Another ‘Manntastic’ modeling claim: sea level rise will cause NYC to flood

From Penn State and the “freaking out about sea level is easy when you don’ pay attention to history” department. (well worth a link click)

Sea-level rise, not stronger storm surge, will cause future NYC flooding

Rising sea levels caused by a warming climate threaten greater future storm damage to New York City, but the paths of stronger future storms may shift offshore, changing the coastal risk for the city, according to a team of climate scientists.

Street map of New York City showing maximum projected future storm surge. Natural water is in dark blue, 2100 levels are in medium blue and 2300 levels are in light blue. CREDIT Catolyn Fish, Penn State Department of Geography

“If we cause large sea-level rise, that dominates future risks, but if we could prevent sea-level rise and just have the storm surge to worry about, our projections show little change in coastal risk from today during most years,” said Michael E. Mann, distinguished professor of meteorology and atmospheric science and director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center. “While those storms that strike New York City might be bigger and stronger, there may be fewer of them as changing storm tracks increasingly steer the storms away from NYC and toward other regions.”

Coastal damage increases if the sea level is higher before a storm, and if the extra surge caused by the storm is higher.

The researchers looked at the history and future of both sea level and storm surge, from preindustrial times through 2300, in models that had been run for the full period. The researchers focused on results from simulations with rapid carbon dioxide release, often referred to as “business-as-usual” simulations. They reported their results online today (Oct. 23) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Future changes in sea level and storms would be smaller if actions were taken to slow climate change, such as the Paris Accord’s goal of limiting warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Sea level has been rising, and this is expected to continue as warming causes ocean water to expand and ice on land to melt and release water into the ocean. But, rapid change in the behavior of parts of the Antarctic ice sheet might cause much greater rise than is often included in coastal planning.

The researchers first calibrated their sea-level models to simulate the rates of historic sea-level rise. Then they ran simulations for the future, with and without results of a recent study that projects large future Antarctic ice sheet melt with business-as-usual increases in levels of greenhouse gases. Such large Antarctic melt implies large increases in sea level, globally and at New York City.

If this Antarctic instability occurs, the future risk to New York City is dominated by sea level rise. Then, according to Andra J. Gardner, postdoctoral fellow, Rutgers University, by 2100 the estimated 500-year flood height would be 17 feet, and by 2300 the 500-year flood height would be about 50 feet. A 500-year flood is one that has a 1 in 500 chance of occurring in any given year. Reducing warming enough to preserve the Antarctic ice thus would greatly reduce risk to New York City.

If sea-level rise remains small, then changes in storm surge are the most important concern for future coastal risk to New York City. In agreement with previous work, the models show that warmer future conditions allow stronger storms. But the models also show that the warming causes storm tracks to shift offshore and northward, away from New York City.

“If a shift occurs toward less common but possibly larger storms, it poses special challenges for coastal planners, and highlights the value of additional progress in understanding and projecting the tracks as well as the strength of these storms,” said Mann.

The paper describes the general agreement among the models studied that storms will strengthen and shift offshore with warming, but identifies important differences that could be reduced with further research.

“Sea level is rising and higher sea level increases the damages from coastal storms,” said Richard B. Alley, Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences, Penn State. “Human decisions about energy will be important in determining how much the sea rises and thus how much damage we face, and accurate projections of storms will help in minimizing the risks.”


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 23, 2017 4:53 pm

MSL has been rising globally at the same rate since the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum, c. AD 1690. That’s about 2 mm per year. This rate has not accelerated since WWII, when CO2 took off.

The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of most of the fresh water on the planet, is growing. It quit retreating about 3000 years ago.

So at the present and historical rate, unless another cool cycle kike the LIA intervenes, MSL should have gained some 160 mm by 2100 and another 400 mm by 2300, for a total of about 22 inches.

Meanwhile, the Atlantic coast around NYC is subsiding, as Hudson’s Bay rebounds from its lost weight of ice sheet, so there might be as much as two feet more of seawater in NY Bay as now.



Curious George
Reply to  Gabro
October 23, 2017 7:24 pm

NY Times and Washington Post will make a scary story of it. Few people take them seriously today, and this will make more of a laughing stock of them. Why not? We all need a good laugh.

Reply to  Curious George
October 25, 2017 10:11 am

If they promised that it would flood DC as well, I would support it.

Reply to  Gabro
October 23, 2017 10:08 pm
Reply to  Gabro
October 23, 2017 11:55 pm

How much of the land affected by the so-called “sea level rise” is actually fill, or “reclaimed” land?
As a NYC resident for over three score years, I can say without any reservation that areas like Battery Park City(the earth from the excavation for the World Trace Center), La Guardia Airport, as well as coastal areas Brooklyn ans Queens are all filled land,

Additionally, much of the areas were historically swamps, filled-in by real estate developers.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Rascal
October 24, 2017 10:16 am

Mother Nature always reclaims what is hers. It might take some time but “You bet your sweet bippy” she will eventually take it back.

Reply to  Rascal
November 5, 2017 10:58 am

“You bet your sweet bippy.” And, I’m old enough to remember Laugh In, where that saying came from. Oy!

