How is Miami not near the bottom of the list? Every time there is a moderate rainfall, streets flood like crazy. Plus we are in hurricane alley, and some models project that most of the Florida peninsula will be under water in 50-100 years.
I had asked a question "how is Miami not on the list at all" and then realized that the table is actually an image not a table so I couldn't search it.
It's on the list. #34 out of 72, middle of the pack. Within the U.S. Chicago, NYC, Philadelphia, LA, and DC are above it. Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Phoenix are below it. They seem to weight heat-stress pretty highly in their rankings, hence why all the TX/AZ cities are at the bottom and are joined by South and Southeast Asia.
The list is a little weird in that I can't find any population-based reason why Miami would even be on it: it's almost the top-10 U.S. cities by population, but missing San Diego or any SF/BayArea city, while Miami & DC are #41 and #22 respectively. If you go by metro area it explains why Miami & DC are there and why Dallas & Fort Worth are condensed, but not why Atlanta is missing and San Antonio is included.
My guess is that Miami and Washington are there for essentially rhetorical reasons. Miami is often talked about as a city that's vulnerable to climate change, and Washington is the capital.
("most of the Florida peninsula will be under water in 50-100 years" is certainly not true, however, Miami would be in a very difficult spot at 2m SLR)
The problem with South Florida isn't that the sea level will rise enough to directly flood everything with seawater but rather with drainage of rainwater. There is already only a small gradient for rainwater to drain off into the ocean. If the ocean level rises even a little then drainage slows and flooding increases. The whole region sits on a karst substrate so dikes aren't effective; they'll need active pumping.
Yes, what's your point? That doesn't refute the prediction that even a slight sea level rise will cause more frequent flooding in South Florida due to slower drainage of rainwater.
My point is that while most of Florida won't be constantly underwater in 2100, significant parts of it will be underwater more often than they are now unless there are major, expensive upgrades to flood control infrastructure. While the original claim might have been overstated there are likely serious problems coming that will hit Florida harder than most other states.
Comments
How is Miami not near the bottom of the list? Every time there is a moderate rainfall, streets flood like crazy. Plus we are in hurricane alley, and some models project that most of the Florida peninsula will be under water in 50-100 years.
Most Americans are unaware of both how many people live outside of the United States and how bad things can get there.
I had asked a question "how is Miami not on the list at all" and then realized that the table is actually an image not a table so I couldn't search it.
It's on the list. #34 out of 72, middle of the pack. Within the U.S. Chicago, NYC, Philadelphia, LA, and DC are above it. Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Phoenix are below it. They seem to weight heat-stress pretty highly in their rankings, hence why all the TX/AZ cities are at the bottom and are joined by South and Southeast Asia.
The list is a little weird in that I can't find any population-based reason why Miami would even be on it: it's almost the top-10 U.S. cities by population, but missing San Diego or any SF/BayArea city, while Miami & DC are #41 and #22 respectively. If you go by metro area it explains why Miami & DC are there and why Dallas & Fort Worth are condensed, but not why Atlanta is missing and San Antonio is included.
My guess is that Miami and Washington are there for essentially rhetorical reasons. Miami is often talked about as a city that's vulnerable to climate change, and Washington is the capital.
This is not true.
Even in the most cataclysmic scenarios, scientists project Sea level to rise 2m by 2100, and most of Florida is above that level.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-are-best-and-worst-case...
As a researcher in this general area I would not say 2m by 2100 is a consensus view of the worst case scenario see [1].
Here is a useful scenario for understanding what different SLR scenarios mean for the states [2]
[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapter-4-sea-level-rise-a...
[2] https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/
("most of the Florida peninsula will be under water in 50-100 years" is certainly not true, however, Miami would be in a very difficult spot at 2m SLR)
Your link implies less than 2m, strengthening my point?
I said 'even in the most cataclysmic scenarios'
Yes, I was agreeing with you. I apologize for being unclear.
The problem with South Florida isn't that the sea level will rise enough to directly flood everything with seawater but rather with drainage of rainwater. There is already only a small gradient for rainwater to drain off into the ocean. If the ocean level rises even a little then drainage slows and flooding increases. The whole region sits on a karst substrate so dikes aren't effective; they'll need active pumping.
Ok, well 'most of the Florida Peninsula' is significantly above 2m elevation.
Yes, what's your point? That doesn't refute the prediction that even a slight sea level rise will cause more frequent flooding in South Florida due to slower drainage of rainwater.
My point is I was replying to a comment that said most of Florida will be underwater in 2100, which is not true, as I said.
What is your point?
My point is that while most of Florida won't be constantly underwater in 2100, significant parts of it will be underwater more often than they are now unless there are major, expensive upgrades to flood control infrastructure. While the original claim might have been overstated there are likely serious problems coming that will hit Florida harder than most other states.
miamia was likely already a swamp; nature already said: "guys, water lives here"
I'ma guessing that's the reason.