Boston City Hall Report: Climate is worse than we thought!

Boston, Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts. By Luke Nadeau from U.S. (Flickr) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A report commissioned by Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, in preparation for next year’s climate leaders summit, highlights the terrifying risk that Boston might get a decent climate.

According to the press release;

Climate change could be even worse for Boston than previously thought

The consequences of climate change on Boston are expected to be far more calamitous than previous studies have suggested, a new report commissioned by the city says.

In the worst case scenarios, sea levels could rise more than 10 feet by the end of the century – nearly twice what was previously predicted – plunging about 30 percent of Boston under water. Temperatures in 2070 could exceed 90 degrees for 90 days a year, compared with an average of 11 days now.

And changes in precipitation could mean a 50 percent decline in annual snowfall, punctuated by more frequent heavy storms such as nor’easter.

Read more: Boston Globe

Click here to see the report.

In my native Hervey Bay, the maximum temperature stays just under 90F with frequent excursions above for 4 months per year, between December to March. It is a lovely time of year – you never get cold, the sea is as warm as bathwater, everyone just feels like partying and enjoying themselves.

The projected sea level rise is obviously a bit more serious, but as previously noted in WUWT, even if the sea does rise significantly, in the 1850s the people of Chicago demonstrated that they knew how to defeat a few feet of water. Other cities such as Seattle also found innovative ways to defeat the floods. What was done in the 1850s could easily be done with today’s technology.

Tropical Storms are rarely a big deal, with the right civic infrastructure. My hometown has no problem handling deluges of 3-4 inches in a few hours, because we have well constructed tropical drainage systems. Perhaps if Boston city hall authorities spent less money commissioning climate reports, they would have enough cash to fix the drains.

Of course, in the real world the chances of Boston realising the glorious subtropical climate of my hometown are remote. Any Boston residents who are feeling the cold will likely still have to plan a retirement in the warm South, rather than waiting for the less than reliable predictions of global warming models to bring their dream climate to their home.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 23, 2016 8:04 am

“My hometown has no problem handling deluges of 3-4 inches in a few hours, because we have well constructed tropical drainage systems2
Well London is currently experiencing flash flooding due to a similar overnight storm…
Something that happens with increasing frequency.
I wonder, does everywhere have the cash to extend its drainage systems to cope with previously unknown amounts of flash flooding on a frequent basis?

Reply to  Griff
June 23, 2016 8:17 am

Utter garbage about London seeing more frequent storms. Try looking up the Hampstead heath storm and then come back and say storms are getting worse or more frequent. People have short memories.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Griff
June 23, 2016 8:21 am

There is no city in the world, right now, that can handle even moderate rain storms. The infrastructure is poorly maintained, and every time a new building goes in the underground utilities are the first thing to take a hit. It’s an out-of-sight-out-of-mind sort of thing. The Paris floods are strictly a function of mismanaged drainage systems. I’ve served 3 terms on two rural drain commissions in the past 20 years, and some of the idiotic proposals that come in front of us would make a maggot vomit.
It’s not the weather events that are changing in frequency or magnitude, it’s the inability of municipalities to do anything correctly with regard to the necessary infrastructure, zoning, and planning that keep cities intact. Subsequently, when little things happen they create a big mess, and people, who are clueless, get all bent out of shape about the nature and scope of the real issues.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
June 23, 2016 8:41 am

Early in his first administration, Our Dear Leader Barack H. Obama (peace be upon him), p*ss*d away a trillion dollars (not a typo) on “shovel-ready” projects. Okay, you can imagine that the technical term would be a “f*ck-ton of money” but, if it had been actually used to repair and strengthen infrastructure — non-sexy stuff like bridges, sewers and water plants — then it might make sense. Instead, it was used to pay back political donors through boondoggles like solar energy companies.
Sorry, sorry… must. not. let. head. explode. with. fury.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
June 23, 2016 10:27 am

It’s kind of like that old Bill Cosby Skit

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
June 23, 2016 10:47 am

A personal note to confirm your comment.
In late 2008 my son-in-law, in the highway construction business, was contemplating moving to another state that had approved a large highway project and was firming up funding. Then came BHO’s promise of major Federal financing of “infrastructure stimulus” projects. The state’s DOT put everything on hold and salivated over the soon-to-arrive “free” money, as happened in most states. So they waited … and waited … and waited for money that never came. An entire construction season went down the drain… as did my son-in-law’s company.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
June 24, 2016 3:43 pm

Bryan R. Johnson … Not only did Obama (peace be upon him) piss away a trillion dollars, but NOW Hillary is screeching about the need to ‘invest’ in infrastructure all over again. Not looking forward to an extension of the Obama administration. She’ll probably waste another $10 trillion with nothing to show for it.

Reply to  Griff
June 23, 2016 9:48 am

Localised flooding may or may not have increased but of far more significance is whether the total amount of rain pa. has changed and whether the peak rainfalls have changed. Do you have any information on that?
And, as anyone who has looked into the subject knows, a significant issue in drains overflowing is gardens, and other green spaces, being concreted / tarmaced over. Thus sending the same amount of rain into the drains in a shorter amount of time.
UK planning guidelines changed (in 2008 IIRC) so that if you want to pave over your front garden (typically to create parking space), a permeable surface* has to be used in order to get planning permission.
* Either directly permeable that lets the water through the bricks onto a sand & substrate layer, or with an impermeable surface that sends the water to gutters at the which in turn send the water to a sand & substrate layer.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Griff
June 23, 2016 9:58 am

So you’re equating London storm events and infrastructure with Boston’s? Boston gets nearly twice as much rain in about 20 percent fewer rain days.
Flooding is an issue of development and population growth, infrastructure deterioration, etc. London has always has issues. They have a dozen or so designated locations for diluted sewage to spill into the Thames during storm events. Last I heard they are finally spending billions to construct a 24 foot tunnel to help remedy this…and limit those sewage discharges to “only” 4 events per year.

Tom in Texas
Reply to  Griff
June 23, 2016 11:03 am

Griff, Maybe you can convince you leaders to start bridging your canals and rivers again. It maybe one of the reasons some folks want out of the EU.

Reply to  Tom in Texas
June 23, 2016 5:41 pm

The UK report on dredging and flooding typifies most of the problems in the US. So many different agencies and grolups are involved, with no responsibility for action, that it virtually guarantees no action. I heard a quip somewhere that the time involved in a public decision goes up by the square of the number of people involved.
As a point of interest, one of Dorothy Sayers Lord Peter mysteries centers around death by church bells during a flood in the village of Fenchurch(near Walpole) in County Norfolk, home to a famous village cathedral. The village and many miles of surrounding land gets flooded(circa 1920)gets flooded due to poor management of the system of dykes and waterways.

Reply to  Griff
June 23, 2016 12:31 pm

It is curious that so often the first comment is a claim about increasing frequency with zero reference to statistics but with some implied self-confident attribution.
No, flooding is not an issue, and if it is, certainly it can not be handled with co2 emission reductions and even more certainly those reductions are not going to be done with photovoltic cells and wind.
Flooding complaints are drivel, the suggested treatment is a drivel-squared.

Reply to  Griff
June 23, 2016 6:41 pm

“Climate Change” is the perfect excuse for politicians that have allowed infrastructure to deteriorate. Upstream drainage improvements, paving, building developments go ahead without upgrading the systems. Most underground drainage systems are only able to handle 10 year storms. Everything else goes overland so buy on a high spot or you will be flooded frequently. As development in both rural and urban areas increases, flooding increases because run off increases (in spite of storm water management practices which are limited). People love their water front (and artificial lakeside) properties without considering what happens when it rains or snow rapidly melts. For nearly 70 years, I have watched people get flooded over and over and over … Hardly climate change. Looks more like an inability to learn.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  Griff
June 24, 2016 4:13 am

USA historical Hurricanes present a normal distribution. So, they are normal and not abnormal or extreme events. Urban flooding is different, which relates primarily to destruction of local terrain to meet the human greed. This is widespread in India, more particularly in cyclone prone zones.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

george e. smith
Reply to  Griff
June 24, 2016 7:52 am

Climate is much more variable than we thought. Instead of the Temperature possibly changing one Fahrenheit degree in 150 years, we can actually have a Temperature range of 150 deg. C or more all on the same day, and always a range of at least 100 deg. C

Reply to  Griff
June 24, 2016 4:59 pm

“Something that happens with increasing frequency.”
Making stuff up again, Grifter?

Russ Wood
Reply to  Griff
June 25, 2016 9:05 am

And aren’t a lot of London’s storm drains going back hundreds of years? I beleive the ROMANS started with some of the drainage!

Dodgy Geezer
June 23, 2016 8:08 am

…Something that happens with increasing frequency….
Not according to the IPCC.
They say there is no evidence that extreme weather has increased. But maybe you know something that they don’t…?

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
June 24, 2016 5:01 pm

“Not according to the IPCC.”
Ah, but the IPCC don’t get all their climate “science from ‘The Guardian’ environmental bloggers.

June 23, 2016 8:12 am

A Building Boom in Boston
Developers aim to lure a younger, tech-savvy crowd to a new wave of glassy designer condos.

Joel Snider
June 23, 2016 8:17 am

‘Worse than we thought’. Again.
So does this mean they were entirely wrong about everything until now?
I wonder what they’ll be wrong about tomorrow.

Reply to  Joel Snider
June 23, 2016 2:29 pm

The regular churning-out of this drivel has become a ritual designed to keep just enough funding there so they all can make it to the next big hand-wringing pow-wow. Puts me in mind of when kids used to dye and sell T-shirts so they could buy enough gas to get the van to the next Grateful Dead concert.

Reply to  Joel Snider
June 23, 2016 7:30 pm

I always raise my eyebrows when I read doubled down alarmist claims of any type. “No, really! THIS time it is going to be even worse!!!” Crying wolf over and over again, and there are always people who fall for the con.
If you were wrong before, why should I believe you are correct this time? Best case scenario, you screwed up the first time. Worst case, you lied.
I am confident that the people who wrote this report know quite well that the first predictions were exaggerations, and that their new predictions make the old seem reasonable by comparison.

June 23, 2016 8:19 am

When it comes to climate change, it’s always ” worse than we thought”. How are they going to get money for the next grant? OMG it’s worse than we thought, there are more sub atomic particles than we thought. If we don’t do something, entanglement might occur! We have to stop people from thinking now! The entire universe could be at risk!

Reply to  rishrac
June 23, 2016 9:01 am

And the danger from distant black holes at the center of our galaxy! We are all going to be sucked into it!!!

bill johnston
Reply to  rishrac
June 23, 2016 4:21 pm

So. Buy me a beer and tell me all about it.

Reply to  rishrac
June 23, 2016 4:27 pm

FNI/Fridtjof Nansen Institute, 4/2003
‘The Role of Green NGOs in Promoting Climate Compliance’
This 20+ page report Covers Activist and Advisory NGOs. Explains how they are set-up and operate.
Includes, CAN/Climate Action Network, Greenpeace, WWF, Environmental Defence, Friends of the Earth + U.S. NGO organizations. Sometimes this won’t download but is available on the internet.
Sometimes you have to go back to understand the present.

Reply to  Barbara
June 24, 2016 9:17 am

Thank you that was informative. I did receive a handout on how to convince people to the horrors of global warming. Much of it has been used on me in disagreeing with CAGW. I read a book about international regimes, mostly dealing with economics and politics, GATT , WTO and the assorted actors. Green ngo’s look as if they have lifted some of those aspects in regimes to effect change. They use much of the same language or jargon.

June 23, 2016 8:21 am

10 ft of SLR in 84 years would require an avg rate of 36 mm/yr. compare that with the current rate of 2 to 3 mm/yr.
are we really that gullible?
with regards
jamal munshi

G. Karst
Reply to  chaamjamal
June 23, 2016 9:03 am

“are we really that gullible?”
Yes – it is worse than we thought! GK

Reply to  chaamjamal
June 23, 2016 9:19 am

Nor is there any indication in the Boston sea level gauge that the rate of sea level change (2.79 mm/yr) is accelerating. It has been and remains a steady ~3 mm/yr since 1920.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  chaamjamal
June 23, 2016 3:57 pm

Yes, that’s why it’s called “gullible warming”.

Reply to  chaamjamal
June 23, 2016 7:38 pm

As Barbie infamously declared, math is hard!
Maybe someone screwed up the scientific notation. Maybe ALL the alarmists screwed up the scientific notation. Maybe someone mixed up centimeters, millimeters, micrometers, nanometers…
Supposedly only Americans have trouble with the metric system, but the alarmist movement could be evidence that the entire world has trouble with the system. It makes as much sense as any of their drivel. Maybe even more.

June 23, 2016 8:24 am

Who exactly is predicting a worst case sea level rise of 10′.
I thought even the nut cases had stopped being that far wrong.

Reply to  MarkW
June 23, 2016 9:27 am

It’s going to happen you just have to make the right adjustments to the data. You watch the historic sea-level start dropping any day now. What may be a couple of inches now will suddenly become a couple of feet tomorrow with a hockey stick effect.

Reply to  MarkW
June 23, 2016 9:33 am

See comment below. I just researched that, as well as how they got there.

June 23, 2016 8:27 am

So it’s settled then – ClimateChange™ is an excuse for incompetent people (especially politicians) to be incompetent.

June 23, 2016 8:44 am

Do a search for two words… consensus and model
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Projections for Boston (60 pages)
The Boston Research Advisory Group Report

June 23, 2016 8:47 am

It’s always worse than they thought. Which must mean they always get it wrong the first time.
On the subject of Poms and rain, the English floods and storms of 1952, 1953 and 1955 were certainly worse than anyone thought at the time. But in those days they didn’t have a climatariat, so all they could do was blame Sputnik or the A-bomb…and put up their brolleys. (What is it about the 1950s? While Texas baked in the mother of all droughts Eastern Australia just about floated away in 1950…and in 1955 an inland sea the size of England and Wales formed to the west of Sydney. Our local butcher blamed rocketry, which was the 1950s equivalent of blaming coal now.)
My guess is that the state of our climate knowledge is worse than we like to think.

June 23, 2016 8:51 am

Let’s also not forget that most of the city of Boston is built on tidal wetlands that got filled in centuries ago. Some how pre-colonial technology could handle this so 24th century technology should also be up to the task. (Mean sea level tide gauge show 2.79 mm / year so they’ll be up less than a foot by the end of this century and I suspect the real problems won’t show up until the sea level is up 1 meter.)

Reply to  sean2829
June 23, 2016 2:31 pm

If all this catastrophic sea-level rise were a “thing,” wouldn’t the Smart Money be fleeing from investments in any real estate slated to be below the new high-water mark? Do you see this HAPPENING anywhere?
Nope! Me neither.

June 23, 2016 8:52 am

Results of the study are it’s ”worse than we thought”…so we need another Study…send the check to…

June 23, 2016 9:01 am

All together now in 3… 2… 1… EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
When in worry, when in doubt
Run in circles,scream and shout.
When anxiety strikes, breathe into a brown paper lunch bag until the anxiety subsides.
Keep your wallet in your pocket and use one of the handy techniques listed above whenever any politician claims he/she can fix a problem if you just give more money. The above are all cheaper and will probably be a better solution than any costly boondoggle suggested by a politician.

Reply to  H.R.
June 23, 2016 9:23 am

OMG 10 foot .. the sky is falling the sky is falling.
The more astute will have the maps out to see where the new predicted water level is so they can make a killing with waterfront property 🙂

Reply to  LdB
June 23, 2016 11:16 am

Brilliant, LdB!
The sea level isn’t rising 10 feet. The sky is falling 10 feet!*
*This Tiljander Modeling Moment was brought to you by the Stomach Antacid Promoters Society, the letters A, Q, and M, the numbers 2, and 7, and the analysis was provided by Bert & Ernie.

Reply to  LdB
June 23, 2016 7:15 pm

I trust Bert and Ernie more than I trust any climate “scientist”.

June 23, 2016 9:05 am

Our major cities are more likely to be totally destroyed by raging mobs for no reason at all like when the lights went out in the cold 1970s during a summer thunder storm. Humans throwing torches can burn down a city nearly as fast as a WWII bombing attack by the air force.

June 23, 2016 9:13 am

It still is not as warm as the Medieval Warm period, so all calls for panic are by people who want a reason to panic. Follow the news generally, and one can find a long list of things to obsess over besides CAGW.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 23, 2016 10:12 am

Have a look at the graph here: Also, a few years ago I spliced HadCRUT3 onto Loehle’s self-corrected non-treering proxy and found that things are slightly warmer now than at the height of the MWP.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
June 23, 2016 6:52 pm

Donald L. K: Maybe but no way to know as the proxies are long term averaged versus short term measurements. But even if it is so, check your temperature set against the Minoan and Roman warm periods in the article you referenced. In any event, does it even matter? It will still freeze this winter and it will thaw in the spring. (Well maybe not in Houston and Ft. Lauderdale but at 52.5 N…)

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 23, 2016 2:33 pm

I’m still waiting for those North Carolina winters in New England . . .

June 23, 2016 9:14 am

This is a severe under-exaggeration of what will happen/has already been predicted.
As we all now know from this Whitehouse memo from 1969 (see link) – New York and Washington will be wiped out by 10 foot of sea level rise in…wait for it…yes…2000. (sarc)
But, yes, that was 16 years ago and so that prediction got cancelled.
So now a new bunch of clowns are predicting 10 feet of sea level rise for the end of the century!!!
Hasn’t anyone noticed that it’s the same prediction, but they keep moving the date!! I feel like it must be me taking crazy pills!! It’s like deja vu, all over again!!!
I just can not believe how stupid this has become.
Here is the evidence for the original 10 foot claim, in black and white:

June 23, 2016 9:19 am

Boston (PR) “This just in, we’ve discovered that the worst case predicted scenarios are worse than the average predicted scenarios.” The report concluded, “The outrageous hyperbole is worse than we thought!”

Mike M the original
June 23, 2016 9:25 am

” …plunging about 30 percent of Boston under water. ” Two thirds of Boston was under water to begin with!
How else did anyone figure that a ship was found buried several hundred yards inland in the Seaport District?
“The area where the ship was found used to be called Dorchester Flats and was made up of mudflats, he said. It was filled in 1880 to create more buildable land, so the shipwreck must have occurred before then.”

Dirk Pitt
June 23, 2016 9:26 am

Aside from gross exaggerations about the sea level rise (10′ ??), alarmists often make it sound as it would be some giant tsunami swallowing coastal cities with all their citizens in the middle of the night.

June 23, 2016 9:27 am

Having spent 10 years in Eastern Massachusetts, 6 of them in “greater” Boston, warming of the winters can only be a good thing. Warming of the already hot, humid summers, not so much. But, then, I think the good folks of Boston have invented residential air conditioning since I lived ther. They may even have figured out how to air condition the T. And a 10 foot rise in sea levels in Boston can only be called urban renewal.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
June 23, 2016 2:33 pm


June 23, 2016 9:30 am

Was curious how anybody could project 10 feet of SLR at Boston by 2100. Read the report section on SLR, pp. 6-14. Start with RCP8.5. Then throw in the worst dodgy WAIS ice loss projections from Rignot and the like relying mainly on an ice sheet loss model not yet published, fig 1-2), ignoring Zwally IceSat, ignoring the recent onservational GIA corrections to GRACE which also result in near to no ice loss. Then throw in 1mm/ year subsidence on the landfill portions of Boston. Create a goofball additional GIA adjustment that sinks Boston further to offset WAIS ice loss/ isostatic rebound (as if this happens that fast, which it doesn’t, at those distances, which it doesn’t). Finally, use a probabalistic SLR model (Kopp et. al. 2014 in Earth’s Future, which abstract says it based on ‘a combination of expert community assessment, expert elicitation, and process modeling– in other words, warmunist alarmism opinions), then take the 99th percentile extreme worst of that based on the just in case precautionary principle.
A complete joke of a closet closet monster scenario. Especially since the SLR section also says the Boston Harbor tide gauge shows ~2.8mm/yr with no acceleration, and specifically says that rate is unlikely to be affected by climate change before about 2050. Implication: have to act now despite absence of evidence. So the ‘worst case’ is 10 feet minus (2.8mm/yr*35 years=9.8cm=) 0.3 feet or 9.7 feet of SLR in 50 years!!! Even Hansens newest SLR garbage wasn’t that stupid.
BTW, this section written by named people from Harvard, Tufts, BU, NEU, UMass, and Rutgers. Brainwashed warmunist fools, all. Shame on them and on their universities.

Reply to  ristvan
June 23, 2016 9:49 am

I thought you were making that up but I read the report. I am just stunned that any educated person would produce that garbage as a report.

Reply to  LdB
June 23, 2016 10:11 am

I could make something this stupid up. Just not imaginative enough.
And Harvard grad no longer equals educated. Brainwashed by Naomi Oreskes instead.

Reply to  ristvan
June 23, 2016 9:57 am

What would be classic is to get the report authors to give us a report on the chances of Boston being invaded by aliens using there methodology and worst case scenarios. It can’t see how they are going to say it’s going to be anything short of a certainty.

Reply to  ristvan
June 23, 2016 12:07 pm

People here thought I was just engaging in hyperbole when I advocated flattening the place and paving it over to make expansion room for Logan Airport.
Now you know.
The report was obviously fabricated, but to what end? To get a clue as to how much this is going to cost the taxpayers of the state, study the history of Boston’s Big Dig. Make note of what was done, how it was done, how much it was projected to cost, how much it actually cost, and who got stuck with the bill.

Reply to  ristvan
June 23, 2016 12:42 pm

The question about risk of sealevel rise must be changed into language of money: how much you, an alarmist, would be ready bet with 1 to 10 odds that sea level rises 3 feet before 2100? You may resell your bet anytime.
That way we can get money for insurance/adaptation and we learn if they believe in their own madness.

Joel O’Bryan
June 23, 2016 9:33 am

Marty Walsh and his fraudsters need to be prosecuted under RICO statutes.

Ivor Ward
June 23, 2016 9:35 am

That’s what you get for throwing our tea in the harbour!

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Ivor Ward
June 23, 2016 9:40 am

We threw the stupid out. They slipped back in when we weren’t looking.

Alan Kendall
Reply to  Ivor Ward
June 23, 2016 10:10 am

Does this mean the line of tea-stain has been washed away by accelerating sea-level changes? Climate change is wiping out your heritage. You must do something – Oh you are!

June 23, 2016 9:55 am

The total amount of construction spending annual rate in the USA is, for Apr 2016 is (per
Yep, more than a trillion dollars a year. Any “additional” spending due to sea level rise over the next 100 years is a drop in the bucket compared to that.

David L. Hagen
June 23, 2016 10:12 am

Carbon tax without representation is tyranny.
Boston Lawyer/Legislator James Otis campaigned for liberty.

From the navigation act the advocate [Otis] passed to the Acts of Trade, and these, he contended, imposed taxes, enormous, burthensome, intolerable taxes; and on this topic he gave full scope to his talent, for powerful declamation and invective, against the tyranny of taxation without representation.
From the energy with which he urged this position, that taxation without representation is tyranny, it came to be a common maxim in the mouth of every one. And with him it formed the basis of all his speeches and political writings; he builds all his opposition to arbitrary measures from this foundation, and perpetually recurs to it through his whole career, as the great constitutional theme of liberty, and as the fundamental principle of all opposition to arbitrary power.

Today we have increasing taxation without representation in the name of “climate change” aka “catestrophic majority anthropogenic global warming” – based on wildly inaccurate (300% too high) climate models.
Rise up Bostonians and restore the revolution back to the Rule of Law based on representation and facts.

South River Independent
Reply to  David L. Hagen
June 23, 2016 10:07 pm

We do not have much representation now, and it gets worse every year as the population increases. If I recall correctly, each member of the House in the first Congress represented 60,000 people. Now, based on the 2010 census, each member of the house represents about 720,000 of us, and that includes illegal immigrants and other non-citizens who are counted. It is even worse for senators, but they were originally supposed to represent their states. That changed when they were chosen by popular vote instead of by their states.

Bruce Cobb
June 23, 2016 10:20 am

Time to dump the windmills and solar panels in the harbor! The Greenies are coming, the Greenies are coming!
One solar light if by land, two if by sea…

Hocus Locus
June 23, 2016 10:33 am

We’re worse than we thought.
When will it end?

June 23, 2016 10:33 am

They are 100% wrong.

Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
June 23, 2016 12:59 pm

They are 110% wrong.

June 23, 2016 11:01 am

San Francisco Bay Area alarmists are predicting an over five feet sea level rise, almost all of which supposedly happens suddenly after 2050. The San Francisco tide gauge record, the oldest in the Western Hemisphere, began in 1855 and leaving out the recent El Nino increase, shows a 107mm increase (4.2in) for the 158 years ending 2013, a rate of increase of 2.7″ per century.
The tide gauge record further shows barely any increase for over fifty years. The current El Nino, while powerful, is over 2 inches lower than the 1983 El Nino record high of 32 years ago. Other West Coast tide gauges with long (~100 year) records – San Diego, Los Angeles, Seattle, Vancouver, and Victoria – show similar small increases.
Pipe dreams of alarmists are wrecked on the rocks of observations.

Doctor Gee
June 23, 2016 11:34 am

The sky is falling … so obviously it has to displace something at the surface. Since it apparently doesn’t have the mass to displace land, it must be causing sea level depressions offshore and that results in sea level rising along the coastlines. The more sky that falls, the higher the coastal sea level rise will be. The solution is clearly to keep the sky from falling.

ferd berple
June 23, 2016 11:34 am

If it is worse than we thought, then we must have thought wrong the first time, which makes it all the more likely we thought wrong this time as well. Repeating the same mistakes over and over again isn’t insane, it is habit.

Reply to  ferd berple
June 23, 2016 3:09 pm

They were wrong the last 21 times.
Nobody can wrong 22 times in a row.
Therefore, they must be right this time.

June 23, 2016 12:30 pm

Looks like Senator Malarky is still loose. The facts are very simple:
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?
There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.
The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.
Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”
Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.
Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

June 23, 2016 1:41 pm

God….90 degrees….it’s above 90 here a lot in Texas…..It’s so horrible that I could only play 18 holes today….

June 23, 2016 2:51 pm

ahhhh, it’s worse than we thought – seems like they never get tired of repeating this tired mantra…

Another Ian
Reply to  maarten
June 23, 2016 3:27 pm

Well, if it is the only one you’ve got – – –

June 23, 2016 3:21 pm

This is so like the BS being thrust upon my city.
The local government has commissioned a few reports by an “expert” engineering group called for the record Tonkin and Taylor. Here is a link to the major one:
Like most report of this nature, it rambles on, but if one searches for “Sea Level Rise”and other relevant phrases, you can go straight to the important parts.
In spite of their references saying other wise and their reliance on NOAA’s GRACE program they are still warning us that a 1000mm sea level rise is expected by 2015 and the Christchurch City Council needs to start planning for this event right away. Planning means effectively attaching to the 18,000 property titles affected, a designation that this property is classified as being in an “inundation zone”.
Such properties will effectively be banned from improvements, possibly insurance and finance will not be forthcoming and the property values will collapse.
The above mentioned GRACE program or to give it it’s full name “Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment” is exactly that – an experiment and soon after NASA published this report so there are no actual facts to support this predicted sea level rise that any honest person can detect
This is in spite of several references mentioned in the above mentioned report showing that there is no acceleration in sea level rise yet detected and the rate of rise remains at about 1.7 mm/year as it always has been since records begam about 150 years ago.
What is even more disturbing, you may notice if you read the report, is that Tonkin & Taylor grossly exceed the IPCC predictions.
This makes me believe that other forces are at play here. Could it be that Christchurch NZ used to be a member of ICLEI’ but is now one of the world’s 100 Resilient Cities. Interesting Resilient Cities is a Rockefeller initiative for “sustainability”
I recommend that citizens of Boston and other interested people should examine the Boston city website and other sources closely and find exactly where and from whom these crazy figures and intentions are coming from.
My blog has many relevant facts about my city which seem to mirror those of Boston.
This is serious stuff and is likely to affect all of us in some capacity or other in the near future.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
June 23, 2016 5:09 pm

A one metre rise by 2015 would be remarkable indeed.

June 23, 2016 4:29 pm

I myself happen to enjoy all of the seasons that Boston has to offer
Care to tell us about the extraordinarily high rates of skin cancer ?

June 23, 2016 5:45 pm

The consequences of climate change on Boston are expected to be far more calamitous than previous studies have suggested, a new report commissioned by the city says.

What would Boston have done, if the study predicted the opposite? — Never mind.

June 23, 2016 6:43 pm

You have got to love these people.
I guess if I live that long I won’t have to travel so far to the beach, but I have another 170 feet to go before my home is beach front in Florida. Really, I do believe the oceans will rise a bit each century, but the numbers are not in their favor. It took how long for Captain Cook’s death spot on the Big Island beach to be about 6 feet under water.
You got to love these people.
Paul Pierett

John in Oz
June 23, 2016 6:48 pm

They could learn from the Malaysians and build a SMART tunnel:

June 23, 2016 9:41 pm

Interesting idea. But the Charles River isn’t much of a flooding threat for Boston:

June 24, 2016 8:56 am

yet another case of scenariophobia.

June 24, 2016 1:01 pm

And if they lose the mayoral race, the communique can come from certain neighborhood associations or maybe justice of the peace.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights