Hey UCS, Maybe It’s Time We Stopped Wasting Money Studying a Problem And Spent That Money Adapting to It

The Washington Post published an article today titled When sea levels rise, high tides will spill into communities far more often, study says.

What a revelation! It’s almost as foolish as the studies that cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars to tell us that heat waves will occur more often (and cold spells less often) in a warming world. A grade schooler could figure those things out.

The Washington Post article was about a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists. See the UCS webpage Encroaching Tides for links to the full report, executive summary and technical appendix. There’s lots of pretty pictures and graphs and stuff.

But it turns out the webpage is nothing more than an advertisement. If you scroll down to the bottom of the Encroaching Tides webpage, the UCS is asking for donations:

We Need Your Support to Make Change Happen

Your contribution puts rigorous scientific analysis to work to advance clean, renewable energy and so much more. With the support of people like you, we are developing and implementing practical solutions to build a healthier environment and a safer world.

So the UCS tries to scare the pants off of their adoring public in an effort to raise some more money for their coffers. What a surprise!!

ISN’T IT TIME WE STOPPED WASTING MONEY STUDYING SOMETHING WE KNOW IS GOING TO HAPPEN?

This post is not about whether the sea level report by the Union of Concerned Scientists agrees with the IPCC. It’s not about whether the Union of Concerned Scientists have exploited a naturally occurring upswing in sea level rise that’s part of the multidecadal variations in the North Atlantic ocean temperatures known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. I’m not going to waste my time downloading tide gauge data from dozens of locations up and down the eastern seaboard.

For decades now, we’ve been told that sea levels are going to rise. Why do they keep telling us? Why don’t we stop wasting money on their foolish studies about what we already know and start spending money on preparing for the inevitable?

This is going to require a different mindset, one geared toward adapting.

Is renewable energy going to stop the rise in sea level? No. To combat rising sea levels, do we need more windmills? No. Do we need more solar cell arrays? No. So why in God’s name would anyone in their right mind send money to the Union of Concerned Scientists to “work to advance clean, renewable energy” when we need them to do “so much more” other stuff?

Here’s a couple of paragraphs and an illustration from the Introduction to my upcoming book.

[Start quote.]

Sea levels, on the other hand, present an altogether different problem. Again, even if we could turn back CO2 levels to preindustrial values, sea levels would continue to rise. Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, and they will continue to do so until Earth heads toward another ice age and the globe starts to cool once again. Further, the rate at which global sea levels might possibly change in the future, in response to the hypothetical effects of manmade greenhouse gases, is still the subject of wide ranges of uncertainty and open debate…and the subject of even more alarmism from activists and the media, if that’s possible. One thing is certain: the oceans and seas will continue to assault Earth’s land masses. Adding solar arrays and windmills to power grids is not going to stop the oceans from invading our shorelines. We can only adapt to rising sea levels…and we have been doing exactly that since the end of the last ice age.

We can no longer travel by land between Asia and North America via the Bering Land “Bridge”. Similarly, we can no longer migrate on land between Tasmania, New Guinea and Australia, which were all interconnected landmasses not too many millennia ago. We can no longer hunt and gather in Doggerland, which was the former landmass that once connected Britain to mainland Europe during and after the last ice age. Doggerland disappeared only 6000 to 6500 years ago, swallowed by the rising North Sea. All around the globe, since the last glacial maximum, we’ve lost valuable low-lying lands and their resources to rising sea levels, and we’ll lose more of them in the future. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact of life on this planet.

Maybe it’s easier to fathom if we look at the rise and fall in sea levels in paleoclimatological timeframes. We won’t have to think in those terms often in this book, because most of the discussions are about the past 3 to 4 decades. But for a moment, let’s think in tens and hundreds of thousands of years. Then the 100 to 125 meter (330 to 410 foot) variations in sea levels could simply be thought of as a form of ice age-dependent “tides”, washing ashore when the Earth warms between ice ages and receding when the earth cools toward the glacial maximums. See Figure Intro-5.

Figure Intro-5

Out of need and without the slightest thought of future “tides”, our ancestors built villages, towns and cities along those retreating shorelines, and we continue to build homes and businesses there. Now, with a new-found awareness of those future advances in the “tides”, we are adapting, and future generations will continue to adapt, because our villages, towns and cities lie within the “glacial-interglacial tidal range”. Trying to hold back the “tides” of naturally rising sea levels by limiting greenhouse gas emissions is a fool’s errand.

[End quote.]

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

77 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
E.M.Smith
Editor
October 9, 2014 6:02 am

Um, there are very long cycle periods to tides ( circa 1800 years) and sometimes to overall rise / fall. In many places, oceans were HIGHER in the past and have dropped to ‘now’. Just because our recent couple of hundred years have been a low rise doesn’t mean the last few thousand have not been a drop:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/ostia-antica-and-sea-level/
There is NO reason to think that recent rise will continue into the future. None. We don’t know where we are on the mesh of cycles and the whole thing could have turned back into dropping again a decade ago.

October 9, 2014 6:38 am

Our children wont know what land looks like. Send money.

kenw
October 9, 2014 6:56 am

Since when has UCS and “… rigorous scientific analysis ” been related to each other?

Jeff Alberts
October 9, 2014 7:07 am

Typo “Here’s a couple of paragraphs…”

October 9, 2014 8:34 am

Thanks, Bob. Your upcoming book looks interesting. Please keep on writing it.
I just sent a link to this article and a couple of quotes from it to a friend who asked my opinion on this Washington Post article.

tty
October 9, 2014 8:40 am

Notice that quote:
“Sea levels were 4 to 8 meters (About 13 to 26 feet) higher today than during the last interglacial, according to Dahl-Jensen et al. (2013).”
It surprised me a bit since Dahl-Jensen et al. is concerned with the NEEM ice-core and temperatures and the thickness and extent of the Greenland Ice-sheet (GIS) during the last interglacial, not with sea-levels.
So I checked. Guess what it actually says? That if sea-levels were 4 to 8 meters higher during the last interglacial, then a lot of the water must have come from Antarctica since the GIS did not melt nearly enough to raise the sea-level that much, despite temperatures being 8 ±4 degrees warmer than today.

catweazle666
October 9, 2014 9:38 am
Jimbo
Reply to  catweazle666
October 9, 2014 10:23 am

See also….

Abstract – 23 February 2011
Sea-level acceleration based on US tide gauges and extensions of previous global-gauge analyses
It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
==================
Abstract – July 2013
Twentieth-Century Global-Mean Sea Level Rise: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts?
………..The reconstructions account for the observation that the rate of GMSLR was not much larger during the last 50 years than during the twentieth century as a whole, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semiempirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of the authors’ closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the twentieth century.
American Meteorological Society – Volume 26, Issue 13
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
==================
Abstract – January 2014
Global sea level trend during 1993–2012
[Highlights
GMSL started decelerated rising since 2004 with rising rate 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.
Deceleration is due to slowdown of ocean thermal expansion during last decade.
• Recent ENSO events introduce large uncertainty of long-term trend estimation.]
… It is found that the GMSL rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012. This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during the last decade, as a part of the Pacific decadal-scale variability, while the land-ice melting is accelerating the rise of the global ocean mass-equivalent sea level….
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002397

Jimbo
Reply to  Jimbo
October 9, 2014 10:41 am
Max Hugoson
October 9, 2014 10:55 am

Union of Concerned Activists:
In the mid 1980’s, Opinion Magazine sent 3000 surveys to people listed in the American “Who’s Who” of science and technology. (About 100,000 listings…most University Dept. heads, senior researchers at large companies, research MD’s, etc. are in the listing.) The survey was on energy, energy policy and nuclear power. Interesting a generic nuclear power favorability question got a 90% rating.
Now, another interesting fact was that the return rate was about 1650, or over 50%. A phenominal amount for a mailed survey! (Indicating the recipients are sharp, determined, and willing to take time for such
a survey.) One question they snuck in was: “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Union of concerned Scientists. They got either one or two YES answers to that and concluded with a 95% confidence level that less than 300 of the 100,000 people listed were UCS members.
Now the UCS claims 50,000 “highly qualified” members. Draw your own conclusions…

catweazle666
Reply to  Max Hugoson
October 9, 2014 11:13 am

Ah, but did they ask if they were dogs?