Reply to  Bob Shapiro
November 5, 2017 12:49 pm

Did you know the whole planetary surface is dragged up and down >40 centimetres per day as gravity drags the visco elastic sphere around? Straightforward scince over 100 years old. Who knew? The tectonic plates are just a collection of VERY thin scabs a few Km thick held onto the 12,000km diameter molten Upper mantle by gravity alone, as are the water, air and us. And insignificant people worry about their effect on this system? They are so eak minded to have such beliefs. . We can’t change anything. We will die. Others will be born and die until the water or carbon cycle stops supporting us, and then we will all be gone. Get over it.No one can leave and return to anything resembling what they left, as they will have to travel close to C speed. There is no god, no reason to exist. It’s jusr random space time. Enjoy consciousness while you can, it’s more than the animals get.

Reply to  Bob Shapiro
November 5, 2017 12:58 pm

It’s only about America? Hardly global, a few precious people and their over privileged religions for profit. , Who cares? Build another wall with the money saved from proscribing AGW religion and its totems? I thought this link highly relevant, given the watery topic. Off to watch Blue Planet 2 now 😉 comment image?dl=0

Reply to  Gabro
October 24, 2017 5:37 pm

Mann, who appears to be as multi-awarded person – medals for ping-pong – possibly.

Give me strength.
Anything this gentleperson touches appears to be covered in the proverbial southern excretia from a northerly headed bovine of the male gender.
And this is models, models, models – all the way down.
BS In – BS Out.


Reply to  Gabro
October 24, 2017 10:20 pm
October 23, 2017 4:56 pm

Subsidence is the issue. Not seal level rise. What total and complete idiots.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Gordon Jeffrey Giles
October 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Just call in the Polar Bears and the Great White sharks. Problem solved.


Sea Level?

Not seal level?

Never mind.

Jonny Scott
Reply to  Gordon Jeffrey Giles
October 24, 2017 7:26 pm

Gordon Thank you!
One thing I struggle to find anywhere in discussions of data based on tidal sea level gauge measurement is any consideration and ADJUSTMENT FOR non sea caused issues which must surely be taken into account if we are to fully make sense of data from world wide tidal gauges. By this I refer first to emergence and submergence due to tectonics and glacial rebound and also subsidence for groundwater extraction which has diddlesquat to do with changes to the volume of seawater but must still be accounted and adjusted for. I first got into this attending a seismic stratigraphy conference as a very young geophysicist and listening to the great and the good arguing over jump correlation of this or that high stand or low stand from place to place all the time referencing a constant mean sea level. In a rash moment I raised my hand during questions and asked if any of them had considered not just sea level going up and down relative to the land but also and importantly the land moving up or down relative to the sea caused by amongst other things tectonics and suggested humbly that until they took those tectonics into account there would be no way they could hope calibrate the stratigraphy accurately.. There was a very long and a very pregnant pause as they looked to one another as to who was going to deal with the damage limitation. So back to the present. I was drawn to look to see how these non “sea” volume change causes were being accounted for because I saw frankly bizarre media stories about places sinking rapidly, at rates far in excess of the numbers cited for global changes in the average level of what is after all a self leveling “liquid”. What was more puzzling was that these sexy alarmist sea level rises were being cited from specific locations without questioning why places not far away had no obvious imminent problems of disappearing beneath the waves whatsoever. Indeed it is as if the bigger the apparent rise at a given unique location then the better for the alarmists untroubled as they are that differing rates of sea level change from place to place appear to defy physics. The BBC, a much troubled and tainted media outlet has bought AnCC (Man = Global warming=Climate change) big time. Their “science correspondent” has produced some truly dreadful and biased alarmist articles but one of my favorite was a sob story along the lines that the Mekong Delta and Miami where in danger of being drowned because of Climate Change. Indeed, Miami is frequently the poster child cited by some I can only suggest “thick as a whale omelett” Senators as proof of the terrible consequences of man’s usage of fossil fuels and the consequential rise in sea level it brings. I have even watched some Senate hearings where they have proudly shown pictures of Miami under water while chastising those before them who dared to play down the possible effect man was having. Here was the “proof!”. It takes I would say no more than 3-5 minutes googling to find papers in respectable journals clearly discussing the real cause which is LOCAL subsidence of the land because of ground water extraction exacerbated by increasing population and nothing to do with some bizarre local sea level rise Bermuda Triangle. Indeed in the case of the Mekong, deltas subside all on their own as they dewater, that is what deltas do which is how they build up stratigraphy for geologists to pour over. Suck the water out and they subside even faster. This being the case how is this rubbish repeatedly being promulgated as some kind of proof positive that sea level rise is accelerating supported by that other leap of faith…that this is all caused by man? Another of my bug bears are the sinking Pacific Atols. An atol or underwater a gyot is an extinct volcano. They sink, that is what they do all on their own because the hot spot which produced the volcano has moved relative to the position of the volcano on the plate (actually it is usually the plate moving relative to the hotspot). With no hotspot beneath it, the oceanic crust subsides. They sink at different rates which must tell the alarmists that something else is going on surely? There are examples submerged gyots adorned with fossilized reefs at great depths, nothing at all to do with relative sea level change. Basic and well documented science is being ignored and no one seems to care. The few brave souls who do care and People who point out the fundamental often schoolboy errors are shamefully vilified publicly. What form of science behaves this way? If it deserves the title science it is most definitely not sure of itself. To promulgate such poor thinking you need an audience which is dim witted enough not to question paradigms or sacred cows, one which has been brought up to learn what to think, not how to think and by heck we are churning them out of schools in their thousands on both sides of the Atlantic pre primed with all of the AnCC mantras. The Gore-on must be proud of what he has achieved but at what financial cost to us all and our children’s future?

Reply to  Jonny Scott
October 25, 2017 11:36 am

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t bring myself to read your unbroken stream of consciousness. :^/

October 23, 2017 4:58 pm

And, they call themselves scientists. How embarrassing.

Reply to  Gordon Jeffrey Giles
October 24, 2017 3:07 am

rule of thumb is, true scientists do not call themselves “scientist”. They call themselves physicist, chemist, biologist, etc.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  paqyfelyc
October 24, 2017 6:06 am

bingo … one doesn’t receive a PHD in “Science” … anyone can be a scientist … some people have more credentials than others …

Reply to  Kaiser Derden
October 24, 2017 3:37 pm

Interesting that when celebrity scientists with NO formation is the disciplines of engineering and applied physics in the subject of energy generation relate renewable energy to the AGW issue as an actual scientific solution, they are usually described as “scientists” and “Doctor”, because using their actual discipline might make people more careful of believing them, often rightly so. In fact many are practitioners of statistical hit and miss pseudo science with small grasp of the sceptical absolutism of physics, and think that if they can believe in things then they must be right and everyone should believe them. Not today, thank you. #Paul Nurse, #Robert Winston, #Helen Caldicott, #David Attenborough, #Jeff Patterson (A BBC “expert” from Wisconsin on radiobiology and Osteopath. You can’t make it up, that’s their job.

Dave Fair
Reply to  paqyfelyc
October 24, 2017 11:19 am

Maybe climate “scientists” don’t want people to know of their qualifications?

October 23, 2017 4:59 pm

This one’s hardly worth the effort of making a comment, so I won’t.

October 23, 2017 5:02 pm

Of course sea level rise threatens New York City. Sea level will go up 10 feet, and then storm surges will flood out the whole place.

Of course it will take 1000 years to get there.
I can understand the panic of the residents. They have no idea how to cope with this disaster with only a 10 century lead time.

October 23, 2017 5:05 pm

“Sea-level rise, not stronger storm surge, will cause future NYC flooding”

What should we do?
Cut fossil fuel emissions?

Reply to  chaamjamal
October 23, 2017 6:59 pm

But with the stronger storms wouldn’t we expect stronger storm surges?

Reply to  chaamjamal
October 24, 2017 12:00 am

Reverse time!

Reply to  chaamjamal
October 24, 2017 10:45 am

What should we do? Maybe we should start a fund to enroll these pseudoscientists in a stratigraphy class so that they can actually learn about the science of sea level before writing a paper about it. As a geologist, professor Alley should know better than to subscribe to this grade school concept of bath-tub sea level, shameful.

October 23, 2017 5:05 pm

What this study neglects is the fact that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record and there is plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. The previous interglacial period had warmer periods then today with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels. Mother Nature via primarily the sun and the oceans is responsible for climate change. Man does not have the power to force Mother Nature to change the climate according to Mankind’s dictates. If we following what had been happening is that the modern interglacial period is gradually fading but it still may be several thousand years before we can say that the next ice age has begun. The next ice age will help to significantly lower sea levels as contenental ice sheets return.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  willhaas
October 23, 2017 5:26 pm

Let the groups talking on global warming and its catastrophic impact should present the climate sensitivity factor to CO2!!! Without doing this making and printing thousands of papers will worth nothing. We must raise this at every opportunity to stop such publications entering the media.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  willhaas
October 24, 2017 5:48 pm

“willhaas October 23, 2017 at 5:05 pm
What this study neglects is the fact that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.”


Not to overlook other failings of the study:
• Jump to gross assumptions without evidence. e.g.
• • the gross assumption that Antarctica will melt, without evidence
• • The Paris agreement will have greater than negligible miniscule effect, at maximum compliance.

• That every future effect is disaster causing.
• • e.g. Storms will be bigger, storms will be more powerful

Who knew that geoscience programs could predict disasters, dangerous storms, Antarctica warming, etc. using a fudged custom tailored program; “The researchers first calibrated their sea-level models to simulate the rates of historic sea-level rise. Then they ran simulations for the future

Alleged researchers, aka “jumped up lackeys” seeking false glory and riches.

October 23, 2017 5:07 pm

Calling yourself a “scientist” is easy, acting like one is hard part. In the case of climate scientists it seems to be an impossible task.

Reply to  ScienceABC123
October 24, 2017 3:36 am

It seems to me that there are far too many cases where “climate scientist” is an oxymoron.

Reply to  ThomasJK
October 24, 2017 10:50 am

Indeed. Here’s an interesting working paper that discusses the state of “climate science” from a scientific point of view from an outsider.

David Grange
October 23, 2017 5:15 pm

Outright piffle. Who are these twerps? Professors of mickey mouse model making. Forsooth!

Tom Halla
October 23, 2017 5:36 pm

Mann is not deterred by his record of making bad predictions from making more predictions. At least Harold Camping and other evangelicals who predicted the Second Coming and got the date wrong had the good grace to stop.

October 23, 2017 5:38 pm

I believe they can tell us who will win the World Series in 2300. Surely they have a model for that.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  PaulH
October 23, 2017 7:24 pm

The Minot Yankees will win in 2300 by beating the Omaha Dodgers. Both coasts will be under water. Didn’t you get the memo?

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 23, 2017 9:26 pm

They’ll also be playing in Denver (Coastal stadiums will be under water)

Zurab Abayev
October 23, 2017 5:42 pm

Even though these people are from Rutgers university in nj, they were not able to visit real NYC.
Canarsie area in Brooklyn is named so because canarsie Indian tribe used to harvest their oysters for wampum . That was during global cooling. Now it is dry land
South shore of Staten island used to be oysters marches up to 1950’s. Now it is dry land
Manhattan was flooded up to Canal street in 1826.
British landed in Staten island in 1776 and at that time water was splashing onto Richmond terrace, i.e whole Saint George ferry was underwater during global cooling time
Castle Clinton was surrounded by the water in 1826, now it is dry land
Liberty island is now twice it’s size compared with 1889. So is Governor island
Give me a break, please

Reply to  Zurab Abayev
October 24, 2017 9:46 am

So you ask what was 500 yr flood limit in 1826? Good!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Hugs
October 24, 2017 11:57 am

The 500-year flood occurs every 25 years now, and will increase [yes, increase] to 5 years within 3 decades. Mindless BS.

Reply to  Hugs
October 24, 2017 1:50 pm

True, BS.

October 23, 2017 5:48 pm

my model gives 3 feet of sea level rise extra… can i get more funding to do more investigation?

the name of the modeli sued to have this extraordinary finding? it called…….
my vivid imagination 🙂

Reply to  Frederik
October 23, 2017 8:01 pm

Look all the climate models have acronym names and a version number so can I suggest a name for your model, Great Imagination Model Projection 1.0 …. or GIMP1.0

Reply to  LdB
October 23, 2017 8:22 pm

GIMP is a freeware graphics program.

Um, come to think of it, just what you need to produce the next terrifying graph from the data that was mysteriously erased on the NOAA computer.

Never mind…

Leo Smith
Reply to  LdB
October 23, 2017 10:57 pm

Gnu Image Manipulation Program?

Is that what Al gore uses?
comment image

Dave Fair
Reply to  LdB
October 24, 2017 11:02 am

He’ll just keep GIMPing along, LdB, with a little help from government grants.

Reply to  LdB
October 24, 2017 2:04 pm

GIMPS use full body latex suits for their sexual fantasy’s….. so GIMP is appropriate for climate models & their fantasy’s.

Thomas Ryan
October 23, 2017 5:49 pm

Couldn’t the poor residents of Manhattan and Newark relocate to the ice free Antarctic? Just a thought.

October 23, 2017 5:54 pm

This blog features some really smart and educated people, but it is slowly being whittled down to the lowest common intellectual denominator.

Reply to  Tom
October 23, 2017 9:46 pm

A little mirth now and then is healthy for the wiseth of men (don’t recall where that came from. Alexander? Nye? Shakespeare?)

Reply to  Tom
October 24, 2017 12:41 am

It is an indication of where climate science has ended which was totally predictable. Politically very little will happen, the data and public opinion will bumble along until things become pressing. If climate science got it right we will at some point needing to do some atmospheric engineering, if they got it wrong there will be a witch hunt and naming and shaming within the field. The error made was allowing politics to enter the science and now politics and lots of people have moved on, it’s mostly just esoteric arguments.

Reply to  LdB
October 24, 2017 6:00 pm

The internet has a very long memory.

Every job these shysters seek in the future wil have employers doing a quick internet search.
A) Inflated claims
B) Ignored contradictory evidence
C) Fully espoused unproven theories
D) Participated in trashing critics and rivals
E) Promoted prosecution towards skeptics and questioners
etc. etc.

Oh, yeah; these guys will have employers fighting to hire them…

Crispin in Waterloo
October 23, 2017 5:58 pm

Quite a large part of southern NYC was marsh or water not that long ago. Now there is a lot of valuable dry land.

Just as Seattle was raised by one story in a few years, the same could be done with any other city.

For those who don’t know, Seattle was only four ft above sea level and flooded periodically. After the catastrophic fire it was rebuilt one story higher using a small hill for source material. You can go on an underground tour of the old buildings under the street for a small fee. One of the unusual things down there is the world’s first ATM. Without the ‘A’ really. There was a guy inside.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
October 23, 2017 6:20 pm

They used big water hoses spraying salt water (driven by wood fired steam-driven pumps) from the sound to wash down the 150 foot high cliffs into the sloping uncompacted fill down to the waterfront.. When the Big Cascadia Quake comes, it will liquify that slope and the entire Seattle water front will slide into the Sound, skyscrapers, Market stalls, and all… into the water.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
October 23, 2017 7:57 pm

Yeah but doing Earthworks was possible back then apparently as a western civilization we have lost that ability according to climate science. China who is the pinup child for all the climate loonies has itself made a massive blunder, it’s man made islands in the South China Sea will be well under water which probably says a lot about what China actually believes.

October 23, 2017 6:08 pm

Sea Level Rise has been stuck at around 7 inches per century since 1800 regardless of CO2 levels.

Sea Level Rise has been flat for the past 3 years, and with the AMO quickly approaching its 30-year cool cycle, Greenland’s land ice mass will likely start to increase, while Antarctica is already increasing land ice mass at around 80 billion tons per year.

If collapsing solar cycles lead to global cooling as many astrophysicists believe, glaciers and polar ice cap may actually start gaining ice mass and the oceans may start to cool, which would lead to falling sea levels in the decades ahead.

BTW, the Niño 3.4 Index just fell below -0.5C yesterday, so it seems likely a double-dip La Niña cycle will officially be in effect from January 2018, which will offset most of the warming spike from the 2015/16 Super El Niño…

Poor Leftists can’t seem to catch a break these days..

Michael Jankowski
October 23, 2017 6:09 pm

“…but if we could prevent sea-level rise and just have the storm surge to worry about, our projections show little change in coastal risk from today during most years…”

If we could prevent sea-level rise, it would theoretically mean pausing global temps (or possibly cooling them).

Coming to an equilibrium level with sea levels that are the same as those of today would mean there would be an IDENTICAL coastal risk as today. Even given the possibility of static conditions, Mikey still wants to make it seem like things will get worse, even if just a little in some years.

October 23, 2017 6:18 pm

“…The researchers looked at the history and future of both sea level and storm surge, from preindustrial times through 2300, in models that had been run for the full period….” Need I say more.

Joel O’Bryan
October 23, 2017 6:28 pm

We can hope for a miracle…. that is that the UN Building will collapse into the East River while in full session.

October 23, 2017 6:29 pm

The basic problem I see here is that the model is tuned to use “business as usual” values for CO2. Without being explicit I suspect BAU is in reality the IPCC RCP 8.5 scenario. What is not being stated at all is that possibility of the RCP 8.5 scenario playing out is highly unlikely. Given that as an input, the projected outcome is also highly unlikely.

Dave Fair
Reply to  AussieBear
October 23, 2017 7:37 pm

Most assuredly RCP 8.5, AussieBear: “The researchers focused on results from simulations with rapid carbon dioxide release, often referred to as “business-as-usual” simulations.”

They have been pushing this BAU crap so long that they actually get away the RCP 8.5 wildly exaggerated and physically impossible assumptions. Read about them yourselves, skeptics.

October 23, 2017 6:44 pm
Reply to  RAH
October 26, 2017 3:13 pm

Well it might be, it all depends on where they dumped the waste after it was demolished shortly after the Hansen quote. At that time NY was dumping in the ocean about 100 miles offshore, could be in landfill either.

Its replacement was closed by flooding as recently as May

Here’s a view from 2012

Walter Sobchak
October 23, 2017 6:53 pm

In 2300. Wow. These guys must be really smart.

Who pays for this garbage.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 23, 2017 7:45 pm

Now to get a scary story we project 300 years in advance as if NYC will still look like it does in 300 years. I would hazard a guess there aren’t 20 buildings in NYC that are 300 years old.

Reply to  LdB
October 23, 2017 8:36 pm

Per the Wikipedia list, there are nine built in 1717 or before. That is, in what most people except natives call “New York City” – there is only one actually in The City proper. The rest are in Queens, Staten Island, on some of the small islands off of Long Island, etc.

One of their listings is for a “carpenter’s shed” on Gardiner’s Island, purportedly built in 1639. Now, that was one hell of a carpenter!

Tom Halla
Reply to  Writing Observer
October 23, 2017 8:50 pm

Someone, no one knows who, set lower Manhattan on fire when the British evacuated it at the end of the Revolution.

Reply to  Tom Halla
October 23, 2017 10:01 pm

Didn’t even have to be arson in those days. People don’t realize just how recently most cities have stopped being massive conflagrations just waiting to happen.

Of course, even in those days, there were some buildings that survived. Imperial Rome, even the Temple of Jupiter, arguably their most important building, was wood – it was a major disaster when it was burned to the ground in one of their little succession disputes. (If I recall correctly, when one side was trying to get at the young Domitian, when he was second in line for the purple.)

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 24, 2017 1:55 am

Smart enough to know they will be long gone so in no position to be reminded of their BS

Mark from the Midwest
October 23, 2017 6:54 pm

How many “ifs” are in the paper? That’s all Mann does is ask “if,” then create a model based on if. He’s really just a one trick pony

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 23, 2017 8:30 pm

He makes smoke machines to shout Fire! in crowded climate conferences.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 24, 2017 3:11 pm

“If I had a model,
I’d model out past war-ar-ming,
I’d model seas ri-ri-sing,
All over this land,
I’d model up danger….”

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
October 25, 2017 4:34 am

One trick phony?

Juan Slayton
October 23, 2017 6:55 pm

…the Paris Accord’s goal of limiting warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

or the Paris Accord’s effect of limiting warming to .2 C (MIT, 2015)
or .17C (Lomborg, 2015)
or .6C (Rogelj, 2016)
or …. ?

A discussion of these speculations that is more balanced than I would have expected:

Reply to  Juan Slayton
October 24, 2017 9:40 am

Lol, yes. The larger EFFECT, the larger sensitivity and the smaller probability of reaching the Paris GOAL. Also, future politics is not something you can predict too far into the future, so making claims altogether is rather streched. Paris will not do a significant difference even if you believe in the high end of IPCC’s sensitivity estimate. You’d need nuclear for that. And gas. And China to reduce its CO2 emissions under the UK.

Reply to  Hugs
October 24, 2017 9:41 am

Is it ‘the larger the effect’? The inquiring mind wants to learn.

October 23, 2017 7:06 pm

Sea level is falling where I live, fairly quickly in geological terms. There are local factors.
The models disagree, so who do I believe, the evidence of my own eyes, or the scientists models?

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  Peter
October 24, 2017 3:47 pm

Reminds me of something that happened way back in the wayback when I was a “touring pro” All the crew and bands were relaxing and whatever after the show. One of the guys ( not in my band though it could have been) was very compromisingly wrapped up with a female fan when his wife walked in. What are you gonna believe?” he said. “What you see or what I tell ya?”

October 23, 2017 7:26 pm

Why did the UN recently spend billions renovating their headquarters building? It appears it will soon be underwater. You would think they would have moved to higher ground.

Reply to  Joey
October 23, 2017 7:49 pm

Haha …. They decided to get help from there World Health Organization and appointed Robert Mugabe on the appropriations committee. They found all the money had disappeared and so they had to stay there.

October 23, 2017 7:47 pm

The Eastern Seaboard is sinking. Sea rise has remained the same. The claimed sea rise for the last century was 7″. Old photos show not even that rise. Hmmmm. Even the accepted figure for the post glacial sea rise seem too high.

October 23, 2017 8:07 pm

Good Bye New York…. 🙁

But will you even be missed !

Bill J
October 23, 2017 8:18 pm

It’s going to be a very tough sell trying to convince people to be concerned about possible storm damage that might occur in 300 years.

Reply to  Bill J
October 24, 2017 1:28 am

The climate plan B selling item is toothpaste. It seems to have 100% approval with 2 votes.

David A
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
October 24, 2017 5:01 am

No, 97% with two votes.
CO2 does impossible things.

October 23, 2017 8:23 pm

If If If If – If wishes were horses beggars would ride.
enough already with all this B$.

Leo Smith
October 23, 2017 8:26 pm

The Thames barrage was built in 1984 to limit flooding in London. Long before any ‘global warming’ should have taken place.

October 23, 2017 9:14 pm

Well, frankly, Mikey the Mann doesn’t know squat about New York – not at all.

If you look at a south to north photo of the skyline of NYC, you will see tall buildings at the southern (seaward) end and at the northern (inland) end, with a very long group of buildings that are far shorter than those at the ends of Manhattan island. It’s like a big dip in the middle. The reason for this difference, as was explained on a rather good geology program on one of the science channel shows a few years ago, has to do with what those buildings sit on. At the north and south ends of Manhattan, they sit on solid rock. In the middle, they sit on much softer ground which will not bear the weight of immensely tall skyscrapers. So it doesn’t matter what the sea level does. Unless there’s a massive change to a cooler weather pattern, with ice sheets forming and sticking around, not much is going to happen to Manhattan or the surrounding boroughs.

Geology beats Mikey the Mann’s hysterics every time. What a dope!

October 23, 2017 11:50 pm

I’m convinced.
I’m out of here on 31 December 2299.

October 24, 2017 12:09 am

I am surprised the ‘distinguished’ professor and his troupe didn’t mention Tropical Storm Sandy, although they allude to it in their statement about future stronger storms. Sandy hit at a full moon in fall at King tide, making the storm surge significantly higher just based on sheer luck of the calendar. It got a bit of press at the time, but rarely hear of this later by many. It was this additional few feet of storm surge that did the bulk of the damage in New York City and surrounding area.

Reply to  Earthling2
October 24, 2017 4:17 am

The storm surge hit Long Island before it flooded New York City. And frankly, the media showed a “surge” of about one inc of water down near the Battery. The panic attacks over the city being flooded had me giggling, but the damage from the real storm surge out of the Atlantic turned out to be in Long Island’s Breezy Point area. The complete lack of preparation for it and the idiotically poor response to it was just appalling.

Steve Zell
Reply to  Sara
October 24, 2017 10:41 am

The storm surge from Sandy was higher in Long Island, NYC, and northern New Jersey because Sandy’s eye came ashore near Atlantic City, NJ, meaning that the winds were out of the east and southeast, with a long “fetch” of open water. Sandy was forced westward into New Jersey due to unusually COLD high pressure over the North Atlantic.

Most Atlantic hurricanes which do not make landfall between Florida and North Carolina have the eye stay out to sea, with winds out of the northeast along the New Jersey coast. A northeast wind has only a short “fetch” of water between Long Island and New Jersey, so that storm surges are minimal.

The AGW alarmists can’t blame “global warming” for the damage caused by Sandy, because if it had been warmer in the North Atlantic, the eye of Sandy would have tracked off the coast, with a smaller storm surge. It should be remembered that Sandy also caused heavy snow in West Virginia, in October!

October 24, 2017 12:37 am

Sea level rise during a 300 year period is not a “risk”. Risk in something that happens during someone’s lifetime. Even if this sea level change happened (which is speculative looking at the ifs), it is not a ‘risk’. It is just a scenario and not to worry about.

