While we can only hope this is true, and hopefully the flood will finally get the U.N. out of the U.S., the reality is much different.
From this article at QZ back in September, which I missed.
Sea level rise will flood the neighborhood around the UN building with two degrees warming
Leaders are gathering at the United Nations headquarters in New York City this week, where a set of climate change meetings will take place alongside the United Nations General Assembly. While they discuss ways to prevent the worst effects of climate change, the neighborhoods around the UN face a very real threat: Sea level rise is set to flood the immediate area, possibly as soon as 2100.
Right now, of every US city, New York City has the highest population living inside a floodplain. By 2100, seas could rise around around the city by as much as six feet. Extreme rainfall is also predicted to rise, with roughly 1½ times more major precipitation events per year by the 2080s, according to a 2015 report by a group of scientists known as the New York City Panel on Climate Change.
But a two-degree warming scenario, which the world is on track to hit, could lock in dramatic sea level rise—possibly as much as 15 feet. Whether it will take 100 years or longer for the total extent of the sea level rise to play out is unknown, as the rate of ice melt at the poles is harder to predict than the amount of ice that can melt with a specific amount of warming.
This model projection photo is provided with the article:
The article was written by one Zoë Schlanger who in my opinion, isn’t capable of writing about climate honestly – mainly because she willfully ignores facts that are plainly evident to anyone with a a shred of journalistic curiosity.
WUWT readers may recall I wrote this article about her journalistic failures: The journalistic self-immolation of Newsweek’s Zoë Schlanger
So in this QZ article, she willfully ignores the sea level data from about a mile away at The Battery on the tip of Manhattan Island, that is publicly available from NOAA:
interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1856 to 2018 which is equivalent to a change of 0.94 feet in 100 years.
Note that the trend is steady, there’s no acceleration seen in the data.
NOAA calculates 0.94 feet rise in 100 years for the graph. Since we have 80 years left to 2100, we’ll calculate 0.94 feet x 80/100 = 0.752 feet or about 8 inches by 2100.
That’s a far cry from six feet by 2100.
But for people like Zoë who can’t handle graphs, a picture says a thousand words. Spot the sea-level rise over the last 100 years:
Bull-doze that sucker right now and be done with it.
Were there not predictions by Hasen that NY, and also the home of “Real Climate”, to be under many feet of water 20 years ago?
We can but hope they are all in it when it floods.
As Neal Gaiman once wrote about an english housing development:
“Everybody agrees that the only sensible thing is to blow the whole thing sky high, but the residents thinks it should be evacuated first”
As a non scientist, but a curious guy who has been seriously looking at this scam, I have a serious question on sea level rise from the “melting polar ice caps”. Do ANY of the “scientists” claiming this sea level rise realize the the AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURE of the continent of Antarctica is 59 degrees BELOW ZERO F? How in H is 5 degrees of warming going to melt that block of ice?
The problem with the NASA satellite readings and their interpretation is that 27 years is too short a period in which to ascertain a plausible acceleration. The Tidal Gauge readings cover well over 100 years and their pointing to an acceleration of about 0.012 mm/year2 could be judged as a serious correct figure. The figure of about 0.09 mm/year2 as derived in Nerem et al, 2018 can be shown to be due to the methodology used and not inherent in the data set. It is this level of acceleration that leads on to many of the extreme sea level rises banded around by alarmists, papers and TV.
The following is a step by step showing why the high accelerations are false.
Step 1 is to apply a linear fit to the satellite readings.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rJUTVNYhB7oM73sBURE5yffiFgUxCZzf/view?usp=sharing
resulting in a rise of sea level of about 3.3mm year.
Step 2 is to fit a quadratic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I9uJi3bqG2QAvluCS-1J_J6O3bC20fwe/view?usp=sharing
resulting an acceleration of nearly 0.1 mm/year2.
Step 3 fits the linear fit plus a sinusoidal variation of 3.5mm amplitude and 22-year period.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aOrEk_X3YW_BxW3wM8f4-AN445cHaVjn/view?usp=sharing
showing just as reasonable fit as the quadratic.
Step 4 is to generate a set of data based on the linear plus sinusoidal equation and to fit a quadratic curve.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hgVSmISXHZ_DH3eFHOCtcC76sZL-sa3u/view?usp=sharing
resulting in an acceleration of 0.0844 mm/year2, not much smaller than that obtained by in the original Nerem approach.
Finally, the 2 approaches are shown on a plot of residuals, these being the difference between the actual reading and the linear line.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l1izgwQZEhseNuO3c4BP4R8zL3sFpD6E/view?usp=sharing
Inspection of these 5 plots indicates how the high predicted accelerations are consequences of the method and that the Tidal Gauge values may be more indicative of the long-term behaviour.
If the satellite readings had started 11 years earlier then after about 25 years we could have been looking at a just as false deacceleration and alarmists raising Hell about a new Ice Age.
Commenter alankwelch presented above some thoughts which in my opinion are
– unnecessary complicated
and
– manifestly incorrect.
Neither is the sat period ‘too short a period in which to ascertain a plausible acceleration’, nor is it correct to say about the tide gauges that their ‘acceleration of about 0.012 mm/year2 could be judged as a serious correct figure’ when we compare them to altimetry’s acceleration.
There is absolutely no need to bring into play some ‘sinusoidal variation of 3.5mm amplitude and 22-year period’.
*
It is perfectly sufficient to compare apples with apples, instead of comparing apples with oranges, and to introduce a posteriori some artificial and redundant orange-apple converter.
And that we can do by comparing (linear or quadratic) tide gauge trends with sat trends within the same period as that of sat altimetry.
We can’t compare tide gauge trends and accelerations computed for the period 1880-2018 with altimetry trends and accelerations computed for the period 1993-2018: that makes no sense at all.
Here is a graph showing two different evaluations of the PMSL tide gauge data set (Dangendorf & al. for the period1900-2015; Foster for 1880-2018), together with NOAA’s sat altimetry (for 1993-2018):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QsWSiByU9jZONeW0ixkrocumRCPvIBWl/view
Dangtendorf’s time series manifestly is the result of a very intensive homogenisation work, whereas Foster’s has a rawer character with much higher deviations from its mean (which nevertheless is very near to Dangendorf’s).
Linear trends for Dangendorfs and Fosters common historic tide gauge period (1900-2015), in mm/year:
– Dang: 1.40 ± 0.01
– Foster: 1.43 ± 0.01
Linear trends for Dangendorfs, Fosters and NOAA’s common sat era period (1993-2015):
– Dang: 2.80 ± 0.02
– Foster: 2.89 ± 0.08
– NOAA: 2.72 ± 0.03
And finally we see a chart showing, for their common sat era period, the three time series, with their respective quadratic fits (2nd order polynomials) computed and drawn by the spreadsheet calculator:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v77IZgLwKsdob0YfgMQZVm6sS1AUKW1Q/view
We immediately see that the polynomial curves and the quadratic coefficients for the two tide gauge series and the sat series, and thus their respective acceleration factors, are nearly identical.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Data sources
Dangendorf & al.:
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-019-0531-8/MediaObjects/41558_2019_531_MOESM2_ESM.txt
Grant Foster:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UaePmF9fkKWK6pUxPWgZhuhTP-EvMud6/view
NOAA:
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_gbl_free_txj1j2_90.csv
Thank you for your comments and the very useful data sets and graphs you supplied. I agree that the comparisons over the period 1993 and 2015 show the same trends, although the accelerations derived from the 3 formulae do vary between .0614 and .0984 mm/year2. These figures are the coefficient of the square term multiplied by 144 as I believe you worked in mm and months x=0 being the start of 1993.
Having said that I still feel the approximate 25 year period is still too short when decadal oscillations or part of decadal oscillations may be playing a role. In the paper “Is there a 60-year oscillation in global mean sea level?” by Don P. Chambers,1Mark A. Merrifield,2and R. Steven Nerem they quote “Until we understand whether the multi decadal variations in sea level reflect distinct inflexion points or a 60-year oscillation and whether there is a GMSL signature, one should be cautious about computations of acceleration in sea level records unless they are longer than two cycles of the oscillation or at least account for the possibility of a 60-year oscillation in their model. This especially applies to interpretation of acceleration in GMSL using only the 20-year record of from satellite altimetry and to evaluations of short records of mean sea level from individual gauges.”
The point in introducing a small sinusoidal variation was to show how easily a variation like this could result in the higher accelerations as obtained by Nerem et al, 2018 when no long-term acceleration is present.
I covered a lot of this in my paper
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17lXnNtsLSlzSOx7tRvbDPwYMDibpvXKG/view?usp=sharing
which I hope now is void of earlier typos. The appendix 2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UfuXDp1-bxLC5rzw7gapSXRqhMuJTGx3/view?usp=sharing shows the influence of a 60 year-ish decadal oscillation as is also shown in the paper by Dangendorf & al you listed.
As its now DEC 23 I wish you a merry Xmas and all the best for 2020.
alankwelch
Thank you so much in turn for this convenient and constructive reply.
I agree with you in all visible points, and will certainly have some closer look at your paper.
Merry Xmas / Frohes Fest / Joyeux Noël
J.-P. D.
I forgot to mention a little detail. You wrote above
“I agree that the comparisons over the period 1993 and 2015 show the same trends, although the accelerations derived from the 3 formulae do vary between .0614 and .0984 mm/year2.”
Correct. But did you notice that these accelerations contradict your comment, as the least one is NOT that coming from tide gauge data but that obtained out of altimetry data?
Of course we agree: the difference is very small, but that is exactly what I’m happy to see you confirming.
Tide gauges and altimetry work hand in hand, and only dark-minded Pseudoskeptics will pretend that tide gauge data is ‘adjusted’ to have it near to that ofr altimetry.
cu
I advocate that the UN leaves NY immediately to make sure they avoid the flood. Suggested alternative site is Lagos. Lets see the virtue signalling from there
The journalistic self-immolation of Newsweek’s Zoë Schlanger –
https://youtu.be/cmAlQvDQGoI