Slashdot Mirror
Rising Seas Set To Double Coastal Flooding By 2050, Says Study (phys.org)
Coastal flooding is about to get dramatically more frequent around the world as sea levels rise from global warming, researchers said Thursday. Phys.Org reports, "A 10-to-20 centimeter (four-to-eight inch) jump in the global ocean watermark by 2050 -- a conservative forecast -- would double flood risk in high-latitude regions, they reports in the journal Scientific Reports." From the report: Major cities along the North American seaboard such as Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles, along with the European Atlantic coast, would be highly exposed, they found. But it would only take half as big a jump in ocean levels to double the number of serious flooding incidents in the tropics, including along highly populated river deltas in Asia and Africa. Even at the low end of this sea rise spectrum, Mumbai, Kochi and Abidjan and many other cities would be significantly affected. To make up for the lack of observational data, Vitousek and his colleagues used computer modeling and a statistical method called extreme value theory. "We asked the question: with waves factored in, how much sea level rise will it take to double the frequency of flooding?" Sea levels are currently rising by three to four millimeters (0.10 to 0.15 inches) a year, but the pace has picked up by about 30 percent over the last decade. It could accelerate even more as continent-sized ice blocs near the poles continue to shed mass, especially in Antarctica, which Vitousek described as the sea level "wild card." If oceans go up 25 centimeters by mid-century, "flood levels that occur every 50 years in the tropics would be happening every year or more," he said.
Interesting I was just talking to my wife about how with the rise of the ocean you could/would have to turn Manhattan into a new Venice, and with our apartment being on the 10th floor, we may be sitting on some water-level real estate. The worst part is it's only half a joke and a real future issue to deal with, just look at what happened with the subways during the last major storm, it doesn't take much of a rise to sink the city.
Why not just come straight out and say chinese/hippy conspiracy? Why bother with the pretense?
Your current leader thinks it's fiction (along with most of slashdot of course), so that should be a great comfort to you. Nothing bad will happen.
BTW, what 'crop' of apocalypses?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Will anyone notice? Will anyone hold the predictors accountable? Probably not.
Actually, rising sea levels are no conspiracy but a fact. Given that the current sea levels are quite low over history of earth and that we're still coming out of an ice-age, rising sea levels are to expected. For one if it gets warmer, water expands and then all the ice melting in Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska (but not in the Arctic, because that ice already floats) need to go somewhere.
Can we do anything about it? Not really, except moving further inland or building dykes like the Dutch do.
Is that a reason to create panic just to make money with the fear of yet another apocalypse? I find that disgusting.
Sea levels where up to 6 meters higher 4000-6000 years ago.
Prieto et al., 2016
“Analysis of the RSL [relative sea level] database revealed that the RSL [relative sea level] rose to reach the present level at or before c. 7000 cal yr BP, with the peak of the sea-level highstand c. +4 m [above present] between c. 6000 and 5500 cal yr BP [calendar years before present] This RSL [relative sea level] curve was re-plotted by Gyllencreutz et al. (2010) using the same index points and qualitative approach but using the calibrated ages. It shows rising sea-levels following the Last Glacial Termination (LGT), reaching a RSL [relative sea level] maximum of +6.5 m above present at c. 6500 cal yr BP [calendar years before present], followed by a stepped regressive trend towards the present.”
Ride a bicycle. Eat less meat. Turn your thermostat up in the summer and down in the winter.
Although climate change (specifically global warming) is happening (unless you deny the laws of chemistry and physics), it's probably too late to realistically do anything about it. The real problem isn't the warming, it's the positive feedback -- warmer air holds more water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas, warmer temperatures melt the polar ice packs exposing darker ground/water, warmer temperatures unfreeze once frozen swampland which releases methane (and more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2), etc. All these effects feed back into the system pushing the equilibrium temperature of our planet that much higher.
Just like starting a boulder rolling down a hill, the longer you wait to try to stop it, the more momentum it will build up, the harder it will be to stop it. Even if we magically eliminated all the CO2 emissions from industry, transportation, and the like tomorrow, we still have to deal with the existing CO2 in the system to have any hope of even slowing down the current warming.
Add to all of the above that the CO2 currently in the system is so diffused (roughly 400 parts per million) that I don't know of any human technology that could possibly make a dent in the CO2 concentrations on a global atmospheric scale. So not only are we unable to retard the flow of CO2 into the system, we are technically unable to do anything significant with the CO2 that is already in the system.
At this point, the boulder has been rolling down the hill long enough that it isn't possible to stop it; so, the only thing to do is give up and console ourselves with the notion that by the time the really catastrophic things come to pass most of us will be dead and buried and unaffected by the results anyway ;)
I'm sure that millenials will be able to work it out -- lol.
