U.S. East Coast a Hotspot of Sea-Level Rise 266
Harperdog writes "Nature just published this study of sea-level rise and how global warming does not force the it to happen everywhere at the same rate. Interesting stuff about what, exactly, contributes to this uneven rise, and how the East Coast of the U.S., which used to have a relatively low sea level, is now a hotspot in that the sea level there is rising faster than elsewhere."
It has nothing to do with global warming (Score:5, Funny)
Global warming is myth. The sea levels are rising on the east coast of the US because all the fat Americans are causing a shift in mass distribution and locally higher gravitational forces.
The nurse is here with my medication...brb
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think Congressman Hank Johnson would agree with your theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's really happening and the concentration around the East Coast confirms my worst fears of the hot air coming out of Washington DC.
Re: (Score:2)
Washington sucks badly enough that nobody needs to worry around here.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Right even the head line is bias, sea-level rise is liberal talking point, if they want us to take the article seriously they should use politically neutral language like "persistent coastal flooding".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That really is the only logical explanation.
Fat cats?
Re:It has nothing to do with global warming (Score:4, Informative)
but in theory shouldn't the entire ocean level rise and fall together?
"In theory there's no difference between theory and reality...in reality it's the other way around" ;-)
One of the points made was that salinity levels, localized temperatures and other factors can play regional factors. If a current is flooding in warmer water to an ocean and it goes up by even a little bit there will be a coinciding increase in the volume of that ocean water. If salinity changes, I'm assuming (I don't know) there is likewise a change in volume.
Now, sure normal temperature and saturation processes will return that to equilibrium eventually, but how long does it take to do that on a scale of an ocean? Could be decades assuming the ongoing current input continues (even without change).
I also thought parts of the east coast, mid-atlantic I think, were sinking in response to the mid-west area rebounding back from ice age depression. Think about a table tilting with a pivot point somewhere in the middle, as one end goes up the other goes down.
Also consider that gravity isn't uniform. It does fluxuate minutely from place to place. You obviously don't notice this day to day since it's so small, but again with the scale of an ocean it might be significant enough to cause a lower amount of compression of the water column. And factor in that maybe a gravitational difference is related to how the molten core of the earth is orientated and being molten might change from time to time.
I don't know any of these things specifically but those are just off the cuff possible reasons that might explain why ocean levels would be different locally.
GRACE (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Water does not compress easily, but it does compress.
Put it under a few trillion tons of pressure and everything compresses.
The density also varies by temperature. nearly freezing water is less dense than cool/warm water, as is hot water.
Re: (Score:3)
We tax payers subsidize those homes because they are given low cost insurance compared to what it would actually cost to insure homes that have a high likelihood of being destroyed every 10 years or so. There are calls to not allow new construction but they aren't terribly widespread, just like there wasn't terribly widespread com
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True..but then again...it was almost 300 years ago, before GPS and all the nifty tech tools we have now...and it was built where it is due to the important location, near the mouth of the MS river...hence, why the city is so important. It was just a bit disheartening to hear all the people, many from the NE saying "they shouldn't have built there, just leave, not worth saving...etc".
I guess man
Re:It has nothing to do with global warming (Score:4, Informative)
Believe it or not, NYC is on fairly high ground. Staten Island, in particular, has hills that are as high as several hundred feet above sea level. Central Park itself is something like forty feet above sea level, and most of Manhattan is fairly high. This is the same with most parts of Brooklyn, Queens, and The Bronx.
Here's the thing about Manhattan and hurricanes. It's really, really well protected. Any storm surge would have to make its way past Staten Island and Brooklyn (through the Verizano Narrows) to get to Manhattan. New York Harbor is the only large body of water that's directly up against Manhattan, and it's just not that large.
There's another thing about Manhattan. It's sitting on some crazy hard bedrock. Manhattan Schist, I believe it's called, some of the oldest, hardest rock in the world (it doesn't seem to exist in most of the surrounding area and even in parts of Manhattan). Which means that the island isn't getting washed away anytime soon by a hurricane either. The smaller inhabited islands are mostly situated on the East and Harlem rivers, which are tidal, and thus wouldn't be in any danger of being washed away either.
