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.
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Pachauri write in one of the Climategate emails that he would rather delete the data which proves his credibility and competence than release it to the world? Perhaps I’m confused. /sarc.
So by IPCC’s Pachauri, and most greenies, we shouldn’t build anywhere near coastal regions because of ‘future’ sea level rise.
kbray in california says:
March 23, 2011 at 1:02 pm
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.
Skippy, I don’t think you’re listening…
let me expand on the above for comprehension…
The pipe is the ocean.
The hammer impact is the earthquake shock.
The air between the pipe and your ear is the shore.
The pain in your eardrum is the damaged town.
The energy wave was transmitted from the hammer (the earthquake) to your eardrum (the town), via the pipe (the ocean) and the air (the shore). The amount of steel in the pipe (water in the ocean) is of no importance. This analogy is close enough for illustration. The harder you hit the pipe, the stronger the impact on your ear, the more damage to the town.
Brilliant graphics, brilliant post!
A most entertainingly elaborate way of pointing out the ludicrousness of Pachauri’s assertion that the the present-day sea level, 17cm higher than a century ago, has significantly exacerbated the destructive consequences of the 1400 cm tsunami.
And as an added bonus, some of the elaborate replies have also been entertaining. DJ’s calculations of how much the damage would have been reduced had the sea level only been 17 cm lower deserve special mention as ironic masterpieces:
“Homes and businesses in Japan washed off of their foundations occurred 18 seconds sooner than if the sea level had been 17cm lower at the inception of the tsunami.
The total damage to the reactor’s back up generators would have been .02% less with an initial sea level of 17cm lower. Those same generators would have also lasted an additional 42 seconds with the lower sea level.”
Love it!
Of course being a subduction island arc system Japan’s relative sea level changes won’t be the same as that from thermal expansion or melting ice. Some parts of Japan are rising above the sea level (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=647-071) some show a sinking of land into the sea twice the rate of sea level rise (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=642-141).
Now someone of Pachauri’s stature should know this before making claims. Hence more evidence that the IPCC is not a science organization.
In my limited idea of a tsunami, I would expect the height of the wave to be the height above the sea level at the time. Surely that makes any sea level rise, tidal factors, or local barometric pressures completely irrelevant (note that these last two completely dwarf the first).
Maybe I’m missing something, or maybe Patchy is.
skip, I’m afraid there is no additional height! The wave is the height above the current sea level!
Logic: a game that seems to confuse so many alarmists…..
Since Skip has trouble following comments, I’m placing this one to direct him to scroll upwards until he sees responses. Always happy to help.
That’s Pachauri’s point, and AW’s fixation on the additional height as the crucial factor shows he has no discernment. Quit defending this nonsense!
Yep, it’s all our wickedness of an advanced society to blame for the damage. If we did not have an advanced society the wave would have been smaller, there would not have been as many homes destroyed, and no nuke plants to affect. So let’s all give up this modern society, return to hunter gatherers, end our CO2 emissions and the world would never have a bad event ever again. Right…
skip says:
March 23, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Pauchauri’s evil henchman writes,
“First of all, for any of you who doubt that the sea level rise was at least 17 centimeters in the 20th century…”
“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…”
“I am not claiming to understand the precise physics of tsunamis, just the obvious fact that if you multiply 1.7 meters times…”
Do I notice a trend here, namely to exaggerate logarithmically?
Bollocks, Big Bollocks and Ginormous Bollocks
My only comment is as follows:-
“BANG!! Another hole in the foot of Choo-choo Pachauri.”
A 17cm sea level rise?
For goodness’ sake, a difference of 1700cm either way would have made not one jot of difference to the effects that that dreadful inundation wrought. And that the Fukushima nuclear power station could have withstood such an unimaginable catastrophic event says much for the over-engineering which the original constructors of the plant insisted upon.
skip says:
March 23, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Even with fourth grade proficiency in maths, it would seem obvious not to confuse, as you do within a few sentences, 17 cm with 17 inches, and then 1.7 meters (!?!?).
