There’s a new doomy report out about NYC that urges “urgent action”
(Gothamist) We can keep debating global climate change (it’s real!) until the last polar bear takes its final gasping breath. But let’s never forget that this seaside city is in imminent danger—a new study confirms New York’s temperatures are skyrocketing, sea levels are rising, and we’re in for one hell of a grim ride.
The Mayor’s Office has just released this year’s incredibly bleak New York City Panel on Climate Change report today, noting that their findings “underscore the urgency of not only mitigating our contributions to climate change, but adapting our city to its risks.” Not that this should be surprising at this point. Here are some fun things to look forward to, according to the report:
Mean annual temperatures are expected to shoot up by 4.1 to 5.7 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2050s. By the 2080s, those mean annual temperatures could increase by as much as 8.8 degrees Fahrenheit. For comparison’s sake, mean annual temperature increased a total of 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit from 1900 to 2013, so that’s a pretty big jump in under a century.
The news gets worse. The sea level will increase between 11 inches and 21 inches by the 2050s; by the 2080s, it’ll be up to between 18 and 29 inches, and by 2100, we can expect an increase of between 22 and 50 inches. And if the science gods are against us—and aren’t they always?—that sea level could see a rise as high as six feet by 2100. Bye, Red Hook!
This cause celebre has quickly replaced the “zOMG, we’re doomed from disease due to “climate change”” that had been the talking points for about 4-5 days. And we see this same freakout for many other cities, notably Miami. Yet, Liberals, who are the primary disciples of anthropogenic Hotcoldwetdry, want to be there. Weird, yes?
Interestingly
(Scientific American) The report noted that temperatures in Central Park climbed at a rate of 0.3 F per decade from 1900 to 2013, totaling a 3.4 F rise, but the panel expects those figures to soar, with an increase of 4.1 to 5.7 F by the 2050s and 5.3 to 8.8 F by the 2080s.
The world temperature has gone up around 1.4F since 1850. If NYC has gone up 2 degrees F more in 50 years less, might there be something else at play? Cough *Urban Heat Island Effect* cough.
The predictions here claimed said back in the 1980’s to happen by 2015. They now changed it to 2050.If they were wrong then….
Here is a very interesting even handed look at the plight of Polar Bears. It was done by the CBC and tells both sides of the story.
It is short and well done. Watch and decide for yourself how well the Polar Bears are doing.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/Environment/ID/2505129180/
How lame are these fools? “A 3.4 F degree rise in Central park from 1900 to 2013.” Gee, do you think it could be from several million more people, more buildings, and hundreds of miles of more concrete and asphalt nearby?
The Arctic has warmed at twice the rate of the global average. No urban heat island effect there, either.
*cough* The average of a huge dataset implies there are places higher and places lower. *cough*
I note, with some amusement, that Jeffrey has jumped in, once again, to let us know that we’re all doomed, doomed! by climate change, but never did address our host’s question: why, if the left believe so strongly in
global warmingclimate change, do they want so badly to live in the areas in which they sayglobal warmingclimate change will have the largest impact?Other than words, of which they emit trillions, I have yet to see any evidence that the warmists take their theories seriously.
dana,
I suspect you are never really amused. Where did I say we were doomed? Oh, I didn’t. Do you have a “falsehood generator” that allows you to repeat lies?
When conservatives have no good arguments to make, they always erect straw men.
So now your best arguments against the scientific theory of man-made global warming is that 1) NYC is a big city and 2) environmentalists don’t live in caves.
What do you mean that the “left want so badly to live in areas in which they say global warming will have the largest impact”? It’s their home.
The Earth is warming because of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere from our burning of fossil fuels. Refute that.
Typical conservative doublespeak.
Environmentalists at once do not take their theory seriously and are also engineering the enslavement of the entire planet (we’re doomed!).
Barack Obama at once is the weakest, most effeminate President in history and is also the most dangerous, powerful King, tyrant and dictator in history (we’re doomed!).
This article is so ridiculous that I do not think it serves warmers well. Again it was released from a political office not a scientific one and again no names attached. No name of the study mentioned. How competent are the people who did this study? Again they never tell you the current temperature just the amount it will increase. Again the word “expected” is used. It is alway sometime in the future. They said this 20 years ago.
Somoene from the IPCC needs to run over there and dilute their Koolaid. The Canadain and U.S Weather Bureaus were not even able to predict this winter’s temperature correctly let alone being capable of making the predictions here. Imagine if 20 years ago these people were taken seriously and a huge wall was errected around Manhatten. How foolish would they feel today.
What is the curent global adverage. What is the current Arctic adverage. Then we can compare next year to see how the Arctic has faired.
Ships from time to time get through the north west passage when weather permits which implies that the Arctic warms and refreezes over time.
You can watch the Polar Bear video by CBC posted above or come up to Churchill Manitoba and check them out yourself. They are everywhere and are doing quite well. Population 25,000 to 27,000 the same as always. Bring your camera!
So, where do you live, Jeffrey? This wicked ol’ conservative lives in a small town, and when he retires in four years, will be moving to the farm that my wife and I bought. Growing our own produce, and at least partially living off the land. And it’s one of the big complaints from the Democrats these days that they’ve almost completely lost the white rural vote. If the left really lived as they say they believe, shouldn’t the rural vote be more heavily Democratic?
Who knows, maybe you live off the land yourself, personally, but, as our esteemed host note, the left in this county tend to congregate in urban areas, about the least environmentally-sound places there are. We see the people who are oh-so-concerned about
global warmingclimate change heading out to these wonderful conferences in private jets, and generally leaving about as big a carbon footprint as they can. Every once in awhile, I’l hear about someone like Ed Begley, who at least tied to live his life as he says it should be lived, but most of y’all don’t. I don’t know about you, individually, but most of the warmists I meet are raging hypocrites.Ahhh, but you see, we’re not retiring to a farm because we are worried about our carbon footprint; we’re retiring to a farm — 7.92 acres, with 50 ft of river frontage, a beautiful place, you ought to see it — because that’s what we want to do.
Just for Jeffrey. And it doesn’t even mention global warming!
[…] Teach on The Pirate’s Cove pointed out the hypocrisy of so many of the climate change activists choosing to live in densely populated urban areas, […]