#AGU14 – NOAA establishes 'tipping points' for sea level rise related flooding

via NOAA Headquarters

Most of US coast may see 30 or more days a year of floods up to 2 feet above high tides

By 2050, a majority of U.S. coastal areas are likely to be threatened by 30 or more days of flooding each year due to dramatically accelerating impacts from sea level rise, according to a new NOAA study, published today in the American Geophysical Union’s online peer-reviewed journal Earth’s Future.

Annapolis, Maryland, pictured here in 2012, is one of three major East Coast urban areas already being faced with nuisance flooding in excess of 30 days per year. Credit: (Credit: With permission from Amy McGovern.)

The findings appear in the paper From the Extreme to the Mean: Acceleration and Tipping Points for Coastal Inundation due to Sea Level Rise, and follows the earlier study, Sea Level Rise and Nuisance Flood Frequency Changes around the United States, by the report’s co-author, William Sweet, Ph.D., oceanographer at NOAA’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS). The new analysis was presented at a news conference today at the annual AGU fall meeting in San Francisco.

NOAA scientists Sweet and Joseph Park established a frequency-based benchmark for what they call “tipping points,” when so-called nuisance flooding, defined by NOAA’s National Weather Service as between one to two feet above local high tide, occurs more than 30 or more times a year.

Based on that standard, the NOAA team found that these tipping points will be met or exceeded by 2050 at most of the U.S. coastal areas studied, regardless of sea level rise likely to occur this century. In their study, Sweet and Park used a 1½ to 4 foot set of recent projections for global sea level rise by year 2100 similar to the rise projections of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, but also accounting for local factors such as the settlement of land, known as subsidence.

These regional tipping points will be surpassed in the coming decades in areas with more frequent storms, the report said. These tipping points will be also be exceeded in areas where local sea levels rise more than the global projection of one and half to four feet. This also includes coastal areas like Louisiana where subsidence, which is not a result of by climate change, is causing land to sink below sea level.

NOAA tide gauges show the annual rate of daily floods reaching these levels has drastically increased – and are now five to ten times more likely today than they were 50 years ago.

“Coastal communities are beginning to experience sunny-day nuisance or urban flooding, much more so than in decades past,” said Sweet. “This is due to sea level rise. Unfortunately, once impacts are noticed, they will become commonplace rather quickly. We find that in 30 to 40 years, even modest projections of global sea level rise–1½ feet by the year 2100–will increase instances of daily high tide flooding to a point requiring an active, and potentially costly response and by the end of this century, our projections show that there will be near-daily nuisance flooding in most of the locations that we reviewed.”

“As communities across the country become increasingly vulnerable to water inundation and flooding, effective risk management is going to become more heavily reliant on environmental data and analysis,” said Holly Bamford, Ph.D., NOAA acting assistant secretary for conservation and management. “Businesses, coastal managers, federal, state, and local governments, and non-governmental organizations can use research such as this as another tool as they develop plans to reduce vulnerabilities, adapt to change, and ensure they’re resilient against future events.”

Tipping Point for Nuisance Floods by Location and Decade

This chart shows that most major US coastal cities will pass 30-days of nuisance flooding by 2050. Credit: NOAA/Earth’s Future

“The importance of this research is that it draws attention to the largely neglected part of the frequency of these events. This frequency distribution includes a hazard level referred to as ‘nuisance’: occasionally costly to clean up, but never catastrophic or perhaps newsworthy,” said Earth’s Future editor Michael Ellis in accepting the paper for the online journal.

Ellis also observed that “the authors use observational data to drive home the important point that nuisance floods (from inundating seas) will cross a tipping point over the next several decades and significantly earlier than the 2100 date that is generally regarded as a target date for damaging levels of sea-level. The paper also raises the interesting question of what frequency of ‘nuisance’ corresponds to a perception of ‘this is no longer a nuisance but a serious hazard due to its rapidly growing and cumulative impacts’.”

The scientists base the projections on NOAA tidal stations where there is a 50-year or greater continuous record. The study does not include the Miami area, as the NOAA tide stations in the area were destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and a continuous 50-year data set for the area does not exist.

