Well, since last Friday some 270 square miles (700 square kilometers) of ice have dropped into the sea, according to satellite imagery.

The ice shelf which is as big as Jamaica is now expected to lose more.

Over the next several weeks, scientists estimate the Wilkins shelf will lose some 1,300 square miles (3,370 square kilometers) — a piece larger than the state of Rhode Island, or two-thirds the size of Luxembourg.

Almost certainly, this is not just a canary in the coal mine. More like the preamble to the routine melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet as has happened 60 times before in the past few million years.

Anyway, here are the pictures. The first two are from the previous post:

Figure 1: Wilkins ice bridge 31 March, 2009

Figure 2: Collapsed ice bridge 6 April, 2009

This is what it looked like on 27 April:

Figure 3: Wilkins ice shelf 27 April, 2009

Even though it must be dark down there by now, with the European Space Agency satellite we have a ring-side view.

Update: Here’s a zoom in on the Wilkins area from the map at Wikipedia:

For a proper orientation, look at Dorsey Island in Figure 3 above. On this map it must be the island just to the right of the words “WILKINS SOUND”.

The first article is a muddle of mixing up sea ice east and west, ice sheets east and west, and not a mention of the Antarctic Peninsula. The second is more informative, but contains some straight errors. On the day I heard quoted scientist Ian Allison saying multiple times on the ABC that overall the continent was in fact losing ice. Harry Clark does a good job on these articles, on the Australian’s promotion of the Ian Plimer book and what he calls “a truly monstrous piece of distortion by Christopher Pearson.” Incredibly, Pearson sees Plimer as the watershed in the AGW debate:

As far as the progress of what passes for national debate is concerned, in all likelihood 2009 will be seen as the turning point and divided into the pre and post-Plimer eras.

But he is just warming up when he said that. Unless you particularly want to keep up with the antics of the Oz tribe, I recommend you give the whole thing a miss.

Of much more interest, I think, is an article in the New Scientist which states that “the West Antarctic ice sheet has collapsed and regrown over 60 times in the past few million years” and reports on a new technique studying how such events occurred.

This research involves drilling two holes into the conglomerate and mud at a point in the south-east of the Ross ice shelf. This image shows the drill point together with the elevation profile of the continent along the red line:

Figure 1: Andrill team drilling site in Antarctica

The Andrill (Antarctic Geological Drilling project) team are trying to reconstruct how the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) collapsed and regrew with a view to developing a new improved model of ice sheet dynamics. They are particularly interested in how the warming water attacks the WAIS, the bedrock of which is largely under water. Richard Alley, who helped write the relevant section of the last IPCC report explains:

Those older models’ biggest weakness, he says, “is this business of warm water getting at the edge of the ice sheet and triggering changes that propagate inward”.

They have focussed on the Piliocene period, roughly 2-5 million years ago. They say in a paper published In Nature (behind the pay wall) that:

their model successfully reproduces the sequence of ice sheet collapses and expansions seen over the last 5 million years in the Andrill cores.

Along the way they had a look at what happened over 12,000 years about 1,080 million years ago:

Figure 2: Collapse and regrowth of WAIS from 1,084,000 years ago

They point out that when there was no ice sheet on West Antarctica CO2 levels were around 400 or 450ppm. DeConto and David Pollard of Pennsylvania State University are about to run their model into the future.

“I think that the numbers over the next 100 years or so are going to raise a few eyebrows,” DeConto warns.

Having cogitated on this issue for a while I’d venture a few comments.

During the middle of the period under study came the closure of the Panama Isthmus about 3 million years ago. While this is not as significant as the opening of the Drake passage between the Antarctic Peninsula and South America much earlier, which isolated the Antarctic continent, the joining of South and North America produced the important thermohaline circulation of modern times. I’m not sure how much difference that makes but it must be important in how heat is distributed around the planet.

Secondly, since the Pliocene we have been more in ice ages than out. During this time one would expect the East Antarctic ice sheet to have grown steadily. So the elevation should be higher and the ice sheet more stable than it was even a few million years ago. I suspect that the Greenland ice sheet (worth 7 metres of sea level rise) and the WAIS (5 metres) would proceed in tandem. After that further warming of a degree or a little more may not produce much decay in the EAIS (worth 57 mtetres). When it becomes seriously unstable, watch out.

It is probable, however, that if the WAIS collapsed completely there would be some significant net ice loss on the EAIS.

Finally, there is some comfort in the notion that the WAIS has collapsed and regrown 60 times in the past few million years while leaving the EAIS largely intact. The turnaraound happened with relatively mild climate forcings compared with what has been happening since mid last century. The notion that decaying ice sheets involve “runaway” processes is perhaps over-emphasised. Turning them around is no doubt difficult but it happened 125,000 years ago after a 4-6 metres sea level rise.

The Andrill research is to me a first step in getting a better handle on the processes of ice sheet decay and growth. It’s unlikely to be the last word.

In conclusion I’ll post an image of the subglacial topography I have used before:

Figure 3: Subglacial topography of Antarctica

The image is calibrated in feet. Blue is under sea level, green above. The Andrill team stress that WAIS is mainly about sea in contact with ice, the EAIS is about atmospheric processes.

Update: Here is an image of the sea ice extent and trends from The National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado:

Figure 4: Antarctic sea ice September maximum 2008

Please note that Greg Roberts seems to give more credence to a Russian sea captain than to legitimate scientists.

Where is it, what happened and what significance does it have?

The first is easy. The Wilkins ice shelf is between three islands off the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula:

Figure 1: Wilkins ice shelf – location

Here is a cropped map from Wikipedia showing more detail:

Figure 2: Wilkins Sound in context

The area immediately north of the thin bridge between Charcot and Latady Islands is shown as open sea. In fact it is covered in sea ice, remnant from earlier collapses and held in by the bridge. Following are two images from Earth Observatory (I’ve reversed the order):

Figure 3: Wilkins ice bridge 31 March, 2009

Figure 4: Collapsed ice bridge 6 April, 2009

The sun is at a different angle in Figure 4 showing up the gaps and cracks more clearly. Almost the whole ice bridge has broken up, not just the narrow bit. Some sizeable splinters are floating away to the south as newly carved icebergs.

Now have a look at this image via commenter mauri pelto at RealClimate. Focus on the crack above the word “Wilkins”. It was taken on April 2, before the collapse, and shows a large area of the ice shelf near Latady Island as already unstable.

Figure 6: Cracks near Latady Island

There is an animation of the collapse here courtesy of RealClimate.

This youtube is as good as any, though I suspect the footage predates this actual event.

Newsy.com has an interesting news take slipping in the ‘it could mean 6 metres of sea level rise by the end of the century’ meme.

The ice cliffs shown are said to be 60 feet high. On RN Breakfast Dr Ted Scambos said that the ice shelf was as high as a 70 storey building, meaning I think total thickness, which would figure with the 20 metres or so sticking out of the water.

At the time it cracked the bridge had thinned to about 500 metres at the narrowest point.

This is apparently the tenth major ice shelf collapse event in recent times and the closest to the South Pole. The shelf has been there for over 10,000 years.

Since it is floating ice the collapse means nothing in terms of immediate sea level rise. The usual story is that ice shelves buttress ice behind them and after they collapse glaciers are freed up and can flow up to 7 times faster. This happened where the Larsen B ice shelf collapsed. However, Wilkins has nothing much in the way of glaciers behind it. Nevertheless the area will obviously warm more if the ice is dispersed.

Some desperate to see a reason other than AGW have suggested volcanoes. Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate suggests that the maths on the heat involved just don’t add up.

Go here if you want to see what’s happening to sea ice coverage. In the west where the action is it’s reducing. The Antarctic continent is so large that generalisations about what’s happening to the whole area are pretty pointless. If you want to understand more about the sea ice, try Jinlun Zhang’s paper Increasing Antarctic sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions. The title may be all you need.

But overall I understand that both the sea and the land surface temperatures are warming in trend terms, although the picture in terms of time and place is a bit complex.

This is the long term situation according to new work by Eric Steig and others, described at RealClimate. They found that there has been warming in both west and east Antarctica. This is the sexy version of the image showing the quite distinct warming trend covering the whole of West Antarctica (from NASA Earth Laboratory):

Figure 7: Antarctic warming 1957-2006

That image also well illustrates why the West Antarctic (WAIS) and the East Antarctic ice sheets (EAIS) are considered separate ice sheets. EAIS has higher elevation and is much colder than WAIS.

That was for the period 1957 to 2006. Along the way there has been a cooling story, as can be seen from this image from the RealClimate post representing 1969-2000:

Figure 8a: Antarctic temperature anomalies 1969-2000

During the period of satellite instrumentation, this one (1982-2004) also from NASA also shows cooling:

Figure 8b: Antarctic temperature anomalies 1982-2004

The cooling period is associated with changed circulation patterns linked with large quantities of ozone from the 1970s.

A more recent version using improved techniques shows widespread warming over both land and sea for the period 1981-2007:

Figure 9: Antarctic temperature anomalies 1981-2007

This comment at RealClimate identifies the decadal temperature increases as 0.17C for WAIS, 0.1C for EAIS and 0.12C for global Antarctica. So Antarctica as a whole has warmed 0.6C in 50 years and WAIS 0.86C. This is significant but less than the 3C or more sometimes quoted.

This is where the ice shelves are:

Figure 10: Antarctic ice shelves

I understand that the ice shelves outside the Antarctic Peninsula are not yet seriously in play, but this is where it’s melting according to NASA from Wikipedia:

Figure 11: Antarctic melting

The top image shows the dates that areas of the Antarctic Ice Sheet started melting. The lower image shows the number of days that any area melted in 2005 This is summer surface melt measured by passive microwave satellite. “Started melting” means the first registered melt event by the satellite.

This one from Chris Rapley via The Oil Drum shows that it doesn’t snow much inland from the perimeter:

Figure 12: Antarctic precipitation

The colour scheme is not the best, but the precipitation is around the perimeter while the interior is desert.

This one from the same source shows where and how fast the ice flows:

Figure 13: Antarctic ice movement

Recently it has been discovered that there is a system of rivers and lakes under the ice sheet UNEP Year Book, 2009, Ch3:

Figure 14: Antarctic subglacial lakes

Not much volcanic activity shown there! Scientist don’t yet fully understand the implications of this subglacial water movement.

Finally, again from Rapley again we see the different topography of rock under the Antarctic Peninsular, the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) and the East Antarctic ice sheet.

Figure 15: Topography of subglacial Antarctica

Parts of WAIS are up to 2500 m below sea level.

I think it’s plain that the WAIS is vulnerable and that Wilkins is just part of a developing story with ice shelf collapses like canaries in the coal mine. The problem with WAIS is that it is exposed to and potentially undercut by warming waters, hence it could go more quickly than Greenland, which is roughly saucer shaped.

A recent article by Rignot et al (behind the pay wall) indicates a near zero ice loss for the EAIS, a 59% increase in the loss in the last 10 years to 2006 for the WAIS and a 140% increase for the Antarctic Peninsula. This article cites the Rignot article as indicating a 75% increase in the loss overall in 10 years.

Jo Romm at Climate progress says the ice loss from WAIS increased 75% from 2006 to 2007 alone. I can’t read the articles behind the pay wall, but I’d like to see that confirmed.

Certainly the Pine Island Glacier seems to be in trouble according to a report in Der Spiegel:

Satellite measurements taken between 1992 and 1996, though, show a loss of 1.6 meters in thickness per year on the Pine Island Glacier – a figure that represents 42 times the average melt of the past 4,700 years.

If the 2006-2007 melt stated at Climate Progress is confirmed and continues at a similar rate in say the next 5 years, then the situation is alarming. Certainly my estimate last year of two metres by 2100 which is bad enough would have to be revised. Here’s another thought. A recent study by Stammer reckons that a flux of meltwater will take 50 years or more to have much effect the other side of the equator. A flux from Greenland could be 30 times greater in parts of the North Atlantic than in the Pacific. This image from the UNEP shows how it hugs the coast of the US:

Figure 16: Greenland meltwater dispersion 10 years later, from UNEP Year Book, 2009

If he’s right, bad news for New York, but the world might finally take global warming seriously.

BTW we’ve had Firetree flood maps but here’s a new toy. Wave your cursor over the map and go from there.

Tamino at Open Mind tracked down the source of the story.

According to Tamino the guy behind it all drew a trend line like this:

It seems to me that you can have any story you like if that is how you go about it. Please note that in the National Snow and Ice Center graph above, the reference line is the 1979-2000 average, not 1979.

The more important issue is the summer minimum ice coverage, not the winter maximum. In summer the sea is absorbs heat causing global warming and the female polar bears need ice for hunting to build up their weight for birthing and suckling. In terms of minima the news is bad as shown in this graph:

I used that graph in a post in June last year subsequently updated in September and again in November.

There is plenty of information in those posts but the best graph to show where the trend has come from and where it is going in relation to the projections of just a few years ago is shown in a graph from a Dr Sorteberg via Carbon Equity:

Ice coverage has been decreasing since the 1960s. In 2007 the trend line fell out of bed. There was a small recovery in 2008, as there was in 2006 from the then record low of 2005.

We need to keep in mind that “ice coverage” is defined at 15% coverage or more, quite a low standard. Also the ice is thinning rapidly. From memory it was about 3.5 metres thick in the 1960s compared with 1 metre in 2007. In 2008 the ice apparently thinned even more with an estimated further loss in volume of 10%. So the ultimate breakup of the ice in summer does seem possible in the near future.

While sea ice in the Antarctic does appear to be increasing this is no reason for celebration as the links provides by MikeM show. The bottom line appears to be that both the Greenland and the Antarctica ice sheets are losing mass. I went into some detail about this last July.

I’m not going to link to the original story, which you can get from Open Mind, nor to a less than edifying exchange on a local blog, linked from this comment.

I sometimes think deliberately misleading the public should be an indictable offense. But what do you do about the reckless, the careless, the ignorant and the muddle-headed?

Update 1: This graph shows the increase of atmospheric CO2 which kicks on from the 1950s. Dr Sorteberg’s graph suggests that there was a quick response in Arctic ice loss dating from that time. See comment below.

I used the graph in in this post. I’m sorry, I can’t recall it’s source.

Update 2: Following Huggy’s comment @ 4 (see also my comment @ 12) here is a graph showing sea ice age from 2007 to 2008 from my post of last November.

The white area, signifying ice coverage of 15-50%, has increased markedly within the basin, also an astonishing decrease in third-year plus ice. These are worries. If the increase in first-year stays to grow old, that’s good, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Since we last looked at the Arctic ice coverage the equinox has been passed, the sun has set and the sea is icing up again quite nicely considering the ice loss fell just short of the 2007 record.

Nevertheless, a record was probably broken and a serious one at that. The volume of the ice in 2008 was very likely lower than in 2007. I’ve used the terms “probably” and “likely” because as far as I can see they didn’t actually do a survey as they did in 2007 when they found much of the ice only a metre thick.

The problem can be seen in the markedly increased presence of one-year ice and areas where the coverage is less than 50%:

On the upside the young ice still reflects the heat of the sun. I would point out, however, that the criterion for coverage is ice >15%, so if you compare the white areas, signifying 15-50% the total reflectivity in 2007 and 2008 was probably similar.

On the downside it makes a longer term revival of the ice coverage well-nigh impossible. As Jay Zwally says:

“The reason volume is so important is new ice can’t get thick enough in the winter to survive next summer’s melting,” he says. “It takes seven to eight years for sea ice to reach its equilibrium thickness of around four to five meters.”

This may auger well for shipping, but not so well for release of methane clathrates.

And now a new study finds that blame can be attributed directly to humans for the warming of the polar caps.

Yes, the Antarctic is warming too.

Yet another study has found a rising frequency and intensity of arctic storms over the last half century. This is attributed to increasingly warmer waters and results in the acceleration of the rate of arctic sea ice drift out into the warmer North Atlantic waters.

It also involved deeper mixing of ocean levels. Sirpa Hakkinen, one of the scientists involved, seemed to be a bit excited about the potential of this to increase carbon storage in the ocean. Personally I can’t see any joy over increasing acidity of the ocean, nor over the presumed likelihood that deeper mixing might promote the release of methane.

And it indicates the presence of a positive feedback loop. Warmer waters lead to increased storminess, which leads to loss of sea ice to the North Atlantic which leads to warmer waters. What we need is cooler water coming in the Bering Strait end, which means a cooler Pacific, which means a cooler everything.

West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well under way, it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely within a century. (Emphasis added)

He said the same thing in his 2008 testimony to Congress.

Now scientists at Colorado, Montana and Scripps (Pfeffer et al) have suggested that two metres, while possible, is extremely unlikely. 80 centimetres is “more plausible”. More than 2 metres would be physically impossible.

There have been reports of this research all over the world, but the simplest explanation I’ve found is (would you believe) from the Zimbabwe Star:

A new Colorado University study has pegged rise in sea levels to six feet by 2100, rather than the 20 feet feared by some scientists.

Calculations were made using conservative, medium and extreme glaciological assumptions for sea rise expected from Greenland, Antarctica and smaller glaciers, the three primary contributors to sea rise. [Actually they include a fourth - thermal expansion - which at 30cm is the largest factor in their preferred scenario.]

The survey team concluded the most plausible scenario, when factoring in thermal expansion due to warming waters, will lead to a total sea level rise of roughly three to to six feet by 2100.

The team found that some of the very large predictions of sea level rise are unlikely, because there is simply no way to move the ice or the water into the ocean that quickly.

They began the study by postulating future sea level rise at about two metres by 2100 produced only by Greenland.

For Greenland alone to raise sea level by two metres by 2100, they said, all of the outlet glaciers involved would need to move more than three times faster than the fastest outlet glaciers ever observed, or more than 70 times faster than they presently move.

The study concluded the outlet glaciers would have to start moving that fast today, not 10 years from now.

Pfeffer et al do a pretty good job at analysing the ice dynamics of Greenland. Essentially their contention is that given the bedrock topography, which is like a saucer, ice that melts or is destabilised by moulins needs to pass through gateways where it comes in contact with the sea. The problem is illustrated as follows:

Greenland glacier gates

I gather the marine gates, marked in dark green, are the important ones.

While we’re at it here is an image showing the shape of the rock as such:

Rock under Greenland ice

This is the corresponding image loaded with ice:

Greenland loaded with ice

Those images are from here.

You can also see the bare bedrock image spinning.

Pfeffer et al begin by calculating the glacier speeded etc you’d need for 2m and 5m from Greenland alone. If we assume that there would be a corresponding melt in Antarctica, which is reasonable, and taking into account the the other main sources – thermal expansion and other glaciers and ice caps (GIC) – we’d be looking at 5m and perhaps 11m. No-one is seriously suggesting sea level rise of this kind by 2100.

Then they work out three scenarios, two low at about 80cm and one high at 2m. The second low one makes most sense. They simply take “presently observed rates of change” and project them forward. This gives the following values:

Greenland – 16.5cm

Antarctica – 12.8cm

GIC – 24cm

Thermal expansion – 30cm

Total – 83.3cm

This is less than the midpoint of the range (50cm to 140cm) Rahmstorf came up with when he did a similar linear projection of historic trends.

Nowhere do they give their assumptions about how much warming there is going to be. It’s a fair bet that they are taking IPCC estimates of a midpoint of 3C with BAU (business as usual).

But when we looked at Hansen et al we found that he believes that the temperature increase for doubling CO2 (about 550ppm) will be 6C when long-term feedbacks are taken into account, such as the loss of albedo as ice melts. Certainly his ideas would seem to explain what is happening in the real world, especially in the Arctic.

The problem is that if you get to 6C you’ll almost certainly get more, because along the way you’ll trigger various tipping points, such as the release of methane clathrates from the sea, methane from land-based bogs, destruction of the Amazon etc.

Their high scenario is divides like this:

Greenland – 53.8cm

Antarctica – 61.9cm

GIC – 55.1cm

Thermal expansion – 30cm

Total – 200.8cm

I understand that 55.1cm for GIC implies that all glaciers and ice caps other than those in the ice sheets will melt completely by 2100. I believe this is plausible and likely. That already gives us 85cm with thermal expansion. Two metres doesn’t seem a big stretch.

Pfeffer et al point out that little is known about the dynamics of ice movement in Antarctica and GIC, but they seem to assume that they are constrained in a manner similar to Greenland. But we know that Antarctica is very different.

Again they set up straw men by pointing out that while the Pine Island/Thwaites Glacier area in West Antarctica contains enough ice to push up sea levels 1.5m this would require the ice discharge to increase from 2km/year at present to 53.6km/yr.

Pfeffer et al also assume that the vast Ross and Filchner-Ronne ice sheets will last the century. Yet the Kiwis think that the Ross ice shelf has “collapsed in the past and had probably done so suddenly.” If it does then the melting of Antarctica could proceed much more rapidly.

As we saw in a post Greenland and Antarctica a lot of Antarctica is below sea level and the ice is in contact with the sea around the entire continent.

The ice shelves can be seen in the following image:

Antarctica ice shelves

This NASA image shows melt areas creeping inland.

NASA Antarctica melt

Particularly concerning is the matching of melting with the ice shelves. These shelves are being attacked from meltwater above and warmer ocean water from below.

This is a topographic map of Antarctica bedrock. I gather that it shows the levels in terms of current sea levels. The line between blue and green is zero. Purple is -5-10,000 feet. Note that parts of east Antarctica are also shown as being below sea level.

Antarctic bedrock

My feeling is that the Pfeffer et al make a legitimate point about constraints on melting of Greenland during the next century. If the blow torch of heating is applied, however, their top estimate of about 54cm by 2100 could be exceeded.

The bigger uncertainty applies to Antarctica, which, once it ‘tips’ or is seriously in play, could initially melt quite fast, up to a point. That point may be defined by what happened about 3 million years ago, when total sea level rose by about 25 metres (plus or minus 10) with temperatures 2-3C above now and CO2 levels much the same as now. At that point, given the elevation of the ice sheet on East Antarctica, its then separation from the sea, it’s isolation and micro-climate, there could be some stability in the face of further temperature rise of a degree or two.

It seems clear that if we do nothing about greenhouse gases then the 22nd century will be very ugly in terms of sea level change. The question is how rapidly will things proceed this century. In this comment climate scientist Roger Jones after studying the literature on Greenland for three weeks said that while it seems that Greenland has tipped “we should get at least one more generation out of shorefront properties on most unprotected coastal dunes.”

After that there would be no guarantees.

Prof Barry Brook’s comments at 23 and 24 on the same thread are worth noting beginning with:

my view, shared by many colleagues, is that there is already large and rapidly accumulating body of empirical and direct observational evidence for accelerated melting of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, occurring now.

He also said on this thread:

425-450 ppm CO2 does not necessarily guarantee an ice free world. It will almost certainly wipe out the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) and West Antarctica Ice Sheet (WAIS) at some future point (I’d bet sooner rather than later – anywhere between a few decades to a few centuries and we are likely to be committed to this already at 385 ppm). But not necessarily the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS), or at least not all of it.

My feeling is that sea level rise is going to turn non-linear at some point and that point could easily be before the century is out. I’d tentatively suggest that Hansen’s notion of two metres by 2100 is more likely than 80cm which seems to me the minimum.

There were other reports of the research at:

Climate Ark

Top News

Science daily

BBC

Times online

Science magazine

There are posts at:

Climate Progress

RealClimate

The Netherlands are planning their future:

Sea levels are expected to rise by over a metre before the year 2100, and up to four metres in 200 years time.

If memory serves, I think they settled on an 80cm to 1.3m forecast for 2100 (from the long comments thread at RealClimate.)

This is the last in a series I’ve done on sea level change:

Trouble at the top of the world

Scientific caution or climate change politics? the IPCC and sea level change

Hansen’s long view

Sea level rise: some real world implications

Greenland, Antarctica and sea level change

Arctic update

Peterc collected some good stuff at Greenlivingpedia

If I were approaching the series the one on “Sea level rise: some real world implications” would be a good place to start.

On the local scene this 7.30 Report item has more than passing relevance:

Victoria’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal have moved to prevent the building on six blocks of land on the state’s Gippsland coast, which has sent a shock wave of uncertainty through local councils across the country. The tribunal overturned planning permission for the six blocks in part because of the threat of flooding from climate change.

Finally here is the link to an interactive flood map so you can check what could happen anywhere you are likey to buy real estate.