Guest essay by Eric Worrall
NASA’s Gavin Schmidt has provided some bizarre advice, for people building homes on the sea front, which might not be “sea level rise smart”.
According to the Vancouver Sun interview with Gavin;
Q: What is the future for waterfront cities like Vancouver?
A: You are going to have to put up with rising sea levels; they are not going to go down. But there’s a huge difference between a foot or two over 100 years and a metre or two metres. There’s a lot of waterfront development going on but is it sea-level-rise smart? I don’t know that it is. So don’t put stuff in the basement, have all your electrical equipment on the second floor or on the roof.
Just how rapidly is Gavin expecting that sea level rise to arrive? Even a metre or two per century, is not the same as the huge fictional tidal surge, in the blockbuster movie “The Day After Tomorrow“.
Lets forget for a moment, that predictions of accelerated sea level rise are not supported by observations, and consider the consequences of Gavin’s hypothetical 2m rise / century.
2 metres per century, is 20 centimetres per decade, or 2 centimetres per year.
You don’t go on permanent flood alert to defeat a 2cm per annum rise in sea level, you raise the floor a little.
Even assuming Gavin Schmidt’s rather wild 2m scenario, your property could be protected by lifting the floor 40cm (1ft 4 inches) every 2 decades. Obviously at some point, lifting the floor might become an engineering challenge – but even two lifts would preserve the viability of the property for 40 years.
Raising the floor of a house is a substantial renovation, but the technology used for raising the floor level of a house, is similar to the technology used for addressing ground subsidence – a relatively common problem.
If the sea level rise remains at a much more realistic 1ft / century, one of the owners of a near sea level property *might* have to lift the floor once.
The floor lift option does not even consider other possibilities, such as improved sea defences, or flood control pumping stations. The Dutch have been combating the sea for centuries. Much of Holland is reclaimed coastal peat bogs. Even with medieval technology, the Dutch defeated the sea.
In Venice, in Italy, people didn’t give up their houses, even when they sunk into the water. Instead they created one of the most beautiful cities in the world.
you will notice the article said the people’s houses in Venice “sunk” into the water and that is exactly what happened. The sea hasn’t taken over that city. The land has sunk.
As a practical matter, what is the difference?
there is nothing practical about climate change hysteria and propaganda. Maybe if you think scamming people is practical. This is not an article about building houses on stilts or having a rational and reasonable discussion on coastal development. The sea level projections are unethical. They are political not scientific. A reasonable assessment of sea level prediction is nothing to be alarmed about.
I agree with you that the hype is completely unwarranted and unethical.
The article does discuss efforts at mitigation though, and my comment was intended to reflect that, as a matter of practical efforts to mitigate encroaching waters if and when such do occur, whether the ground is sinking or the sea rising, the same steps would solve the problem, or else be unable to do so.
Personally I think that living in a city with rivers for streets would be quite unpleasant. I would have voted to move the city.
IPCC AR5’s worst, worst, worst case computer model (table 13.8) has sea levels rising 1.5 to 6.6 m (nice tight predicted range) – by the year 2500.
Think 485 years is enough time to adapt?
Doesn’t anybody actually read this stuff?
Oh, and think about it?
I can’t help but thinking that the vast amount of effort, time and money which went into preparing this latest WAG from the IPCC proves one thing, and one thing only: Some people just love to hear themselves talk.
400 years from now, will there be shows on TV similar to those we have now which examine the quatrains of Nostradamus?
In a related story, I hear that NASA has now declared tea leaf reading to be a credible and rigorous scientific discipline.
I used to have a knack for tea leaf reading. I will send in my resume immediately.
I think 485 years is enough time for unimaginable advances in technology that completely changes civilization.
Technology is developing at an incredible rate. Flight, consumer inter continental flight, combustion engine, automobiles, plastics, electric lights, seemingly limitless energy, phones, space flight, satellites, nuclear energy and bombs, personal GPS, personal computers, cell phones, genetics, organ transplants, vaccines, and of course internet have all happened within 200 years, much happening in the last 50. Even with all that, technology advancement is accelerating.
How narcissistic and stupid of a Dark Age scientist do you have to be to warn of some water in the basement in 100 years ignoring the potential technology advancements possible in the same time period.
