News Section
Stories from Climate Central's Science Journalists and Content Partners

Picture This: U.S. Cities Under 12 feet of Sea Level Rise

By Climate Central

Maps are one way to understand what collapse of West Antarctic glaciers could eventually mean. Photos show it another way.

In 2013, Climate Central shared some of its sea level rise mapping data with artist Nickolay Lamm so that he could develop photorealistic images of U.S. city scenes under different future scenarios. One scenario was 12 feet of sea level rise — right in the middle of the range now predicted due to the collapse of key Antarctic glaciers under way. Here is what some classic American city scenes would look like today with that much extra ocean.

THE JEFFERSON MEMORIALCredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

OCEAN DRIVE, MIAMICredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

HARVARD CAMPUSCredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

THE STATUE OF LIBERTYCredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

BOSTON HARBOR HOTELCredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

BACK BAY BOSTONCredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

THE CITADEL, CHARLESTONCredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

CRISSY FIELD, SAN FRANCISCOCredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

UP CLOSE: CRISSY FIELD, SAN FRANCISCOCredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

VENICE BEACH BOARDWALKCredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

VENICE BEACHCredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

AT&T PARK, SAN FRANCISCOCredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

SAN DIEGO CONVENTION CENTERCredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

SAN DIEGO CORONADO ISLANDCredit: Nickolay Lamm. Data: Climate Central

Comments

By Greg Martin (San Diego, CA 92103)
on May 14th, 2014

Coronado is not an island.  It’s a city at the north end of a peninsula.  But well done, otherwise.  It would be interesting to see a similar image of the iconic Hotel del Coronado.

Reply to this comment

By Doug (Hermosa Beach, CA 90254)
on May 15th, 2014

You’re technically correct, it’s actually a peninsula, but the locals (both those who live in Coronado and everyone who lives in San Diego) call it Coronado Island. Even the local hotels use the name (e.g., Coronado Island Marriott Resort & Spa). It’s confusing, however, since there are REAL islands called the Coronado Islands just off the coast a few miles. BTW, the military base at the northerly end of the “island” is officially named the North Island Naval Air Station. Google it.

Reply to this comment

By j r
on May 28th, 2014

Coronado was an island before the construction of the silver strand.

Reply to this comment

By Col. Bob Jones (Paihia, New Zealand)
on May 16th, 2014

Not an island **yet**.

Reply to this comment

By Phillip Wilkinson (Glendale, Az. 85302)
on May 16th, 2014

Interesting thought Col. Bob. I was just thinking too, these pics are simulations at a 12 foot rise of sea level. I suppose it’s important we don’t cause a panic, however, nature takes its course and obviously, it doesn’t mean the the melt down won’t cause more of a rise!! It’s up to us all to try to fathom what happens if it rises 24 feet, 36 feet and more? I wouldn’t think we are out of harm’s way just because we don’t live on a coastline, The Berring Strait, next to Alaska, rises up and down going from… land which stretches a thousand miles wide to completely under water, with no visible land, and this has been happening over time for a long, long, time . . . .

Reply to this comment

By David (Escondido, CA 92026)
on May 16th, 2014

It used to be an island. Then when they dreged the the San Diego bay so bigger military ships could use it, all that sand had to go somewhere. And so they created the “silver strand” with it turning the island into a pennisula.

Reply to this comment

By Emmett (San Diego/Calif,/92139)
on May 18th, 2014

You are 100% correct.  I didn’t startling here until 1960 and when I went to work as a civilian at North Island Naval Air /station in Coronada I checked out the history of the area and it was an island originally.

Reply to this comment

By HollywoodF1 (Hollywood, CA 90068)
on May 25th, 2014

Your belief of the origin of the Strand is provably wrong:  Here’s a Spanish map from 1782, and the Silver Strand is there.  This map is from the Coronado Library Lookout.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i4pO8DNZwHc/T9-mMDadjVI/AAAAAAAACh4/l9LhGchYBZA/s1600/Maps+Pantoja.JPG  

The Strand is a naturally occurring tombolo, and Coronado is still an island.  Tomboli do not undo an island’s status as an island. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tombolo

Reply to this comment

By David French (Moss Point, Ms.)
on May 16th, 2014

You people do realize these pictures are totally fake, right?

Reply to this comment

By Ibnsaud (Germantown, TN 38138)
on May 16th, 2014

I don’t think they do! Let’s all take a breath, step back and realize that these GIGO models cannot predict weather 36 hours out much less than 100 years from now.

Reply to this comment

By Michael Soso (15221-3334)
on May 26th, 2014

GIGO? Hardly! Climate prediction models have been very accurate over the past two decades and they’ve only gotten better. A brief review of how Earth’s glaciers have been melting over the past few decades should convince anyone that concern is warranted.

Reply to this comment

By Bill Corchorn
on May 16th, 2014

And the Captain Obvious award goes to…

Reply to this comment

By Jennie Lowe (San Francisco/CA/94114)
on May 16th, 2014

David French, you do realize you can’t photograph the future, right? These are depictions of what is coming.

Reply to this comment

By Micah
on May 17th, 2014

Yes, because of the title of the article, and because there has not been an increase of 10 or 15 million homeless and without jobs in the last week.

Reply to this comment

By Kaiser (Millbrae, Ca. 94030)
on May 17th, 2014

All the photos are fake. It’s their way of wanting to control all your moves and actions. If they can control you, then they can tell you where to live, what to drive, how much energy you can use. All the while, they would exempt themselves, like what Al Gore is doing now.

Reply to this comment

By Rebecca Evans (94109-4002)
on May 26th, 2014

They’re computer generated photo representations.  You’re missing the point.  And it doesn’t matter what Al Gore is doing or not doing - it’s what you’re doing.  I’ve never owned a car and get along fine on transit and my own two feet.

Reply to this comment

By Denno (Jersey City NJ 07305)
on May 17th, 2014

I don’t think that they do. lol

Reply to this comment

By Jean (Montgomery, AL)
on May 18th, 2014

From the text before the pictures: “...photorealistic images of U.S. city scenes under different future scenarios. One scenario was 12 feet of sea level rise…”

So, yeah. I’m sure anyone with more than half a brain, or who read the brief intro above, realizes these pictures are speculative.

Reply to this comment

By John Huebner (Jasper, IN 47546)
on May 19th, 2014

It is shown AS an island it the rendered photo.  The subject is about global flooding.

Reply to this comment

By Peter Cee (92103)
on May 21st, 2014

It used to be an island. Know yer history.

Reply to this comment

By Lynn Eland (DeLand)
on May 26th, 2014

I disagree; it is an island that has a 10 mile tombolo connecting it to the mainland. But some people believe that it’s not an island because it has a tombolo connecting it to the mainland. It is a wonderful place I visited many times while I was living in Santa Clara, CA. This is simulation of what cities will look like when the sea level increases is fascinating & very disconcerting! I hope that it won’t in my life time, although if it does I may have beach front property…hmm!

Reply to this comment

By Peter (Chula Vista, CA)
on May 28th, 2014

It was naturally an island.  Man made it a peninsula.

Reply to this comment

By mandy pino (albuquerque, nm 87106)
on May 14th, 2014

can’t believe it..would a carbon tax help?

Reply to this comment

By Daphne (11217)
on May 15th, 2014

YES!! It would and you can help make it happen. Check out citizensclimatelobby.org.

Reply to this comment

By Monty
on May 16th, 2014

Carbon Tax would not help. All it would do is push the tax on us on electricity bill. Its not like it will prevent demand of electricity and gas.

Reply to this comment

By Mark
on May 16th, 2014

Price has a way of affecting demand.  And a tax makes the price higher for consumers.

Remember the oil embargo of the 1970’s?  The price of gasoline in the US ballooned, and demand for smaller, lighter, more efficient cars blossomed.

Reply to this comment

By Bill Richardson (Riverview mi 48193)
on May 17th, 2014

A carbon tax would lead to more use of renewable sources like wind and solarwhich have become more economical than coal

Reply to this comment

By Steven Mull (Geneva NY 14456)
on May 17th, 2014

It would incentivize finding ways to lower carbon output.  You know, let the market figure out a solution.  Used to be a conservative idea before Obama agreed to it.

Reply to this comment

By vanbrady (Milton DE 19968)
on May 17th, 2014

Welcome to the religion of Chicken Little and the True Believers!  What is the point ?  Are you going to use the proceeds of a carbon tax to to bribe China and India to stop putting a new coal fired power plant on line daily??????

Reply to this comment

By Mark Roest (San Mateo, CA 94403)
on August 23rd, 2014

Both China and India have had the realization at the top that they need to turn to renewables for the long haul. Check the stories in Renew Economy (from Australia). They track it because the national government in Australia has betrayed the people in favor of the coal and gas companies, and the markets they count on are China and India, and Renew Economy is running the stories to show that the government and coal and gas companies are (people who cannot think straight for various derogatory reasons) who will just waste billions of dollars and wipe out part of the great barrier reef building terminals to ship coal and gas to markets which will have closed by their completion.

Reply to this comment

By Pekup Andropov (San Francisco, ca 94105)
on May 18th, 2014

The Antarctic ice cap is melting irreversibly.  Irreversible means a carbon tax won’t help.  Reducing carbon emissions has always been a foolish, expensive waste of time.  Cute websites,lots of talk, and the canonization of the hypocrite Al Gore, and carbon emissions. Go up and up.  Time to be real.  We are going to lose much of the low lying world.  Why not concentrate on adapting to that instead of tilting at the CO 2 windmill?

Reply to this comment

By gloria de gaston (emeryville, CA. 94608)
on May 20th, 2014

Why not do both?  Waters will rise, so plan for it. And clean up the air, too.  Renewable, sustainable energy will be cheaper and cleaner….and life will be better even if dry land may be smaller.  grin

Reply to this comment

By Gerard Trigo (Laplace, LA 70068)
on May 14th, 2014

They left out New Orleans, Houston, Savannah and Portland.

Reply to this comment

By mccmomof3 (Albuquerque, NM 87107)
on May 15th, 2014

Having moved to NM after my home was flooded in NOLA after Katrina, I was wondering the same thing. Maybe the simulation of NOLA would be too boring because most things would be under water!

Reply to this comment

By Walter (Alexandria, VA 22314)
on May 16th, 2014

Yes, all they would have of New Orleans would be the tops of the few buildings tall enough to still poke out of the water.  It would hardly be recognizable.

Reply to this comment

By Mary (Columbus, OH)
on May 16th, 2014

Would it make much of a difference to Savannah, though? Not asking as an excuse to not change, but simply asking since even if the sea level were to raise, Savannah (or River Street which is where most people know most about) is on the river, so the amount that it would raise would not be 12 feet.

Reply to this comment

By ablevins
on May 16th, 2014

Savannah’s altitude 49 feet.
Even melting Greenland would
Not flood the city.
The melt of Greenland and other ice masses
during the last interglacial (125,000 years ago)
which was warmer than today,  the sea level
in New York harbor
by seventeen feet.

Reply to this comment

By ablevins
on May 16th, 2014

Savannah is 49 feet above sea level.

Reply to this comment

By fULLER tHOMPSON (El Cajon, CA 92020)
on May 16th, 2014

They left out a lot of islands, cities from all over the world.
Space probably at a premium as well as coastlines will change.

Reply to this comment

By Jeff Tovar (Springfield, Mo)
on May 16th, 2014

Not mentioned is my hometown of Long Beach,Ca., then there’s all of the California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska coastal cities from South to North.