Overall, the biggest areas of concern would be the outer boroughs and possibly some of the islands in the harbor, while the area of least concern would be Manhattan island itself. South Brooklyn, south Queens (Far Rockaways), and the eastern part of Staten Island are all at risk of major flooding. But the rest of New York City? Nah. It's about the safest place from a hurricane you can get, safer even than farther inland, where there's a greater chance of the local bodies of water (lakes, rivers, streams, etc.) overflowing and washing out roads, bridges, and even entire houses. Look at what happened during Irene.
Now, Long Island and New Jersey is a different story, especially the southern shore of Long Island, which has the highest chance of a storm surge. They usually fare much, much worse than the city proper, but that's largely due to the population density or lack thereof.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It has nothing to do with global warming (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I understand sea levels fluctuate (tides, etc), but in theory shouldn't the entire ocean level rise and fall together?
I don't think so. Water doesn't move that quickly (think waves on a beach), and the sun, tides, and seasonal temperature changes are all adding energy. There are already ocean currents that flow continuously throughout the year. I don't see why there couldn't be a sustained force pushing up sea levels along the east coast.
But we don't have to guess -- the abstract of the article tell us:
Re:It has nothing to do with global warming (Score:5, Informative)
The concept you're having trouble with is known as hysteresis - that is, to oversimplify, a delay between a cause and its effect. In this case, "cause" can be something like "add water to ocean" and effect can be something like "water gets evenly distributed around the globe". Yes, of course gravity wants to equalize out the heights of all of the Earth's oceans (although it hates it when I anthropomorphize it ;) ). But that takes time; it's not instant, no more than is it instant that the water in a mountain river after a rain ends up in the ocean, even though that's where gravity is going to take it eventually. Meanwhile, a localized region can have all kinds of various inputs (such as rivers) and outputs (such as evaporation) which act on it fast enough to be more than noise against the rate at which gravity moves things toward equalization.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
pixelpusher got most of it, but in a simplified nutshell -- the oceans are not static bowls of water - even neglecting tides, they have currents and winds pushing the water around. Steady currents and winds can push the water up against the continents and create semi-permanent "hills" and "valleys" of water which become part of the "normal" sea level for that area. If the currents change due to climate or any other reason then the local sea level there can have a change not reflected globally.
Re: (Score:3)
A search shows that the locks are actually for the mountain lakes that link the two oceans which are higher than sea level. The actual difference is only 20cm.
Sea level is about 20 cm higher on the Pacific side than the Atlantic due to the water being less dense on the Pacific side, on average, and due to the prevailing weather and ocean conditions. Such sea level differences are common across many short sections of land dividing ocean basins. The 20 cm difference is determined by geodetic levelling from one side to the other. This levelling follows a 'level' surface which will be parallel to the geoid (see FAQ #1). The 20 cm difference at Panama is not unique. There are similar 'jumps' elsewhere e.g. Skagerrak, Indonesian straits.
Re: (Score:3)
If I was a supervillain I'd destroy all the locks from the Pacific to the Atlantic just to see what happens. Muahahahaha! >:-)
Re:It has nothing to do with global warming (Score:4, Funny)
The locks are all that's currently holding South America to North America. South America would spin off from the effect of ocean tides (Chile would get much chillier), and crash into Antarctica, killing millions of hapless penguins, but potentially providing a great relocation area for the dwindling polar bear population.
Re: (Score:3)
Then why do they have locks on the Panama Canal, huh?
Because the Isthmus of Panama isn't flat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Oceans are huge masses of water, far from uniform. The current issue is likely linked to salinity levels of the ocean, specifically the osmotic engine powering the Golf stream. In addition to saline levels and osmotic movement you have various other causes for streams, such as rotation of the planet Earth, gravitational forces of objects other then Moon, such as Sun, other planets with large mass in Solar system and various passing asteroids. There are several other factors as well.
In this specific case
Re: (Score:3)
"I don't understand how sea level can rise (or fall) in any real way in just a certain defined area...
I understand sea levels fluctuate (tides, etc), but in theory shouldn't the entire ocean level rise and fall together?"
You obviously fail to appreciate the full power and majesty of the Legislature of the Great State of North Carolina.
We've made sea level rise illegal here.
Obviously it has to increase more greatly elsewhere if the amount of water increases.
Re: (Score:2)
Water temperature and salinity variations, among other things, between areas will result in differences in sea level rise between places.