That's not actually how the terminology works. The ice-age is the last 2.6 million years, due to the continental topography causing less mixing of tropical and polar waters. Within the Ice Age there are glacial and interglacial periods - relative amounts of freezing and thawing. We're in the middle of an interglacial that began 11000 years ago. but previous patterns covering 10000's of years aren't much good for predicting how climate is going to be impacted in the near future. Our particulated emissions exceed prehistoric incidents such as supervolcanoes that had noticeable climate effects.
Why do you think calling a congressman would change anything in any way?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why would I? I sit here about 1000m above sea level, all I'm asking for is to be allowed to hunt those for fun that try to escape the flood.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
the water being pushed away from the dykes has to go somewhere so you just move the problem down the coast or you could build a pipeline to the grand canyon, plug the ends and fill it up, could probably make a good hydro power station there.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
but you need to be prepared and that is not panicking, panicking is where you do nothing and close the stable door after the horse has bolted.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
At least not just yet.
Here's Michael Mann's (The Hockey Stick guy) prediction that the West Side Highway would be under water by now
http://www.salon.com/2001/10/2...
Why not just come straight out and say chinese/hippy conspiracy? Why bother with the pretense?
I am sorry, he is citing predictions that didn't happen. What do you call a theory that makes wrong predictions ?
What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions ?
And with regard to your own attitude what do you call someone who is no longer looking at what is actually happening, and just shouting down anyone that disagrees with them ?
I get that it makes sense to be "concerned", but common sense provides that no panicking is required.
I'm glad we agree on this. The panicking so far hasn't been from the scientists, who have simply been pointing out that there are problems coming up and that we'd better look at them, especially since we can address them. Most of the furore has come from sensationalist media and different interest groups on both sides; those that want us to abandon all modern industry in the name of nostalgic (but misguided) environmentalism, and those that only care for their own, short term interests and don't give hoot for what happens to others. Such as the fossil fuel industry - they know perfectly well that it would benefit the world both environmentally and economically, if we seriously developed renewable energy, and it would even benefit the energy producers themselves in the long term; but they don't want that - it would cost investments up front, and they wouldn't see the profits from that for maybe decades. That's where all the panic and yelling comes from, not from the climate scientists.
However, at the end of all this, we DO have a problem, it is likely to become serious, even if to a lay-person a few millimeters or 5 degrees doesn't sound like much. And fortunately we can do something about it - a lot, in fact. But it is like all other 'repairs': at first you notice a mouldy spot on the wall paper in a corner, and you know that there is a small leak in the roof. If you fix it now, it will cost you a bit of sweat, standing on a ladder, maybe you have to spend a bit of money. Or you can wait until the whole roof is sagging, and you have to replace large parts of the structural timber and redecorate most of the house; and you will have call in a team of builders, you may have to move out for a couple of months and it will costs very serious money. I can't see why the choice is hard to make.
Is that a reason to create panic just to make money with the fear of yet another apocalypse? I find that disgusting.
Or you know, stop pumping so much CO2 into the air, move away from a hydrocarbon economy, figure out ways of getting the carbon in our atmosphere underground again. That sort of stuff.
It might be amusing, but it's probably got more of other people's money than Trump's tied up in it.
In any case, he'd build a wall round it and make the mermaids pay for it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I am sorry, he is citing predictions that didn't happen. What do you call a theory that makes wrong predictions ?
You mean like "The temperature isn't rising" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age" OR "OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"?
That kind of theory is what you mean?
What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions ?
Well, what would you guys like to be called?
Yeah, similarly, I had a bath last night - about 2 foot of water in there. It didn't flood my bathroom at all. So logically if I put in another 2 foot of water the bathroom would be equally dry.
Sea Levels really are rising. But not very fast.
The good news is that the article is, like most of the stuff BeauHD posts, more or less unmitigated nonsense. Despite mankind's practice of building way to much stuff below the level likely to experience storm surge in a major storm, a few inches of sea level rise in the next 50 years clearly isn't going to do all that much additional harm.
The bad news is that there is no reason to expect sea levels to stop rising any time soon. Here's a link to the NOAA webpage for the tide gauge at The Battery in NYC. https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.... If you look carefully at the picture of the gauge, you'll see there is probably less than a meter clearance between the high tide line and the top of the dock. A few centuries of 20-30cm/century sea level rise and "they" are going to have a problem. And not only with the dock. The street, parking area, and building behind the dock all appear to be at about the same level as the dock.
BTW. The evidence is thin, but it looks like sea levels in the last interglacial period 120,000 years ago peaked 5 meters (16 feet in American) above current sea level.
For whatever reason, I couldn't get to historical tidal gauge data for the Battery from the NOAA site (503 error). Maybe I clicked the wrong link. Here's a link to a chart from a reputable source (psmsl.org)
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q...
Note that a couple of cm per century of the Battery seal level Rise is thought to be due to tectonic forces -- The Battery is thought to be sinking a bit due to glacial isostasy.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
If I am not mistaken, you just told me I won, but you aren't willing to alter your opinion under any circumstances.
Your current leader thinks it's fiction (along with most of slashdot of course), so that should be a great comfort to you. Nothing bad will happen
Not so fast. His Orangeness most certainly does believe in climate change. It's the very reason he cited in his application to build a sea wall for an Irish golf course. Specifically:
"If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland. In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. ... As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase."
Even more interesting is they used an Irish government's study about the effects of erosion through 2050, then said that study failed to take into account the effects of climate change. Which is why he petitioned to build the sea wall. Because of the effects of climate change.
Lesbians aren't going to get you out of this one. You've watched too many pornos.
a few inches of sea level rise in the next 50 years clearly isn't going to do all that much additional harm.
There are people in Miami (and other Florida coastal cities), who beg to differ. And I'm not talking boo-hoo poor little rich people losing some of their exclusive ocean view. Low-lying lower-class neighborhoods are already suffering and city officials are having to deal with the thorny issue of raising funds to buy them out. Another unexpected consequence is that clearances on bridges are being shortened, and boating brings in a lot of money in Florida.
Jacksonville has an upscale neighborhood that also serves as a major traffic connector to downtown. Several years back they had to put pumps in the streets because when the Autumn deluges begin and the Spring High Tide coincides, the St Johns River flows backwards up the storm drains. It has not only caused considerable distress to local merchants, the streets became impassible (to say nothing of the road damage).
Personally, I'm just waiting for the first incursions on Mar-A-Lago. I expect Trump to change his position on climate really fast once that happens. And I'm sure that more than one of the Trump Towers around the world is fairly close to sea level.
Look at depth charts of the Florida Keys and you'll notice that a 1-foot fluctuation in sea level would greatly increase or decrease the land area down there. Whole islands would appear or disappear.
Also it should not noted that not all consequences of rising seas roll in from the coast lines. Florida is largely porous limestone rock. It gets its water from aquifers in that rock, and sea water can and does intrude into that rock. Orlando, which is one of the most land-locked cities in the entire state has been fighting for decades with Brevard County for water resources and the last thing they want is for any of that water to turn brinier. Tampa Bay has already seen shortages because they pipe in water from inland sources but have seen pipe failures. And the less said about the fragile state of fresh water in the upscale areas of Fort Myers and Venice, the better.
Must be great to know you'll never lose your job and never have a really expensive illness.
So fucking grow up, put your big pants on and build a fucking dyke.
Hang on, I thought this was about Climate Change, not Sexbots ??
Nah, he'll probably just find someone else to blame.
Or, given his age, undoubtedly high blood pressure, and obesity, he may well be dead before his monuments to opulent gaudiness are flooded.
It's sad that you believe your own BS.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Your current leader thinks it's fiction (along with most of slashdot of course)...
It only seems that way. Most of us recognize the seriousness of climate change and have long since given up arguing with the very vocal minority that are spouting their denialist nonsense online. There's no point debating people who will not listen to much less have the ability to reason. Rest assured there are a great many intelligent Slashdotters out here, silently chuckling at the trolls who create strife just for fun, the paid shills, the politically motivated right wing shitposters, and the honest-to-goodness morons who are too stupid to face reality.
"we theorize, speculate, and focus on the worst-case scenario"
Yea, and I can get back to something more certain and true, like CNN or Facebook.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Yeah, you need to go fuck yourself if this isn't satire.
The only acceptable thing to do is pay lots of money to the government so they can 'solve' this urgent problem for us. Shovel tons of cash and its accompanying power to leftist who support the radical environmentalist movement. Give them unlimited power to tell you and everyone else what to do.That is the only way we will prevent doomsday.If you don't want to do that, you are a science denier.
Why not just come straight out and say chinese/hippy conspiracy? Why bother with the pretense?
I am sorry, he is citing predictions that didn't happen. What do you call a theory that makes wrong predictions ?
I call people who misapply scientific terminology idiots. There were no scientifically valid theories predicting the end of the world. Oh I'm sure you'll find a lot of hyperbolic articles and other nonsense, but there isn't a single peer reviewed paper from the 70's, 80's, or 90's making any claims of an apocalypse (other than the obvious ones, like asteroid impacts, the sun going red giant in a few billion years, etc.).
