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:

delta-planes-fakeWhat 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 wonders if 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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Kaboom

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

Latitude

47%

tadchem

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

John

Did I see Bat Boy in that picture?

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

Nick Luke

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’

Mike McMillan

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.

AnonyMoose

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

jeff 5778

Hover crafts?

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

Nick Luke

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

cotwome
Chris B

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

a jones

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

Billy Liar

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.

Brian R

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

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!

george e. smith

“””””…..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.

CheshireRed

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.

Earthling

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

Fred from Canuckistan

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

lgp

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.”.

Rob Dawg

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

Ian W

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.

Dodgy Geezer

@ 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…

Reg Nelson

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.

juan slayton

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

Gary

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

Gunga Din

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

phlogiston

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.

nemo

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.

Mark

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

Bruce Cunningham

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.

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

Jimbo

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.

BBould

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.

Jimbo

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…”

Latitude

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

DaveL

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.

Craig

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?

Theo Goodwin

Looks about as comfortable as existing airports.

geran

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

Col A (Aus)

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

Mike Bentley

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

View from the Solent

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

Doubting Rich

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!).

Doubting Rich

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

Bruce of Newcastle

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.

RockyRoad

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?