Exclusive: Coastal flooding has surged in U.S., Reuters finds

Comments (31)
dottydeedah wrote:

And it’s a natural phenonemon. Mother nature period. In Silicon Valley, Calif. they’re finding seashells and whale skeletons which is about 32 miles from the ocean. The oceans coast at one time went all those miles. Bakersfield, Calif. was once ocean too.

Jul 10, 2014 2:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jdl51 wrote:

It’s just the start.

Jul 10, 2014 3:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
beofaction wrote:

What an unconscionable article. Scientists have recently been struggling to explain the ABSENCE of any appreciable rise in sea levels despite all the terror of “Global Warming” – oh, excuse me, that doesn’t work any more – “Climate Change”!
The explanation is simple: Construction of buildings and infrastructure increases runoff exponentially as one approaches the outfall of storm water drainage on the coasts. And interestingly enough we had a real estate boom, remember?!

Jul 10, 2014 3:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
umkomazi wrote:

dottydeedah wrote:

And it’s a natural phenonemon. Mother nature period. In Silicon Valley, Calif. they’re finding seashells and whale skeletons which is about 32 miles from the ocean. The oceans coast at one time went all those miles. Bakersfield, Calif. was once ocean too.

Errrrr you’ll find that those areas were once under water as they were much lower…..oops forgot…some ‘god’ made the world 600 years ago…..roflmao

Jul 10, 2014 3:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
nose2066 wrote:

This story: “[Sea] Levels have increased as much as twice that in areas of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts where the ground is sinking because of subsidence”.

This is not “climate change”. Developers drain the wet land along the sea coast in order to sell “sea front” properties. Of course the land subsidies when it’s drained.

You remember how bad the damage was from Hurricane Katrina? Why? Partly because the sea coast is disappearing along that part of the Gulf of Mexico. Why is it disappearing? Because the Army Corps of Engineers straightened the Mississippi River from where it used to flow. The River used to dump sediment (dirt) along the coast which replenished the land along the coast. Now that sediment flows straight out into deep water where it doesn’t do any good.

You have to remember, they are engineers, and not ecologists.

Jul 10, 2014 4:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BeRealistic wrote:

“and the tide has remained higher longer.” – So now climate change is screwing with lunar cycles? In this I could be wrong, but pretty sure high tides and low tides are pretty easily calculated and pretty stable.

Jul 10, 2014 4:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

When I watch the deniers do their denying, I find a saying very appropriate….

‘You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make them drink it’

They have the mentality of a horse too.

Jul 10, 2014 4:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
kolbe wrote:

“in places”. There’s your answer right there… Speculative analysis of rising sea “in places”.

Time to dump the games and report on reality media, this is getting old.

Jul 10, 2014 4:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bowo wrote:

I don’t care whether it is climate change or not. I object to subsidizing flood insurance for those who build in flood prone areas.

Jul 10, 2014 4:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
CDouglas wrote:

According to Reuters, I see the sky is falling again. Street flooding occurs in every coastal town I have ever lived in. It is part of being just above sea level. My hypothesis is the entire Reuters news organization have scientific backgrounds to verify their organizational opinion. Water is part of living along the coast. Keep the sandbags handy.

Jul 10, 2014 5:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carlmartel wrote:

Glaciers are melting all over the world. The Arctic Ice Cap is melting. The Greenland Ice Cap is melting. The Antarctic ice shelfs are breaking away and melting. The Antarctic Ice Cap is melting. If you put more melted ice, also known as water, into the seas, sea levels are going to rise. Further, temperatures in the oceans are rising causing the volumes of water to expand, so the levels of the seas are rising from rising temperatures in addition to increasing amounts of water from melted ice.

Jul 10, 2014 6:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

Throughout most of its history, Florida has been under water. Portions of the Florida peninsula have been above or below sea level at least four times. As glaciers of ice in the north expanded and melted, the Florida peninsula emerged and submerged. Geology is very interesting. Man’s desire for beach front property has put us into a situation where at some point in our future we are going to have to migrate further inland.

Jul 10, 2014 6:43pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
TheNewWorld wrote:

@USAPragmatist

You should read the article. The majority of these tidal issues is due to the land sinking which is not a result of global warming. Either way it is folly to believe that the water levels would remain the same indefinitely as we all know the earth is constantly changing albeit slowly.

Jul 10, 2014 6:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Cnileolman wrote:

Dotty is right, it is just natural. All we have to do is wait and eventually grow gills. No problems.

