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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rud,
It is, sadly, so easy to share your frustration at the concelament of proper data and the advertising of manipulated data. Not even mathematically-manipulated, they are down to imagination-manipulated.
We have the same problem here in our lovely Australia.
The question is, who needs to see the correct data, to be able to do something about it?
Since many who should see, do not want to see, we have to encourage them to look.
The same problem, I think, was faced by the Canadian truckers.
Our quest might be to design and manage a form of protest that requires those who should look, to look.
That is, there are lessons from the truckers’ approach.
We need to learn from them and discuss and plan and execute. Geoff S
Acceleration is easy to get in a cyclical curve.
Just choose starting point!
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?plot=50yr&id=8518750
1970: 2,18 mm/y for the 50 years period
1985: 2,86 mm/y
1995: 3,63 mm/y
(But 1950:3,86 mm/y)
You are right.
But… to derive such an assumption from one single gauge: isn’t that a bit too simple?
Here is a graph showing, for the data elaborated out of hundreds of PMSL tide gauges by Dangendorf & alii
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-019-0531-8/MediaObjects/41558_2019_531_MOESM2_ESM.txt
the consecutive, 5-year distant trends :
The trends, each till 2015
1903: 1.41 ± 0.01
1908: 1.42 ± 0.01
1913: 1.44 ± 0.01
1918: 1.45 ± 0.01
1923: 1.47 ± 0.01
1928: 1.47 ± 0.01
1933: 1.47 ± 0.01
1938: 1.47 ± 0.01
1943: 1.50 ± 0.01
1948: 1.55 ± 0.02
1953: 1.64 ± 0.02
1958: 1.77 ± 0.02
1963: 1.91 ± 0.02
1968: 2.05 ± 0.02
1973: 2.19 ± 0.02
1978: 2.32 ± 0.02
1983: 2.48 ± 0.02
1988: 2.66 ± 0.02
1993: 2.80 ± 0.02
1998: 3.02 ± 0.03
Their paper
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ilhh3ov20tfb03P5ZKDHTzZuJ9rD4P8/view
https://notrickszone.com/2019/09/09/new-study-of-53-long-term-tide-gauges-on-north-americas-east-west-coasts-24-have-negative-accelerations/
———-
The real problems around the world have been coral mining and beach mining for sand-
https://www.widecast.org/conservation/threats-and-solutions/beach-sand-mining/
Beach mining – http://www.ndmo.gov.fj/images/Hazards/coastal_erosion.pdf
“Paper 5: Status of Coral Mining in the Maldives: Impacts and Management Options – By Abdulla Naseer, Marine Research Section, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture Malé, Republic of Maldives” – https://www.fao.org/3/x5623e/x5623e0o.htm
————
Regarding beaches- “An analysis of satellite-derived shoreline data indicates that 24% of the world’s sandy beaches are eroding at rates exceeding 0.5 m/yr, but 28% are accreting and 48% are stable”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-24630-6
———–
“AbstractThe absolute and relative rates of rise of the sea level are computed for the New York City area by coupling global positioning system records of the position of fixed domes nearby tide gauges, with the tide gauges’ records. Two tide gauges are considered, one long-term trend, more reliable, The Battery, in lower Manhattan, and one shorter, less reliable, Sandy Hook, in New Jersey. The relative rates of rise of the sea level are +2.851 and +4.076 mm/yr. The subsidence rates are -2.151 and -3.076 mm/yr. The absolute rates of rise of the sea level are +0.7 and +1.0 mm/yr. The relative sea-level acceleration, reliable only in The Battery, is about +0.008 mm/yr². This acceleration is about the same as the world average long-term trend tide gauge, as well as the average long-term trend tide gauge of the East Coast of North America. The absolute rate of rise of the sea level by 2050 in the lower Manhattan area will be likely less than 30 mm, and the absolute rate of rise of the sea level by 2100 likely less than 80 mm. The relative rate of rise of the sea level by 2050 in the Manhattan area will be likely 85 mm, and the relative rate of rise of the sea level by 2100 likely 228 mm, because of the overwhelming subsidence contribution”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468013320300474
The Bah-stin Globe has this story in today’s paper so I posted a link to this this WUWT article. Of course it’ll probably be deleted since the paper says it’ll not tolerate any climate skepticism since “the science is settled”.
Not quite.