Reply to  Hugs
October 24, 2017 12:41 am

By the way, the map is missing 500-year-flood limits in 2017.

October 24, 2017 1:41 am

If manmade climate change causes more uphills, it’s a challenge for city planners elsewhere. What the world needs urgently is a model projecting the average global outside air & water temperature, composition and volume year 2300. /sarc

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
October 24, 2017 4:18 am

What the world also needs is time travel so that we can go into the future and warn future citizens about these things.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Sara
October 24, 2017 3:13 pm

Or to the past to close the windows in Hansen’s hearing room.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
October 24, 2017 2:00 am

All that this proves is that through lack of knowledge humanity has so far largely built major cities worldwide in poorly chosen locations. To compound the problem, coastal cities like London, Venice and I guess New York have also sucked drinking water out from below, accelerating the subsidence. Iffy speculations by climate scientists whose track record doesn’t withstand close scrutiny shouldn’t convince anyone of anything – simply put we need a more intelligent approach.

So perhaps we need to start building on more intelligent locations and start listening to engineers and geologists who know what they’re talking about and divert the staggering amounts of money stolen from the public purse worldwide by climate scientists and the parasites working off their misrepresentations into socially useful spending.

October 24, 2017 2:22 am

I suggest the serious risk of losing the water altogether in a few thousand years. Not much Hudson for Sully to land on. Waterfront properties will be hilltop. Gonna need a new harbour. etc.comment image?dl=0

Coming soon, just a few thousand years now, same as the last three, check them, and this outcomment image?dl=0

Nothing a disaster as it takes lifetimes, longer than it took to create modern New York, by a VERY long way.

October 24, 2017 2:31 am

Link to paper?

Reply to  Don132
October 24, 2017 9:11 am
Dale S
Reply to  TomRude
October 24, 2017 1:34 pm

Thank you. Sure enough, the storm modeling is three downscaled GCMs with RCP 8.5. Why this is considered a valuable exercise is mystifying, since GCMs aren’t fit for regional modeling of storms, but even more mystifying is that the three models used don’t actually produce a greater average storm surge at NYC (because the projected increase in intensity is offset by a projected change in storm stracks). The increase in “flood height” is a product of projected increases in sea level — and the increases in sea level include an “enhanced” projection resulting from AIS collapse.

As far as I can see, the article is entirely lacking in showing the models used accurately projected the historical change (or compared to these projections, lack of change) that actually has occurred at the Battery during the ~1C warming we’ve experienced since so-called “pre-industrial” late 19th century. It’s very much a “untested models say this could happen” rather than “validated models say this will happen” paper.

Given that the supposed increase in flood is largely driven by increase in sea level, I would think given 283 years to adapt to the increase in sea level the actual impact of the changes are insignificant. New York in 2300 will not be concerned with storm surges *relative to the 19th century sea level*, they will be concerned with storm surges *relative to NYC’s sea level in 2300*.

I also wonder what Mann in particular contributes to this paper, which is far removed from paleoclimate proxies. Though I suppose it could be argued that Mann’s particular genius is not in understanding or creating paleoclimate proxies, but inventing novel statistical ways of combining them.

October 24, 2017 2:59 am

Slightly OT question.
We are told that higher CO2 is greening the earth. More vegetation produced each year. A lot of the weight of vegetation is water.
Is there enough water taken up by new vegetation to be measurable in sea level numbers? Geoff.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
October 24, 2017 3:51 am

interesting question.
Human emission since industrial revolution are ~400 GtC. about half of it is still in the atmosphere, and not all of what has been absorbed has been turned into new land green things, but let’s suppose it to be the case, and let suppose 1kg C absorbed in a land green thing is soaked in 10kg water; that will give us some upper bound. That would be 2000Gt water less in the ocean (360,000 Gm²), or 2,000,000 kg / 360,000 m² = 5.5 kg/m² = 5.5 mm. In the last 20 years, that’s 0.5 mm per year. And this is upper bound. This is not measurable.

Smoking Frog
October 24, 2017 3:20 am

Why didn’t you provide a link to the Penn State news or even the paper itself? The news article is on the web – Google shows it. Do you want people to suspect you of hiding something?

Reply to  Smoking Frog
October 24, 2017 6:47 am
Dale S
Reply to  Earthling2
October 24, 2017 7:36 am

Sadly still no link to the paper. I’m madly curious about a model that accurately estimates *local* sea level rise at the Battery for the length of its record, yet projects massive sea level rise in the future. I’m also madly curious about a separate model that accurately emulates past storm record tracks at a low enough granularity to have confidence in its projections relative to NYC, yet projects a significant difference in strength and tracks for future years. With such amazing and impressive models, I can’t help but wonder why we don’t hear about them, and are instead routinely pointed at the suite of AR5 models that overrate temperature anomaly trend and show no signs of skill at *anything* else globally, let alone at a regional level.

Bruce Cobb
October 24, 2017 3:55 am

Fantasy claims based on fantasy models based on fantasy science. What could go wrong with that?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 24, 2017 4:23 am

Mikey da Mann has to justify his position, grant money and salary. I think he’s running scared, or starting to.

Meantime, Accuweather is fiddling around with its article declaring CO2 to be responsible for loss of nutrients in crops.
They also project that by 2100, we’re doomed. I guess that basic bioscience (plants need CO2 to create sugars) escapes them.

October 24, 2017 4:53 am

This remember me of a 1970 comic book ( ) that featured New york under water and mangrove climate in 1986, because of arctic ice melt-down (sic ! scenarists often have very light physics knowledge).

October 24, 2017 5:25 am

I wrote this nearly 3 years ago about the flooding we had in the UK that washed away the Great Western railway line

There were three things to be learnt from that. The first being is that it has happened before several times in the lines 160 year history. Secondly, that a huge part of sea level change comes from the land movement, up or down.

By far the most important being where a storm is centred and at what time it strikes. In our case it was at the peak of an already high spring tide with the pressure area responsible for the wind anchored in the ‘wrong ‘place offshore. If the storm had struck at low tide or a lesser tide, there would have been some 15 feet of sea level removed and there would have been no problem

This is not to say that sensible flood precautions should not be taken, but that ‘chance’ plays by far the largest role.

Tom O
October 24, 2017 6:41 am

I find this scare approach more refreshing then most. When you stop to consider that there is currently apparent ongoing volcanism on and around Antarctica, there is a pretty decent chance that a large piece of glacial ice may well break off and help to fulfill this “Manniacal” prophecy. He has chosen a good source for his scaremongering since they will never relate any loss of ice on Antarctica to volcanism. Got to give it to “the Mann” for going this route. I can hear him now “See? I warned you global warming would cause these changes in Antarctica,” and the snowflakes – or is that green corn flakes?” – will eat it up.

October 24, 2017 6:50 am


(Off topic and posted in several threads,that are not in topic with. Stop doing it!) MOD

Reply to  ivankinsman
October 24, 2017 7:18 am

..LOL….I think you Eco-Snowflakes have reached your “Tipping Point”, not the Earth…

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  ivankinsman
October 24, 2017 8:08 am

: First off, the GAO is a branch of govt that has nothing to do with science.

“….Our Mission is to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. We provide Congress with timely information that is objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair, and balanced……”.

Don’t see the word “science” there in the GAO mission statement (so it probably should not be dabbling in climate matters) and climate alarmism is NEITHER nonpartisan nor non-ideological. GAO’s position on the subject violates its mission statement.

Second, CNN, like most news organizations today has become more of a political and ideological indoctrination outlet rather than a middle-of-the-road news outlet. The honchos in charge of CNN and the rest of the mainstream media use their positions in the MSM for political agendas that are well outside of their duty to simply inform.

I would listen to and believe everything the media tells me today only if I was interested in being brainwashed.

tom s
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
October 25, 2017 7:54 am

Yep. I watch ZERO tv news. None. Zip. Zilch, Nada. I read my news and realize each and every news services bias’s then formulate my own decisions on whether to believe them or not after researching other sources. . And I fully understand that most of them are heavily biased.

October 24, 2017 8:25 am

From the link,is this howler:

“The researchers looked at the history and future of both sea level and storm surge, from preindustrial times through 2300, in models that had been run for the full period. The researchers focused on results from simulations with rapid carbon dioxide release, often referred to as “business-as-usual” simulations. They reported their results online today (Oct. 23) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”

Now their Crystal modeling ball can work deeper into its future with startling accuracy!

Give me a break!

Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 24, 2017 8:27 am

They allow this highly speculative,unverified crap to be published,but fight Pat Franks far better science paper from being published.


October 24, 2017 9:08 am

This kind of studies always catches the CBC green agitprop department’s eye…

They rarely miss an alarmist garbage.

Ron Clutz
October 24, 2017 9:34 am

Meanwhile in the Pacific ocean, Mörner brings the facts showing sea level rise alarms are unfounded.

Published this month is an update on sea levels at Fiji, and thankfully the threat level can be dialed way down. The Research Article: Our Oceans-Our Future: New Evidence-based Sea Level Records from the Fiji Islands for the Last 500 years Indicating Rotational Eustasy and Absence of a Present Rise in Sea Level by Nils-Axel Mörner, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, Sweden.

Spiritus Mundi
October 24, 2017 11:17 am

2.84mm/yr. Doom!!! DOOOOMMMM!!

Also, there is zero empirical evidence to substantiate this nonsense:
“While those storms that strike New York City might be bigger and stronger, there may be fewer of them as changing storm tracks increasingly steer the storms away from NYC and toward other regions.”

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Spiritus Mundi
October 24, 2017 1:40 pm

This is even more revealing of their sophistry –

SLR was faster back in the 50’s.

The Original Mike M
October 24, 2017 1:37 pm

Much of the area they are showing as flooded in the future was flooded in the past …. before it was filled in over the last ~150 years. What’s so hard to understand? Just add more fill like they did before! (Imagine how much easier it will be using FF powered trucks and tractors instead of mules and wheelbarrows.)

How much does it cost per year to add say ~1 foot of fill every 100 years?

October 24, 2017 3:28 pm

Lets hope sea level rise doesnt reach the level of a stack of Mann’s failed predictions.

October 24, 2017 6:05 pm


Is the gavinator rushing to move his office?

Making the manniacaltastic sea level claims, just more unrealistic unfalsifiable far future predictions by fakirs and charlatans.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights