Researcher: Rising Seas To Put Galveston 25 Percent Underwater

[Slick Vik]

Galveston and 17 other Texas coastal towns are certain to lose land to rising sea levels at some undetermined point due to existing carbon emissions, at least one researcher says.

 

The research by Benjamin Strauss of the nonprofit organization Climate Central is depicted with an interactive map http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-locking-in-quickly-cities-threatened-16296 that shows the relative speed and impact of climate change under the current trend compared with the outcome of making deep emission cuts.

 

Under the "current trend" scenario, 18 Texas towns, including Galveston, are already committed (by 2012) to being 25 percent below sea level at some future point, according to the map.

 

Nine cities and towns - a list that excludes Galveston but takes in Tiki Island - are already committed to being 50 percent under water at some point, given the current rate of emissions.

 

"As climate pollution grows, sea level debt - the long-run sea level rise we cannot avoid - is surging," states the text accompanying the map. "How many cities fall below the future tide depends on how much more carbon we put in the air."

 

The research doesn't address at what point the seas will rise to a particular level, Strauss said.

 

"Imagine you've dumped a bucket of ice on the table," he said as a comparison.

 

"It's very easy to know it's going to melt but harder to say exactly how fast it will melt," Strauss said. "This research is about the total amount of melt that will happen, not about the rate of melt."

 

Two important things stood out from the research, he said.

 

"One is the great speed with which we're racking up longterm consequences by continuing to put carbon in the atmosphere," he said. "Growing our commitments (to rising seas) by one foot a decade is really extraordinary to me."

 

The other major take-away from the research is the great difference that our future emissions will make, Strauss said.

 

"Even though hundreds of American towns and cities are already committed to watery futures, the amount of pollution we emit from here forward will make the difference for hundreds more," he said.

 

Strauss noted that his research draws heavily upon a paper by an international team whose first author was Anders Levermann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Potsdam, Germany.

 

The Levermann paper was published online July 15 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Researcher-Rising-seas-to-put-Galveston-25-4699030.php?cmpid=hpfc

[TowerSpotter]

Galveston and 17 other Texas coastal towns are certain to lose land to rising sea levels at some undetermined point due to existing carbon emissions, at least one researcher says.

 

The research by Benjamin Strauss of the nonprofit organization Climate Central is depicted with an interactive map http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-locking-in-quickly-cities-threatened-16296 that shows the relative speed and impact of climate change under the current trend compared with the outcome of making deep emission cuts.

 

Under the "current trend" scenario, 18 Texas towns, including Galveston, are already committed (by 2012) to being 25 percent below sea level at some future point, according to the map.

 

Nine cities and towns - a list that excludes Galveston but takes in Tiki Island - are already committed to being 50 percent under water at some point, given the current rate of emissions.

 

"As climate pollution grows, sea level debt - the long-run sea level rise we cannot avoid - is surging," states the text accompanying the map. "How many cities fall below the future tide depends on how much more carbon we put in the air."

 

The research doesn't address at what point the seas will rise to a particular level, Strauss said.

 

"Imagine you've dumped a bucket of ice on the table," he said as a comparison.

 

"It's very easy to know it's going to melt but harder to say exactly how fast it will melt," Strauss said. "This research is about the total amount of melt that will happen, not about the rate of melt."

 

Two important things stood out from the research, he said.

 

"One is the great speed with which we're racking up longterm consequences by continuing to put carbon in the atmosphere," he said. "Growing our commitments (to rising seas) by one foot a decade is really extraordinary to me."

 

The other major take-away from the research is the great difference that our future emissions will make, Strauss said.

 

"Even though hundreds of American towns and cities are already committed to watery futures, the amount of pollution we emit from here forward will make the difference for hundreds more," he said.

 

Strauss noted that his research draws heavily upon a paper by an international team whose first author was Anders Levermann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Potsdam, Germany.

 

The Levermann paper was published online July 15 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Researcher-Rising-seas-to-put-Galveston-25-4699030.php?cmpid=hpfc

 

 That sounds depressing.... 

[TowerSpotter]

 

I read an article that 1500 cities are going to disappear due to global warming. Miami, New York City, etc

[livincinco]

Is it just me or is the phrase "at some undetermined point" somewhat vague? The article specifically says that no attempt was made to determine timeframe.

This reminds me of the articles that say it's inevitable that a catastrophic earthquake will hit California "soon" and then state that the "soon" is in geological terms and means within the next 500 years.

[TowerSpotter]

Is it just me or is the phrase "at some undetermined point" somewhat vague? The article specifically says that no attempt was made to determine timeframe.

This reminds me of the articles that say it's inevitable that a catastrophic earthquake will hit California "soon" and then state that the "soon" is in geological terms and means within the next 500 years.

 

Well yea I know all the glaciers and ice caps aren't going to melt in a day, week, month, or the next 1000 years but surely we do know it melting and the sea level is rising. Of coarse these kind of articles come out every week on google news or yahoo and it really doesn't mean anything, they just predict.

[Ross]

Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age. It's higher by hundreds of feet. While man be contributing to this, anyone who thinks there would be no change without humans is naive.

[RedScare]

So, does your less than scientific opinion mean that Galveston is not going to go under water?

 

By the way, not only are the oceans rising, but Galveston is also sinking. Between water level rise and subsidence, Galveston is doomed. The good news though, is that most of it will probably occur on the West End.

[Ross]

So, does your less than scientific opinion mean that Galveston is not going to go under water?

 

By the way, not only are the oceans rising, but Galveston is also sinking. Between water level rise and subsidence, Galveston is doomed. The good news though, is that most of it will probably occur on the West End.

 

Who knows? It's nature. We can make predictions, but there's not a lot of certainty. I am just fed up with those who think that if we immediately stop putting carbon in the atmosphere, climate change will cease. That's just not true. Climate changes all the time, whether man is present or not. Man may affect the rate at which climate changes, but I think it's pretty arrogant to think we are the only cause. I will say that I prefer warming to cooling. We can adapt to higher temperatures and the associated changes. We can't adapt to the presence of kilometers thick sheets of ice, other than by moving.

 

As for Galveston, it's a barrier island. Barrier islands are not permanent fixtures, they move and change.

[RedScare]

You know, for someone who is so sure of himself, you sure contradict yourself a lot. You begin by saying there is no certainty with climate change, then state that it is "just not true" that ceasing putting carbon in the air will stop climate change. Well, which is it? Are we certain or are we not?

 

You suggest that we may slow climate change by changing some of our human habits. Most people agree, and this is why most people think we should make reasonable attempts to do so. WWhat you appear to be doing is searching out the outliers and castigating everyone for what the outliers say. That really makes you...and your opinions...no better than they.

 

Just my opinion.

[Slick Vik]

Who knows? It's nature. We can make predictions, but there's not a lot of certainty. I am just fed up with those who think that if we immediately stop putting carbon in the atmosphere, climate change will cease. That's just not true. Climate changes all the time, whether man is present or not. Man may affect the rate at which climate changes, but I think it's pretty arrogant to think we are the only cause. I will say that I prefer warming to cooling. We can adapt to higher temperatures and the associated changes. We can't adapt to the presence of kilometers thick sheets of ice, other than by moving.

As for Galveston, it's a barrier island. Barrier islands are not permanent fixtures, they move and change.

That rate of climate change has been pretty drastic wouldn't you say

[Ross]

That rate of climate change has been pretty drastic wouldn't you say

 

No.

[Slick Vik]

No.

 

You can't be serious.

[ricco67]

You can't be serious.

 

I would hazard to say that he is.

 

Galveston's problems of sinking into the seas is more of a danger from erosion then climate change.

 

 

I'm not saying climate change isn't happening, but it would be pretty arrogant of us as a race to say that we're the only factor, let's not forget a few decades ago, we were worried about "global cooling."

 

Maybe NASA needs to speed up our ability to establish intergalactic colonies, our son will eventually be snuffed out.