by Judith Curry
How did the state of New Jersey come to adopt sea level rise projections for their adaptation planning that are more than twice as high as the IPCC’s values?
Part I introduced the challenges facing New Jersey associated with sea level rise, and their general adaptation strategy. Their adaptation strategy is driven by a report written by sea level researchers at Rutgers University in New Jersey [link]. The main results from the Rutgers Report is this table of sea level rise projections for NJ:
My involvement in this started on December 21, when I received an email from Ray Cantor seeking my evaluation of the Rutgers Report. After a phone call to discuss, a small amount of funding was approved on January 28 for me to assess the Rutgers Report. They needed my evaluation report by February 28. With one month, a small amount of funding, and a schedule that was already heavily committed, I put together an evaluation report with the help of a very capable assistant. This project was just too irresistible to turn down.
My evaluation report can be downloaded [NJ SLR report CFAN final]. This blog post addresses scenarios of 21st century sea level rise outcomes, including a critique of the Rutgers scenarios. The main points are excerpted in this blog post; see the full report for background and details.
Also see this press release from the NJ Business and Industry Assoc [link]
2.1 21st century sea level rise projections
Global sea level rise projections provide a basis for projecting local sea level rise, such as for the New Jersey coast. The analysis in this section places the projections provided by the Rutgers Report in context of other assessment reports. The analysis provided below demonstrates that the Rutgers projections of sea level rise are substantially higher than those provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In 2019, the IPCC published a “Special Report on Oceans, Cryosphere and Climate Change” (SROCC), which included updated sea level rise projections (Table 2.2) based on the same CMIP5 climate model simulations that were used in the IPCC AR5. It is instructive to compare the sea level rise projections in the second-order draft of the SROCC versus the values in the final report. The SROCC values for RCP2.6 and RCP4.5 are comparable to the AR5 values. However, the SROCC sea level rise projections for RCP8.5 (high emissions scenario) are significantly higher than the AR5 values (upper end of the likely range is 0.98 m). It is notable that the RCP8.5 values in the final SROCC report are substantially lower than in the second order draft. The volatility of the sea level rise projections for RCP8.5 (high emissions scenario) reflects deep uncertainties in understanding of the dynamics and potential instability of the West Antarctic ice sheet and its influence on future sea level rise.
Table 2.2: Projections of global mean sea level rise for 2100 from the IPCC SROCC (baseline period 1986-2005).
The sea level rise scenarios from the forthcoming IPCC AR6 are not yet available. However, a publicly available letter (King et al. 2020) cited the following values from the 2nd order draft of the AR6: projections for 2100 range from 0.82 – 0.98 meters (32.3 – 38.6 inches), for a surface temperature increase of 4.3 – 4.8oC (7.8 – 8.6 oF). While the AR6 temperature projections are higher than the AR5, the CMIP6 sea level rise projections for the emissions/ concentration scenario equivalent to RCP8.5 are lower than the values in the SROCC. It remains to be seen whether the sea level rise projections will change in the AR6 final report.
While there is general convergence in the IPCC reports on the projected likely range for sea level rise for the low and intermediate emissions/concentration scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP4.5), there is substantial uncertainty and disagreement regarding sea level rise for the high emissions scenario (RCP8.5). This uncertainty is associated with the impact of potential instabilities in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which could be triggered by large values of warming.
2.3 Rutgers Report
The emissions scenarios used in the Rutgers Report do not directly relate to the emissions scenarios used in the IPCC AR5 and SROCC (e.g. RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP8.5). Rather, the Rutgers Report selects two scenarios based on the amount of warming since early industrial (1850-1900): 2oC (low emissions) and 5oC (high emissions). The Rutgers high emissions scenario is close to RCP8.5 through 2100. However, the Rutgers low emissions scenario reflects more warming than RCP2.6. The Rutgers team then averaged the sea level rise projections for their high and low emissions scenario to create a moderate emissions scenario, nominally associated with a temperature increase of 3.5oC.
The rationale for using these new definitions of high and low emissions scenarios is to accommodate the Bamber et al. (2019) expert elicitation on sea level rise associated with potential instability in the West Antarctic ice sheet, which used the 2oC and 5oC scenarios. It is somewhat surprising that the Rutgers Report elected to structure their scenarios following Bamber et al., since the Report states that “SEJ [structured expert judgment], however, is not fully accepted by the ice-sheet modeling community, as it relies on the calibrated mental models of the participating experts rather than explicit physical models.”
Since the Rutgers Report didn’t use the same emissions scenarios as the IPCC, it is not straightforward to compare them. Global sea level rise projections that are cited in the Rutgers Report as providing the basis for their local sea level rise projections are: Kopp et al. (2014), Kopp et al. (2017), Rasmussen et al. (2018) and Bamber et al. (2019). Kopp et al. (2014) yields projections of likely global mean sea level changes that are broadly consistent with IPCC SROCC. Kopp et al. (2017) replaced the original Antarctic ice-sheet mass loss projections of Kopp et al. (2014) with those from the Antarctic ice-sheet modeling study of DeConto and Pollard (2016). Bamber et al. (2019) replaced the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheet projections of Kopp et al. (2014) with projections based on an expert elicitation of ice-sheet changes associated with climate scenarios leading to 2°C and 5°C of warming by 2100.
Table 2.4 compares the likely range predicted by Kopp (2014) and Kopp (2017) with the IPCC projections. While the Kopp (2014) projections are fairly close to the SROCC, the Kopp (2017) projections are almost twice as high as the IPCC projections for RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. While not directly comparable to the other projections, the Bamber et al. (2019) values are even higher.
Table 2.4: Comparative projections of global mean sea level rise (meters) for 2100 based on different emission scenarios.
The Rutgers scenarios of future climate change are formulated in a fundamentally different way than the IPCC. The IPCC provides a range of temperature and sea level rise projections for a discrete number of emissions scenarios. This results in a continuum of temperature and sea level rise projections whose likely range overlaps among the different emissions scenarios. By contrast, the Rutgers Report provides distributions of sea level rise for two temperature scenarios: 2oC and 5oC. A third, intermediate scenario is provided by simply averaging the temperature and the sea level rise percentile. The Rutgers approach does not discriminate in a meaningful way the range of temperature scenarios (including the lower bound) for which the potential instability of the West Antarctic ice sheet might contribute substantially to sea level rise in the 21st century – the relevant processes are nonlinear with temperature and cannot be interpolated based on temperature in a meaningful way.
4.3 Evaluation of predictions from the Rutgers Report: 2000-2020
The projections provided in the Rutgers report for NJ sea level rise use as a baseline the period 1991-2009 (nominally the year 2000). Hence, the observed tide gauge data through 2020 can be evaluated against the sea level rise projections in the Rutgers Report (Table 4.1). With regards to the 2030 projections, we are already more than 2/3 through this period. When based on the trends since 1980, there is 3.51 inches (0.29 feet) of sea level rise at Atlantic City during the period 2000-2020. Reaching 9.6 inches (0.8 feet) by 2030 (the Rutgers scenario with 50% chance) would require a very substantial acceleration for the remainder of the 2020’s.
Figure 4.2 overlays the observed time series since 1980 of sea level on top of the Rutgers sea level rise projections for Atlantic City. The projections for 2030 and 2050 are independent of emissions scenario. The solid blue line is the Rutgers ~50%; the dash line reflects the likely bounds (17-83%) and the dotted line reflects the very likely bounds (5-95%).
The short-term trend in the observed sea level record is dominated by large year-to-year variability. The observed sea level record between the period 2000 and 2020 appears to be tracking between bottom of the likely and very likely ranges of the Rutgers forecast.
Figure 4.2: Historic and projected relative sea level in centimeters (y axis) over time (x axis) for the period 1980 to 2050 in Atlantic City. Historic data is based on data utilized in figure 4.1 from NOAA tidal records. Future data is based on values found in the Rutgers Report Table 6.
4.4 Recommended scenarios of sea level rise for New Jersey
Based upon the recent historical record since 2000, there seems little justification for a 2030 prediction that exceeds the bottom of the likely range (>83% chance exceedance).
For the period to 2050, consideration is needed of the natural modes of ocean circulation patterns, especially given the current period with the Northeast U.S. coastal ‘hot spot.’ A further issue of relevance is the influence of these same ocean circulation patterns in the North Atlantic on the mass balance of Greenland. The bottom of the likely range in the Rutgers Report also seems like a good bet out to 2050.
For projections to 2100, emissions scenario RCP4.5 seems the most appropriate to use. However as described in Section 2.3, the projections of sea level rise in the Rutgers Report for the moderate emissions scenarios do not relate to RCP4.5. The IPCC’s projections for RCP4.5 are more consistent with the Rutgers low emissions scenario.
The wild card (potential Dragon King) and largest uncertainty is associated with a potential large contribution from instability in the West Antarctic ice sheet. The IPCC SROCC assessed this contribution to be considerably lower than that provided by the expert elicitation of Bamber et al. (2019), which is used in the Rutgers Report.
For decision making and policy purposes, the most important outstanding issue is continued investigation and assessment of the contribution of West Antarctic ice sheet instability under moderate temperature increases associated with emissions scenario RCP4.5. They key issue is assess whether or not there is a plausible Dragon King scenario that should be considered for the moderate emissions scenario.
7.Conclusions and recommendations
The sea level projections provided by the Rutgers Report are substantially higher than those provided by the IPCC, which is generally regarded as the authoritative source for policy making. The sea level rise projections provided in the Rutgers Report, if taken at face value, could lead to premature decisions related to coastal adaptation that are unnecessarily expensive and disruptive.
The Rutgers Report develops its own scenarios of sea level rise and does not reference the sea level rise scenarios of the IPCC AR5, SROCC or the AR6. However, the approach used in the Rutgers Report that relies heavily on publications by Kopp et al. (2017) and Bamber et al. (2019) does not pass muster in the IPCC SROCC (2019) in context of their choices for sea level rise projections:
“For this reason, their results and probabilistic (e.g., Kopp et al., 2017; Le Bars et al., 2017) and statistical emulation estimates that build on them (Edwards et al., 2019), are not used in SROCC sea level projections.”
“The expert elicitation approach (Bamber et al., 2019), which applied elicitation to both ice sheets, suggests considerably higher values for total SLR for RCP2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 than provided in Table 4.3.”
Experts inevitably disagree owing to inadequate data, insufficient understanding, different evaluations of the various classes of evidence, and different logical frameworks for linking the available evidence. ‘Which experts’ are included in a particular assessment report or expert elicitation makes a difference to the outcome conclusions. Therefore, it is important for a practitioner developing scenarios for policy applications to provide context from other assessments (particularly the IPCC) and other experts, as well as the temporal rate of change of expert opinion on the topic at hand. None of this context is provided in the Rutgers Report.
Individual experts can be out ahead of the IPCC assessments in developing better scenarios. However, the CFAN Review does not judge this to be the case with the Rutgers Report.
The Rutgers Report characterizes their projections as “Consensus Science to Support Planning for Sea Level Rise in New Jersey.” While their projections may reflect a ‘consensus’ among the authors of the Rutgers Report, they do not reflect a consensus of international experts on climate change and global sea level rise. The consensus on climate change and sea level rise is better represented by the IPCC assessment reports.
JC reflections
Well, it will be interesting to see what kind of response my report gets from the Rutgers team and the NJ EPA. As far as I can tell, the points I make are pretty unassailable. We’ll see.
Back to the opening statement for this post:
How did the state of New Jersey come to adopt sea level rise projections for their adaptation planning that are more than twice as high as the IPCC’s values?
The lead authors on the Rutgers Report – R. Kopp and W. Sweet – were also lead authors on the 2017 NOAA Report on Sea Level Rise Scenarios and also on the 4th U.S. National Climate Assessment chapter on sea level rise. Kopp is a lead author on the CMIP6 sea level chapter. Kopp in particular is a prolific publisher on the topic of sea level rise.
Being a successful academic is associated with different motives and a different skill set than being a successful practitioner in supporting adaptation decision making. Relative to private sector practitioners, academic scientists have no ‘skin in the game’ – there are no adverse consequences for an overconfident forecast with a 5-30 year time horizon that turns out to be really wrong. Private sector practitioners in climate services have skin in the game in the sense that they will lose money or go out of business if their confident forecasts turn out to be wrong. While 80 year predictions are beyond the lifetime of the practitioners and most likely their companies also, the time period for many relevant decisions is the 5-30 year time frame.
Academic scientists promote their own research in order to get recognition, promotion, funding etc. However, this his is not helpful in supporting decision making or in the process of synthesis and assessment. On the other hand, private sector practitioners will consider any tool that they deem relevant or helpful.
And finally, synthesis and assessment is another skill that runs counter to the normal mode of operation for a research scientist, requiring subsuming one’s professional ego in context of a broad survey and evaluation of the relevant research. Individual scientists tend not to be very objective about their own research. While a diverse group of scientists on an assessment panel (e.g. IPCC) helps ensure that individual hubris and promotion of the individual’s own work doesn’t dominate the assessment, we have certainly seen examples in the past where this is not the case.
Part III addresses what I have learned about best practices in climate adaptation and how climate science can be useful, based on my real world experience with real world decision making.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Pingback: Climate adaptation follies. Part II: scenarios of future sea level rise - HootNeoos
Rising Oceans would increase inertia of earth and increase Length of Day
The atomic clock is used to measure length of day. 9 leap seconds were added in the seventies and they got a late start, they did not start until 1972 after making an initial adjustment. 6 leap seconds were added in the eighties. 7 leap seconds were added in the nineties. Now, only 5 leap seconds have been added since the end of 1998 and none since 2016. The Length of day has decreased and that would not be true if there was any kind of runaway sea level rise. For whatever reasons, they are lying or just not understanding what they claim to be expert at doing. I have had this discussion with some of you several years ago. It is still holding. I read a story about melting ice and then I go check the atomic clock data, and I relax and just say, not yet.
Watch for it, if runaway sea level rise starts, the Length of Day would increase.
LOD is measured accurately by the atomic clock. There is a lot of uncertainty in measuring and averaging sea level, but not in measuring Length of Day.
Leap Seconds Inserted into the UTC Time Scale
Date MJD Date MJD Date MJD Date MJD
2016-12-31 57753 1998-12-31 51178 1989-12-31 47891 1979-12-31 44238
2015-06-30 57203 1997-06-30 50629 1987-12-31 47160 1978-12-31 43873
2012-06-30 56108 1995-12-31 50082 1985-06-30 46246 1977-12-31 43508
2008-12-31 54831 1994-06-30 49533 1983-06-30 45515 1976-12-31 43143
2005-12-31 53735 1993-06-30 49168 1982-06-30 45150 1975-12-31 42777
1992-06-30 48803 1981-06-30 44785 1974-12-31 42412
1990-12-31 48256 1973-12-31 42047
1972-12-31 41682
1972-06-30 41498
https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/atomic-standards/leap-second-and-ut1-utc-information
People have said, the inertia of earth is huge, but the inertia of the oceans is tiny. The Crust of the earth floats on the core and the oceans are significant when compared to the crust. During major ice ages, Length of Day was significantly shorter. Most ice on land is in or near polar regions, closer to the spin axis. Most water is in oceans closer to the equator, further from the spin axis.
Ice mass is close to the spin axis, water is far from the spin axis. When the dancer or skater pulls arms in tight, the spin is faster, when the arms are out the spin is slower. When water is moved from the oceans to be sequestered as ice on land, the inertia of the crust of the earth is reduced. When ice on land thaws and enters the oceans, the inertia of the crust of earth is increased.
The GHGs have not caused SLR since 1972, the consensus climate alarmists are clearly lying or plain wrong, but we clearly do not need to believe Sea Level Rise or any other alarmist junk they promote.
Those climate events are not happening due to manmade CO2 but the harm causes by their “so called” fixes are going to happen now, and yes, their man-made harm is going to be very bad. The recent power and water outages prove their “so called” fixes are already bad. There is a story in the Houston Chronicle Today by James Osborne, “Grid once stayed on in colder weather”.
He wrote about Christmas 1989, then flash forward to 20211.
Its more complicated than that. Due to isostacy.
See https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/95PA00578
Or for Mars https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19990025390/downloads/19990025390.pdf
And https://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/topten.cfm?topten=4
It’s not just ice melt that increases moment of inertia. The warming of the oceans means the water expands, and the moment goes up.
That has clearly be falsified. Perhaps the Climate Change lot will insist on the clocks being changed, leading to GPS going wrong and lots of plane crashes.
Oxygen Iso-topes clearly show we have been cooling for 6 million years. So what is going on? The Green IPCC never understood that CO2 heat is logarithmic curve. (ref the late Prof Robert Carter who was a Marine Geologist). Apart from the IPCC deliberately expanding graphs(lying) the Green Idiots simply do not understand this. In an Interglacial Holocene sea ice melts and sea levels rise. Try the oppposite…an Ice Age. Sea Ice freezes over and sea levels drop…also refer the “Younger Dryas” Period. There is no Climate Crisis…but we are headung for a Solar Minimum with little or no Sun Spots. Whistle Blowers at the Hadley Centre brought in the Police..2005?….leading scientists would have gone to jail but PM Tony Blair stopped it. Notice Gore and Hansen have gone quiet. Notice that there were no satelites to look at sea ice until 1979.
Post glacial rebound. That’s clearly factually correct. It can be measured, it can be seen. That means at lower latitudes, grown levels increase, and that increases momentum of inertia as the land moves father away from the axis of rotation. That causes the rotation to slow.
Since its sped up, the drop in sea levels is clearly even higher.
RCP8.5 (high emissions scenario)
I think it is wrong to call this RCP8.5 a high emission scenario. It is an impossible-emission-scenario often called “business-as-usual”. If I remember right it correspond to a CO2-level of over 900ppm. And perhaps burning more fossile fuel than can be produced.
So one way to write it could be: RPC8.5 (greater than possible emission scenario)
It’s more an aspirational target. Build a raft of low carbon generation – including advanced nuclear.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300711-gr1.jpg
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300711
“This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681#bib0070
Climate zealotry wants to blame everything on CO2 which is a product of man’s evil activities, and is willfully ignorant of all else. For example, tidal forces, which have locked the rotation of the moon so it always shows the same face to the earth. This force results from the resultant of the gravitational contributions from not only the moon but of all other massive bodies in the solar system, and cannot be ignored in any discussion of fluctuations in length of day.
Or simply ice has increased, sea levels gone down all because of cooling.
Ice Core Records are Knowledge Records sequestered for us to finally understand what causes past alternating warm and cold phases of climate.
Before warm tropical ocean currents flowed into the polar regions, there was little ice sequestered on land and oceans were much deeper. The polar regions are great ice machines. Ice machines must be powered and the must have energy dissipation. When polar regions are frozen there is no evaporation, no snowfall and no ice sequestering.
Tropical warm currents finally flowed into the polar regions and promoted evaporation and the water vapor changing into ice in the clouds promoted the IR out from the clouds, the ice was stored on land and was build up until ice flowed into the salt water and formed sea ice.
Warm tropical ocean currents power the great ice machines. Sea ice forms to turn the machines off and thaws to turn the machines on again.
It is this simple. The oceans have warmed to lower sea level, sea level rises when sea ice prevents sequestering of ice.
Pingback: Climate adaptation follies. Part II: scenarios of future sea level rise — Climate Etc. – NZ Conservative Coalition
Two comments relevant to the subject (but not to each other):
1. Any projections that go past the intended/expected life of infrastructure built today (e.g., a new building) are of little value. Thus, if we’re looking at streets/roads, the lifetime is probably shorter (10-30 y) because of changing land use patterns. Buildings are generally longer-lived, so ~50 y. Projections out to the turn of the 21st C exceed these and so aren’t useful at all.
2. Didn’t the Rutgers authors check their 2030 numbers against actual sea level data? Seems the height of ivory tower hubris not to!
The only constant is change and humans adapt to change on small and large scale.
Picture of the Manhattan South Street Seaport, 1920.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Street_Seaport#/media/File:South_Street_Seaport,_Detroit_Photographic_Company_(0616).jpg
And now …
“We worked with Howard Hughes Corporation to support their revitalization efforts of the South Street Seaport District together with SHoP Architects. We depicted a reimagined retail experience in the historic district, culminating with their new anchor building at Pier 17.”
https://brooklynfoundry.com/work/south-street-seaport
I look forward to part 3.
How does the current assessment impact the lives of NJ’s residents?
Not to beat a dead horse too often but in thinking about the future sometimes it’s instructive to see what others have done in the past.
From the 1990 IPCC report.
“The predicted rise is about 20 cm in global mean sea level by 2030, and 65 cm by the end of the next century.”
200mm by 2030. A ways to go.
They weren’t the first to miss the mark.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2017-11-08084107_shadow.png
NYT 1958
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Screen-Shot-2017-02-14-at-6.45.31-AM-down-1.gif
In 1988 some thought the Maldives would be covered by water in 30 years.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image592_shadow.png
All this alarmism is just a political ploy for bigger government and less personal freedom. Their lies never stop … https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/drbkiaw
Climate scientists and cohorts sound like a broken record.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Image1206_shadow.png
And the CIA was looking at a new LIA
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Image2009202019.png
In 1986 James Hansen was looking at temperatures rising 3-4 degrees by 2020.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-10-25075120_shadow.png
But Hansen was “spot on.” All the papers said so. How could this…?
Oh, wait, it’s climate “science.” The one you have to “believe in.” Just ask Willard.
You shouldn’t bet the farm the Goddard, JeffN.
Kid just discovered “but 70s.”
In 2004 the Pentagon was concerned about major European cities inundated by water.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018_03_04_19_45_19-down.png
“A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer.”
A secret suppressed report, not a conspiracy theory :-) Love it.
In 1983 the EPA said SLR could be 10 feet in several decades.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2019-02-15190822_shadow.jpg
Time, of course, got into the act in 1987.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/1101870810_400.jpg
How can the claims of sea level rises be reconciled with the highly accurate measurements of the earths rotation. The rate rotation has increased which is only consistent with sea levels going down, artic ice increasing
“The rate rotation has increased which is only consistent with sea levels going down” – aden
No. An increase in gravitational forcing can also account for the increase in Earth’s rotation rate.
Gravity theory isn’t settled therefore climate science isn’t settled.
But in deference to every Conservative’s favorite newspaper, I’ll let the NYT have the last word.
https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html
Thanks for all the retro newspaper clippings. It’s quite enlightening.
Define Gravitational Forcing. Oh I get it. Post modern science. ..
“‘Which experts’ are included in a particular assessment report or expert elicitation makes a difference to the outcome conclusions. Therefore, it is important for a practitioner developing scenarios for policy applications to provide context from other assessments… None of this context is provided in the Rutgers Report.”
In other words, the definition of “expert” in the Urban Dictionary applies to the Rutgers Report.
In 2013, I lived in East Atlantic Beach, NY, which is adjacent to Long Beach. After Sandy I had surveyors come in to establish my property elevation. The property is beach front, approximately 150 yards from mean high tide.
Latitude: 40 35 04.51
Longitude: 73 42 19.91
NGVD 29 Height: 3.727704
Datum shift (NAVD 88 minus NGVD 29): -0.337 meters
NAVD 88 Height: 3.391 meters
I was told at the time that a new datum was being compiled.
1) Does anyone know if the new datum was released?
2) Is this used to establish accurate sea level rise? In 59 years the sea outside this location rose 13.25″.
I hope to catch up on the blog today, as the climate follies looks funny, in a pathetic sort of way.The Federal Register this morning has two new items up for public comment which may catch your attention, if you have’nt seen these already. This sinkhole, I will warn you, could consume all your time, from ridiculous Rule Proposals by Homeland Security to indecipherable new H1-b visa restriction proposals. The federal emissions data this morning scares me, because scientists lie so often. Federal Register :: Home – Tuesday, March 9th
| | | | | |
|
| | | | Home – Tuesday, March 9th
Search, browse and learn about the Federal Register. Federal Register 2.0 is the unofficial daily publication fo… |
|
|
The implication of sea level rise forecasts in the AGW context is that they are causally related to fossil fuel emissions and that they can and must be attenuated with the climate action of reducing and eliminating fossil fuel emissions.
The mathematics of this causal relationship between emissions and sea level rise has been published by climate scientists from both sides of the Atlantic. Oregon State University in the USA and the Neils Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen in Europe.
Pls see
https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/02/04/a-tcre-of-sea-level-rise/
So how do you explain that the moment of inertia of the earth has decreased and the rotation speed of the earth increased?
That’s the opposite of sea levels increasing and the ice caps melting.
The prediction of global warming has been falsified.
Thank you for this very interesting comment. The climate science position is that glacial melt speeds up the rotation. Is that wrong?
Of course its wrong. It violates the laws of physics.
What happens when a skater spinning fast throws their arms out?
Agree. Sea level rise should slow it down.
So since the rotation speed has increased, that falsifies sea level rise by expansion and ice caps melting.
Thermal expansion moves more mass away from the axis of rotation, increasing the moment of inertia. Slows the speed of the rotation
Ice cap melting moves mass from near the axis to away from the axis. Same thing. Prediction is slowing down.
So how do they measure rotation speed? They use quasars and there’s an institute entirely devoted to this. Over the long term we have records of eclipses, and that can also be used to get very long term data.
So get the rotation wrong and lots of people are killed. GPS relies on this data. Don’t put the corrections in, and planes will land not on the run way, but into buildings. Testable by yourself with a mobile phone.
So very simply put. The predictions of climate “scientists” have been falsified. Their theory is wrong. The just won’t admit that the rotation speed has falsified their theory. So they aren’t scientists.
Thank you, Aden.
A quick google search shows that the rotation rate is linked to Earth’s interior and predicted to coincide with an increase in volcanism:
….
Geophysicists are able to measure the rotational speed of Earth extremely precisely, calculating slight variations on the order of milliseconds. Now, scientists believe a slowdown of the Earth’s rotation is the link to an observed cyclical increase in earthquakes.
….
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2017/11/20/earths-rotation-is-mysteriously-slowing-down-experts-predict-uptick-in-2018-earthquakes/?sh=bc379706f243
This cyclical nature is due to gravitational forcing of new physics imo.
I thought climate alarmists owned “wishful” thinking and explaining away objections.
The process seems a bit less simpler than the model of figure skating.
see: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2805/scientists-id-three-causes-of-earths-spin-axis-drift/
Off course, “crucial” in this reporting is this: “We assembled models for a suite of processes that are thought to be important for driving the motion of the spin axis. We identified not one but three sets of processes that are [uh, well …] crucial …”
Who knows?
I like the complicated processes – just because they make things less predictable … uh, more unpremeditated. They learn us a lesson: to be modest in what we can plan and what we are able to cause … and that modelling earth systems (or, if you like, the business of the Gods) is beyond our competences.
I was delighted when I found out Real Estate were from New Jersey
https://youtu.be/4HWcViTXdYc
Pingback: Climate adaptation follies. Part II: scenarios of future sea level rise — Climate Etc. – Science is distorted by progressive philosophy
Dragon-kings were named by economist Didier Sornette I believe. They are outsized events that occur at equivalently – a bifurcation, a phase change, a tipping point or a catastrophe in the sense of Rene Thom. A bit like random interference patterns and rogue waves. Living on the coast in Central Queensland – the water level I worry about is tsunamis. I might have it about covered. A mangrove in front, 10m high founded on rock and an escape plan.
Pingback: Climate adaptation follies. Part II: scenarios of future sea level rise
And Obama thought he had the seas under control through the influence of his god-like presence … https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/tUk2YKW
I try to avoid posting talking heads on youtube channels. Likewise – new physics – I’ll stick to the old physics until I see some numbers. My theory of gravitationally accelerated entropy – and gravimetric time dilation – is old physics. General relativity empirically demonstrated. And music videos rarely – and only if they have an American pie beat. But if sea level is the subject you have to imagine the emissions elephant in the room.
I like graphics. This is General Atomics’ – and its 60 year nuclear engineering experience – 250 MWe version of advanced nuclear. They have recently agreed to develop a 50 MWe plug and play product with essentially Electricitie de France (EDF) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. A working prototype this decade and commercialisation with factory fabrication soon after.
https://www.ga.com/images/products/energy2/NucEngineeringImage1.jpg
https://images.ctfassets.net/7tzggpdkjdtg/2oaNsRVWq2oPUGDRSrOuo6/65c196c356967e060dbd1f12257a4b0b/hydaptive-graph.jpg
Pingback: Climate adaptation follies. Part II: scenarios of future sea level rise – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Climate adaptation follies. Part II: scenarios of future sea level rise |
Pingback: Climate adaptation follies. Part II: scenarios of future sea level rise – Climate- Science.press
Adaptation is as likely as not to surprise. Take NIO winning the first point in race 1 of the 2021 formula E. NIO make high end EV’s in China. They have sales growing spectacularly and a no nonsense manufacturing base – they have great looking products, great support and PR and a complete EV system involving battery swap-out. That might work in urban China with its immense market.
https://www.nio.com/formulae/static/a36e5ce58db2b6f6222a0d8e5db11652/ae05c/fe-s7-r1-diriyah-review-04.jpg
https://www.nio.com/formulae/race/s7-round1-diriyan-eprix-preview
From the 2020 Q4 financials report. It’s buying blue sky at this point in time but I would rate NIO a buy on the NYSE with a prospect of volatility. From the 2020 Q4 financials report.
“At our fourth NIO Day on January 9, 2021, we launched the ET7, our first flagship sedan. Boosted by its class-leading dimensions, sophisticated design, superior driving performance and industry-leading AD capabilities, ET7 has received remarkable feedback from users, media and the industry. ET7 is also equipped with NIO’s latest inhouse full stack NIO Autonomous Driving (NAD) powered by NIO Aquila Super Sensing and NIO Adam Super Computing. NAD will be offered through a monthly subscription service, or AD as a Service (ADaaS). We owe our achievements in 2020 to our loyal and supportive user community and will stay committed to our vision of building a community starting with smart EVs where we share joy and grow together with users,” concluded Mr. Li. https://ir.nio.com/static-files/72b2a3c4-24c7-492f-8a4e-c4ea9c103350
Judith: There are two excellent ways to attack NJ’s plans to deal with SLR.
1) Long-range planning for governments is typically a decade or two. The most obvious example is US Social Security, which will be bankrupt in about a decade. In NJ, pension plans for public workers are grossly underfunded, and NJ’s high taxes are encouraging businesses and people to move elsewhere. So, the first question should be: Why is NJ worrying about the problem of SRL and ignore many pressing short-range problems? NJ has accommodated to SLR for more than a century and the rate of SLR hasn’t changed much so far. Clearly, the answer is politics: The government wants to impose punitive zoning laws NOW in order to convince citizens to support legislation imposing punitive restrictions on carbon emissions NOW. However, the restrictions NJ places on emissions will have absolutely no effect on SLR in NJ. And the restrictions the US places on carbon emissions will have very little effect on the amount of SLR in NJ.
2) The amount of SLR that will occur after 2050 is high uncertain, particularly at the high end (which is mostly due to a hypothetical “collapse” of the WAIS). This uncertainly makes it absurd for the government to decide what to do now. I like to illustrate this with a simple model of SLR with constant acceleration USING UNITS THE PUBLIC CAN UNDERSTAND. Current SLR is about 1 inch/decade. If the rate of SLR were to accelerate by 1 inch/decade/decade, there would be 36 inches of cumulative SLR after 8 decades and 45 inches after 9 decades. (These numbers are roughly consistent with worst-case scenarios of about 1 m by the end of the 21st century.)
However, we don’t have any idea if the acceleration in SLR will be 1 or 0.5 inch/decade/decade and the latter value is consistent other scenarios. IIRC, the acceleration in the [highly variable] rate of SLR over the past century, as measured by tide gauge records is small and not statistically significant. After three decades and correction of several large systematic errors*, satellite altimetry has finally claimed detection of a statically significant acceleration in sea level rise of 0.28 +/- 0.10 inch/decade/decade (0.084 +/- 0.027 mm/yr^2; Nerem, PNAS 2018). This is about 30% – not even half – of the acceleration needed to reach the most pessimistic projections of 1 m by the end of the century. In other words, at the current rate of acceleration, it will take THREE DECADES for SLR to reach 2 inches/decade and six decades to reach 3 inches/decade.
In other words, whenever the rate of observed SLR has doubled or tripled, NJ will have reliable information AND still have plenty of time remaining to make serious plans to deal with SLR. There is no need for NJ to make decisions NOW when the nature of the problem they are facing is so unclear (and other unambiguous problems need fixing). The WORLD might want to make decisions now to reduce carbon emissions and warming-driven SRL in NJ, but NJ CAN’T CONTROL WHAT THE WORLD DOES. NJ can only REACT to rising GLOBAL SLR, and they don’t need to take any action now.
And if NJ wants to take ANY action now, the sanest thing to so would be to phase out federal subsidies for flood insurance for those building today in areas that are threatened by SLR and inform potential buyers that NJ WILL NOT help property owners rebuild near the coast as they did after Sandy.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #446 – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #446 – Climate- Science.press
Pingback: Climate adaptation sense. Part III: Dynamic Adaptation Policy Pathways | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Climate adaptation sense. Part III: Dynamic Adaptation Policy Pathways – Climate- Science.press
Pingback: Sea Level and the Jersey Shore |
Pingback: Sea Level and the Jersey Shore – Climate- Science.press