Know when to give up. Living below sealevel is not cheap, nor a good idea. Venice, New Orleans and I believe it's the Netherlands that spent billions of dollars to build movable dikes, but still lose many lives and livestock and crops to flooding. Naturally rising sealevels makes living below sealevel a costly and impractical idea.

Can I just point out here that Chicago's nickname of "the windy city" has nothing to do with wind. It comes from an early 20th century New York newspaper editorial regarding Chicago's boast that it was overtaking New York as America's greatest city. Because of that boast the editorial writer gave Chicago and it's citizens the name Windy (as in overly boastful) City. Despite the cold Lake Michigan wind called "the Hawk" Chicago is no windier than most other American cities.

Venice is an incredible city but I'm afraid they are fighting a losing battle. The Italian engineers were able to stabilize the tower in Pisa but trying to raise Venice would be an almost impossible feat. Having been there I say go and see it before it's gone it is definitely worth the trip.

wrong...high tide...

Can I just point out here that Chicago's nickname of "the windy city" has nothing to do with wind.

Thank you. The windiest city in America is Boston, anyway.

Stand on Michigan Ave. in January...and tell me Chicago isn't windy...LOL...windy all around, boastful, beautiful, 'windy' politicians...and nature...

I'm surprised it made it this far.

Visit western Kansas. I've been here for four years and have had about one week's worth of calm days. 15 mph wind all the time is totally normal with the occasional 25-30 mph days.

Blue Lake, mostly out of curiosity, because I do not live in Chicago nor have I been, someone I knew that was from Chicago said that the "Windy City" monicker came from the early part of the century when the Al Capone gangsters were about and how the politics changed as often as the winds due to bribing of officials and such. Have you heard of this at all or is it just another reason Chicago is considered "Windy"?

Uh! People.....the article says NOTHING about "rising seas" or "global warming", it says Venice is SINKING. So let's despense with the global warming and rising seas on this thread, Okay?

Nothing is for-ever my friends, so enjoy the 3 x while you can, and be civil at the same time thank you.

Hmmm ... the city is sinking and the tower in Pisa is leaning. Note to self: don't hire Italian architects.

Chicago the windiest city?? I always thought it was Washington DC...

"Gods Punishment" (one of the 100 or so Christian ones)

Thou shall build home on some kind of rock!--It was written!

But it is for the record also the water rising as well, like Hollands problem, and soon even more in Louisiana! I always thought it was amazing to stand on the levies in NO, they have done a lot of studies doing the same with all kinds of rising water control in Venice, I have actually made them some suggestions in engineering, and using the "equipment" (in the water) to make electric at the same time!

If Al Gore didnt invent Global Warming, there would be nothing to worry about!

From the reports by the time it sinks, no one here right now will be around nor our children or 6 generations of theirs. So relax, see it when you can if you got the money too.

annon--Never heard that one though I suppose it could apply to any big city political machine.

Cities and parts of towns can sink for multiple reasons, so measuring how much and why Venice is sinking is complex. Regardless, besides building the dams and canal controls, Venician residents are building/moving upwards, some abandoning their ground floor by filling it in and moving everything to the first floor and above. (First floor in Europe is our 2nd story.)

why wouldn't you think the earth is warming? read about the bears in the north pole. to see the real world stay off fox news . i want tell you that is the place for your news.

take health care they want the states to pay for it , and not the government, what state has any money. they are laying off teachers and police. what a joke for fox news to stay i don't want government to pay, let the state do that . don't understand why anyone would listen to fox .

nature's new meaning; of getting the boot (Italy)..R WE ready for some football !!..mother nature decides, NOT science........

You have to flush the toilet sooner or later

windy city? i thought it was due to the sound people make with lacking between the ears, but who cares?

still, none the less, both could be correct. data correlating over a period of 10 yrs, vs ? not even an eyeblink. but to leave the survival of the city to technology remains to be seen. it was planned by a government, we all know how that goes. when ma nature comes calling, i dont think there will ever be the tech needed to prevent such a disaster, just to prevent some loss of life with early warning.

denver bill,

ROFLMAO! Thanks for the laugh, I needed that!

al wise,

definitely a misnomer.

to see the real world stay off fox news .

What? and you know of some "news" agency that is unbiased, fair and honest? No, I didn't think so. So who do you trust for your news MSNBC? Fox may not be perfect, but they're far more truthful and accurate than ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR(of course the National Inquirer is more accurate than NPR) or all the other Liberal controlled media sources.

