Climate craziness of the week: 8°F by 2100, sea level rise to hit US coastal cities hard

From the hot and well above sea level University of Arizona, home of the world famous parking lot climate station, comes this zany press release:

Rising seas will affect major US coastal cities by 2100

This map shows where increases in sea level could affect the southern and Gulf coasts of the US. The colors indicate areas along the coast that are elevations of 1 meter or less (russet) or 6 meters or less (yellow) and have connectivity to the sea. Image: Jeremy Weiss, University of Arizona

Rising sea levels could threaten an average of 9 percent of the land within 180 U.S. coastal cities by 2100, according to new research led by University of Arizona scientists.

The Gulf and southern Atlantic coasts will be particularly hard hit. Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, Fla., and Virginia Beach, Va. could lose more than 10 percent of their land area by 2100.

The research is the first analysis of vulnerability to sea-level rise that includes every U.S. coastal city in the lower 48 with a population of 50,000 or more.

The latest scientific projections indicate that by 2100, the sea level will rise about 1 meter — or even more. One meter is about 3 feet.

At the current rate of global warming, sea level is projected to continue rising after 2100 by as much as 1 meter per century.

“According to the most recent sea-level-rise science, that’s where we’re heading,” said lead researcher Jeremy L. Weiss, a senior research specialist in the UA’s department of geosciences. “Impacts from sea-level rise could be erosion, temporary flooding and permanent inundation.”

The coastal municipalities the team identified had 40.5 million people living in them, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Twenty of those cities have more than 300,000 inhabitants.

Weiss and his colleagues examined how much land area from the 180 municipalities could be affected by 1 to 6 meters of sea-level rise.

“With the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the projections are that the global average temperature will be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present by 2100,” said Weiss, who is also a UA doctoral candidate in geosciences.

“That amount of warming will likely lock us into at least 4 to 6 meters of sea-level rise in subsequent centuries, because parts of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will slowly melt away like a block of ice on the sidewalk in the summertime.”

At 3 meters (almost 10 feet), on average more than 20 percent of land in those cities could be affected. Nine large cities, including Boston and New York, would have more than 10 percent of their current land area threatened. By 6 meters (about 20 feet), about one-third of the land area in U.S. coastal cities could be affected.

This map shows where increases in sea level could affect New Orleans, Virginia Beach, Va., Miami, Tampa, Fla., New York and Washington, D.C. The colors indicate areas along the coast that are elevations of 1 meter or less (russet) or 6 meters or less (yellow) and have connectivity to the sea. Credit: Jeremy Weiss, University of Arizona.

“Our work should help people plan with more certainty and to make decisions about what level of sea-level rise, and by implication, what level of global warming, is acceptable to their communities and neighbors,” said co-author Jonathan T. Overpeck, a UA professor of geosciences and of atmospheric sciences and co-director of UA’s Institute of the Environment.

Weiss, Overpeck and Ben Strauss of Climate Central in Princeton, N.J., will publish their paper, “Implications of Recent Sea Level Rise Science for Low-Elevation Areas in Coastal Cities of the Conterminous U.S.A.,” in Climatic Change Letters. The paper is scheduled to go online this week.

Weiss and Overpeck had previously developed maps of how increases in sea level could affect the U.S. coastline. Strauss suggested adding the boundaries of municipalities to focus on how rising seas would affect coastal towns and cities.

For the detailed maps needed for the new project, the researchers turned to the National Elevation Dataset produced by the U.S. Geological Survey. The NED provides a high-resolution digital database of elevations for the entire U.S.

The high resolution let Weiss and his colleagues identify the elevation of a piece of land as small as 30 meters (about 100 feet) on a side – about the size of an average house lot.

The researchers used the USGS database to create detailed digital maps of the U.S. coast that delineate what areas could be affected by 1 meter to 6 meters of sea-level rise. The researchers also added the boundaries for all municipalities with more than 50,000 people according to the 2000 U.S. Census.

To increase the accuracy of their maps, the team included all pieces of land that had a connection to the sea and excluded low-elevation areas that had no such connection. Rising seas do not just affect oceanfront property — water moves inland along channels, creeks, inlets and adjacent low-lying areas.

“Ours is the first national-scale data set that delineates these low-lying coastal areas for the entire lower 48 at this degree of spatial resolution,” Weiss said.

The NED data set has some uncertainty, particularly for estimating elevation changes of 1 meter or less. That means the researchers’ ability to identify the threat to any particular small piece of land is better for larger amounts of sea-level rise than for smaller amounts of sea-level rise, Weiss said.

“As better digital elevation models become available, we’ll be using those,” Weiss said. “The USGS is always improving the digital elevation models for the U.S.”

Overpeck said, “The main point of our work is to give people in our coastal towns and cities more information to work with as they decide how to deal with the growing problem of sea-level rise.”

###

Researcher contact information:
Jeremy Weiss
520-621-6144
jlweiss@email.arizona.edu

Jonathan Overpeck
520-907-6480
jto@u.arizona.edu

Additional maps of the effects of sea-level rise — UA Department of Geosciences Environmental Studies Laboratory http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/

=========================================================

I’ve already debunked a similar story about sea level rise:

Freaking out about NYC sea level rise is easy to do when you don’t pay attention to history

But let’s do the exercise again.

OK current rate of sea level rise from UC’s website is:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_global.jpg

Rate: 3.0 mm per year

2100-2011= 89 years

89 years * 3.0 mm/year = 267 mm

267 mm = 0.267 meter, or 10.51 inches, or .87 foot

1 meters – 0.267 meter = 0.73 meters short by 2100 at the current rate of sea level rise.

Let’s say the rate of sea level rise doubles:

we get 534 mm by 2100, still 0.46 meters short

Maybe the rate of sea level rise triples:

we get 801 mm by 2100, still 0.19 meters short

So far, there doesn’t seem to be any indication of accelerating sea level rise in the sea level data for the past 120 years. It seems rather linear, at 18.5 cm for the last 100 years.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/recent_sea_level_rise.png?w=537&h=373

This figure shows the change in annually averaged sea level at 23 geologically stable tide gauge sites with long-term records as selected by Douglas (1997). The thick dark line is a three-year moving average of the instrumental records. This data indicates a sea level rise of ~18.5 cm from 1900-2000. Source: Global warming art

The IPCC AR4 doesn’t seem to support 1 meter of sea level rise by 2100 either. While computer projections based on supposed temperature increases project out to 1 meter or more, the IPCC AR4 projections are much more conservative, at 20-60 centimeters.

Projection of sea-level rise from 1990 to 2100, based on IPCC temperature projections for three different emission scenarios. The sea-level range projected in the IPCC AR4 for these scenarios are shown for comparison in the bars on the bottom right. Also shown in red is observed sea-level From Vermeer 2009

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate Craziness of the Week, Sea level and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to Climate craziness of the week: 8°F by 2100, sea level rise to hit US coastal cities hard

  1. DCC says:

    Too bad I’m not on Jeremy’s thesis committee. I would flunk him. On the other hand, if he told the truth, Prof. Overpeck would flunk him. These stories are self-perpetuating.

  2. David Falkner says:

    So, 1 meter by 2100? Ok, a prediction. Expressing the rise of 1 meter a century per decade, you get 10 centimeters per decade, or a centimeter a year. Since the rate is less than half (30%) of that, how do you derive causation?

  3. Baa Humbug says:

    Jonathan Overpeck eh? Say no more.

  4. Rob Schneider says:

    Weiss’s (et. al.) work appears to be simply a mapping exercise. Shock finding is that people like to live and create cities near the sea, and sometimes those locations are a low elevations relative to the sea.

  5. John A says:

    Because of excessive water extraction, the city of Tokyo has subsided by 19 feet relative to sea level in the last 100 years. Where are the Japanese climate refugees?

  6. AdderW says:

    “According to the most recent sea-level-rise science…”

    say what ?

  7. Peter Miller says:

    Oh yawn!

    Just another unfounded climate scare story from academics seeking grant funding.

    I never understand why people buy houses on river flood plains or in coastal areas likely to hit by flooding from storms/hurricanes. These people are responsible for their own stupidity; does no one understand the concept of ‘caveat emptor’ (buyer beware) any more?

  8. Lew Skannen says:

    So … IF the sea levels rise at a ridiculously increased rate AND everyone stands around watching silently there might be problems.
    On the other hand Manhattan Island didn’t double in size just by itself…

    The warmists don’t just treat the general public like mindless drones, they really seem to believe that we are.

    Time to show a bit of non-drone initiative and boot these idiots out of our lives.

  9. jaypan says:

    Between this morning and noon we’ll have a temp increase of 5°C.
    Means 5K in 6 hours!
    Do you all agree that if this trend continues during the next 100 years, it makes their projections meaningless?
    Shouldn’t I draft a rebuttal based on my findings?
    Science is so easy nowadays.

  10. Peter Plail says:

    Is there any new climate science in this? As far as I can see all they are doing is drawing high resolution contour maps of certain coastal areas.

    It would be nice to see further contours added to show where land has already disappeared over, say, the last 80 years so that we can see what has actually happened, and then compare it with the familiar forecasts of doom.

  11. Ralph says:

    I have posted this before, but here goes again, because I still don’t buy this sea-level rise business.

    These are the cliffs east of Antalya, Turkey. The Med is a good model for sea level monitoring, because it has no tides to confuse the issue.

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antalya_undercut_lr.jpg

    Note the size of the wave-scoured undercut. The sea level is normally exactly level with the lower platform – I had to wait ages for a low swell to pass and reveal the lower platform. There is only one undercut, none above or below.

    For this undercut to form like this, with a very precise lower platform and single undercut, the sea level will have to have been very stable for some considerable time. For how long? Well this is an image of the calcite deposits that have formed on the cliff-face itself.

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Antalya_calcite_lr.jpg

    Now I think a calcite deposit that thick will take a long time to form. Say 500 years?? In which case, these cliffs have been in their present state (not retreating) for at least 500 years. So the undercut is at least 500 years old. So therefore sea levels have not changed for 500 years.

    The only wild card here is land movement. However, for sea levels to have really risen over the last centuries, then we must imagine a case where the land and sea have risen in precise unison – otherwise the undercut would be deformed. This is an unlikely state of affairs.

    In summary, the evidence from the Med seems to show that sea levels have been steady for some considerable time.

    .

  12. LittleOil says:

    Sydney Harbour will rise, Sydney Opera House will be surrounded by 10 metres of water!!
    http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/exhibitions/ecologic.php

  13. Jit says:

    Peter Miller:

    Correct. If you buy on a floodplain, you should expect to get wet. What is annoying is those types who buy houses in idyllic locations next to babbling rivers. Brilliant in summer for boating and dabbling your feet. Not so fun in winter – and you should hear them moan about getting flooded. Think, people!

    But, the present work seems to be telling prospective purchasers *not* to buy in low-lying areas near the sea. For the sceptic, this would seem a worthwhile gamble, especially if alarmism causes property prices to fall (not much chance of that, I’d say).

    You don’t have to be low-lying to be affected by the sea of course. Over here in Norfolk (UK) houses are constantly falling into the sea. The local council recently made an agreement to buy a load of ‘at risk’ houses so the owners could leave and start again. I have no sympathy. Don’t buy houses near soft cliffs. Don’t expect the public purse to buy a new house for you further inland when the cliff edge gets close.

  14. John Marshall says:

    We had a local BBC news report on Friday about flooding and commented that since the floods of 1953, which inundated the east coast of England killing over 300 people, the sea levels have risen 1.5 meters. I complained about this alarmist figure saying that the correct figure should be 3mm per year for 58 years, 174mm, or just over 6 inches. This was in case the BBC had got metric and imperial mixed up. So far no apology to those in the at risk area and no explanation as to where these figures came from.

  15. Ripper says:

    Ralph says:
    February 15, 2011 at 1:08 am

    Those pictures reminded me of the late great John Daly’s `Isle of the Dead’ benchmark in Tasmania.

    http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm

  16. Graham says:

    Australia’s (would any other nation stomach him?) Kevin (“greatest moral challenge of our time”) Rudd, and Greg (“cuckoo carbon price “) Combet will be relieved that those sea rises will be a world away from their new beach-side digs.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warmist_rudd_doesnt_fear_sea_level_rises_after_all/

  17. I wonder if these predictions are doom are more likely to be for swing states like Florida?

    Perhaps global warming will destroy Indiana corn crops?

  18. Steeptown says:

    Now I wonder who has peer reviewed the paper?

  19. Jimbo says:

    A 1 meter rise can easily be dealt with by using what we know as concrete as well as other measures such as stones and beach nourishment. Why is it that alarmists think human beings will simply sit and watch while the sea encroaches on their valuable real estate? We haven’t sat down and done nought in the past so why should we in the future?
    http://www.geography-site.co.uk/pages/physical/coastal/defences.html

  20. twawki says:

    Well Australias environment minister Greg Combet has just bought a beachfront house in Newcastle. Says a lot about his faith in the sea level rise ideology hes turning into government policy.

  21. Ryan says:

    I am sick and tired of hearing this sea level BS. If sea levels were rising remotely that fast it would be easy to detect. The test is simply to take the coastal maps made by the British navy over the last 200 years around the globe and simply compare sections of the maps between known landmarks on the coast. It would then be a simple matter to detect if any land at all had been lost to the sea over the last 50 years, and where. Simple, a child could do it (if he had time). Oh if only I had time – I would give them a paper that would debunk this nonsense. I’d start with Bangladesh – I reckon that sea-level nation could only have got bigger over the last half-century with the enormous amount of material brought down the Ganges delta.

    Fact is these disengenuous scientists know full well that if they took this simple approach they would be forced to admit there had actually been no significant net loss in land over the last 50 years (just as simple photographs of the Maldives have shown they have got bigger over the last 50 years). By making overly complicated satellite measurements these climate scientists can dress up their results with their own brand of snake-oil, whilst claiming those that those that challenge them are fools that simply don’t understand the “complexity” of their new science.

    That’s all these charlatans are – snake-oil salesmen, they play exactly the same tricks. They make me sick.

  22. Ryan says:

    You’ve got to laugh at those model preojection curves. Have you noticed that the projections all admit that the last 50 years of sea level rise have been completely linear, but assume that non-linearity will occur TOMORROW!

    Don’t you just get the strong feeling that the divergence from linear is something of a moveable feast for these model projections? It’s like one of those religions that predict the end of the world but find the need to keep postponing it every time they are proved wrong. But then we already knew that Team AGW were followers of a bizarre religious cult.

  23. Rod from Oz says:

    Ralph, nice picture and good observations. But you discount the future sea level rises caused by driving SUV’s and using airconditioning to keep warm/cold/alive. You have to be a greenie to understand these things. (sarc off)

  24. steveta_uk says:

    Any press release that has to inform its readers that “One meter is about 3 feet” is clearly aiming at total numpties (to use a recently overused term).

  25. Zorro says:

    Free swimming lessons for warmists. The rest of us will just get on with our lives.

  26. Bart says:

    Sea level rise *has* accelerated over the course of the 20th century, as you alude to yourself:

    (current) “Rate: 3.0 mm per year”

    and

    “So far, there doesn’t seem to be any indication of accelerating sea level rise in the sea level data for the past 120 years. It seems rather linear, at 18.5 cm for the last 100 years.”

    3.0 mm/yr (1993-2010) being more than 1.85 mm/yr (last 100 years). The acceleration is also clear from the figure you show about “recent sea level rise”, and it becomes even clearer when relating the current rise of 3 mm/yr to the changes in sea level over the thousands of years before:
    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/past-current-future-sea-level-rise-graphs/

    or from 1700 until the present:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Myth-8-Rising-sea-levels.html (fig 2)

  27. wayne says:

    “With the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions, the projections are that the global average temperature will be 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present by 2100,” said Weiss, who is also a UA doctoral candidate in geosciences.