Based on that criteria, the NOAA team is projecting that Boston; New York City; Philadelphia; Baltimore; Washington, D.C.; Norfolk, Virginia; and Wilmington, North Carolina; all along the Mid-Atlantic coast, will soon make, or are already being forced to make, decisions on how to mitigate these nuisance floods earlier than planned. In the Gulf, NOAA forecasts earlier than anticipated floods for Galveston Bay and Port Isabel, Texas. Along the Pacific coast the earlier impacts will be most visible in the San Diego/La Jolla and San Francisco Bay areas.

Mitigation decisions could range from retreating further inland to coastal fortification or to a combination of “green” infrastructure using both natural resources such as dunes and wetland, along with “gray” man-made infrastructure such as sea walls and redesigned storm water systems.

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 Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and our other social media channels.

###

[UPDATE BY WILLIS] I hate science by press release. The original article is open-access, and is located here.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
173 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cheshirered
December 18, 2014 11:20 pm

The picture shows the road / quayside where boats are moored is a metre or so above the water line – unlike the fancy public art installation which is at the water line and – surprise! – appears vulnerable to water!

December 18, 2014 11:24 pm

“effective risk management is going to become more heavily reliant on environmental data and analysis”!!!
What a crack up! Please keep funding us! You will really need us in the future! Honest!

James Bull
December 18, 2014 11:52 pm

I think I’ve found out how they got their data for this stunning study. And the video is also good for this time of year.

I’m sure they have plenty more “magic stones” (model data) in the box.
James Bull

Editor
December 18, 2014 11:57 pm

I’ve not looked at the study, but I’ve located it. It’s open-access, available here.
Initial impressions? The term “tipping point” is nothing but unbridled alarmism. Also, they present no “sea rise as usual” scenario, another sign of an alarmist at work.
So far, so bad …
w.

Don K
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2014 3:23 am

First of all thanks for finding the article and linking to it. The press release is exceptionally awful. As for the “tipping point, look at figure 1. I think the way it works is that in 1800 or 1850 or 1900 town X started building stuff along the waterfront — docks, a warehouse or three, hotels, houses, roads, railroads maybe some factories and trendy restaurants. And they sensibly built them a foot or three above the highest high tides. Except nowadays the sea level is a little higher. And some places are sinking. The margins have been shrinking. So I’m pretty sure what they are saying is that the number of days when high tides and wind from the wrong direction are going to have a bit of water slopping around in the waterfront areas of many cities are probably going to increase rather dramatically. Nuisance Flooding as opposed to flattening whole neighborhoods and leaving the wreckage under water like Camille. I think Norfolk-Hampton Roads which is really flat and is sinking is the poster child for what they are talking about. I’ll have to think about it some more of course, but I think they may have a point.

Reply to  Don K
December 19, 2014 2:00 pm

Don K December 19, 2014 at 3:23 am Edit

First of all thanks for finding the article and linking to it. The press release is exceptionally awful. As for the “tipping point, look at figure 1.

Thanks, Don, but you miss my (tipping) point. The term “tipping point” means a point that when it is exceeded, the whole thing “tips over” and becomes much different.
But in the case of the sea level, there’s no such thing. It’s a gradual process with no “tipping point” of any kind.
There’s an interesting article about the use of the term here. It originally came from sociology, meaning a point in time when a group of people quickly start exhibiting an unusual or previously rare behavior.
But there’s absolutely nothing in the gradual steady increase in sea level which is a “tipping point”, the authors made that up out of the whole cloth.
Which is why I described their use of the term as “unbridled alarmism”.
w.

Don K
Reply to  Don K
December 20, 2014 5:33 am

Hi Willis. I understand your point. But I understand theirs also. They assert that there can be point — well a narrow range anyway — where sea level rise and sinking/subsidence/tectonics combine to eat all the built in margin and formerly rare event becomes much more common. Maybe “tipping point” is a poor phrase, but a better one doesn’t jump immediately to mind. I think they may have canceled it out alarmism-wise with the phrase “nuisance flooding” It’s a nuisance if it just closes a road everyone knows will be closed six or eight days a year. When it starts flooding basements, shorting out electronics, etc, “nuisance” sort of understates the case I think.

Don K
Reply to  Don K
December 20, 2014 5:42 am

Oh yeah. And I should have made it clear that I don’t view the problem if there is one as being primarily a climate change/global warming issue. It seems to be mostly a building vulnerable infrastructure with insufficient freeboard issue.

Reply to  Don K
December 20, 2014 11:25 am

Don K December 20, 2014 at 5:33 am

Hi Willis. I understand your point. But I understand theirs also. They assert that there can be point — well a narrow range anyway — where sea level rise and sinking/subsidence/tectonics combine to eat all the built in margin and formerly rare event becomes much more common.

Thanks, Don, but there’s no such “range”. Let me translate their abstract, which says

For threshold levels below 0.5 m above high tide, the rates of annual exceedances are accelerating along the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts, primarily from evolution of tidal water level distributions to higher elevations impinging on the flood threshold.

In English, this means that as sea level rises, flooding becomes more common. Now, I have to admire the circumlocution of saying “evolution of tidal water level distributions to higher elevations impinging on the flood threshold” to mean “rising sea levels causing more frequent floods”, but that’s all they’ve said.
And no, there is no “tipping point”. Yes, as sea level rises, there will be more and more flooding of previously dry areas. But there’s no magical “narrow range” where a “formerly rare event becomes much more common”. That’s simply not true. The increase is gradual, millimetre by millimetre, about six inches or so per century. And in that millimetre by millimetre rise, there are no “tipping points”.
w.

Dave VanArsdale
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2014 3:52 am

I read the study. They used the term Superstorm Sandy. I guess Tropical Storm was not scarey enough.

Dagfinn
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 19, 2014 5:12 am

Looks like an abuse of the term “tipping point” to me. The phrase used to mean a (hypothetical) point at which feedbacks in the climate system cause abrupt changes to occur. “Threshold” would probably be a better term for what NOAA. Unbridled alarmism, yes.

high treason
December 19, 2014 12:08 am

Could I please wager a bet with them. As they are so sure of themselves they should give me odds of 5 to 1. I will bet them 10 kilos of physical silver again their 50 kg of physical silver. As silver should rise in value soon this should be a nice little earner. 35 years is just in our lifetimes.

Reply to  high treason
December 19, 2014 1:37 am

35 years is just in our lifetimes? I might then be a doddering 98 year old rocking away muttering, ” when I was your age we drove gasoline cars”. OHH come on grand, sorry great grand dad! Gasoline, wow you’re really old. Hey great grand dad, I hope you saved one it could be worth millions. Obama you remember him? That president that like you know, like “crushed” them all you know!

RoHa
December 19, 2014 12:08 am

Oooooooh! Scary!

pat
December 19, 2014 12:42 am

risky money:
19 Dec: DailyJournalOfCommerce: WSU will study climate change risks
By JOURNAL STAFF
RICHLAND — The U.S. Department of Defense gave Washington State University Tri-Cities a four-year, $994,000 contract to study risks posed by climate change to defense facilities.
Yonas Demissie, a WSUTC assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering and the project’s principal investigator, said the researchers will develop a new modeling and statistical framework that will assess the potential risk of severe storms and resulting floods at DoD installations…
http://www.djc.com/news/en/12073024.html

pat
December 19, 2014 12:52 am

for those following UK Dept of Climate Change’s efforts to ensure the lights stay on:
18 Dec: UK Telegraph: Emily Gosden: New gas plants ‘to be shelved after failing to win subsidies’
Government scheme to keep lights on offers lower subsidies than expected, saving consumers money but meaning big new power plants unlikely to be built, experts say
Under a new “capacity market” policy, designed to keep the lights on, ministers are offering retainer-style subsidy contracts to existing or proposed plants to guarantee they will be available when needed from 2018.
At least eight big new gas plant projects were vying for the contracts but are thought to have missed out in favour of existing old plants that are cheaper to keep running…
A “reverse auction” to award the contracts has been taking place this week and is understood to have closed on Thursday night at a price of between £15 and £20 per kilowatt of capacity – far lower than had been expected by the industry, and less than half the £42 assumed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) in its impact assessment…
The capacity market was originally launched as a way of ensuring that there would be enough reliable fossil fuel plants to act as back-up for intermittent wind and solar power, as old coal plants are shut down by environmental rules…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11302588/New-gas-plants-to-be-shelved-after-failing-to-win-subsidies.html
18 Dec: Guardian: Terry Macalister: Consumers face £750m subsidy scheme bill for generators to keep lights on
But price demanded by energy companies in government’s ongoing ‘capacity market’ auction is substantially lower than feared
Energy consumers look set to pay at least £750m a year extra after a government-run auction finished with some power companies winning subsidies of between £15 and £20 per kilowatt of generating plant. This was significantly lower than the £75-per-kW price level that opened the bidding sessions on Tuesday but could still leave ministers being asked to justify why such “capacity payments” are being made at all…
“This low price is better for consumers but it looks like it is being used just to keep existing coal, nuclear and gas-fired plants running. You have to wonder whether these plants would have remained open anyway and really need these capacity payments,” said one analyst. …
The capacity mechanism is just one of a number of measures being implemented by the government to keep the lights on…
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/18/consumers-subsidy-scheme-bill-energy-companies-government-capacity-market-auction

