Quite possibly the dumbest example of ‘Tabloid Climatology’ ever from Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman

Andrew Freedman writes in this Tabloid Climatology™ piece at Climate Central:

When Hurricane Sandy struck New York City on October 29, 2012, the dark waters of Flushing Bay poured over the edges of LaGuardia Airport, flooding parts of the facility’s 7,000-foot long east-west runway, and damaging lighting and navigation systems. The floodwaters created an eerie image of jetways ending in water, as if they had been converted into boat ramps.

This was not the first time that LaGuardia suffered major flooding during a storm, nor will it be the last. Due to climate change-related sea level rise, LaGuardia and other coastal hubs throughout the U.S. face a growing risk of flooding during even modest storms.

Now, wait for it….here’s the fake picture they rendered to show what this might look like:

What La Guardia Airport could look like with 5 feet of sea level rise, an amount that could occur by 2100, according to some estimates.
Click on the image to enlarge. Credit: Nickolay Lamm/StorageFront , for Climate Central, using Climate Central data.

==============================================================

This is a ‘jumped the shark’ moment for Climate Central. Read the whole story here: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/coastal-us-airports-face-increasing-threat-from-sea-level-rise-16126

Gosh, I never knew that sea level rise was so abrupt that it would catch those speedy airliners off guard so fast they couldn’t move out of the way. The climate change onset was so fast…that maybe future archeologists will find fossilized passengers with half chewed peanuts still in their mouths.

UPDATE: reader “cotwome” provides this image of before and after LaGuardia was built.

LaGuardia_before-after

Click for a larger image. Note the LaGuardia is all landfill, done in the face of sea level rise. But apparently future builders just won’t be able to keep up.

As they say, ‘the stupid, it burns’.

Read this story for some reality on NYC and sea level rise:

Freaking out about NYC sea level rise is easy to do when you don’t pay attention to history

UPDATE 2: Checking what the FAA says, LaGuardia is 21 feet above sea level by survey.

KLGA_MSL

Source: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLGA

So one wonder is there will be a retraction for the statement “What La Guardia Airport could look like with 5 feet of sea level rise” and of course the photo.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Sea level, Tabloid Climatology and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to Quite possibly the dumbest example of ‘Tabloid Climatology’ ever from Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman

  1. Kaboom says:

    Tabloid climate hysteria is like dancing limbo. You can always go a little lower. And suddenly, you’re on your ass.

  2. Latitude says:

    47%

  3. tadchem says:

    Don’t they know that seaplanes always have a ‘high-wing’ configuration?

  4. John says:

    Did I see Bat Boy in that picture?

  5. Airports are now just a thing of the past. Children just aren’t going to know what airports are.

  6. Nick Luke says:

    FANTASTIC!! Loaded this as my screen saver. Have I noticed a further name change for ‘Global Warming’? It seems to have morphed into ‘Extreme Weather’

  7. Mike McMillan says:

    Five feet of sea level rise at the current rate would take over 500 years. They should close LaGuardia in accordance with the precautionary principle.

    Actually, they should close it anyway for safety reasons. The runways are too short for normal take-off aborts without landing in the drink.

  8. AnonyMoose says:

    The red-tailed delta shark is most at home in shallow waters, where it is docile unless it runs low on peanuts.

  9. jeff 5778 says:

    Hover crafts?

  10. And don’t forget, Climate Central is a bonafide research center. ……. oh, wait…..

    “PBS NewsHour: Climate Central a research organization; Sorry, no. They advocate solving man-caused global warming” http://ow.ly/hVDB6

  11. Nick Luke says:

    Oh, And not quite all sea planes are high wing: see the Russian ‘Ekranoplan’ skimmers. Neither quite either planes nor boats, I know.

  12. Chris B says:

    I think it’s one of the best examples of dumb persons practicing Tabloid Climatology.

    I knew what you meant.

  13. a jones says:

    Well if you do not build the requisite sea defences against long foreseen problems you get inundated sooner or later.

    Sandy was nothing unusual but the authorities either ignored or would not find the money for the relatively small improvements against exactly such flooding as it produced despite having the weaknesses in their flood defences pointed out to them time and again.

    How convenient for the politicians who so disgracefully failed to update the infrastructure to line their and their friends pockets with the much needed money to blame the disaster .on climate change, wierding weather or whatever.

