Reader John Smith writes in with this interesting photo essay.
Dear Anthony —
Back in November 2010 you did a post ( Freaking out about NYC sea level rise is easy to do when you don’t pay attention to history) about sea level rise and its effects on Manhattan Island. The post started with this picture from an Armageddon Week special on the History Channel, showing what lower Manhattan would supposedly look like after one hundred feet or so of sea level rise.
You then included historical information about Manhattan, showing how, despite some sea level rise over the centuries, the dry land of Manhattan Island had actually increased greatly, due to ongoing landfill by the inhabitants.
Your readers may be interested to know that the process of landfill in lower Manhattan continues to this day. This has nothing to do with global warming or sea level rise. The latest project, taking place literally in the shadow of the new One World Trade Center, involves construction of a riverside park in the very spot where the debris from the old World Trade Center was loaded onto barges to be shipped away. Lots of new soil is arriving to serve as a home to the plants and trees to follow.
This first picture was taken along the bike path approximately 2500 feet North of the World Trade Center construction site, looking West. The large piles of soil have been trucked in over the last several weeks. Behind the soil is the Hudson River, and the tall buildings in the background are in Jersey City, New Jersey.
In this second picture we are looking Southwest from the same spot. These piles are mostly gravel, presumably for subsoil. The large plastic bags are what the soil arrives in. There looks to be plenty of landfill here to raise the level of the area under construction by at least several inches.
Looking due South from the same spot along the bike path, the tall building in the center with cranes on top is the new One World Trade Center under construction. It is currently at about 65 stories, a little over half of its final height. Since the building will be 1776 feet high, and this spot is about 2500 feet away and just West of due North, this spot will be in the shadow of the new building between about 11 AM and 12 AM during much of the colder half of the year. The building immediately next to the One World Trade Center construction is Seven World Trade Center, also visible at the upper left of your History Channel picture.
Finally, another part of the construction project involves raising the sea wall that forms the shore line of Manhattan. As far as I can tell, this part of the project has nothing to do with protecting Manhattan against sea level rise, but rather is an esthetic matter to make the sea wall in the Tribeca segment of the park transition smoothly to the sea wall surrounding the Battery Park City neighborhood immediately to its South. The Battery Park City wall had been built several feet higher, so previously there was a large step up where one ended and the other began. This last picture is taken from the North side of Battery Park City (less than 1500 feet from One World Trade Center), looking East back to the sea wall of the island just North of Battery Park City. This is actually the spot where the debris from the old WTC was loaded onto barges some nine and a half years ago. The lower, dark portion of the wall pre-existed, and the upper, white portion was built approximately one to two years ago.
This should provide plenty of protection against any potential sea level rise for the next century or two!
===============================================================
I’ve added this Google Earth map to help readers locate the place – Jim Hansen’s office is further North near the West Side Highway. Click image to enlarge.
That picture of the sea wall looks pretty scary! Why, with the sea level increasing at a rate of 2 – 3 mm/year, the ocean will be breaching that sea wall in…errr… hmm … let’s see, that wall is about 2 m higher than the water line, and 2 m = 2000 mm. So divide by 2 mm/year, and we get… ummm… uhhhh … never mind …
/climate science sarc
9:56 pm – Tim Ball says:
The region is still rising from isostatic rebound following the Wisconsin Glacial advance.
The region is rising as you say, but the effect on the NYC area is that the land is dipping further into the sea. The regional plate is tipping about an axis that is inland. As a result, the measured sea level in NYC has been rising for centuries, long after the tremendous rise caused by the melt-water of the ice sheet was complete. The rate is close to 1-foot per century, and is documented in articles by Leatherman. Gornitz, an avid champion of the Hansen/GISS view, acknowledges this in her calculations and projections of sea level rise by AGW for the NYC region.
The one constant in all these armageddon-like predictions is that it supposes nothing will change, that the conditions will continue along the biased line drawn by the believers. How can we predict what will happen many years into the future when we can barely predict what will happen 7 days from now? The assumption that nothing will change is why the doomsayers are consistently wrong. The only constants are change and human ingenouity to overcome obstacles.(Death and taxes are a given.)
@Al Gored says:
May 18, 2011 at 12:18 am
“If it helps calm the nerves of risophobes – or whatever people living in fear of sea level rise are called”
Your comment is risible.
NikfromNYC
Here is an extract from my sea level study-although its out of context and not yet edited I think it gives enough information to answer some of your questions.
Its really what has been done in Chapter 5 of AR$ to splice all sorts of records of varying provenance together that concerns me as they are trying to parse inaccurate or incomplete records to fractions.
“The trouble is that organisations- such as the IPCC- exclude natural cycles and draw straight lines from a recent start point. The level of knowledge of past sea levels by those in the industry-let alone the general public- is very poor. Generally speaking those involved are merely looking at satellite records and don’t delve any further back. The general public just believe what the IPCC and MSM tell them.
The reconstruction by IPCC using 23 tide gauges from 1900 -only 2 from the SH- and which include only seven that haven’t moved -but ALL of those subject to considerable development around them-is a very poor piece of work. The latest existed only from 1933. A couple predate 1900. To then stick inaccurate (in their own words) satellite altimetry on top and try to pass it off as a highly accurate measure of the recent past is nonsensical.
Ironically even Wiki are equivocal on the subject of its accuracy!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
Tide gauges (like thermometers) were never intended to be highly accurate and varied enormously until very recent years with no standardisation. Here is one example;
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fuga_Island_Tide_Gauge_1927.jpg
Accurate to a fraction of an inch? I dont think so
This is the Newlyn (UK) tide gauge details from which all sea levels are referenced Readings were taken over a 5 year period from measurements on a staff.
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/tgi/ntobs.html
This technical presentation is interesting but in particular Slide 11-highest sea level
Slide 37-shows real absolute level compared to IPCC estrimate
Slide 40 and Slide 41 note caveats on measurements
http://www.psmsl.org/train_and_info/training/…/chile/pw_chile_extreme.ppt
Tonyb
R Babcock says:
I find it hard to believe with tides (and variable moon and Sun distances), wind changes, currents, water temperature changes and other factors, 1 mm of sea rise or fall could even be measured.
That’s about what I’m thinking, too. 1mm is smaller than the wave I can generate by blowing on some water…
I’m assuming it’s based on averages, but if so, what is the margin of error in these measurements?
And I know our satellite technology is pretty good, but good enough to measure that 1mm difference?
Don K says:
May 18, 2011 at 1:09 am
“we could both be wrong”
Not quite. Remember that hot crust is more buoyant than cool. As the Emporer chain conveys the islands off the hot spot, they cool, and sink…becoming smaller as the sea and settling decomposes the labile basalt which composes the islands. At some point along the way the north coasts of Oahu and Molokai fell into the abyss (you can see the landslide scar on Google Earth), likely causing an immense tsunami.
http://www.mbari.org/volcanism/Hawaii/HR-Landslides.htm
The contention that displaced corals are tsunami-emplaced is perfectly valid as is the progression from volcano to guyot. In fact, isostasy and tectonics can account for many sea level variances worldwide. Manhattan is still getting over being mashed by the continental glaciers.
@ur momisugly phil (5:11am)
True, and the old jetties as well. I believe the old library is also below water.
Very little of that is due to sea level rise, but instead there was a major earthquake that sank all of that in a matter of minutes. I have forgotten the date of that cataclysmic event, but it should be easy to search on the web.
Ok I looked it up. 335AD was the earthquake that dropped Cleopatra’s palace under 20 feet of water.
TonyG says:
May 18, 2011 at 9:25 am
R Babcock says:
I find it hard to believe with tides (and variable moon and Sun distances), wind changes, currents, water temperature changes and other factors, 1 mm of sea rise or fall could even be measured.
That’s about what I’m thinking, too. 1mm is smaller than the wave I can generate by blowing on some water…
I’m assuming it’s based on averages, but if so, what is the margin of error in these measurements?
And I know our satellite technology is pretty good, but good enough to measure that 1mm difference?
I have posted this reference a number of times in the past, but for those not familiar with it I’ll do so again. It’s the Data products Handbook for the JASON 2 satellite
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/J2_handbook_v1-4_no_rev.pdf
For the purposes of this discussion the most relevant portion is this quote.
2.3.1. Accuracy of Sea-level Measurements
Generally speaking OSTM/Jason-2 has been specified based on the Jason-1 state of the art,including improvements in payload technology, data processing and algorithms or ancillary data (e.g: precise orbit determination and meteorological model accuracy). The sea-surface height shall be provided with a globally averaged RMS accuracy of 3.4 cm (1 sigma), or better, assuming 1 second averages.
If you go to the PDF there is a table which follows this section that lists the elements of the error budget. I would call your attention to the line for significant wave height which indicates they are unable to distinguish wave surfaces to closer than 0.5 METERS. Since waves are present over most of the oceans most of the time I’m still puzzled how even their claims of centimeter accuracy can be more than a statistical fantasy.
It is nevertheless a fascinating document and if you’re interested in this area at all I highly recommend spending some time exploring it. If you are at all like me you will find yourself drifting between amusement and irritation at how many seemingly intelligent people are still willing to argue about millimeter and tenths of millimeter variations in GMSL.
Bengt Abelsson, at 4:30am
You are sooo right!
Phil., at 5:11am
You are sooo wrong!
Owen, at 12:05pm
Owen, you stole my comment before I had a chance to write it. Yes, an earthquake in 335 AD destroyed Cleopatra’s palace, part of the Library, and caused part of the coast to sink over 20′. Many statues from the palace have been recovered, but archeological work is very dangerous; becouse of the erthquake many palace columns are unbalanced at the bottom of the bay. Also, size of these columns is something worth seeing – they are huge.
I have no time to check now, but if I remember it right, there are few ruined Mediterranean port cities, destroyed by an earthquake, where ground did not sink, but was elevated instead, and those ruined port cities are now about 3 miles away from the coast – I would love to see an alarmist trying to explain sea level rise by using those port cities as an example.
Spector says:
May 18, 2011 at 4:20 am
“I do not know if anyone has ever refuted this claim . . .”
I think your Potsdam fellow has it backwards. At the end of a glacial event the lower latitude and lower elevation ice will melt initially. Once the melting of this ice proceeds and leaves only high latitude and high elevation ice there isn’t going to be a time of “really gets going” and “unstoppable” melting of ice. Visit Seattle – look at “the Mountain.” Mt. Rainier still has glaciers while the massive Puget Lobe of the Frasier Glaciation is long gone.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/GeologyofWashington/Pages/lowland.aspx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don K says: (also — James Schrumpf @ur momisugly 5:59 am)
May 18, 2011 at 4:36 am
“The Appalachians were possibly a bit higher as they have probably eroded a bit (It’s not easy to explain why they are still around).”
Try isostasy. See the last paragraph here:
http://hovanitz.com/ChapterNotesTarbuck/Chapter10c.html
Whoa, Don K says:
May 18, 2011 at 4:36 am
The Laramide Revolution was well under way (the Rockies were forming), and the central seaway in the US was shrinking drastically in the latter part of the Cretaceous. Also, the Early to Mid-Cretaceous featured high rates of sea-floor spreading (NA and SA speeding away from Africa) but that was slowing down (and the greatly enhanced spreading ridges were diminishing as they cooled and sank back into the asthenosphere), so water was receding back into the ocean basins.
Most of the Earth’s land mass was in temperate climates. There might have been some floating ice at the North and South Poles, but it would be a fraction of the amount that obtains today, mainly because a giant mountain called Antarctica sits squarely on the South Pole and allows for a massive buildup of ice on its very cold highlands.
So, a scan of that Rutgers paper suggests that their “backstripping” model is wrong, and that the rather smaller estimates of rising seas from European studies is correct. They’re seeing the water driven from the central North American epeiric sea by the uplifting Rocky Mountains, lessened somewhat by an expanding (deepening) ocean basin. The Cretaceous was pretty hot throughout*, so how could its nascent, floating ice caps have much to do with anything. Cripes, there were dinosaurs and forests in the highest latitude parts of Canada, at least, in that time.
I’ll have to read that article carefully, but it looks like reasonable field geology gone bad through the use of some “model” calculating a number of difficult to estimate variables, and a complete oversight of the global conditions that pertained in the Late K. And, all the figures in the pdf are upside down!
*The Cretaceous, and most of the rest of history back to about 600 MYBP, was considerably hotter than today, and the atmosphere contained as much as twenty times more CO2 than today, and yet no “runaway” global heating took place. And further, based on the rate of increase of species (and their rapid return after a couple or three catastrophes scattered through those 600 million years that nearly extinguished life each time), life seems to appreciate conditions like Southern Florida or Brazil, and grows like topsy. I don’t, but it seems I am vastly overruled. I’ll just hang out where its mostly 70F.
RE: John F. Hultquist (May 18, 2011 at 4:17 pm)
“I think your Potsdam fellow has it backwards. At the end of a glacial event…”
I believe that he was referring to a sea level rise caused by arctic and antarctic grounded ice melting as a result of their projected anthropogenic temperature increases in those regions. He may be the German equivalent of Dr. Michael Mann or Dr. Phil Jones. You are probably correct regarding glacial events.
I believe Dr. Rahmstorf’s Oxford projections motivated Deborah Teramis Christian, a science fiction/fantasy novelist, to publish a web article entitled “New York Under Water: Sea Level Change This Century.”
Dave Wendt says:
I have posted this reference a number of times in the past, but for those not familiar with it I’ll do so again. It’s the Data products Handbook for the JASON 2 satellite
I was not familiar, and thank you!
Speaking of sea level changes…
Check Pacific Ocean, multiple altimeters, seasonal signals removed:
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/LSA_SLR_timeseries_regional.php
A graph that was particularly interesting…
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_pac_free_all_66.pdf
Looks like sea levels are plunging. Must be problems with multiple altimeters.
Just for reference, the primary reason that I have referred to Dr. Rahmstorf is that he, as a person proclaimed by the news media to be a leading world expert on sea level changes, provides ‘top cover’ for sea level disaster scenarios like those presented by the History Channel and effectively insulates them from charges of unwarranted alarmism and sensationalism even if the current evidence seems to indicate that the rate of sea level rise appears to have slowed down. I note that he is now listed as a vice chair of the IPCC.
My personal view is that sea level and ice-pack changes are probably being driven primarily by natural processes.
Below is a current example (this year) of what Dr. Rahmstorf has been saying:
The Arctic ice is melting faster than expected