Question (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not an expert, I've tried to research this, but I find contradictory information which I assume is related to the political nature of the issue. In a nutshell, why can't we use GPS to determine the actual impact of rising sea levels? It would seem to me to be very elementary to place some sort of beacon in a few spots to determine what the actual sea level is. Granted, you might have to wait for calm waters, but nothing about this seems difficult.
Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So what is good enough? Does the handful of millimeters manifest in any directly measurable way? Is there a natural amplifier? Maybe it's translated to increased horizontal incursion of the daily tides? I'm not on any side or a denier or anything here, but I have to admit some of the numbers tossed around on this issue sound like they're down in the noise. Maybe it's just my comm theory background talking.
Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)
GPS is nowhere near accurate enough. You are talking about yearly see-level variations of a handful of millimeters a year. GPS is only accurate to a few centimeters, at best, with maximum augmentation (practically the error is in the range of 10 cm or more). Nowhere near good enough.
One of the fun things about chasing around with a GPSr, looking for Geodetic Survey markers is you learn a bit about them and the equipment used to place them. How did they get these elevations so darn exact? Well, pull your heads out of your digital-electronic-technology-saviour-for-everything sand pile and realise a very good quality spring with a reference weight and scale can tell you far more accurately what your elevation is, based upon readings taken at nearby sea level. 100 years ago they could tell you within 1 inch the elevation of a marker and to the best of satellite measure, these are still very accurate (using the sort of equipment they have at their disposal.
So not likely to be so much a case of local gravity fluctuation, try thinking what else could explain it? More fresh water introduced from Greenland Ice cap and Polar melting? Given time it will flow around the continents, but if the melt is happening fast enough that which has flowed to the Pacific and Southerly Atlantic is being replaced at a similar, if not accelating rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an expert, I've tried to research this, but I find contradictory information which I assume is related to the political nature of the issue. In a nutshell, why can't we use GPS to determine the actual impact of rising sea levels? It would seem to me to be very elementary to place some sort of beacon in a few spots to determine what the actual sea level is. Granted, you might have to wait for calm waters, but nothing about this seems difficult.
Yes, you're right, nothing about this does seem difficult. All we have to do is remove the political influence driven by greed.
Wow. I just realized I asked for the impossible. No wonder this has gone nowhere.
Re: (Score:3)
How about a test for sociopathy (or whatever they're calling it now) before being declared fit to run for public office?
Nah, the sociopaths would claim discrimination. And people would agree with them. Never mind.
Re: (Score:3)
How about a test for sociopathy (or whatever they're calling it now) before being declared fit to run for public office?
Very simple. If you want the job, you're a sociopath.
This was already known at the time of the Ancient Greeks. One famed philosopher stated that nobody who wants the job of public office should be allowed to have it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not an expert, I've tried to research this, but I find contradictory information which I assume is related to the political nature of the issue. In a nutshell, why can't we use GPS to determine the actual impact of rising sea levels? It would seem to me to be very elementary to place some sort of beacon in a few spots to determine what the actual sea level is. Granted, you might have to wait for calm waters, but nothing about this seems difficult.
Yes, you're right, nothing about this does seem difficult. All we have to do is remove the political influence driven by stupidity.
Wow. I just realized I asked for the impossible. No wonder this has gone nowhere.
FTFY
Humans are the only animal known to destroy their own habitat.
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans are the only animal known to destroy their own habitat.
I laughed, but then I got a creeping suspicion you were actually serious. Why do people always say this? It's just flat-out wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. All animals destroy their habitat unless something slows them down.
Humans on a fossil fuel binge, mice in a grain silo, there's no difference. They overshoot until the primary energy source is exhausted and then they crash.
Re:Question (Score:4, Informative)
You're right, it is wrong. Lots of animals will overfeed their habitat if their population grows too large; of course, then they have a famine, their population dwindles, and the problem is corrected. Humans, OTOH, invent new ways to grow crops to increase yields or find some other way of allowing an ever-increasing population.
However, what is true is that humans are the only animal known to destroy their own habitat, while being intelligent enough to understand what they're doing. A herd of overpopulated wild deer eating all the available food probably don't actually understand the long-term effects of what they're doing.
Re: (Score:3)
"Humans are the only animal known to destroy their own habitat."
The Matrix is not a reliable source for information about ecology and comparative zoology.
Re: (Score:2)
"Humans are the only animal known to destroy their own habitat."
The Matrix is not a reliable source for information about ecology and comparative zoology.
Who is referencing the Matrix? This is an older observation that piece of fluff.
Re: (Score:2)
Then whatever you are referencing is no more reliable than late 90's action movies. Shepherds five thousand years ago knew very well that their herds would happily destroy a field by grazing unless they were forcibly moved around, or kept in check by predators. The truth is closer to the opposite of what you've stated: humans are the only animal to have shown the ability to self regulate their activities to maintain a viable habitat.
Re: (Score:2)
GPS is completely over engineering the solution. All you really need is a stick that you take measurements from during low and high tide at a consistent time each year.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that easy. Localized water depths / land heights are often changing, and entire regions can be rising or subsiding. When you're looking to measure millimeters per year or even fractions of a millimeter against a background of tides, waves, storms, etc, you need precision.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly are you sticking that stick in that isn't going to be moved or reshaped by the water flow over a few years?
How to differientiate sources. (Score:2, Insightful)
I've tried to research this, but I find contradictory information which I assume is related to the political nature of the issue. In a nutshell,...
Perhaps you should be a bit more discriminate in your sources when you do research.
Here's some help: ignore Talk Radio Hosts, Fox News , and industry backed Think Tanks with "advisers" who have scientific PhDs in everything BUT Climate Science. (ALL of whom tell half truths and lies ).
That should make things a bit more clear.
Re: (Score:2)
It is an easy problem only from a technocrat's view, but for everyone else it is a screaming horror.
Say you own some ocean front property. It is a few inches less than it was a decade ago. 10 years from now it will be worse.
You don't want less land because you have less to sell. The government doesn't want you to have less land because it is prime real estate and those tax dollars matter. So we sit back and try to kill the messenger for as long as possible.
Follow the sources (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the article, they're reporting findings from sea level monitoring stations all around the east coast of North America.
Good thing I live in North Carolina (Score:5, Funny)
where that kind of shit is illegal!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/05/30/nc-makes-sea-level-rise-illegal/ [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
King Canute (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wow way to twist a reasonable law into a MSNBC-style rant by Ed Schultz.
All the law says is that homes will not be eligible for government-paid flood insurance if they are not in the zones that previously recorded flooding (since 1900). Why? Because North Carolina can't afford to provide free insurance to nearly the whole state. MOST people comprehend that the money supply has limits..... others like George "duh" Bush drive-up 10 trillion dollar debts.
Re: (Score:2)
The bill is posted at . It does not have anything to do with government-paid flood insurance. It primarily has to do with the distance that structures must be set back from high tide lines and the replacement of structures damaged by stories (Section 3). The rest of the bill has to do with defining various environmental impacts (Sections 4 and 5).
Re: (Score:2)
The link was stripped. Google NC House Bill 819 for the text of the bill.
Story on the paper (Score:4, Interesting)
Nature also has a story [nature.com] on the research for those seeking an overview.
Sweet! (Score:2)
That beachfront property I bought in West Virginia will be worth millions! Going to go out and buy a surfboard today! And will go buy a Hummer 2 to speed things along! Surf's up, dude!
there's hope yet! (Score:2)
great news. was kinda bummed the last time I read an article on rising sea levels to learn that even if the entire polar caps melted, it wouldn't actually flood all that far into the east coast. But, coupled with this phenomena of uneven level rise, that stain may be washable after all!
Mod me to hell if you want, but I still say that if it takes ten dead polar bears to drown one NYC hipster, those noble bears will not have died in vain! C'mon global warming, let's get to work!
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Psychopath
Well done, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
Two words and you won't call him a psychopath.
Jersey Shore.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not fast enough to work that way. What you'll get instead is a couple million NYC hipsters in your backyard in Texas.
Slashdot. Still beating the dead horse... (Score:3, Funny)
...of CAGW. It's been, what, 2 1/2 years now since it was exposed as a hoax?
Re: (Score:3)
No, it was an evil plot by murderers and terrorists! Didn't you see the Heartland billboard?
Hotspot! (Score:2)
Hotspot! I see what you did there. Ha!
Even the sea cannot resist the trendy go to locations along the Jersey shore!
No worries. The ban in NYC on large sodas should reduce the amount of pee flowing into the ocean enough to counteract the sea level rise on a local level.
Re: (Score:2)
Hotspot! I see what you did there. Ha!