What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions ?
Misinformed? Ignorant? Stupid? What do call people who continually use the word "theory" to describe idle speculation and other crap that has not been peer reviewed or otherwise substantiated?
~X~
Using "would" suggests incorrectly that there is any choice about it. Sea level rise of that magnitude is inevitable, no matter what policies we adopt, so we better learn to deal with it.
Coastal flooding, on the other hand, is something that's humans have dealt with for all of our existence and where we have good and effective countermeasures.
(Progressives in particular should love this, because dike building is government spending and should provide a wonderful Keynesian stimulus to third world nations!)
"There are people in Miami (and other Florida coastal cities), who beg to differ."
They seem to have built parts of Miami Beach below the level reached by the highest high tides. Imprudent of course, But profitable if you can sell the property before the moon and sun next align in an unfortunate configuration. Maybe they should have put a bit more thought into approving building permits.
There are a number of tidal gauges in Florida and several in the Miami area.
Here's what NOAA has to say about Miami Beach
"The mean sea level trend is 2.39 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years. "
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa....
Don't take my word for it, nor your local newspaper's and certainly not the Slashdot editor's. I'd encourage you to check both NOAA.gov and psmsl.org for yourself.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
The big unknown and one that is still a hot topic of research is how strong the feedbacks become in a warming world.
The "low end" of the range assumes no significant feedback cycle takes hold. It's the "simple" projection and not all the different than the ones Arrhenius did back in the 1890's. However, the paleoclimate research has indicated that historically there appear to be tipping points during climate transitions that cause much more rapid changes to take place once they're crossed.
There are number of potential events that could trigger a tipping point and bring about more rapid changes. But trying to determine when they'll happen, if they trigger additional feedbacks, etc. is not exactly easy. That's why projections of long term climate are given in ranges with details on what went into the projection. Someone stating a number without referencing the projection that generated it (and thus, the conditions) is pretty useless.
~X~
What do you think caused all the other apocalypse scares we've been enduring since the beginning of time? What made them all wrong, but this one is right for realzy-realz this time guise!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Jeesh, I guess you take your global warming *cough* "climate change" pretty seriously don't you? WTF did I do to arouse your righteous indignation? ...". I don't call estimates that are off by 2X, 3X or more than an order of magnitude "consensus". It just goes to show that the people making these predictions are not doing "science". They are taking scientific DATA, gathered over many decades, creating mathematical models and then trying to extrapolate into the future, based on a model of the past. That's not "science".
I quoted three stories which gave vastly divergent estimates for sea level rise by 2050. The exhaustively used "climate change" talking points are: "The science is settled" & "95%(or whatever) of scientists agree
>What do you call someone who pushes theories that don't make accurate predictions ?
We call you science deniers, or sometimes we get specific and mention the particular science your're denying. Like evolution-denier or climate-change-denier.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Since you are cut-and-paste reposting what you already posted, I will cut-and-post what I already replied:
The difficulty here is that you are mixing up stuff that's correct, and stuff that isn't.
For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,
That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,
and it was colder.
This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.
We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.
First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.
It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.
As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.
The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html">http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html
The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:
I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.
But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
> the trolls who create strife just for fun, the paid shills, the politically motivated right wing shitposters, and the honest-to-goodness morons who are too stupid to face reality.
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have mastered the dubious talent to be all those things at the same time.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
A caution. Once you get back beyond the reach of polar ice cores (about 800,000 years), CO2 estimates are based on somewhat dubious proxies. The one case I'm aware of where there are two proxies for the same sediment bed (leaf stomata size and soil calcification) the estimated values differed by a factor of two. Doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling about the accuracy of past CO2 estimates. But then, I don't have much faith in proxy measurements of anything.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
You are mistaken.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Get stocks in boats!!
Looking at the long-term NOAA data it looks like the earth's crust is still rebounding from the last ice age, as much of the northern extremes are generally rising (sea level "falling") and the middle and southern areas are sinking (sea level "rising"). Not much we can do about that, is there? Other than use a solution the Dutch have implemented for the last several centuries, anyway...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
There were no scientifically valid theories predicting the end of the world.
Wow way to strawman and tautology.
Seeing as even the worst of global warming predictions don't predict the end of the world that seems a rather pointless statement.
There are however over a hundred models for global warming, and even more predictions of "Dire Consequences" based on those models.
I'd call them James Hansen http://www.salon.com/2001/10/2...
Here's another question for you what do you call someone who thinks peer review makes a paper correct ?
Answer: Ignorant.
We call you science deniers,
We ?? You ??
