Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Science Magazine is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I’m reading my AAAS Newsletter, and I find the following blurb (emphasis mine):
Virginia Panel Releases Coastal Flooding Report. A subpanel of the Secure Commonwealth Panel of Virginia released a report containing several recommendations for dealing with risks posed by coastal flooding. The report, which is largely based on data from a 2013 report by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, predicts a sea level rise of 1.5 feet within the next 20 to 50 years along the Virginia coast.
My bad number detector started ringing like crazy. Let me convert that to metric and see where we get. A foot and a half is 450 mm. Global sea level rise these days is on the order of two to three mm per year. This is also about the rate of rise that has occurred over the last century. To rise a foot and a half at the historical (and current) rate would take from 150 to 225 years. OK, we’ll need to shorten that for local subsidence, but still … so I go to take a look at the underlying report I linked to above.
I get the report, and I’m reading through it, and I bust out laughing. There’s been a recent thread here on Watts Up With That regarding consensus. I thought that this was a marvelous example of the modern and meaningless use of the term “consensus” (emphasis mine).
The future of sea level change in Virginia is most appropriately forecast by reference to the state-of-the-science synthesis and recommendations prepared for the National Climate Assessment (Parris et al. 2012). The consensus of scientists working on this report is that by 2100 global sea level will be between 8 inches and 6.6 feet above the level in 1992. When modified by local and regional factors this information provides the best available basis for planning. SOURCE
The “consensus” is that sea level rise by 2100 will be between eight inches (20 cm) and seven feet (2.1 m)? Oh, that’s just too good. And how is that floor-to-ceiling estimate the “best available basis for planning”?
In any case, the report allows us to run the numbers. According to the report, they have allowed 2.7 mm/year for local subsidence, viz:
Therefore the future sea level scenarios presented in Figure 16 are the global scenarios modified to include local subsidence (estimated at 2.7 millimeters/year or about 0.1 inch/year).
To get that 450 mm (1.5′) of rise in 50 years would require that the seas rise by no less than nine mm per year. If we allow 2.7 mm/year for subsidence as they did, it would have to rise at 6.3 mm per year, starting now and continuing for fifty years.
And it gets worse. To get that foot and a half of rise in 20 years would require that the seas immediately start rising at 22.5 mm per year, call it 20 mm per year after subsidence. I note in passing that this rate is the maximum rate mentioned in the underlying document … in other words, they’ve taken the absolute worst and most ludicrous estimate, 6.6 feet by the year 2100, and called that the “best available estimate for planning”? … spare me …
And how fast is the sea level rising around Virginia, including subsidence? There’s a curious side story. I google subsidence Virginia tide. First link returned? “Making sense of senseless sea level scares in Norfolk Virginia“, right here at WUWT. Goes to show the global reach of this blog, you don’t get to the top of the Google food chain unless lots of folks link to your post …
In any case, that post shows the trend of sea-level rise at Sewells Point VA is 4.4 mm/yr and 3.8 mm/yr at Portsmouth, Virginia. IF the subsidence is in fact 2.7 mm/year, this puts the Sewells Point sea level rise without subsidence at 4.4 – 2.7 = 1.7 mm/year … and at Portsmouth, 3.8 – 2.7 = 1.1 mm/year rise excluding subsidence.
So it looks like in Virginia, IF we make their assumption of 2.7 mm/yr of subsidence, the sea level itself is historically going up at no more than two mm per year … and they claim it’s going to jump immediately to three to ten times the historical rate? Fuggedaboutit.
Here’s the crazy part. In parallel with the current “hiatus” in warming, we have seen a deceleration in the rate of sea-level rise. I discussed an attempt to explain this “pause” in sea-level rise in my post “Sea Water Level, Fresh Water Tilted“. Anthony also discussed this slowdown here.
Now, the alarmists started this booshwa about an impending and dangerous acceleration in sea-level rise back in the 1980s. James Hansen has repeated this claim of impending acceleration for decades, as have many others. It’s become a recurrent meme for the alarmists, repeated around the world. And for all of that time, there hasn’t been the slightest sign of any increase in the rate of sea-level rise. None at all, and indeed, instead of acceleration, we’ve seen deceleration.