Jul 10, 2014 6:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
loxegwen wrote:

hey climate change deniers, i got 2 words for you, ICE CAPS.

Try explaining that with building booms and drained wetlands.

Jul 10, 2014 7:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
zeke_voltage wrote:

That was 20,000,000 years ago, Dottiedeedah. This article says East Coast flooding events have increased threefold in 40 years. 20 million years ago sea level was roughly 300 ft higher than it is now. So the average change over that time is -0.018 inches every 100 years. This article states our current rate at +8 inches in the last 100 years. That’s more than 400 times faster. And the sea level swings millions of years ago were also mainly due to tectonic plate shifts. We can’t blame the pace of modern sea level change with plate movements. This is not a natural phenomenon. This is a man-made disaster.

Jul 10, 2014 7:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
NotJoeBast wrote:

“The oceans have risen an average of 8 inches in the past century”

Yes, and they rose about 6″ each century before that as levels recover from the last ice age and the Little Ice Age which bottomed out in 1690.

So, the total human contribution to sea level is about 2″.

The obvious conclusion is that carbon dioxide emissions have virtually nothing to do with this flooding. The reasons for it are much more complex.

Jul 10, 2014 8:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
NotJoeBast wrote:

loxegwen wrote:

hey climate change deniers, i got 2 words for you, ICE CAPS.

……………………………….

Yes those ice caps have been quite healthy lately with Antarctica setting a recent record for the greatest ice extent ever and the arctic trending upward for the past 8 years. Data goes back to 1979 and current global values are above the long term average. Global temps haven’t warmed in roughly 15 years

I don’t know any climate change deniers… but I know a lot of scientists skeptical of global warming disaster claims.

Jul 10, 2014 8:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
OkieRedux wrote:

So Reuters now publishes its own scientific studies, and proclaims them to be correct on its own authority? This amounts to spitting on the process of peer-reviewed publication in science, if not the scientific community itself.

I smell a “climate change skeptic” by the name of Paul Ingrassia (managing editor of Reuters):

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/07/17-1

The classic delusion is that the ostensibly scientific reports on climate change are in fact politically motivated. Have your own people review the data if you want to get at what’s really true — right? Well, that tactic went notoriously awry for the Koch Foundation when it funded physicist Richard “Call Me a Converted Skeptic” Muller and his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Muller’s arrogance is fabulous. He considers it terribly important for the world to know that he, a PHYSICIST and a past recipient of the MacArthur “genius” award, now concurs with what a large community of scientific specialists had deemed, almost unanimously, correct. Astonishingly, Muller went to the NYT op-ed page before his research group had managed to get a scientific article published.

Who are the wondrous investigators at Reuters that readers should count on to do research better than the scientific community does, and without the benefit of peer review?

“The analysis was undertaken as part of a broader examination of rising sea levels Reuters plans to publish later this year.”

I do so love the passive voice.

Jul 10, 2014 8:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
NotJoeBast wrote:

zeke_voltage wrote:

“This article states our current rate at +8 inches in the last 100 years. That’s more than 400 times faster….We can’t blame the pace of modern sea level change with plate movements.”

Reality check…sea level is quite stable now. When the last ice age ended 14,000 years ago, sea level rose 360 feet in 8000 years. That’s 54 inches a century…average… for 80 straight centuries. That dwarfs the current 8″ rise a century.

Jul 10, 2014 8:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
auger wrote:

“25 million hourly tide-gauge readings..”, and 21 comments from casual readers. I’ll have to go with the readings, for the time being

Jul 10, 2014 9:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Neurochuck wrote:

In the river estuary where I live there are two different types of flooding.
Heavy rainfall causes fresh water flooding, which carries a lot of mud onto the alluvial floodplain, and supports dairy cattle grazing and beef fattening on good pastures.
Lately there is more salt water flooding, caused by peak tides combined with storm surge and onshore winds, and rising sea levels, and erosion of coastal dunes and sandbars. This saturates the floodplain and ponds with salt water, and with evaporation leaves “poisoned” ground and ponds, dead grasses and trees. The salt residue also attacks the bottoms of galvanized sheds, telephone cables etc.
Salt water flooding is much more destructive, and seems to be what the facts in this article refer too.

Jul 10, 2014 9:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:

@TheNewWorld

I am glad you brought up the fact that ‘Either way it is folly to believe that the water levels would remain the same indefinitely as we all know the earth is constantly changing albeit slowly.’ Because yes the Earth has always had ocean level changes along with climate changes, and some VERY dramatic ones for that matter, however best available evidence shows that the RATE of current climate change, and the associated sea level fluctuations, is unprecedented in recent geological time.

By your same logic because the Earth has ‘done that in the past’ one could say the late bombardment stage was done in the past too, you want to go back there?

Jul 10, 2014 10:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AC10 wrote:

Reuters:

Please look into the effect that navigation dredging has on water heights in these coastal areas. New York harbor has a natural depth of 17′, but it has been increased to 50′ in last 100 years. Same for Philadelphia, and all other cities. Channels are also much wider.

Why is dredging always excluded from discussions on water heights?

Jul 10, 2014 10:44pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AC10 wrote:

What about coastal dredging?

Dredging of waterways has a lot to do with the increased heights on the eastern seaboard over last 100 years.
NY harbor has gone from 17 foot depth to 50 feet today. The channel width has also increased.

Jul 10, 2014 10:47pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
diluded001 wrote:

I would challenge anyone to dispute these facts:

CO2 is optically transparent to sunlight, but absorbs heat in wavelength radiated by the earth.

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for orders of magnitude longer than water vapor to the point where it accumulates.

Previous ice ages and natural climate change were largely do to changes in volcanic activity.

Humans, myself included, dump something like 100x more CO2 into the atmosphere than volcanoes.

Personally, I have a hard time seeing how humans could not be changing the atmospheric chemistry to the point of warming this little planet hurtling through outer space.

But you are still skeptical that humans are warming things up. So lets say for the sake of argument, CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Then consider this: every car motor, many industrial processes and power plants, all have little fires burning in the form of combustion. You car hood is hot after you drive it, right? Multiply the heat your car puts out by a 1,000,000,000. There are a billion cars on the road. Sure, the earth has the ability to naturally correct some heat, but every acre of asphalt reduces that, every field and forest turned into a house orchard (like where I live) reduces it. At any given time we are constantly putting out hundreds of billions of watts of heat just from combustion. It has to go somewhere, right?

Jul 11, 2014 12:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carlmartel wrote:

Humans are involved in this problem. Since 1850, we have dug up billions of tons of coal out of the earth and burned it into the air. We have pumped trillions of barrels of oil out of the earth and burned it into the air. We have pumped trillions of cubic feet of natural gas out of the earth and burned it into the air. Humans never did that in past eras, and the coal, oil, and gas that we have burned into the air would likely not have seen the light of day without humans digging or pumping it from the earth. All trend lines of measured temperatures on earth show rises when we should be going into a new ice age. Earth’s climate has reversed course, and the main change has been mankind’s massive burning of fossil fuels that create gases that can serve as a blanket to trap heat on earth and the heat created by the act of burning.

Jul 11, 2014 3:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
NotJoeBast wrote:

diluded001 wrote:

“Previous ice ages and natural climate change were largely do to changes in volcanic activity.”

“Humans, myself included, dump something like 100x more CO2 into the atmosphere than volcanoes.”

Those are both wildly off base. Ice ages…which we are in most of the time, are primarily driven by Milankovitch variables

http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm

Natural sources, including volcanoes, can dwarf human CO2 contributions which is why we have had much higher CO2 levels in the past.

These facts by no means imply that human-added CO2 doesn’t warmed the earth.

Jul 11, 2014 4:14pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
NotJoeBast wrote:

OkieRedux wrote:

“Have your own people review the data if you want to get at what’s really true — right? ”

Never hurts to look at some observed data. Most people have never bothered. Plenty of recent, raw climate data is on this link

https://www.flickr.com/photos/125630565@N05/with/14527956564

Jul 11, 2014 4:19pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
NotJoeBast wrote:

This week there was a climate conference of scientists in Las Vegas called ICCC9. A poll of the scientists was conducted with the following six questions…

1. Does climate change?
2. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased since the late 1950s?
3. Is Man likely to have contributed to the measured increase in CO2 concentration since the late 1950s?
4. Other things being equal, is it likely that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some global warming?
5. Is it likely that there has been some global warming since the late 1950s?
6. Is it likely that Man’s emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have contributed to the measured global warming since 1950?

What percentage of respondents answered “Yes” ?

100% of the time. None of the 600 respondents answer “no” a single time on a single question.

Jul 11, 2014 4:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Talk about the climate, we do,

no matter if any of it’s true.

Extreme weather is the best,

on our never ending quest,

to prove what we already knew.

Jul 12, 2014 10:33am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.