• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Onging alarmism about sea level rise without substence.

longview

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
44,677
Reaction score
14,475
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Does the 14 foot storm surge at Battery Park during Hurricane Sandy count?

You do know that seal level rises are sporadic at first right?
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Does the 14 foot storm surge at Battery Park during Hurricane Sandy count?

You do know that seal level rises are sporadic at first right?
Click to expand...
Actually a 14 foot storm surge does not count as a sea level rise.
It is after all, a storm surge!, and did go back down after pressure increased and the wind subsided.
 
longview said:
Map shows where New York City could flood first from sea level rise - Business Insider
The funny thing about the story is that the Sea Level at Battery Park, has been falling for 7 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
The 12 month average peaked in May 02 2010 at 139 mm. since that time,
The sea level has dropped to the April 2017 12 month average of 59 mm, or negative 11 mm per year.
I guess that was not an important datum for their story!
Click to expand...

I think I'd trade seafront for a little further back.
 
joG said:
I think I'd trade seafront for a little further back.
Click to expand...
The seafront is bad news even without sea level rise. People who live on the coast understand the higher risks, or should.
 
longview said:
Map shows where New York City could flood first from sea level rise - Business Insider
The funny thing about the story is that the Sea Level at Battery Park, has been falling for 7 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
The 12 month average peaked in May 02 2010 at 139 mm. since that time,
The sea level has dropped to the April 2017 12 month average of 59 mm, or negative 11 mm per year.
I guess that was not an important datum for their story!
Click to expand...

Congratulations for thinking you're an expert on the issue because you managed to find an internet accessible dataset on it. The vast amount of minutes you've devoted to this research deserve to be commended.

A large group of experts on this have prepared a report on it. Maybe you should read it, and further your reputation as a thought leader on this issue.


http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/slrtffinalrep.pdf
 
Threegoofs said:
Congratulations for thinking you're an expert on the issue because you managed to find an internet accessible dataset on it. The vast amount of minutes you've devoted to this research deserve to be commended.

A large group of experts on this have prepared a report on it. Maybe you should read it, and further your reputation as a thought leader on this issue.


http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/slrtffinalrep.pdf
Click to expand...
Except that the basis of the 2007 expert report, is that sea levels would continue to rise.
As both the data and the NOAA graph show, the sea level at the New York City tide station at Battery Park have fallen since 2010.
We do not know if they will continue to fall, as this tide station has seen similar periods of decrease, but it is close to
maximum periods seen in the past.
Did I mention that Boston has seen almost the same period of falling levels.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8443970
Also Atlantic City,
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8534720
And as far south as Delaware,
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8557380
The decline since 2010 covers a broad area of the east coast.
My point in posting the story is that they are making these extraordinary claims about what the sea level in
New York City will look like by 2020, 2050, and 2100, all while sea levels have been falling for 7 years!
 
longview said:
Except that the basis of the 2007 expert report, is that sea levels would continue to rise.
As both the data and the NOAA graph show, the sea level at the New York City tide station at Battery Park have fallen since 2010.
We do not know if they will continue to fall, as this tide station has seen similar periods of decrease, but it is close to
maximum periods seen in the past.
Did I mention that Boston has seen almost the same period of falling levels.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8443970
Also Atlantic City,
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8534720
And as far south as Delaware,
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8557380
The decline since 2010 covers a broad area of the east coast.
My point in posting the story is that they are making these extraordinary claims about what the sea level in
New York City will look like by 2020, 2050, and 2100, all while sea levels have been falling for 7 years!
Click to expand...

My point in posting the report was to show that you're giving an amateur assessment to a real problem.

Your access to a single dataset is less impressive than an oceanographers assessment.
 
Threegoofs said:
My point in posting the report was to show that you're giving an amateur assessment to a real problem.

Your access to a single dataset is less impressive than an oceanographers assessment.
Click to expand...
The alarmist article I cited was talking specifically about New York City and the pending sea level rise.
Whatever the professional assessment was in 2007, likely it did not include sea levels falling for 7 years!
You have to ask yourself what do you want to believe, the actual empirical data from this year,
or the experts estimates of what the data should be from a decade ago?
For Me, I choose the actual data!
And as I have shown the fall is not some local New York City anomaly, but something affecting
over 200 miles of coastline, from Delaware to Boston, and beyond, as Portland Maine is falling also.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8418150
 
longview said:
The funny thing about the story is that the Sea Level at Battery Park, has been falling for 7 years.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is, you don't know how to read a trend line.
 
