Sea Level

20th Century Sea Level Rise Fastest in 2,800 Years

Coastal flooding made worse by sea level rise linked to rising average temperatures

|

AnnapolisHighTide2012
Amy McGovern/flickr

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is publishing two new studies on global sea level trends and their effects. The first study led by researchers at Rutgers University is based on their analysis of a new data set of regional relative sea level reconstruction that takes into account things like glacial rebound and so forth. They report, as the Rutgers press release notes:

Global sea level rose faster in the 20th century than in any of the 27 previous centuries, according to a Rutgers University-led study published today.

Moreover, without global warming, global sea level would have risen by less than half the observed 20th century increase and might even have fallen.

Instead, global sea level rose by about 14 centimeters, or 5.5 inches, from 1900 to 2000. That's a substantial increase, especially for vulnerable, low-lying coastal areas.

"The 20th century rise was extraordinary in the context of the last three millennia—and the rise over the last two decades has been even faster," said Robert Kopp, the lead author and an associate professor in Rutgers' Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences.

Of particular note, the study also reports that "global sea level declined by about 8 centimeters [3 inches] from 1000 to 1400, a period when the planet cooled by about 0.2 degrees Celsius [0.4 degrees Fahrenheit]." This suggests that sea level fluctuations, largely due to melting or expanding glaciers and icesheets, is fairly sensitive to relatively small changes in global average temperature. It bears keeping in mind that the Last Glacial Maximum, about 21,000 years ago, was 3°C to 5°C cooler than the present. At that time sea level was about 400 feet lower than now. Average global temperature has increased about 1°C over past century or so.

The researchers calculate that "it's very likely that global sea level will rise by 1.7 to 4.3 feet in the 21st century if the world continues to rely heavily upon fossil fuels. Phasing out fossil fuels will reduce the very likely rise to between 0.8 and 2.0 feet."

Another just released report found that the number of nuisance high tide floods in American seaside communities has been considerably exacerbated by the last century's rise in sea level. In fact, the researchers report, according to the New York Times, that "roughly three-quarters of the tidal flood days now occurring in towns along the East Coast would not be happening in the absence of the rise in the sea level caused by human emissions." 

For example, in the period between 1955 and 1984 the number of flood days experienced by Boston, Atlantic City, Philadelphia, Washington, Charleston, La Jolla, and San Francisco were 51, 83, 96, 265, 132, 32, and 169 respectively. In the most recent period between 1985 and 2014, the number of flood days in those cities increased to 90, 414, 199, 568, 496, 133, and 286 respectively.

Interestingly, a study from researchers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory reported earlier in February that thirsty continents were absorbing more water and thus marginally slowing the rate of sea level rise. However, they also report that as the continents' absorptive capacities fill up, the rate of sea level rise will accelerate.

Advertisement

NEXT: Rubio Skipping CPAC, Guantanamo Plan, Zika Attacks: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It bears keeping in mind that the Last Glacial Maximum, about 21,000 years ago, was 3?C to 5?C cooler than the present.

    Um…

    1. The crushing weight of glaciers means life.

  2. Rising faster than a computer model of 2,800 years ago. Got it.

    Has the model been verified?

    1. ^This

      “Of particular note, the study also reports that “global sea level declined by about 8 centimeters [3 inches] from 1000 to 1400, a period when the planet cooled by about 0.2 degrees Celsius”

      Can we just stop this bullshit, Ron? Scientists are claiming to detect a MINISCULE change in GLOBAL temperature and sea levels over a period of 400 YEARS that occurred 1000 years ago??!!

  3. Didn’t some of these Eastern seaboard towns experience flooding with ahistoric winter storms?

      1. Rising sea levels? I blame SJW tears.

        1. They’re all college towns – the pressure is getting to be too much for the precious snowflakes and they’re melting.

  4. I had no idea the level had risen that much in 100 years.

    1. Also, this just in. The rise in airline traffic is slowing down the rotation of the earth. Each time a plane takes off, it robs Gaia of a little bit of angular mentum.

      1. What if it takes off the other way?

        I’ve read that dams also slow the earth’s rotation by a barely measurable amount because there are more dams farther from the equator.

        1. I believe windmills slow the Earth, too.

    2. If you ask other people, it hasn’t.

      Sea level measurement is … well, it’s not exactly a precise, exact “science”, no matter how press releases spin it.

      The usual story of “corrections” to the actual measurements, you know.

  5. Another just released report found that the number of nuisance high tide floods in American seaside communities has been considerably exacerbated by the last century’s rise in sea level. In fact, the researchers report, according to the New York Times, that “roughly three-quarters of the tidal flood days now occurring in towns along the East Coast would not be happening in the absence of the rise in the sea level caused by human emissions.”

    Ron that report is junk. There is a hell of a lot more that causes coastal flooding than just the sea level; namely that most of the areas near the ocean are built on fill and fill has a habit of settling over the years.

    1. Do you have a cite for the fill claim?

      1. Go to whatsupwith that. They have multiple articles explaining the problem with attributing floods to sea level rises.

        1. Also the army core engineers has changed several shore lines that they are actually worse than before and in some places where there was little erosion has now increased due to their actions. Just like those island where the people took the barrier reefs apart to us in home construction they are now eroding with out those reefs and everyone wants to blame sea rise.

          1. Ron, you do understand that sea level changes more in a given 24 hour day than three stupid inches, don’t you? Blaming three inches for the damage done by storms is just dumb. These people are really not nearly as smart as they let on.

            1. That’s really stupid. Of course there is more up and down in a day. The long term increase means that the high end of that range moves up.

              1. No it’s not. The complaint is that a very small increase in sea level devastates coastal areas. An increase much smaller than the daily change in tide. An increase that is miniscule compared to the increase in sea level caused by storms.

                1. If I am chin-deep in water and the water fluctuates between my upper neck and lower nose, a small increase in water depth is a big deal.

                  Wait you’re the same guy who thought that Assad and Saddam were chums right? You are consistent on being insistent on being wrong. Like a less whiny PapayatardSF.

                  1. Christ, what an asshole.

                  2. If I am chin-deep in water and the water fluctuates between my upper neck and lower nose, a small increase in water depth is a big deal.

                    Yeah, but you missed my point. You’re so dead set on being right that you miss the point. Grow up.

                    Both Assad and Saddam are/were members and leaders of the Baath party. That’s my point. You’re just unable–or unwilling–to entertain nuance. Your a binary thinker and it’s a royal pain in the ass to discuss anything with you.

                    1. What Hyperbolical said.

        2. Ok thanks.

  6. “roughly three-quarters of the tidal flood days now occurring in towns along the East Coast would not be happening in the absence of the rise in the sea level caused by human emissions.”

    What about the dragons? I’d find this more convincing if they blamed it on the eradication of dragons. Those poor, poor dragons!

    1. Pirates, the true cause of CCC is Pirates.

      1. I thought it was lack of pirates?

        1. lack of , too many, not the right kind, what difference at this point does it make.

  7. It bears keeping in mind that the Last Glacial Maximum, about 21,000 years ago, was 3?C to 5?C cooler than the present.

    How about the Last Glacial Minimum?

    1. PuPB: It’s estimated by some researcher that the average global temperature during the last interglacial period (approx. 130,000 years ago) maxed out at 2 degrees Celsius higher than now and global mean sea level was 4 to 6 meters (13 to 20 feet) higher than now.

        1. Ha, feel the pain, Bailey, of having to edit your typos with another comment. How about that edit button?. The lack thereof really discriminates against those of us with large fingers.

          1. The anger-induced increase of body temperatures of typo-prone commenters to the Reason.com blog is the source of 28% of man-made global warming, according to some researcher. It is estimated that the addition of an edit button would reduce the increase of global temperatures by 75%.

            True.

            Science.

  8. Has the model been verified?

    “According to my model, my model is correct.”

  9. The flooding paper’s computation of the percentage of sea level rise due to anthropogenic sources strikes me as a classic exercise in question begging:

    We extend Kopp et al. (2016)’s assessment of 20th century anthropogenic global sea level rise
    through 2014. Kopp et al. (2016) considered two counterfactual 20th century temperature histories:
    in one, global mean temperature returned in the 20th century to its 500-1800 CE mean level, while
    in the other, global mean temperature returned to its 500-1800 CE linear trend. We extrapolate
    the temperature trends in the two counterfactual scenarios to 2014 and use these extended
    counterfactual scenarios, together with HadCRUT4 temperature data, to drive the semi-empirical
    sea-level model described by Kopp et al. (2016). From the semi-empirical results, we calculate the
    fraction of global sea level rise since 1900 that would not have occurred under the counterfactuals.

    First it depends on the paeloclimactically derived model for what temps were prior to modern temperature instrument records. Secondly it assumes that modern temps being above those temps are due to anthropogenic influence (this is the question begging). Then it does an empirical prediction of what sea levels should have been if temperatures were lower and the resultant flood levels.

    This paper doesn’t show anything other than that sea level rise makes coastal flooding more likely. The rest of their assertions are entirely speculative.

    1. And as I said above, the level of the land is just as important as the sea level. Is the see rising or is the land sinking? Either can cause an increase in flooding.

      How can Ron just mindlessly repeat this crap?

      1. YOU TAKE THAT BACK. RON PUTS A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THIS CRAP!

          1. Did you just say Derp?

      2. J: Yes, if you do have the time to read the article, you will find that they do take into account things like post-glacial rebound and other topographical changes that have occurred at the sites they use to build their data set.

        1. Going back 1000 years? And to an accuracy of less than 8 centimeters? I am not buying it.

        2. Nonetheless, their attribution of sea level rise to anthropogenic warming is entirely an exercise in question begging.

        3. Ah, but do they take into account all the Metformin guzzling landwhales that are slowly sinking this continent?

      3. I don’t see Ron making any claims. He is just repeating the assertions of the paper.

        400 foot rise in 21 centuries, an average of 19 feet/ century is somehow slower than the 6 inch rise during the 20th century. Granted, some of those centuries would be much less, and so others much more. Presumably the rising would be generally faster as the ice age receded in the rearview, and probably rise very quickly when large ice shelfs reached a point of catastrophic failure…in any case their claim of the 20th century being the fastest rise since the peak of the last ice age is ludicrous. Just like all of their other claims.

    2. If you average the average averages, you can get some interesting numbers.

      1. -1 central limit theorem

    3. Who cares why it’s rising (OK, I know who cares)? If it is rising, which should be something that can be empirically determined, then people will have to deal with it (in some way other than fantasizing about people not using fossil fuels).

  10. Maybe all those RICH PROGRESSIVES should have considered not building their expensive homes on overly priced Beach Front Property ???

    Why should I as a “Poor” working class man be forced to make their bad financial decisions. with my tax money whole ?

    1. In a nutshell that is what the so called “Enviro-Mental” movement is about my friends. A bunch of foolish rich assholes who built expensive homes, on expensive beach front property, who want to use your tax money, to preserve them, when they are just going to sink into the sea anyway.

      1. Yea Ron it beach front property is a bad investment, and the people who buy it know it is a bad investment.

        1. They also know that they can use that bad investment can be used as a tax shelter, considering that the “Environmentalist” lobbies can be bought.

          1. ARRRRGH !!!! Pyrate Grammar !!!!

            1. *YEEARGGH !!!! Pirate Grammar !!!!

              fucking autocorrect

  11. Of particular note, the study also reports that “global sea level declined by about 8 centimeters [3 inches] from 1000 to 1400, a period when the planet cooled by about 0.2 degrees Celsius [0.4 degrees Fahrenheit].” This suggests that sea level fluctuations, largely due to melting or expanding glaciers and icesheets, is fairly sensitive to relatively small changes in global average temperature.

    Maybe. It could also suggest that one has nothing to do with the other and something else is going on. You do realize that paragraph is a textbook example of confirmation bias?

  12. I don’t understand how the continents are getting wetter and absorbing more water while all the aquifers are almost drained, droughts are at “record” levels in more places than are wetter than “average”, all the glaciers are disappearing, and lake water levels are lowering. Rivers sure aren’t holding all that water.

      1. ^^ That theory is a load of crap.

    1. see Little Maker, sandtrout, Pardot Kynes.

  13. “global sea level declined by about 8 centimeters [3 inches] from 1000 to 1400, a period when the planet cooled by about 0.2 degrees Celsius [0.4 degrees Fahrenheit]”

    I thought the medieval warm period was around 950 to 1250. So, was sea level declining while temperatures were increasing?

    1. I was gonna ask the same thing. I can only assume the answer involves nerds arguing about what’s canon and what was just retconned.

      1. As far as I can tell the entire medieval warming period was retconned in a way that made me start thinking about jumping off the bandwagon.

        1. Speaking of which, this is one of the many holes in the story of Global Warming:

          http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm

          Here’s an anthropologist examining human skeletons for height. So he’s outside of the normal Climate Science bubble.

          “Steckel analyzed height data from thousands of skeletons …”

          “Reasons for such tall heights during the early Middle Ages may have to do with climate. Steckel points out that agriculture from 900 to 1300 benefited from a warm period ? temperatures were as much as 2 to 3 degrees warmer than subsequent centuries. Theoretically, smaller populations had more land to choose from when producing crops and raising livestock.

          “The temperature difference was enough to extend the growing season by three to four weeks in many settled regions of northern Europe,” Steckel said. “It also allowed for cultivation of previously unavailable land at higher elevations.””

          “Steckel cites several possible reasons why height declined toward the end of the Middle Ages:

          The climate changed rather dramatically in the 1300s, when the Little Ice Age triggered a cooling trend that wreaked havoc on northern Europe for the following 400 to 500 years.”

          http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm

          1. Now there is this:

            “The IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 summarised research at that time, saying “?current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Medieval Warm Period’ appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries”.[11] Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ than in the early and mid-20th century.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

            1. This hyperfocus on average global temperatures makes me wonder whether these climate scientists actually understand what a mean is. For example, the ice sheets and glaciers could melt significantly from local warming that contributes little to nothing to a mean global temperature. Another example from real time is the melting of ice in the northern climes while ice increases in the southern ones. I can’t help but wonder just how sophisticated their understanding truly is.

              1. “Average global temperatures” has always seemed way too general for me. How do you accurately average something that large, and so influenced by geographical location, weather, etc.?

            2. “Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that, taken globally, the Earth may have been slightly cooler (by 0.03 degrees Celsius) during the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ than in the early and mid-20th century.””

              Um what? Pretty sure that is wrong. I distinctly remember reading a couple years ago at least that new evidence ex cores and such indicated the MWP was a global event.

  14. So what’s your point here. How is this any different from an article I might see in the Atlantic or even the Nation? All that’s missing is a final sentence: “We need the Federal Government — and heck, the United Nations — to step in and fix this.” I can stuff like this elsewhere, thank you very much.

    1. H: Do you go over to the Atlantic or the Nation to read this kind of stuff? Sometimes, the choir needs to consider a different tune. The fact that an open access commons problem is an open access commons problem and there are many ways to solve them other than big foot government intervention.

  15. I’m curious how they ascertained historical levels. Are there records covering at least some of that period, or some sort of geological record? Or are these model values?

    1. I’m guessing ice core samples.

    2. “Ye olde sea was verye highe.”

    3. Not just ascertained them, but ascertained them to an accuracy high enough that 8 centimeters is outside the margin of error.

      Sorry, but I am not just taking that at face value.

      1. Look, 8cm is over 3 inches. What in God’s name makes you believe that their estimates are not better than 1″ (in order to make 3 inches significant)?

  16. Don’t worry guys. Restricting carbon emissions will increase the price of oil.

    1. Thank God !!!! The more people who die of starvation the better !!!!

  17. Surf’s up dudes.

  18. How many assumptions are piled on assumptions here? Seems like a mountain as far as I can see.

  19. I don’t understand how the continents are getting wetter and absorbing more water while all the aquifers are almost drained, droughts are at “record” levels in more places than are wetter than “average”, all the glaciers are disappearing, and lake water levels are lowering. Rivers sure aren’t holding all that water.

    Aliens.

    Earth is a watering hole on the galactic trade route.

    1. Didn’t you see that old mini series V?

  20. Ron,

    For years the government paid for and got anti-cannabis “science”. See “Heath monkey asphyxiation study” for just one example.

    What makes you think they are not doing the same with “global warming”?

    They have an orthodoxy and the “science” to prove it. We got hints of that in the Climategate e-mails.

    1. M: I have spent a whole career being skeptical of environmental alarmism, e.g. see Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (1993). When that book was published, global warming was just ramping up as a scare and I was quite skeptical.

      In my new book, The End of Doom, I have a whole chapter examining the science related to man-made global warming. Might you consider reading it?

      After years of reporting on this area, I concluded (reluctantly) that the scaremongers are right this time that continuing to put carbon dioxide into the global atmospheric commons could become a significant problem later in this century. You can do three things with a deteriorating open access commons: privatize it, regulate it, or ignore it. The European carbon trading scheme shows that privatizing it won’t work. Ignoring it is, in my opinion, too dangerous (opinions will vary) and unfair to other users. So my preferred form of “regulation” is to stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmospheric commons by shifting to cheaper non-fossil fuels.

      1. So my preferred form of “regulation” is to stop putting carbon dioxide into the atmospheric commons by shifting to cheaper non-fossil fuels.

        Conveniently, children’s laughter is ten times more powerful than their screams.

          1. Automobiles that can do well in a Chicago winter are still going to need “fossil” fuels for the next 50 years. Especially trucking.

      2. Well sure. If I could afford to buy a book.

        In the mean time I have looked into it deeply (I’m a retired aerospace engr.) on line and given all the uncertainty I am unable to convince myself that CO2 can cause any warming. If you look at the overlapping bands of IR – CO2 vs water vapor – it is difficult to see how CO2 could have much effect, if any. And that is jut one thread of the argument.

        We have just come out of 100 years of very high solar output. It takes about 20 years for those effects to decay off. So in 2035 we should know the answer.

        The problem with the CO2 hypothesis is that there are so many confounding factors and assigning values to those factors is often subjective. On top of all that no one knows the sign to be assigned to water vapor/clouds – let alone magnitude. And that is admitted. Maybe “warming” makes more clouds and within limits that makes the system homeostatic. Depending on solar insolation (if it is insufficient there is a return to ice world conditions exacerbated by the albedo effects of ice sheets).

        1. continued:

          But let us assume you are correct. What do you propose to do about India and China? Or should we tax ourselves out of business? Or start a war to save the planet? I mean a PLANETARY DISASTER. Billions killed. Wouldn’t it be worth a few hundred million dead and China and India reduced to poverty to SAVE THE PLANET ? Or maybe we could divide the emissions of the US with India and China on a per capita basis?

          Well OK. War would be evil. The rest very difficult. What is wrong with planting trees? Other than the Global Warming Authorities have proscribed that alternative as having no significant government advantage. Because the US has enough trees to offset its emissions. So that solution is out.

          You see it is all designed as a political power grab (Maurice Strong ring a bell?). Which is a very good reason of itself to be sceptical of the “science”.

          1. M: Maurice Strong does indeed ring this bell. Like I said, I’ve been reporting on climate change science and politics for a while now.

      3. “The European carbon trading scheme shows that privatizing it won’t work.”

        Something something baby something something bathwater.

      4. That AGW is a real thing is clear. That it will lead to serious problems is not well supported at all, especially given the many potential benefits.

  21. You guys are way to prone to shooting the messenger. The Message might be wrong, but it’s hardly Ronald Bailey’s fault if it is. And his pieces are far better written that the “I’m toting the AGW line in every particular” type of article that routinely gets published today.

    I used to read Ars Technica back in the day (and still occasionally do with regard to purely tech articles) but despite having some very smart people writing for them, the confirmation bias is off the charts. They literally will not respond to a critic, unless it’s to report a rebuttal of the critic. Which is just straight up bias.

    So, cut Bailey some slack. He’s probably the best general Science reporter on this issue that I read.

    1. OK. He gets 3 cm of slack.

    2. I think the issue here is pretending there’s any “science news” here when in fact its just a press-release from some jackasses with a “Model” and an agenda.

      The sea-levels aren’t rising so fast that anyone in the real world actually gives a shit outside the Maldives.

    3. Hey I like Mr. Bailey.

  22. “Global sea level rose faster in the 20th century than in any of the 27 previous centuries, according to a Rutgers University-led study published today.

    […]

    The researchers calculate that “it’s very likely that global sea level will rise by 1.7 to 4.3 feet in the 21st century if the world continues to rely heavily upon fossil fuels. Phasing out fossil fuels will reduce the very likely rise to between 0.8 and 2.0 feet.”

    Gee, it’s a good thing those bronze age environmentalists were able to phase out all that heavy reliance on fossil fuels in 800 BC.

    1. They ran out of fossils.

      1. KH & M: Actually, the Bronze Agers were almost totally dependent on these kinds of renewable fuels.

        1. Are you sure? I didn’t think dung would burn hot enough to make bronze. I believe you actually needed charcoal to make bronze and if you didn’t know how, or you were a peasant, you burned dung and lived at the mercy of your Bronze armed betters.

          http://www.jaysromanhistory.co…..ln/t09.htm

          “Most cooking fires never got any hotter than 1300 degrees Fahrenheit … It takes about 2000 degrees F. (1090 degrees C.) to bring copper to a fully liquid state in which it can be cast into ingots or other useful shapes by pouring it into molds. … As this progresses, especially in the case of hardwoods like oak and maple, what is left is a glowing coal of carbon which becomes purer and purer as volatile components burn off. Charcoal is produced as part of the burning process. This natural tendency of a fire to produce essentially pure carbon is the one way in which nature came to the rescue of the early metalworkers, for pure carbon is the only fuel the ancients had available to them that could even come close to producing the temperatures needed to smelt metals.”

          I’m sorry Bailey but your dung theory looks like shit. 😉

          1. J: Bronze Agers didn’t stand around smelting copper and tin all day – they had to stay warm and cook their food too. 🙂

            1. Also cut the shit Nicole. You are the worst…

            2. Apparently you don’t realize how the Bronze aged patriarchy delegated out the tasks. Honey, I’ll be out late killing Spartans and hunting some deer, keep some food warm for me. (Puts on his sharp looking Bronze armor. Sneaks off to the local tavern.)

          2. JWatts look up cold hammering.

    2. Oh, so a complete dismantling of the existing energy infrastructure could either cut these changes in half…. or do almost nothing!

      Wow, we’ll be sure to get right on that, Science.

      1. IFLS !!!!!!

  23. Of particular note, the study also reports that “global sea level declined by about 8 centimeters [3 inches] from 1000 to 1400, a period when the planet cooled by about 0.2 degrees Celsius [0.4 degrees Fahrenheit].” This suggests that sea level fluctuations, largely due to melting or expanding glaciers and icesheets, is fairly sensitive to relatively small changes in global average temperature.

    This seems to mean that we know the temperature of the planet between 600 and 1000 years ago to sub .1C accuracy and global sea level to centimeter accuracy by inference from proxies. Hmmm.
    I think Diane Reynolds (Paul.)|2.23.16 @ 5:02PM|# made a pertinent observation: “If you average the average averages, you can get some interesting numbers.”

  24. Yes, “global sea level will rise by 1.7 to 4.3 feet in the 21st century if the world continues to rely heavily upon fossil fuels” AND the climate models (ones used by researchers) are accurate. Please don’t tell them that the climate models differ wildly from the data. They don’t want to know that.

  25. Ron Bailey, if you are still reading I’ve got a serious question. Since you are far more knowledgeable about the topic than I am, have any climatologists gone out on a limb and made a model to predict against in the next 10-15 year time frame. One that the prediction is already laid out and fixed. Not one where they go back and adjust the data and the model after the fact and declare victory.

    1. J: Here’s an interesting instance that I reported back in 2007:

      Most interestingly, and to its credit, the Hadley Centre has now gone out on a risky prediction limb. The Centre has combined its weather prediction model with a climate change model to make definite forecasts about the world’s climate for the next decade. To wit: “We are now using the system to predict changes out to 2014. By the end of this period, the global average temperature is expected to have risen by around 0.3 degrees Celsius compared to 2004, and half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998.” Since various temperature records?surface, satellite and weather balloons?have shown a temperature trend that increases at about 0.2 degrees per decade or less, this is a truly bold prediction.

      Looking at their data, one finds that the 2014 temperature was only +0.117 degrees warmer than 2004, and only two of the 6 years (including 2009) were warmer than 1998. On the other hand, it bears noting that 2015 was +0.295 degrees warmer, nearly 0.3 degrees predicted.

      1. So, we’ve got one reputable source making a prediction and it was Wrong. I’ll grant you they were close. But they were clearly wrong.

        It’s not been a stellar century for science or the scientific method.

      2. Ron

        Twice a day a stopped clock correctly “predicts” the time.

        1. A clock only predicts time in the sense that you know it’s going to move to the next value. Indicate would be a more appropriate verb.

          1. And don’t forget – even if the clock is perfect – your indicated time will be off by about 1 nanosecond for every foot you are away from the clock.

            Now does anyone know what time it is?

            1. does anyone really care?

    2. Hey, it’s a lot easier when you can just “correct” the data when the data gets it wrong, man…

    3. Well the models are renomalized as required to make sure that they are not so far from reality that folks might think them crazy stupid.

  26. Damn I did some googling and ended up at the Washington Post Fact checker:

    First Cruz says this:
    “The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that ? that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened.”
    ?Cruz, CNN interview released Feb. 20, 2014

    Then he later modifies it to the following:
    “Many of the alarmists on global warming, they’ve got a problem because the science doesn’t back them up. In particular, satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years, there’s been zero warming.”
    ?Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex,), “Late Night with Seth Meyers” interview, March 17, 2015

    So, Ted Cruz say the satellite data demonstrates zero warming over the last 17 years. That should be easy enough to check out.

    ” The red and blue lines are two versions of satellite data. The black line is the weather balloon data. The green line is the actual surface level data. From 1998 to 2012, the last year in that data set, the red satellite data found a decrease in temperatures, at -0.043 degrees centigrade per decade.”

    Ok, so it looks like he’s correct. The data the fact checker pulled up supports Ted Cruz’s contention.

    The Result: 3 Pinocchios Out of 4

    https://goo.gl/UO85vv

    1. The green line is the actual adjustedsurface level data.

      The data was adjusted UP to account for engine intake vs bucket measurements. Now a DOWN adjustment could fix that as well. (engine intake temps adjusted down to match the bucket method). So why UP and not DOWN?

      Well it enhances the warming idea. And every little bit helps. As does “cooling” the past. Something else the “scientists” like to do. Science!

      1. Ship engine intake – in case you were wondering.

  27. You know, its funny but – all the graphs I see of sea level rise show a consistent *linear* increase in sea level.

    This despite that fact that we’ve been pumping carbon into the atmosphere at a *geometrically* increasing rate over the last 200 years.

    There’s no discontinuity in sea level rises associated with the Industrial Revolution in any of the data I’ve seen for sea level rise.

    1. A: Did you forget about those “thirsty” continents I noted?

      1. No I didn’t forget, I just don’t see how that particular mechanism can nearly perfectly match the rise in sea level.

        As the sea level rises, an increasing amount of a continents surface area is threatened – but its not a linear increase. Double the rise doesn’t double the threat. Yet the absorption here is still keeping pace with sea level rise. Not outpacing it, not falling behind.

        As we increase the rate we pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which should increase the rate of warming, we’re seeing zilch. The answer is ‘because there are all these mechanisms which provide perfect feedback to maintain stasis’.

        No warming for 15 years – the heat is suddenly hiding in the ocean bottom. Why didn’t it hide in the ocean bottom right from the beginning? In which case we’d not even know there was a problem. Instead temps rose for a bit and then plateaued – even as more countries started going through their own IR’s and kept greenhouse gas release rate increasing.

      2. Could we get a critical analysis of that paper? Like how rigorous were they? How likely is there idea?

  28. So, here’s the problem with articles like this. I was immediately struck by the picture, a dramatic photograph showing a flooded parking lot. And then I noticed the smarmy caption, “Annapolis High Tide 2012”, and I nearly lost my shit.

    I say smarmy because, you see, I live in Annapolis, and have done since 1990. In fact, I currently live about a 20 minute walk from the location of the photograph. In fact, I work on the other side of the creek, and if you were to walk straight along the street pictured and look straight across the water you’d see my office.

    So there are two problems. First, the photograph in question was taken in late December after a particularly heavy rain. Second, unless you’re from Annapolis and/or familiar with its history, you wouldn’t know that the area in question was built on reclaimed land in the 1800s and has to be topped off every few decades as it subsides. That area in particular suffers from both poor drainage and being below the water level, and storm drains will typically flood whenever there’s a good storm.

    1. Or you could come by me town after a rain where low-lying areas are flooded 3-4 feet or more, roads are impassible because what looks like 6 inches of brown water hides a 6 foot drop in the roadway. Sidewalks are invisible.

      And I live 200 miles from the ocean.

      1. C & A: As it happens, the researchers note that there were 193 observed flood days in Annapolis between 1955 and 1984. That rose to 701 observed flood days in Annapolis between 1985 and 2014, an increase of 508 flood days.

        They try to take into account exactly the sort of residual factors such as land subsidence that you note. After doing so, they calculate that residual factors accounted for about 114 flood days, which means that they estimate the increase of 394 observed flood days is likely linked to rising sea level associated with global warming. They do these calculations for whole bunch of U.S. cities. Why not check out their report?

        BTW, the NOAA in 2014 issued a report, Sea Level Rise and Nuisance Flood Frequency Changes around the United States, that found that Annapolis and Baltimore, Maryland, lead the list of cities with an increase in number of flood days of more than 920 percent since 1960.

        1. Ron

          I also wonder if the researchers did any stormwater modeling. Since 1960, Anne Arundel County (where Annapolis is in) has more than doubled in population. Annapolis itself has increased in population abput 66% over the same time period. This will roughly equate to a doubling of impervious spources, leading to faster (and more intense) runoff. More runoff into the Severn River/Chesapeake Bay during a storm, especially at high tide, will result in more flooding.

        2. Looks like the link’s broken, so I’ll have to hunt it down and check it out. I’m not a scientist by any means but I’m curious as to the methodology, specifically how exactly they’re controlling for stuff like reclaimed land subsidence since many harbors are built on reclaimed land and erosion.

          1. Ugh, there should be more commas there, sorry.

      2. Annapolis in on the Chesapeake Bay. And the bay experiences tides.

  29. And you can add to those important studies another study released this week about the negative impact climate change is having on all US forests.

    “There is also mounting evidence that climate is changing faster than tree populations can respond by migrating to new regions. Clark said that as conditions become drier and warmer, many tree populations, especially those in Eastern forests, may not be able to expand rapidly enough into new, more favorable habitats through seed dispersal or other natural means.”

    1. Some trees happen to thrive in hot, dry climes, BTW. Conifers are one example. Your example is just another simplistic shoehorning of some bit of data into the theory to keep it alive. I call bullshit.

    2. Nothing in that paragraph indicates that the trees are dying. Clark is, correctly, being very cautious in his statement. There is nothing demonstrated based on what he/she said.

      1. Of course he is cautious. He is a scientist. Just like it is scientists being cautious about sea levels.

        But we are being warned, just like we were warned about sea levels decades ago.

        The point is, we are rolling the dice on our coastline, we are rolling the dice on not only our forests, but all vegetation.

        And science is warning us that may not be prudent.

  30. I looked the author up and saw his address on GoogleEarth streetview. No car in the driveway but the satellite view shows a car out front.

    I’d be more impressed if he showed us hpw to live a zero carbon, zero Kelvin lifestyle.

    Does his paper take into account that more people are now living by the water’s edge?

  31. One model predicts that over the next century, the accelerating increase in wind farm installations will threaten to upset, through unnatural attenuation, and subsequent perturbation, of otherwise naturally-occuring atmospheric turbulence, the critical and delicate balance of the polar jet streams.

    This is predicted to have the effect of slowing the Gulf Stream, and consequently, redirecting the North Atlantic Drift southward, ultimately leaving much of northern Europe a frozen wasteland, comparable to that of current-day northern Greenland.

    A competing model predicts precisely the opposite, that the North Atlantic Drift will instead be forced sharply northward, leading to accelerated and widespread deglaciation of the polar regions (which are absurd), with subsequent global coastal flooding.

    We MUST act now to stop Big Wind, before it’s too late, and Earth’s entire atmosphere ends up resembling a stagnant, musty locker room.

  32. From the study – “Global sea level rose faster in the 20th century than in any of the 27 previous centuries, according to a Rutgers University-led study published today.”

    Also from the study – “global sea level rose by about 14 centimeters, or 5.5 inches, from 1900 to 2000.

    Bailey – “It bears keeping in mind that the Last Glacial Maximum, about 21,000 years ago, was 3?C to 5?C cooler than the present. At that time sea level was about 400 feet lower than now.”

    *draws in the air with finger and mumbles* 400 feet divided by 21 centuries…averages out to 19 feet or so per century.

    *facepalm*

    1. You slipped a decimal. 21,000 years is 210 centuries. Still, that’s about 1.9 feet per century.

  33. Per the Chesapeake Bay Program, about 5.32 million tons of sediment runs off into the bay each year.

    This sediment acts as a restriction, contributing to higher upsteam water levels for an identical flow.

    It is nice to apply concepts proofed since Roman times to explain issues instead of listening to people that get compensated via coercion and who’s compensation goes away when the CAGW boogeyman is slain.

  34. Nor really mentioned, but related:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/j…..054a0.html
    and
    http://dsahagian.cas2.lehigh.e…..quid-earth

    Basically man’s mining water and changing land use patterns likely has caused at least a third of the sea-level rise in the last 100 years and perhaps more than that. Forward looking, it appears sea level rise rates will increase due to sharply reduced construction of dams and protection of wetlands.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.