Climate change is going to ruin our vacations. Not only will it likely make our flights more uncomfortable, but our favorite destinations could be underwater--in a few hundred years anyway. Inspired by The New York Times's interactive project on sea level rise, Nickolay Lamm, a 24-year-old researcher and artist based in Pittsburgh, created this series of photo illustrations of the watery tourist traps of the future.
Currently, global sea levels are rising even faster than we've projected, according to recent studies. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change estimates that seas will rise an average of 6.6 feet by 2100. Over the coming centuries, as temperatures rise and ice sheets melt, our oceans could rise as much as 20 or 30 feet.
This is what the Boston Harbor Hotel would look like under 25 feet of water:
Using sea level rise maps from Climate Central graphic wiz Remik Ziemlinksi, Lamm illustrated what iconic destinations like the Washington Monument and Miami's South Beach could look like under 5 feet, 12 feet (the potential level in about 300 years), and 25 feet (the potential level in a few centuries) of water. We made them into GIFs so you can see the change over time.
Lamm compared stock photos of the locations to Google Earth data and topographical maps to figure in how rising seas would affect different places at different tide levels. The illustrations show low or medium tide sea levels.
More like Statue of Watery, right?
South Beach: closer than ever.
Lamm hopes the illustrations will help raise public awareness about the impact of climate climate change -- the change you really should believe in. No one wants to sink the Statue of Liberty, right?
[Images courtesy of StorageFront]
Interesting as fantasy art perhaps...
Meanwhile, in the real world, the measured rate of sea level rise from 1993 to 2009 is about 3.3 millimeters per year. That's 0.13 inches a year or about 1/100th of a foot a year. It would take 2,300 years for the sea level to rise 25 feet.
The trend from 1950 to 2009 was half that, so it would take about 4,500 years to rise 25 feet if the longer term trend continued.
That trend varies quite a bit. See here:
There is no reason to believe that it will continue to rise at the current rate indefinitely because the earth cycles between ice ages and interglacial periods. We're in an interglacial period right now. Based on the last 400,000 years of climate history, we're due for another ice age. See here:
Meanwhile, be sure to see the Jefferson Memorial sometime in the next 2,300 years or so before it's inundated with water.
I find it ironic that as a site that professes to be knowledgeable as far as science goes, some of the articles I find here are rather...lacking. A consensus isn't science? Is it? Isn't this alarmist, yet unfounded, nonsense what this website and it's editors should be fighting?
Even the economist, an organization with 'liberal' tendencies to put it lightly admits the facts instead of creating farcical images to scare people when reality isn't enough.
Search economist for: Climate May Be Heating Up Less Response Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
I love this site but if I found another similar one that provided essentially the same content with emphasis on SCIENCE and not opinion, I'd switch in a heartbeat.
"Lamm hopes the illustrations will help raise public awareness about the impact of climate climate change"
I think at this point the people of the world are going so hard with climate change that people are finally starting to look at the science behind it all. You're not helping your cause by posting alarmist garbage like this. Not to mention that Popular Science is so damn transparent! Is this because of a sponsor or because Popular Science is now hiring writers that don't even have a college degree yet? I'm not really sure how knowledgeable a senior in college studying nonfiction creative writing and Slavic Studies is on the science behind climate change let alone the science behind anything. Obviously not very knowledgeable based on this article.
Get with the program and stop posting alarmist junk science and get back to the real science!
That's pretty cool. And probably the people living there will still be staring at it with their jaws open stupidly. And trying to build Dutch dikes. Imagine New Orleans would be 36 feet below sea level. And they would probably stupidly build a 40 foot dike to hold the sea back at a cost of Trillions of dollars. Stupid.
Will this never end? Please PopSci, stop publishing STUPID STUFF! (Current trends would have to be stuck in place for the next 2000-5000 years to get 25 feet.)
We get it, you want us to embrace your environmental cult agenda. Fine, hold up a sign and march around a park, just quit the abuse from behind your "journalist" badges.
(Don't worry, your Left will have this founding father memorial torn down way before your fantasy flood.)
Haha I just caught the caption above that says it all...
<<<< "Lamm hopes the illustrations will help raise public awareness about the impact of climate climate change -- the change you really should believe in. No one wants to sink the Statue of Liberty, right? " Shaunacy Ferro >>>>
I guess no one thinks in exponential growth. They don't think about how the more ice caps melt, the less heat gets reflected out into space. And it doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. Why wouldn't we want to use cleaner sources of energy to prevent the possibility, however remote? We wouldn't keep a gasoline car running in our garage, so why would we continue doing it outside? We should take care of our planet or our planet will take care of us.
I think we all want to see cleaner sources of energy and a healthier environment but there is no way we can achieve that by scaring people with sensationalist articles and unscientific garbage. Not to mention we are forcing technology that is inefficient and expensive. The green movement is made up of people like Shaunacy Ferro here who just jump on the bandwagon because now it is where the money is.