October 9, 2014 10:58 am

Max H,
Very good point. That was an amazing response rate.
…and my conclusions are probably the same as yours.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  dbstealey
October 9, 2014 3:04 pm

+1 Woof!

Terry - somerset
October 9, 2014 3:16 pm

A rather simplistic view, but adaptation seems obviously the right response to possible sea level:
– there is no certainty or even high probability that action on greenhouse gases would mitigate the rise in sea level
– the projection is for 4 to 8 metres sea level rise over several (1,2,3) thousand years. Say a max of 1m per century – more likely 25cm to 50cm.
– few modern structures have a design life in excess of 100 years or are expected to be in use beyond that time.
– if all new construction was predicated on a sea level rise during its lifetime, the additional costs of adaptation would be limited.

Jimbo
October 9, 2014 4:05 pm

You want me to stop! You talk of Bob Tisdale. I want you to talk about south Florida and people wading in water. I hope I have presented you with information that is useful. Try and avoid flying off the handle and posting only newspaper articles from the hysterical Guardian. Spread your reach and expand your mind Peter.
http://scholar.google.com
and data.

mpainter
October 9, 2014 5:02 pm

You poor dupe. Will you never get tired of it?
Here’s the truth, Peter: atm CO2 is entirely beneficial. Sea level is not rising, and in fact it will start falling if the present cooling trend intensifies.
Peter, you will continue to make a fool of yourself as long as you serve up the rubbish off of blogs like Hot Topic.

October 10, 2014 4:31 am

The answer is dredging. Makes the sea lower and the land higher!
I claim my Nobel peace prize!

Jimbo
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 10, 2014 11:41 am

It was claimed by the people of Miami in the min 1900s. 🙂 See my comment above and read the abstract.

Larry Geiger
October 10, 2014 7:20 am

Miami was a swamp. Miami is a swamp. Somewhat freshwater swamps to the west. Salt marshes to the east as far as the eye can see. The real world ends about Palm Beach or maybe parts of Ft. Lauderdale. The magical, mystery dredged up pile of sand called Miami was created by people. For some reason people will continue to create Miami for the foreseeable future. I can assure you that almost all of the people in Miami care little to nothing about sea level rise, hurricanes, high tides, ice melt (the ice is in my drink, silly!), coral reefs, or much else besides how to feather their own nests or find the next dose until the next disaster. And there are a lot of human caused disasters much more likely to cause real trouble than all the Mannian disasters imagined by “scientists” (just don’t go to that part of town, dude!).
Good grief, people live in Santorini. Have you ever seen that place? They live on the edge of a volcanoe that’s still smoking! Global warming. Pshaw. How about a place where an eruption wiped out civilizations. People live on the edge. I’ve seen pictures of much more edgy places than Norfolk, VA or Miami, FL. Look at pix of Amalfi, Italy or Oia, Santorini, Greece. On. The. Edge.
Sea level rise is going to have a lot more aggressive to bother the kind of folks that live and visit down there. Maybe tsunami like sea level rise. People like to go where the sun shines. People leave the, cold, cloudy, miserable places to go to places like Miami, Sarasota, St. Pete, Key West, Nassau, etc. for a reason. Come on down, the surf’s great! Just make sure that you come at low tide 🙂

richardscourtney
October 11, 2014 12:33 am

Moderators
Please inform if there is a way that I could post photocopies of p796 of each of the two NIPCC Reports.
Richard

Reply to  richardscourtney
October 11, 2014 1:31 am

Ricard, amazingly simple:
1. load the image to an image hosting service like http://tinypic.com/
2. Put the URL of the image you upload in a comment just as it appears in your browser address bar
3. WordPress will insert the image for you, and will appear in the comment