Doubling up the sea level scare for Paris using the old 'one-two punch' line

Water temperatures, which influence sea level, are expected to rise sharply in the 21st century along the eastern United States. Redder areas on the map show projected temperatures at the higher end of the scale. CREDIT Little et al., Nature Climate Change, 2015
Water temperatures, which influence sea level, are expected to rise sharply in the 21st century along the eastern United States. Redder areas on the map show projected temperatures at the higher end of the scale. CREDIT Little et al., Nature Climate Change, 2015

From the THE EARTH INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

One-two punch of rising seas, bigger storms may greatly magnify US East coast floods

New study quantifies synergy of 2 climate hazards

Many studies predict that future sea-level rise along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts will increase flooding. Others suggest that the human-caused warming driving this rise will also boost the intensity and frequency of big coastal storms. Up to now, though, these two hazards have been assessed mostly in isolation from each other. Now, a new study quantifies how they could interact to produce alarming spikes in the combined height and duration of flooding. It projects that coastal flooding could possibly shoot up several hundredfold by 2100, from the Northeast to Texas. The study appears this week in the journal Nature Climate Change.

“When you look at hazards separately, it’s bad enough, but when you consider the joint effects of two hazards together, you can get some surprises,” said Radley Horton, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Earth Institute and study coauthor. “Sometimes, 1 plus 1 can equal 3.”

Over the past century, the East Coast has seen sea-level rise far above the 8-inch global average–up to a foot in much of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, including New York City. Global rise is being driven mainly by melting of ice and expansion of seawater as the ocean warms. In this region, sinking land and currents that chronically drive water coastward have worsened matters. Most projections call for a further 2- to 4-foot rise by 2100; some go as high as 6 feet.

At the same time, separate studies suggest that the intensity of the biggest storms generated in the North Atlantic may increase, because warmer waters contain more energy. Projections of this phenomenon are somewhat less certain, but scientists are taking them with increasing seriousness.

The new study shows how the two factors may work together. The authors analyzed 15 climate models at five locations: Atlantic City, N.J.; Charleston, S.C.; Key West, Fla.; Pensacola, Fla.; and Galveston, Tex. They not only considered both factors, but the chances that they would be correlated–in other words, the probability that they could act together in time to produce more than the sum of their parts. Five models simulated both high local sea-level rises and increases in the strongest storms.

Based on this, the authors make two projections for the 21st century: one if the world greatly reduces emissions of greenhouse gases, and one if the current trajectory continues. Even the reduced-emissions calculations suggest a 4- to 75-fold increase in the flood index–that is, the combined heights and durations of expected floods–across the five locations. With business as usual, the flood index might go up 35 to 350 times. Furthermore, the study does not account for any sea-level rise caused by melting of glaciers and ice sheets–only water expansion–so that could add to the hazard.

“It’s an aggregate number over a big area–not a specific prediction for any one place,” said lead author Christopher Little of Atmospheric and Environmental Research, a company that performs weather and climate research, and related risk assessments. “But these projections help lay the groundwork for more specific research that will be valuable for adapting to climate change.” The paper adds to the scientific basis for ongoing risk assessments such as those of the New York City Panel on Climate Change, to which both Little and Horton have contributed.

###

The other authors of the study are Robert Kopp of Rutgers University; Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University; Gabriel Vecchi of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and Gabriele Villarini of the University of Iowa.

Copies of the paper, “Joint projections of US East Coast sea level and storm surge,” are available from the authors or the Earth Institute press office.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
143 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
LarryFine
September 21, 2015 1:15 pm

The past 10,000 years have on average been far hotter than anything our CO2 could cause, but their dire flooding scenarios never happened.

Steve R
Reply to  LarryFine
September 22, 2015 9:04 pm

Well, I assume for some, the flooding over the past 10,000 yr was devestating enough.

