Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise

[MrMike]

So I wonder how many houses are underwater from the dramatic rise in ocean levels from Global Warming and those ice sheets sloughing off and dropping in the ocean (as if that's never happened before)?

#savethepolarbears

 

[Media_Truth]

So I wonder how many houses are underwater from the dramatic rise in ocean levels from Global Warming and those ice sheets sloughing off and dropping in the ocean (as if that's never happened before)?

#savethepolarbears

Your point? If the weatherman (science) tells you that they're expecting flooding of 10 feet, I suppose you will place the diversion sandbags after the rains?

 

[MrMike]

Your point? If the weatherman (science) tells you that they're expecting flooding of 10 feet, I suppose you will place the diversion sandbags after the rains?

I don't know...have you seen them rolling up NYC, homes on coastal regions and moving them yet based on the panic of sea rise due to Global Warming? Do you have an eta on that 10ft sea rise yet? Provide a schedule (go for it) and let's see how it fares. So far, every sea rise prediction from the Global Warmists have fallen short.

 

[Jack Hays]

So I wonder how many houses are underwater from the dramatic rise in ocean levels from Global Warming and those ice sheets sloughing off and dropping in the ocean (as if that's never happened before)?

#savethepolarbears

Superior graphic!

 

[Media_Truth]

I don't know...have you seen them rolling up NYC, homes on coastal regions and moving them yet based on the panic of sea rise due to Global Warming? Do you have an eta on that 10ft sea rise yet? Provide a schedule (go for it) and let's see how it fares. So far, every sea rise prediction from the Global Warmists have fallen short.

Please provide a reputable link for that "10 foot rise". So far, the only link provided, was concerning recommended construction setbacks for worst-case scenarios. And the article admitted they were worst case scenarios.

 

[MrMike]

Please provide a reputable link for that "10 foot rise". So far, the only link provided, was concerning recommended construction setbacks for worst-case scenarios. And the article admitted they were worst case scenarios.

I used your own absurd example. Maybe next time you should try to hang out in reality?

https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...-faking-sea-level-rise-18.html#post1069169523

 

[Jack Hays]

Please provide a reputable link for that "10 foot rise". So far, the only link provided, was concerning recommended construction setbacks for worst-case scenarios. And the article admitted they were worst case scenarios.

[h=3]Prepare for 10 Feet of Sea Level Rise, California Commission Tells ...[/h]
[url]https://www.scientificamerican.com/.../prepare-for-10-feet-of-sea-level-rise-california-...
[/URL]

Sep 21, 2018 - California coastal cities should be prepared for the possibility that oceans will rise more than 10 feet by 2100 and submerge parts of beach ...

 

[Visbek]

For Greenland you need to consider the amount of precipitation that falls on the place....

Ugh. We've been over this before.

Most of the precipitation falls on the southern edges (mostly the southeast), and immediately flows into the oceans from the numerous fjords. Relatively small amounts fall directly on the ice sheet itself. You've even linked to maps which show this to be the case.

This is not the first time you've seen this map.


There are also massive rivers flowing underneath the ice sheet, as already discussed in this very thread

And of course, it's shedding massive amounts of ice around most of its periphery. Also already posted in this thread:

Seriously, you really need to stop with the bad napkin math.

 

[Visbek]

I don't know...have you seen them rolling up NYC, homes on coastal regions and moving them yet based on the panic of sea rise due to Global Warming?

Yes.

After Hurricane Sandy, New York State started a retreat program, and started buying properties that are increasingly vulnerable to climate change. One example is Oakwood Beach, on Staten Island. New Jersey has a similar program.
https://ny.curbed.com/2016/10/27/13431288/hurricane-sandy-staten-island-wetlands-climate-change

Do you have an eta on that 10ft sea rise yet?

Yes.

10 feet is the maximum scenario, which presumes that we pretty much keep doing what we are doing now, for the next ~80 years. In that scenario -- which hopefully will not be the case -- specific areas (like California) could see as much as 10 feet of sea rise.

So far, every sea rise prediction from the Global Warmists have fallen short.

Oh, really?

Which predictions? When were they issued? What amounts and dates did they predict? Be specific. Cite your sources. And no, vague handwaving is not an acceptable answer.

 

[Steve Case]

Originally Posted by Media_Truth View Post
Please provide a reputable link for that "10 foot rise". So far, the only link provided, was concerning recommended construction setbacks for worst-case scenarios. And the article admitted they were worst case scenarios.

[h=3]Prepare for 10 Feet of Sea Level Rise, California Commission Tells ...[/h]
[url]https://www.scientificamerican.com/.../prepare-for-10-feet-of-sea-level-rise-california-...
[/URL]

Sep 21, 2018 - California coastal cities should be prepared for the possibility that oceans will rise more than 10 feet by 2100 and submerge parts of beach ...

Thanks for posting that. When I click on a link to a Scientific American article this
terse little message comes up:

You have 0 complimentary articles remaining.​

I'm not sending Scientific American money for the privilege of reading their crap.

Yes there are people out there who must never look at the tide gauge record,
really believe ten feet of sea level rise on the west coast is on the way, and
Scientific American publishes their stuff.

And then people like "Media Truth" believe they are looking at real science.

 

[MrMike]

Yes.

After Hurricane Sandy, New York State started a retreat program, and started buying properties that are increasingly vulnerable to climate change. One example is Oakwood Beach, on Staten Island. New Jersey has a similar program.
https://ny.curbed.com/2016/10/27/13431288/hurricane-sandy-staten-island-wetlands-climate-change



Yes.

10 feet is the maximum scenario, which presumes that we pretty much keep doing what we are doing now, for the next ~80 years. In that scenario -- which hopefully will not be the case -- specific areas (like California) could see as much as 10 feet of sea rise.



Oh, really?

Which predictions? When were they issued? What amounts and dates did they predict? Be specific. Cite your sources. And no, vague handwaving is not an acceptable answer.

:lamo

You do realize the hair-on-fire scenarios (predictions) are the ones pimped by the Global Warmists and you want me to cite their nonsense? Given you are their stand-in sponsor here (supporting their cause) maybe you should back up your side of the equation and cite the predictions and show measureable validation of their claims of impending doom.

So you think people moving back from where the tidal damage from a hurricane (a weather event) happened was really about sea rise from Global Warming? Or is it due to losses that are uninsurable in the event of storm (tide) damage?

:lamo

 

[Steve Case]

...
There are also massive rivers flowing underneath the ice sheet ...

...

Here's the link to the National Geographic page where that map comes from:

Mapping the Hidden Worlds Beneath Greenland’s Ice

And the take home quote:

These rivers predate Greenland's ice sheet by more than three million years
and once drained a region that's about the size of the Ohio River basin.
​

I bolded the key word once. A dictionary definition is in order:

Once | Definition of Once by Merriam-Webster
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/once
Definition of once. (Entry 1 of 4)
1 : one time ...
2 : at any one time...
3 : at some indefinite time in the past : formerly was once a booming mining town.

In other words, there aren't any massive rivers flowing underneath the ice sheet.

So, once again, it is well below freezing nearly everywhere, nearly all of the time in Greenland.
Snow that falls compacts into ice which decades or centuries later calves as ice bergs into the sea.
Temperature & Global Warming/Climate Change doesn't have anything to do with it.

 

[Jack Hays]

Thanks for posting that. When I click on a link to a Scientific American article this
terse little message comes up:

You have 0 complimentary articles remaining.​

I'm not sending Scientific American money for the privilege of reading their crap.

Yes there are people out there who must never look at the tide gauge record,
really believe ten feet of sea level rise on the west coast is on the way, and
Scientific American publishes their stuff.

And then people like "Media Truth" believe they are looking at real science.

You're welcome. Always happy to assist.

 

[Visbek]

You do realize the hair-on-fire scenarios (predictions) are the ones pimped by the Global Warmists and you want me to cite their nonsense?

You are making a specific claim that "every sea rise prediction from the Global Warmists have fallen short." The only way you can make that claim in good faith is if you've actually seen predictions for years that have already passed. So yes, if you're going to make a claim like that, it is your obligation to back it up.

Given you are their stand-in sponsor here (supporting their cause) maybe you should back up your side of the equation and cite the predictions and show measureable validation of their claims of impending doom.

