From the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, a claim of 2 feet by 2050, but tide gauge data from Annapolis doesn’t support it, showing it will take well over 100 years at the historic rate to reach 2 feet, and there is no hint of acceleration in the record:
Source: NOAA Tides and Currents
Sea level along Maryland’s shorelines could rise 2 feet by 2050, according to new report
ANNAPOLIS, MD (June 26, 2013)—A new report on sea level rise recommends that the State of Maryland should plan for a rise in sea level of as much as 2 feet by 2050. Led by the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, the report was prepared by a panel of scientific experts in response to Governor Martin O’Malley’s Executive Order on Climate Change and “Coast Smart” Construction. The projections are based on an assessment of the latest climate change science and federal guidelines.
“The State of Maryland is committed to taking the necessary actions to adapt to the rising sea and guard against the impacts of extreme storms,” said Governor Martin O’Malley. “In doing so, we must stay abreast of the latest climate science to ensure that we have a sound understanding of our vulnerability and are making informed decisions about how best to protect our land, infrastructure, and most importantly, the citizens of Maryland.”
The independent, scientific report recommends that is it is prudent to plan for sea level to be 2.1 feet higher in 2050 along Maryland’s shorelines than it was in 2000 in order to accommodate the high end of the range of the panel’s projections. Maryland has 3,100 miles of tidal shoreline and low-lying rural and urban lands that will be impacted. The experts’ best estimate for the amount of sea level rise in 2050 is 1.4 feet. It is unlikely to be less than 0.9 feet or greater than 2.1 feet. Their best estimate for sea level rise by 2100 is 3.7 feet. They concluded that it is unlikely to be less than 2.1 feet or more than 5.7 feet based on current scientific understanding.
“This reassessment narrows the probable range of sea level rise based on the latest science,” said Donald Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and chair of the group of experts that assembled the report. “It provides the State with sea level rise projections based on best scientific understanding to ensure that infrastructure is sited and designed in a manner that will avoid or minimize future loss or damage.”
These estimates were made based on the various contributors to sea level rise: thermal expansion of ocean volume as a result of warming, the melting of glaciers and Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, changing ocean dynamics such as the slowing of the Gulf Stream, and vertical land movement.
“While there is little we can do now to reduce the amount of sea level rise by the middle of the century, steps taken over the next 30 years to control greenhouse gas emissions and stabilize global temperatures will largely determine how great the sea level rise challenge will be for coastal residents at the end of this century and beyond,” said Dr. Boesch.
According to Joseph P. Gill, Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, impacts associated with sea level rise are already being seen along Maryland’s coast, such as the documented loss of islands within the Chesapeake Bay, as well as visible changes to wetland habitats all along Maryland’s low-lying eastern shore.
“Recognizing the importance of building resilience within our natural and built environments,” said Gill, “DNR’s CoastSmart Communities Program is dedicated to offering on-the-ground expertise, planning guidance, training, tools, and financial assistance to help others in state plan, prepare, and adapt.” For more information on CoastSmart, visit http://dnr.maryland.gov/CoastSmart/.
Governor O’Malley established the Maryland Commission on Climate Change on April 20, 2007. The Commission produced a Plan of Action that included a comprehensive climate change impact assessment, a greenhouse gas reduction strategy, and actions for reducing Maryland’s vulnerability to climate change. On December 28, 2012, Governor O’Malley issued an executive order that requires State agencies to consider the risk of coastal flooding and sea level rise to capital projects.
The 21-member panel comprised of sea level rise experts from the Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, reviewed projections from Maryland’s 2008 Climate Action Plan and provided updated recommendations based on new scientific results that can better inform projections of sea level rise for Maryland.
The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is updating Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for communities in Maryland. The revised maps are the first update in the coastal areas of Maryland in 25 years and confirm both increases and decreases in the 100-year flood elevations over this period of time.
“MDE is working with seventeen Maryland coastal communities to go through the mapping process, which requires the communities to update their local floodplain management ordinances before the revised maps become effective,” said Maryland Department of the Environment Secretary Robert M. Summers. “Many communities choose to better prepare themselves by adopting higher freeboard elevations or additional safety requirements for new or substantially improved structures, which could lead to reductions in flood insurance.”
I remain willing to buy oceanside property at a steep discount from any concerned owners. Please contact me through my blog. Thank you.
‘Don’t come bothering me with pesky things like real world measurements. I’ve got a model to run’. (Climatologist)
‘“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong” (Feynman)
‘Feynman is right’ (Mother Nature)
Curious, all this sea-level rise stuff! If this is true around the globe, can anyone tell my why property around Sandbanks, near Poole in Dorset, are still valued at millions of squid? Personally I would have thought house value from the values would be plummeting already! Has Mr Gore’s sea-front property gone own in value from its $4M purchase price a few years ago now?
I have always been ammused by the graph of sea level at an area on the South Coast of England dispayed at
http://www.villagenet.co.uk/history/0000-romneymarsh.php
If that is what really happened then something big could had hit the Earth somewhere previously as an alternative explanation! Looks like a bell ringing to me 🙂
Looks like a big barrel of pork being cooked up for crony construction firms.
Thee errors typically made in these studies is in ignoring the effects of the ocean oscillations in the local trends that are then used to extrapolate the future trend.
A detailed discussion is in
1) Scafetta N., 2013. Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming. Pattern Recognition in Physics, 1, 37–57. (open access)
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/37/2013/prp-1-37-2013.html
2) Scafetta N., 2013. Multi-scale dynamical analysis (MSDA) of sea level records versus PDO, AMO, and NAO indexes. Climate Dynamics. in press.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-013-1771-3
In (1) there is a detailed discussion of the sea level data from New York which is not far from Annapolis.
The Chesapeake Bay has been wrecked by Big Government.
The hordes of people who moved to the region to feed at the government trough caused massive development and colossal urban sprawl. Sediment, sewage and pollutants washed into the estuary from the resultant gigantic concrete pad.
Within living memory, Annapolis was a working harbor rather than the urban hellhole it’s become.
Nicola Scafetta says:
June 27, 2013 at 4:28 am
“Pattern Recognition in Physics”
I would like to know your opinion on these two low pass filter studies of UAH and CET.
http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/RichardLH/story/73127
http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/RichardLH/story/70051
An example of pattern recognition in Temperature data?
@John W Garrett
Seriously? Annapolis is still a quaint town with a working harbor for small sail craft. your rhetoric is a little over the top. Also, our weasel-in-chief Gov. O’malley’s report admitted that some of the coastal sea level rise is due to subsidence. I would add that the only time the bay area gets huge hurricane damage is when the storm takes a path that pushes water into the bay.None of the recent “big” storms are a result of sea level rise, but of the hurricane track.
Flood plain expansion is economic stimulation through baseless legislation. People of modest means cannot afford to live east of US-17, neither can State Farm Ins. Co.
Delete previous. The strike codes did not work.
WUWT hasn’t updated Nicola Scafetta’s (commenter in this article) Widget in a year. I see at http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model-1 (bottom of page) it still looks good.
GPS receivers in the area shows that the region is generally sinking due to glacial isostatic rebound (glacial forebulge sinking that is). The rate is as much as -2.81 mm/yr although the Annapolis station (USNA) was the lone station in the region rising at 0.59 mm/yr.
So, there was going to be sea level rise here regardless of global warming and there has been sea level rise here since the ice glaciers melted back 10,000 years ago. V_GPS in this table is the average vertical change in mm/yr from GPS receivers which have been in place long enough to tease out a solid signal.
Site DOMES Lon Lat V_GPS
USN3 40451S007 -77.0662 38.9205 -0.81
USNO 40451S003 -77.0662 38.9189 -0.81
GODE 40451M123 -76.8268 39.0217 -1.23
ANP1 49908S101 -76.6092 39.0102 -1.49
ANP5 99992M001 -76.6092 39.0102 -1.49
GLPT 49467M001 -76.4994 37.2485 -2.29
USNA 49908S001 -76.4793 38.9833 0.59
MDSI 99910M001 -76.4538 38.3189 -2.81
SOL1 49907S001 -76.4538 38.3188 -2.81
HNPT 49913S001 -76.1303 38.5888 -1.95
http://www.sonel.org/IMG/png/ulr5_vvf-2.png
http://www.sonel.org/-GPS-Solutions-.html?lang=en
Bob Shapiro says:
June 27, 2013 at 5:00 am
“WUWT hasn’t updated Nicola Scafetta’s (commenter in this article) Widget in a year. I see at http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model-1 (bottom of page) it still looks good.”
Unfortunately it is possible that there are Earth bound natural perodic cycles that may dominate any Solar/Earth interactions much beyond 4 years.
That is what I believe.
After coming out of the ‘hottest decade on the record’ how long do we have to wait for the acceleration in the rate of sea level rise? I have been assured that the heat went deep sea diving, thermal expansion is here, the glaciers are in runaway meltdown, Antarctica is melting and expanding with collapsing ice sheets, Greenland is hot, hot, hot, snowfalls are no more…………
2 Feet? Yea, during the next full moon high tide.
Anyone wanting to unload their beach front property now, I will generously take it off your hands for the cost of only the property taxes. What can I say? I am a nice guy.
“Reality is the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of ugly facts.”
— RobertGlass?
“The great tragedy of science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
— Thomas Huxley
It’s going to suddenly start rocketing up in Sydney too. 40cm by 2050.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/global-warming/sealevel-rise-threat-to-coast/2008/10/28/1224956039688.html
We first noticed that sea level was rising about 22,000 years ago. It has been rising ever since. If it keeps up at this rate, the whole coastline will be under water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
FerdinandAkin says:
June 27, 2013 at 5:40 am
“We first noticed that sea level was rising about 22,000 years ago. It has been rising ever since.”
Rising might be a big claim for the whole Earth!
http://www.villagenet.co.uk/history/0000-romneymarsh.php
This skeer has been going up the east coast. First in NC, then in VA and now in Maryland. The fall back on why we aren’t seeing it now is that the rise will be exponential. Wonderful to create a panic and do all sorts of spendy things for an effect no one will see for some time.
If a gov’t must spend large amounts of money on non problems… then spending it on strengthened coastal infrastructure seems like a good place to invest it. We don’t need AGW, as an excuse, to strengthen coastal defenses, however, prudent people should NOT be paying for the risk undertaken by the wealthy, in order to facilitate, their sea side residences and view. Any residence, located on flood plains, is hardly prudent. GK
Climate alarmists need to learn the term “relative sea level change”, accounting for land level as well as sea level. In many areas, including the Chesapeake, the former is changing faster than the latter.
Calgary, Alberta had a potential $5 billion flood last week. Does anyone know how much water was in the flood control dams upstream when it started raining? The operators must have known the spring snow melt was delayed this year and should have been dumping water as soon as the computer models forecasted heavy rain.
Thanks Tom K
My math says ~5 inches by 2050.
Sheesh! SLR, again? No problem here, http://emsworthonline.co.uk/, for HUNDREDS OF YEARS!!! In the bottom picture, with the buildings and lights, in the centre of the picture are some lights. That’s the main road down to the bay. When the tide is out you can drive a ROAD all along to the right, around the bay. I have driven this tide in, tide out. I admit, tide in, was in a Land Rover.
Reviewing the NOAA website provided for dozens of sites around the world, makes you wonder how, given the trendlines for sometimes over 100 years, one can conclude sea levels are rising any faster now than decades ago. As an example, the sea level for Key West has been rising since 1910 at 9 inches per century. No acceleration in sight.
These people who claim a major acceleration, and major it would have to be, some 3-4% per years, have no clue what that physically means. In the last year of their claim, the rate of sea level rise would have to be centimeters per year, more than ten times today’s rate. It’s gets even worse for them in just a few short years later when the year rate would become tens of centimeters per year. These people clearly have no grasp of what compound growth (acceleration) means. Do they honestly think all the world’s ice would melt that fast?
“philjourdan says:
June 27, 2013 at 5:11 am”
We’ve just had a “super moon”, well it’s sort of normal for this time of year. And in Aus, high seas, high tides, coastal erosion etc in the MSM are highlighted, with a slight hint, almost silent in fact, to the lunar phase.
FerdinandAkin says:
June 27, 2013 at 5:40 am
We first noticed that sea level was rising about 22,000 years ago. It has been rising ever since. If it keeps up at this rate, the whole coastline will be under water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
——-
Coastlines dont become underwater, they just move inland. Coast line is where the land meets the water.
(ALL) news reports of climate change, everyone of them, include some form of speculation…
“Could” “likely to” “maybe” “possibly” and many more similar terms are used exclusively by the (global warmongers) to convince the public that the end is near.
Bill Illis says:
June 27, 2013 at 5:05 am
GPS receivers in the area shows that the region is generally sinking due to glacial isostatic rebound (glacial forebulge sinking that is).
———
I think you have that backwards. Glacial rebound means the land it rising, not sinking. Very clear in Hudsons Bay. Indeed the entire east coast of the US has sea level rise almost twice the global average of 1.74mm/year. Some tectonics must account for this.
“jrwakefield says:
June 27, 2013 at 6:48 am”
Glacial “rebound”? IMO a better term to use is “settling”. As a plate/crust on a fluid “body” “adjusts” to compensate for load changes.
Dunno where are those charts from. Whole Atlantic sea level stagnates as is.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/l103a.png
Crabs, oysters disappearing in Maryland’s shrinking island
June 26, 2013 7:26 PM
By Chip Reid
…
In the middle of the Chesapeake Bay, Smith Island is reachable only by boat.
CBS News has been documenting life here since 1965. Oysters and crabs were thriving, and the population was about 850.
…
By 1999, it was down to 350. Crabs and oysters were suffering due to pollution and the island itself was washing away.
…
Scientists at the University of Maryland say the water level is rising in part because of climate change and that the island could disappear in 20 to 50 years.
…
Isn’t this one of those sandbar-type islands that, on geological timescales, comes and goes in a eyeblink and should never be considered permanent?
By “suffering due to pollution”, does “overfishing” now mean “pollution”?
I like how they tactfully said “rising in part because of climate change”. How much is that part?
If there’s an improbable 2 foot rise at Annapolis by 2050, that’d roughly be another foot in the Bay in 20 years. So at the short end of the time range, just one more foot in two decades will destroy this island?
If it’s that precarious, they better get those people evacuated now before a hurricane dumps enough water to wash all of it into the Bay! Preemptive Federal Disaster Declaration, NOW!
jrwakefield:
As I understand it from a plate tectonics course years ago, when the glaciers weighed down the northern portion of the plate, the southern portion was elevated like the child on the other side of the seesaw. When the glaciers melted and the “isostatic rebound” started, the northern part of the plate rises, but the southern part returns to its lower starting point at pretty much the same rate (as related to the fulcrum point of the tilt.) It is possible for the Earth to bulge at a place other than the plate the glacier is on, but fluid dynamics pretty much dictates it will be nearby. The viscous liquid that is magma isn’t very compressible so it will push back at the nearest light weight point to relieve the pressure strain.
jrwakefield says:
June 27, 2013 at 6:48 am
———————-
The ice age glaciers pushed the crust down where the glaciers were, but on the edges out to 1000 kms, the land is actually pushed up (as in a bulge). When the weight of the glaciers is removed, the area within the glacial margins rebounds back up and the areas outside which were pushed up, now relax and sink back to normal position
http://www.unavco.org/community_science/science-apps/solid-earth/glacial-isostatic-adjustment.html
http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/Texts/gpsgia.pdf
jrwakefield … 6:41 am
These people who claim a major acceleration, and major it would have to be, some 3-4% per years, have no clue what that physically means. In the last year of their claim, the rate of sea level rise would have to be centimeters per year, more than ten times today’s rate. It’s gets even worse for them in just a few short years later when the year rate would become tens of centimeters per year. These people clearly have no grasp of what compound growth (acceleration) means. Do they honestly think all the world’s ice would melt that fast?
Dr. James Hansen has notoriously claimed that 5 meters by 2100 is possible.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
He uses a doubling every ten years scenario to get there. If you run the numbers on that it means that by December 2099 sea level would have to be going up a millimeter per DAY. Over one hundred times today’s rate.
Yes, J.R. Wakefield is exactly right.
Owen in GA & Bill Illis, thanks, interesting. I had read a paper long ago that the Pacific Plate moving into the NA plate is doing the same on the east coast.
Okay, let’s do the math. Current trend says 1.13 feet by 2113. “Experts” say
3.7 feet by 2100.
With this estimate, they’re even worse than the climate modelers predicting +0.2 deg.
C. per decade when even counting back to 1980 the trend was barely more than 1/2
that, and in the most recent 15-year period has completely stalled.
British warships, invading the Chesapeake Bay in 1813 (during the War of 1812), sheltered behind Sharp’s Island. Much detail from that period is embodied in the ships’ logs, which include descriptions of how the trees along the shoreline of Sharp’s Island were collapsing into the Bay as a result of rapid erosion of the island. The British fleet not only took over the island, expropriating the livestock (for which the farmer was apparently well compensated), but established a semi-permanent shore base in what is now the Fairbank community of Tilghman Island. This base was used for providing meat and other provisions to the fleet for about a year.
Sharp’s Island has now completely disappeared, (mostly in the 19th century), as has about 200 acres of what constituted the Southwest corner of Tilghman Island 200 years ago. (Other disappeared Chesapeake Islands have been reconstituted as dredge-spoil dumps).
According to geologists, the continuing rise in apparent sea-level in the Chesapeake is attributed in part to continuing settling of the silt-banks (from an earlier geological era) upon which much of Delmarva and the Tidewater area land sits. This is somewhat different from the factors (isostatic rebound and tectonic subduction) affecting land movement in many other parts of the world.
Continued loss of coastline, due to sea-level rise, is noticeable today in many parts of Chesapeake Bay, certainly including Smith Island. Interestingly, it does not seem to be happening at such a rapid rate as was reported by the British sailors 200 years ago. [This posting is being written just a couple hundred yards from the 1813 Tighman base area].
Bill Illis says:
June 27, 2013 at 7:35 am
jrwakefield says:
June 27, 2013 at 6:48 am
———————-
“The ice age glaciers pushed the crust down where the glaciers were, but on the edges out to 1000 kms, the land is actually pushed up (as in a bulge). When the weight of the glaciers is removed, the area within the glacial margins rebounds back up and the areas outside which were pushed up, now relax and sink back to normal position”
One posible proof of the above?
http://www.villagenet.co.uk/history/0000-romneymarsh.php
The generally accepted value for global sea level rise for the 20th century derived from tide gauges is about 1.8 mm/year. The satellite data says about 3 mm/year for the last 20 years. If these values are both true, then the tide gauge data should show a large acceleration in sea level rise rates sometime near the end of the 20th century.
Looking for such an acceleration is like looking for a needle in a haystack, because at most locations the yearly fluctuations in the sea level are on the order of the entire sea level rise for the 20th century – often even greater. Similarly, there are local geological effects that swamp any global signal.
I have started a series of posts where I am making a concerted effort to find a sea level rise acceleration in the tide gauge data that will reconcile the difference between the 1.8 mm/year 20th century tide gauge data and the 3 mm/year satellite data. This effort consists of selecting tide gauge data that meets certian quality standards in areas with similar regional fluctuations, removing the yearly signals, detrending to remove local signals (as opposed to regional signals), averaging to enhance regional signals, and looking at the derivative to find accelerations. This method will not determine actual sea level rise rates (but rather “detrended” rise rates), but will illustrate accelerations.
Parts 1, 2, & 3 can be found here…
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/the-search-for-acceleration-part-1/
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/06/24/the-search-for-acceleration-part-2-east-coast-of-north-america/
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/the-search-for-acceleration-part-3-japan/
Data covering a new region will be added every few days.
The press report released describing the study is not inaccurate. It just picks the top value within the 95% interval level contained in the report. So what? Its not inaccurate in its statement. And if plans are made for “up to 2 feet” and it doesn’t happen in that time frame – but a few years later – isn’t that a good thing? Otherwise, we would be castigating the government because “they had this information and did nothing about it”.
jrwakefield says:
June 27, 2013 at 6:44 am
Coastlines dont become underwater, they just move inland. Coast line is where the land meets the water
Oh, I could tell you why The ocean’s near the shore.
I could think of things I never thunk before.
And then I’d sit and think some more.
-The Scarecrow
tommoriarty says:
June 27, 2013 at 8:03 am
“Data covering a new region will be added every few days.”
May I suggest to you that using a 4 year ‘Normal’ rather than a Yearly one to reduce the data spread may reveal patterns to you that otherwise you will ‘fold’ away?
philjourdan says: 2 Feet? Yea, during the next full moon high tide.
That is exactly what sea defences are supposed to be designed for : worst case senario.
If an intervention is necessary to raise sea defences by 1ft, you might as well make it 2ft while you’re. there. It’s bearly going to cost any more and will protect against the _real_ rise, whatever it is, for twice as long.
Since they have a GIA drop to account for as well, it seems there figure are not ‘alarism’ but trying to properly account for highest likely extremes.
Anyone reading this as a projection of 2ft of average sea rise is not paying attention.
If they had properly planned south of NY there would have been no massive flooding when Sandy conicided with a predictable exceptional high tide.
If New Orleans levvies had been properly maintained there would not have been a national emergency with horrendous loss of life.
If they had not ignored the possibility of a 10m tsunami when it was pointed out they would not have had a world class pollution problem to deal with at Fukupshima.
Seems there was a change in measurement method around 1970. Then subsequent splicing. In any case, when discussing “sea level” measurements at the Passive Margin (e.g. most Atlantic coastal areas in North America and Europe) there needs to be a disclaimer. The term Passive Margin may conjure a notion of no tectonic effect. That is false. Although there are no plate boundaries nearby, the crust is subsiding at a Passive Margin.
Re: the sinking islands of the Chesapeake…
As with most things environmental, it is poverty and wealth that determine the likelihood of a Chesapeake island eroding away. Look at the wealthy Gibson Island, and you will find that there has been almost no land loss over the last 100 years. The waterman-occupied, (i.e. poor), islands haven’t the resources to armor the shoreline. (This book, for one, documents this point: http://www.amazon.com/Disappearing-Islands-Chesapeake-William-Cronin/dp/0801874351 )
Do not be fooled by the current fad of “living shorelines”; (i.e. created wetlands). Any shore that is not hard armor is living on borrowed time.
You could probably slow the rate of ‘sea level rise, in the Annapolis district by banning the extraction of water from soft sediments. That might be a lot cheaper than a massive sea defence scheme.d
The problem with these sort of investigations is they quickly turn into a feeding trough for expensive bureaucrats and ‘experts’.
Operative word is “could”. A meteorite could slam through the roof above where I am sitting and smash me to smithereens. But it hasn’t. Yet.
Well I could just whip out the ace that is up my sleeve, and my crossword puzzle pen, and I could draw a much better straight line through that Annapolis data. It would go through about the same point in the middle of the record, and have a higher slope which would put it in the middle of the range at each end of the record, instead of going through the top of the beginning data, and the bottom of the ending data.
But I wouldn’t do that, because there obviously are at least two shorter periods of even higher slope, so one line , is not a good substitute for the real result, which can best be seen, by erasing those straight lines to leave the wiggly line, which shows, what actually happened at Annapolis.
Besides, they like the sea, in Annapolis, the more, the merrier. Good place to take sailing lessons.
[in 50 years] it is unlikely to be less than 0.9 feet …
[by 2100, 100 years] unlikely to be less than 2.1 feet
Convert to mm:
0.9 feet = 270 mm (to two sig. figs)
2.1 feet = 640 mm
From 80 years of data: the rise is 3.44 +/- 0.23 mm/yr.
Take the maximum rate in the range of uncertainty: 3.67 mm/yr.
in 50 years, the maximum rise (by the data) would be 184 mm.
Their minimum is 270 mm. 46% greater than the maximum supported by the data.
in 100 years, the maximum rise (by the data) would be 367 mm.
Their minimum is 640 mm, 75% greater than the maximum supported by the data.
When you see a typical record of white noise (Gaussian), you will regularly see peaks that are six times the RMS noise level; that’s based on about 50 years of looking at noise, over all kinds of bandwidth ranges, from sub audio to several GHz.
So when I look at that Annapolis graph, I pretty much ignore the peaks, and see mostly the grass around the baseline. Then when you eyeball the slope of that grass, you get a higher slope, than their lines. I don’t know if they weight each and every data point, the same, but if you treat it as Gaussian noise, and weight each point based on the probability of it deviating that far from the base line, then I believe, you end up with something more like the grass..
That’s even assuming the points are noise free actual measured values; they still have some probability of occurrence frequency distribution.
Like philjourdan, I’m a nice guy. I want to help everyone who suffers from rising sea levels. That’s why I want to establish a foundation which offers future victims of sea-rise to swap their endangered coastal properties for safe, nice new houses well inland. No profit involved! We will take over the risk with no expenses. And here’s the clincher: If for some reason the sea does not rise to the bait of man-made global warming, we will pay 2% of the profit from any sale of the not-inundated beach property to the safely-provided-for climate refugees sheltering behind the nice carpark of our seaside shopping mall.
Care to put up some venture capital, Mr. Gore?
@Con Trari – Re: “Care to put up some venture capital, Mr. Gore?” – What do you think his sea side mansion is? 😉
State General Tidal
coastline1 shoreline2
Maryland 31 3,190
Gulf Coast:
Florida (Gulf) 770 5,095
Louisiana 397 7,721
1. Figures are lengths of general outline of seacoast. This does not include freshwater coastlines. Measurements are made with unit measure of 30 minutes of latitude on charts as near scale of 1:1,200,000 as possible. Coastline of bays and sounds is included to point where they narrow to width of unit measure, and distance across at such point is included.
2. Figures were obtained in 1939–1940 with recording instrument on the largest-scale maps and charts then available. Shoreline of outer coast, offshore islands, sounds, bays, rivers, and creeks is included to head of tidewater, or to point where tidal waters narrow to width of 100 feet.
Read more: Coastline of the United States | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001801.html#ixzz2XRWdo3KN
Just some info on their miles of shoreline vs coastline. Note Louisiana has more than the Gulf coast of Florida.
Tetragrammaton says: June 27, 2013 at 7:57 am
[This posting is being written just a couple hundred yards from the 1813 Tighman base area].
Will all those Windmills you are going to have plunked down going to raise / lower / have no effect on the Bay and your wonderful view?
george e. smith says:
June 27, 2013 at 11:19 am
“When you see a typical record of white noise (Gaussian), you will regularly see peaks that are six times the RMS noise level; that’s based on about 50 years of looking at noise, over all kinds of bandwidth ranges, from sub audio to several GHz”
Well I see these frequencies in the UAH and CET temperature series.
http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/RichardLH/story/70051
http://s1291.photobucket.com/user/RichardLH/story/73127
You could also stop paving MD with federal money, federal jobs, and facilities. That would help a lot in all areas inland and the in the case of their waterfront homes.
Bob Shapiro says: June 27, 2013 at 5:00 am
“WUWT hasn’t updated Nicola Scafetta’s (commenter in this article) Widget in a year. I see at http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model-1 (bottom of page) it still looks good.”
thank you. Let us hope that WUWT updates it.
I just updated my temperature vs. astronomical model vs. IPCC Widget with the temperature of May that has been just published.
My astronomical model forecast works great up to now!
See bottom of page at
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model-1
From Nicola Scafetta on June 27, 2013 at 12:43 pm:
Anthony still has up the page with the widget, Top toolbar -> Reference Pages -> Research. Comments are still open. Why not directly flag the moderators there to update it, with the information they need to do so?
Or is that now a “frozen” version, to see how well the prediction made then has played out, rather than a “tweaked” revision that shows how well your theory now “predicted” the present?
@tetragrammaton:
We need pictures: before & after of historic Chessapeake buildings at high tide or low tide just to show how little the sea level has changed in the last hundred years. I went looking for some pictures but couldn’t really engage the local historical society. Maybe you’ll have better luck. Baltimore is old enough to have had some building that would evidence sea level rise if it were still around today. I am curious what story these buildings tell.
Les Johnson says:
June 27, 2013 at 5:14 am
“Reality is the murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of ugly facts.”
– RobertGlass?
“The great tragedy of science — the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
– Thomas Huxley
*
I don’t know that the theory or hypothesis of CAGW was so beautiful to begin with.
Some experts. Even Wikipedia is more trustworthy. Flashback to an earlier article here that forewarned of these knuckleheads and their predictable mistakes …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/01/part-2-of-on-sallenger-et-al-2012-hotspot-of-accelerated-sea-level-rise-on-the-atlantic-coast-of-north-america/
… and I’ll just repeat myself from that thread …
Well I hate to ruin the climate kook sea-level party but there is another dynamic variable that may account for 100% (or more 😉 of the alleged sea-level rise.
This large slab of land we call North America isn’t bolted to an imaginary solid core at the center of the Earth. Instead, like all other parts of the crust, it floats on the mantle. Furthermore it isn’t ‘level’ perpendicularly to an imaginary line spearing the Earth’s center. No, in fact it is tilting, which means one end is rising and the other end is sinking. Guess which end is sinking.
So, up North (…to Alaska) the land is rising, below the Great lakes (this includes North Carolina naturally) it is sinking. So where do the retarded alarmist community decide to go cherry picking this time? Yep, to North Carolina. They are liars and scoundrels of the highest order.
It is entirely possible that sea-level ‘should be’ rising faster than we currently see. In other words it may not be rising fast enough. Its is likely that the only detectable warning signal that humans will observe indicating the winding down of the current Holocene interglacial will be the slowing of sea-level rise until it turns the corner and sea-level begins to decline (that would be actual bad news). This is because the one constant during the Holocene has been rising sea-levels since the last glaciation maximum. Why would any logical person worry about a few millimeters of sea-level rise?
The Naval Academy is in Annapolis. The Mids will enjoy an extra 0.6 meters under their keels.
Confucious Say: One cannot measure sea rise from sink of land!
So we have the threat of reaching an astonishing 130 +/- meters of sea level rise in the next 100 years! RUN!!!!!!!!!! To the mountains. I’ll take care of your sea side house. (A height which relates to the difference since Ice maximum 20K +/- years BP seal level set to zero at max glaciation. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png)
O/T/ Years ago I wrote to our local MP (State) about climate change and all the rubbish we were receiving from the likes of Tim Flannery, etc. He sent a reply from the Bureau of Meteorology. The result they predicted that the sea would rise 177 MM, (not meters or cms) that’s approximately 6 1/2 inches by 2100. Hmm, I wouldn’t be urged to sell my sea front home if I had one. Beach erosion is a problem, so I would not be building a home on a cliff either.
Thanks, Anthony. Very good article, with very good comments.
Dr. Scafetta, thanks for the good news, I will update your graph in my web pages.
Gee whiz, after thousands of years of recent sea level rise we manage to populate the planet with calculators to measure our sea level doom. Yet put men on the moon just in case.
When it comes to sea level rise I stay with Chao, Yu and Li (Science, April 11th, 2008). They corrected the published sea level data for water held in storage by all impoundments built since 1900. The resulting sea level curve became linear for the last 80 years, with a slope of 2.46 millimeters per year. Anything that has been linear that long is not about to change anytime soon. Extrapolating this gives 24.6 centimeters per century or a little under ten inches. That very likely is what we should expect. Sea level does vary by location because of mass distribution changes since the end of the ice age. In the Baltic Sea region that was under the Fennoscandian ice shield the land is still rising and sea level is receding. The corresponding ice shield in North America was the Laurentide ice sheet. Now land north of the Great Lakes is rising faster than to the south of them with the result that lake basins are being “overturned” and spilling water to the south. Check what sea level is doing.