When you attempt to be condescending to those who have actually bothered to do the maths, it might be a good idea not to make elementary school errors like that – it just makes you look very foolish
Let me ask you a direct question, Mac: Do you agree, as AW argues, that the hypothetical 17 cm increase in height of the tsunami is the crucial factor in determining whether sea level rise exacerbates tsunami damage?
A completely academic question. Assuming the 17cm increase is correct (over which time frame?), it’s a natural change, would have happened regardless of our CO2 emissions. Hence there was NOTHING we could have changed in the last 100 years which would have changed that 17cm. Being an island arc system the relative sea level changes anyway.
So, Skip, may I suggest you go back to Coby’s ScienceBlog where you will feel far more at home in your fantasy world.
Skip,
Are you saying that if the ocean was -17cm there would be no tsunami???
“If the sea-level was significantly lower, clearly the same tsunami would have had a less devastating effect.”
LOL. If the sea-level were significantly lower, you’d have just had more development over the years at those lower elevations. If the coast of Japan were 17cm (or more) lower, the building wouldn’t have stopped exactly where it has now.
@skip
“Its not a roller that hits land like something you surf on. Tsunamis can have wavelengths of 100s of km. An extra 17 centimeters of *that* will have a massive additional impact by virtue of added *mass* of water, not *height*, all other things being equal. ”
You seem to think that the width of the wave has nothing to do with its height, which of course it does. A tsunami with a “wavelength of 100s km” doesn’t have much height which is why it doesn’t topple any ships. But come land all that mass of water compress’ and create the sensationalist height.
However that isn’t what dirty old novelist Pachauri meant, but if the original sea level was 17 cm higher that would have even more catastrophic effects. Although he don’t seem to take into account that if an earth quake has to move a body of water that is 17 cm more that’ll take even more force to move and thus create a higher wave since it is much heavier. It’s what them weird people, throwing things in the air just to have trajectories calculate, call physics, which apparently happen to be rather big thing in all schemes of things including reality. :p
well – I thought I check the tidal range as well
I found this on google maps Ishinomaki, Miyagi Prefecture, Japan
and this web site for tidal ranges (I think it’s the same place; spelling across different web sites is just not consistent) :
http://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Isinomaki-Miyagi-Japan/tides/latest
the 7 day tidal chart shows a tidal range of 1.69 metres – um – close enough to 1.7 metres as makes no odds (since it will no doubt have at least a ±0.01m error)
OR
the tidal range exceeds the claimed sea level rise by an order of magnitude.
If some one has a Japan Pilot kicking around; perhaps they could see at what state of tide the tsunami hit?
Why do all these people thing that sea level is a constant? Don’t they know about tides? Even Canute knew about them; long before AGW
Forget 17 cm rise. The reactors are post 1970. 70/100×17=12 cm rise prior to the reactors being built. So 5cm rise since they were built. But reactor design in tsunami zones is not one of my areas of expertise but clearly Pachuri understands even less.
“Are you smarter than a Fifth Grader?”
At least one person here apparently is not.
Skip,
Yes the mass of water involved in a tsunami would make a difference. But you have already been told a number of times that sea level around Japan has been falling for a considerable time.
So perhaps you could go away and look at the figures again and have a rethink.
This is in fact properly disgusting. And it truly shows how the green propaganda stops at nothing. Pouah.
Only the Japanese could do this!!
MikeW says:
March 23, 2011 at 11:52 am
17 cm in a smutty novel is huge!
Smokey says:
March 23, 2011 at 2:18 pm
skip,
This article has been rated “excellent” by 32 people so far. Did it ever occur to you that you might be mistaken, and that everyone else is correct?
=========================================
Oh, no! It’s Skip’s presence that makes it an excellent post! First he does a self pwn with a decimal point and derisive 4th grader remarks and then to show his complete lack of understanding of a tsunami and height conventions, he details his lack of understanding for additional self-flagellation. His being a Pachy defender and a warmist exemplar, this is what makes the post.
We need to have a climate blog equivalent to failbook.
We can all agree that when it comes to mr. P: it’s worse than we thought!