Even the sea cannot resist the trendy go to locations along the Jersey shore!
No worries. The ban in NYC on large sodas should reduce the amount of pee flowing into the ocean enough to counteract the sea level rise on a local level.
Entering the Flood Control Dam #3 controll room you hear a ghostly voice echo, as if played over a tannoy somewhere in the distance, "Drill, Baby, Drill!"
Pay for your own mistakes! (Score:3)
Thought rising was caused by water dumping (Score:3)
I thought a report was just published that the ocean levels are rising because of humans sucking water out of underground reservoirs and dumping in into the ocean,
Re: (Score:2)
That is just one factor and probably the smallest of them. The two biggest are water expanding as it warms and ice melting from glaciers and ice sheets.
Of course the water's rising there! (Score:2)
It's all the runoff from the BosWash.
It's OK (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's OK (Score:5, Funny)
I blame Fox News.
Re: (Score:3)
Sea level may appear to be receding in places on the west coast due to the land being pushed up by the subduction zone off the coast. When the big subduction zone earthquake hits they'll drop back down 4 or 5 feet in an instant.
Glub! (Score:3)
~Oh, disaster! The sea level rise on the east coast might be TRIPLE that of the world average in our previous prediction. It might rise 14 to 20 inches over the next century! That's as much as a whole 2 tenths of an inch per year! They're all going to drown.~
Somehow I'm not impressed. While it might be nice to see New York and Washington become awash, this is a number of orders of magnitude too low to be useful.
Compare this to Venice (which still seems to be doing very well, thank you.)
Re: (Score:2)
It might rise 14 to 20 inches over the next century!
Nobody's ever built a 14" sea-wall.
They're all going to drown
Lucky them - the rest of us will be bursting into flames.
satallite altimeter better for GLOBAL sea level (Score:5, Informative)
Local tidal guides or GPS would be affected by vagrancies of local land level changes, which are rather common. This ranges from ice age rebound, sediment deposition loading, sediment erosion unloading, and even a bit of tectonic rise in the Appalachians. And this Nature article says the pattern of water circulation in a region can change locally too, contribution to an apparent LOCAL sea level change.
Continental Shft (Score:2, Insightful)
Last I check, we're on these floating masses called "plates" and they actually move around, shift and stuff. Some get pushed under others, etc. Wouldn't that simply explain why one section might be seeing a change in sea level and not another?
Lastly, why does everyone panic when the world changes a little? We have fish fossils on mountain tops, dinosaur bones, the land mass used to be one large hunk of land. Mountains were created through plate shifts and valleys and hills formed by ice ages. So, knowi
Here's a nickel, kid . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
. . . go get yourself some new talking points.
Seriously, the old "Oh, well, things have changed in the past, so what's the worry?" canard?
The processes you describe took place over millions of years.
We're talking relatively drastic changes, over the course of decades, on a highly developed area of an increasingly crowded and interdependent planet.
If a drunk driver speeding through a red light ran over your dog or your kid, would you accept the driver saying, "Look, people die in accidents all the time. In seventy years, a trivial fraction of the age of the Earth, your kid would likely be dead anyway. Calm down and accept change as a normal part of life. And anyway, can you really prove it was my car that killed your kid? Maybe you wiped his blood on my bumper so you could sue me, and infringe on my right to drink and drive!"
Re: (Score:2)
The processes you describe took place over millions of years.
Maybe so, but then again, we have no idea how it changed from decade to decade do we? Where there was once a river, now there is a gorge. The water level went down. Over the course of a few decades could have gone down a few inches every year. So by your theory, we should panic the entire way over something we could do nothing about.
Seems a little dumb to me.
Ice that once covered a large area eventually receded. Ice that was actually once during MAN's time. It's slowly went away and things warmed up.
On Centimeters and Willful Ignorance (Score:2)
Last I check, we're on these floating masses called "plates" and they actually move around, shift and stuff.
Yep. I'm not a geologist but I don't think "floating masses" is a particularly great analogy. Gravity does have an effect on them at that point but once you hit turtles, I wouldn't bother digging any deeper.
Some get pushed under others, etc. Wouldn't that simply explain why one section might be seeing a change in sea level and not another?