Glad to see you haven't gone all "Tribal" on this and are still thinking objectively.
The linked article reads: "10 to 20 cm of sea-level rise expected no later than 2050."
No, it doesn't, it reads:
Basically they're saying that if we get far less ocean level rise than we expect, the rate of major flooding incidents will still double. If we get something closer to what we expect to get, once-a-century flooding incidents may become once-a-year flooding incidents.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
That "you" was singular. I was talking to you, personally.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Good for you, not everyone gets to be a personal We.
Can we do anything about it?
Yes we totally can. There's not a lot humanity can't accomplish with the proper funding and will, but people like you think it will cost too much.
Not really, except moving further inland or building dykes like the Dutch do.
Gee, I wonder how much THAT will cost?
Is that a reason to create panic just to make money with the fear of yet another apocalypse? I find that disgusting.
The only thing that makes me panic is that people treat this idea so casually. I like not having a billion people knocking at my door looking for a new place to live. Personally, I find that level of apathy disgusting.
I never said the "we" was singular. You do seem to jump to whatever conclusions suit your preconceptions.
That also, by the way, explains why you are on the wrong side of science - which is where this topic began in the first place.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The oceans have been rising by ~3 mm/yr since the mid 1800s. I would expect 30-40 years from now to see a 90mm-120mm (9cm - 12cm) rise due to this. We are still coming out of the last ice age and thus oceans are gradually rising. No big surprise there.
This article just re-emphasizes the fact that this is natural variability and not man made. It's not like the ocean is going to just rise 10cm instantaneously (step change). It will be gradual over time and I am extremely sure we humans can adapt to this change.
There are plenty of actual predictions that are actually published in actual referenceable sources.
I really don't see the point in citing an offhand comment made in a radio interview as a "prediction", when the person quoted has an actual bibliography of hundreds of real publications that can be referenced.
(not to mention the point of misattributing a quote that's citing a guy informally recalling something another guy said in a conversation a decade earlier, and misremembering key details.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You can't do that when the bedrock is swiss cheese. Florida is in trouble.
I still find it disappointing that there would be climate deniers. Yeah sure the sea is going to rise a 1/2 foot, no big deal... Well first of all, what's causing the 1/2 foot rise in oceans if there isn't climate change. It's like saying, oh well I feel healthy and I can't possibility have cancer even thou my doctor is telling me all his blood tests are coming back positive, it's a conspiracy by the doctors to make more money!
Humans are also inherently less than pro-active on many many issues wanting to believe things are better than they are until they're not. As a result we end up building on floodplains or too close to oceans or water because well it can't happen. The problem with climate change is it's not a "sudden" change but it increases the risk of getting hurt. It's like not wearing a seatbelt because you usually don't crash. The bottom line is even if you don't believe in climate change, there are millions of people at risk for when water levels rise. It will hurt us all in increased taxes, insurance or economic failure when it comes. Isn't that enough to do something? Or should we just sit around, too cheap to invest in a seatbelt because only other people crash?
The vast, vast majority of rising tide claims are actually disappearing shorelines. Meaning, it's not that water level is rising, but that the shoreline is disappearing and/or sinking.
I never said the "we" was singular
Oh, You weren't trying to dispute you were being tribal ?
You do seem to jump to whatever conclusions suit your preconceptions.
I don't know about that. So far I have been having fun watching you reveal yourself.
So tell me more about this we you are apart of that calls me a science denier. How is membership in the set determined ? Is it a reflexive self identification ? Does the group require a knowledge of the theories they claim I am a denier of ?
"Is that a reason to create panic just to make money with the fear of yet another apocalypse? I find that disgusting."
I imagine there are a lot of made-up, phoney jobs that depend on there being a crisis, though, with the vast majority of them being taxpayer funded.
The Guardian article you linked to says "6 meters" but it doesn't say when. It will probably take several centuries. 2050 is only mentioned as when there will be "an emerging flooding crisis", which, like today, would be mostly from storms. That's compatible with the 10 cm to 20 cm discussed here.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
But, but, but the computer models say...
All these people really have is shoutiness and the full cooperation of the stupids in the media who are always looking for a compelling scare story to tell (so they can push those drug ads in your face).
I thought there was some "consensus" on this stuff? Have the "climate scientists" reached the consensus that sea levels will rise by anywhere from 10cm to 600cm by 2050, with 48cm being in the "mid range"?
I think the consensus is whatever keeps the government funding flowing. No crisis = no money, so of course there's a crisis! Multiple ones, all the time!
Predicting the future is NOT science.
It would be if they could, but they can't, so it isn't.
The flooding in Miami actually has nothing to do with sea level. It's because the limestone it sits on is so porous, and ocean water pools in the pores of Floridian limestone. Beachside condos lie perilously close to the edge of the sea, with little land reaching over six feet above sea level. The majority of U.S. citizens who live at an elevation of four feet or less reside in south Florida.
A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study of the causes of flooding in the Miami area found that surface wind stress, rather than temperature or melting glaciers, is “the most important force that affects ocean water levels in a coastal flood situation along the west-central coast of Florida.” Tides overflow into the low land of Miami Beach because it’s really, really windy on the ocean there.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
a computer chip works by science predicting the future billions of times a second.
Maybe they should have put a bit more thought into approving building permits.
In some states they've legislated ignorance of sea level rise in order to appease developers.
"The mean sea level trend is 2.39 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years. "
The half a foot rise over that period can mean the difference between being just above sea level at high tide instead of just below. But the big problem is the acceleration that's taking place.
Since 1993 (the beginning of the satellite record) we've seen global mean sea level increasing by about 3 millimeters per year or about 1 foot in 100 years.
Over the second half of that period, global mean sea level rose by 3.8 mm/year or about 1 1/3 feet over a century. At this rate by 2050 we should expect about 6mm /year or 2 feet per century. And by 2100, 10 mm/year or over 3 feet per century.
Haven't we heard something like this before?
Every time I see alarmist stuff like this, all I can think of is this:
Hypothesis and Disproof
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay .com, May 22, 2006 .com, Aug. 7, 2008 .com, June 19, 2015
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain
“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN, Dec. 10, 2008
“NOAA: 2010 Hurricane Season May Set Records”—headline, Herald-Tribune (Sarasota, Fla.), May 28, 2010
“NOAA Predicts Increased Storm Activity in 2011 Hurricane Season”—headline, BDO Consulting press release, Aug. 18, 2011
“2012 Hurricane Forecast Update: More Storms Expected”—headline, LiveScience, Aug. 9, 2012
“NOAA Predicts Active 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, NOAApress release, May 23, 2013
“A Space-Based View of 2015’s ‘Hyperactive’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CityLab
“The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season Might Be the Strongest in Years”—headline, CBSNews, Aug. 11, 2016
“NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major Hurricane Strike”—headline, CNSNews, Oct. 24, 2016
NOTE: the NOAA is The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a scientific agency within the Department of Commerce focused on the conditions of the oceans and the atmosphere.
For more “Best of the Web” from The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto
I'm sure that *EVENTUALLY* they'll get one right...2016 was the "strongest in years" but was still pretty much meh, except for Matthew's impact on Haiti.
Actual activity in 2016: 15 named storms, 7 hurricanes, 4 CAT3+
Average (1981–2010[1]) 12.1, 6.4, 2.7
Record high activity 28, 15, 7
I think you're right about taxpayer-funded crisis jobs...more specifically, it's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. Various leaders of the movement readily admit as much.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA: "Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible."
Daphne Muller, green-progressive-liberal writer for Salon: "This moment requires we the people to rethink democracy as a global mechanism for enacting policy for and by the planet."
Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society: "We reject the idea of private property."
David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”
Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
Researcher Robert Phalen's 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: "It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial."
If you really think rising sea levels is a fraud, you'd be buying up beach-front property at cents on the dollar from the chumps who believe it.
They've been saying fusion power plants are only 20 years away for about 50 years it seems.
Apocalypse scares generally don't come out of science. I haven't noticed climate scientists as a group talking about apocalypses either, just some very serious ill effects.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Earth changes, true, but not normally this fast. This amount of warming over ten thousand years would be no trouble at all. Over a few decades, it causes problems.
Moreover, studying what's going on is essential to planning ahead.
The Dutch dyke system has been good for claiming land that started under sea level, but there's lots of problems with pushing it too far. It doesn't work for seaports, for example, since you don't want to wall the ocean off. The Netherlands is small with a high population density, and the US seaboard isn't.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Scientific consensus tends to be on things they're extremely confident about. Climate predictions are exceedingly complicated to begin with, and they depend heavily on what we as a species do. The result is that predictions are generally in the form of a range, and often have conditions attached. I'd check the IPCC reports, myself, and I've got other things to do right now than look through them.
News media tend to report the extremes, because they draw eyeballs. If there's fifty papers saying 10-20cm, and one saying half a meter, the half a meter prediction is very likely to be reported. Six meters is a tremendous rise, and would be catastrophic, so that attracts a lot of eyeballs. The media is not a reliable source for science.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How we stop the gravy train is listening to the scientists, and not the ones who make up scandals, deceive people, and perform other sleazy activities.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You didn't address the question.
When you say : What do you call a theory that makes wrong predictions you mean theories like: "The temperature isn't rising" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's sunspots" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's gravitational lensing" or "OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age" OR "OK the temperature is rising, but it's not global warming but I won't tell you how I know"?
Is that the kind of theories you mean, or isn't it?
Wow, you're digging *way* back there aren't you? The planet was radically different back then, to the point that you can extrapolate very little to the current situation. I mean we're talking completely dead continents, primitive plants and arachnids only just began leaving the oceans to colonize the shorelines by the very end of the period. And the continents were all south of the equator, strangling the oceanic thermal cycles that would normally have carried heat to the south pole, so glaciation on that side of the planet would be expected unless the seas were practically boiling. And that's just to start.
Not to mention the celestial differences: the sun was dimmer, and we were in a different part of the galaxy (there's a growing body of evidence suggesting our position within the galactic arms may affect climate and other aspects of our planet)
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
A few inches causes substantial harm via storm surge.
And its a greater than 1:1 increase, that is 1 more inch of sea level results in more than 1 inch of additional surge (surge is a complicated beast).
That's billions of gallons of additional flood waters and their associated damage costs.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Pretty much complete nonsense. They are comparing two different sets of instrumentation that should conceptually show the same quantity, but don't. Then calling the difference "acceleration". That's nuts.
Neither the tidal gauges by themselves nor the satellites by themselves http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ show any significant acceleration although both are a bit noisy. Why are they different? Lots of people would like to know that. FWIW, I think the satellites are somewhat more likely to be right planetwide. But one should probably use nearby tidal gauges for local planning since they reflect local susidence, etc. Satellites are complicated beasts working at (or perhaps beyond) the limits of what is possible. There is potential for some sort of calibration error.
And both the satellites and the tidal gauges show more sea level rise than can be accounted for by known ice melt plus ocean thermal expansion plus aquifer pumping minus impoundments. But no one currently has much faith in that estimate.
Need I point out that building roads and structures right at Highest High Water (A term I just made up) really isn't a very good idea. OK for parking lots and campgrounds perhaps. But for stuff you'll miss if its destroyed, you want highest high water plus highest likely storm surge plus maybe a meter or two.
Actually, it wouldn't do any harm for planners to assume three or more feet of seal level rise in the next century. It'd work better than what they are doing now. But "science" it is not.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
If accurate prediction is the measure to use, why would we believe the assertions of denialists, such as yourself?
we call him crashmarik.
now go the fuck away shill.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
no hes pointing out hte various bits of bullshit present in your very own post history that show that hte person you are talking about is yourself.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
we arent talking about fox news right now
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Yeah Dywolf, I recall you bragging you sodomized your mother in your post history. Too much trouble to find, I'll just point it out.
They are comparing two different sets of instrumentation that should conceptually show the same quantity, but don't. Then calling the difference "acceleration". That's nuts.
Wrong. Check the link again. The acceleration is seen in the satellite data: The research also finds the rate of global mean sea level rise increased by 0.8 millimeters (.03 inches) per year during the second half of the satellite period.
And both the satellites and the tidal gauges show more sea level rise than can be accounted for by known ice melt plus ocean thermal expansion plus aquifer pumping minus impoundments.
Again, read the link:
the new study reconciles this gap and shows the satellite measurements are accounting for all potential factors influencing sea level rise.
That's right we aren't and you are trying to make this about them.
Hmmm
Then why should your claims be seen as anything other than tired old identity politics where your stance that AGW is a scam is purely based on you being told by "your clan" that it is so, irrespective of evidence and ignorant of it?
No I see his claims without evidence and trying to frame the argument as "We, you", not only as Tribal but as an appeal to the majority as well.
Try again I am talking about theories that predict the temperature of the earth in advance and fail to make accurate predictions. What do you call them ?
we call him crashmarik.
now go the fuck away shill.
Yeah DW you have always had that great way of marshaling facts and logic.
If you try really hard some day you too will be able to science. Just keep screaming it's the key for you.
If accurate prediction is the standard why do you believe a theory that only does so post hoc.
I'll ask the question again: If accurate prediction is the measure to use, why would we believe the assertions of denialists, such as yourself?
Prove the first one? Ok, not hard to find. There's a search engine for that called Google. He's referring to the now thoroughly discredited inconvenient truth film. That really was a load of bullshit.
Read here -
http://humanevents.com/2011/08...
Just admit you've believed the lies from the left. No shame in it because they've spent billions to make people believe it. There is shame if you don't realize you're wrong and still believe it. Read where Eric Holder let him off the hook like Democrats always do for each other. Even if they get put in jail, they let them out in droves when they get control of the White House. Even convicted terrorists that killed people.
The temperature isn't rising"
Oh hell why not give yourself a bigger target there and go for "The climate isn't changing"
"OK the temperature is rising, but it's because we are coming out of an ice age"
It's almost as good as this. We are in an ice age right now, this is an interglacial period of the current ice age.
Hint: When the poles are covered in ice it's an ice age.
I am sorry, aren't you the guy who didn't understand we were in an ice age ?
Well what accurate prediction do you assert I am denying ? So far all you have is name calling and it makes you look like a cultist. Maybe you are.
I'm going to ask you for a citation, if you think that is true.
To which
A) that we are in an ice age ?
B) That you didn't understand that fact ?
Seeing as you don't understand what you are talking about, I'll have to ask you to demonstrate you are tall enough for this ride before we go any further.
Come back when you can post a definition of Ice Age and Inter Glacial Period.
You claimed that I didn't understand we are in an ice age: provide a citation.
I asked you to prove you were worth talking to, seeing as you have declined that's more than enough.
If accurate prediction is the measure to use, why would anyone believe cultists such as yourself that don't have any
I'm done.
If you guys can't get your stories straight, that's not my problem.
You guys ? Good to see that tribalism again.
Is it Global warming this week , AGW, or climate change (something wherein any difference in the climate is proof of it happening)
Thanks for telling me what I already know. Want to also tell me the name of my cat?
No I actually try to bring facts, in this discussion your replies have veered towards the personal.
Strange that it's accelerating if that's the case. Stranger still that it was falling until about 150 years ago... if isostatic rebound is playing a role near the arctic, possibly it's because we're in a period of rapid deglaciation in that region?
Maybe they should have put a bit more thought into approving building permits.
In Florida???? Open palm, insert money. Approved.
The point is, there are lots of neighborhoods where people didn't settle simply to be close to the beach - they needed to be close to their jobs. Especially considering that mass transit is a joke in the Sunshine State. You can pontificate about the wisdom of building on at-risk ground, but some of these areas were built on a half-century or more ago, and the biggest concern back then wasn't sea-level rise, it was hurricanes. There's no place in the state more than about 150 miles from some major coast and the highest point in the whole state is about 300 feet above sea level. Anywhere more than about 20 feet up is practically mountain territory.
Some perspective. Go out offshore 2-3 miles or so in some of the waters surrounding Florida and look down. You might find the remains of an old Indian village. About 10,000 years ago, when the last Ice Age was not so distant, this was dry land and people lived there.
"Florida is largely porous limestone rock. It gets its water from aquifers in that rock, and sea water can and does intrude into that rock."
As a teen, I had an interest in Florida's water system due to the unique plantlife in the everglades (mainly saracenias).
It was stated by multiple sources back in the 1980s/90s that if anything happened to mess up the water supply into northern Florida from the Okefenokee swamp (which is fed from Georgia/Alabama/South Carolina), the entire state could end up effectively uninhabitable within 2 decades without massive investment in desalination projects - and that one of the biggest risks to continued habitability was anything interfering with the massive swamp that runs along the length of central florida, as this was the main thing keeping saltwater at bay.
Apparently this has been of increasing concern since the early 1970s when the population started heavily encroaching on swampland.
Sea level changes aren't that much of a problem in the longer term, even if they cause population movements.
The bigger issue to think about is that in geological history, large spikes in CO2 levels go hand in hand with anoxic oceanic events and consequent dieoffs on land and sea. Half our atmospheric oxygen comes from the oceans so it's something to bear in mind, especially as some of the existing dead zones seem to be spreading.
I wonder about either your sources or your memory. It's got the right ideas, but the wrong geography.
Most of the State of Florida gets its water from the Floridan Aquifer, which runs down the state. The Aquifer's sources, however, are probably not primarily the Okefenokee Swamp, which is located just North of Jacksonville, whereas the Aquifer flow is primarily towards SSE. The Okefenokee is, however head of the Suwanee River system, which does flow SW before terminating in the Gulf of Mexico. The Suwanee and its tributaries are also fed by Aquifer Springs.
Central Florida has a ridge running down it. There are swamps to the East, heading the St. John's River, but the surface water in much of Central Florida is in lakes, many of which originated as sinkholes.
There is a smaller second aquifer located roughly under Miami International Airport, which supplies South Florida. Until desalination plants were built at Key West and Tampa, those 2 aquifers were basically it for water, discounting the occasional cistern.
The Floridan Aquifer has tested positive for agricultural chemicals (pesticides and fertilizers). The state's famous orange groves contribute a lot, as do golf courses.