From this article in The Hindu: (h/t to WUWT reader Adam Gallon)
“In the 20th century, sea-level rise was recorded at an average of 17 centimetres. If the sea-level was significantly lower, clearly the same tsunami would have had a less devastating effect. Therefore, sea-level rise is a kind of multiplier of the kinds of threats and negative impacts that will take place anyway,”
It seems to me that clearly Dr. Pachauri can’t mentally manage the concept of scale. Here’s the NOAA wave height graphic that was flashed around the world on news media shortly after the Tsunami Warning was issued, while the tsunami was still traveling across the Pacific:
Source: NOAA Center for Tsunami Research and NOAA Scientific Visualization Lab
Note the inset I added, now here’s that inset area magnified with the color key added and the 17cm Pachauri mentions marked:
Hmmm, for the people of Japan in the hardest hit areas, I don’t think it would matter much. But let’s compare the numbers and find out.
We can describe it another way in the scale of familiar human experience. Wiki gives this 2006 value for the average height of the Japanese people, the left figure is male, the right is female:
| Japan | 1.715 m (5 ft 7 1⁄2 in) | 1.580 m (5 ft 2 in) |
Let’s look at some other things:
Bonsai trees reach an average height of two feet (61cm)
Read more: Why Is the Bonsai Tree Passed Down Within the Family? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_6744566_bonsai-passed-down-within-family_.html#ixzz1HR1GULDU
From Wiki, the height of the sea wall at the Fukushima reactor site:
“The plant was protected by a sea wall and designed to withstand a tsunami of 5.7 [570cm] meters…”
The actual height of the Tsunami wave there:
…but the tsunami had a height of about 14 meters [1400 cm] and topped this sea wall
OK let’s make some scale imagery to help visualize these values:
Now let’s insert the image above into the image which shows the height of the Tsunami as reported at the Fukushima reactor complex:
Click the above image to present it at the actual 1 pixel = 1 centimeter scale on your monitor.
That 17 centimeters that Dr. Pachauri speaks of makes all the difference, doesn’t it?
Note to other bloggers: feel free to use these graphics under “fair use” terms, but please provide a link back to this article at:
UPDATE: I had noted the actual sea level trend near the north coast of Japan as measured by satellites, but figured I need not mention it since the story stood well enough on its own.
Commenter “Skip” however seemed to think otherwise, so I had to bring it up. See below:
Works out negative with the correction applied too: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib.jpg
Note the negative trend in sea level for Japan’s north coast, which makes Pachy’s 17cm worries totally pointless. Doesn’t he have Internet access?
UPDATE2: This report of sea level trends in Japan from the Japan Meteorological agency shows the current SL lower than in 1950 by about 20mm. That certainly doesn’t square with AGW theory well, and again makes Pachy’s 17cm value for the area pointless. See: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10897163/National-Report-of-Japan
h/t to WUWT reader “An Inquirer” for the report
Bonsai trees reach an average height of two feet
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Is Pachauri Indian for pillock?
Pachauri lost credibility ages ago.
I love it when people put real numbers on things.
Aside from the fact that it was only 17cm, the fact is that people build relative to sea level, flood plain, etc. If the sea level had been two meters lower, the buildings would have been two meters lower.
Doesn’t a 17cm increase play a similarly critical role in Pachauri’s magnum opus, Return to Almora?
Perhaps Pachauri thinks 17 cm in Hindu is significant in English???
Pachauri’s comments demonstrate once again, the desperation of the AGW movement and the “height” they will stretch to support their cause!
Just need to imagine the tsunami barriers being 17cm higher.
That would have prevented all this. /sarc
I really appriciate how you put things into perspective with the chart.The climate change crowd,along with the global warmingist,are having to abandon ship because their ship is sinking
Good Lord! I’m so blogging this!!! (can I steal the “scale” image… please oh please????)
[If you do, give Anthony credit. ~dbs]
REPLY: sure, have at it – Anthony
Perhaps Mr Pachauri mistook the height of the heels in his shoes for the sea level change? Towering man of stature that he is… Just for the record, I don’t wear pumps. I prefer stilettos.