    At least British politicians did eventually build build the new Thames flood barrier, disgracefully late and wildly over budget: but it works.

    Kindest Regards

  14. Billy Liar says:

    Mike McMillan says:
    June 18, 2013 at 11:36 am

    Actually, they should close it anyway for safety reasons. The runways are too short for normal take-off aborts without landing in the drink.

    Now, now, no need to frighten the self-loading cargo. After the non-flying pilot says ‘V1′ you’re going flying anyway even if an engine does fail. Before ‘V1′ the plane can stop on the runway remaining.

    All jets have plenty of power to take-off with one engine out. Not so much in twin engine planes with both engines out.

  15. Brian R says:

    So they are also predicting that the planes in 2100 will look just like the planes now.

  16. When you can’t sell your science through logic and rational discussion; make it up!.
    To go off track for a minute, the Met Office are holding meetings today with meteorologists and climatologists (sycophants), to discuss if the recent spells of “extreme” weather here in UK are caused by AGW. I can tell you now what there answer will be and it won’t be no!

  17. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..What La Guardia Airport could look like with 5 feet of sea level rise, an amount that could occur by 2100, according to some estimates……”””””

    Well not to worry, I just talked to a Boeing Engineer, and he says they are working on a revolutionary new plane that should be in service; based on the 787 Dreamliner schedule experience, by 2100.

    A key feature of the new Boeing 2387 Snoozeliner, is a new giraffe undercarriage that holds the fuselage another five feet up off the tarmac, compared to the 787. The new undercarriage is being entirely modeled by software that runs on an iphone 76.

    So I wouldn’t hesitate to fly in or out of La Guardia, in 2100, in fact you can even enjoy it in 4D on your iPud 21, running the same software, used to design the Boeing 2387.

  18. CheshireRed says:

    Here in the UK late last night we had ‘Rise of the Continents’, a TV show where arch-warmist Professor Iain Stewart was shown on his hands and knees rooting around in the African desert for…fossilised teeth from a prehistoric whale! So, todays desert used to be an ocean, but now we’re panicking about sea level rise of 5″ a century? Dear oh dear.

  19. Earthling says:

    If you can’t produce facts, make them up, seems to be the catastrophist motto these days.

  20. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    I think I see a lonely polar bear clinging to a shrinking block of ice over their by Gate 78.

  21. lgp says:

    The japanese seem to handle it quite readily

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

    “The island had been predicted to sink 5.7 m (19 ft) by the most optimistic estimate as the weight of the material used for construction compressed the seabed silts. However, the island had sunk 8.2 m (27 ft) – much more than predicted. … “To compensate for the sinking of the island, adjustable columns were designed to support the terminal building. These are extended by inserting thick metal plates at their bases.”.

  22. Rob Dawg says:

    The picture is more like 25 feet higher rathr than 5 feet. The runway is listed as 19′ 8″ (6.00 m) MSL.

  23. Ian W says:

    a jones says:
    June 18, 2013 at 11:57 am

    Well if you do not build the requisite sea defences against long foreseen problems you get inundated sooner or later.

    Sandy was nothing unusual but the authorities either ignored or would not find the money for the relatively small improvements against exactly such flooding as it produced despite having the weaknesses in their flood defences pointed out to them time and again.

    How convenient for the politicians who so disgracefully failed to update the infrastructure to line their and their friends pockets with the much needed money to blame the disaster .on climate change, wierding weather or whatever.

    At least British politicians did eventually build build the new Thames flood barrier, disgracefully late and wildly over budget: but it works.

    Kindest Regards

    Of course if you have a Mayor that spends his time on the size of soda cup in fast food restaurants, pedaling bicycles (sic), and NOT ensuring building is out of sea surge and flood areas and NOT ensuring building codes against storms and NOT raising sea defenses as repeatedly warned – that is what you get.

    One is reminded of this … http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0112-15.htm perhaps now the Mayor might set his mind to doing the mayor’s job.

  24. Dodgy Geezer says:

    @ Luke says:

    Have I noticed a further name change for ‘Global Warming’? It seems to have morphed into ‘Extreme Weather’

    I think you’re a bit late with that observation. The smart money for the next move is ‘shortages’. There are likely to be a variety of infrastructure shortages in the near future – energy, water, etc. These are due to following collapsed and discredited Green policies – but I can see people starting to make Malthusian arguments that it’s really the fault of humanity not saving enough…

  25. Reg Nelson says:

    On the plus side, jets in 2100 will be required to have water tanks to fight the Xtreme Brush Hell Fires & Deadly Dangerous Despicable Droughts as they criss-cross the country on their routes. The new amphibious runways make filling the tanks that much easier.

