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 a kind of multiplier” remember those intensive years of mathematics training and the difference between addition and multiplication? No, ok, that explains why trains rarely run on time, and everything Pachauri says is nonsense.
what difference does it make. The 17 cm is refering to an estimated(computer modeled) sea level rise. Just because the sea level is higher does not change the final size of the wave produced by the earthquake. I would also like to know how accurate the modeled wave height is.
skip says:
“…17 cm …..17 inches …. 1.7 meters …”
dear skip learn first the units of measure.
Actually in the ocean reference page, sea level, is shown a negative sea level rise for the coast of Japan 1992-2011.
skip says:
March 23, 2011 at 12:18 pm
The term “pillock” appears to suit you as well.
A tsunami is similar to a shock wave transmitted through the water.
Water is not compressible, and as a transmitted wave, the water does not really move location until it reaches shore. In the deep ocean, the shock wave doesn’t care how deep the ocean is. 17cm of additional water and its weight is irrelevant.
Put a pipe (size is irrelevant) next to your ear and bang on it with a hammer, listen to the shock wave and you’ll quickly grasp the concept.
skip says: (March 23, 2011 at 12:18 pm)
First you say 17 cm, then 17 inches and then 1.7 meters. ?????????????
The height of the wave as it comes ashore is dependent on the contour of the bottom and the geography of the adjoining land. But it is the extraordinary long wave length that propels the water so far inland with such devastating force.
For those who are not familiar with swimming in surf perhaps this will help. Standing in 4 ft of water, a 3 ft wave is over your head. The water in a wave only moves as it breaks. If the wave was created fairly locally by medium winds (wind chop) there is little power and one can easily jump through it and feel no effects after going only about 1-2 linear feet through the wave. If the same size wave was created by sustained winds and has traveled a longer distance (swell), there is a lot more power to it and you must go 5-6 feet of linear distance through the wave to escape the power. With a tsunami the linear distance you must go through the wave to escape it’s power could be miles. That’s miles of rapidly moving water that just doesn’t stop. That’s what it does. That’s all it does. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear.
17cm. That’s just over 6.5 inches. Guys usually exaggerate more than that when no further proof is thought necessary. He can’t even get that right.
17cm? Even the Warmists give the rise in sea levels to be more like 3.8 cm, with periods of inexplicable, to them, plateaus.
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2006/2005GL024826.shtml
Regardless of whether or not sea level rose by 17 cm in about 100 years or how much it rose since the wall was built at the reactor site, how much change was there in terms of the local sea level. This is an area subject to tectonic activity so the land could be rising, falling or stable. Further, there could be non-tectonic isostatic adjustments occuring relating to readjustments follong the last glaciation and the post-glacial sea level rise. On top of that, due to the effects of rotation on a sphere, sea level rise is not uniformly distributed. You simply cannot apply a global average to any particular locality and expect to get the right answer in terms of sea level change.
OT but it seems that CA’s last 4 posts may add up to be a major bombshell. It seems that more and more fraudulent activity by the team is coming to light mainly by omission of data. It now seems that legal action could take place?
“The Supreme Court has said that companies may be sued under the securities law for making statements that omit material information, and it has defined material information as the sort of thing that reasonable investors would believe significantly alters the ‘total mix’ of available information” copied from a posting at CA
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/health/23bizcourt.html?_r=1&hpw
Owing to a decimal space out on my part the 1.7 must change to a .17 but it has no significant bearing on the argument.
(Now watch AW pounce with glee . . . brother.)
[Reply: Why would he? Anthony has been ignoring your comments. ~dbs, mod.]
MikeW says:
March 23, 2011 at 11:52 am
The problem here is that Dr. Pachauri wasn’t really focused on the question he was asked. Instead, he was thinking about the next novel he’s writing, with his hand deep in his trouser pocket, when he was quoted as saying “My word! 17 centimeters, that would be huge!“
###
If Dr. Choochoo thinks 17 cm is huge, I think he might have a problem with his reference.
Sea levels have been rising WELL BEFORE increased CO2 emission activity. Sea levels change all the time, being MUCH HIGHER just a few thousand years ago: http://sabhlokcity.com/2010/03/constantly-changing-sea-levels-and-dwarka/.
“Over the last 6000 years, sea level rises and falls of 2 to 4 meters over periods of several decades are common”
This man Pachauri is a total ass. Let no more be said. The credibility of IPCC is in deep negative territory.
Excellent graphics, Anthony! It perfectly illustrates how inane Pachuri’s ludicrous claim really is… and how ethically bankrupt all such alarmist exaggerations are.
A picture that is truly worth a thousand words……..
And now………
skip says:
March 23, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Skippy – Your comments are a testament to the gullibility of yourself and your cadre of deniers that global warming is natural.
Do you know if the land at Fukushima has been rising or falling tectonically over the last century, in relation to the local average sea level? Do you know what the average tide height is at Fukushima, or if the tide was high or low at the time of the tsunami? These and other natural factors could easily have larger ‘multiplier’ effects on the tectonically induced tsunami that resulted, than any purported 17cm of sea level rise over the last century.
Further, the dispute is over the unsubstantiated claim that mankind (Bad man – Bad!) has had some or any influence on the ‘average sea level height’ in the last century and thus contributed in any way to a naturally occurring, tectonic plate shift inducing tsunami.
Did you really not see and consider these simple, obvious counterarguments to your 4th grade analysis that man had any contributing influence on a natural tsunami event?
Mark_K made the most salient point, I’m dissappointed that nobody followed up! The impact of the tsunami is completely independent of long-term sea level rise, since the buildings would have simply been built at a lower elevation if there were no sea level rise.