We should be focusing on things like space travel and mining. I think most of our problems could be solved by pushing our horizons into the endless vacuum around our planet. That is a solution to our problems. All these alarmists point out problem after problem without ever providing a solution to what they see. They just expect others to do it for them without actually knowing or understanding what is happening or why. Space is our answer and there are a solutions to all the worlds problems out there. People just don't see it that way because they are busy reading junk like this!
Assuming it does rise 12 feet in 300 years, I wonder how stupid we would be not to move out of the way when the water is rising half an inch per year. Everyone run! It's a really really slow tsunami! Frankly, God bless America if the Washington Monument is still there in three centuries.
Perhaps the pictures are an illustration of our current management by the government the national debt.
I would type lol, but my comment is just too close to reality.
The more we post comments the more they write stories. If you all really want to make poopsci stop writing climate crap stories like they do ten times a week. STOP COMMENTING ON THEM. Myself included of course :)
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
I like PoPSCi and science is for the people, which are most often paid by the people. There by, I think all can make their opinion on the topics.
Wasn't there an article the other day on popsci saying that the amount of ice melting into the ocean is slowing down the rising of it's temperature? or is it still just not enough to counteract the lack of sun-reflecting capabilities that occurs with less glaciers?
Ps. I like how you used climate change instead of "global warming" this time.
What utter garbage. As though we won't adapt in 100 years even if it were true, which it isn't.
Science has been corrupted by the Progressive Political Agenda. And here is a fine example of that. As Margaret Thatcher once noted, if you want to spread socialism around the world, global warming alarmism is the perfect way to do it.
Funny how all these public science magazines are so popular with anti-AGW people punching the air with their politically motivated pseudo-science they learned from political websites. They need an outlet for their frustrations, because no real science journal would even print or post a simplistic opinion from these poor misinformed people. The real scientific consensus is that AGW is real and affecting us now and soon will cause massive disruption for the world's human population. If you cannot provide real science sources go back to your political echo-batory closets.
@skybluskyblue is that you Algore?
skybluskyblue my friend... take a step back and look honestly at this article. I understand you've probably dedicated a lot of classroom time and internal guilt on this subject but be intellectually honest with yourself. Please reread this story and breathe.
You effectiveness as a chicken-little will be much more effective when you battle on hills you could actually win.
I love that people like skybluskyblue talk about science, it gives me a good laugh. I see so much science in this that it has convinced me the world is going to end up like this in 5 years.
Guys we should really do something! Let's stop a natural process because we think humans caused it. Let's alter the world's climate so we can continue building houses in the dumbest places like sand bars and natural bowls in the path of hurricanes then blame it on people who drive SUVs.
Humans are insignificant compared to the Earth and the processes that have occurred and will occur regardless of what we do, it'll still be here even if manage to kill ourselves off. Also, to all you eco-saviors out there, why don't you go to China, India, Russia or pretty much any country in Africa and realize that all your work shitting on developed countries is for naught.
Best comment ever! You comment was simple and with commonsense.
til I saw the receipt which said $7430, I accept that my cousin realey receiving money part time on their apple labtop.. there dads buddy has been doing this 4 only about 1 year and just now repayed the morgage on their appartment and got a new BMW. this is where I went, BIC5.COM
“A consensus isn't science? Is it?”
Of course it is. Gravity? Consensus. Evolution? Consensus. Relativity? Consensus. None of them can be proven directly, but because they are supported by the available evidence, have predictive power, and withstand scrutiny they are accepted as fact. The same is true of anthropogenic climate change. The Earth is growing warmer – that's not a theory or a claim; that's an observation. Our activities are the cause. To claim otherwise is to stand against the entire body of scientific knowledge regarding our climate. The consensus is science. The stubborn refusal to accept that consensus is not.
“A consensus isn't science? Is it?”
"Of course it is. Gravity? Consensus. Evolution? Consensus. Relativity? Consensus."
Your scientific illiteracy is showing. We don't "Prove" scientific hypotheses. Proof is for mathematics.
We test scientific hypotheses. A real scientist tries to disprove his own hypotheses. She reports every negative result of that testing. She revises her hypothesis to fit observations, then she tries to disprove it again.
A pretend scientist gets together with his coauthor pals and they proclaim "consensus!" and call other scientists deniers and incompetent and shills if they dare to question the consensus.
Consensus is NOT science. If your science teachers taught you that, they are incompetent and know nothing of science.
Gravity has been tested by the scientific method and the theory can still be modified to fit observation. The same with the several theories evolution. You say relativity is consensus but special relativity and general relativity are not about consensus. They to are subject to empirical testing. If one or both fail a test the theories must be modified.
Consensus is about politics and or religion, NOT science.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman