By Rud Istvan
Reading headlines this evening (2/15), NYT, NPR, and CNN are sounding climate alarms again. This time about disastrous sea level rise by 2050.
NYT: “Coastal sea levels in US to rise a foot by 2050, study confirms”
CNN: “US sea level will rise rapidly in the next 30 years, new report shows”
NPR: “Sea level rise between 6-18 inches [depending where] over next 30 years”
I wondered how this could be, since dGPS vertical land motion corrected long record tide gauges show 2.2mm/year with NO acceleration. And since, as also previously posted, 2.2mm/year closes with the sum of Greenland plus Antarctic ice loss plus ARGO thermosteric rise.
Heck, even the really bad NASA satellite altimetry SLR (not fit for purpose per three previous posts on Jason 3 and Sentinel-6) says about 3.2-3.4mm/year, under 4 inches over the next 3 decades. NOT a foot!
The loud media alarm stems from the new US interagency ‘2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report’ led by NOAA. It is readily available at oceanservices.noaa.gov. Key takeaway #1 (in bold): As much rise in the next 30 years as in the past 100!!!
That explains the blaring media headlines. Hardly an accident. Deliberate alarm.
How in the world could US government agencies reach such a conclusion while ignoring their own data? NOAA runs tide gauges. NASA runs satalt.
Turns out it is NOT their conclusion. It is an echo. The 2022 report opens with:
“Greater confidence than the last 2017 report because of advances in sea level science since 2017 AS CAPTURED IN IPCC AR6”. There have been no advances in sea level observational science. So it isn’t ‘science’ at all. Its just ‘new and improved’ IPCC AR6 models.
“Models of future sea level rise closely match one another over the next 30 years.” So what? Those AR6 models do not remotely resemble US interagency observational reality. Something that this new US interagency nowhere mentions.
Read it and weep.
US government’s climate alarmists are really scraping the bottom of the IPCC barrel, and richly deserve more ridicule than this post can muster.
It’s all about eyeballs and clicks, as Stephen Koonin is fond of saying. To this we must add, the relentless pursuit of research grants.
The picture of La Jolla Cove from the 1890s appearing near identical to today is the one refutation that that invalidates the proposal.
4 inches is about right …. How come I know this, but Climate Scientists don’t??
Somebody better tell O about all this sea level stuff because he’s gone and bought a house on the beach in Hawaii to go with the one on Martha’s Vineyard! For a man who believes so strongly in Climate Change, he does seem to buy a lot of houses near coastal areas….
feature story on npr evening news tonite . they ( noaa)
know no one will remember this in ten years , let alone 30 . it’s sad how little fact checking is done by what is supposed to be high quality news orgs . five minutes googling tide gauges would show this to be ridiculous .
My eyes have seen the glory
Of the rising of the seas
But the rise was insufficient
So I fell upon my knees
I knew not what to do
The oceans did not budge
But I had an inspiration:
Use the MODELS and then fudge!
And suddenly CALAMITY
In only 30 years
So easy to produce
Scenarios of flood and death
Predictions using fictions
Computer manufactured
And no one checks the math…
Someone must want to bring the price of waterfront property down. Someone trying to keep up with the Obamas but doesn’t quite have enough cash on hand?
King Canute would like to have a word with Ozymandias about making inaccurate long-range predictions.
I’ve just started reading Steve Koonin’s book Unsettled, and by his wording in describing temperature anomaly graphs I suddenly realized the fatal flaw of climate alarmism. Not only that, there is a serious potential for a successful fraud case against alarmist climate scientists, and the entire IPCC.
Koonin described in detail how temperature anomaly graphs are determined and presented, and his use of one word–‘expected’–triggered this realization, in that he stated that the temperature anomaly is the recorded value compared to the ‘expected value’. Well–what should that ‘expected’ value for any year be?
In all temperature anomaly graphs the zero flat-line of a constant temperature is assumed to be the expected value–well, in the simple and brilliant question that a commenter made in response to someone else’s statement under a recent WUWT article–‘1. Who told you that? and 2. Why did you believe it?’
I have stated this in other terms many times, in the simple question of ‘If we are recovering from the last ice age, which year would logically be the ‘hottest year ever’?–the answer is ‘this year’. Well, if we are to determine an ‘expected value’ against which to plot temperature anomalies, this expected value for any year should be a projection into the future of the average temperature trend from the coldest period of the Fraser (Wisconsinan) glaciation to today’s average temperature; or, in a more expanded scale, from the coldest of the Pleistocene to today.
This will be a line with a distinct positive slope on a temperature/time graph, and I expect that most if not all actual temperatures will plot well below that sloped line. If scales are manipulated so that the expected-value line is horizontal, all actual temperatures in our historical record will plot as negative temperature anomaly points and any warming crisis vanishes.
To relate this to a visualization, consider this graph–
I have asked climate-alarmist people two questions about this one–‘After staring at this graph for a while, point out to me where in that record is the precedent for thinking that climate today should be constant. And should you still think that climate today should not change, where do you see the precedent for declaring that it should flat-line from the extreme right hand end of that graph where it is now? Please explain the logic process that leads you to either or both of those conclusions’.
My simple realization from Koonin’s explanation is that the ‘expected temperature’ for a temperature anomaly graph should NOT be a flat line at constant temperature at all, but a projection of the trend displayed at the extreme right hand end of the above graph.