In fact it would have made exactly Zero difference.
When japanese engineers were calculating the height of the required sea defences, how ever they worked it out, they would have concluded that they only needed at wall of 1.83m to afford the required protection since the ocean would have been lower.
Good job they did not throw him out, we need his constant stupidity to show the IPCC for what it is. He a perfect chair (or stool maybe).
You have to love him for trying.
Pachauri’s statement is too silly for words!
“…or stool…”
Sly, P. Solar. I liked it!
17 cm is quickly absorbed by the tidal flux of 181 cm.
http://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Yotukura-Fukusima-Japan/tides/latest
With a 1000 cm high tsunami, 17cm would only make a minor difference.
Having a tsunami at low tide with a 17cm additional layer of water is the same as having the tsunami about 1/2 hour before or after the low tide without any sea level rise.
At 17 cm lower, you still have a tragedy.
Leaving aside the apparent stupidity of the claim, is he correct that sea levels rose by 17cm in the 20th century?
Frankly this individual is one of the most distasteful and insensitive examples of humanity I have ever seen.
I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on the Earthquake issue, however, following up with this, takes the probability, that reporter was correct, to better than 98% on either a Bayesian or Frequentist model!!
Surely he can’t keep that position much longer?
Whatever remaining credibility the IPCC still had, just vapourised I would suggest!!!
What was the state of the tide at the time, I wonder?
It’s not even the 17 cm. Has it risen 17 cm since the nuclear facility was built or most of the houses were built or the retaining wall was built? Didn’t think so. In other words, when I’m building something, I don’t care how much the sea level has risen in the prior 50 years, or 100 years or 1000 years. I do an assessment of the current sea level, stability factors, foundation needs, etc. and build to that.
In addition, it is not at all clear that a 17cm rise makes any difference whatsoever, or in which direction it makes a difference. How does the extra 17cm feed into the water’s reaction to the quake, the water’s wave pattern, the water’s roll/movement once it reaches the shallows and the land?
Finally, even if the 17cm additional water added to the tsunami, it is a rounding error.
The relevant comparison is not to the 2m open ocean waves (which are harmless and perhaps not even noticed by ships), but to the 10m breaking waves when the tsunami reaches shore.
Even then, as Mark K notes above, the tsunami-relevant damage depends on the height of the wave relative to average sea level. Given that most new building has already adapted to the 17 cm gradual rise (assuming that’s correct), there’s no reason to expect more damage today than 100 years ago (assuming the same degree of settlement and equal tsunami add-on).
Century-old buildings within reach of the tsunami might have received an extra 17 cm of flooding, but that is not what the great problem was.
Ah, another remark that has gone off the rails for Mr Choochoo, it gives a insight to the mentality of those that make his employment possible.
Give this genius a measuring tape and send him to help King Knut they need each other.
Just speculating – 17 cm higher sea-level means the sea-bottom that moved was 17 cm deeper under water. I’d guess that the shallower the water, the higher the tsunami for the same size of quake. So might a higher sea-level alleviate a tsunami’s effects to some extent?
Mr Pauchari was quoted in Times of India that human actions contributes to earthquakes and tsunamis.
He is counting on the stupidity of most people. Most people will not think of the fact that buildings are built to current sea levels, nor the fact that sea levels have been rising unevenly for the past 10 000 years, and most people are way too stupid to think with numbers to realize how idiotic the stement is when scale is considered.
Those who blog the picture will wake up a few people.
Not to mention only a tiny fraction of that 17 cm can even arguably be attributed to anthropogenic causes.
Also, if the sea level were lower, all the buildings would be placed proportionally lower, so there would have been no effect anyway. Strange logic.
If there was no water, the earthquake would not cause a wave. If the water was very thick, say hundreds of miles, such a disturbance at the bottom would likely not be noticeable at the surface. So, what is the “optimum” depth needed to maximize the wave?