New study makes grim reveal about New York City’s skyscrapers: ‘It is a deep concern’
Ben Raker Fri, June 30, 2023 at 11:00 AM PDT
The Big Apple has grown too big for the land it rests on, according to a study released in May showing New York City is sinking under its own weight as the waters around it rise.
What’s happening?
The study, published in Earth’s Future, finds that the Big Apple, home to more than eight million people, is sinking at a rate of about 0.4-0.8 inches [10-20 mm] per year.
YIKES!
Now, I’m pretty conversant with the sea-level data, and that made no sense. I thought, maybe they didn’t read the underlying study. So I read it. It says:
We present satellite data that show that the city is sinking 1–2 mm/yr with some areas subsiding much faster.
Hmm … the alarmist article says 10-20 mm per year, based on a study that says 1-2 mm per year …
Moving on, the article also says:
The average sea level near the southern tip of Manhattan has risen about 9 inches since 1950, as reported by SeaLevelRise.org.
Following the trail of that link, I find SeaLevelRise saying:
Sea level rise is speeding up
The sea level around Battery, New York, has risen by nearly 9 inches since 1950. Its speed of rise has accelerated over the last ten years and it’s now rising by 1 inch every 7-8 years.
They link that to the NOAA sea level data for The Battery, New York. So, it’s off to the NOAA data. There, I find the following.
Figure 1. NOAA sea level rise data for The Battery, New York. SOURCE
That says that there is a relative sea level rise of 2.9 mm/year. It’s been 73 years since 1950. That’s 211.7 mm, or 8.3 inches … I suppose on some planet that’s “almost nine inches” as they say. Close enough for government work, I guess.
But is it true that the “speed of rise has accelerated over the last ten years” as they say? To determine the answer, I got the sea level data shown in Figure 1. I discarded the pre-1893 data due to the long gap in the data prior to that. Here’s the result.
Figure 2. NOAA sea level rise data, plus CEEMD smooth of the data
So is it true that the “speed of rise has accelerated over the last ten years”? Yep. And it’s a perfect example of what I call “lying with the truth”. As you can see in the data above, the sea level goes up and down quite regularly. The current rise started in 2015. It is nearly identical to the 2003-2011 rise, which looked much like the previous rise, which was very similar to the rise before that …
Here’s a longer look at sea-level changes at The Battery. Figure 3 shows the thirty-year trailing acceleration and deceleration of the sea level there.
Figure 3. 30-year trailing acceleration and deceleration of the sea level.
All I can say is, it’s a good thing we didn’t have these hysterical alarmists back in the 1940s when the acceleration was at its modern peak. They’d have totally lost the plot, just like today only worse … the rude truth is, the rate of sea level rise speeds up and slows down, and as far as we can tell, that’s just its nature.
Conclusions? Yes, New York is sinking. It has been since the last glaciation. And yes, the buildings are increasing the rate of sinking … although from the sea level data, that’s not having much of an effect.
And yes, the rate of sea level rise goes up and down. Get used to it.
Here, it’s a lovely night, almost full moon. I’m going for a walk outside to clear my mind of the endless modern fear of the future. Why do people insist on believing there is some terrible event just over the horizon?
I reckon I’ll go pose that question to the redwood trees … they’ve always given me good advice in the past.
My best moon-lit wishes to all,
w.
My Customary Plea: To avoid misunderstandings, please quote the exact words you are discussing. Thanks.
The actual measured amount of subsidence at the Battery, from Snay et al 2007, is -1.35mm/yr, measured using continuously operating GPS mounted to the same structure as the tide gauge at the Battery.
So, 1-2 mm/yr is a fine guesstimate. What this means in reality (a hard place, that) is that the sea is rising at the Battery at about the same rate as the land is subsiding. About 1/2 of the Relative Local Sea Level Rise is the land mass sinking towards the center of the Earth, and the other 1/2 is the sea slowly and steadily rising.
Neither is dangerous — as along as sensible accommodation is made for these facts. The situation is the same today as it was 100 years ago, in 1920.
Therefore, since the battery is exhibiting measured subsidence, it argues that Manhattan was part of the fore-bulge, despite deep glacial striations in Central Park showing the it was covered with ice.
For those who would rather hear from a real Sea Level Scientist (and not me, though I have written dozens of sea level pieces here): Please see Boretti 2021, which gives the following more up-to-date figures for NYC —
Abstract:
The 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/yr ². 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 [3.3 inches] and the relative rate of rise of the sea level by 2100 likely 228 mm [8.9 inches], because of the overwhelming subsidence contribution.
The actual measured amount of subsidence at the Battery, from Snay et al 2007, is -1.35mm/yr, measured using continuously operating GPS mounted to the same structure as the tide gauge at the Battery.
So, 1-2 mm/yr is a fine guesstimate. What this means in reality (a hard place, that) is that the sea is rising at the Battery at about the same rate as the land is subsiding. About 1/2 of the Relative Local Sea Level Rise is the land mass sinking towards the center of the Earth, and the other 1/2 is the sea slowly and steadily rising.
Neither is dangerous — as along as sensible accommodation is made for these facts. The situation is the same today as it was 100 years ago, in 1920.
Therefore, since the battery is exhibiting measured subsidence, it argues that Manhattan was part of the fore-bulge, despite deep glacial striations in Central Park showing the it was covered with ice.
For those who would rather hear from a real Sea Level Scientist (and not me, though I have written dozens of sea level pieces here): Please see Boretti 2021, which gives the following more up-to-date figures for NYC —
Abstract:
The 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/yr ². 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 [3.3 inches] and the relative rate of rise of the sea level by 2100 likely 228 mm [8.9 inches], because of the overwhelming subsidence contribution.
I replied to Elon Musk last week suggesting that your ban should be investigated.
Today, I tried to initiate a message to Elon Musk.
Ran into this:
I’ll try a reply again.
Thanks, my friend, much appreciated.
The bogus part is that lots of folks said almost exactly what I said, but are not suspended.
Here’s my notice
And here are just a few of the many people saying exactly the same thing.
Best regards
w.