Yeah, thing is? I haven't seen any specific predictions for 2000, or 2010, or 2018. The predictions are typically for year 2100. Here's a typical example, from the IPCC's 2007 report.




I did see one prediction in the IPCC AR3 (from 2001) for "1990 to 2025." The range is fairly broad (0.03m to 0.14m), so it is no surprise that the results definitely fall within that range. Between 1993 and 2018, sea levels have risen approximately 0.08 meters. It is not unreasonable for the final count to hit 0.11 meters, and could go higher if the rate of sea level rise continues to accelerate.



So, there you go: One major prediction for sea level rise that is, so far, quite accurate, and likely to land on the high end rather than the low end.

So you think people moving back from where the tidal damage from a hurricane (a weather event) happened was really about sea rise from Global Warming?

Yes. Absolutely.

People are tenacious about their property; for most people, real estate is their most significant asset (and biggest liability, too). They also obviously have a strong emotional attachment to their property, even after it's been destroyed by a storm.

People are also slowly starting to realize that climate change is starting to have an impact. Around half the nation now believes that climate change is making hurricanes more intense and damaging, and that will certainly impact their decisions about rebuilding and/or retreat.

When people think "wow, this was a bad storm," they almost always rebuild. When they think "this is going to happen again, and next time it will be worse," they are more amenable to selling their land to the state for a retreat program.

As to flood insurance? All of Staten Island is eligible for flood insurance, as are most of the US coastal areas. Check the CBRS maps.

 

[Steve Case]

... Yeah, thing is? I haven't seen any specific predictions for 2000, or 2010, or 2018. The predictions are typically for year 2100 ...

Ten rules taught in Climate Science 101:

1. Never make any specific predictions on a timeline that expires before you do.
2. ...​

 

[longview]

10 feet is the maximum scenario, which presumes that we pretty much keep doing what we are doing now, for the next ~80 years. In that scenario -- which hopefully will not be the case -- specific areas (like California) could see as much as 10 feet of sea rise.

Let's consider how much of a change int he rate of sea level rise would be required for California
to see a 10 foot rise in the next 80 years.
San Francisco has one of the oldest tide gauges,
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9414290
and has the century plus average at .64 feet per century,(.19 mm/yr) .
.64 feet per century is .512 feet per 80 years, so to get to 10 feet in 80 years would require a rate
19.5 times faster than what has been happening for the last century.

 

[longview]

You are making a specific claim that "every sea rise prediction from the Global Warmists have fallen short." The only way you can make that claim in good faith is if you've actually seen predictions for years that have already passed. So yes, if you're going to make a claim like that, it is your obligation to back it up.



Yeah, thing is? I haven't seen any specific predictions for 2000, or 2010, or 2018. The predictions are typically for year 2100. Here's a typical example, from the IPCC's 2007 report.

View attachment 67242254


I did see one prediction in the IPCC AR3 (from 2001) for "1990 to 2025." The range is fairly broad (0.03m to 0.14m), so it is no surprise that the results definitely fall within that range. Between 1993 and 2018, sea levels have risen approximately 0.08 meters. It is not unreasonable for the final count to hit 0.11 meters, and could go higher if the rate of sea level rise continues to accelerate.

View attachment 67242264

So, there you go: One major prediction for sea level rise that is, so far, quite accurate, and likely to land on the high end rather than the low end.



Yes. Absolutely.

People are tenacious about their property; for most people, real estate is their most significant asset (and biggest liability, too). They also obviously have a strong emotional attachment to their property, even after it's been destroyed by a storm.

People are also slowly starting to realize that climate change is starting to have an impact. Around half the nation now believes that climate change is making hurricanes more intense and damaging, and that will certainly impact their decisions about rebuilding and/or retreat.

When people think "wow, this was a bad storm," they almost always rebuild. When they think "this is going to happen again, and next time it will be worse," they are more amenable to selling their land to the state for a retreat program.

As to flood insurance? All of Staten Island is eligible for flood insurance, as are most of the US coastal areas. Check the CBRS maps.

You do realize that none of the of the sea level rise predictions by 2090-2099 table SPM3 are near 10 feet?
The highest one at .59 meters is 1.9 feet.

 

[Into the Night]

Here we go


I know this is going to come as a total shock to you, but:

The effect of rising global sea levels on coastal regions is NOT uniform.

One reason for differences is the aforementioned GIA. Different parts of continents are rebounding from the massive ice loss at different rates, while other regions are sinking. It is not even slightly surprising that California and New Jersey will experience different rates of change. Even New York and Virginia will see different rates of change.

In addition, coasts are also impacted by a variety of factors such as erosion, dredging, precipitation, elevation, currents, winds, salinity, the presence of barrier islands, as well as building on barrier islands (which leads to misguided efforts to make dynamic land features completely static). It all has an impact.

Thus, no one should be surprised that global predictions for sea level rise might top out at 6 feet by 2100, while specific predictions for a region tops out at 10 feet by 2100.

As to future rates? It's currently at 3.4mm/yr -- and what you're missing, although I don't know how, is that the rate of sea level rise is expected to accelerate significantly in the near future. That does depend on the biggest variable of all: What will humans do? That is one major cause for uncertainty, and why the range of future sea level rise is quite wide. It is also due to... as the article reported... the loss of ice mass.

Last but not least, Scientific American is literally just reporting what the California Coastal Commission is saying -- and again, the CCC is fully consistent with NOAA predictions. Unless you can prove that Scientific American is deeply misrepresenting the CA report -- which is highly unlikely, as they actually quoted a commission member stating "What we’re saying is, look at that 10 feet of sea-level rise and think about what it means for your future" -- then the article is undoubtedly credible.

Of course, Scientific American also accepts the evidence and consensus of AGW. That also bolsters their credibility, for those who, y'know, actually care about science.

Scientific American is doing the right thing. It's reporting the results of scientific research, studies and publications. That's what it is supposed to do, that's why it is credible, that's why it is respected.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no valid reference.
Consensus is not used in science.
Define 'global warming'.
Scientific American is not a valid source. Neither is NOAA. They are both just making up numbers.

 

[Into the Night]

Maybe you should read some science.

Or...maybe not. That might be what’s gotten you confused in the first place.

It is not possible to measure the global sea level. This is a math problem, not a science one.Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not math.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for the Math lesson. Guess what - I have an Engineering degree. I went through 3 semesters of Calculus, Differential Equations, Complex Variables, and many others. Guess what else - I will defer the Math to the experts.

I don't believe you. You are denying math.

 

[Into the Night]

But YOU MUST DO HIS SUMS!

If you don’t, it means all the scientists who study this are wrong.

This isn't science, dude. It's a math problem.

 

[Into the Night]

Your point? If the weatherman (science) tells you that they're expecting flooding of 10 feet, I suppose you will place the diversion sandbags after the rains?

A weatherman is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

Please provide a reputable link for that "10 foot rise". So far, the only link provided, was concerning recommended construction setbacks for worst-case scenarios. And the article admitted they were worst case scenarios.

Contextomy. He is not saying there is a 10 foot rise.

 

[Into the Night]

Ugh. We've been over this before.

Most of the precipitation falls on the southern edges (mostly the southeast), and immediately flows into the oceans from the numerous fjords. Relatively small amounts fall directly on the ice sheet itself. You've even linked to maps which show this to be the case.

This is not the first time you've seen this map.


There are also massive rivers flowing underneath the ice sheet, as already discussed in this very thread

And of course, it's shedding massive amounts of ice around most of its periphery. Also already posted in this thread:


Seriously, you really need to stop with the bad napkin math.

If t here is no precipitation in Greenland, how did the ice get there in the first place???

 

[Into the Night]

Yes.

After Hurricane Sandy, New York State started a retreat program, and started buying properties that are increasingly vulnerable to climate change. One example is Oakwood Beach, on Staten Island. New Jersey has a similar program.
https://ny.curbed.com/2016/10/27/13431288/hurricane-sandy-staten-island-wetlands-climate-change



Yes.

10 feet is the maximum scenario, which presumes that we pretty much keep doing what we are doing now, for the next ~80 years. In that scenario -- which hopefully will not be the case -- specific areas (like California) could see as much as 10 feet of sea rise.



Oh, really?

Which predictions? When were they issued? What amounts and dates did they predict? Be specific. Cite your sources. And no, vague handwaving is not an acceptable answer.

Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the global sea level.