    A doctoral candidate and team says… likely, may, could, if… they are indoctorating the new “scientists” well at the “University” of Arizona. That’s what kind of upcoming “experts” taught by computers and the web brings. At least they knew that one meter is about 3 feet. And published just after a year when England was at the same rural temperature is was in 1659.

    A °C a decade? Give me a break! Really sad. :-(

  28. JohnH says:

    Someone better tell Al Gore his sea front purchase was a waste of money.

    But they already have and he still won’t budge, tells you what he really believes !!!

  29. Bloke down the pub says:

    In the UK, whenever the media want to highlight sea level rise they show the South East coast and the erosion going on there. They always fail to point out though that most of the sea level change there is due to isostatic rebound from the melting of glacial ice. If they went to North West Scotland they would find the relative sea level there was actually falling.

  30. lowercasefred says:

    Some twit got a government grant to follow lines on topographic maps and calculate the area between two lines.

    This is “research”?

    I think we’ve found another place to cut the federal budget.

  31. Ryan says:

    And just to prove my point here is a map of the Ganges delta from 1908:-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GangesValley%26Plain.jpg

    http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Sundarbans+National+Park,+West+Bengal,+India&aq=1&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=12.113693,39.418945&ie=UTF8&hq=Sundarbans+National+Park&hnear=Sundarbans+National+Park,+West+Bengal,+India&ll=21.973614,88.895874&spn=2.246346,4.927368&z=8

    Even with these low res maps you will see that the delta has expanded significantly in the area due south of Dacca/Dhaka just to the West of Chittagong. Proper Navy maps from the period would show a lot more detail of course.

  32. Mike McMillan says:

    For the detailed maps needed for the new project, the researchers turned to the National Elevation Dataset produced by the U.S. Geological Survey.
    . . . 8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than present by 2100,” said Weiss, who is also a UA doctoral candidate in geosciences.

    U of Arizona is giving out PhD’s for coloring in USGS contour maps? I could do that with a crayola.

    From the hot and well above sea level University of Arizona, home of the world famous parking lot climate station . . .

    Anthony, you missed a bigger ‘home of.’
    It’s a home of the (wait for it) Hockey Stick. Malcolm Hughes, the ‘H’ of MBH98, is a professor at UAz, and he was, as CA points out, an adviser to Linah Ababneh, who accidentally shot down the Graybill tree ring series so heavily weighted in the hockey stick.

  33. AusieDan says:

    There has to be some deep intelligence here somewhere.
    These fairy stories start up and spread round the world very fast.
    Is somebody or some orgainsation master minding them, I wonder.
    Or are they just playing copycat, one from another?

    About a month ago, the Australian government released a similar survey and distributed it to all coastal Councils and all other interested administrative bodies.

    Nobody has taken any notice so far.
    We Ausies (Aussies? But where came the extra S – never mind).
    We Ausies are a complacent lot.
    The government expects that a number of very valuable properties will be inundated and hence become valueless in Sydney Harbour.
    The owners will not be pleased, particularly when the banks sit up and take notice.
    Will the banks continue to be willing to lend millions and millions per block to fund these delightful homes, when they will soon be completley under water or swept away by the next tide?

    But what’s that – senior politicans playing King Canut and buying up property soon to be flooded?
    Surely not?
    Then is this ocean rising stuff serious or just another fairy tale?

    Is AGW our last warning of the end of life on earth, or just another recipe for a big new tax?
    I really can’t decide – can you?
    (Back to the TV for me, I think).

  34. Edim says:

    I predict -1 m by 2100.

  35. marchesarosa says:

    One wonders how the world’s coastal dwellers dealt with sea level rise in the past centuries without the resort to current levels of hysteria.

    Infrastructure only has a limited life, after all. It eventually has to be renewed. Nothing stands still. We will continue to accommodate to the almost imperceptible changes in sea level as we always have — little by little and gradually.

    As has already been mentioned, in the modern era, thanks to our reclamation engineering skills, real estate is continually being built up from the waves rather than lost to them in the worlds coastal cities.

  36. Jose Suro says:

    “So let’s scare the living daylights out of coastal property owners and “sink” their property values, it wont affect our real estate prices here in Arizona.” The unmitigated gall of these people!

    For the last 30 years I’ve lived on the same island, anywhere from fifteen to one-hundred feet from saltwater. I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY SEA LEVEL RISE WHATSOEVER. But someone living hundreds of miles from the ocean is telling me I’m wrong? Pure, unadulterated poppycock. Are they experts in barrier island formation dynamics as well? I’ll bet good money they don’t even know what that is.

  37. KGuy says:

    What a job Jeremy Weiss has got! Spending all day colouring in maps, and getting paid for it! There’s a lot of money to be made out of AGW advocacy.

  38. John Brookes says:

    Ralph says:
    February 15, 2011 at 1:08 am

    You make the point that sea levels haven’t changed much in the last 500+years. You’ll find that James Hansen (shudder, make sign of cross) agrees with you entirely. In his book, “Storms of my Grandchildren”, he points out that stable sea levels were an important factor in the growth of civilisation.

  39. Robert says:

    Oh yawn!

    Just another unfounded climate scare story from academics seeking grant funding.

    I never understand why people buy houses on river flood plains or in coastal areas likely to hit by flooding from storms/hurricanes. These people are responsible for their own stupidity; does no one understand the concept of ‘caveat emptor’ (buyer beware) any more?

    I live next to a coastal area on a river flood plain, we call it the Netherlands.

  40. Don Keiller says:

    “According to the most recent sea-level-rise science, that’s where we’re heading,”

    Have they got centimetres confused with inches?

    3mm/year = 3″/year x 89 =267″ = 22.25 feet- Ah now we’re in Algore land!

  41. Richard111 says:

    Amazing predictions. For a 1 metre global sea level rise you need more than 400,000 cubic KILOmetres of ice to melt by 2100. That would show up as Amazon River size flows of water from the ice sheets on the land. The Amazon in spate produces 300,000 cubic metres of water PER SECOND! So if the flow of water is only 1 metre deep the width of the flow is 30 kilometres, banks will be over the horizon from each other. Anyone seen any signs of water flow from Antarctica or Greenland approaching anything near this magnitude? Just think of the MSM coverage if it did happen. :-)

  42. frederik wisse says:

    Hot news from the desert . It took the israelis 40 years to have reality sunken in with them , so there still is hope that before 2100 the miracle will happen and arizona will start to regreen . At this very moment the scientists there need some degreening . A simple application of a natural plant-chemical will do the trick , so greenhouse gassing may lead here to a cooling of the mind and more common sense . Mother nature is showing more checks and balances than a simple believer is willing to accept . For whom of these scientists is

  43. Billy Liar says:

    ‘There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.’

    Mark Twain, who made some wonderful projections of the length of the Mississipi.

  44. Theo Goodwin says:

    The bit about New Orleans is rather anticlimactic. The famous Ninth Ward that flooded during Katrina has always been four feet below sea-level. The old city, the Crescent City, is above sea-level.

  45. Ron Cram says:

    If these kinds of predictions ever affect property values, I’m buying along the coast of Texas and Florida!

  46. ozspeaksup says:

    I hope no plans to allow their kids to go to U of Arizona if this is the drivel they teach.
    and to the other aussies here, yeah funny that…all those pricey new marinas they are approving all over, while kicking the poor shak owners out of beach areas and rivers..
    it isnt climate science -its money and politics.
    flannerys crowd are doing their damndest to push agenda 21

  47. Ralph says:

    I believe it was in November 2010 our chief meteorologist at the local Tampa Florida Fox channel predicted we would have a mild winter due to the jet stream staying north of the state. It didn’t happen, temperatures couldn’t be predicted one month into the future, but temperature can be predicted 89 years into the future? Right.

  48. Ian says:

    Is it me, or have the authors got the red/yellow colours the wrong way round on their group of six projections? The single one, of Florida, at the top of the article seems to be the right way round, but the others?

  49. Ian says:

    Silly me! When I look again, only New Orleans is strange – due to the levees?

  50. Midwest Mark says:

    Over the past three days, snow has been melting in my front yard at an alarming rate! If it continues at this pace, we’ll likely not see another snow for nine or ten months!

  51. BradProp1 says:

    Another “Garbage In/Garbage Out” climate paper.

  52. R Taylor says:

    Further to the global compilation of sea level by U of Colorado, it is now 5 months behind on data that refresh about every 2 weeks. Do we need a Freedom of Information request? How much do taxpayers send to the University for such service? Is it just coincidence that the compilation is so late when the sea-surface temperature suggests the level has dropped?

  53. Marcos says:

    Didn’t Hansen predict back in the 90’s that the west side of NYC would be underwater by now?

    Anthony, how about an article (or series of articles) discussing alarmist predictions made in the 70’s, 80′ s, 90’s and if they were accurate or not?

  54. Pamela Gray says:

    First of all I am embarrassed for this Ph.D. candidate. To be forced to eat this gravy covered excrement in order to get more grants into his professor’s department must bash the soul.

    However, on the up side of this gravy covered excrement is this:
    Expansion of estuaries? And this is bad how? Plus we get a bonus: When the sea level goes back down again, we can re-plant this now enriched bottom land. I just don’t see a downside here. Nature has done this over and over again to our benefit. That some are saying WE are now forcing this entirely beneficial natural oscillation does not get me knickers in a twist.

  55. Latitude says:

    These people should be arrested and never see the light of day again…

    …that’s some of the most expensive real estate in the entire country

  56. Pascvaks says:

    “Rising Seas Will Affect Major US Coastal Cities” by 2100
    …..1……..2…….3……..4……….5……..6…….7……….8………9……10
    You really do have to admire these people. They got 80% of it Right.

  57. Ryan says:

    I got you. So what you do is “talk down” the value of beach-side property today using AGW theory and then in ten years time watch your property values rise as the doomsday scenario proves to be built on sand.

  58. thanks, used some of this info for a college assignment

    wish me luck!

  59. James Chamberlain says:

    Worry makes people open their wallet.

  60. Dave in Delaware says:

    This interview is a MUST READ in any discussion on sea level rise. Dr Mörner discusses trends in the 20th century (1.1 mm/yr), Pacific Islands such as Tuvalu, and below I have excerpted his discussion of satellite data ‘corrections’ to otherwise flat trend data.

    Interview: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
    Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud

    Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use.

    Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever

    Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge.

    It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the [Hong Kong] tide gauge.

    It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

    Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and
    Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.
    He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
    on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and
    leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has
    been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for
    some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on
    June 6 for EIR. [June 22, 2007]

  61. DD More says:

    Maybe the need to have these guys at AU take a few history classes.

    A more clearly-defined accelerated phase of sea level rise occurred between 14,600 to 13,500 years before present (termed “meltwater pulse 1A” or “MWP-1A” by Fairbanks in 1989), when sea level increased by some 16 to 24 m
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

    So during a high melt ‘Pulse’ when glaciers were KM thick, we get 1.96 m/yr. And now we are to get half that?

  62. ge0050 says:

    >>The test is simply to take the coastal maps made by the British navy over the last 200 years around the globe and simply compare sections of the maps between known landmarks on the coast<<

    We spend a year sailing in Tonga in the Pacific. The charts for that area were made by Bligh in the late 1700's. Yes, that Bligh.

    And guess what. The charts are accurate. The areas marked as less than 1 fathom of water still have less than one fathom of water. In fact, the amazing thing is how accurate the charts are, given the equipment they had at the time.

  63. Presumably, property values are now plummeting in Washington, NY, Tampa, Miami, et al. By 2100, Britain will be able to buy back the east coast of the USA for a knock-down price and the 13 States will be ours again!

  64. Hal says:

    Sad for the taxpayers of AZ who contribute towards this professor’s salary and department. A young mind of mush made mushier. Another thesis that should get tossed into the shredder bin of failed predictions.

  65. ge0050 says:

    ===============================================================
    FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND REAL ESTATE
    This private, peaceful ocean side haven offers bright blue waters and long stretches of beach, and is home to notables like Al Gore, John Edwards, and others who relish seclusion and natural surroundings. This 1,300 acre 5 mile island does not offer hotels, shopping centers, and tourism. However if bird watching, quiet walks and sunbathing is your strong suit you may find life here appealing. There are only 441 homes, no condos, but it does offer proximity to activity rich Wilmington, NC. Enjoy the myriad architectural styles of neatly cared for properties if you can get onto the island. If this is your style, Figure 8 Island may be your place.

  66. GARY KRAUSE says:

    Very sad for those with a legitimate degree from UA. Alumni might think about pulling funding to the university’s foundation. Even sadder that his doctoral committee would pass any defense to such garbage.

  67. Mike says:

    You know perfectly well sea level rise is not expected to be linear and that the IPCC 4 estimates did not include (and could not have included) recent work on the rate of melting of the Greenland ice sheets and parts of the Antarctic ice sheets. If you want to criticize the science go ahead. But simply asserting that your linear projection has anything to do with the real science is just silly.

  68. DesertYote says:

    This is a Doctoral Candidates research???

    You’ve got to be kidding me. This sounds more like a High School Science project to me. In fact, I was doing pretty much the same thing one weekend in about 2001, when my son was on a camping trip and I was board. All it took was finding the USGS elevation data set, a tool ( many OSS packages available) to convert to an elevation map, POVRay, and a little BASH to automate things. If this is an indication of the direction the direction our sciences are taking quality wise, we are doomed!

    It sure looks like we are headed to the world depicted in Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle , and Michael Flynn’s book “Fallen Angles”!

  69. Tony says:

    I’m sure it’s been mentioned here before, but this just occurred to me:

    Let’s assume that the sea level does, indeed, rise as predicted. As that occurs, the area covered by water will significantly increase, which means that it will take that much more water to achieve the next unit of rise. So as it continues, the rate of rise will have to slow down, not speed up.

    For proof – dig a hole with sloped sides and fill it with equal measured amounts of water. Each identical amount you add will cause a smaller increase in the total depth. It’s just basic geometry.

  70. Doug Proctor says:

    1. What is the latin term for extrapolation to absurdity, the opposite of reductio ad absurdum?

    2. The 3.0 mm/yr from 1994 is from satellite data. The hundred year 1.85 mm/yr is from 21 high-quality tidal stations (I suspect). Are we convinced that the sea-level proxy of satellite data is nailing the real-world of sea-level rise? One’s measurement, the other is math.

    Hansen/Gore say the rise is accelerating, as the 3.0 mm/yr can be interpreted. Within the 16 year time frame, it may be, but is that just a partial cycle of the overall 60-year solar cycle?

  71. Jeff K says:

    Good, I hope it happens, and happens fast. Then, when the seas cannot get any higher, maybe these grant prostitutes will stop crying, but I doubt it.

  72. RACookPE1978 says:

    Funny.

    These University of AZ “scientists” did not show any decrease in the land area for such critical cities as Buffalo NY, Cleveland OH, Chicago IL, Michigan, Toronto, Montreal, ….

    Didn’t they include a factor for the sudden melting of those 5000 ft high glaciers covering Montana and North Dakota? (After all, it’s happened before due to global warming!)

    /sarchasm – That gaping whole between an enviro and the truth.

  73. Dave Springer says:

    It’s just as likely sea levels will have declined by a meter in the 2100 due to the sun entering a quiet period in its longer cyclic activity reducing the magnetic shield which deflects galactic cosmic rays. More GCRs increase aerosol particles which increase the number of cloud-forming condensation nuclei which in turn produce more low level clouds which in turn raises global albedo which in turn causes global cooling which in turn builds up ice caps and glaciers which in turn lowers sea level.

    Sounds like a good null hypothesis to me.

    The truth of the matter is whatever happens won’t be known until it does happen and until we know what happens we don’t know how to deal with. Making the wrong call now and taking actions based upon that call will only make the problem worse if the call is wrong and waste valuable resources in the here and now which would be better spent fixing more immediate and certain concerns like energy production, fresh water supplies, phosphorus suppy for fertilizers, real pollution fouling up rivers lakes and oceans, global famine and disease… the list of real immediate problems goes on and on.

  74. DesertYote says:

    AusieDan
    February 15, 2011 at 3:23 am

    There has to be some deep intelligence here somewhere.
    These fairy stories start up and spread round the world very fast.
    Is somebody or some organization master minding them, I wonder.
    Or are they just playing copycat, one from another?
    ###
    The fuzzy answer is 0.5. That is yes and no. It does not take a conspiracy to create conspiracy like results. There are groups that plan tactics to push their agenda which includes messaging. This is used to create talking points, and research goals, all wrapped up in the concepts of “Social Relevancy”. Students are indoctrinated in the importance of “Socially Relevant” research. The messaging gets defined, the memo goes out, the funding gets allocated, the prof reveals the important issues (this week), suggests areas of study with some examples, and the brainwashed students take the bait thinking they are walking in the tradition of the great men of science for the benefit of man. Add to this the positive feed back provided by a filtering news media. And the result … A conspiracy with out any conspirators. I call it a pseudo-conspiracy.

  75. Dick Meyers says:

    What I’m about to ask has no basis in science at all but didn’t AlGore just purchase a multi-million dollar, 6br,, 5 bath, w/pool, mansion on a prime parcel of ocean front property in CA.?

    I wonder what he knows that he isn’t telling?

  76. JohnWho says:

    AdderW says:
    February 15, 2011 at 12:55 am
    “According to the most recent sea-level-rise science…”

    say what ?

    Evidentially, you did not get the memo where

    all the “sea-level-rise-scientists” agreed to the consensus.

    /grin

  77. Stephen Brown says:

    This site is worth a quick look, especially the pictures of All Saints Church from 1736 to 1930.
    http://www.dunwich.org.uk/
    But a little further south in England, we find this:-
    “As the debate ebbs and flows about the dangers of coastal erosion to Britain’s shores, archaeologists in Kent have discovered that parts of our Roman coastline lay two miles inland from today’s coast.”
    http://www.culture24.org.uk/history+%26+heritage/time/roman/art61315
    “Curiouser and curiouser” cried Alice!

  78. Dave Springer says:

    Tony says:
    February 15, 2011 at 8:12 am

    “Let’s assume that the sea level does, indeed, rise as predicted. As that occurs, the area covered by water will significantly increase, which means that it will take that much more water to achieve the next unit of rise. So as it continues, the rate of rise will have to slow down, not speed up.

    For proof – dig a hole with sloped sides and fill it with equal measured amounts of water. Each identical amount you add will cause a smaller increase in the total depth. It’s just basic geometry.”

    No proof needed for me. I have a home on the shore of a large artificial flood control reservior where the level rises and falls an average of 20 feet each year and when there are back to back drought years the change in water level is even greater. In big rain events I’ve seen the reservior rise by one foot per hour for 36 hours straight.

    Anyhow, when the lake is full it generally goes down about 1 foot a week providing water for downstream uses (agriculture, industry, and municipal) and generating electricity at each of 5 dams along the 100 mile chain of lakes. In a drought year where the lake level is already down at the beginning of the summer it falls far faster because the surface area is greatly reduced. Conversely smaller rain events will make it rise faster when starting from a lower level. If it’s down 40 feet each inch of rain will bring it up about twofeet but when it’s full an inch of rain will only make it rise one foot.

    Typically when it’s very dry in south central Texas the first 2-3 inches of a big rain event are soaked up by the dried out soil and don’t cause the reservoir to rise. Every inch after that goes straight to runoff.

  79. PJB says:

    @ Bart

    During the 6,000 years of “stasis” with that 0.7mm average rise in sea level, what were the rates of rise (and fall) of corresponding 100 year periods to the present acceleration of 3.0mm?
    Is it not possible that the current variation is part of the normal fluctuations of the vagaries of planetary climate during an inter-glacial?

    Were we to restrict climate science predictions in their use of “could”, “might” and “possibly”, would they still be able to create full sentences?

  80. Snake Oil Baron says:

    WOLF!!!!!!!!!

    If you were a young home owner somewhere near the coast and you were told that your house would be ringed in barnacles and coral before your grand kids reached old age would you care about examining the science and data of the issue or would you just open your wallet, vote against anyone wanting to defund climate schemes and scowl at all those wretched greedy industrialists who don’t care about flooding you out? By certain standards, this was a well done piece of work.

  81. R. de Haan says:

    Climate lunatics.

  82. P.G. Sharrow says:

    The University of Arizona! They can’t even read their own graph. The rate of sea level is not accelerating, it is slowing down. A totally land locked college, they can make up their own data. Create computer simulations based on suppositions. This must be a computer graphic design course. Some body made a mistake on the door signage. Oh yeh climate science is a make it up course. pg

  83. Cassandra King says:

    I suppose that when sea levels start to fall the CAGW alarmists will claim that they predicted this all along and their models are validated yet again.

    You can just see the headlines, ‘sea levels falling, IPPC projections proven right’ and ‘models were right all along falling sea levels prove global warming’. If something happens contrary to expectations just claim you knew it all along.

  84. Steve Oregon says:

    Although I’m 57 now, I’ll still around in 2100 to see what happens.

    And since you’ll all be dead you have no way to prove I won’t be.

  85. Frank K. says:

    AdderW says:
    February 15, 2011 at 12:55 am

    “According to the most recent sea-level-rise science…”

    say what ?

    Sea level science = Surfing. Cowabunga!!

    A note to those who wish to measure millimeter scale increases in sea surface height. Take your meter stick to the beach, wade into the ocean a depth of less than a meter, and place one end of the stick on the ocean floor. Squint at the stick and record the level of the ocean to +/- 1 mm. You may have to interpolate if the water level is a bit “unstable”. Good luck! And please send your findings to NOAA, 10 CAGW Lane, Washington, DC.

  86. Steve McGuirk says:

    Climate change is not weather. We are at 389 part per million CO2, highest recored amount in 400,000 years and on track to reach 700 by end of the this century. 12 independent climate models show very similar results in our changing of the climate. Loosing a little shore line is the least of my worries. A sound bit you should take with you is: “If we reach 450 bpi of CO2 it is likely not reversible and predicted to be reached within twenty years.” Yes in twenty years!

    Why are most of the comments about the study trying to debunk it? So we heat up, what does that mean? Look at Venus, it should only be 60 degrees warmer than the Earth due to it being closer to the sun, it is not it is 600 degrees warmer. Is there a point of no return? And if not, what is wrong with getting more miles per gallon from our cars? Why not choice for better milage and not destroy the Earth. Change is being pointed out from the research and the theories. Either our habits change or we change the planet. And the planet change does not look good. Repeating of Easter Island but this time the whole planet.

    Money seem to be a concern. People getting grants to do research, oh my! World wide economy is at US$74.00 trillion. Why not understand a potentially end of planet process? It is real, damn it. So we spend a billion on the studies, we lost 4 billion in cash alone in Iraq, yes cash, no trail. Pulling back a 1000 soliders from our 30,000 in Afganistan could pay the tab. This kind of research is cheap, measurements and computer calculations. I have no dog in this fight, I sell furniture and run a soccer organization as a volunteer.

  87. G. Karst says:

    Here is a standing offer! Those who are frightened about coastal flooding and the validity of these projections, I will purchase any and all dry, developed properties, soon to be completely undated, for 2 cents on the dollar. I expect my phone to be ringing off the hook as these properties will soon be worthless. Al Gore should move quickly and take my offer, before it is too late. No need to thank me, just send me the deed, for cash, cash, cash!! Hope this makes it past the spam filter. GK

  88. Billy Liar says:

    Doug Proctor says:
    February 15, 2011 at 8:17 am

    1. What is the latin term for extrapolation to absurdity, the opposite of reductio ad absurdum?

    Extrapolatio ad absurdum.

    I’ve just created a new Professorship, the Mark Twain Chair of Extrapolatio ad Absurdum. The position only pays a penny a year but I suspect the post-holder would be able to extrapolate that to an alarmingly large number with ease.

    The guys at UofA are in the frame.

    See: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/twain.htm

  89. George E. Smith says:

    I need some new eyes.

    Looking at that University of Colorado 2010_Re15/Rel5 picture, my presently distorted eyes say that from at least as far back as 2002, the sea level rise has been accelerating at a faster downward slope; well actually, make that 1998 rather than 2002; even MY eyes aren’t that bad.

    He gets a G for “Gimme a break !”

    But I did learn one useful thing from the article; a metre is about 3 feet; excuse me, make that “meter” so Chasmod doesn’t complane about my spelling.

    Now I have no idea just what is going to happen over the next year/decade/century as regards, ANY aspect of weather or climate; but I have some good advice for coastal dwellers. It’s the same good advice, that my ancestors gave to King Canute:-

    Move the throne back from the water line Mate !

  90. Al Gored says:

    I think I just got my PhD in the Catastrophic Sciences.

    Based on my own models, which project a 10.03 meter sea level rise by March 12, 2108, I have coloured all the appropriate map contour lines very neatly – yes, kept my crayon marks inside the lines – and I can now be a UN advisor or qualified expert.

    I thought that, as a regular WUWT reader, that I should announce my groundbreaking, or perhaps windbreaking, work here rather than in the prestigious USA Today or the almost as prestigious Journal of Imaginary Scary Scenarios.

    Thank you. Thank you very much.

    P.S. ge0050 says:
    February 15, 2011 at 7:48 am

    “FIGURE EIGHT ISLAND REAL ESTATE
    This private, peaceful ocean side haven offers bright blue waters and long stretches of beach, and is home to notables like Al Gore, John Edwards…”

    Gore and Edwards. Now that we know about the real Edwards, they appear to be perfect neighbors.

  91. Al Gored says:

    Steve McGuirk says:
    February 15, 2011 at 9:43 am

    “World wide economy is at US$74.00 trillion. ”

    Interesting. If your stat is correct, the US national debt is now equal to 20% of the world GDP. What could possibly go wrong?

    So, by all means, lets shovel borrowed money to anyone with a catchy ‘I’ll save you from climate change’ story because, after all, that is the real threat [sarc].

  92. George E. Smith says:

    “”””” Ian says:
    February 15, 2011 at 5:17 am
    Silly me! When I look again, only New Orleans is strange – due to the levees? “””””

    Don’t worry about New Orleans Ian, they will just have the Army Corps of Engineers come in, and build the dikes higher; so that the next Katrina will fill the swimming pool with a deeper layer of water. And the folks there will still be sitting around asking “wha’ happened ?”

    NO was a French Idea wasn’t it ?

  93. biddyb says:

    Aren’t they gearing up for the next AR5 report. This will be peer-reviewed, published and accepted mantra ready for inclusion in the report to demonstrate theat they are/were right all along.

  94. Ric Werme says:

    Steve McGuirk says:
    February 15, 2011 at 9:43 am

    > Look at Venus, it should only be 60 degrees warmer than the Earth due to it being closer to the sun, it is not it is 600 degrees warmer.

    As discussed here ad nauseum several months ago, the better comparison is between
    the surface of the Earth at a pressure of 1 bar, and the upper atmosphere of Venus at a pressure of 1 bar. The temperature of the surface of Venus is much higher than Earth’s due to the thick atmosphere and the adiabatic lapse rate.

    An aside – I think my Web host issues are under control for the time being. Yay.

  95. Sam Glasser says:

    A great Paper – if what was predicted does actually happen. I have only one criticism: Weiss seems to have left out the end of one phrase – which in its entirety should have read: “At the current rate of global warming, which is zero, sea level is ………….”
    I think a different conclusion is warranted!

  96. David Jay says:

    Steve McGuirk says:
    February 15, 2011 at 9:43 am

    “…12 independent climate models show very similar results…”

    Well there you have it – the models all agree. There is no further need for actual measurements!

  97. harrywr2 says:

    Steve McGuirk says:
    February 15, 2011 at 9:43 am
    “We are at 389 part per million CO2, highest recored amount in 400,000 years and on track to reach 700 by end of the this century”

    Please inform me of the exact location where the amount of economically extractable coal (less then $100 ton delivered to market) necessary to push CO2 to 700 ppm by 2100 is located.

    How much actually coal exists is irrelevant, nobody is going to pay for coal what they pay for diamonds.

    It obviously doesn’t exist anywhere in Asia as the benchmark price for steam coal is currently $120. It doesn’t exist in Europe either, as the benchmark price of steam coal in Europe is about $110/tonne. It doesn’t exist in Africa either as the current price of steam coal is over $100/tonne there as well.

  98. Theo Goodwin says:

    Ron Cram says:
    February 15, 2011 at 4:58 am
    “If these kinds of predictions ever affect property values, I’m buying along the coast of Texas and Florida!”

    Buy along Florida. The quality of the beaches is unbelievably higher.

  99. Baa Humbug says:
    February 15, 2011 at 12:43 am
    Jonathan Overpeck eh? Say no more.

    Yep, as soon as I saw that name I thought the same thing!

  100. Gary Pearse says:

    Time to fit the sea level curve to a polynomial fit. It is flattening and the sea is getting cooler.

  101. Steven Kopits says:

    In lower Manhattan, Water Street is today two blocks from the water on the east side.

    On the west side of downtown Manhattan, they discovered ships remain on the World Trade Center site when excavating to pour the new foundations. The WTC is two blocks from the water.

  102. Milwaukee Bob says:

    Wow! Cool! According to the map of the Tampa area, my property will be ocean front (or at least, “view”) property in a few short years. Hey, I’m holding out for a higher price if I decide to sell. /sarc

    Now, back to reality. Nothing to see here folks, nothing to worry about, just keep moving along. Just a bunch of con men, opps, sorry – mad scientists trying to scaremonger you into forking over more of your hard earned money for their pet project. For my part, I’ll trust in what the military “knows” about the water that surrounds them on three sides down there at MacDill AFB that sits on the end of that peninsula there south of Tampa. Not to say it can’t be moved “in time” but they did just spend millions on new facilities relating to U.S. Central Command and Special Operations Command, making it one of the most important military installations anywhere in the world. You’ll have to trust me on how I know they keep a close eye on the water around them and that they are not worried about “sea level rise” except in the case of a Cat 4-5 hurricane coming up the mouth of Tampa Bay, as one did in 1921 and yes, that area was “under” water for a short time. Killed a lot of rattlesnakes. The area has a long history of being occupied going back to Native Americans long before the white man arrived and the water level has not changed measurably according to the Air Force.
    http://www.macdill.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123168664

  103. Steve says:

    Mr. McGuirk gives a good example of the standard warmist propaganda. We really ought to have a bulleted list dealing with each one of those, with citations. The archives won’t really be searched. People really believe that stuff!

  104. TonyK says:

    Stephen Brown says:
    parts of our Roman coastline lay two miles inland from today’s coast

    Absolutely right! I posted a comment similar to this on another thread a few weeks ago, but I think it bears repeating here. A little way along the coast from me here in the southern UK is Fishbourne Roman Palace (or at least the remains of it – the mosaic floors are amazing). You can see the surroundings if you access the Ordnance Survey Get a Map service (free), here:-

    http://getamap.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/getamap/frames.htm

    Put the postcode in (PO19 3QR) and you’ll see a little map of the area. You will also see the contour lines. Look very closely (best if you save the map) and you’ll see the 5 metre line right down by the sea inlet. The 10 metre one is up near the main (red) road towards the top of the map. The actual remains of the palace are at about 7 metres above sea level. Why is this important? Because if you visit, you’ll see maps and models depicting the palace as it was when built – with the sea inlet right next to its walls. In fact, there was a jetty right there where sea-going vessels could moor. At this time the palace was some two or three metres above sea level. Now it’s about seven metres! If sea level has been increasing inexorably for two thousand years since Roman times, the remains should be under water by now. My point? There must be many places like this, where the changes to local ground level make any changes to sea level insignificant.

  105. Sleepalot says:

    Their 1 metre map is wrong. They show Bowness Common, Cumbria, UK to be entirely below 1 metre when in fact it rises to 24 metres, and I can count (on my Ordnance Survey map) 16 1km squares that are wholly above 10 metres.

    Bowness is here…
    http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=england&aq=&sll=40.596749,-73.880568&sspn=0.01789,0.031972&gl=uk&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=England,+United+Kingdom&ll=54.927635,-3.244572&spn=0.054152,0.127888&z=13&iwloc=A

  106. Dave Wendt says:

    Steve McGuirk says:
    February 15, 2011 at 9:43 am

    Hey buddy, find yourself a comfy chair, do about 20 deep breaths, all the way in and all the way out, and try to relax. Nothing in even the worst case scenarios posited in this farce is going to “end the planet”. The 390 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere currently is indeed the highest we have ever measured, but we’ve only really been measuring it for a little over half a century. Those measurements seem to be accurate, but they are almost all based on a single methodology which is sufficiently problematic, that there remains a small, but not entirely insignificant, possibility that some bright boy in the near or distant future may prove they’re erroneous. I wouldn’t hold my breath for that but the possibility remains. The paleo record for CO2 levels is even more problematic and is being challenged in the present.
    The sensitivity of global temperatures to increases in atmospheric CO2 is also a matter of some controversy and,though I don’t find any of the suggested values entirely convincing, the probabilities seem to be leaning more toward lower numbers and away from higher ones.
    In general, most of what we “know” about the climate of the planet would more reasonably be characterized as stuff we have some reason to suspect. Some of those suspicions are strengthening, but not many. At present climate science is as confidence inspiring as sociology or psychology and in some areas doesn’t even approach that low hurdle.
    The science is weakest in the one area that makes it more than an object of curiosity to the non-scientific community, that is in the projections of the impending doom that supposed awaits us as a result of our CO2 profligacy.Most all of these lok to be increasingly unlikely.
    In the relatively short history of the planet for which we actually have instrumental data the planet has experienced a range of temperatures greater than the difference between a block of ice and the water boiling in a pressure cooker. In the Southern Hemispheric winter the planet is apt to experience a temp range of 200F or more on a daily basis. No matter what the GMT does in the future, the weather where you live will be varying over the same range it always has, in almost all circumstances.
    Given the large uncertainties, the suggestion that we all surrender large parts of our personal liberty and standard of living to nameless bureaucrats at the UN and in governments everywhere so that they can implement plans which they all admit will have negligible effect in solving this phony crisis, seems to be the worst possible use of our very finite resources.
    I would refer you to this website

    http://www.co2science.org/index.php

    They have a much good information available but I’d particularly recommend

    http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.php

    which discusses the actual observational data regarding the supposed pending climate catastrophes and this

    http://www.co2science.org/education/book/2011/55BenefitsofCO2Pamphlet.pdf

    which is an outline and precis of the book they produced to cover the largely unreported science of the positive effects of increasing CO2

  107. Our computer model proves the oceans will have boiled away by 2100. The phenomenon of rising sea levels will be a mere short-term inconvenience. We wouldn’t even bother buying a new bathing suit, if we were you.

    We suggest you all rush out and get a copy of Frank Herbert’s “Dune.” Also begin scouting good cave locations and water caches. This will buy you time to emigrate to the stars–unless you waste it watching the TeeVee.

  108. Sleepalot says:

    Update to my last post re: Bowness

    Here’s a screencap of 1 metre sea level, and an OS map to compare.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/7360644@N07/5448535597/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/7360644@N07/5449146528/
    Note:
    Bowness Hall 23 metre trig. point
    Ravensceugh 24 metre spot height
    Herd Hill 14 metre spot height

  109. DSW says:

    I live in Virginia Beach and my family have been Lynnhaven watermen since the late 1800s. My great-grandfather and grandfather both built bulkheads and piers and most of the bulkheads still exist. The high water marks haven’t budged. When my mother built her new house on our old family land on Lynnhaven Inlet, she was told by her insurance company that she had to have flood insurance, “because you live right next to the water”. My mom tried to explain that the land had been lived on by our family for 100 years and it had NEVER flooded there. We went through dozens of nor’easters and hurricanes (including the Ash Wednesday storm in the early ’60s) and no flooding. Their response? “But you live right next to the water. Do you realize how close you are to the water?” (very insulting since her back deck is about 40-50 feet from the water’s edge). This is when my mom called her some less than complimentary names and hung up on her.

    My point is that money is made by studies like this. Oh, and that the Beach seems to not be going under.

  110. Al Gored says:

    DSW says:
    February 15, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    “My point is that money is made by studies like this.”

    There’s far more money to be made selling flood insurance and raising insurance rates based on this alleged risk.

    But clearly, you are just lucky that your family property has been rising at the same rate as the sea level, thus confusing you into a state of false security. You really must listen to what the insurance salesmen tells you [sarc].

  111. Anton says:

    I live in Tampa, on the water, and the level is where it was 30 years ago, or maybe lower.

    The nerds who concoct these scenarios never bother to look at real water levels; they’re glued to computer screens, probably playing Armageddon games while working. To them, the computer fantasy is the real world, and imaginary disasters are the norm.

  112. John F. Hultquist says:

    TonyK says:
    February 15, 2011 at 11:37 am
    Stephen Brown says:
    Coasts?

    I wrote a bit for Tips & Notes about sea level after seeing photos in the WSJ regarding villages in GB.
    What I wrote earlier is short so I’ll repeat it here:

    In its Sat/Sun edition (Nov. 27-28) the Wall Street Journal had a review (by Ferdinand Mount) of a book titled “Villages of Britain” authored by Clive Aslet. An accompanying photo (b/w) of Tobermory, Isle of Mull (56.622691, -6.06716) shows a row of seaside buildings (very colorful in Web images). One web reference claims ‘Tobar Mhoire’ (Well of Mary) has been a small settlement here from the earliest times, while the modern Tobermory was established in 1789. This coast seems to be rather fixed relative to sea level. See the masthead photo here and the photo below that:
    http://tour-scotland-photographs.blogspot.com/2010/04/old-photograph-tobermory-scotland.html

    Another WSJ photo shows the ruins of Saint Andrew’s Church on the Suffolk coast at Covehithe (52.376516, 1.705589). This site has pictures, including of the hogs and their houses. Covehithe seems to have been a much larger settlement at one time, apparently washed away by the sea. This site
    http://www.aboutbritain.com/towns/covehithe.asp

    explains:

    “The village of Covehithe was previously known as North Hales, in which time it was much larger than it is today due to the sea encroaching more and more each year, the extent of this can be seen with ordinance survey maps.

    There seems to be little on the Web regarding Covehithe but for this coast there is a long history and much information; here is a link to everybody’s favorite “don’t use” site:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunwich

    This place is 12.3 km south of Covehithe (52.277197, 1.632324).

    Dunwich was the capital of East Anglia 1500 years ago and was a prosperous seaport and centre of the wool trade during the Early Middle Ages, with a natural harbour formed by the mouths of the River Blyth and the River Dunwich, but the harbour and most of the town has since been lost to coastal erosion. The town’s decline began in 1286 when a sea surge hit . . .

    Examining these two places it is hard to draw the conclusion that one of Earth’s biggest threats is sea level rising because of the combustion of carbon based fuel.

  113. steven mosher says:

    The cost of protecting the US coasts from a 1 meter rise is roughly 400Billion.

    I have no problem accepting a 1 meter sea level projection and taking prudent action
    to mitigate the damages. People living in those areas have 100 years to get busy.
    taxing my carbon so that you can live on the beach? aint happening. Assign the costs
    of mitigation to the people who are at risk. They’ll respond rationally, one hopes.

    Building codes that took notice of GW projections and coastal development laws would also be a good thing to look at.

  114. KR says:

    The IPCC estimates in the most recent version did not use ice cap or Greenland melt rates, as they felt there was too little information available to make those estimates – hence their ocean rise estimates are extremely conservative (http://www.glaciology.net/Home/PDFs/Announcements/gslprojection).

    Given the accelerating melt rates of Greenland and surface ice volume in Antarctica, current rates of sea level rise are also accelerating. I won’t make any guesses as to how fast, though – I don’t have the data. I certainly don’t think we’re heading for tidal waves of destruction.

    However – We’re apparently heading for a 2C rise. The last time the Earth was 2C warmer, the oceans were 5-6 meters higher. It may take a number of centuries to reach that, depending on sea level rise rates – but I’m certainly not going to be making long term investments in Miami real estate…

  115. Curt says:

    Several commenters have asserted that the IPCC AR4 projections of 18-59cm sea level rise by 2100 do not include any contributions from the melt of the Greenland and Antarctice ice caps. This is simply false. From the AR4:

    “The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993-2003, but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future.”

    So the projections not only include the contribution from these ice caps, but do so at the relatively high level of the decade preceding the report.

  116. Pete H says:

    Steve McGuirk says:
    February 15, 2011 at 9:43 am

    “Climate change is not weather. We are at 389 part per million CO2, highest recored (sic)amount in 400,000 years and on track to reach 700 by end of the this century. ”

    Let me help you out a little Steve. First on the CO2 debate…
    “In every 85,800 molecules of air, 33 are CO2. Of those, humans just produce one. That the UN IPCC and Al Gore claim that one (1) molecule of CO2 in 85,800 molecules of air catastrophically warms the planet is nonsense. That the UN IPCC and Al Gore claim that one (1) molecule of human CO2 causes catastrophic warming while the remaining 32 molecules of Nature’s identical CO2 do not is insanity. ”
    Hans Schreuder, retired analyst.

    As for the “Whats wrong with wanting more miles per gallon”….care to show us where anyone argued against that? We want science that benefits mankind and the world but we are tired of reading words like…maybe, could, possibly, might!
    Read the first sentence of this article and see if you can spot the climate science word that irritates!

  117. John Brookes says:

    Yes, Curt, the IPCC AR4 projections of sea levels are based on ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at “the relatively high level of the decade preceding the report”.

    Why is it relatively high? Because its increasing. So whatever the current period is, the rate will be relatively high compared to previous periods.

    By the end of the century, anyone looking back at IPCC AR4 predictions will be saying that they were underestimates, because they used the relatively low level of the decade before the report.

  118. Curt says:

    John: The assumption that because there was an increase in a period means there will be more increases in future periods is very dubious — in the financial world, it was that type of thinking that got us into the fix we’re in now.

    Since 2003, a lot of the ice flows studied that led to the proclamation of an increase have slowed, sea level rise has slowed, and ocean heat content increase has slowed, if not reversed. Not close to the exponential increases required for the apocalyptic forecasts.

  119. Werner Brozek says:

    Wasn’t the Climate Science Rapid Response Team supposed to nip this sort of thing in the bud to avoid embarrassment?

  120. Roger Knights says:

    Steve McGuirck says:

    “… what is wrong with getting more miles per gallon from our cars?”

    Consider this:

    Chris Riley says:
    February 12, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    Consider the misery generated to date by a program that is so tiny that even its developers admit that it will have no measurable impact on the climate. I am referring to CAFE standards, not the internet kind, or the kind that should only sell coffee grown in the shade, but the program wherein the U.S government mandates the fuel mileage of motor vehicles sold in this country.

    Four studies have looked at the number of deaths caused by this program, and no, the studies were not done by “Big Oil”. The studies I refer to were done by the following:

    1. USA TODAY
    2. Brookings
    3. NAS (National Academy of sciences)
    4. NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board)

    JR Dunn writing in The American Thinker compiled the results of these studies and published ranges in the estimated deaths from the CAFE standards to date.
    This ranges between 42,000 and 125,000 Americans killed as of April of last year.
    CAFE standards alone have already caused what anyone but a Bolshevik would describe as “gargantuan human misery.”

  121. Given that the Jason-2 satellite altimeter launched in 2008 is rated at 3.4 cm RMS error, how the devil can you measure 1-3 mm a year of sea surface rise? This is in the noise of the data. I don’t buy it.

  122. Laurie says:

    20 cm is just short of the measurement of 2 newborn babies heads. That means for every 2 feet of shoreline, two babies would drown. We have to stop AGW for the babies! Or we could dredge the shoreline.

    /sarc

  123. Ammonite says:

    Steve McGuirk says: February 15, 2011 at 9:43 am
    Look at Venus… Is there a point of no return?

    Hi Steve. If you mean an endless reinforcing heat spiral that boils the ocean away, then no, not for earth (or at least not until the sun is many billions of years older and far hotter than today.) The effect of increasing CO2 concentration is logarithmic and nobody has credibly shown there is enough combustible carbon to achieve such an effect AFAIK.

  124. wayne Job says:

    Given the ingenuity of mankind and our previous experience with stone, mortar and concrete and our modern serious ability to move dirt, I would imagine that a one metre wall would be rather easy to build with a one hundred year lag time. A shipload of holland is well bellow sea level. They are not overly fussed.

  125. Steve Keohane says:

    Cassandra King says: February 15, 2011 at 9:26 am

    I suppose that when sea levels start to fall the CAGW alarmists will claim that they predicted this all along and their models are validated yet again.

    Exactly! It will be shown that the increasing bulk of the oceans may not actually rise relative to land, but the pressure of the increased weight upon the malleable mantle, increases the height of the land relative to the seas. [/sarc]

  126. steveta_uk says:

    Coastal cities tend to rise – accumulation of all sorts of stuff, buildings on buildings, etc (like Ankh-Morpork). There are digs in London that go down 20-30 feet to reach the Roman levels, and all the rivers except the Thames have long been underground, and still flow to the sea.

    Does anyone ever take this into account?

  127. DSW says:

    steven mosher says:
    February 15, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    The cost of protecting the US coasts from a 1 meter rise is roughly 400Billion.

    I have no problem accepting a 1 meter sea level projection and taking prudent action
    to mitigate the damages. People living in those areas have 100 years to get busy.
    taxing my carbon so that you can live on the beach? aint happening. Assign the costs
    of mitigation to the people who are at risk. They’ll respond rationally, one hopes.

    Building codes that took notice of GW projections and coastal development laws would also be a good thing to look at.
    ==========================================================

    Umm, my family has lived by the water in Va. Beach for well over a century and the WATER LEVEL HASN’T CHANGED (once more for the cheap seats) – keep your money – we don’t want it or need it and you need to get it out of your head that we do. If you are ok with someone “taxing your carbon” then you need to wake up to the carbon scam or let me sell you a bridge – and there’s some swamp land as well…

  128. John McLondon says:

    After three years I happen to read this website again, and seems like we are still debating the same old things. But I hope we can be more scientific and less political in our opinions, at least avoid making fun of people. I am sure Weiss believes in what he wrote, and if the conclusions were the opposite with appropriate justification, I doubt Overpeck will overrule him. I assume people have more integrity than that.

    I am not sure why this belongs to the group of climate craze, the prediction is not beyond the range of possibilities. Sea gauges for the 100 years show a rise of 1.85 mm/year, Jason/TOPEX for the past six or seven years show 3 mm/year, much higher than the previous 100 year average, many computer predictions show well above 1 meter rise by 2100. Non-linear variation of sea level is is certainly a possibility for the future. So, it is another prediction, well within the large range, time will tell the truth. But I do not consider this as a crazy prediction.

    Where are my good friends from the past who participated in our disagreements – Evan Jones, Jeez~ (Charles the moderator) and Smokey? Are you all still here? Hope you are all doing well.

Comments are closed.