However, when it comes to climate alarmism, facts don’t seem to be important in the slightest … welcome to post-normal science, where actual observations and real-world data are just an insignificant detail.
w.
PS—the usual request. If you disagree with someone, please quote the exact words you disagree with. Otherwise, nobody knows what you are referring to, and misunderstandings multiply.
Actually the truth is that southern Virginia will see a landsinking due to effects north and northwest where landrise still makes the Northamerican tectonical plate tip in south east.
Many parts of New York Times article are not correct. But this is (more or less): Scientists say the East Coast will be hit harder for many reasons, but among the most important is that even as the seawater rises, the land in this part of the world is sinking. And that goes back to the last ice age, which peaked some 20,000 years ago.
Continue reading the main story
As a massive ice sheet, more than a mile thick, grew over what are now Canada and the northern reaches of the United States, the weight of it depressed the crust of the earth. Areas away from the ice sheet bulged upward in response, as though somebody had stepped on one edge of a balloon, causing the other side to pop up. Now that the ice sheet has melted, the ground that was directly beneath it is rising, and the peripheral bulge is fallingThe Flood Next Time, NYT 2014/01/14
Regardless of peripheral bulge ‘rate’, the implicit attribution of sea-level rise to anthropogenic causes is always present….and always, as Willis puts it, “floor to ceiling” with the attendant ‘who knows’ goal posts.
NO NO NO. The landsinking has been the major reason for all this. I found that out while analysing Sea Levels around the world back in 1993 (using 43 essential factors in my computer model). Landsinking AND erosion.
The “implicit attribution” is always there, whether or not if can be justified scientifically. That is the problem.
What you are implying is :
1/ that part of sea rise is thermal, fine.
2/ Part of sea rise is due to global land based ice loss, fine.
3/ That 1 and 2 are anthropogenic. , and that is a false assumption.
There has been global warming since LIA which will contribute to both 1 and 2. There is still global ice volume loss that has been occurring since the Earth exited the last glacial maximum, that also contributes the 2.
On top of that there is probably some contribution from GHG effect, thought that has never been demonstrated from observational data, only failed computer models.
That’s the trouble with the use of “implicit attributions”.
Re norah4you.
You may be right.
Ah – but – computer models have got the globe into gallumptious grief.
I’m a bum boatie, but computer models – GIGO is, I believe, still the recurrent meme.
Auto
I’ve been going to the Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk and VA Beach area for 50 years. By their numbers, Fort Monroe should be underwater, but it looks the same to me. But, I’m not a scientist, merely an observer.
The Hampton Roads area is sitting on the edge of a crater formed by a meteor strike 35M years ago and is sliding into the hole. That accounts for the subsidence. (Chesapeake Bay bollide) http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs49-98/
That’s true but while it’s true the erosion effect of wind-, water and temperature changes after the peak of last Ice Age had effects in the area, the landsinking is a major contributor.
On top of that there is probably some contribution from GHG effect, though that has never been demonstrated from observational data, only failed computer models.
We do have the Arrhenius experiments which at least can be replicated in the lab. So there is a solid theoretical basis. But only for raw CO2 effect, not for thrice-muiltiplying feedbacks. Henny put it at 1.1C per doubling (after being beaten down from higher numbers).
So, not much, but not nothing, either.
“So there is a solid theoretical basis. But only for raw CO2 effect, not for thrice-muiltiplying feedbacks.”
No negative feedbacks possible? None?
There is no “hole” to slide into. The crater has been filled and covered by marine sediments over the last 35 MY since it was formed.
evanmjones
September 14, 2014 at 6:29 am
We do have the Arrhenius experiments which at least can be replicated in the lab. So there is a solid theoretical basis.
Not sure that is the case.
Repeat the Arrhenius experiment but with an insulated non-heat conducting tube with observing IR transparent ports, filled with 75% N2 and 25% O2 bring the (non-radiative) gases in the tube to say 15C with a heated plate (equivalent to sensible/conductive heat from the Earth surface) which is then cooled to 15C. There will be no IR coming from the N2 and O2 in the tube as they are non-radiative at low temperature. Then add 0.04% CO2,
Hypothesis: There will now be IR coming from the gas mixture as CO2 is radiative and has been ‘warmed’ by collisions with the N2 and O2. Thus, CO2 can be shown to cool the atmosphere by radiating IR.
Don’t forget Willoughby Spit, just off the 64 when you cross from Hampton in to Norfolk.
Story goes that in 1660’s a hurricane created Willoughby Point, which the Willoughby family applied for it to be included in their property.
Subsequently, hurricanes piled up more sand in 1749, and between 1799 and 1807 the spit was formed to approximate what we see today. (Maps have depth soundings between mainland and Willoughby Point as late as 1799.)
Evanmjones: “We do have the Arrhenius experiments ”
No one is questioning the radiative properties of CO2, that is fairly well understood. The question is how the climate system reacts to a change in radiative forcing.
Many of the key processes in that reaction are poorly understood and seem to be in the domain of wild-ass-guessing. Worse, the forcing data are being ‘adjusted’ to fit the models, rather than the models to fit the data:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884
evanmjones
September 14, 2014 at 6:29 am
…
We do have the Arrhenius experiments which at least can be replicated in the lab. So there is a solid theoretical basis. But only for raw CO2 effect, not for thrice-muiltiplying feedbacks. Henny put it at 1.1C per doubling (after being beaten down from higher numbers).
A fact isolated in a laboratory and how that fact operates in the real world are very different questions. The “safe” conclusion would be that if the world operated like Arrhenius’ experiment any change in CO2 would result in a concomitant change in temperature in the atmosphere. The world however is a complex of coupled nonlinear systems whose behaviour is not only not understood, but has never been fully measured or described, and for which no complete catalog of interacting systems has ever been made. So, no, we do not have a “solid theoretical basis.” Given the choice between Arrhenius results and a beer, take the beer. The results are more predictable.
evanmjones;
“the Arrhenius experiments which at least can be replicated in the lab”, except, I gather, that if you replace the glass enclosures with mylar, the effect vanishes. Oops.
Norah,
Thank you for the helpful direction. I had read this anywhere but was aware of LA. Do you have any other resources that you recommend?
GarryD
They need sea level rise acceleration in the face of deceleration. Their projections are now in the toilet. Nothing to ‘sea’ here, move along folks.
The abstract of the second paper also smuggles in “…the rate of glacier mass loss was larger than previously estimated and was not smaller in the first half than in the second half of the century…”. In other words, the rate of glacier mass loss has [b]stayed the same[/b] throughout the 20th century.
At some point surely someone has to stop and think about whether this “anthropogenic forcing” really exists? At present they’re all rushing around looking for where the missing heat has hidden itself without stopping to think that there might not be any.
This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during the last decade
Can’t be. we KNOW the heat is hiding in there!
Filthy denialist obfuscatory excremet!
Ice sheets did not depress the land and if it did the land is not rising it is the sea that is receding as the earth grows in girth. The earth is getting hotter and expanding and as it does it excretes magma which expands as lava adding girth to the planet on land as well as under the 70% sea cover, We have to abandon Isostacy and see the light. Glacial Rebound is mythology. Darwin mislead us all down the wrong path and Jamaieson and Agassiz both came up with Isostatic Rebbound to justify Darwins mistaken deduction. And so for almost 200 years we have been lumbered with Isostacy which is pure figmentation based on a erroneous observational misinterpretation by Charles Darwin. It is time we debunk the Rebound Theory and realize what is really occuring. Richard Guy
You are so wrong as you can be. Ice Sheet DID depress land. Only fools can belive it didn¨t
http://education-portal.com/academy/lesson/the-effect-of-ice-age-glaciers-formation-of-pluvial-lakes.html#lesson
The effect of depression due to Ice Age ice sheet followed by landrise when ice had melted in the Baltic Sea you can sea here The Baltic Sea in older ages
same goes for everywhere ice been on land. Please try to understand that Archimedes principle is always valid!
I seem to remember investigations indicating that rates of SLR were decelerating – “Short term comparison of climate model predictions and satellite altimeter measurements of sea levels
Alberto A. Boretti” eg http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378383911001712
That must be the messiest, most unreadable abstract I’ve ever seen. What a silly idea putting URLs of refs in the abstract.
Direct link here:
http://phdtree.org/pdf/35256573-short-term-comparison-of-climate-model-predictions-and-satellite-altimeter-measurements-of-sea-levels/
The collapse of the peri-glacial forebulge is so well-know that every course in Quaternary geology mentions it.
The following report may have been the father of the one discussed in this blog post. Sea Level Rise: Local Fact Sheet for the Middle Peninsula, Virginia, prepared for the Virginia Coastal Zone Management Program at the Department of Environmental Quality by William G. Reay, Ph.D., CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science and Sandra Y. Erdle, CBNERRVA, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. September 2011.,
URL: http://www.vims.edu/cbnerr/_docs/ctp_docs/MPPDC%20Sea%20Level%20Rise%20Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL%202011.pdf
“During the last glacial period (maximum extent approximately 20,000 yr BP), the southern East Coast limit of the Laurentide ice sheet coincided with northern portions of Pennsylvania (Mickelson and Colgan 2003). As a consequence, land subsided under the ice load and, in turn, created a fore-bulge or upward displacement of lands south of the ice load. Upon retreat of the glacier, the land continued to redistribute, rebounding in previously glaciated areas and subsiding in the more southern forebulge region. Land subsidence rates on the order of 0.05-0.06 in/yr (1.2-1.4 mm/yr) are attributed to the postglacial forebulge collapse within the Bay region (Douglas 1991). It can take many thousands of years for impacted regions to reach isostatic equilibrium.”
Groundwater abstraction aggravates the isostatic adjustment of the forebulge, the subject of the next section of the report.
The authors state their best (conservative) estimate of RELATIVE rise in sea level as follows,
“Based on land subsidence and eustatic sea level information, the RSL rise rate would be expected to be on the order of 0.22 in/yr (5.6 mm/yr) at or near West Point, VA. Extrapolating current Gloucester Point and Lewisetta rates, RSL would increase by another 0.7- 0.8 ft (21-25 cm) by 2050 and 1.4-1.7 ft (43-51 cm) by 2100; this represents a conservative and low-end estimate.”
Then having made his conservative estimate, the writer abandoned his own estimate and adopt the alarming figures of Pyke et al..
Pyke, C.R., R.G. Najjar, M.B. Adams, D. Breitburg, M. Kemp, C. Hershner, R. Howarth, M. Mulholland, M. Paolisso, D. Secor, K. Sellner, D. Wardrop, and R. Wood. 2008. Climate change and the Chesapeake Bay: State -of-the-science review and recommendations. A Report from the Chesapeake Bay Program Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), Annapolis, MD. 59 pp.
Interestingly, the report of Pyke et al was not listed in the references of the report that Science commented on. URL: http://ccrm.vims.edu/recurrent_flooding/Recurrent_Flooding_Study_web.pdf
I stopped my subscription to Science and AAAS about 8 years ago, almost immediately after completing an M.S. in Earth Science. I came to see their current policy on climate as similar to their policy a couple of generations ago on rejection of plate tectonics. Prior to the revolution in the 1960’s, Science actually published a letter that called Wegener’s drift theory, “Teutonic pseudoscience”.
Fred
Can you give us the ref. in Science to the Teutonic Pseudoscience? I share your opinion of Science, although I still subscribe (and often think about dropping the subscription due to petty politics in their “news pages.) I am so old that I remember being taught in undergraduate geology classes that the ocean bottoms were old, cold, static, and had not changed since the formation of the Earth 2 billion years ago. It has been an exciting half-century to have been a geologist.
George H. Edwards, CPG
Alberto A. Boretti
It is not possible to know.
There are very few tide gauges not affected by isostatic rebound, tectonics, or both. And some of those are guesses based on surrounding land movement.
GPS is not accurate to a millimeter per year.
The newest and best satellite altimetry is Jason-2. The technical specification is 1mm drift per year. And the reproducible precision is 3.5. (waves, atmospherics). So the recent slowdown could just be the inherent instrument error.
And even if SLR did slow below 2.8, there is no agreement among three recent papers trying to reconcile the divergence problem. (‘observed’ icecap loss plus ‘observed’ thermostatic rise is 1/3 less than ‘observed” SLR. Throw in the computed global isostatic adjustment so 2.8 mm/ year becomes 3.1 mm/yr, and the divergence problem is almost 50%.)
An essay on this plus a debunking of the two really bad papers using terrestrial precipitation retention to explain a slowing that is likely just pseudo precision (measurement error) is in the forthcoming book.
“sea level rise at Sewells Point VA is 4.4 mm/yr and 3.8 mm/yr at Portsmouth, Virginia. ”
That gives 220mm and 190mm for their longest cited period including whatever subsidence is happening. No need for ‘if’s.
As Willis points out there has been no acceleration is global sea level over the last century and the “alarming” rise in temperatures in the last two decades of the 20th c. turned out to be short lived.
So their lowest estimation of sea level rise in VA is more that twice what the data actually indicate.
Their highest figure is off in Al Gore cuckoo land.
I’m not sure why anybody would subscribe to the Science Magazine if they want to find out about science.
“Just because a paper appears in Science or Nature doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”
No, but add in ‘its about climate’ and you get to a 97% confidence level.
” The consensus of scientists working on this report is that by 2100 global sea level will be between 8 inches and 6.6 feet above the level in 1992.”
That is a consensus of agreeing to disagree.
ie there is a consensus view that there is no consensus.
The latin term for that is sanssensus not consensus 😉
This reminds me of someone I used to know that invited me round to eat her vegetarian “chilli concarne”. It contained neither chilli nor “carne”.
At least they are agreed that sea level is not going to go down. That’s a start is suppose, though it’s of limited use to policy decision makers.
Who, exactly, comprises the “consensus” that predicts these alarmist sea level rises? Or is that merely another off the cuff claim by the authors?
The authors state that is a “consensus” of the authors. Although it is clearly a nonsensus given that range of values that they give.
If you ask a builder for an estimation of the cost of a job and he says between $10k and $15k, and you say : hang on that jobs worth no more than $1500-$2000 , that does not mean you have reached a “consensus” that the job is worth between $1500 and $15k. It mean that you _disagree_ about the price the job is worth.
In climate science this gets called consensus.
There is a consensus that tomorrow’s temperature in London will be between -10C and 45C. Hooray! What garbage.
How about “nonsensus”, a double entendre.
The issue in Virginia is how best to harvest other peoples money (OPM) for the betterment of your democratic friends and voters that will keep your party in power. For the next couple of years there will continue to be buckets of federal money spread around by using cAGW claims. This trough of slop will continue for a long time, even if the next administration wants to empty it. So, yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus – you just have to believe in global warming before he will provide the gifts you want.
Democrat, not democratic. There is nothing democratic about the Democrat party.
the good point when you predict catastrophy is any measure you take will save you from ctastrophy to happen.
eat more red beans! so that the flood doesn’t come!
The report professes its assumptions and conclusions “reasonable” 8 times. Among them is this:
Crazy is the new reasonable.
“Reasonable” in science means lack of proof.
Yep.
‘welcome to post-normal science’
Just a quibble, I don’t think the whole climate shenanigans thing is ‘post-normal’, which refers to a school of thought which reckons that pretty much all of science is made up and relative anyway.
Climate alarmism- where facts are not particularly relevant- might borrow a little from post-normal schools of thought, but I think they are really much more like old fashioned political style propaganda, as well as very much like religion.
I think even most climate scientists don’t have much time for post-normalism style ideas in science. They at least defer to data and facts, before they start meddling around with it.
“… a 2013 report by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, predicts a sea level rise of 1.5 feet within the next 20 to 50 years”
That’s well within the working lives of the predictors. Publicise the names of every individual who signed-off that statement, and prepare the ridicule now.
Ditto for the authors of the NCAR,the Copenhagen Diagnosis, etc. There should be a database of such signatories.
Sorry, but I cannot read anymore of the cr*p these people put out, it makes my brain hurt.
In Victoria we have places for them, they are called Sheltered Workshops.
‘welcome to post-normal science’
Another quibble “normal” science was defined by Thomas Kuhn. URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science
“Normal science” is not a term to throw around because it is tied up with “consensus science” enforces mainly by university professors. Normal science is the basis for textbooks and examinations. You have to know what scientists hold to be “true” in order to become a scientist, even if you do not accept — as Einstein did not accept — some aspects of normal science.
Caveat: Non-philosophers describe Kuhn as a philosopher, while philosophers regard him as a historian of science with very shaky views about what philosophy is about.
In contrast to “normal science” is a “revolutionary science”, not normally allowed for students sitting an exam or for textbook writers, at least not until the revolutionary scientific theory becomes accepted as the new “normal science” and maybe the theorist has received a Nobel Prize.
The following is an example of “non-normal” science, Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion, Qing-Bin Lu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B, 27, 1350073 (2013) [38 pages] DOI: 10.1142/S0217979213500732
(Note: CRE = Cosmic-Ray-driven Electron)
“Moreover, this review has also shown that CRE-driven polar O3 loss leads to an 11-year cyclic stratospheric cooling over the past 50 years. The observed data demonstrate that the longterm change of polar stratospheric temperature over Antarctica depends solely on the variation of total ozone, indicating that the effect of greenhouse gases plays a negligible role in the stratospheric cooling over the past five decades. Most strikingly, it is also found that global surface temperature change has an excellent linear dependence on the equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC). And weak but visible 11-year cyclic oscillations in the surface temperatures are also observed to follow the 11-year CR cycles. These observed data point to the possibility that the global warming observed in the late 20th century was dominantly caused by CFCs, modulated by CRE-driven ozone depletion. With the decreasing emission of CFCs into atmosphere, global cooling may have started since 2002. These observations imply that current climate models may underestimate the effects of CFCs and would have to be revised seriously. This is likely a subject deserving to look at closely.” EMPHASIS ADDED.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/envirophilo/lucosmicradiationfullpaper.pdf
The physics may be “normal” but the suggestion that CO2 is not the dominant driver of climate warming is anything but “normal” in the context of Thomas Kuhn historical account of how science is done.
How close this is to the non-normal science of Svensmark, only time will tell.
I’ve been thinking about sea level rises in general. In particular the conversion of “fossil fuels” to CO2 and H2O. From my research it appears that
1. We’ve used about a trillion barrels of oil in human history
2. About twice as much coal/lignite etc has been consumed.
3 One barrel of oil creates about 1.5 barrels of H2O based on:- 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 –> 16 CO2 + 18 H2O
4 All H2O produced by human activity eventually ends up in the sea. (an assumption by me)
5 Surface area of the sea is 360 Million Km^2
6 There are roughly 160 litres in a barrel.
Using that for a back of an envelope calculation I reckon that sea levels should have risen by about 5mm per year since about 1760. Which is greater than the current measured value.
Does anyone have a link to a “proper” calculation? I’m sure I’m not the first person to be puzzled by this.
Hi Sandy,
A nice bit of out of the box thinking. I did use an envelope, so I a may be wrong, but it looks like you are off by several factors of ten. Using 3 trillion (3 X 10 to the twelfth) barrels of fossil fuel (your stated equivalency)to generate nearly 5 trillion barrels of water and multiply that by 160 liters per barrel we get 8 x 10 to the 14th power liters of water. One meter of rise in an ocean of 360,000,000 sq. km would be 360,000 cu. kilometers (dividing by 1,000 meters to a km) equivalent to 360 trillion cu. meters ((billion cubic meters (1,000 x 1000 x 1000) in a cubic km)). then multiplying by 1,000 liters per cubic meter you get 360 quadrillion liters(10 to the 15th) or 3.6 x 10 to the 17th liters.. Apparently to obtain a one meter rise in the ocean would require 500 times as much fossil fuel burning as you posited. Stated another way, all the fossil fuels we have consumed have generated enough H2O to raise the oceans 2 millimeters. Thanks for the opportunity to drag out some nearly forgotten number crunching skills. I’d appreciate correction if my envelope has betrayed me. Enjoy.
I didn’t think it was correct, I obviously had a case of Hansenitis! I’ll use a bigger envelope and have another go.
Just another example of how little impact mankind has in nature.
It’s even more ridiculous on the west coast where there’s no sea level rise at all. Follow this link:
California Plans Nation’s Most Detailed Sea Level Database
And you will find this quote:
The state’s Ocean Protection Council last year urged other departments and offices to brace for about three feet of sea level rise this century.
“the they” 5 paras down. Oh, and is there no process for questioning this figure? Seems to me that the local opposition politicians would make hay with it…
@Greg Goodman. September 14, 2014 at 12:58 am
“…This reminds me of someone I used to know that invited me round to eat her vegetarian “chilli concarne”. It contained neither chilli nor “carne”…”
It must have been a ‘con’, then…!
Ba-Doom! Thank you, folks! I’ll be here all week….
I was thinking about an AGW Con Census.
A poll of all those who think its a con, especially those who at the same time say it isn’t.
Willis, what are the errors associated with these measurements? Must be quoted.
See upthread.
…I note in passing that this rate is the maximum rate mentioned in the underlying document … in other words, they’ve taken the absolute worst and most ludicrous estimate, 6.6 feet by the year 2100, and called that the “best available estimate for planning”? … spare me …..
Er… I suppose, if I were asked to prepare for some kind of problem – say, an increase in immigration, and I was given some estimates; and I knew nothing about the problem – then I, too, would take the worst-case scenario and say we ought to be prepared for that.
Reckless and unjustified ‘climate science’ claims yet another victim…
One reason why subsidence is so high around Virginia is that Chesapeake Bay is an old comet impact crater.
Long term tide gauges show the rate of sea level rise was greatest in the first half of the 20thC
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/virginia-governor-fighting-the-wrong-problem/
“I’ve been thinking about sea level rises in general. In particular the conversion of “fossil fuels” to CO2 and H2O. From my research it appears that
1. We’ve used about a trillion barrels of oil in human history
2. About twice as much coal/lignite etc has been consumed.
3 One barrel of oil creates about 1.5 barrels of H2O based on:- 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 –> 16 CO2 + 18 H2O
4 All H2O produced by human activity eventually ends up in the sea. (an assumption by me)
5 Surface area of the sea is 360 Million Km^2
6 There are roughly 160 litres in a barrel.
Using that for a back of an envelope calculation I reckon that sea levels should have risen by about 5mm per year since about 1760. Which is greater than the current measured value.”
Thats a great observation, not that I bothered to check your facts, sorry bout that.
I had a similar idea about rain, that the increased rain I imagine is falling on my property is somehow related to burning (fossil) fue but ive never followed up on the hunchl. Your observation goes a lot further, sea levels never entered my mind, but of course, even if you subtract the volume of the fuel from the oxidised fuel you end up with higher sea levels. This is a great mystery, you made my day. Thanks.
At least it makes logical sense to someone else. Yes I’d assumed all the water vapour went straight into the atmosphere and comes out as precipitation fairly quickly.
Ah, but what abut the subsidence cause by extracting the oil? And all those abandoned flooded mines?
Its never that simple.
The authors of the report should be named and shamed.
I would suspect that the authors are warmist supporters and therefore have no shame.
Measuring ‘Sea Level’ Is more complicated than most people think.
and they don’t talk about temperature of the sea, winds or atmosphere, or well people swimming ine the sea…
tides..
…all those rocks I tossed in it or skipped on it as a kid…
Or all the ships that sunk
Or all the sewage dumped in. One way we will fill the sea up!
Now there are sufficient numbers of “bad”, miseducated and/or questionable scientists “out n’ about” to give science a “bad name” in the eyes of the public, ….. but, …. worse yet, …. one needs to keep in mind that 90+% of all Directors, Managers and/or Board Members of State Agencies that have “sciencey” sounding names ….. are “political appointees” whose knowledge of actual, factual science was not a prerequisite factor of/for their employment.
I remember when a newly elected Governor of the State of WV appointed a High School Band Teacher to the position of ….. Director of the State Economic Development Authority and thus he was directly responsible for doling out “tens of million$ of dollar$” of taxpayer monies via Grants, low or no-interest Loans, etc.
What I can’t get my head around is this: [my bold]
Are we to believe that subsidence stops at the waterline? That the sea bed itself cannot rise and fall? That all sea-level rise is down to the a greater volume of sea water which is exacerbated by a drop in the level of dry land – and only the dry land?
My other palm/face moment was seeing the estimate of the rise is 8″ to 78″: I just wonder what the error bars were!
Thinking outside the box Harry. What about that- “Are we to believe that subsidence stops at the waterline?” Does it make a difference?
, ‘where actual observations and real-world data are just an insignificant detail.’
right in line with the first rule of climate ‘science’ if reality and the model differ in value its reality which is in error . And they wonder why many think this is a joke of an area