“How narcissistic and stupid of a Dark Age scientist do you have to be”
And the answer is…..extremely so.
Next question: How dishonest and shameless must one be to call such concerns as that crew warns of to be “The biggest threat to civilization that we face”?
I live at the beach, about 3-4 meters above sea level and about 50 kilometers from the mid-point of the mighty Cascadia Subduction Zone, capable of generating tsunami’s over 30 meters if Indonesia and Japan are any indication. Travel time is about 15 minutes (assuming where I am doesn’t subside 10 meters).
My solution is to wear shorts year round.
Good plan.
One might also consider drilling oneself and the fambly to head for higher ground very quickly upon experiencing an earthquake.
If there is no tsunami, no big deal. If there is one, it may be the only course of action that will save you.
Like the ancient folk knowledge that denizens of certain locales on the ring of fire have passed down for generations: If you see the ocean pulling away from the land, turn and run as fast as you can to higher ground and do not stop.
Menicholas
There is anecdotal evidence from the 1927 disasterous Mississippi river floods that the mid-American Indian burial mounds (far, far larger than just the area needed for single “temple” or priest’s house – of which there are no real archeological evidences available, but lots of drawings and assumptions!) were available for just that kind of flooding. The 1927 Mississippi flood covered so many million acres so deep for so long that many poor mid-south residences (black, white, poor and land-owners alike) clustered on the old Indian mounds with only the belongings they could carry for as long as two weeks. That hand-carried luggage was the only thing that was left after the waters went down.
These displaced people formed many millions of those who then moved north to the new factories (Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Dayton, Pittsburgh somewhat, etc) that broke them from their original farms and leased land.
It is easy to see Stone Age Indians “learning” the same lessons: Build high ground, if there are no slopes and no hills around you.
“Build high ground, if there are no slopes and no hills around you.”
Very interesting Mr. Cook.
I had heard of these mounds, but was not aware that they had been used as refuge from those epic flooding episodes.
It is striking to consider how even in the US, and even in that relatively recent time, people caught in disasters were pretty much on their own.
Max,
Here is a link for the Pacific Northwest Geodetic Array (PANGA) and associated studies.
http://www.geodesy.cwu.edu/
Another link you might like:
The Orphan Tsunami of 1700
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1707/
January 26, 1700 and greater than mag9.
I believe there is clear evidence of periodic and large tsunami hitting the Pacific Northwest.
It may be that the more southerly parts of the Pacific coast are similarly affected, but geographic conditions make any evidence less apparent.
Gavin from the interview:
“a business-as-usual scenario which would result in a planet that was unrecognizable. ”
My comment isn’t meant to be an insult to Gavin, it’s actually an impassioned observation: Gavin has in fact lost his mind. His statement does not come from a scientist weighing out evidence but from an irrational mind that can not differentiate between what is known and what is fantasy. GISS needs a scientist at its helm.
Basically Gavin shows some raw, aggressive alarmism.
It is true, that two meters would cause some damage, but if you have say 60 years to adapt, the losses would be marginal. There is enough time to move, build dams, set up windmills to pump water over the dam. Raising floors is not sensible normally, but giving up properties that are not worth protecting is just normal.
And the two meters is really a worst imaginable case. Mr Schmidt definitely has not lost his marbles. The question is more like did he ever have any. Because he wants mitigation in a situation where and by means it is proven not to work.
“Gavin has in fact lost his mind. His statement does not come from a scientist weighing out evidence but from an irrational mind that can not differentiate between what is known and what is fantasy.”
No, he is perfectly rational. His livelihood depends on a taxpayer funded organisation, NASA; that currently gets 1.2 billion USD a year for climate research. His rational interest is to increase taxation – like with all statists.
here’s Vancouver’s tide gauge…nothing to see here…move along
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/175_high.png
“There’s a lot of waterfront development going on but is it sea-level-rise smart? I don’t know that it is. So don’t put stuff in the basement, have all your electrical equipment on the second floor or on the roof.”
I do not know what particular community he is thinking of, but I know of not one single place in which a building near or at sea level has a basement. So unless he is referring to the ground level as “basement”, he is imagining things anyway.
