didn’t flood during hurricanes and heavy rains in my neighborhood, two miles inland. We were about six inches above the other houses, fifty years ago.
Florida’s state government policy since 2011 has been no discussion or use of global warming or climate change in any gvt documents.
And I’ve read real estate is doing well there…

1 Like

You know the saying…If you believe that, I’ve got some swamp land in Florida for sale.

1 Like

On a replies thread to an article on this theme here a day or two ago someone took me and people like me to task for being an alarmist, a " the sky is falling!" Chicken Little, that the effects of climate change were happening much more slowly than we spreaders of fear were saying and that saying the things we were saying was hindering the progress of change by spreading unneeded fear and uncertainty.

I replied that I hope it turns out that way. I only have a decade or two left and I would much rather not have to put up with flooding, fatality causing heat waves, food shortages from food crop and fishing failures, and all the other predicted possible side effects of temperature increases.

If I and other concerned alarmists are wrong about the changes this will cause I will gladly say “Whew!” and give thanks for the stay of execution.

But the denualist way if it turns out to be wrong means there will be nothing that can be done but hunker down and take what nature at its least benign throws at us. I will retain my alarmist tendencies.


I would even take a ride in a helicopter to see Mal y Loco underwater with only the roof exposed and there are several other ocean side golf resorts (with a fake foto of der fuhrer at the entrances) that Mother Nature will take back… And the orange oaf has no idea how to “take the high ground…”

I’ve been an alarmist for a good twenty years. I think the global community is just starting to connect the dots as to what deep doo-doo we are in. I’ve come to the deduction, though, that most of Humanity… along with most other mammals, etc will mostly be extinct by sometime mid-century. If I live to the year 2050, I’ll be 83. I have a pretty good chance of seeing the shit hit the fan, if don’t starve to death first.

Where preparing for a disaster, should you plan for the best case scenario, or the worst case scenario? I am reminded of the Mel Brooks movie “The Twelve Chairs” where a song lyric says “Hope for the best, expect the worst”.

Estimates vary but 65-80 meters (about 260 feet maximum) of sea level rise are most common, however from what I’ve seen few of these calculations consider thermal expansion, so it could be more.


Thanks for putting that up. Slightly transposed, my philosophy of living has always been “expect the worst but hope for the best.” But in the case of climate change coupled with the nanyang other insukts to the life support environment, the worst looks so bad that it’s hsrd to come up with a mental scenario that peovides a plausible picture of what “the best” could believably be. The only variable I can see is the timeline – will we drowned gradually providing some time to adapt, or suddenly swamped.

1 Like