Aside from this, it’s difficult to understand how they could cast sea level rise as the boogie man (and implicity mann-made global warming) when sea level rise occurred pretty steadily through the century (well before human CO2 emissions ramped up).
Here is the corrected version with all typos/edits fixed.
Mr. Watts:
This is simply a silly response to Pachauri and a testament to the gullibility of yourself and your readership.
First of all, for any of you who doubt that the sea level rise was at least 17 centimeters in the 20th century there is this from the scientific literature:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p364381652174757/fulltext.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024826.shtml
Fourth grade proficiency in math shows how the 17 cm derives from the observed yearly means. (No, I’m not giving any hints.)
But more important:
Does it even occur to any of you people that what the makes the tsunami more devastating is not the extra 17 cm of height per se, but the overall *mass* of water that strikes via tsunami because sea level is higher? Is this really that hard to understand?
Do you honestly think the point of concern is whether the Tsunami is too tall for the barrier walls or Japanese civilians?
I am not claiming to understand the precise physics of tsunamis, just the obvious fact that if you multiply .17 meters times the area a tsunami with its abnormally long wavelength covers from say, the latitudes touching Morioka and Sendai (the rough shoreline of the main tsunami strike), you’re talking about literally tens of *billions* of kilo*tons* of additional seawater in 2011 relative to 1900, all other things being equal. It’s the mass of water that kills, not the height.
Did you really not see and consider this simple obvious counterargument, Mr. Watts?
REPLY: “Does it even occur to any of you people…” Ah yes the sound of the yellow feathered anonymous breast beater in the AGW wilderness.
Oh yes, “Skip” I considered lots of things, (including all the decimal point/unit errors you made) but didn’t include all of them in the post, since it stands well enough on it’s own. My advice to you is that you check the sea level map from UC before you blather further:
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 both Pachy’s 17cm and your argument totally pointless, since there is no “extra” water, either as height or mass from supposed sea level rise in this instance. Now, be as upset as you wish 😉 – Anthony
UPDATE: just in case you don’t notice this equally important harpooning of your premise:
Myron, please read the critical word in your comment, “Engineer”.
Engineers are constrained by reality because their stuff has to work and they are accountable for their actions. Most “academics” become insulated and recurse among themselves, gradually drifting away from reality.
Kind of like a climate model.
onion says:
March 23, 2011 at 12:21 pm
“Doesn’t the damage depend on the energy of the wave which depends on more than the height? Those waves were travelling at tremendous speed and horizontal propulsive energy with an incredibly large mass of water behind them”
The height is a result of the energy. More energy, higher Tsunami. Tsunami = Big wave in the harbour. The damage depends mostly on weather the Tsunami makes it over the seawalls.
Peter Ward says “Leaving aside the apparent stupidity of the claim, is he correct that sea levels rose by 17cm in the 20th century?”
Yes, he is correct. 1.7mm per year is roughly the rate of rise averaged across the 1900’s.
See plot http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg at the bottom of http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
This guy is killing the AGW-cult all by himself. A true Nobel prize winner.
Pachauri, the gift that keeps on giving!
You distort we deride says:
March 23, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“[snip]
Seventeen centimeters is often enough to make the difference between drowning and survival.
Especially when the victims are children.”
Explain how a Tsunami with a height of 1400 cm leaves a child unscathed that a Tsunami of 1417 cm sweeps away. I don’t understand the mechanism yet.
These people are nutters. They are insane.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/23/peak-water?commentpage=last#end-of-comments
Seems we have passed peak water now.
It is so surreal.
Hey Skip;
I quite agree with your 4th grade math skills. In one post you managed to quote 17 cm, 17 inches, and 1.7 meters as if they were all the same thing. How many years have you been in grade 4?
As for your physcis, I agree again with your claim to not understand physics as applied to a tsunami. The mass of water “moved” isn’t related to the area the tsunami crosses, it is related to how much water was lifted in the first place and by how much. So for argument’s sake, somewhere on the ocean floor at say 200 meters depth, the floor moves straight up by a couple of cm. This causes a ripple. As the ripple moves toward shore, the sea floor is rising, and the ripple becomes compressed, the wave taller, because the energy is being transferred from a large volume of water to a smaller volume. You could ride out the swell at sea in a small boat, you might not even notice the ripple.
Amount of water move upward = 200 meters.
Plus a supposed 17 cm calculated via 4th grade math skills
Amount of water moved upward = 200.17 meters
Rounding error.
Skip,
You meant to say “…multiply .17 meters times the area a tsunami…”
The huge extra mass you describe is expressed against the whole distance you also described. The impact of the extra .17 metres worth of water is negligible – as Anthony purports.
And yeah, there’s a few WUWT readers that don’t accept the 17 cm increase in sea level. I do. But its not because of CO2 from humans.
Try again.
Pop Quiz:
Q1. Which of the following is thicker?
a) 17 cm
b) a short plank
c) Rajendra Pachauri
/sarc
skip says:
March 23, 2011 at 12:18 pm
“Does it even occur to any of you people that what the makes the tsunami more devastating is not the extra 17 inches of height per se, but the overall *mass* of water that strikes via tsunami because sea level is higher? Is this really that hard to understand?”
1400cm^3 = 2744000000 cm^3 = 724888.1 gal 8.2 lb/gal or 5944082 lbs
1400*1400*1417 = 2777320000 cm^3 = 733690.3 gal or about 6016258 lbs
Yes we know the mass or force behind the extra 17cm but there is no way any structure fell because of the extra 72176 lbs. Both are so close to 6 million that it would scare ya. (don’t know speed so I can’t continue the F=ma calculations for you)