Mickey Reno
September 21, 2015 2:10 pm

Here’s a link to the actual paper at Nature Climate Change. It’s pay-walled, of course ($32). grrrrr
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2801.html
I’d really enjoy a free copy of this if anyone knows where I can get one (fair use for serious news analysis and or academic study of the autodidact variety). Till then I guess I’ll content myself with alarmist and hyperbolic press releases, or misleading abstracts that don’t clearly outline the hypothesis being tested, but clearly accept a melange of aggregate GCM outputs as gospel truth. From the abstract: “Sea-level rise and PDI [PDI = Power Distribution Index, a computer generated projection of future hurricane strength] are derived from representative concentration pathway simulations of 15 atmosphere–ocean general circulation models.”

Phlogiston
September 21, 2015 2:28 pm

Sea level rise has accelerated off the NE coast of USA in recent years. However while trousering this for short term PR effect, the warmistas should be more careful of what it signifies longer term. This SL build up off the NE coast is due to weakening of the North Atlantic drift / Gulf Stream, part of the overturning and downswing of the AMO which means that a period of cooling is on the way.

KTM
Reply to  Phlogiston
September 21, 2015 7:18 pm
Phlogiston
Reply to  KTM
September 21, 2015 8:41 pm
KTM
Reply to  KTM
September 21, 2015 9:13 pm

They are calling the wiggles acceleration. And deceleration, apparently, since the overall long term trend is steady.

paullinsay
Reply to  KTM
September 22, 2015 3:14 am

The sea level rise is negligible compared to the twice daily high/low tidal change that starts at 9.5 feet in Boston and reaches close to 50 feet in the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia. All the ocean docks around here are floating to accomodate the tides.

phlogiston
Reply to  KTM
September 22, 2015 11:27 am

I agree. I’m not arguing for alarmist sea level rise – quite the opposite. Just saying that the recent NE seaboard sea level rise (a) is local and (b) is linked to a process – Gulf stream slow-down and AMO reversal – which points to cooling ahead, not warming.

Eliza
September 21, 2015 2:29 pm

we would do well to follow Goddards ice warnings hahaha
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Largest rise/recovery ever in both arctic thick and thin ice

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Eliza
September 21, 2015 7:37 pm

Eliza, I tend to give more weight to Scandinavian ice data, too. These hardy folk have been sailing around in the Arctic for more than a millennium and I think it is a sacred place for them.

Eliza
September 21, 2015 2:30 pm

Nature Climate Change = Trash publication

JJM Gommers
September 21, 2015 2:39 pm

Even natural sea level increase of 3,0 mm is not innocuous, it results in a higher crest of the waves and subsequently more energy release during landfall

Reply to  JJM Gommers
September 21, 2015 4:14 pm

How does a 0.5 m wave in 1m of water have more energy release than a 0.5 m wave in 1.003 m of water? Did I misunderstand you?

Alex
September 21, 2015 2:57 pm

The lead author is C. Little of Atmospheric and Environmental Research.
This is a joke, right?

Alex
Reply to  Alex
September 21, 2015 3:09 pm

You missed my point. C. Little a.k.a Chicken Little.
(Earth humour)

emsnews
Reply to  Alex
September 21, 2015 3:14 pm

‘Buck, buck, buck…cockadoodledoo!’ Yes, that famous C. Little.

Reply to  Alex
September 21, 2015 6:35 pm

Oh Noes! The sea is rising!!! The sea is rising!!! New century C.Little will have to trade in his umbrella for a pair of hip waders–or maybe not.
Perhaps there will be a study to demonstrate how C. Little will manage with both umbrella AND hip waders, and to quantify the additional force(s) that will be required for him to navigate/ambulate across the road! I volunteer to do this important Climate Change Research ! Gonna get my government grant application in post haste!

Reply to  msbehavin'
September 21, 2015 7:11 pm

Just thought, I’ll also need some creative statistics and a fancy graphic model for my C. Little research. Do you think I should get a Mann to do it for me?

Alex
Reply to  msbehavin'
September 21, 2015 7:32 pm

Ridicule gets better results than quoting facts and figures.

Reply to  Alex
September 21, 2015 6:49 pm

Alex, clearly over LPB’s head. Probably bent down reading New York tidal gauges, I’d guess.

Steve Garcia
Reply to  Alex
September 22, 2015 9:32 am

Yeah, I find that funny, too.

Warren Latham
September 21, 2015 3:01 pm

A “study” (Nature Climate Change) = a “Gravy Train GRANT MONEY application” (publication of crap).

Catcracking
September 21, 2015 4:23 pm

Could someone please clarify for me the 8-12″ claim and what factors are considered?
How is local land subsidence considered, which is probably more significant where gauges might be in areas where there have been landfills which is common along the shore? I assume the tide gauge readings are raw data which is affected by land subsidence, correct?
Second, recently NOAA decided to account for the fact that the ocean bottoms also subside under the hydrostatic pressure of the water especially in very deep areas, which lowers actual sea levels by increasing the volume available. They decided to add the subsidence to the “sea level” rise to increase reported sea level although actual level is not increased.
I have been boating on the Barnegat Bay in NJ for 40 years and know the depths well since it is not a deep bay, no noticeable evidence of water depth increase. Also I have a who has spent circa 60+ years working the bay (clamming, fishing, etc) and he acknowledges that he cannot see any depth increase although he seems to buy into the progressive line that global warming is real.

September 21, 2015 4:26 pm

I quote:
“…a new study ….. projects that coastal flooding could possibly shoot up several hundredfold by 2100, from the Northeast to Texas…… Most projections call for a further 2- to 4-foot rise by 2100; some go as high as 6 feet.”
Sure. Al Gore said it would rise 20 feet and was given a Nobel Prize for that. The only thing that this tells us is that the Nobel Prize committee is a bunch of idiots who let Al Gore cheat them out of a prize or else they are illiterate and did not read what he claimed or else they deliberately ignored it which is the worst alternative because it is corruption that ought to be investigated and punished. If you want to know how much sea level has risen or will rise you ought to read scientific literature and ignore those associates of Hansen at Columbia. That is what I did after seeing his movie. In the April 11th 2008 issue of the journal Science there is an article by Chao, Yu, and Li entitled “Impact of Artificial Water Impoundment on Global Sea Level.” What they did was to account for sea level changes produced as a result of water held behind all the dams in the world built since the year 1900. They report that doing so removed apparent irregularities in the rate of sea level rise reported in the literature. Sea level rise curve for the previous eighty years in fact became linear with a slope of 2.47 millimeters per year. If you work that out it becomes just a little under ten inches per century, not twenty feet that Al Gore gets away with. If you have done any quantitative measurements in your field you should know that something that has been linear that long is not about to change anytime soon. I would go with this projection/prediction and advise you to do the same. Ignore these fanciful numbers that they still can’t pin down better than a factor of two or ten (as the case may be) and stay with the three significant figures of Chao, Yu and Li (or maybe two to give them leeway). And stop funding any further non-sensical futurology about sea level change.

kramer
September 21, 2015 5:40 pm

Love that the director of the Earth Institute can be found on the Party of European Socialists (PES) giving speeches, that the PES is connected to socialistinternational.org, and that George Soros is some kind of external advisor to the Earth Institute.
These control freaks are going all out for Paris.

NW sage
September 21, 2015 5:44 pm

Anytime someone presents an analysis postulating ‘what if’ this happens together with ‘what if’ that happens without CONSIDERABLE data to support that either option is VERY probable we can be sure the resulting report should be studiously ignored. It makes NO difference!

johann wundersamer
September 21, 2015 5:49 pm

OT: VW.
A ‘clean diesel’, running with soot filter for standard test / via: allday use / the environmental impact is 40 times higher – and that destroys the world’s climate!
A SCALE for fantasy specification values set by the EPA: a few hundred thousand
4cylinder diesels with reduced soot filters will destroy the world climate.
Or is it just about to strangle the Western automobile production.
– anyway: baseless scales, that no one can cope with.
Thought off for political merits – and it’s just about ‘leaving for work / getting home again.’
Climate Wars – fairy tales.
Hans

johann wundersamer
Reply to  johann wundersamer
September 21, 2015 6:21 pm

won’t hold my breath until beheaded by heavy religious fanatics indiscriminated by jesuits, sharia or EPA’s green belivers. sucks.

johann wundersamer
Reply to  johann wundersamer
September 21, 2015 6:30 pm

to complete:
won’t hold my breath until beheaded by heavy religious fanatics indiscriminated by jesuits,sharia or EPA’s green
belivers due to some
RICO act.
sucks.
G’Night. Hans

BallBounces
September 21, 2015 5:50 pm

Climate scientists are beginning to sound like those journalists who run around interviewing each other because no-one else is available and nothing is going on. They must be awash in funds to be able to do this.

Ter of Kona (formerly Terry G)
September 21, 2015 5:55 pm

It looks like they just selected a set of variables that could be used to “prove” their foregone conclusions, assigned some wild guess uncertainties to the variables, ran a Mont Carlo simulation, and reported the P10 and P90 results.
“but scientists are…”. I strongly support the first amendment, but wouldn’t it be nice if it were possible to ban the word “scientists” followed by some alarming conclusion ;-)?

High Treason
September 21, 2015 7:22 pm

The bottom line is this- for “climate action” to actually make a meaningful difference, human activity would have to be the dominant cause of climate change. If humans were responsible for say 20% of climate change, the rest being natural, the effort would be almost wasted, We would suffer the pain for almost no gain.
The so-called “consensus” is very much manipulated. The much touted Cook et al review of 11,944 climate papers showed just 64 papers came to an explicit and quantified conclusion supporting anthropogenic climate change. Implicit opinions with or without quantification(more than likely full of the weasel words-might, may, could) are NOT proof of anthropogenic climate change/ global warming. 9 papers quantitatively rejected anthropogenic global warming. 64 (reanalysis suggests 41) out of the 4,000 odd that expressed an opinion on AGW is NOT a convincing “consensus.” It is a contrived consensus with the intention of deceiving people to believe a conclusion that is different to the data. The quantified opinion that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming/ climate change was only 1% of the opinions expressed.
CONCLUSION
This is NOT grounds for radical decarbonisation of civillization.

High Treason
September 21, 2015 7:37 pm

For Sydney readers, the grand guru of Gaia, the seer of catastrophe, the one and only (drum roll please)Tim Flannery is speaking at Sydney University this Wednesday(tomorrow) 6.30pm. Get those hands up pronto to get your question in (maybe, but we can live in hope.)
We would all like to know whether climate policy should be influenced more by models or by cold, hard observational data.
We would all like to know if Professor Flannery knows how many of the Cook et al reviewed papers came to a quantitative conclusion that human activity causes global warming/ climate change.
We would love to ask him how lucky is it for him and the UN that people are so gullible to believe that a 15% change in the concentration of a minor trace gas that is essential for life could be the chief driver of global warming/climate change/extreme weather/ocean chemistry.
We would also love to ask him, since the science is so “settled” why he will not debate with sceptics such as Professors Ian Plimer, Bob Carter or perhaps go on to Alan Jones’ or Andrew Bolt’s program and lay the issue to rest before we sign binding committments in Paris.
See you there.

RoHa
September 22, 2015 2:42 am

You’re doomed twice.
(I’m not because I’m in Queensland.)

Jimbo
September 22, 2015 7:26 am

We pay for this!

Most projections call for a further 2– to 4-foot rise by 2100; some go as high as 6 feet.
At the same time, separate studies suggest that the intensity of the biggest storms generated in the North Atlantic may increase, because warmer waters contain more energy. Projections of this phenomenon are somewhat less certain, but scientists are taking them with increasing seriousness.
The new study shows how the two factors may work together. The authors analyzed 15 climate models at five locations: ……

and so on goes the drivel……………..

Pachygrapsus
September 22, 2015 8:01 am

Even the IPCC has acknowledged that sea levels rose from 1920-1950 at about the same as 1990-present. (AR5, WG1, Chapter 3)
Of course they simply hand-wave around inconvenient facts by citing “natural variability” in the past. They might as well invoke “magic” or “evil water spirits” because what they’re actually saying is that unless they can blame CO2 they’re completely stumped.