Electrical equipment on the roof?
Um, yeah…lots of thought went into this statement.
The floating houses in Holland have basements
I have never been there, but that sounds interesting. Are they below ground level?
Actually, when I made this comment I was thinking of seaside communities which line the coast in the eastern US.
After pondering it further it did occur to me that in places like lower Manhattan which are fairly close to sea level there are basements. One notable example was the World Trade Center lower level parking lots. As I recall extraordinary measures were taken to prevent water infiltration, including construction of a huge slurry wall structure, which they called ” the bathtub”.
Because of cost ,and as a practical matter, basements at or below the water table, while possible, would be extremely expensive.
Additionally the weight of the structure built above it would have to be sufficient to overcome the buoyancy of having a waterproof structure below the water table.
If it is sufficiently waterproof to keep water from gushing in, then it’s going to act more or less like a boat, and try to float up to the top of the water table. Here in Florida we have to be very careful about draining swimming pools because they’re liable to pop out of the ground.
In other places along the coast there are high rise condominiums and hotels, and many of these have underground parking garages and basements. But if you look carefully you’ll see that they’re usually built on artificial hills, basically mounds of earth building the land up so the basement is actually above the surrounding ground.
Gavin better start telling Obama not to buy ocean front property in Hawaii:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/obama-purchase-magnum-pi-home-116233.html
“Q: What is the future for waterfront cities like Vancouver?”
An actual scientist might begin this question by looking at sea level data from Vancouver!!
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/175_high.png
Measurements of sea level in Vancouver shows nothing to worry about. Gavin is either an idiot or a liar or just too lazy to look at actual data. That this story could go to press without anyone fact checking says a lot about the pathetic state of journalism.
gavin an idiot? No. what was the other choice again?
As we know from the Climategate emails, they are not interested in looking at actual data. The models have been designed to tell THEM everything that WE need to know!
One can classify the people who “believe” CAGW is a high probability outcome into one or a combination of 3 groups
1. Ignorant (the largest the group)
2. Stupid (I believe the smallest)
3. Users and Abusers of the Ignorant and Stupid (Small but very influential)
I’m am sure Gavin falls into category 3. I remember the debate when he got his butt cleaned by Crichton, Lindzen and the Prof from England whose name escapes me right now. He didn’t not come across as stupid and I highly doubt he is ignorant of the available date which puts him in category 3. He is a user and/or abuser. He has the advantage of that stupid lack the skill set to check his statements and the ignorant lack the inclination or time to do so.
What his motivations are only he knows. Possibilities include keeping the funding gravey train going, he actually believes population growth is problem, he has investments in green technnology which can’t economically exist without the largess of gov’t grants/regulations, and others.
Group 3 is the most dangerous. They are the ones trading long term benefits for short term gains. They are the opportunity thieves. They are taking resources out of Joe 6 Pack’s pocket and hindering his and his family’s pursuit of happiness.
I am heading out to Vancouver today. If I run into Gavin, I hope I don’t accidentally bump him into his rising tidal wave. 🙂
Cheers
Where do you have the useful idiots? A sub-category of 3.? The so-called journalists who do receive financial gain, but then also that large group of scientist wannabes (many who we see on here) who deal in the currency of planet-saving perceived (to them) higher moral authority?
Having examined tide gauge data from many locations, one of the most striking things to me is that, despite the longer term trends which do exist in many locations, the monthly and yearly variation is so large that one can see that, even in the places that show long term trends of rising water, there are particular months from many decades ago in which the sea level was higher than particular months in the past few years.
In ST. Pete, for example, there is a month just prior to 1950 in which the monthly average was about where it is in the most recent month on the chart:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8726520
As satellites allow more accurate readings we are finding out more about this grand ride we are on. I think given the tidal influence on the earth’s surface by the moon it would not surprise me that the ideal shape of the planet has a perturbation which we have been attributing improperly. Sea level rise is tiny compared to some well known tectonic influences. Given that sea levels are influenced by cold and hot water eddies, random storm events, seiches, wave periods and heights and tectonics, I think getting a handle on sea level is a fascinating exercise. When the newspapers touted a 5 inch increase in sea levels in one year I ran right down to the local boat ramp. Best place to field check a claim since it has a 13% slope. i was checking to see a 38 inch change in the skum line…..Nope! Oh I forgot we are not supposed to field check. Just feed it to the narrative and get more apoplectic.
Building houses and towns changes with generations. Those who had to fight the elements without benefit of easy food, water, and shelter, built their permanent residence in sheltered locations away from the beach, windy hills, flood plains, raging rivers, and the scorching sun. Now, these are the exact places houses and towns are built. Wisdom won, and practiced hardiness has been bred out. The lessons of our pioneers forgotten.
But hardship will return as it always does and wipe out fancy houses and ready food, water, and shelter. The fittest will survive and build shelter and houses that are in protected areas. These early generations that survive think only of future generations and so begin again the process of building security for those that are yet to come. As life becomes easy, attempts are made to pass down what was learned.
Given the above, it is very likely that humans do not retain or pass down this wisdom or hardiness very well. Why? Because at least for humans wisdom and hardiness is something earned, not given. And finally, I can conclusively state that anyone who has to raise their house above the waters isn’t because of CO2.
NOAA tide gauge data through 2013 for the more than 70 year long time period record at Vancouver shows a completely linear rate of sea level rise with the rate of sea level rise increase measuring at an astounding 1.5 inches per century. Just more climate alarmist garbage.
“record at Vancouver shows”
so? you think SLR happens everywhere at the same rate?
of course not – we only measure/model official local SLR at Gavin’s summer home and upscale that to Vancouver
One has to take both eustatic and isostatic changes in sea level to answer that question. Bilal Haq is likely the most knowledgeable person in that regard.
Noaa tide gauge data through 2013 shows rates of sea level rise at hundreds of coastal locations around the world with records going back more than 100 years in duration. Virtually none of the measured data shows any acceleration in the rate of sea level at these locations with these measured linear sea level rise rates varying between about 1 to 12 inches per century. Empirical sea level rise data from coastal locations around the world does not support climate alarmist claims of accelerating rates of sea level rise.
The idea of a permanent flood seems too much for me and living houses is close to the absurd. Still, I totally agree that it is true that climate is influencing ocean levels as oceans are influencing climate. To see a bit from the past century’s sea levels and ocean evolution, you can go to http://www.arctic-warming.com and read a bit about the way the oceans have influenced climate in the past and how they can influence the climate in the future.
Gavin should tell his breaking new finding instantly to Al Gore, so that Gore can immediately sell his home at the Pacific waterfront (Los Angeles?).
De Caprio and Obama too!
So Gavin cries wolf in alarm with his exaggerated sea level belief.
Why is Gavin Schmidt, having been publically exposed about his marginal scientific skill, the head of NASA’s GISS?
I am a US citizen / taxpayer. I sincerely want NASA to tell me why.
John
I don’t know why Nasa and Noaa are huge environmental journalism think tanks now..Its really just climate change though. . As far as I’m concerned they take should climatic measurements with satellites, tide gauges, floats. weather balloons etc. That should be about it. Show us that data and methodology. They are not National Geographic. They are government funded.
Charlie on April 19, 2015 at 9:22 am
– – – – – – –
Charlie,
Yeah, I think it would be interesting if a critical journalist from a significant news outlet did a deconstruction of the history of the evolution of NASA (and its affiliates like GISS) from the end of the Apollo moon missions to now.
Also, why are duplicate climate related activities being done by NOAA and NASA?
John
“Why is Gavin Schmidt, having been publically exposed about his marginal scientific skill, the head of NASA’s GISS?”
Excellent point.
We pay this guy to make inaccurate predictions that never come true, and spin scare stories that scare children and the weak minded?
Why?
Menicholas on April 19, 2015 at 11:40 am
– – – – – – –
Menicholas,
The process to replace James Hansen should have been very transparent to the general public. But it wasn’t. Why? Why hide the process that led to the llimited skills of Gavin Schmidt?
John
“The process to replace James Hansen should have been very transparent to the general public. But it wasn’t. Why? Why hide the process that led to the limited skills of Gavin Schmidt?
John, a very good question sir.
I certainly have my suspicions regarding why, but no insight into the actual process.
I actually would have supposed that such posts could be filled as a political appointment. Is this not the case?
Menicholas on April 19, 2015 at 11:40 am
– – – – – – –
Menicholas,
The selection process appears to have been buried within the bowels of NASA administration not unexpected but disappointing.
NASA should have taken the opportunity to have a public view of the selection process for Hansen’s replacement. It would have increased openness and would have been evidence of increasing willingness to explain stuff.
John
Maybe Inhofe will be able to do something about this paid liar.
Don’t forget that Gavin’s predecessor sat twitching in front of a camera, trying to keep a straight face, while informing us that the oceans would boil. Tough act to follow.
“informing us that the oceans would boil”
As bad as this idiotic and flat out impossible exaggeration is, the silence from the entire rest of the warmista community in response to this and other ridiculous and demonstrably false, misleading, exaggerated, or just plain wrong statements from Hansen and others is just as bad if not worse.
It would seem that within that groupthink community, no lie is too big to go unchallenged.
How many folks who can afford oceanfront property also can’t afford to replace the dwelling as needed? Talk about chasing lightning bugs, it’s almost guaranteed have storm damage within 100 years time and be rebuilt or razed to be replaced with something more opulent.
“How many folks who can afford oceanfront property also can’t afford to replace the dwelling as needed? ”
They do not even need to be able to afford to replace their property. They only need to be able to afford the highly subsidized national flood insurance policy that anyone can buy.
Where exactly would this undeveloped “ocean-front” real estate in Vancouver be located? And why is a climate scientist giving advice on real estate? Isn’t that like a real estate agent providing scientific advice on climate change?
Steve: Isn’t that like a real estate agent providing scientific advice on climate change? No, the estate agent would be more accurate!
Gavin must be looking as NASA’s adjusted data, politically correct data. Here is the official Canadian source for Vancouver’s tidal data. As one can see, Vancouver’s tide has ZERO trend going back 100 years.
http://www.isdm-gdsi.gc.ca/isdm-gdsi/twl-mne/inventory-inventaire/data-donnees-eng.asp?user=isdm-gdsi®ion=PAC&tst=1&no=7735&ref=maps-cartes
And here is a plot of the daily average tide
http://oi60.tinypic.com/33moj05.jpg
so?
the raw data says the trend in Vancouver is 0.001 mm/year
NOAA has the trend as 0.37 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence. 370 times higher.
And Daniel Kuhn’s response,………..
are you implying that the adjustments, if there are, are not justified?
why? what is wrong about it?
Interesting that people like Schmidt dont want homes built along the ocean front, but he says nothing about building civilization along active tectonic zones. How many have died from plate tectonics? 300,000 in Haiti. 200,000 in Indonesia.
Little thought is ever given in such discussions to proportional risk.
In addition to the risks you mention of tectonic disruptions, anyone who lives along any river faces the near certainty of having their home flooded over a sufficiently long period of time. And yet many rivers are lined with homes.
And for these homes to flood, nothing has to change. The averages just need sufficient time to play out.
Imagine the millions of folks who live along the San Andreas fault worrying about rising oceans!
This is akin to people who drive hundreds of miles a week worrying about the risk of flying.
Then again, many of these same millions of people, who have chosen to live in a near desert, seem genuinely surprised and upset whenever they have a drought, and yet defend the decision to let 800,000 acre feet of water be wasted to save 305 little fish.
Has the man ever made a prediction that came true?……..
Anybody worried about living near an ocean that rises should consider moving inland. I realize that this is only a concept, but as Captain Obvious, I am calling on someone to look at the odds of Pittsburgh being swamped by rising tides. My consultation fee is small, should you need any assistance in drafting your grant request.
How much does post-glacial uplift contribute to rise in sea level?
http://www.earth.northwestern.edu/people/seth/research/gia.jpg
Very happy to see the Florida uplift. But the coastal down-shift in the NE is worrying wrt the Ca. to Co. effect as far as the southern States are concerned. 🙂
Only a moron builds next to water thinking they will NEVER have a water issue. We on the prairies are having this discussion now. Morons in city hall have ignored the Gov’t policies and kept issuing building permits and now they are playing the blame game and looking for $.