
A recent article in Newsweek, titled “Map Shows US Cities That Could Be Underwater in 2050,” claims that a number of major cities will be submerged beneath rising seas by 2050 if humans don’t stop climate change. This is false, as false as when the same claims were made by multiple media outlets repeatedly over the preceding decades leading up to 2000 and 2020. None of those cities is even close to being “underwater,” or even having the coastal waters lapping at their streets, parking lots or buildings.
Newsweek points to data and a map produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
A map shows the growing threat to coastal cities across the Northeast United States due to rising sea levels.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s latest projections, sea levels along the U.S. coastlines are projected to rise, on average, around 10 to 12 inches by 2050.
Many communities along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts face significant risks of partial inundation in the future if current trends continue and mitigation efforts are not intensified.
NOAA’s Sea Level Rise Viewer shows which cities may be impacted along each coast, with dark blue areas indicating significant projected sea level rises.
Newsweek cites the map below to provide an image reflecting the alarming projections:

Newsweek is apparently forgetting these same areas were predicted to be underwater by 2000 ad 2020.
This narrative is not new; mainstream media outlets have, for decades, issued similar alarming forecasts, often with timelines that have come and gone without the predicted catastrophes materializing.
In the late 20th century, numerous media reports warned that major U.S. cities would be underwater by the year 2000 due to rising sea levels. For example, a 1989 Associated Press article reported a United Nations official warning that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by the year 2000 due to rising sea levels if global warming was not addressed.
Similarly, in 2012, PBS published an interactive map projecting that certain U.S. cities and counties could experience flooding by 2020 or 2050 due to global warming-induced storm surges. Like in the Chicken Little fairy tale, the media’s past warnings have repeatedly proven false.
These past projections were based on climate models and assumptions that, in hindsight, grossly overestimated the rate of sea-level rise and underestimated the resilience and adaptability of human societies. The current projections are grounded in the same flawed climate models that overstated the rate of sea level rise in the past.
NOAA claims sea levels have been rising at an approximate rate of about 1.2 inches per decade globally since 1993. Translating to approximately a foot over a century, this rate of change will put none of the cities discussed in Newsweek’s article underwater by 2050. Based on this rate of rise, societies have ample time to adapt.
Moreover, localized factors such as land subsidence, tectonic activity, wetlands conversion, and groundwater extraction play significant roles in regional sea-level changes, complicating blanket predictions.
The media’s penchant for sensationalism often leads to the amplification of worst-case scenarios, lacking support in empirical data. For instance, a Climate Realism article critiques CBS News for suggesting that New York City is on the brink of being flooded by sea-level rise, pointing out that such claims are not substantiated by current trends or historical data.
Human societies have historically demonstrated remarkable adaptive changes. Technological advancements and proactive urban planning have enabled coastal cities to implement effective mitigation strategies against sea-level rise. For example, the Netherlands has successfully managed sea levels for centuries through an extensive system of dikes and pumps, showcasing human ingenuity in the face of natural challenges.
While it is prudent to acknowledge and prepare for environmental changes, it is equally important to critically assess the data and avoid hyping unrealistic claims, stoking fear where none is warranted. Predictions of imminent, catastrophic sea-level rise leading to submerged cities have repeatedly failed to materialize, underscoring the necessity for a balanced perspective that considers both scientific evidence and historical context.
Newsweek’s recent article warning of submerged U.S. cities by 2050 is yet another example of alarmist reporting that prioritizes sensationalism over substance. By neglecting to critically assess historical data, current trends, and the track record of similar failed predictions, the outlet has done its readers—and the broader conversation on climate issues—a great disservice.
Responsible journalism requires more than repackaging doomsday scenarios; it demands rigorous fact-checking and a willingness to present a balanced view of the evidence. By failing to meet these standards, Newsweek not only erodes public trust but also diminishes the legitimacy of meaningful environmental discussions. Readers deserve better than recycled, unfounded predictions—they deserve facts. Until outlets like Newsweek prioritize accuracy over hype, they will remain complicit in the spread of misinformation masquerading as science.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
I’m pretty sure Newsweek will be underwater long before any populated areas of Earth.
I went to GROK 2 on X and queried how they are doing.. not well evidently. The last real data on subscribers was in 2015 and there hasn’t been any confirming public circulation information in the past few years which probably indicates poor readership. Their print numbers in 2015 indicated but 100K subscribers, down from 1.2M in 2012 and 3.2M in 1992. The trend is not their friend.
Countless YouTube channels have more than 100K subs. The MSM is dying fast.
Joe Rogan podcast has 14.5 million listeners.
The world has changed.
An unexpected consequence of technology.
Direct consequence of lying and getting caught.
Much of the legacy media revenue is not from subscribers, it’s from Big Pharma, Big Ag advertisers. Plus, contributions from Chinese front companies doing the bidding of the CCP.
Exactly so. Indeed there has never been a single serious forecast of man made climate change that has ever come to pass. We still have not had an apology or even a believable explanation for the forecast of the then supposed imminence of a new ice age in, I think, 1970..
‘Yet’. The warmunists made four decades of basic mistakes out of false ‘certainty’, like dating alarming things that then did not happen. One example, at Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” Nobel award in 2007 his acceptance speech noted that the Arctic would be summer ice free by 2012. Unfortunately for him, his acceptance speech was broadcast globally and can never be erased from the internet he claimed to invent.
As another basic mistake, they claimed the ‘climate science’ was settled, in order to silence ‘deniers’ who Obama compared to ‘Flat Earthers’. They became quite unsettled when they finally realized their bold claim meant they no longer needed to be funded to do more ‘climate science’.
Some have learned a bit—now most alarming things happen in an undated future somewhen, but still ‘for sure’. That is how Schellnhuber got Pope Francis on board with a Catholic 1.5C global tipping point—infallible Pope finally even said so in an encyclical.
And yet, despite all the evidence to the contrary, Pacific Island Nations Tuvalu and Vanuatu just made these same falsified SLR ‘injury’ claims to the International Court of Justice.
Fun factoid. The US withdrew from ICJ jurisdiction in 1986. China never agreed to ICJ jurisdiction. Good luck, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, on trying to collect any ICJ ‘judgement’ except from European patsies. Fun subfactoid. ICJ has two ‘jurisdictions’. ‘Settlement’ between two member nations. And ‘Advisory’ to the UN on any UN submitted question. More weird UN stuff.
Further fun factoid. The old ‘sea level rise acceleration’ climate disaster was first promoted by Hanson at the rigged July 1988 Congressional hearing with the AC turned off. He has been wrong about that ever since. But as AW points out, it has become a climate alarmist article of faith, about which they continue to invite well deserved ridicule.
And if you recall, Hansen indicated the West Side Highway in NYC would be underwater.
“Newsweek Claims U.S. Cities Would be Underwater by 2050, Forgets the Same Predictions Were Made for 2000 and 2020”
I don’t know if Newsweek forgot all those past failed predictions but they hope everybody else did!
Since almost nobody reads Newsweek any more (even digital for ‘only’ $0.74/ weekly issue), it probably doesn’t matter much that they are wrong.
I wonder how many of these “readers” are other journalists. Even doctor’s offices don’t have them anymore.
I can almost guarantee that every one of those cities has processed a FEMA LOMA/R (sometime in the last 20 years) that effectively states that the property/project is reasonably safe from flooding.
If those same communities are claiming that there is likelihood of significant flooding in the near future, and are not taking it into account through their flood management programs then they are lying federal applications/forms.
An interesting research topic.
I thought Tuvalu was already wiped out by a Super Moon tide back in, was it 2012?
(That bit didn’t make the movie.)
Fun factoids concerning the ICJ case. Tuvalu grew land extent 2.9% past 40 years, while Vanuatu changed 0. So much for climate damages.
A century ago geologist Daly suggested that sinking sea level might have happened more recently from increasing Antarctic ice. Buy dredges now! The problem with sea level is that despite all the warnings building continues below storm levels reached not all that long ago.
As part of the mainstream media Newsweek is a worthless piece of trash. However NOAA is supposed to be a reliable and trusted government agency. An agency who must be held accountable for what it says and does. Therefore NOAA must be made to defend the Newsweek article in public to the skeptics satisfaction. If it can’t or won’t it needs to keep its mouth shut and be shut down until new management can defend the article or NOAA publicly rejects the article.
NOAA like all government agencies is subject to budgetary extortion and must therefore toe the current government line regardless that they know it to be BS.
My default position is if the information comes from a government agency – be very very skeptical.
Or, in the words of Monte Python, “Run away!”
The map isn’t clear to me- blue, light green, dark green???
JZ, find the link above that map: NOAA’s Sea Level Rise Viewer
Zoom for the coast of interest and use the slider on the left side. It appears down low for the “current” level. High zoom brings two-tone blue balloons — there is one for Harvard. Move the slider up to 7 feet for a forecast.
The light green outlines are apparently county boundaries. Dark area county lines show up if you zoom in those regions.
This article’s headline is misleading. Neither source cited predicts that US cities would be flooded by 2020 or 2050. The Newseeek article cites a single UN official who says flooding may be inevitable if the warming trend is not reversed by 2020, not that flooding will occur by 2020. The PBS website allows users to play with an interactive sea level map to see what sea levels might look like at different dates, primarily by 2050.
The contrarians have a desperate urge to find fault in climate projections, making things up whole cloth as it suits their needs.
Looked at a mirror lately, Alan?
(or should I say – NickPick Lite?)
No comment on the flagrantly misleading nature of the article?
No comment on the blatant idiocy of your comments !
“flooding may be inevitable if the warming trend is not reversed by 2020″
Thanks for pointing out what a totally BS statement it was.
There are no meaningful climate “projections”. (no matter what they want to call them.)
There is only meaningless output from pre-ordained computer games/simulations that have nothing to do with “climate” and everything to do with brain-washed activism.
And gormless twits fall for them.
The point being made is valid. We, the pragmatics and skeptics and realists cannot allow ourselves to fall to the low standards the alarmists employ.
Pointing out these same alarms have been repeatedly raised is akin to pointing out the alarmist are playing the part of the boy who cried wolf or Chicken Little, the sky is falling.
Sarcasm and humor are the best weapons to counter alarmism. Using alarmist tactics, not so.
“Sarcasm and humor are the best weapons”
I agree entirely — well, at least 97%. 😏
“The PBS website allows users to play with an interactive sea level map”
Ahh.. so to present totally unrealistic scenarios based on agenda driven anti-science…
That’s the the CAGW way we expect you to always support !
The key words above are “could be” which undermine the entire argument . These type of articles would have more credibility if they used “are unlikely to be” more often since their predictability levels have consistently proven to be rock-bottom.
From ther Newweek server:
Emma Marsden is a freelance news reporter for Newsweek who has lived in the U.K and the U.S. Her interests are trending news, politics, crime, culture, travel, and entertainment. Emma has worked for broadcasters BBC and ITV, and written for Johnston Press, Asian Standard newspaper, Reach PLC, and Valnet. Emma holds a first-class honors degree in Journalism and English, a masters with distinction and a pending PhD in creative writing. She is currently writing her first novel in the genre of Domestic Noir. Languages: English and some Welsh.
Note: pending PhD in creative writing
She should get the creative writing degree for the article. 😉
Newsweek can be had for $179 for two years. Ouch.
What exactly would a creative writing PhD look like? Is it as difficult as basket weaving?
albany is 285 feet above MSL. pure wishful thinking
Let us not forget that the job of newspapers and other “news” sources is to sell advertising. Good news doesn’t sell as well as disaster and death. It’s, “Oh! Look at the pretty flowers” vs. “Five killed in liquor-fueled car crash.”
https://newsliteracymatters.com/2019/11/11/q-what-does-if-it-bleeds-it-leads-mean/
I believe it was Howard Cosell who stated the job or journalists was to Make and Report the news.
Actually the ocean has fallen a small amount.
Which one?
Key word “could.”
On the other hand I “could” win Mega Millions.
In a past era, the Caribbean sea extended up to Montana and Florida was mostly submerged beneath the waves.
This was long before H.S. walked the savannas and learned to control fire.
So I guess our present use of coal and hydrocarbons affect the past millions of years ago. Probably due to some quantum mechanics we do not yet comprehend.
It’s good to check in with Newsweek once a decade to see if there has been any change. I’ve been boycotting them since the 1980s.
I may be nitpicking, but in a 60 second look at the interactive map I saw Thousand Oaks California is on the 2050 flood list. It’s around 800-1200 feet above sea level. And sea level isn’t safe, as even the 12,000 foot deep Monterey Bay is goona get five feet deeper. Jeepers!
The US northeast is slowly rising, because it used to have a mile of ice on it.
However, the US east coast area, including New York City, is slowly sinking, because it never had any ice on it.
The sinking is due to natural forces, such as tectonic plate movement.
The Dutch built huge dikes after 1953, because 40% of the country is up to SIX METERS below sea level, such as Rotterdam.
I lived there and saw the dikes being built. Most of them are large enough for 4-lane divided highways. Why waste good land?
You drive on them, and on one side is the water about 10 meter down, and on the other side are cities and towns, about 10 meter down, where the water table is controlled within one inch with pumping stations. The system is designed for a 10,000 year flood.