Charles Nelson
December 19, 2014 1:01 am

Venice.

Reply to  Charles Nelson
December 19, 2014 1:40 am

There goes Holland. Denmark a lot of the Baltic coast line a lot of Britain, France What about China and I guess India and the list goes on we are 321m asl, so i am save for a day or two. Time to move to Ireland!

pat
December 19, 2014 2:20 am

the Bloomberg view:
18 Dec: Bloomberg: Heather Perlberg: Front Yards Turn to Wetlands in Virginia as Climate Change Takes Toll
Climate change is beginning to take a toll on real estate in the coastal city, about 80 miles (130 kilometers) southeast of Richmond, as insurance costs soar and residents resort to putting their homes on stilts or opening up space underneath for the water to flow through. While most of the U.S. is in a housing rebound, prices in Norfolk fell 2.2 percent in October, according to the Virginia Beach-based Real Estate Information Network…
Higher sea levels combined with storm surge, in which high winds and low pressure carry sea water inland, will probably increase the average annual cost of coastal storms in the region by as much as $3.5 billion within the next 15 years, according to a June report from the Risky Business Project, an effort to highlight the economic costs of runaway climate change led by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, hedge-fund manager Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.
With potential increases in the number of and intensity of hurricanes, the total annual price tag for coastal storms will increase to about $35 billion, the report showed…
There are 900 Norfolk properties on the “repetitive loss” list, up from 200 in 2002, according to a November Wetlands Watch study. Some people try to rent their homes or walk away from them if they can’t sell, Stiles said, pointing to one of several “for sale” signs in the neighborhood.
“They come up like mushrooms after the storms,” he said…READ ON
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-18/front-yards-turn-to-wetlands-as-climate-change-takes-toll.html

knr
December 19, 2014 3:26 am

by 2050 and long after those making these claims will not longer to be around to be asked ‘so why did you get it so wrong ‘
And for those interested I have the lottery numbers for 2035, Tuesday 12/2 , just e-mail your bank details and I will send you them , and if not happy on the day I will return your money 😉

Old'un
December 19, 2014 3:36 am

Oh how I wish that someone would put an illuminated sign 100yds down the road from the one in the header, which said ‘ DON’T PANIC, IT’S 97% HYPE ‘

EternalOptimist
December 19, 2014 3:38 am

30 days of flooding in NY by 2050 doesn’t seem to stack up very well with Hansens 365 days in a much shorter timeframe

December 19, 2014 3:57 am

Perhaps alluvial deposits from rivers and undersea geological restructuring could also cause such effects? The focus is still on Canute logic rather than adapting to the change. King Canute pulled his stunt to silence fawning courtiers who were attributing godly powers to him. If only we had more Canutes rather than hedonistic politicians and their ‘missions’. How can you expect a bunch of atheists to contemplate nature’s intent? They do as they do and use their powers to coerce the situation like fleas attempting to influence their host. How feeble are we humans with our interventions and our entrapment in the moment. Most regrettable is the kowtowing of the religious community to the control of their political masters. We have returned to the land of the Pharaoh’s.

Hoser
December 19, 2014 4:51 am

Is this AGW’s Battle of the Bulge?
http://bcove.me/ezgx21wu
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/greenland_ice_sheet.html
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig3.3-tedesco.jpg
So Greenland seems to be affected in ways like the Arctic. What a surprise.
And how did a Viking village and trees get under that melting ice?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/26/on-the-vikings-and-greenland/

Lonie
December 19, 2014 5:03 am

San Joaquin Valley subsidence caused by ground water pumping .
There is a large amount of ground water pumping in many metropolitan coastal areas.
An extreme example .
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1182/pdf/06SanJoaquinValley.pdf

Bruce Cobb
December 19, 2014 5:26 am

…includes coastal areas like Louisiana where subsidence, which is not a result of by climate change, is causing land to sink below sea level.

Wait – they actually discovered something NOT caused by “climate change”?
Stop the presses!

Bruce Cobb
December 19, 2014 5:40 am

“NOAA’s mission is to understand mis-state and predict fantasize about changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun,”
There, fixed.

ivor ward
December 19, 2014 5:52 am

Won’t make much difference. We’ll be struggling to stand upright in the unprecedented storms, trying to keep the extreme rainfall out of our collars, feet burnt off by the acid ocean that we are standing in, sweltering in record temperatures, gasping for water in the worst droughts in recorded history, all alone because of the mass extinction events or crowded out by non-extinct polar bears, snails, Emperor penguins, clutching our little green book of AlGorisms, waiting on the next bon mots to be handed down from Vivienne Westwood, Bog Geldof, and Decaprio.
It could be worse than taking the kids to a pantomime starring Bruce Forsyth, and that is bad.

ggf
December 19, 2014 5:52 am

This paper seems to be saying that if we assume see level increases 1.5 ft that we will exceed current high tide by between 1 and 2 feet 30 times a year. Duh!
All this means is that there are approximately 3o days a year where the current sea level is within 1.5 ft of high tide. This does not surprise me much. The real question is what is the likely level of sea level rise. If is only 6 inches the number of days will be the number of days that are within 6 inches of current high tide. You do not need to do a major study to work this out.
It is amazing to me that the people who approve these sorts of studies do not have the wit to see through these sorts of proposals

philincalifornia
Reply to  ggf
December 19, 2014 6:02 am

Stoppit, that’s bullying. These people are arithmetically-challenged.

December 19, 2014 6:09 am

So, now we are trying to fix tectonic plate movements and the recovery from the last ice age. The eastern seaboard is sinking, the Atlantic ridge is rising, isn’t that to be expected? In Northern Sweden the land is still rising out of the sea at a rate of 90 cm per century. That water has to move somewhere else too.

Tom O
December 19, 2014 6:45 am

Probably quoted at least a dozen times, but here it is again –
“Based on that standard, the NOAA team found that these tipping points will be met or exceeded by 2050 at most of the U.S. coastal areas studied, regardless of sea level rise likely to occur this century. In their study”
So by this statement, I can ONLY take it that this entire problem IS subsidence since it is going to happen REGARDLESS of sea level rise. This certainly suggests that zero sea level rise is still going to cause this same result.

Luke
Reply to  Tom O
December 19, 2014 11:16 pm

No, read the article. They are saying no matter what PROJECTED (1.5-4 feet) sea level rise you use the tipping points will be met or exceeded.

Bruce Cobb
December 19, 2014 7:10 am

Their “science” is so laughable that they’ve established “laughing points”. This would be when we become inundated by involuntary “nuisance laughing”, which can cause damage to our keyboards among other things.
Stop laughing. You are only encouraging them.

Bill Illis
December 19, 2014 7:48 am

Are people building structures one foot above current high tide?
I mean there are waves and king tides and such.
I could see seawalls being built or a dock or something beach-related; but whomever is building houses and roads one foot above high tide, get a brain.

PeterinMD
December 19, 2014 8:48 am

Here’s a question that I don’t know the answer to, and maybe someone here can answer. Does increasing sea ice in say the Arctic, increase sea level, decrease sea level, or no affect?

Dave VanArsdale
Reply to  PeterinMD
December 19, 2014 7:12 pm

PeterinMD There is no measurable effect on sea level from melting sea ice. Fill a water glass with ice cubes and water to the rim, let it melt. Still at the rim.