Now the fraud part: I believe that a charge of fraud can be made against any alarmist climate scientist on the basis that they ‘knew or should have known’ the obvious truth of what I presented above, and that statements of anthropogenic crisis and resultant catastrophe are fraudulent. They also ‘knew or should have known’ that life was far more lush, varied and vibrant during warm periods with respect to cold periods during the planet’s history, and that warm periods were coincident with higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, unequivocally indicating that more CO2 than today is better for life, not worse.
This is all common grade-school-level scientific knowledge, not knowledge held only among geologists; we have tried to tell everybody. If someone with a PhD in climatology has become so narrow-focussed in their knowledge that they no longer understand what they should have known before graduating from high school, I think it is time to cancel their qualifications and send them back to the particular grade in high (or elementary) school where such things are taught for the first time; they will be allowed to proceed again only when and if they can demonstrate that they have grasped and retained such basic geologic concepts.
They have truly specialty-educated themselves into a state of general ignorance that has made them become a danger to society. Or–they are knowingly perpetrating a serious and costly fraud for their own personal benefit and should be prosecuted for damages incurred by the rest of us. I think the second is more likely, and the direction in which we should proceed.
Control the narrative, control the people.
Sorry, the graph didn’t paste–it was the Smithsonian graph of temperature for the last 500 million years, the one showing ‘earth with ice caps’ vs ‘earth with no ice caps’.
Climate alarmists may be scraping the bottom of the IPCC barrel, but there is still a sizeable proportion of the population that will uncritically believe whatever government tells them. They will only change when the pain coming from their wallet becomes so intense that they look into the matter for its cause and discover the fraud.
Climate alarmists may be scraping the bottom of the IPCC barrel, but there is still a sizeable proportion of the population that will uncritically believe whatever government tells them. They will only change when the pain coming from their wallet becomes so intense that they look into the matter for its cause and discover the fraud.
O/T, but J. O’Rourke died today. The world has lost one brilliant source of much-needed ridicule.
Meanwhile, in Germany…
+++ Breaking +++
German TV interviewer pushes for sooner enforcement of generel vax mandate, then collapses live on air due to climate change.
(watch the video)
.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1493566363054583808
Governments warning citizens of potential threats to life and property is fair enough, individuals can decide for themselves whether to believe them and what action to take if any, in this case buying or selling beachfront properties.
Similar warnings in the past don’t seem to have affected decisions of the great and the good in choosing to maintain beachfront properties I guess they can easily afford the higher flood insurance.
Living far from the coast for the vast majority of US residents curbing their emissions will reduce living standards greatly but won’t make the slightest difference to the rate of future sea level change one way or another.
There used to be a graphic online that illustrated positive and negative sea level rise around the world in mm with little arrows. Is that still up somewhere and can someone point me to it please.
Well, I am going with 1.7 MM per year so 2 inches. Sea Level Trends – NOAA Tides & Currents
NOAA runs tide gauges. NASA runs satalt.
___________________________________
There are 1500 tide gauges listed in the PSMSL I doubt that NOAA runs any of them. NOAA does collect the data from the PSMSL. So far the tide gauge data that NOAA publishes hasn’t been adulterated like the satellite data over the last 30 years.
NOAA says the average global sea level rise rate is 1.7-1.8 mm/yr LINK
From NOAA’s 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report:
The Next 30 Years
Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise, on average, 10 – 12 inches (0.25 – 0.30 meters) in the next 30 years (2020 – 2050),
That comes to 10 MM/yr. When this miraculous over five fold increase in the rate begins to happen, will we hear trumpets?
Funny how alarmist “studies” use models and model predictions instead of observational data. Gee, I wonder why. Because they’re zealots with their heads buried so far up their dogma that they can’t be bothered to pull them out and take a look at the beautiful, real world. They live in a special hell of their own making and want the rest of us to join in their dreary apocalyptic delusion. Misery loves company.
For the wide eyed and curious who want to see the real world as it is:
NOAA Sea Level Trends
University of Colorado Global Sea Level Trends
Once again, God slacks off. Time was, you could inundate the whole world with 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Now this. No wonder sinful people aren’t too worried.
As Rud Istvan noted above tide gauge data shows no acceleration in the rate of sea level so far (2021-22).
It is interesting how the graphic presentation has changed in the IPCC reports:
# Sea level projections in AR3 (2001).
# Sea level projections in AR6 (2021).
It is fascinating how the point of departure or ‘liftoff’ has shifted along the ‘X’ axis: in 2001 it was immediate whereas curbing their past enthusiasm in AR6 they show it well down the track around 2035.
The spread of future possibility is approximately the same but the ‘Y’ axis has stretched in 2021 to obfuscate direct comparisons.
No visible sea level increase at Pinchgut in Sydney Harbour for 150 years.
And then there is the bad news that there may not be as much water locked up in glaciers as is usually assumed for calculating SL rise.
https://scitechdaily.com/new-calculations-of-worldwide-glacial-flows-and-volumes-from-over-800000-pairs-of-satellite-images/
Good one, Rud. Clear and simple.
That the AR6 models are way too hot is well documented and well known. NASA’s Gavin denounced them in ScienceMag. That makes this NOAA/NASA hype a deliberate deception.