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.
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.
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.
RobRoy says: “There won’t be fuel for flying anyway”
“Energy prices must necessarily skyrocket.” -0bama I
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
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?
Odd… Based on IPCC projections I would have expected more Palm trees in NY by 2100.
Good article on the pathology of their pseudo science nowadays-
http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13716/
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.
Perhaps Captain Sullenberger can be persuaded to come out of retirement….
Yoiu can find plenty of equally stupid stuff on climate on Yahoo News every day.
RU sure? I don’t see a single seal in your illustration.
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.”
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!”
Anothony … Do you have another photo of what the airport would look like with 5ft of sea level rise as a comparison 😉
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.
I am surprised that a polar bear wasn’t photoshopped in on one of the aircraft wings.
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)
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.
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.
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!
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!
Where is the…um…er… lady in the lake?