From NOAA Headquarters, laughable claims gift wrapped for the fall AGU conference.
They claim 8 inches to 6.6 feet (o.2 to 2 meters) over the next century….such wide variance doesn’t inspire much confidence, even though they claim “high confidence” in that spread. That’s a lot like saying that you have “high confidence that the winner of the latest NBA basketball game will score between 20 and 200 points”. I don’t think the bookies would be impressed with the skill. – Anthony
Experts available to discuss new paper detailing global sea level rise scenario
On December 6, NOAA will release a technical report that estimates global mean sea level rise over the next century based on a comprehensive synthesis of existing scientific literature. The report finds that there is very high confidence (greater than 90% chance) that global mean sea level will rise at least 8 inches (0.2 meters) and no more than 6.6 feet (2 meters) by 2100, depending upon uncertainties associated with ice sheet loss and ocean warming.
The actual amount of sea level change at any one region and location greatly varies in response to regional and local vertical land movement and ocean dynamics. The ranges of global mean sea level rise estimates detailed in this study will help decision makers prepare for and respond to a wide range of future sea level rise and coastal inundation.
Higher mean sea levels increase the frequency, magnitude, and duration of flooding associated with a given storm. Flooding has disproportionately high impacts in most coastal regions, particularly in flat, low-lying areas. In the U.S., over eight million people live in areas at risk to coastal flooding, and many of the nation’s assets related to military readiness, energy, commerce, and ecosystems are already located at or near the ocean.
The report provides a synthesis of the scientific literature on global sea level rise, and presents a set of four global mean scenarios to describe future conditions for the purpose of assessing potential vulnerabilities and impacts.It was authored by a panel of scientists from multiple federal agencies and academic institutions, and will be used to support the National Climate Assessment – a U.S. interagency report produced once every four years to summarize the science and impacts of climate change on the United States.
WHAT: Availability of scientists to discuss the findings of global sea level rise paper
WHO: Adam Parris, report lead author, NOAA; Virginia Burkett, Ph.D., report co-author, U.S. Geological Survey; and Radley Horton, Ph.D., report co-author, Columbia University and NASA
CONTACT: Brady Phillips, NOAA Office of Communications and External Affairs, 202-407-1298 or brady.phillips@noaa.gov
The technical report will be available online on Dec. 6 at http://www.cpo.noaa.gov/reports/sealevel
NOAA’s mission is to understand and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and to conserve and manage our coastal and marine resources. Join us on Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels.
“I predict a riot”
Seriously?
I predict anything from a calm discussion to a nuclear war. That way I can always claim I was right.
Uh, if I drop an apple (remember Newton?) from a measured height, I can calculate the exact time it will take to hit the floor. With only a tape measure and a stop watch, I can get repeatable, exact results. That’s because the science is SOLID.
Trying to predict sea levels a century out, with such a huge array of factors?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight….
Just one more reason why the science of Earth’s climate is NOT settled.
the uncertainty is what it is. Of course its wide since our knowledge is limited.
knowing that it could be as high as 6 feet would you plan to build valuable assets at a location that is one foot above sea level?
not if u had other choices. even the most uncertain knowledge can in practice be useful.
usefullness is the key. not the width of the estimate.
Broome in Western Australia’s main shopping precinct IS one foot above sea level, and has been there for nearly a 100 years. New buildings are there for all to sea, along with the old.
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/keeping-boms-dry-feet/ Broome’s sea level’s unchanged.
Estimation of sea level rise ranges by a factor of 10 …. seriously, is this science?
Asimov, in his Foundation books, wrote about a useless historian who did no research except looking at other peoples’ research.
Do we see the same here? Science imitating art?
Steven Mosher says:
December 5, 2012 at 5:10 pm…
Then, having said that, you must add that sea level could drop also. Which makes it what it is.
Un-useful.
These photos show Broome at the highest tide for this year, about 10cm lower than last year’s, pictured on Verity Jones’ Diggingintheclay blog http://pindanpost.com/2012/04/10/biggest-broome-tides-for-2012/
“They claim 8 inches to 6.6 feet (o.2 to 2 meters) over the next century….such wide variance doesn’t inspire much confidence, even though they claim “high confidence” in that spread.”
This prediction is, of course, based on what we know– which is next to nothing, given the complexity of earth systems.
It really amazes me that media can print so much rubbish provided by News Agencies such as AAP without fact checking. Yesterday, some reports of seas rising in Western Australia 3 times faster than the rest of the world appeared in ‘The West Australian’ newspaper without any checks. Have a look here where I have noted the real data says the opposite, they mostly are recently declining: http://pindanpost.com/2012/12/05/west-australian-sea-level-bs-fact-checking-the-gloom-and-doom-with-data/
I’m surprised that they are only 90% confident in a rise between 8 inches and 78 inches. I am 99% confident it will be within that range.
With a statement of between 8 and 78 inches of sea level rise most people think that it will most likely be somewhere in the middle, like 3.5 feet. I think it will be much closer to the lower end. I would like to see their probability distribution of sea level rise. This is nearly useless information that gives no way to assess risk.
That is what the range is.
If one uses the historic Tide Gauge measurement trends, you only get 8 inchs, (noting that the land is, on average, still recovering from the glacial load from the ice ages and is rising by 0.3 mms/year to 0.4 mms/year so the low range of sea level is only 6 inches rise compared to the actual Land levels).
Or if one uses the adjusted satellite measurements (including 0.3 mms/year of ocean deepening per year which should be removed in this case since one is concerned about the sea level versus the Land where we actually live) and if one assumes significantly accelerated loss of glacial ice on Greenland and Antarctica. I imagine one could get to 2.0 metres of sea level rise with these assumptions. Of course, this also means it would only be a few centuries of melt at this rate before Greenland is completely gone and Antarctica has harbours but the forecast doesn’t continue out for 500 years for example so that we would see that in the assumptions.
I can predict with very high confidence that the Guardian/BBC/CNN/MSM will report this as a catastrophic rise “up to 2 m”.
@Conrad Goehausen,
No, no, no. You have it all wrong. You predict “nuclear war” and if you get calm discussion you claim your original prediction was correct but it was avoided because we bought your “unicorn gas tm”
If this gets into AR5, it would be what that German bigshot was referring to a month or two ago when he said that that it would scare the pants off everyone.
[snip . . please don’t shout and off topic too . .mod]
The estimates provided by the NOAA are for information purposes only, and may not apply to reality. The NOAA provides no warranty about the estimates or accuracy therein. The estimates are subjective. Keep this in mind when reviewing this BS.
Neither the author nor the NOAA shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages resulting from use of this BS. All links are for information purposes only and are not warranted for content, accuracy, or any other implied or explicit purpose.
In the past 120 years the mean sea level [MSL] has risen only about 2.5 cm:
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm
2.5 cm is about one inch, so I think NOAA’s guesstimate [AKA: their WAG] of an 8 inch — 6.6 foot MSL rise by the end of this century is probably way on the high side. Based on the British MSL mark cut into rock, I would bet that MSL will not even rise eight inches over the next 88 years.
Lovely, they know the base facts don’t support their claims, and its getting less and less so over time. Hence they have to keep releasing statements with less and less factual content to avoid people latching onto what is really happening with the environment. Trouble is fact free statements do not carry much weight and get ignored easily.
Keep pressing them to make more and more ridiculous claims, they will happily do so as they cannot keep quiet. They are destroying their own credibility with the public one press release at a time.
Stick to your guns, at this rate it will completely unravel within a year.
With the subject very much in mind I do find these interesting…
http://www.midnightsciencejournal.com/2011/09/27/underwater-study-off-the-coast-of-australia/
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/underwater.htm
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/underwater-cultural-heritage/the-underwater-heritage/underwater-ruins/
There are many many more….I have no idea whether these historical facts in any way clarify the current debate though………..I doubt it will civilize it in any event!
‘Ah, but that was then’……..I can hear it now….
The warmists have doubled down in the face of the increasing dubiousness of their case. Vainglorious.
Watch the ENSO-meter.
One cosmic custard pie coming up.
Settled science, except for the settling ?
If things are settling, apparently at rates unknown, just where have we been measuring sea level ?
Or are we back to the warming that will melt ice, and expand the ocean.
Throw out the tide gauges/ satellite data to continue the meme ?
This isn’t science, don’t know what it is.