Reply to this comment

By Dorothy Sellers (Brazoria, TX 77422)
on May 16th, 2014

  There was a comment about adding Houston on the list.  Houston is 50 miles from the Gulf of Mexico.  There would be a lot of flooding in Galveston (of course), but very little (if none at all) in Houston itself.

Reply to this comment

By Bob (Dallas, tx 75002)
on May 17th, 2014

If the Gulf of Mexico rises by 12 feet, Galveston Bay rises by 12 feet.  Clear Lake rises by 12 feet.  The Houston Ship Channel rises by at least close to 12 feet.  Buffalo Bayou rises.  Downtown might not be flooded, but the East and Southeast side would be.  How much above sea level is the Brazos River at Brazoria?  If it’s not 12 feet above sea level, it will rise to that level.

Reply to this comment

By Geri Mellgren-Kerwin (Burbank, CA 91505)
on May 16th, 2014

You also left out Manhattan Island and Newport Beach, California.  Coastlines where the wealthy love to congregate will be affected all over the globe, some of whom are climate change deniers.  When they are treading water, they’ll change their minds, call off their attack dogs in Congress and cooperate, but by then it may be too late to do anything about global warming.  One thing that must be said about the human race, a large segment of it never gets on board to save the planet until it is too late.  The US is going to look a lot like Venice, Italy.

Reply to this comment

By Edward Golledge (Wichita, KS 67205)
on May 17th, 2014

VERY well stated, Geri.  Oftentimes I wonder if deniers are (or will ever be) aware of the terrible legacy they’re leaving for themselves.

Reply to this comment

By Robert Barry Bernstein (Portland/OR/97215)
on May 16th, 2014

Portland is 50 ft. elevation..70 miles inland..my house is about 250 ft.

 

Reply to this comment

By Tom (LV NV 89110)
on May 17th, 2014

What about Honolulu?

Reply to this comment

By Matt
on May 18th, 2014

New Orleans.  Would be gone. Because everyone seen what hurricane Katrina did and one before that one.

Reply to this comment

By name (b*kln)
on May 15th, 2014

During Hurricane Sandy whole Rockaway peninsula (near JFK airport)  flooded 5 feet on streets level due to 15-20 feet ocean surge. An event which occurs once or twice in 100 years. Nothing new.  No Arctic melting needed. So, after poeople got their fingers burned, they kept doing same again. All at taxpayers’ expense.

Reply to this comment

By RoyMartinez (Bx. N.Y. 10473)
on May 15th, 2014

Living where I do makes me worry for what will happen in the very near future. Property damage and loss will cripple this country and doom my grand children to life in jeopardy.

Do something now.

Reply to this comment

By Willis (Maricopa, AZ 85138)
on May 17th, 2014

Do something? The time has passed us by to do anything except prepare to either create temporary barricades to block the impending waters or to begin the slow, but eventually necessary long-term evacuation of mass groups of citizens before there is severe damage to their current communities that will cause disease, starvation, hysteria, violence, and death.

The impact will be felt worldwide and, you’re right, it will definitely impact many, many generations. But at this point, we are where we are. No sense in wishing or praying it were different. We are going to have to begin a push for survival that mankind has not had to deal with in millennia, if ever. We’re looking at 3 - 4 feet of water which will cause trillions of dollars in damage and create mass homelessness, but that’s really only the beginning. Having 12 feet of water with more sure to follow over centuries will change our environments in ways we don’t even know yet. Certain species we may depend on could go extinct or new, deadly water-born bacterium could develop that creates a strain of disease that a large portion of mankind can’t fight off. These and so many other possibilities are all things we need to be as prepared for as possible.

This isn’t a time for bunker building and weapons stashing, though; this is a time to start thinking about our strategy for overall survival, not individual survival. Together we can partner in ways we’ve never had to in order to keep each other alive. We’re just going to have to learn to be a bit more patient and less selfish with each other to make it work. We have to. This isn’t a drill this time. It’s the real deal. World War We

Reply to this comment

By Qristofer Lewis (Castle Rock, Washington)
on August 28th, 2014

Willis,
Though your concerns are genuine and reflect the lack of necessary care needed in the recent past to prevent such a disaster, perhaps it is time that we learn to ADAPT to these changes rather than fighting them so vehemently?
The citizens of Venice, Italy have managed to adapt to their watery surroundings just fine, and as for the rest of the world and its population that resides along the shores of our world, they too will either have to adapt or seek higher ground upon which they can reestablish their lives.
One thing that can be done is to reinforce the present buildings and structures within this flooding danger zone and make them water tight. Perhaps thickening ground level glass to the point of being able to withstand the pressures of such a happening.
Then turn them into living, functional museum places where children and people of all ages can witness the results of the carelessness of man and his greeds. Perhaps this will prompt future generations to take better care of our planet?

But in my humble opinion, it is neither productive nor educational for us to panic and react in such a way as to further doom the future of generations to come.
Mother nature is going to have her way, NO MATTER WHAT any of us do, say, or argue about it!
Let’s just hope that we can do something that will help future generations make the best of the mistakes that we have so complacently nurtured, and that they will be able to represent the resilience of the human race by ADAPTING to the changes that I feel are inevitable in our ever shrinking world.

Much Kudos to you and your stand-up attitude about our worldly dilemma!
Enjoy life!

Qristofer

Reply to this comment

By Tom (Crossville, Tn)
on May 17th, 2014

Worry? This fiscal mess that our politicians have put our country in- -does that worry you w/respects to your grandchildren? Its verifiable, while this sea rise is just speculation.

Reply to this comment

By Anthony (Saint Louis Park/MN/55426)
on May 15th, 2014

Glad you oceanfront dwellers have scenery to look at, but I’ll keep my inland home and give up the expensive cost of living, earthquakes, tsunami risk, hurricane risk, tides, rip currents, etc.

Reply to this comment

By j c carlisle (kelseyville, Ca 95451)
on May 17th, 2014

I guess we coastal dwellers do it for the beauty, mountains and moderate weather - I live about 100 miles inland in Northern California. A weekend at at the coast is marvelous.  I lived in Minneapolis for my first 21 years of life, and I know your area well. It’s beautiful, too, with all the lakes in the city, and the beautiful fall colors….but those Minnesota winters !!
Come to Northern Cal for a visit - it will take your breath away !!

Reply to this comment

By J. G. (Port Charlotte , Florida 33440)
on May 15th, 2014

If my State of Florida was flooded with 12 feet of water, we would no longer exist ever again .” CLIMATE CHANGE ” is already making changes to our shore lines as I"m writing this .
Climate change can work two ways, the one I prefer is to keep Florida above water .

Reply to this comment

By Sixon (Starke, Fl.)
on May 17th, 2014

My house sits at 165.5 ft. above sea level. In the 30 years we have lived here I have never been flooded. I now pay $2,000.00 dollars a year for flood insurance. I was told by my insurance it was because of losses to other areas and the money had to come from somewhere. There is property locally that cannot be sold because of the insurance rate. If you’re foolish enough to build on sand then you should pay and not require the ones in safe areas to cover your losses.

Reply to this comment

By Barbara Warren (Tucson)
on May 15th, 2014

Don’t just mourn the losses, do something big!  Let’s put a price on carbon and eliminate ALL fossil fuel use and exporting in our country!...and everywhere.

Reply to this comment

By ablevins
on May 16th, 2014

China is building one new coal fired power plant each week.
Germany is going to build 30,000 megawatts of new coal
power plants in this decade to replace it’s nuclear units.
China already emitts 50% more Co2 each year than the USA.
India is projected to pass the USA’s Co2 output in three years.
So who is going to impose carbon taxes on these three countries?
The United Nations?  Aliens from Astarde?

Reply to this comment

By Stephen Williams (Anticoh, California)
on May 16th, 2014

“Putting a price on carbon” and eliminating all fossil fuel use will…..NEVER HAPPEN. Get used to that idea. The powers that be will NEVER allow it. You will be long dead by the time the ocean rises this high anyway. So stop biting your nails and relax. You also can’t stop countries like China and India from polluting. California has a cap and trade/carbon tax, and yet Chinese pollution blows all over the state and the pundits in Sacramento are powerless to stop it.

Reply to this comment

By Felix (waitara 4382)
on May 16th, 2014

1st thing that needs to happen is the ice melts and this at the moment is a long way off . Antarctica is very cold at the moment and has been getting colder , not warmer .
CO2 is not the enemy , the lowering sunspots will have a huge impact on the weather in the future years so no panic .
Scientists predict that we are already at the start of the next mini cool period that will last at least 30 years plus .

Reply to this comment

By Marvin Tuomala (Westminster, CA 92683)
on May 17th, 2014

Just how do you propose to eliminate all “fossil” fuel? Actually crude oil is a hydrocarbon not fossils. Think about what your saying. You would ground all airliners. Ships at sea would stop unless nuclear. Where do you propose to get your electricity? How will you charge your electric car? You could use a peddle car. You can start by junking your vehicles & shutting off your electricity. Tuscon in summer will be great will no a/c. Lovely.

Reply to this comment

By Jason Goff (Tucson, AZ 85712)
on May 20th, 2014

Maybe eliminating all fossil fuels seems a bit much right now, but it’s absolutely unattainable to people who lack the vision, creativity, or even concern to make it happen.  What’s the inherent evil of eliminating pollution?  Is it that your comfort will be affected?  Maybe you’ll have to change some lazy behaviors?  People lived in Tucson for centuries without air conditioning, and it’s still possible to do so today.  Other reasons for reducing carbon emissions include ocean acidification, air quality, and the fact that just extracting the fuels that produce them have negative impacts on ecosystems. 

But who cares, as long as electricity is cheap so you can run your a/c, power you t.v.‘s in every room of your house that’s twice as big as it needs to be, and as long as there’s still gas at the pumps so you can make your 30 mile morning commute to work because you want to “be closer to nature”, and as long as its somebody else’s problem like your grandkids or great-grandkids why should you be bothered with making any changes in your life?  Because it is, after all, all about you right?

Reply to this comment

By Kaiser (Millbrae, Ca. 94030)
on May 17th, 2014

Ms. Warren
Why don’t you set an example for us and stop using fossil fuels. ALL FOSSIL FUELS! Let’s see how long you last. Remember, no motorized vehicles of any sort, including bicycles. No grocery stores. Nothing that transports merchandise from one part of the country to the other part. Nothing in you house can be mass produced, coffee maker, blender, etc.
Try it and get back to me.

Reply to this comment

By Tom Mendola (Tucson az)
on May 19th, 2014

It’s true we can go to renewables and ensure More stable economies environments and communities….
The world can choose to live in peace and sustainability can be accomplished…
Just takes an evolution to a culture of agreement And a consciousness of one people one world….

Reply to this comment

By denno
on May 19th, 2014

.....and the understanding by some cultures that beheading of people over disagreements or differences is not “nice”.
Kumbaya.

Reply to this comment

By zaff (na)
on May 15th, 2014

Ask the Dutch for advise, they are very experienced in this matter…they fight the water for centuries and with much succes.

Reply to this comment

By Sam T
on May 15th, 2014

Someone mentioned other cities on the flood-planes.  Yes, simulate those too.  These are striking images, and they will drive many a conversation, but this is one small aspect of the coming environmental problems.  The oceans are dying (plants and animals), as is the earth itself.  There are estimates that 200 species are going extinct every day.  Deer, wolves, rabbits, and weeds seem to be doing ok for the moment, but all species are connected.  What will we eat when the bees go extinct?  What are we to eat even right now, as California dries up and spikes in food costs are imminent? 

Guy McPherson discusses keen scientific and humane insights on the big picture, and despite the huge downside, he encourages living in a dignified way.  He says:  Live Here Now

see:  guymcpherson.com

Reply to this comment

By Walter (Alexandria, VA 22314)
on May 16th, 2014

The one picture I think they messed up on is Washington, DC.  It is not located on an ocean coast.  It is quite a few miles up the Potomac River.  While the increase in sea level would undoubtedly cause more severe and more frequent flooding, it would not look like that picture on a regular basis, though a couple more storms like the one last night and it could look like that for a day or two afterwards.

Reply to this comment

By Andrew Williams (Colelgeville, PA 19426)
on May 16th, 2014

Check out Kim Stanley Robinson’s Science in the Capitol trilogy for a near-term Washington, DC centric look at this. Here is a link to the first book: http://www.amazon.com/Science-Capital-Trilogy-Robinson-Stanley-ebook/dp/B000FC1PZC/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1400277929&sr=8-10&keywords=kim+stanley+robinson

Reply to this comment

By Mike (Denver, CO)
on May 16th, 2014

It doesn’t matter whether DC is on the coast or not.  With a sea level rise of 12 feet, any place that is not more than 12 feet above sea level will flood, no matter how far it is from the ocean.  Period.  DC, Houston, Boston…if the elevation is less than the amount of sea rise, flooded.

Reply to this comment

By Gerry Gras (Palo Alto, CA 94306)
on August 23rd, 2014

In general, you are correct that almost any place that is not more than 12 feet above sea level will flood.  But ...
Badwater, Death Valley, California is 282 feet below sea level.
The Dead Sea is 1,401 feet below sea level.
And they will not be affected by any sea level rise, until the sea level rise is high enough to get over the land in between the sea and those places.

Reply to this comment

By Ace (Emelenton, PA 16373)
on May 17th, 2014

All rivers trying to empty into a higher ocean will indeed rise dramatically inland.

Reply to this comment

By limitcouplestotwo (91786)
on May 15th, 2014

Very expensive to keep the water out of Holland!

Reply to this comment

By Louisa Hufstader (Oak Bluffs MA 02557)
on May 15th, 2014

That’s actually the Harvard Business School in the “Harvard Campus” photo. HBS is high on the bank on the other side of the Charles River in Boston, not in Cambridge where Harvard Yard would probably be even more submerged — the Old Yard has turned into a lake before, when a water main broke.

Reply to this comment

By makeadifference (Cary, NC)
on May 16th, 2014

Please read, ECOTOPIA, by Ernest Callenbach (1975),  to understand a better, more sustainable ‘way of life’ for everyone on the planet.

Reply to this comment

By Tara (48130)
on May 16th, 2014

Everyone is talking about carbon.  What about just the natural way of things… isn’t it true that the earth has been getting progressively warmer since the ice age??  And isn’t it true that the smaller the ice cube the faster it melts?  I’m not saying carbon isn’t a factor, but really, global warming is happening because the globe is getting warmer… repetitive I know.  It is getting warmer faster now because we are hitting that threshold of when an icecube goes from really hard to softer and melts faster.

Reply to this comment

By ablevins
on May 16th, 2014

Since 18,000 years ago the Oceans have risen by more than 410 feet,
While the global temps rose from 6 to 8 degrees Celsius.
Every 200 years the Sun’s output measured at Earth varies by up
to 4 watts.
Dr. James Hansen put the heating (forcing) effect of our Co2 emissions
at 0.5 watts, total greenhouse forcing from all gases at 1.5 watts.
Reagan National Airport across from the Jefferson Memorial
sets at 15 feet 1 inch altitude…....

Reply to this comment

By Brenda Thompson (77018)
on May 16th, 2014

No longer at the taxpayers expense as far as flood insurance is concerned. The government will no longer subsidize the cost of providing it. It increases by 25% a year until it is phased out. Some homeowners are stuck with a property now that has rising rate….some as high as $2000 a month here in the flood zone.

Reply to this comment

By Karen Devers (Portland, OR 97203)
on May 16th, 2014

Not everyone knows what these places look like “unflooded” so it would be helpful, and more dramatic, to show the before and after images. I found the underwater image especially horrifying. Well done with the imaging!

Reply to this comment

By Revis Bell (Houston, TX)
on May 16th, 2014

Hmmm…I wonder what the always forgotten Metroplex of Houston/Galveston would look like as it is only just above the current sea level (from 0 - 1.5 ft) and is home to 7 million people.

Reply to this comment

By James B. (TX)
on May 16th, 2014

wrong. 
“Downtown stands about 50 feet (15 m) above sea level, and the highest point in far northwest Houston is about 125 feet (38 m) in elevation.”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston,_Texas

Reply to this comment

By Gayle Flunker (Cascade WI. 53011)
on May 16th, 2014

I would like to see how cities around the Great Lakes are effected also. Do you think we would have similar flooding issues? You always get to see the cities on the coast but this will effect place inland also. Water finds the lowest place to go that is accessible. That means that rivers will back up and form more lakes than dams did.

Reply to this comment

By Mark Fox (St. Louis/MO/63026)
on May 16th, 2014

Only Lake Ontario will rise, because Niagara Falls will stop water from backing up into Erie, Huron, Michigan, and Superior.

Reply to this comment

By Edward
on May 17th, 2014

Lake Ontario surface is 243 ft above (current sea level). It’ll be okay.

Reply to this comment

By ablevins
on May 16th, 2014

Chicago is about 586 feet above mean sea level.
If ALL ice on Earth was melted at once it would
not raise the Oceans above 300 feet.
The Great Lakes cities stay the same as they are today.

Reply to this comment

By Sue (Bronx/NY/10463)
on May 16th, 2014

Great picture of the Statue of Liberty. What about pictures of the coastline of NYC and NJ?  I think that would make a bigger impact if/when people see their homes/work underwater.

Reply to this comment

By Jack Trimpey (Placerville CA )
on May 16th, 2014

On the bright side, the rising oceans won’t come in as a tsunami tide, but in barely perceptible, yearly changes. That will allow prospective business ventures to prepare for rebuilding America around the inevitable environmental changes in progress. Instead of deflating our capital reserves with taxation that would cripple the economy and produce wasteful, ill-conceived, central planning projects, our economy will experience enormous investor stimulus. Centuries-old sections of town with obsolete underground utilities and building materials and technologies would be demolished and moved inland, and certain high-rent districts could be preserved for many decades or centuries. The USA is uniquely endowed with enormous land masses that will provide “high ground” for sustainable urban planning projects no matter how fast the glaciers melt, and unemployment will become an historical legacy of socialistic, central planning administrations. We can confidently take life one century at a time, tending to immediate effects of gradual coastal flooding without taxing income and providing employment to the able-bodied and technically qualified. Some fertile areas may become deserts, but history shows that on the whole, warmer eras strongly favor plant growth and agriculture. There are two ways of looking at climate change, apocalyptic and opportunistic. It is very possible to make sweet lemonade from the apparently sour lemon of climate change and rising ocean levels.

Reply to this comment

By Loni (Salyer Ca 95563)
on May 16th, 2014

These disturbing but somewhat picturesque photos bely the fact that the areas are not showing the effects of storm surge, which will be taking place every year, so I doubt that anything will be quite this picturesque.  And as far as moving inland or to higher ground to make a better or sustainable living there, don’t count on it, the weather, including droughts, high wind storms, etc. will make living almost anywhere a real chore.  Educate yourself and look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, look at the Summary for Policy Makers, which is an abridged form of the lengthy report, and check out the graphs….........those things tell the story, and it ain’t a pretty picture.  And having recently lost the “toe” to the Pine Island Glacier in the Antarctic, it may very well be too late.  We F’d up, pure and simple.

Reply to this comment

By 009cfa47@opayq.com (nola 70119)
on May 17th, 2014

Right on Jack!
This silly preoccupation with living on the coast despite all the potential dangers are on their way out.
We know that there are remnants of civilizations that are underwater right now. That is the result of the “little ice age” when people in the past lived on the coast without knowing about the cyclical changes in weather patterns. Now that we know what can happen, the better we can prepare for the inevitable.

Reply to this comment

By Brian Anderson (Chandler, AZ, 85224)
on May 18th, 2014

To: Jack Trimpey,

Good post. The most common sense one I’ve read here. Take advantage of dumping the old “rich” trash areas while we rebuild newer ones farther inland, on higher ground. The beaches will move accordingly.

Reply to this comment

By Ken (18034)
on May 16th, 2014

I just keep thinking about all the pollution and debris that will be left from millions of properties being flooded.

Reply to this comment

By Collette Batten (Springfield)
on May 16th, 2014

One thing about future movies, pictures. They are ALWAYS bad things are ahead. These picture look rather good. Looks like we loose here and there. By the time this could happen there will be someone who will come up with using salt water for watering the dry earth and making the center of the country green and then we can loose the water that takes and dry out. Rather like bring back the fax machine.  Then there will be another person who comes up with a clean up way to get all back to where we were.  Tons of jobs for people in the new move the water project. See it can be a happy ending.

Reply to this comment

By Gary ( Washington )
on May 16th, 2014

After reading these comments I am truly afraid for our country. Not worried about the climate change, but the fact that there are so many idiots out there.

Reply to this comment

By James Tarcza (Minnesota)
on May 16th, 2014

I would like to see one for New Orleans

Reply to this comment

By Rick
on May 16th, 2014

This is a conservative estimate for the western ice sheet. The eastern ice sheet will soon follow and would more than double this sea level. This means that most of Florida would be under water as well as most of the coastal cities in he country (and the world).

Reply to this comment

By Stephen Williams (Antioch, California)
on May 16th, 2014

Interesting speculation. Of course, I hope that everyone realizes that in order to rise to this level, it will take several hundred years to do so. No worries folks, you will all be long dead by then. Instituting a carbon tax and cap and trade has been done already in California. Not to burst anyone’s bubble, but countries like China and India will continue to spew carbon emissions galore, independent to any tax we impose upon ourselves. Chinese air pollution fouls the air of California on a regular basis, in spite of our carbon tax. In addition, one massive volcanic eruption the size of Krakatoa in 1883, will spew more carbon into the atmosphere than any man made source. Just face it, we’re mortal and something will eventually kill us, the Earth is a very hazardous place.

Reply to this comment

By Alan (Bear/DE/19701)
on May 16th, 2014

However, this is not going to happen within our or our grandchildrens’ or their grandchildrens’ lifetimes according to this source. It would take about 300 years, if nothing changes, for that to happen. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday/what-could-disappear.html?_r=2&

Reply to this comment

By MARK (20176)
on May 16th, 2014

There is no way that we can prevail the nature’s various forces. We may be able to put off the inevitable for a few years/decades, but the nature has the ultimate say. We think that we are going to be able to survive all the destructive elements, but I happen to believe that, we are no better off than the dinosaurs.

Reply to this comment

By Phillip Wilkinson (Glendale, Arizona, 85302)
on May 16th, 2014

    What is happening is the end of the second Ice-age. The melt down has been going on since the Woolly Mammoth era. So this is nothing new! It’s just we’ve all been enjoying a safe life in comparison to what could come as the ice continues to melt. The end to the ice-age.
    If we ever land on Mars, a solution would be to haul the excess water and store it in huge containers there for future support for future developments as, to me, it is inevitable some of the Earth’s population in the distant future will be moving there!

Reply to this comment

By Tyler (Santa Barbara, CA 93110C)
on May 17th, 2014

Well, since the sea has not risen even a fraction of an inch in that last 50 years of consistent CO2 production exponentially increasing across the entire globe I guess photo shop is the only way to show the what it would be like if it was really happening.

Reply to this comment

By dj (austin, tx)
on May 17th, 2014

we need to eliminate all vehicles that use gas or diesel and start using solar and wind….except for politicians. think how much we can progress as a country if we banned all fossil fuels

Reply to this comment

By Brian Woodard (Sacramento, CA 95726)
on May 20th, 2014

You want progress? Eliminating all fossil fuels would reduce powered transportation to wood-burning steam locomotives. We would have to give up all synthetic fabrics in our clothing, most of the foods we now enjoy, most building materials, almost all drugs, medicine and crop fertilizers. There would be mass famine and disease because there would be no means of treating illness or producing and delivering the volume of food we now require daily. This is not a world I would wish on our enemies.

Reply to this comment

By John (kennesaw, ga 30152)
on May 17th, 2014

this is so pathetic….  the arctic ice is expanding not melting.  it’s -70 down there.  these pictures were developed for the low information crowd.

idiots

Reply to this comment

By Claude Aina (Georgia)
on May 17th, 2014

What happens if it happens so fast and so unexpected. Well! like some people, there will be plenty jobs for mold removal, debris removal, moving companies, plumbers and sewer people, house pumping, house raising, cement and concrete people, pollution and smell controllers, dynamite blowers and excavation, bulldozers, trucks, drones, painters,
electricians, chilling places (bars),  new constructions further up in higher elevations with big fans on top of them, to fight the pollution coming from the terrain below, police for looters. etc…etc…I guess that’s what some people mean when they say global warming does not exist or ” It is very possible to make sweet lemonade from the apparently sour lemon of climate change and rising ocean levels.”

Reply to this comment

By denno (Jersey City NJ, 07305)
on May 17th, 2014

For millenia people have been building near the “water’s edge”.  Real estate prices are almost double for waterside locations and “views”. I wouldn’t live there for the simple reason that these areas are prone to flood at any given time as is witnessed by the damage done by periodical storms. We have cities built at or even below sea level and they wonder why they’re underwater every time it rains.  People know this and pay hefty flood insurance premiums and build their houses on piles above the water. If they don’t mind the potential loss of property and even life, I’m not going to worry about.

Reply to this comment

By john (29 palms/ca/92277)
on May 17th, 2014

oh my gosh. i’m scared. we need more government to solve this. please lets stop driving. lets get rid of oil. lets eliminate everything advanced that we rely on so we can live as in the days of noah. as long as i have my netflix and phone. please we need a bigger government to solve this problem of mass destruction. help

Reply to this comment

By Sunshine Kid (Philippines)
on May 18th, 2014

The North pole is the Arctic, and has no land mass at all. Now, ice forms from water, and guess where most of that water is located - in the oceans of the world. So, eventually, that ice will return to its origins. That is part of the environment, and it might take eons, but it does happen. Now, try this: Take a glass, fill it full with ice and add water. Let the ice melt and see just how much the water level changes. Actually, I can tell you this much: Ice is 80% larger by mass, but when it melts, it shrinks back to the size of water molecules, so although the ice peeks above the water, when it melts, it doesn’t change the water levels at all.

Reply to this comment

By Scott Foster (Minden, NV. 89423)
on May 18th, 2014

What is wrong with these Chicken Littles? They do not understand climate and neither do the “experts”. Can someone point me to a solid technical case that this will happen? I cannot find a convincing argument. Would you really deny the third world a chance at civilization on an unproven, suspect theory. Would you use force?

Reply to this comment

By cyrus
on May 18th, 2014

I guess the real climate change deniers are the coastal libs who aren’t fleeing these places.  Actions speak louder than words.

Reply to this comment

By paul (Germany)
on May 19th, 2014

“Climate change can work two ways, the one I prefer is to keep Florida above water .”  If this is really the mindset over there then heaven forbid…. i read through most of the posts (so apols for thoae that get iot and rae understanding and making adjustments) here and frankly there appears to be a misundestanding of which comes first. Sea level rise is a as result of global temperatures HAVING risen and tehey will take as long to go down ( assuming we have woken up by then) as they took to go up…..Thats a minimum of 100 years !!!!!!  The only way to POTENTIALLY avoid this is to take action now and if that doesnt do the trick then hey, we will at least have died trying !!!  We have already seen a potential tipping point flagged to us all globally with the pictures of Antarctica. Dont let anyone convince you this is the most important barometer and then say it will take a 1000 years to melt and affect seal levels. Greenland is in a much much worse state. Most years now the entire surface melts in high summer. Yes it refreezes but the meltwater s do find a way down to the rock base and creat slipplanes for glacial carving…..The Arctic menawhile wont really add to seal level rise directly as its sea ice and like ices cubes in your Gin nTonic wont add to the liquid content. Melting though will cause the sea ( darker) to absorb more radiation than the ice ( lighter ) that was there before. 2012 was the worst known to Man, a rebound in 2013 to below trend levels caught all the deniers eyes. 2014 by all acounts could set new records. Take these pictures as illusionary , pinch of salt if you willl BUT be sure that on a global basis this will be the outcome if the sceintists are right and the US will not be spared. Nor for that matter will Germany to answer the chap who said he lives nowhere near the coast !!!  If an image was available for Germany under the same scenario most of the North would be under water ort at the very least uninhabitable where upwards of 25million currently live.

Reply to this comment

By Alastair Leith (West Preston AU)
on May 20th, 2014

Don’t forget all the frozen methane and COx in the Arctic sea bed and sea ice. That represents more emissions than the total of human emissions to date by a large margin. It’s anybodies guess when this methane which is already pluming into the atmosphere decides to burp catastrophic volumes of methane. Methane now rated at 84x CO2 in 20 year accounting. Twenty years being very significant given impending climatic tipping points. As the Arctic warms the methane is released in greater volume.

Reply to this comment

By Richard Martinez (Bronx, NY 10461)
on May 19th, 2014

These are all great comments.  Who else feels the way we fell?  The ones with the power to make the necessary changes, to stop global warning, are in denial.  The sad part is that their denial is affecting the planet, and those who live on it, including the animals. Once the climate starts to change, there is no reversal.  Those who are in denial, it won’t make a difference if they change their minds.  Once they start suffering the effects of the climate changes, it will be too late.

We need to stop emitting carbon monoxide and fracking the land for gas. Greed, can’t be more important than the survival of the human race.  There must be a global court with the power to stop the contamination of the planet.  We only have one planet, if we destroy it, where are moving to destroy next?

Reply to this comment

By Scott Foster (Minden, NV. 89423)
on May 19th, 2014

Richard,

You want to go with a global court? Ok but since most of the world has little technology and wants it (water, shelter, food) you will lose that argument as you should. Look, saying doomsday is around the corner is silly without a cogent argument. I see no reason for some kind of sudden thermal or other climactic runaway event. Has this happened before, say during the billions of years the atmosphere was almost entirely CO2? No, it has not. Yet you are convinced it will, in a geological instant, now that a fraction of us have modern life styles. This argument is silly at best and evil at worst. Show me the numbers and point me to a scientific paper that can stand up to scrutiny, please. There are smart people out there modeling and designing complex systems that have to work or people get killed. Perhaps they should have a look at these alarmist models and see if they look ready for test flying.

Better yet, let’s look at some of the manmade disasters of the recent past. It was clear to many that the Alaskan pipeline would be a disaster of epic proportions. Oops. Nuclear weapons would surely result in catastrophic life-ending events. Nuclear power would kill millions and produce world-ending pollution. Medicare would be cheap since we don’t live too long. Oops, oops and more oops. We should not let complex issues be settled by folks with agendas that apparently learned system theory in a well.

Reply to this comment

By Rodrigo Mesa (San Diego, Ca 92114)
on May 19th, 2014

Well done. My only complaint is that Coronado is not an island, and true locals just call it Coronado. The Navy calls the consortium of 8 installations there North Island, but that nomenclature stems from the days when the Naval section was largely separated from the rest of the peninsula by large channel called Spanish Bight.
To add to the confusion, La Islas Coronados (The Coronado Islands) are a group of four islands off the northwest coast of the Mexican state of Baja California which lie roughly between 15 and 19 miles south of the entrance to San Diego bay, but just 8 miles from the Mexican mainland.

Reply to this comment

By Marc (Phoenix, AZ )
on May 20th, 2014

Excellent renderings.

Reply to this comment

By Donald Parr (Bonsall/CA/92003)
on May 21st, 2014

Does anyone know the temperature on Antarctica these days? Try the lowest temperature of 2013, on July 31st, -93.0 degrees C (-135.3 degrees F). Lowest to date is -93.2 C/-135.8 F, 10AUG2010. Previous record low was 21JUL1983, -89.2 C/-128.6 F. I do not believe there is ANY MELTING going on in Antarctica. smile

Reply to this comment

By David McLaughlin (corning, ny)
on May 26th, 2014

Back in the mid 90’s there was a Noreaster that caused the tide to stay in twice in NYC area due to high winds.  I walked in what would normally be dry ground in 30” of ice cold water from my truck to find service such as food or a motel.  I do not understand why it is so difficult for some to understand 2 or 3’ of water is going to make a HUGE difference 12’ is totally changing life as we know it.  Really put this into place when a few inches of rain can cause flash flooding that all but changes places no where near flood areas like Albany or VT. 

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/assessments/pdfs/Irene2012.pdf

Reply to this comment

By Lynn Eland (DeLand)
on May 26th, 2014

I think that we as a country need to begin looking at building sea walls to keep the rising sea levels under control like Netherlands have in their country; the Zuiderzee Works which are a human made system of dams, land reclamation & water drainage works. And the Oosterscheldekering or Eastern Scheldt storm surge barrier. This is the largest of 13 Delta Works series of dams & storm surge barriers, designed to protect the Netherlands from flooding from the North Sea. The U.S. would benefit now if we had storm surge barriers in place today along the Atlantic Ocean & the Gulf of Mexico protecting the States from storm surges from hurricanes that can occur from June through November each year.

Reply to this comment

By Emjay Redha (Kuala Lumpur)
on June 17th, 2014

Part of the reason is the effect of green house gas (GHG) emitted as CH4 (methane) when plants decay.  Some pictures from this article has been used in the following video link:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iINx5wAjLOQ

There are so many ways of combating the possibility of water rising from happening - reduce GHG is one of the way.

Reply to this comment

By Jonathan Parfrey (Los Angeles, CA 90015)
on June 24th, 2014

Nice art pieces . . . but what can people do with this information? Wouldn’t it have been better to show how cities can creatively hold back the tide?

Reply to this comment

By Adrian Benepe (10025)
on August 25th, 2014

Good renderings, and I understand that they were kept to show scale, but no trees would survive inundation for even 24 hours, so it would be more accurate to have these renderings with all the trees gone, or dead.

(Thousands of trees in NYC died following the very brief inundation by salt water during Superstorm Sandy.)

Reply to this comment

Name (required):
Email (required):
City/State/Zip:
Enter the word "climate" in the box below:

[+] View our comment guidelines.

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until reviewed by Climate Central staff. Thank you for your patience.