The latest in Doooooooom
Two Canadian places that could be under water in 100 years — or sooner
It’s easy to ignore, until suddenly it’s not.
As the earth warms, Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets melt and sea levels rise steadily – just a third of a centimetre a year or so, but it adds up, and it isn’t slowing down.
What will our shorelines look like by the year 2100? Well, it depends – on how much the climate warms, whether air pollution goes on unchecked or reduces, on whether the West Antarctic ice sheet has begun an unstoppable collapse (the maps below assume it hasn’t).
But even under the most cautious scenarios, the shapes of coastal cities will change. (snip)
But some communities on both of Canada’s salt-water coasts will start to feel the effects of rising sea levels, maps produced by Climate Central, a scientific non-profit based in New Jersey, predict.
No, no, nothing like using a hyper-partisan, scaremongering outfit like Climate Central. Let’s go right to those two Canadian places (click the above link to see the graphics)
1. Richmond and Delta, B.C.
Even the most conservative flood maps show Richmond, Delta and parts of rural Abbotsford and Coquitlam permanently underwater by 2100. (snip)
A gradual sea level rise of 3.5 millimetres a year is easy to ignore, he says. The crisis would build slowly but express itself in a a violent storm, driving the now-raised water levels.
The actual measured rate is .37mm per year for Vancouver. Victoria is .63mm. Tolfino is -1.70mm. Even looking at the highest, that is equivalent to a change of 0.12 feet in 100 years.
The other place is on Canada’s east coast, the Tantramar Marsh in New Brunswick. If we look at the data for Halifax and Saint John’s, the closest stations, we do see a 3.12 and 2.75 rise, respectively, but, no acceleration, just the norm for long periods of time. And this is the problem: you have hyper-partisan hysterics looking into crystal balls and predicting that doom will occur unless we Do Something. There’s no way to actually prove that Doing Something (usually some sort of carbon tax, along with fees and Big Government restrictions on individuals and private entities) will solve the problem that is created out of thin air (and computer models.) We just have to take their word for it. Even though their prognostications are contradicted by actual data.
They say “but, bad things will happen unless we do “X”. We know it. That’s why this is not science, it’s politics.