    Our grand-kids will never know what a tarmac looks like.

  26. juan slayton says:

    At least the air traffic pattern will be predictable, changing 180 degrees every 12 hours so pilots can take off into the tide.
    : > )

  27. Gary says:

    97% of all journalism is tabloid journalism. I know because surveyed the consensus. The consensus wasn’t happy about it, either.

  28. Gunga Din says:

    *Sigh* I miss the days when a picture was worth a thousand words.

  29. phlogiston says:

    This weeks Economist has a sea level alarmist article titled “You’re going to get wet” in which it asserts that sea level was static for 2000 years before starting to rise around 1880 and with an accelerated rise in the last 2 decades.

    This is imagined nonsense, as shown by these two figures:

    The sea level rise since 1850 is uniform (and probably before that also):
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/battery_sl_trend_plot.png

    and SL has never been static during the Holocene or probably any other time:
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_png

    The Edenic myth of the static and perfect “pre-industrial” climate “is not a sign of intelligence” as Richard Lindzen so aptly puts it.

  30. nemo says:

    WRT insanity of the picture. While the insane picture is obviously insane, there could be a rationale for the “5ft of sea level rise causing flooding of the airport”

    They were discussing this in the context of Sandy.

    So, Sandy in some places managed almost 14′ of surge. A good chunk of that was high tide, but let’s assume that their airport picture was again imagining this worst case scenario.
    14′ + 5′ is just 2′ shy of 21′ – so, if they were imagining a “superstorm + high tide” scenario then the picture is almost plausible.

  31. Mark says:

    Something a little odd about the plane in the foreground. It appears to be missing the number 1 engine.

  32. Bruce Cunningham says:

    The altitude stated is the highest altitude of any runway, which for LGA is the beginning of runway 4. The lowest elevation of any of the runways is 7 feet at the beginning of runway 31.

  33. RobRoy says:

    We can scavange oysters at KLGA.
    There won’t be fuel for flying anyway
    Flying and grocery stores just won’t due.
    To have them is evil and makes CO2

  34. Jimbo says:

    I read from the Climate Central story:

    What La Guardia Airport could look like with 5 feet of sea level rise, an amount that could occur by 2100, according to some estimates.

    I have done some checking to find out how many feet the lowest part of the airport is above sea level and get 8 and 6.7 above sea level.Also the photo has water almost touching the underside of the body of the nearest plane. That’s another 6 foot at least. Am I missing something or is their rendered photo claim a pile of utter crap.

  35. BBould says:

    I heard on NPR a few weeks back that the reason for so much damage from Hurricane Sandy was because sea level rise greatly increased the storm surge. My jaw dropped to the floor when nobody countered this absurd statement.

  36. Jimbo says:

    Ooops! Missed the word feet.
    “…sea level and get 8 and 6.7 above sea level…”
    “…sea level and get 8 and 6.7 feet above sea level…”

  37. Latitude says:

    Andrew Freedman is going to have to do much better than this….
    …I don’t think there’s one person that gives a rats rear if an airport floods

  38. DaveL says:

    Just a FYI: The entire airport is not one elevation. For example, the airport diagram from http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/00289AD.PDF (which is a link on the RHS of the website: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLGA which is given as the source in the post) shows the following elevations:

    Start of Runway 4: Elevation = 21 feet (this is labelled “Field Elev”)
    Start of Runway 13: Elevation = 13 feet
    Start of runway 22: Elevation = 12 feet
    Start of runway 31: Elevation = 7 feet

    The elevation in the terminate area is not given.

    Unless the terminal area is below sea level, the “rendered” photo is still completely wrong and misleading.

    Cheers.

  39. Craig says:

    At this point, how could any warmist continue to believe that Photoshopping pictures isn’t going to do more harm than good to their cause?

  40. Anthony Watts says:

    @DaveL right, I’m in a twitter exchange with Freedman on varying LGA elevations, but have not gotten to update main post yet…. No matter how you look at it, their claim doesn’t work.

  41. Theo Goodwin says:

    Looks about as comfortable as existing airports.

  42. geran says:

    Rates right up there with “record cold and snow is caused by AGW”….

  43. Col A (Aus) says:

    Freedman is a warmist writting to bolster other warmists in a paper no one else would look at (except WUWT for the laughs!)
    If you think that is bad then you need to see this, our good taxes paid for this, there is so much BS involved it is probably causing its own warming ! – Ha self fulfilling !!!!

    http://australianclimatemadness.com/2013/06/17/climate-commissions-emotive-alarmist-blackmail/comment-page-1/#comment-31088

  44. Mike Bentley says:

    Reg,

    Somewhat OT – but I watched the one certified widebody DC-10 tanker drop water on the Royal Gorge and Black Forest fires here in Colorado. Magnificent seeing that old bird so close to the ground lining up for a water drop. It holds 11 thousand gallons (according to newspaper reports) and can make several drops with just one fill.
    So your comment about the planes having tanks isn’t that far fetched. (sarc on) All the passengers would have to bring their own scuba tanks (charged as extra baggage) or purchase it on the plane as an option and move to the forward cabin during drops, but that sounds like flying these days anyway (sarc off)

    Mike Bentley

  45. View from the Solent says:

    La Guadia’s got to go some to beat Schipol airport (Amsterdam). The naval battle Of Haarlemmermeer* was fought above its location.
    * http://www.frommers.com/destinations/amsterdam/0043020009.html

  46. Doubting Rich says:

    Is this Freedman character aware that Amsterdam’s Schipol Airport datum is -11′ AMSL – i.e. 11 feet below mean sea level? Amsterdam seems to have a tidal range of around 7 feet at mean springs, comparable to New York’s at around 6 feet (New Amsterdam as was!).

  47. Doubting Rich says:

    Sorry Solent for the coincident post – was just checking the tide tables, which took time!

  48. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Amsterdam’s main Schiphol airport is 11 feet below sea level.

    Presumably they use submarines with wings. Maybe Mr Freeman should take a world saving CO2 emitting flight to Amsterdam to check out this amazing thing. Make sure you pay your offsets, we wouldn’t want you to be a hypocrite.

  49. RockyRoad says:

    If the Warmistas can get the majority of that sea level rise to pile up around La Guardia, they just might have a point. However, the word “level” is used in the description for a reason.

    So another epic fail in logic. Are you thinking, Warmistas? Or is that too difficult to do?

  50. Rob Crawford says:

    “Something a little odd about the plane in the foreground. It appears to be missing the number 1 engine.”

    Ripped off during the water landing, no doubt.

    Have to wonder why they’re still operating the airport nearly thirty years after the water started to cover the surface, too. I’d have expected it to be closed and traffic diverted to dryer locations.

  51. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Sorry. Its like buses, you check and there aren’t any, you wave a cab and suddenly three arrive at the same time.

  52. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    Seems these boys are about 5 feet short of a full Boy Scout staff when it comes to telling the truth.

    Let’s see….in about 300-400 years and 5 ft of sea level rise, there is a slight possibility we will have invented a different form of aviation vehicle. Or they may have repaved the runways by then with a waterproof coating. The possibilities seem endless.

  53. goldminor says:

    Here is an odd statement from this article…”The storm struck at low-tide along the western part of Long Island Sound, while it was high tide along the New Jersey coast and in other parts of New York City.”.
    Evidently Long Island was undergoing a low tide during Sandy while the rest of the region was under the influence of a full moon high tide. Long Island obviously has better control over the moon than New Jersey.

  54. John M says:

    You’re all a bunch of uncaring louts!

    Why…think of the great-grandchildren!

    It’s like all you folks think we’ll be able to upgrade our infrastructure over the next 87 years.

    Now c’mon, was our infrastructure around airports really that different in 1926…

    er-r-r-r, never mind.

  55. clipe says:

    Mark says:
    June 18, 2013 at 1:27 pm

    Something a little odd about the plane in the foreground. It appears to be missing the number 1 engine.

    If someone could focus in on the tail number or registration of that Delta airbus A319 we might be able to place it on a particular date.

    http://libhomeradar.org/databasequery/index.php

  56. Mark Smith says:

    Though they did say storm surge plus not sea level rise alone. 5 feet plus 16 feet of storm surge- a temporary disruptive situation.

  57. Bob Diaz says:

    Given that the 100 year average sea level rise is 3.2mm per year or 12.6 inches (1.05 feet) after 100 years, 5 feet will take around 476 years. However given that it has to rise at least 21 feet just to reach the runway or better yet, 21 feet + 5 feet, that comes to 26 feet or roughly 2,476 years. WOW, I can hardly wait to see it!!!!

  58. mercucio says:

    You know how much ashphalt they leave on the ground every tiem they repave? hell i’d wager the land rise would far outweight even the sillly amounts of projected sea rise

  59. Bart says:

    Mark and two Cats says:
    June 18, 2013 at 11:33 am

    YOMANK

  60. DaveL says in part, June 18, 2013 at 1:52 pm:

    “Just a FYI: The entire airport is not one elevation. For example, the airport diagram from http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/00289AD.PDF (which is a link on the RHS of the website: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLGA which is given as the source in the post) shows the following elevations:

    Start of Runway 4: Elevation = 21 feet (this is labelled “Field Elev”)
    Start of Runway 13: Elevation = 13 feet
    Start of runway 22: Elevation = 12 feet
    Start of runway 31: Elevation = 7 feet

    The elevation in the terminate area is not given.”

    The terminus of Runway 4 is the beginning of Runway 22.
    The terminus of Runway 13 is the beginning of Runway 31.

  61. David Ball says:

    Jose, can you sea?

  62. goldminor says, June 18, 2013 at 3:31 pm:

    “Here is an odd statement from this article…”The storm struck at low-tide along the western part of Long Island Sound, while it was high tide along the New Jersey coast and in other parts of New York City.”.
    Evidently Long Island was undergoing a low tide during Sandy while the rest of the region was under the influence of a full moon high tide. Long Island obviously has better control over the moon than New Jersey.”

    This may actually be true. I have seen strange lags of many hours in some water areas.
    For example, the Delaware River’s tides at Philadelphia lags those at the New Jersey shore
    by almost half a day.

  63. Caleb says:

    In a hundred years we’ll all be wicked spiritual and will get where we want to go by levitating.

    And oh, by the way, if the airport will look this bad with a five foot rise, it must have looked worse when Sandy rose the seas seventeen feet, right? Where is that photo?

  64. _Jim says:

    Note the LaGuardia is all landfill …

    Pray tell, what kind of ‘fill’?

    Biodegradable compost material (GOOD LUCK with that being stable over time!) or – building rubble and/or ‘excavation materials’ from digging basements for Gold Vaults (like exist at the Fed and J. P. Morgan et al) on the ‘island’ of Manhattan in the CBD?

    .

  65. Gary Hladik says:

    AnonyMoose says (June 18, 2013 at 11:37 am): “The red-tailed delta shark is most at home in shallow waters, where it is docile unless it runs low on peanuts.”

  66. _Jim says:

    clipe says June 18, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    Runway numbers match compass headings. So 04-22 and 13-31?

    Runyway 04 = heading 040 degrees, plus 180 degrees yields 220 degrees (the reciprocal bearing), and Runway 22 = 220 degrees, minus 180 deg = 40 deg, so the answer is yes.

    (It is quite likely the non-pilot public isn’t aware of this small but important factoid!)

    Also it is good to be aware of the suffix “L” or “R” for left and right (parallel runways, e.g. at DFW airport) respectively (esp. WHEN one is actually piloting! There have been occasions where … well one can use one’s imagination …)

    .

  67. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    No surprise here. After all, Climate Central is the current home of the infamous “Weather Bimbo” A.K.A. Dr. Heidi Cullen. This photo shop of La Guardia fits perfectly with the photo shop on the cover of her current Worst Seller “The Weather of the Future”:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/01/heidi-cullen-doomcasts-in-new-stemwinding-sci-fi-thriller/

  68. Mariss says:

    The jetways are still above water so no one gets their feet wet. Slap some amphibious floats on the little planes and everyone is good to go. I just don’t see a problem here.

  69. _Jim says:

    Picture/image (depiction) inconsistencies:

    - The furthermost right aircraft appears to have the wings placed at the *rear* of the fuselage.

    - The water does not seem to ‘exist’ outside the confines of the ‘gated’/fenced-in runway or aircraft operations area of the airport.

    - Does Delta presently operate from (what look like) two separate terminal buildings?

    .

  70. A Crooks says:

    We are going to be extinct by 2100 so I whats the problem?

  71. jeez says:

    Twas rapid seal level rise which wiped out the Velociraptor.

  72. Patrick says:

    “Billy Liar says:

    June 18, 2013 at 12:00 pm”

    Or a 4 engine plane with two engines on one side falling off/failing!

    If you think this is bad tabloid coverage, come see what have in Aus.

  73. _Jim says:

    Oh, this is interesting:

    Expansion would be needed and there was only one direction to build: Into the bay. In 1937, construction began involving a steel foundation anchored beneath the water, then filled and covered with landfill moved from nearby Rikers Island and from city garbage dumps.

    … and it is said that the landfilled portions of the field sink a few inches over the course of every year.

    From: http://www.nycaviation.com/2009/10/happy-70th-birthday-la-guardia-airport/#.UcDxdOefjTo

  74. jorgekafkazar says:

    RobRoy says: “There won’t be fuel for flying anyway”

    “Energy prices must necessarily skyrocket.” -0bama I

  75. John M says:

    High tide for Port Washington NY on Long Island Sound (3-4 miles from La Guardia) on Oct 30, 2013 was 12:15 AM and low tide was at 6:30 PM Oct 29, 2013

    http://ny.usharbors.com/monthly-tides/New%20York-Long%20Island/Port%20Washington/2012-10

    High tide at Jones Inlet on the other side of Long Island was 8:02 PM on Oct 29, 2012.

    http://ny.usharbors.com/monthly-tides/New%20York-Long%20Island/Jones%20Inlet/2012-10

    I believe landfall in NJ was ~8 PM

    So high tide in the vicinity of La Guardia was somewhat later than landfall in NJ, but given the circulation, I’m not sure the time of landfall in NJ is the real parameter to look at.

    Maximum winds at La Guardia were at about 9 PM pretty much straight out of the East.

    http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KLGA/2012/10/29/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

  76. goldminor says:

    Donald L. Klipstein says:
    June 18, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    goldminor says, June 18, 2013 at 3:31 pm:
    ——————————————————
    It could have been a hurricane induced tidal effect that pulled from one side and then pushed before the storm. That entire article is so far out it makes my head hurt. That particular sentence is poorly written. It should have been followed by one more sentence to explain the tidal difference, as in this is this a normal affect for this area?, or was it the speed of the storm vs the distance between the two points that made the difference at the time of landing?

  77. WasteYourOwnMoney says:

    Odd… Based on IPCC projections I would have expected more Palm trees in NY by 2100.

  78. observa says:

    Good article on the pathology of their pseudo science nowadays-
    http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13716/

  79. Snake Oil Baron says:

    No, I totally believe it. All of it. Underwater airports. No snow in five years. All the polar bears catching fire. It’s all true. I get it now.

  80. juan slayton says:

    Perhaps Captain Sullenberger can be persuaded to come out of retirement….

  81. Chad Wozniak says:

    Yoiu can find plenty of equally stupid stuff on climate on Yahoo News every day.

  82. Brian H says:

    jeez says:
    June 18, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    Twas rapid seal level rise which wiped out the Velociraptor.

    RU sure? I don’t see a single seal in your illustration.

  83. Bert Walker says:

    Could (n’t) help but notice the “could” in the caption of the photo above.(an amount that could occur by 2100)

    This reminded me of a recent WMBriggs blog titled “Tobacco Ads Could Lead To Cancer Cure” at wmbriggs.com/blog/ posted 14 June 2013 . in the post he states”…Just as it is true as true that “Tobacco Ads Could Lead To Mars Mission” or “Tobacco Ads Could Cause Nancy Pelosi To Stop Speaking Gibberish.”
    The magic happens in could. Adding it—or might, may, possibly or the like—turns any proposition about the contingent into a truth. (Contingent = not logically necessary.) Anything contingent could or might be true; that is the nature of contingency. So adding a word like could in a contingent proposition merely makes the proposition tautological, and all tautologies are true.
    Headlines like today’s are cheap journalist tricks; one of the most common, too. “Could Lead To” headlines and ledes betray the reporter’s prejudices and desires and make at best weak claims about reality. And the following articles usually fall prey to the standard human failing of searching only for supportive evidence, assuming that contradictory theories are the first refuge of scoundrels and “deniers.” No idea of the uncertainty in the claim of the headline ever appears.”

  84. Man Bearpig says:

    Nick Luke says:
    June 18, 2013 at 11:34 am

    FANTASTIC!! Loaded this as my screen saver. Have I noticed a further name change for ‘Global Warming’? It seems to have morphed into ‘Extreme Weather’
    —————-

    Yes exactly, then how long before they drop the ‘extreme’ and it becomes just ‘weather’
    This report would read .. ”La Guardia Airport suffers weather, today it rained while yesterday it was sunny and then shockingly became quite overcast in the evening – oh my god what are we going to do!”

  85. Man Bearpig says:

    Anothony … Do you have another photo of what the airport would look like with 5ft of sea level rise as a comparison ;)

  86. Earthling says:

    Fred from Canuckistan says:
    June 18, 2013 at 12:23 pm
    “I think I see a lonely polar bear clinging to a shrinking block of ice over their by Gate 78.”
    -
    That’s probably a white elephant, Fred.

  87. Yancey Ward says:

    I am surprised that a polar bear wasn’t photoshopped in on one of the aircraft wings.

  88. H.R. says:

    The image caption: “What La Guardia Airport could look like with 5 feet of sea level rise, an amount that could occur by 2100, according to some estimates.”

    By 2100 we could be teleporting and wouldn’t give a rat’s patootie about – what do you call those things? – oh, aeroplanes… yeah. Anyhow, they have 87 years to move those planes and unless it’s on some government to-do list to re-park them, they’ll be safely out of the way by then ;o)

  89. PaddikJ says:

    BBould says:
    June 18, 2013 at 1:41 pm
    I heard on NPR a few weeks back that the reason for so much damage from Hurricane Sandy was because sea level rise greatly increased the storm surge. My jaw dropped to the floor when nobody countered this absurd statement.

    Really? You didn’t know that absurdity is the norm at NPR? Anthony was (mistakenly, I am sure; and the producer probably got a sharp rap across the knuckles) invited to participate in an NPR segment on AGW several months ago. Look it up and read the comments to get a sense of the intelligence of NPR regulars.

  90. PaddikJ says:

    Mike Bentley says:
    June 18, 2013 at 2:42 pm
    Somewhat OT – but I watched the one certified widebody DC-10 tanker drop water on the Royal Gorge and Black Forest fires here in Colorado. Magnificent seeing that old bird so close to the ground lining up for a water drop.

    My thought exactly! Seeing that old bird swooping and diving like a crop duster was really bracing. Actually, my initial reaction was “Gee, pretty fancy flying for a plane that’s designed to cruise at 35,000 feet; is it really up to it?” But then I remembered Crichton’s catechism on the subject – Airframe – and how overbuilt they are.

  91. Sleepalot says:

    Can I point out that the height of the land and the height of the sea are different things?
    I researched this after reading that Hull (Immingham) was only 2 metres above sea level.”

    Ordnance Survey Datum (OD, 0 metres) is set at Newlyn, Cornwall.
    It is the mean sea level

    The Chart Datum (CD) for Tide predictions at Newlyn is 3.05 metres below OD
    http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/tides/datum.html
    Tide predictions for Newlyn
    http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/tides/?port=0001

    The Chart Datum (CD) for Tide predictions at Immingham is 3.9 metres below OD
    Tide predictions for Immingham
    http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/tides/?port=0026 [NTSLF site will soon move to http://www.ntslf.org

    Tide height relative to OD = Tide Height – Local datum
    So, for Immingham, for heights of
    Lowest Tide 0.7m (CD) = -3.2m (OD)
    Highest Tide 7.56m (CD) = 3.66m (OD)

    So althought Hull is only 2 metres above sea level, the sea is 4 metres below sea level, and hence Hull is 6 metres above the sea!

  92. Tom in Oregon City says:

    I like peanuts. No matter how fast the sea level rose, I’d finish my peanuts. Seriously. Probably steal the peanuts from the folks on either side of me, too, as they sat stunned as the climate change tidal wave overwhelmed our plane. And floss afterwards. No archeologist is getting my fossilized peanuts.

    What a hoot!

  93. Pamela Gray says:

    Where is the…um…er… lady in the lake?

Comments are closed.