Visbek said:
The funny thing is, you don't know how to read a trend line.
Click to expand...
I downloaded the .csv file. I know the 160 year record has an overall positive trend, but that does not
change the fact that the last 7 years show an actual decrease.
If the trend had continued from the 2010 high of 139 mm, the 12 month average would be at 158 mm,
instead of the 59 mm it actually is.
 
Threegoofs said:
My point in posting the report was to show that you're giving an amateur assessment to a real problem.

Your access to a single dataset is less impressive than an oceanographers assessment.
Click to expand...

Alarmism / Sea level
Alarmists Gone Wild: “Alarmist CO2 Headlines Create Confusion”… Particularly When Accompanied by Sea Level Alarmism.

Guest post by David Middleton Real Clear Science and Real Clear Energy are great aggregators of science and energy articles. But, invariably, there is always at least one article that merits lampooning, if not outright ridicule… And today was no exception. Tuesday, May 16 Solar and Batteries Double Cost of Electricity Science 2.0 Earth’s Giant…
 
longview said:
Map shows where New York City could flood first from sea level rise - Business Insider
The funny thing about the story is that the Sea Level at Battery Park, has been falling for 7 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
The 12 month average peaked in May 02 2010 at 139 mm. since that time,
The sea level has dropped to the April 2017 12 month average of 59 mm, or negative 11 mm per year.
I guess that was not an important datum for their story!
Click to expand...


Overall sea level has risen 20 cm since 1880. Sea levels don't rise/fall at the same exact rate. What exactly is your point?
 
Geoist said:
Overall sea level has risen 20 cm since 1880. Sea levels don't rise/fall at the same exact rate. What exactly is your point?
Click to expand...
The article raises the alarm by showing how high sea levels in New York City may be by , 2020, 2050, and 2100, when the data
shows the sea levels have actually been falling for the last 7 years.
A 7 year decrease is not without precedent in the 160 year record, but the predictions were not only for a continued rise,
but an actual acceleration.
The article also links and cites a study that they claim supports the the article,
Temperature-driven global sea-level variability in the Common Era
yet does not mention New York beyond the location of some of the cited papers.
Dangerous waves are also now 20 times more likely to overwhelm the Manhattan seawall than they were 170 years ago, according to a recent study.
Click to expand...
Since the "recent study" linked does not mention New York, the idea that "Dangerous waves are also now 20 times more likely to overwhelm the Manhattan seawall than they were 170 years ago"
seems to be a bit of creativity, on the part of the article author.
 
longview said:
I downloaded the .csv file. I know the 160 year record has an overall positive trend, but that does not
change the fact that the last 7 years show an actual decrease.
Click to expand...
True, it doesn't change it. What it does is show that such variations are normal in these types of time scales.

Or, to put it another way: Don't give up the day job. At least, not until you understand how trend lines work.
 
longview said:
The article raises the alarm by showing how high sea levels in New York City may be by , 2020, 2050, and 2100, when the data
shows the sea levels have actually been falling for the last 7 years.
Click to expand...
The data suggets that sea levels have been rising since 1850.

You're also completely ignoring the causal factors here, e.g. melting polar ice is increasing sea levels. Even as I type, there's a massive crack forming in an Antarctic that could break off a chunk of ice shelf the size of Delaware.

The idea that sea levels reached a peak in 2009 is, to put it mildly, slightly absurd.


Since the "recent study" linked does not mention New York, the idea that "Dangerous waves are also now 20 times more likely to overwhelm the Manhattan seawall than they were 170 years ago"
seems to be a bit of creativity, on the part of the article author.
Click to expand...
Sure, if you don't bother to read the article.

That claim is based on research done by the Mayor’s Office of Recovery & Resiliency in NYC, released in a preliminary report. The article is basically just citing their research.
 
Here's the graph from the OP.

Only a denier can see what the OP sees...

bd9892f3ec4a03dbb58858a6e105d8c2.jpg
 
longview said:
Map shows where New York City could flood first from sea level rise - Business Insider
The funny thing about the story is that the Sea Level at Battery Park, has been falling for 7 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
The 12 month average peaked in May 02 2010 at 139 mm. since that time,
The sea level has dropped to the April 2017 12 month average of 59 mm, or negative 11 mm per year.
I guess that was not an important datum for their story!
Click to expand...

The rate of sea level rise at the New York tide gauge varies over time.
Over thirty year periods the rate has been as high as 4.9 mm/yr for
the thirty years ending in 1954 and as low as 0.7 mm/yr by 1913.
The rate for the last 30 years is 4.3 mm/yr. and the overall rate
since 1856 has been 2.9 mm/yr. There's no sign of acceleration.

The Business Insider doesn't say in terms of mm/yr how fast they are
predicting sea level rise to be in the coming years, but other articles
like this that I see usually quote ridiculous rates with no evidence to
support the claim.

Source:
Data and Station Information for NEW YORK (THE BATTERY)
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
True, it doesn't change it. What it does is show that such variations are normal in these types of time scales.

Or, to put it another way: Don't give up the day job. At least, not until you understand how trend lines work.
Click to expand...
I understand the record is noisy and other 7 year downward trends are present, but do you understand that
the predictions were a continuous increase.
 
Visbek said:
The data suggets that sea levels have been rising since 1850.

You're also completely ignoring the causal factors here, e.g. melting polar ice is increasing sea levels. Even as I type, there's a massive crack forming in an Antarctic that could break off a chunk of ice shelf the size of Delaware.

The idea that sea levels reached a peak in 2009 is, to put it mildly, slightly absurd.



Sure, if you don't bother to read the article.

That claim is based on research done by the Mayor’s Office of Recovery & Resiliency in NYC, released in a preliminary report. The article is basically just citing their research.
Click to expand...
The data suggests the sea levels have been rising since at least 1850, in NYC, and back to 1807 in France.
If you had read the article, the second paragraph was where they cited the source of the data.
The third paragraph stated,
"Anticipating those realities from climate change, the Mayor’s Office of Recovery & Resiliency released the city's first-ever Climate Resiliency Design Guidelines in early May."
implying that the Mayor’s Office of Recovery & Resiliency in NYC, was in response to the cited paper.

Did I say sea level reached a peak in 2009? I do think so!
No my comments are pointing to the idea that when people are raising the alarm about how New York City, will be under water by, X date,
is rather strange, when sea levels have actually been falling for 7 years.
 
Steve Case said:
The rate of sea level rise at the New York tide gauge varies over time.
Over thirty year periods the rate has been as high as 4.9 mm/yr for
the thirty years ending in 1954 and as low as 0.7 mm/yr by 1913.
The rate for the last 30 years is 4.3 mm/yr. and the overall rate
since 1856 has been 2.9 mm/yr. There's no sign of acceleration.

The Business Insider doesn't say in terms of mm/yr how fast they are
predicting sea level rise to be in the coming years, but other articles
like this that I see usually quote ridiculous rates with no evidence to
support the claim.

Source:
Data and Station Information for NEW YORK (THE BATTERY)
Click to expand...
While the article does not say anything about mm/yr, they do provide links to where they got their data,
those sites do provide numbers, and they are a bit extreme.
New York City Panel on Climate Change 2015 Report Chapter 2: Sea Level Rise and Coastal Storms - Horton - 2015 - Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences - Wiley Online Library
NYCSLR.jpg
2020's 2 to 10 inches ( 50 to 250 mm)
2050's 8 to 30 inches (200 to 760 mm) ect.
 
longview said:
I understand the record is noisy and other 7 year downward trends are present, but do you understand that
the predictions were a continuous increase.
Click to expand...
...no, the predictions are that the upward trend will continue and possibly accelerate. I see no indication they expected a discrete increase every single year.
 
longview said:
While the article does not say anything about mm/yr, they do provide links to where they got their data,
those sites do provide numbers, and they are a bit extreme.
Click to expand...
If you read the article, you'd see why they are making those predictions.

Instead of reading it, and responding to specific points, all you seem capable of doing is saying "but look at the last 7 years!"

 
Visbek said:
...no, the predictions are that the upward trend will continue and possibly accelerate. I see no indication they expected a discrete increase every single year.
Click to expand...
Well seeing as they expect the sea level to be between 2 and 10 inches higher by the 2020's (only 13 year left).
The 2 inch is within reason, but the 10 inch rise would require enormous acceleration.
 
Visbek said:
If you read the article, you'd see why they are making those predictions.

Instead of reading it, and responding to specific points, all you seem capable of doing is saying "but look at the last 7 years!"
Click to expand...
The 7 years only becomes significant if the trend continues, but it is close to the maximum downward swings observed in the record.
Sea Levels are a very noisy system, with a high standard deviation.
I think the trend would need to continue to about 15 years before it would represent much of anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom