2024 sea level 'report cards' map futures of U.S. coastal communities

Not to diminish the fact that this is happening, nor that humans are at least <i>a</i> principal cause of it, but does anyone think, at least in the US, that the costs to mitigate sea-level rise would not be shared across the US, at least in those places with significant population? The contradiction is not lost on me, but most of the time when people are asked &quot;should the government bail <i>me</i> out?&quot; the answer seems to be yes regardless of where one sits on the political spectrum.<p>I bring this up because the same people who would deny that this is a problem will also be amongst the people who will take a &quot;check&quot; from the federal and&#x2F;or state government to mitigate any issues that arise from it. And it&#x27;s, at least partially, that reality that keeps people from actually trying to mitigate it with their own actions. I&#x27;m not saying people consciously are sitting there saying that, but I do think it&#x27;s an underlying belief.<p>For instance, is this guy or gal (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.realtor.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;unique-homes&#x2F;florida-most-expensive-house-flood&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.realtor.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;unique-homes&#x2F;florida-most-expen...</a>) going to pay for the levy or whatever solution keeps the water from inundating their property without first lobbying the government to take care of it for them?

I live in Venice, Italy. This issue has been urgent and critical for Venetians for a few decades now. The problem here is that even a 60cm (2 feet) increase in sea level would essentially:<p>1) force to shut the dams (MOSE) almost always during the year.<p>2) ruin the lagoon ecosystem<p>3) create uncountable damage to the city of Venice, and nearby islands.<p>4) possibly displace tens of thousands of people.

What I wonder about sea level rise is what happens to all of the development that gets swallowed by the sea? I’m not optimistic that there will be proper cleanup of the stuff that was built up over time. If I recall from the LA fires last year, the burnt down homes left some toxic stuff behind that require proper disposal. The same stuff in those homes presumably exists in the buildings and infrastructure that will be taken by the sea. How much pollution is going to be introduced into the environment? And what long term consequences will result from that?

The sad part is anticipate the current administration will see this report and attack any federal funds William and Mary receive unless they remove and retract the data.

As an aside we went to see the new David Attenborough film Ocean over the weekend. Equal parts stunning and heartbreaking - it sews a compelling narrative for the oceans, spread between climate and ocean ecology, the extent of our exploitation, and the renewed hope (if you could call it that) that it holds for humanity&#x27;s survival ...<p>A hard watch but also a must see: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=cIZAdCtKT_g" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=cIZAdCtKT_g</a>

I work in this space of measuring (mostly coastal) water levels and it&#x27;s pretty amazing how many different vertical datums there are. When people say something has a height of X, you don&#x27;t always consider what it&#x27;s relative to. Is it sea level? High tide or low tide? Maybe it&#x27;s relative to one of the many geodetic ellipsoids. Maybe a nearby physical benchmark put into the ground by a surveyor. Many cases (like this article) just care about the relative changes locally, but even for that you have to be careful of places like Southeast Alaska where glacial melt causes the land to rise and give the appearance of sea levels dropping.

About 30-40% of the US population lives in a coastal county:<p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;oceanservice.noaa.gov&#x2F;facts&#x2F;population.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;oceanservice.noaa.gov&#x2F;facts&#x2F;population.html</a><p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.census.gov&#x2F;content&#x2F;dam&#x2F;Census&#x2F;library&#x2F;visualizations&#x2F;2019&#x2F;demo&#x2F;coastline-america.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.census.gov&#x2F;content&#x2F;dam&#x2F;Census&#x2F;library&#x2F;visualizat...</a>

“Mitchell also notes that most West Coast localities have been fairly stable, despite past predictions that they would increase rapidly. “This has led to some questions about why,” she said.”<p>^ this interested me, apparently it’s due to geological uplift combined with regional water patterns. The regional water patterns are due to winds and the ENSO cycle, which can mask long term effects. Apparently it will increase faster once Antarctica starts shedding in earnest.

I grew up a few minutes away from the picture at the top of the article.<p>Knowing that many of the places I love, which formed me, will soon be under water gives me a kind of sadness which doesn’t go away.

most of the worlds water just so happens to be at around 2~4°C, which is where water density is the highest, warming or cooling a bit causes it to expand, so just maybe it warms up a bit, and the total increased volume is enough to flood, everything we want dry. Oh ya, we are on track for the warmest and most ice free artic summer ever.We just finnished the warmest and most ice free winter, so, ya, right. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nsidc.org&#x2F;sea-ice-today" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nsidc.org&#x2F;sea-ice-today</a>

The history of sea-level rise is kind of interesting. Up 120m since 18000 BC. There used to be about a France sized area of land with lions on it around what are now the British Isles. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Doggerland" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Doggerland</a>

We spent billions bailing out after Katrina in south jersey and now shore front properties are in the millions. Yawn.

TIL: The US West coast will see less of the increase than other places due to wind and tectonic movement.

This is great. Let us remember this link, and archive the data right now.<p>I will wager $1000 of my own money right now that if the exact same methodology is used to measure sea level in 10 years, as was used at the publication of the study, and if the editors do not apply any “offset” to sea levels, that in 10 years the sea level will have risen less than 50% of their predictions at more than 50% of stations.<p>Applying any offset for any reason or changing methodology will invalidate the bet.<p>I’ll try to set up a Kalshi market.<p>If climate change studies should be used to influence public policy, then they must be empirical, repeatable and have predictive value.

The chart is good because it shows actual measurements, but I&#x27;m concerned about the baseline being 1970. It is possible that measurements prior to 1970 are higher and make the projected measurements look worse than they are, especially since many charts for mid-Atlantic sites were clearly on a downward trend shortly after 1970.<p>I&#x27;m not saying there is an intentional attempt to bamboozle readers. It&#x27;s just hard to judge the report on such a short time scale.<p>EDIT: I&#x27;m not a climate denialist, but I have many people in my life who are. I was really looking forward to showing them this website but refrained knowing that they would come back with the argument I mentioned.