So where has this been throughout history? I mean, we've been building cities near water forever -- you would figure there would be a lot more stories of cities swallowed by the sea. Also, tectonic plates move about 2 centimeters each year. So if we start to see sea levels indicating more movement t
Re: (Score:3)
Yep. I'm not a geologist but I don't think "floating masses" is a particularly great analogy. Gravity does have an effect on them at that point but once you hit turtles, I wouldn't bother digging any deeper.
Everest alone is growing ~ 2 inches every year. That's just there. So yeah... A geologist you are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Three are a few reasons we are worried about climate change and sea level rise:
1. Who moved my cheese!?
2. Some people actually think we're at the utopia of climate and land mass.
3. While large affluant coastal cities will need more sophisticated ways to deal with SLR, they will be able to handle this with money (ie: tech know how). The poor coastal cities will require mass migration of humans, and this will likely result in deaths if there is any amount of ra
Is water no longer a liquid? (Score:2)
This must be a belated April Fools' joke, like the petition to ban DHMO. How can the worldwide ocean's surface level rise more in one area than another?
I mean, it's liquid water. Won't any tiny local variation in average surface height be quickly spead out and normalized by our old friend: Mr. Gravity?
Am I missing something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you are missing something. If the sea water was of exactly the same density, which varies with salinity and temperature, and was dead calm, and the rock under the sea was a uniform density so gravity was the same everywhere then what you say is true. Also the sea bed rises and falls too. Just off the East coast shore, we have the Gulf Stream which is a flow of warm, and therefore less dense water moving North. Not only is it moving North but the East coast juts out and it has to flow around the coast. S
Re: (Score:2)
Try a simple experiment. Pour a glass of water. Blow over the top. See how the water piles up on one side?
The East Coast is sinking (Score:2)
Snookie got pregnant.
Some plates go up, some go down... (Score:2)
I read recently that the melting of the Antarctic ice shelves and related glaciers has caused the crust there to rise up a few cm. Maybe other plates are subsequently sinking, and the plate under the East Coast is just more susceptible to this sinking effect than others that have been measured? I am not a geologist, so feel free to point out if this is ridiculous (that's if you are a geologist, I'm not taking B.S. from just anybody...).
The it? (Score:2)
sea level change at New York from 1856 to 2006 (Score:2)
Data point: Mean sea level at various harbors has been tracked since the mid 1800s. Sea level rise at New York since 1856 has been quite linear at +2.66 mm/yr (0.91 feet per hundred years).
Link:
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750%20The%20Battery,%20NY [noaa.gov]
Scientific Proof at Last (Score:2)
accidentally (Score:3)
Quoth TFS:
Nature just published this study of sea-level rise and how global warming does not force the it to happen everywhere at the same rate.
Imagine what would happen if the editors accidentally the whole summary?
Re: (Score:2)
America is tilting into the ocean - if it can happen to Guam [youtube.com] it can happen to America!
Re:Or maybe (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps the east coast is sinking, relative to the rest of the world?
I'm still here in California, waiting for the Big One .. when all the land East of the San Andreas Fault slides off into the Atlantic.
|o)
Re: (Score:2)
It was nice knowing you!
Florida .. Washington DC .. Manhanttan Island .. Boston .. Coastal Texas .. New Orleans ..
Yep, going to have to redraw a lot of maps and move those beach umbrellas back a few miles.
Lex Luthor (thinking about the first Superman movie) had the right idea, but wrong coast and he didn't even need nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fifth movie involved Lex Luthor causing water rise on the East Coast.
I thought that was the one where he was creating land out of some pseudo chemical/physics science using Kryptonite to make some big, nasty island in the Atlantic.
In the first Superman, he hits the San Andreas Fault with a couple stolen nuke missiles to cause the central valley of California to become the new West Coast (and Otis, trying to claim his own Otisburg)
Re: (Score:2)
Local water temperature (also salinity, etc.) has effects on water levels (e.g. warmer water,=less dense water=higher local water level).
Large coastal cities and their attendant infrastructure (e.g. power plants) do a pretty good job of dumping extra heat into said water.
Re: (Score:3)
What does your hatred for sympathy and human collaboration have to do with the reality of rising oceans?
What does an emotional reaction like sympathy have to do with supposedly-rising local sea levels and increasing government power and taxation? I prefer logic and science myself, but I guess YMMV.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, taking power away from the government (which by definition gives it to corporations
How is NOT taking power and wealth away from PEOPLE giving it to corporations?
Your logic fails.
Strat