My first “quick skim” of the report had me pausing on page 10, in the “Box 2.1: Uncertainties” section :
To get two (!) metres by 2100 they took SSP5-8.5 … and then added even more made-up “accelerating sea-level rise” to it …
Backtrack to 2050 and “Voila !”, (relative) SLR around US coastlines “will” rise by 52cm in 30 years time (Table 2.1, page 15).
Note also that the “Present trajectory” lines in Figure 2.2, on page 14, look distinctly curved to me. They appear to be using exponential extrapolations, rather than linear extrapolations, throughout the report.
Such news makes me really sad. I know that climate is changing, but I can’t believe that catastrophe can be real
It’s amazing to watch the joint media-administration con job in action during the build up for a land war in Europe. This would be a great time to delve into American discourse ignoring events in 1930s Europe.
Last night ABC radio was hyping sea level fear-pr0n as their lead story—nothing about the very recent spygate scandal revelations, of course.
It’s always “over the next 30 years”, or “over the next 78 years (to 2100)” or “over the next 100 years”.
It’s always over some future timeframe that can never be fact checked/measured in real time except as measured actual sea level rise, looking backwards.
Therefore these projections, for all practical purposes, are unfalsifiable. As most of the warmunism is also unfalsifiable (“global warming causes global cooling”).
Yeah, and Models of future air temperature rise closely match one another over the next 30 years. So what? yet again.
NOAA extends standard IPCC/EPA bushwah. Model agreement = accuracy. They make a freshman failure of scientific reasoning.
I’ve looked at the EPA CO2 endangerment finding. Like the sea level rise scare, it’s just a rubber stamp impression of IPCC models uber alles anti-reason.
At least all these organizations hew to a common standard — the rule of false precision. Pseudoscience when the offense is deliberate, which IMO it is.
So glad I kept my Iowa ocean side property
[please fix the misspelling of your email cached in your browser so you will stop being flagged for moderation-cr]
Sea level change calculated on a global scale seems persistently different to estimates from detailed local examinations.
Here are 2 examples:
Trends in sea level at Cooktown, Great Barrier Reef | http://www.BomWatch.com.au
Trends in sea level at Townsville, Great Barrier Reef | http://www.BomWatch.com.au
Here is the first main point from the first link.
These detailed studies are by colleague Dr Bill Johnston, who is experienced and qualified to comment.
Geoff S
Geoff Sherrington
Cooktown exists in PSMSL, but provides no RLR data.
Townsville however is present, and shows since January 1959 a mild raw trend of 2.2 mm/year, even damped down to 1.4 by a subsidence factor of 0.77 mm / year, friendly recorded by the TOW2 GPS device.
But… there are many more stations in the PSMSL directory… and most of them show over the years not only a positive, but also an increasing trend.
No doubt: Dr Bill Johnston is experienced and qualified to comment.
But… did he ever analyze the entire PSMSL data?
Dudes…now I’m really Alarmed….Scared…. and Frightened….what should I do about my beach house?
Obummer proves the truth of CC. He bought the old “Magnum P.I.” “Robin’sNest”. Razed the place and is starting new construction. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/02/an_obama_photograph_proves_the_lies_of_climate_change_and_covid.html . Rules for thee but not for me.
I’ve always been a fan of the “plot all of the data on one graph and just look at it” approach to get an initial “feel” for a problem.
Note that AR6 called their two highest emissions pathways, SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0, “counterfactual” (section 1.6.1.4, page 1-110), with the one closest to an “in the absence of additional climate policies” option being SSP2-4.5.
This report has an “Intermediate” option that is above AR6’s “BOX 9.4: High-end storyline of 21st century sea-level rise” (pages 9-122 to 9-124) fairy tale, AKA their “low-likelihood, high-impact (LLHI) storyline”, AKA the “SSP5-8.5 Low Confidence” columns in Tables 9.9 (page 9.116) and 9.10 (page 9-119).
Is it just me, or is the graph below “hysterical” in both senses of the word ?
As long as the rising sea covers skyscrapers, I’m happy.
With heads under water, Bill Hates and Klog Schlob should be giddy even orgasmic.
There is one interesting point about this prediction. For it to happen, the rate of sea level rise must triple beginning immediately. This is testable in just a few months. Lets follow up in 6 months and see if the rate of sea level rise has tripled.