@A Veteran...I guess you missed this? "One of the biggest experts on the state of Venice, Luigi Tosi, of Italy's National Research Center, pointed out that Venice's "sinking" was actually a combination of land subsidence and sea level rise."

Here's a good analysis of CO2 Levels, Temperature and Sea Levels over the past 420,000 years. ( )

Pay particular attention to the phenomenal increase in CO2 levels since humans began burning fossil fuels, which shoots past all previous maximums. Now consider the likely results of that increase on Temperature and Sea Levels, since the chart clearly shows how interconnected they are.

For an even more thorough look at historical evidence of CO2 levels, temperatures and sea level changes (as well as some information on recent changes), watch this program from NOVA ()

Visit western Kansas. I've been here for four years and have had about one week's worth of calm days. 15 mph wind all the time is totally normal with the occasional 25-30 mph days.

Trent - who cares and what does Kansas have to do with this article? BTW, Chicago, which also has nothing to do with this article, is in Illinois, not Kansas.

I'm from The Netherlands, and it's a struggle there just as much as it is in Venice, to keep the water out. But you have that problem everywhere you are below sealevel. After New Orleans, Americans asked the Dutch to come give advice because we've done a great job at keeping the water out. Occassionally things do flood, but for UncleBen-3793367 to say that we loose many lives and lifestock, is coming from someone who clearly doesn't know. It's not that bad. Right now I live in the mountains here in the US, and there's a lot of flooding here too. Every fall and spring when it rains a lot there are flooding problems everywhere. Water will always be a problem regardless of where you are. To think that Venice will be dissapearing is a very sad thought. Having been there multiple times, I think it is a beautiful city. For those that haven't been there, you should go (and while there see other beautiful Italian cities) and see. I will definitely be visiting again, and hopefully this research is wrong and it's not sinking as fast.

Well, I guess they don't like links being posted. I'll try to post these relevant links again in a way that they will appear. Try typing in http:// followed by www dot followed by johnenglander dot net/t-co2-sl-420kyr-chart for the first one and http: // www dot pbs dot org /wgbh/nova/earth/secrets-beneath-ice dot html for the second one.

Note to MSN...why do you make it so difficult to provide reference links?

A news reporter, commenting about a politician from Chicago, was the first person to call Chicago, "The Windy City."

al wise-261013why wouldn't you think the earth is warming? read about the bears in the north pole.

Are the bears taking their furs off and replacing them with windbreakers? As a metter of fact the population and health of the polar bears have never been better. The Warm-Mongers keep stating"IF" "estimated" warming "trends" continue it "may" affect the polar bear's hunting grounds. Yet studies have proven exactly the opposite the past 30 years. The Polar Bear landscape has NOT shrunk as the WARM-Mongers keep eluding to, they extrapolate one estimation to state another theory's estimation must also be true. If you read carefully on ALL the conclusion that are made, they are based solely on estimated exaggerations that also leave out indisputable evidence that points to opposite conclusions they make. but of course there is no funding for natural global climate change, only man-made global warming.

Ken Trout - The WWF would disagree and their published studies directly contradict your undocumented claims, so I'm not sure where your data was gathered, but if you really think that 99% of the world's scientific community will change their position because your claim that they are somehow misguided, then your the bigger fool.

None only is global warming an undisputed fact (except within GOP political data groups), the trend is nearly close to beyond recoverable. For this reason, scientists are no longer are looking to determine if global warming is taking place, and have in fact reach a consensus. What is a consensus? It is where there is so much overwelming evident that the scientific community stops aguing about it anymore. On the other hand, politicians rarely care about facts or scientific evidence, and instead focus on emotional responses, such as "Global warming is a plot by green energy companies". They know this is something that can never be proven or unproven, but people will repeat it anyway because of an emotional responce.

So if you still believe that Global warming is some kind of scientific community/green energy plot to take over the world...LOL... then your completely out of touch with the real world.

... but of course there is no funding for natural global climate change, only man-made global warming.

Not really true. In a recent NASA study, for example, scientists accounted for all known sources of heat, including solar variability as well as greenhouse gases, and concluded that the oceans and atmosphere were still gaining heat, even during the 2005-2010 solar minimum.

Maybe we should send Halliburton in to fix this problem. Oops, wrong administration.

As an aside, rising oceans caused by global warming (whether natural or caused by humans) will also affect Venice, the New England coast where I live, and my mom's homeland, the Netherlands. Future generations will have their plate full.

Venice's buildings may be beautiful but they use the lagoon as a natural sewage treatment plant and it stinks to high hell in summer; if you fall into the water, you need antibiotic treatment.

Ciao, Venizia

I'm not sad. They shouldn't have built there in the first place. Also as Charle mentioned, the place is like an open sewer.

Venice has nice architecture, but when my spouse and I went in 1989, we couldn't wait to get the hell out - it was basically a toilet populated by people whose main purpose in life was ripping off Americans any way they could. I can't imagine it's any better now.

If you go there, enjoy the visit. Don't complain about the people or sewage accomodations, that's rude.

Sad yes.

But I would LOVE to go diving there! What a treasure!

I would suggest people go in the winter. I was there on 29th December, and there were very few tourists. It was truly magical walking around at night in completely empty streets. I felt like I had stepped back in time.

For the record, sewage doesn't directly flow into the canals. It first goes into septic tanks that drain into the canals. I didn't notice any smell. It might smell in the summer time, but almost every dense city with lots of tourists smells bad in the summer time.

Venice is an incredibly beautiful city. Unique; historic; you never know what you're going to find around the next corner. I never tire of visiting; I always find something new that I had never seen before. While Venice used to be known for having a two-price system - one for the residents, and another for the tourists - it is no worse than any other place I've lived or been for "ripping off Americans." Ditch the shorts and the big white sneakers and learn to say please and thank you in the native language. Ask questions. You'll be amazed at how nice *most* of the rest of the world becomes to visitors.

Charl7834:

Not anymore. We were there last summer, mid-August no less, and there was no smell, garbage, etc at all. I'll admit I was pleasantly surprised at how clean it was as I was expecting something totally different. Since 2000, there has been a strong revitalization and restoration effort and it has improved the city tremendously.

Venice is hands down the most wonderful city I've ever visited and would highly recommend it to anyone.

Hope someone can come up with a way to keep the rising water at bay.

So where exactly is this line that says where and when it is OK to mess with Mother Nature?

aside from Venice an its beauty jazz, at what price does one pay out of pocket before they realise, maybe its better to "let go"?

Yeah, yeah. We are all soooo impressed that you all have been to Venice. Really, get over yourselves. No one cares. What does you visit have to do with the article?

@ Niko, yawn...global what? Oh you mean the natural cycle of the earth? Oh, hmm...yeah that is happening. We just sped it up a little, maybe? Read your books. You could say we've lived during a very peaceful and calm time period on this planet, and it's about to get bumpy.

Yes, to the go go go, that is because we have to work two jobs, or like me with a big job, work the same time as 2 jobs a year, like well over 4000 hours--- not so in northern EU countries, they work (my family) about 1700 hours a year, and they do not talk business after that at all very different here, Yes, France has the same attitude as Venice, do not bother me at all after work, or tell anyone about having overtime, except if you are moving the company etc.

"I hope the previous poster's mom is well, and I'm glad he brings her up every chance he gets. Still that has exactly zero bearing on this topic."

I assume you mean me, as no one else seems to have mentioned his mother in their comment. I do not bring her up every chance I get and have no idea why you would even bother to snidely say such a thing. When I mentioned her here, it was in relation to Netherlands, which faces additional inundation by the sea because of rising sea levels. My connection to her homeland is a personal one, hence the reference, and I also feel a connection to Venice, having visited three times. These places have human meaning for me, I do not speak of them in dry terms only. We are connected to happenings on our planet by virtue of being here, and even more so if we have tangible connections to them via PEOPLE. If I should mention my mom again, or my father, or a sibling in relation to a story, feel free to skip to the next comment.

well folks me'n dad sat down and did a calculation while we was havin a beer and come up with the theory that it will be about ten thousand years before the main floor will become the basement and the streete wont be blocked with all those silly little bridges

E Gavron I don't think anyone poo poohs global warming. What we do say is that it is not caused by man's use of fossil fuels. It has been documented that there have been many warming and cooling episodes and glaciation on earth. These happened way before mankind has been using fossil fuels in great quantities. There is evidence of vegetation on each of the poles at one time in the earth's history proving a warm earth at the time. You, claiming to be a scientist, have panicked and want to destroy our modern society on your insane belief that man has caused the warming and cooling on the earth. Just because scientists have a slight understanding of how things work they have deemed themselves the deities of the universe all knowing and all understanding in much the same way that Democrats think of themselves in economic and cultural ways. Your thinking is flawed by outside pressures and predetermined opinions. I believe it was only back in seventies when scientists were claiming that the earth was entering into a new cycle of glaciation what happened to that fantasy? When I hand you a rock and you turn it into a living organism then maybe I will start listening to you. You have labeled yourselves way more important and powerful in this vast expanse of universe than you really are.

To Ray T and others

Guess again and open your eyes to vegetation damage the next time you have a chance to drive through the mountains. You can plainly see the damage to the pine trees along every heavily traveled highway and road from exause that heavy traffic causes.

To say that air-transportation, heavy sea craft, and every other power machine by man on the face of this planet does not cause atmosphere damage and vegetation damage, is scared to face facts and to greedy to cut back and lend a hand to help slow the situation. It's to late to fix it but it could be slowed down with wisdom.

@RayT - One of the goals of the supporters of the status quo has been to convince people of the "fact" that Climate Change MIGHT be real (since it's hard to deny the evidence of melting glaciers) but is actually a "natural" event that isn't impacted by human activity...and it appears they've succeeded with you.

While it’s true that there have been natural cycles of warming
and cooling in the past, the claim that they mean the current warming cycle is
not contributed to by human activity is ludicrous. Here’s a link to a chart showing the
correlation of CO2 levels, Temperatures and Sea Levels over the past 420,000 years. ()

It clearly shows that the CO2 levels have always peaked at about the same level…until fairly recently (which corresponds to the time period when humans began to burn fossil fuels), when the CO2 levels began to increase more and more as we burned more fossil fuels and have now zoomed far
past all previous levels. Clearly, human activity is involved. Since CO2 levels, Temperature and Sea Levels are so closely connected, temperatures and sea levels are sure to follow, unless we do something to stop it.

Here’s another link to a very recent Nova program that carefully examines the issue and is well worth watching. ()

Thank you, readerup. There are those who prefer to live with their heads stuck in the sand, most of whom never took a science course after third grade when they stuck a rib of celery in colored water and watched the color rise up the stalk. The citizens of this country would not be so ignorant if science and math had not been pushed to the bottom of the list of teaching priorities. Rather than arguing in favor of teaching subject that are vital to maintaining the USA as a world power, parents are fighting for the teaching of creationism.

Well, I guess they don't like links being posted. I'll try to post these relevant links again in a way that they will appear. Try typing in http:// followed by www dot followed by johnenglander dot net/t-co2-sl-420kyr-chart for the first one and http: // www dot pbs dot org /wgbh/nova/earth/secrets-beneath-ice dot html for the second one.

Note to MSN...why do you make it so difficult to provide reference links?

Ray - Too many half facts in your post. The WWF's website's focus on polar bear habitat provides a complete list of historical temperature trends and yes there is a direct correlation to mankind’s use of fossil fuels, where temperatures has risen far beyond natural level increases, which historically should be heading in the opposite direction. For these reasons, scientists around the world have reach a consensus concerning the alarming rate of global warming and the simple fact that man’s use of fossil fuels is a major contributing factor, and the data supports this premise.

On the other hand, attributing global warming solely to natural forces is nothing more that turning a blind eye on contrary evident, and could only be politically motivated. This is nothing new, considering that around the turn of the century, environmental scientists where laughed out of the mid-west with their crazy theories on topsoil conservation and crop rotation. They stop laughing when the Great Dust Bowl formed and the damage was nearly irreversible. Global warming is just another example of people turning a blind-eye to science, for now; but as usually, they will be crying for help when once again things go from bad to crappy. It’s a shame we can never learn from our mistakes until it is too late.

It is not rising anywhere near that much MoreBroke. The fact that the city is not under water at this time, but only sinking, proves that the sea is not rising.

Great response.

Venice is indeed sinking due to subsidence of the soil around and under the city. This fact was not mentioned in this article, but is a well-known fact. Also, the sea is for sure rising - all of us who live in coastal areas know this already. As for Venice being smelly, yes, it can be in the summer, and many larger cities in the US can also be stinky. If you doubt this, take a ride on the NYC subway system in August . . . ! As for Venetians trying to "rip off" tourists, remember that Venice is so expensive because every single thing on the island must be transported in by boat. Perhaps try not to be the ugly Amercan tourist, demanding that everything be just like you have it at home. Skip the white sneakers, the tank tops, the fanny packs, learn to say please and thank you in Italian, and embrace the wonderful experience of Venice. I've been there 3 times and going back soon.

....yeah, because white sneakers, tank tops, shorts and fanny packs are so insulting to the Italians that they have to charge those ugly Americans double to ride in gondolas on the open sewers of Venice...

We were just in Venice last year early June. It was gorgeous, didn't "smell"..the people were warm and friendly. We took a "locals" ride around to places tourists don't usually go and it was quite fascinating. My guy had white sneakers on but we don't own fanny packs :-) and anyway, I don't believe the sneakers are what the poster was referring to. Here's what I witnessed; a lot of Americans walking up to the Italians, in ITALY, speaking English to them as if they were in America. Not once did I ever hear; "I'm sorry I don't speak your language--do you speak mine?"

If we are charged more as tourists maybe it's because Venitians who deal with tourists have to learn a second language, we are paying for their education :-). I couldn't believe the arrogance of many tourists --most obliviously behaved as if they were Disneyland. Probably nice people acting like that too--just oblivious. I remember mentioning it to my guy. I said something like "Jeez. If I were a Venezian, I wouldn't like Americans much!"

Venice is a unique and magical place. At least it was for us.

....just like dealing with illegal latinos in America.....we have to make believe it's ok not to speak English...

No one cares when or if you have traveled to Venice. Get over yourselves.

We're spending our tax dollars saving our own version of Venice. New Orleans is built on a subsiding river delta. Nothing can be done to stop it from subsiding, so we continue to throw money at it buy building dikes around it. Eventually another Katrina will come and I wonder if we will have the common sense to take it as a hint to pack up and move out. Based on past human behavior, I'm thinking not.

To hs321, all seaports are at least at sea level -- that's what makes them ports. NYC and Manhattan are in just as much danger as New Orleans from extreme flooding from rain or hurricanes. Remember all of the high water they had from Irene last August -- and that was just a tropical storm? So, according to you, I suppose the only common sense thing to do is abandon New Orleans, New York City and every other port city in this country ... and then what?? Rebuild them elsewhere?? That would work really well for our shipping industry.

Nnrs Wilberforce - do port city's have to be metropolises?

no, they dont...they would simply just be port cities of decent average size, in which we do not everything if and when the ocean takes them over.

we are simply dumb and love to live right next to the water, just as in other countries people are dumb and live right below a volcanoe - but dont worry it hasnt erupted in a long long time, not like it's going to erupt while THEY are living there.

life is a gamble no doubt, and whats already there should be left. but if and when it gets wiped out there's no reason to "rebuild" it back up.

New Orleans should simply be a port city. I dont think a ton of money should be dumped into new orleans just so people can live there and enjoy it's "uniqueness"

It's a waste of federal resources in the end.

Both New Orleans and Venice make a ton of money from tourism. It would ultimately cost more to let them be destroyed than to find a way to preserve them. Also, money is not everything in life. Sometimes civilized people spend money on preserving their history.

Jessica, I supposed the "no rebuilding" rule also applies to places wiped out by tornadoes, fires, etc.? But more importantly, where are all the people who are supposed to move out of our seaports and coastal regions supposed to go, and who's going to pay for their new houses and businesses? If -- after a disaster -- you want to keep New Orleans, NYC, San Francisco, etc. as simply working ports with few to no residents, then surely no one will buy the homes and businesses they leave behind. So, since 80% of the buildings in NOLA would be unsellable, I guess the gov't would have to pay for all of the new ones?? Or maybe they'll just put everyone in FEMA trailers for the rest of their lives. And I can positively tell you that if you're depending on the gov't to make a fair settlement, then don't hold your breath. Even though the flooding in NOLA was caused by the Army Corps of Engineers b/c they didn't know how to building a fu*king flood wall -- or 3 fu*king walls to be exact, the gov't didn't pay anywhere near fair market value to the people who lost their homes. In a perfect world no one would get hit by natural and manmade disasters, but this is far from a perfect world.

WA-Moscow, WOW. You're a duche-bag.

You have such a unique outlook on reality. Tell me, did Papa smurf school you? Or were you just born an idiot?! Venice is sinking, must be Obama's fault. VERY sound logic for sure! I hope you don't procreate.

It's too bad Venice will all sink under the water. I hope I can get a look see before it's all gone.

If you want to paint the world in such broad strokes I can come up with reasons why everyplace should be "abandoned because it's dumb to live there". Near water? flooding, west coast? earthquakes. east coast? hurricanes. Too far from water? droughts. Heartland? tornadoes.

Just where do you propose people should live?

thank you, mm209. you said it very succinctly.

Mrs Wilberforce...New Orleans is built on a subsiding river delta. It is sinking and it cannot be stopped by man. New York has bedrock very near the surface. It's not sinking. The only issue with it is sea-level changes.

The larger picture is mankind's habits in spite of knowledge. Pompeii was destroyed Mt. Vesuvius more than once. Right across the bay from Pompeii, built on the footsteps of still active Mt. Vesuvius, is Naples. Population 1.4 million.

hs321, I know more about NOLA than you do. I've lived there all of my life. The sinking CAN be stopped by man b/c it is mainly caused by man. However, the fix would not be seen as acceptable b/c, ironically, it's the levees that are causing the majority of the subsidence. (BTW, there are several parts of the city that are on bedrock/higher land, locally known as "ridges," that under ordinary circumstances do not flood, e.g., French Quarter, Esplanade Ridge, etc.)

Before the levees were built, the Miss. River would flood every year depositing fresh, nutrient-rich soil (or "river sand" as we call it locally) throughout the city and surrounding areas, thereby keeping the city from sinking and replenishing thousands of acres of wetlands to the south of the metro area. (That's why old houses in the "non-ridge" areas were built raised up, to allow for the now defunct annual flooding.) However, after the Great Flood of 1927 which affected 10 states, the gov't charged the Army Corps of Engineers with building new levees around the city and heightening existing ones. Additionally, the ACE built the Bonne Carre Spillway about 20-30 miles upriver which also diverts VAST amounts of river sand into the Atchafalaya Basin and away from the city, thus adding to NOLA's subsidence problem as well as the disastrous loss of our wetlands, which makes us much more vulnerable to hurricanes. After Katrina, the ACE, state and federal gov'ts finally realized how vital the wetlands are for SE Louisiana's protection and are working on replenishing them.

I was joking. I don't actually believe Obama will personally fill in the Panama Canal or personally tip over the Leaning Tower of Pisa. I didn't realize people are stupid enough to take that seriously.

a one euro fee for entry would more than fund a "Save Venice from Sinking" project. It would be worth it.

If the money actually went for its intended purpose it might, Unfortunately much of the monies donated to worthy causes winds up lining the pockets of the administrators of these funds, The bureaucracy created by these types of charities siphon on a large part of the donations.

Hope you're right, zapper, but whether or not they'll be able to put any solution into action in sufficient time is more the question. They started paying serious attention to the floods sometime in the '60s after a very grave flood. The gates were proposed in the late '80s and still aren't due to be complete until sometime this year, *if* the project continues to be funded (and funding has been halted before, so that's a serious *if*). It stands to reason that any project of this magnitude, with major environmental impact, needs to be studied and planned carefully, but I understand that the amount of squabbling over what to do and how to do it has been a major cause for delay. It's taken so long to address the flooding situation, I hate to think how long they'll squabble about the sinking. I love the city too, so hope they find a solution *and* get moving on it.

Venice is real. Disney is fake. Simple.

Europe is expensive in general. If you don't like it, don't go.

I thought EuroDisney outside of Paris was the Disneyland of Europe...

In a past NOVA episode on Venice's "aqua alta" situation, Archaeologists discovered that Venice was rebuilt several times due to the sinking land. They would simply tear down the old structures and rebuild on the rubble. If the Venetians want to "save" the city, they should reconsider this past practice instead of trying to preserve the old buildings. After all, it worked for centuries past.

Follow the dollars supporting the report and that will be the "tell tale" to what this is really about. It is ignorant to think Scripps did this out of their own "heart." It was funded for a reason. It is also interesting to watch how we humans think we can alter mother nature.

Or a casino in Vegas...?

I love when people are actually...um...what is the term..... REALISTIC?????

The fact that people build houses where other ones used to be before they were washed away always amazes me. Those folks in New Orleans are idiots. And let's not forget about personal responsibility...you do not have to live in these places.

Venice isn't the first city that was claimed by the sea and it won't be the last. At least it is sinking slow enough for people to GTFO without doing the dead man's float.

William I cannot agree more...there are plenty of ruins under the ocean...head for high land, with a view...maybe not as romantic, but I like stable and a dry basement...

William Jenkins III: There is no such thing as a place that's free from nature's wrath. By your logic if your town is hit by a tornado you're an idiot to rebuild. If your town is hit by an earthquake you're an idiot to rebuild. If your town is flooded by torrential rain you're an idiot to rebuild. If you're town is flooded because of people (i.e., Army Corps of Engineers) who don't know how to build a fu*king flood wall you're an idiot to rebuild. And you DO know, don't you, that the majority of floods occur in places that are NOT in flood zones, don't you?? I'd love to know what city/town/village you live in b/c I'm certain it's had its share of natural and/or manmade disasters. If so, then you, sir, are an idiot to live there.

All wise thoughts Mrs. Wilberforce. However would you recommend crossing a freeway without looking to see what is coming before you do? Not all wise thoughts are prudent.

"Global warming" will expand growing seasons and people die more due to the cold than hot weather.

Oh yeah - only people advocating global warming can use generalized comments about warming weather. If anyone else tries to say these things then "extreme temperatures" are whined about instead to try to dispute positive effects of what global warming would do.

Global warming alarmists = fools. It is being promoted mostly by people who are financially rewarding themselves and filling their pocketbooks with large amounts of cash.

Is the Earth getting warmer? Sure. But I'm pretty sure "carbon taxes" being traded and "green energy" is big business and own't do a damn thing to stop it other than make Al Gore more money. Wake the hell up.

Too much rain, too little rain, too much snow, too little snow, too warm, too cold, etc. it all means THE END OF THE WORLD! BUY SOLAR PANELS AND WIND TURBINES NOW! They'll save you!

It's already too late. Any real effort will just soften the impact.

Good! Then something, with an IQ greater than yours, like a cockroach would take over the earth. Up until then I suppose you will just keep degrading the gene pool.

1. The GRACE web site reference - The "best" model we recommend is now based on Paulson et al (2007), with an uncertainty of +/- 20%.

reference - http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/data/pgr/

2. Data references for Greenland ice levels:

A. The latest - Rutgers University keeps track of snow cover around the world. Their data show as slight, but steadily increasing snow cover in Greenland since 1966. See graphs for the northern hemisphere as a whole here.

B. Three years ago a decade long study in Greenland indicated a TOTAL 0.05% DECREASE in ice volume. Here is the direct quote from the 13Nov2009 Science Daily article on Greenland ice loss. "Since 2000, the ice sheet has lost about 1500 Gt in total, representing on average a global sea level rise of about half a millimetre per year, or 5 mm since 2000."... Or about 0.020" a year or 0.2" since 2000...

C. Greenland had a multi-year survey conducted that concluded that its ice volume was 703,424 cubic miles or 2,931,000 cubic kilometers during 1999. This was verified by previous surveys that indicated Greenland's ice volume had INCREASED by 10% over a 50+year period... see http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0092_greenland_ice_thickness/parca_paper1.pdf

3. The latest data on Antarcta...

A. A new surface mass balance (SMB) map of Antarctic shows no significant trend for the period 1979-2010. Note that this is a modeling study, but the authors claim it is in good agreement with 750 surface measuring stations. See full paper and graphics here.

B.

3. B. Antarctica reached the highest levels of ice coverage and volume ever recorded in 2007. And the average Antarctica temperature has DECREASED during the last 40+years... According to; NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, SMMR, & SSMI...

C. The lastest sea ice coverage for Antarctica is ABOVE the normal for the last 30+years and has been for months. see http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png

We've been through this before. The fact is, the GRACE satellites do have the sensitivity to measure changes in mass as small as a few billion tons. And even though the Greenland ice cap might take thousands of years to fully melt at the current rate, what's going to happen a century from now if the melt rate is much higher than it is now? Predictions of a 3 to 6 foot sea level rise in the next century account for both increased melt rates and thermal expansion.

Also, the "20% error" in GRACE data only applies to "post-glacial rebound (PGR)," not to actual ice loss. PGR is high in some areas (such as northern Canada) that were covered by ice during the last ice age, but are now uncovered. Greenland, on the other hand, has been covered with ice for millions of years.

EricH-3359508,

The GRACE researchers have stated that their base data has a 2mm ERROR that covers the entire earths surface. Due to the ACCEPTED +/-20% of the PGR...

Where is your reference that states that GRACE has the accuracy to identify a 100-cubic mile ice lose out of a total quantity of OVER 8.4-MILLION Cubic miles of ice contained in Greenland and Antarctica...

I have given you the information from the GRACE web site and their direct quote, prior to this...

Or are you just another AGW shill with ZERO references...

im just sayin, if venice did sink (not that'll happen anytime soon) but if it did, that would make one hell of a diving trip!

Of course I'm not a shill. The PGR correction of about 2 mm/yr translates into just a few billion tons [700,000 sq mi (Greenland) x (1609 m/mi)^2 x 0.002 x 1 ton/cubic meter = 3.6 billion tons]; much less than the estimated annual ice loss of something like 200 to 300 billion tons, and is therefore insignificant. The ability of GRACE to measure distance changes as small as 10 micrometers can be directly translated into a mass sensitivity of a few billion tons using fairly simple physics. This is exactly what the GRACE satellites are designed to do; so my references are to NASA itself and the universities involved in analyzing the data. You have not given any references to the contrary, because you misunderstand the PGR correction.

EricH-3359508,

Your math is flawed and you left out the Antarctica ice coverage...

The GRACE article stated that Greenland and Antarctica combined were losing 100+cubic miles of ice on average every year for the last DECADE...

Greenland - 836,109 square miles...

Antarctica - 5,405,430 square miles, with approx 100,00 square miles ice free...

Accepted error of 2mm or 0.787" just from the PGR...

[836,109 + 5,305,430 square miles] X 0.787"error / 63,360"/mile = 75.6 cubic mile error rate just from the PGR...

That's not correct because 2 mm is 0.0787 inches (10 times less than you stated). It's also not reasonable to include all of Antarctica, because as you pointed out, most of Antarctica is not yet melting at a significant rate, which is confirmed by the GRACE data. According to NASA Project Scientist Michael Watkins of JPL, “We realized early on in the design of GRACE that we could measure the gravity field well enough to observe the critical indicators of climate change – sea level rise and polar ice melt.” I have not seen anything that would dispute that claim, or that would suggest an overall error in ice melt of more than a few percent.

Unless your real name is e.e. cummins or your SHIFT KEY isn't working, I believe you. And being stupid yourself gives you no right to claim the same for your fellow citizens.

Brian,

Look at this from another angle. The Scripps report looks at TEN years of data to make a conclusion that shows Venice sinking at a rate 500% higher than THREE HUNDRED years of data. That's like flipping a coin 10 times vs. 300 times and then concluding heads comes up more than twice as often because you got 7 heads vs 3 tails out of your 10 trials and ignoring that in the 300 trials you had 157 heads vs. 153 tails. When it comes to scientific inquiries, more is better and the Venetian records having 3000% more data points to work with is going to give you a far more accurate picture.

So while it is true that you don't want to include another set of data points from a different observer/study, before you make an announcement, you might want to double check your results to make sure YOU didn't create some observational error, especially when you are prepared to contradict a much larger, more expansive study.

Well of course you are going to compare after your study is complete. And the whole 10 years vs 300 hundred years is kind of apples to oranges. I'm sure the 10 year techniques are much more accurate then the data that was collected 50, 100, 200 hundred years ago. Just as I'm sure that the rate of sink probably hasn't been steady for 300 years. The historical data may not even have been able to distinguish between sink rate and sea level variations. The point being, I would trust the ten year study more then ancient data. And I'm sure there are also other more modern studies they have look at too.

There could be plenty of reasons that they are seeing a larger sink rate now. Like bad data(on either side), deteriorating pilings(wooden logs), sea level, pollution, etc, etc, etc... And the whole flipping a coin thing doesn't really apply. While I sure people of 300 years ago could accurately record coin flips, I'm not sure the same could be said for measuring the sink rate.

I guess the point of all this is that with better technology you get better results. This holds across a whole spectrum of scientific study when modern results are compared to historical results.

You need that long justification for sitting on your butt and ignoring the whole thing?

While it's true that the Earth is currently in a favorable period of low orbital eccentricity (which prevents it from getting too far from the Sun during certain times of year), the Earth has not gotten closer to the Sun on average by more than a tiny amount (if at all) during the past century or so of global warming.