Sea Level

Assume 6 Feet of Sea Level Rise: Predict Catastrophe

Useful science or worst case scaremongering?

|

DrowningEarth
pierrejoris

Doubtless there is some utility in playing out worst-case scenarios as a way to plan for the future. That being said, the New York Times is reporting a new study, "Millions projected to be at risk from sea level rise in the continental United States," in Nature Climate Change that calculates the number of Americans that would be affected by sea level rises between 3 and 6 feet by 2100 due to man-made global warming. As far as I can tell, the main contribution of the study is new coastal population projections. The researchers calculate that if sea level rises by 3 feet, the land that 4.2 million Americans live on will be at risk of inundation. If sea level rises by 6 feet, then 13.1 million Americans might have to move inland. The costs of relocating that many people could be as much $14 trillion. So researchers can now get their studies published in a prestigious scientific journal and publicized by leading newspapers by merely assuming a catastrophe. Neat trick.

In any case, the researchers cite various estimates for future sea level rise; most of them based on various computer model projections. But what is the actual current rate of sea level rise? According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminisrtration, average global sea level rise has speeded up and is now increasing at 0.12 inch per year. If that rate were sustained for the next 84 years, that would mean that sea level would increase by just over 10 inches. That's not nothing, but it is not much greater than the approximately 7 inch increase that occurred during the 20th century. Interestingly, millions of Americans did not retreat from the coasts in the past century.

As a final note, surely everyone can agree that it is particularly insane for the federal government to encourage people to move to the coasts by subsidiziing flood insurance.

NEXT: Promoting Assertiveness Is Rape Culture, Says Internet

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. …surely everyone can agree that it is particularly insane for the federal government to encourage people to move to the coasts by subsidiziing flood insurance.

    Maybe they know something about the veracity of these claims that we don’t.

    1. They certainly know where the opportunities for graft are.

    2. It’s not an insane strategy from the POV of a politician seeking campaign contributions from wealthy individuals who can afford beach front property, to steal from poorer people to pay for subsidies from the rich.

      Unless the poor people get a clue about how the stolen money is actually being spent.

  2. If that rate were sustained for the next 84 years, that would mean that sea level would increase by just over 10 inches. That’s not nothing, but it is not much greater than the approximately 7 inch increase that occurred during the 20th century. Interestingly, millions of Americans did not retreat from the coasts in the past century.

    [insert dick-joke here]

    1. I hope your gf was measuring, since she probably confuses 6″ with 4″.

      Is that the joke you were looking for?

      1. Always measure from the base…

        of your spine.

    2. If that rate were sustained for the next 84 years, that would mean that sea level would increase by just over 10 inches. That’s not nothing

      Actually, it pretty much is nothing. Next time you’re at the beach at high tide this summer, just imagine if that massive ocean was 10 inches higher. See? Not exactly a problem.

      1. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Take the highest tide and add 10 inches. That’s not the same as the current tidal range.

        You’re as disingenuous as the climate modelers.

        1. It’s still not a problem unless you own beachfront property that’s less than 10 inches in altitude above the current projected highest tide that would occur over the lifetime of a house.

          1. Or if you live in a low lying coastal town or city and a big storm comes. 7-10 inches makes a huge difference on how much land is inundated by a storm surge. But people have been living in places prone to flooding forever. It’s not like it’s something no one has ever dealt with before.

            1. +1 Dutch Republic

                1. That’s rape if she did not consent sir.

        2. You’re as disingenuous as the climate modelers.

          You’re assuming the geography doesn’t change any either.

          Imagine doing double the number of beach fills/nourishments over the next century.

          1. How do you get to double? Because the natural course for barrier islands and coastal plains is for the geography to shift whether there is sea level rise or not. The fills are just attempts to keep this natural process from occurring.

            1. -1 Oregon Inlet

              1. Right, see Waikik/Maui.

                If you’re goal is strictly to keep the beaches/beachfront property around you’re going to have to tear through coral reefs and move or bury literally ton of wildlife in sand to keep the island in some absurd explicit notion of ‘pristine shape’. And that is completely independent of any rise in sea level.

            2. How do you get to double?

              I was pulling the figure out of my ass. Personally, I do 0 beach fills currently so doubling it is pretty inconsequential. My point wasn’t to say “We’ll have to do 2X the amount of work to keep the beaches we currently have.” as much as to say ‘highest tide +10″‘ over the course of a century assumes (e.g.) the whole beach/delta/island isn’t flattening or sliding into the ocean or that your particular parish isn’t already below sea level and kept dry by human engineering.

              That ‘highest tide + 10’ has a lot of subjectivity literally built into it.

              1. Ah, so then we basically agree.

        3. Yeah, okay, let’s shit our collective pants now. derp

          1. No one is shitting anyone’s pants, dude. Sea level rises sometimes. It’s not inconsequential, but people deal with it. No panic or pants-shitting necessary.

            Your analysis of the effects of sea level rise is just naive. What you need to think about is a low lying city near the coast that is flooded in a storm. An extra 10 inches could mean hundreds of more acres under water.

            But that only happens if people don’t adapt or change anything while the level slowly rises. Which is very unlikely unless too many morons actually believe that the government is going to come save us all from climate change.

            1. What you need to think about is a low lying city near the coast that is flooded in a storm. An extra 10 inches could mean hundreds of more acres under water.

              If that’s the case, then those areas are already subject to flooding during a storm surge.

              1. Yes, but all else being equal, the storm surge inundates more land. That’s all I’m saying. It’s more than just tides coming up a little higher on the beach.

            2. “An extra 10 inches could mean hundreds of more acres under water.”

              Are you talking about a whopping 10″ (which isn’t going to happen) a mere 100 years from now? Oh, where are my clean undies?

              Every climate catastrophe story you will read is 99.9% bullshit.

              1. I’m talking about the consequences of a hypothetical situation. It has nothing to do with whether the prediction is bullshit or not (I have no idea if it is). No poo is coming out. No one is panicking. Relax, dude.

      2. I saw a top-o-Google WaPo scare story on just how intractable the human-caused-global-warming-sea-level-rise problem was: they proposed pumping all the excess ocean water to the center of Antarctica to freeze it in a giant ice mountain, noting that it would take several nuclear power plants to drive the pumps.

        They didn’t propose a lower cost alternative: since the sea level is rising 3 mm per year, in a century it would be a foot higher. Why not just increase the sea wall in the coastal cities by 12 inches? Seems like it would be cheaper, and take less than 100 years.

        1. Wow, a giant ice mountain that would probably be large enough to change the Earth’s rotation and cost trillions vs a sea wall. Unfortunately proposing a modest sea wall doesn’t get you published in the WaPo.

          1. Why not do nothing and allow the cities to move away from the ocean, naturally if and when sea levels rise, over the next 100 years?

            Cray cray, isn’t it?

            1. “Dear Sir, Code enforcement has noticed unauthorized changes to your property at 123 Seaside St. Your property is not zoned for OCEAN Please remove the offending OCEAN from the property at 123 seaside st within 15 days or you will be fined $40,000. Thank you. The City”

        2. Dear WaPo morons…

          “…and pumping sea water onto Antarctic Ice Cap wouldn’t MELT the ICE and encourage even MORE ice to melt BACK INTO the oceans?! The Ice Cap Is NOT Frozen Sea Water, idiots!

          WTF do they use to imitate brains at WaPo?!

  3. If sea level rises by 6 feet, then 13.1 million Americans might have to move inland. The costs of relocating that many people could be as much $14 trillion.

    Meh. Trump can build a wall.

    1. That’s only $1 million per person to step out of a puddle. What a deal.

      1. At 84 years it’s only ~$12k a year per person. What a deal!

      2. Why not build them all new houses for 250K each? That’s only $3.5 trillion.

        1. That’s already included in the $million per person tag. The remainder is for grief counseling.

          Seriously, I’d love to see how these tards come up with $14trillion to relocate 13 million people.

          1. Inflation?

        2. Here in Florida, most of the houses are second or third homes owned by wealthy people who use them a few weeks a year. They only build then so close to the sea because the state subsidizes their insurance. Almost no one would actually have to find a new place to live.

    2. He’ll make Atlantis pay for it too.

    3. I’m smelling a stimulus on the level of alien invasion.

      1. Dammit, came her to say Krugabe approves

        1. Grate mines.

        2. For even more stimulus, why not build the sea wall, then tear it down, then build it again?

          1. That’s a good start but the plan needs more hole digging and refilling to be fully effective.

            For an added bonus, how about massive bucket brigades of people to dip water out of the ocean at one end of the beach and pour it back in at the other end?

            1. Buckets? They should use shovels.

              1. Friedman suggested that you could employ even more people by using teaspoons instead of shovels!

                (true story from when China was building one of their huge dams some decades back…)

      2. Aquaman v. Trump: Dawn of Algae

  4. Nothing wrong with the hypothetical situation itself, to give some perspective.

    The NYT headline is pretty shady though. Don’t publish headlines that require an asterisk to be even a little true.

  5. It’s so serious that the big coastal cities have all started building their own Delta/Zuiderzee Works, right?

    1. Yes, and the climate ‘scientists’ have all invested heavily into inland real estate, and have gone short on coastal resorts.

      1. You know who else bought up inland real estate, then agitated for a man-made natural disaster?

        1. Lex Luthor?

    2. “It’s so serious that the big coastal cities have all started building their own Delta/Zuiderzee Works, right?”

      Right. Particularly for sea-faring nations like Holland and England. Other nations like the US will probably find it more profitable to retreat from the rising seas.

      1. Because it’s more profitable to abandon NYC than to build a sea wall?

        1. Wrong, it’s more profitable to wall in NYC and let the sea take care of them…

          1. The name’s Plissken.

        2. “Because it’s more profitable to abandon NYC than to build a sea wall?”

          Not if you are in the sea wall building business.

          1. Which is probably unionized in NYC…. welp, the city’s gonna drown.

  6. Meh. Call me when Lex Luthor starts buying up inland property.

  7. If it will wipe out the N.Y Times I’m for it. You know,with a ZPM and a good shield it won’t mater.And it will protect people form Mr.Lizards minions.

    1. Imma just get Lilith to teleport my flying city inland when the apocalypse comes.

      1. Make sure you have enough Eridium available.

      2. If it’s already flying, what difference does it make where the sea level is?

        1. For some reason it takes the teleport thing to get it off the ground.

          I don’t make the rules, I just have to live by them.

    2. Did you know that the N.Y. Times – currently a lover of all things gun control – defended itself from being wiped out by draft rioters during the Civil War by using gatling guns?

  8. the main contribution of the study is new coastal population projections

    “Well OBVIOUSLY populations will continue to move into areas / expand in regions with eroding coastlines just as fast as they have in the last 100 years. We’re climatologists, not real estate agents!”

    The costs of relocating that many people could be as much $14 trillion

    Because naturally they won’t ‘relocate’ themselves well in advance of the inching coastline. We will need Federal Airlifts for the millions of morons who pay no heed to the ocean in their living room.

    1. Because naturally they won’t ‘relocate’ themselves well in advance of the inching coastline. We will need Federal Airlifts for the millions of morons who pay no heed to the ocean in their living room.

      I’ve seen “The Day after Tomorrow” Gilmore it all happens so fast.

    2. As I posted below, it’s the retards what live near the ocean. They’re too fucking dumb to move when the waters rise. And they probably cry “we shouldn’t have to” just like they do when being told how to minimize any other risk.

      1. You generalize, but there ARE an awful lot of Trump 2016 yard signs up at the north end of Virginia Beach…

      2. “it’s the retards what live near the ocean”

        I’ll be generous and assume you don’t like getting your feet wet. If you ever spent time conversing with a cod, hake, or haddock, living IN the ocean the lot of them, you’ll find them total retards!

    3. Yeah, all of these worries depend on no one ever changing or adapting to changing conditions. I don’t know if it’s lack of imagination or a true belief that nothing can happen without top-down control or what.

      1. Reminds me of the moron who got run over by Austin Powers on the Giant (0.5 mph) rolling machine.

      2. I don’t know if it’s lack of imagination or a true belief that nothing can happen without top-down control or what.

        its ‘scientists’ pretending that human behavior is a constant, while only nature is a “system” with complex interactions.

        Or rather, its that they know that journalists don’t actually ever look at their model assumptions, and rather just the conclusions.

        Because anyone with half a brain would ask, “why is it that the population of Florida does not seem to react in any way to the steady-encroaching sea over the course of 80+ years?” They just keep populating! because that’s what populations do.

        1. Plus, as I alluded to above, the houses are almost exclusively weekly rentals or third homes that no one actually lives in.

  9. Wait, you mean 2008 wasn’t the year that the tides began to recede?

    1. Yes, but after he leaves office next January it all comes rushing back.

      1. “Apres moi, le deluge.”

  10. This world needs a(nother) fucking flood. It’s helpful that all of the retarded assholes live near the oceans.

    1. Someday a real rain will come…

  11. How about an article like this one?

    Assume Economic Collapse if We Start to Control CO2 Emissions: Predict Catastrophe
    Useful science or worst case scaremongering?

    http://www.wemeanbusinesscoali…..mic-growth

    1. Did you bother reading your link?

      There are also a number of recommendations directed toward the private sector. Businesses are asked to integrate climate risk and resilience fully into core business strategies, to improve efficiencies, to speak out in favor of climate policies, and to increase collaboration across industries.

      These recommendations align with BSR’s own strategy, Business in a Climate-Constrained World. We have also concluded that actively addressing the full range of climate risks substantially outweighs the costs of inaction. And we have determined that ambitious climate action can be pursued in a manner that is pragmatic and consistent with other business goals. Finally, we strongly believe that collaboration is the secret to helping companies address complex sustainability challenges that are too systemic for any one actor to tackle alone.

      As to your point, yes, starting from an unlikely assumption and playing out the consequences is bad science.

      1. Disingenuous troll is disingenuous.

        1. It’s not like he doesn’t have a point, but that article is pretty much the softest glad-handing of pro-AGW sentiments ever put in text.

          1. I rhetorically clap when I see a former AGW-denier like Bailey acknowledge the scientific consensus that AGW is caused by CO2 put there by burning fossil fuels. Good for him– seriously. There’s plenty of people in his line of work that haven’t crossed that rubicon– either through ignorance or disengenuousness.

            Now, would it be too difficult to ask him to stop cherry-picking studies that predict that climate effects caused by global climate change won’t be too bad or propping up ridiculous studies that examine whether we should spend the money on mosquito nets or addressing global warming? It might also be nice if right-wingers stop predicting economic doom if we start to ask Exxon to clean up their own shit or pretending that no one besides the CATO institute has ever embarked on writing a cost-benefit analysis on addressing global warming.

            1. AGW is caused by CO2 put there by burning fossil fuels

              That is literally the definiton of “AGW”. That is like saying “I rhetorically clap every time I see a former math-denier like TimeCube Guy acknowledge the scientific consensus that addition of whole numbers involves the composition of numerical quantities according to the Peano axioms”

              if we start to ask Exxon to clean up their own shit

              What shit? The Valdez spill has already been cleaned up. And why don’t you stop being disingenuous and say “continue to force” and not “start to ask”?

              “cherry-picking”

              What is a meaningless accusation? Either the studies are correct, or they aren’t, but choosing them over others doesn’t make them right or wrong.

              1. Nothing I said was meant to imply an equivalence between Ron Bailey and TimeCube Guy, rather that was the most obvious example of a “math denier” I could think of.

            2. Re: American Stultified,

              would it be too difficult to ask him to stop cherry-picking studies that predict that climate effects caused by global climate change […]

              …. or the driving effects caused by driving…

              Oh, sorry. Please, go on, Mr. Repetitious.

              won’t be too bad or propping up ridiculous studies that examine whether we should spend the money on mosquito nets or addressing global warming?

              What’s interesting is that you managed in a small paragraph filled with nonsense to dishonestly switch from Global Warming to Climate Change and back again with not even a hint of self-awareness. As if someone is dictating this stuff to you in your mind yet not even bothering to check the logic of it.

              Anthropogenic Global Warming is not the same as Climate Change. One is a theory that attempts to explain the rise of global temperatures, while the other is a catchy buzzword invented by fanatics who use it to point out to normal climate events and say “Doom!”

              It might also be nice if right-wingers stop predicting economic doom if we start to ask Exxon to clean up their own shit[…]

              What “shit” are you talking about, and why are you pointing out to Exxon only if most oil extraction companies are government-owned?

            3. I don’t see anyone denying climate change or even global warming. Some deny that humans have a significant impact. But the main objection is to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

              My own objections to CAGW have to do with the fact that humans contribute only roughly 3% of atmospheric CO2, which is a very small ratio to the whole and that even a doubling of our output would still be relatively small. Additionally, there is no evidence that even large increases in CO2 will not be absorbed by the system. The assumption of catastrophic tipping points is just conjecture. Furthermore, increases in CO2 will likely be good for agriculture compared to the 18th and 19th centuries that CAGW believers like to compare with. And there are more reasons that I don’t intend to go into because I’m lazy.

              In final analysis, CAGW is not a threat to human beings.

            4. It might also be nice if right-wingers stop predicting economic doom if we start to ask Exxon to clean up their own shit

              It would also be nice if the environmentalist hand-wringer types would actually step up to the plate and acknowledge that they have some culpability in generating CO2, when it comes to heating their homes, driving around everywhere they want to go, etc. Exxon doesn’t burn fuel. It produces it. You burn fuel.

              But, alas, leftists never expect to go to any expense or trouble to save the planet. It’s always someone else who should go to expense or trouble to save the planet. They call that conscious awareness and sacrifice, and wonder why no one is saving the planet yet. Ha.

    2. Love the titles of the various clowns in the front group. HP’s Chief ‘Progress’ Officer? Lol.

  12. Fuck civilians. What about the polar bears!?

    1. I think Ursus maritimus, the sea bear, is gonna be alright.

      1. Wrong ! I saw a picture of one starved to death !!!!11!1!1

        -Derp Proggie

      2. I can barely bear to see the bare bearing sea bear.

  13. Welp, guess i better get started making that Kevin Costner pee-filtering machine.

    1. Mmm. Self hydration…

  14. $14 trillion still sounds like a hell of a lot less money than the cost of switching to solar and wind, both of which have their own environmental costs, especially to the impoverished Chinese people mining the materials who live in toxic waste.

    1. Indeed, and if you let the people who don’t want to be flooded out fund their own movement expenses, it’s even cheaper.

  15. Hmm. If this is true, it would be a disaster, certainly. And I imagine it’s probably too late to do anything to stop it, really. Maybe we can remedy this by moving people from the coastal areas, but of course we can’t force them to move, either. What if we taxed the people living on the coastal regions most likely to be affected by a six-foot rise in sea level? How about a tax on all income earned by a household, that starts, say, at ten percent, and gradually increases to 100% by 2080? Everyone would move out of the high-tax coastal areas and settle inland, voluntarily! Catastrophe averted!

    In all seriousness, though, wake me when the rich eco-snobs start selling their beachfront condos en masse. Until then the climate scaremongers can go piss up a rope.

    1. Declining home values and increasing insurance premiums would be all the “social engineering” needed, without the engineering part. So, naturally, the feds will subsidize both.

      1. Yes, just stop subsidizing flood insurance, and the ‘problem’ will solve itself.

    2. Here is a partial list of cities that could be affected (all are on the ocean or tidal rivers): Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC, Miami, LA, NYC, Portland, Seattle. Most of the people living there are proud members of the climate change cult, and so should have no problem coughing up some extra tax $, to help move their asses to Kansas. They also should be happy to pay $500 monthly electric bills to power their espresso machines exclusively from solar and wind.

      1. I would assume they would rather pay for sea walls and levees rather than move, but I don’t see them eager to cough up money for that, either.

        1. Easy fix – Corvee labor from anyone who wants to live in the area that would otherwise flood.

          1. First you need to get the courts to rule that it doesn’t violate the 13th amendment.

            1. They can get out of it just my moving – I’m sure the 2nd circut will rubber stamp that interpretation.

              1. Oh, hell, if the draft doesn’t violate the 13th amendment, then I guess nothing does.

            2. It’s a tax, paid in kind not with money.

              Easy. Peasy.

        2. But, building sea walls or levees would be a solution, or climate change mitigation, which this group is allergic to. You see, whenever anyone proposes something like building more nukes or even systems that can take CO2 out of the air (yes, these do exist). the climate change tards get their panties in a bunch, because they want things to be as awful as possible, so they can have the satisfaction of knowing that they are right, and the deniers can’t say “it ain’t so bad”

          1. or even systems that can take CO2 out of the air

            They’re called trees. The cheapest, easist and most efficient carbon capture method known is the plant a crapload of trees, cut them down and make products from the wood.

            1. ^ This. It is already being done. Timber companies plant hundreds of millions of them every year. All told I have personally planted nearly a million myself.

              1. “All told I have personally planted nearly a million myself.”

                And what have you got to show for it?

  16. This would not be UNPRECEDENTED.

    Mahabalipuram

    Heracleion

    But yeah, global warming, etc….

    1. The north coast of Egypt sunk in a earthquake. Not the same thing. You might as well point to Port Royale, which vanished under the waves in much the same way.

      1. I’ve read that it was erosion more than the tremors. The tremors didn’t help, but the erosion process was well under way anyways. The same with Mahabalipuram.

        It’s almost as if there is this natural cycle of the ocean eroding the coastlines across the world and swallowing up entire areas.

        MY GOD MAN NATURE MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!!

        1. It’s almost as if there is this natural cycle of the ocean eroding the coastlines across the world and swallowing up entire areas.

          There is also archeological evidence of indian settlements just off the coast of New Jersey.

          1. They were clearly trying to get away from New Jersey and the sea got in the way.

            1. Don’t be silly, they were the remnants of Atlantis after it sank into the ocean.

          2. That was just English settlers uprooting the indigenous peoples, rowing their wigwams and teepees out to sea, and dumping them.

        2. It was still land subsiding rather than sea level rising. But seal level has definitely changed significantly in the time of human civilizations too.

  17. I think Led Zeppelin proposed (stole) a solution.

    https://youtu.be/ddpl1zl5sYg

  18. $14 trillion. oh noes. we wouldn’t want to saddle the people of the future with an expense like that just to pay for our consumption today.

    1. Shoulda said somethin’ sooner.

  19. So, how many 84 year old (minimum if they are built today) buildings exist in major cities now? Can’t we assume that most structures will be torn down and rebuilt anyway? And I’d assume, if the ocean is getting close, you might want to move uphill?

    How is that horseshit problem coming along? When I lived 100 years ago, there was a consensus that the biggest problem in 2016 would be where to put all the horseshit resulting from the massive population growth and all those people needing horses for transportation.

    1. You think NYC isn’t filled with horseshit?

    2. It’s also why no one will ever have a personal computer. THEY TAKE UP TOO MUCH DAMN SPACE!!!

      1. There’s only a market for 3 or 4 computers, world-wide.

  20. “…As a final note, surely everyone can agree that it is particularly insane for the federal government to encourage people to move to the coasts by subsidiziing flood insurance.”

    If the government didn’t do that, what sort of a crises would they save us from by moving us away from the coasts? Those crises aren’t all that easy to come by, ya know!

  21. “If that rate were sustained for the next 84 years, that would mean that sea level would increase by just over 10 inches. That’s not nothing, but it is not much greater than the approximately 7 inch increase that occurred during the 20th century.”

    Now why on earth would you make that assumption? Because warming has “paused?” Please.

    One of the studies mentioned says that sea level is rising at the fastest rate in 28 centuries, with most of the increase rising sharply through the 20th century. What in current events suggests that the current rate will be sustained? Temperatures aren’t increasing? The arctic isn’t melting at rates unseen before? There is no permafrost at risk? CO2 levels aren’t at the highest level in thousands of years, and have leveled off?

    In each case I mentioned it’s the opposite. And you’re concerned with models.

    1. Hey, Jack! Please tell us when the rapture is gonna happen!
      You’re such a committed bleever, you should know.

    2. Does it even bother you a little bit that what you’re claiming is just not true? Would you like some cake? Sorry, I mean, would you like some shortcake?

      1. Is he the same guy who used to prattle about how people only moved to the suburbs is because they were herded their by government policy as if they were merely a bunch of sheep with no free will?

    3. And you’re concerned with models.

      “Ignore the fact that the models have all failed, which has falsified the CO2 hypothesis they were based on!!”

    4. CO2 levels aren’t at the highest level in thousands of years, and have leveled off?

      …. How exactly would you (or anyone) know that the levels are the highest they’ve been for “thousands of years.” What methods are we using to determine how much CO2 was in the air over the last several hundred years, let alone thousand? Hell, we don’t even have reliable temperature data past about 100 years ago.

      STFU and go away.

      1. Air trapped in ice probably gives a decent record of past atmospheric composition. There is plenty to criticize in climate science, but that’s not a very good one. Science is full of indirect measurements like that that are widely accepted and effectively used. You are pretty close to saying that we shouldn’t even bother trying to figure out historical atmospheric compositions or climate. Which is dumb and anti-science.

        I’m not saying they have everything right. But it is certainly a legitimate scientific pursuit to try to figure it out.

        1. “Air trapped in ice probably gives a decent record of past atmospheric composition.”

          I am not so sure about that. Gas bubbles in ice are not hermetically sealed. Ice can absorb and exude gas and is permeable all at different rates for different atmospheric constituents. I would like to hear OMWC weigh in on this.

          1. That may be. I’m no expert. Point is that you don’t just give up on trying to measure something if it’s a bit difficult.
            I certainly don’t think you should bet the future of humanity on pretty new science that is still in its developmental stages. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to do the science.

      2. Last month we hit 402.6 ppm of CO2. In the 1800s it averaged 280. To just give you how much it’s increased in the last couple hundred years.

        “In another first, 2015 was the fourth consecutive year that CO2 grew more than 2 ppm, said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network.

        “Carbon dioxide levels are increasing faster than they have in hundreds of thousands of years,” Tans said. “It’s explosive compared to natural processes.”

        1. And?

          They’ve repeatedly failed to show a causal link between atmospheric carbon and any climate variable – be it sea level or temperature.

          1. They also steal a base by assuming that it can’t be natural processes.

        2. In the 1800s it averaged 280

          And a minimum of 180 ppm is necessary for plant life on this planet. The highest ever was over 6,000 ppm at a time when biodiversity was at its highest.

          400 ppm is nothing to worry about.

          1. That REALLY says it all.

            1. If you had any familiarity with logic it would.

            2. What really “says it all” is the pants-wetting over small changes in climate–changes that have been occurring for about 4.5 billion years.

          1. 1.43?

            1. I was told there would be no math in this debate.

            2. 402.6/280= 1.4378571428571428571428571428571

              1.44

      3. Link.

        http://www.noaa.gov/record-ann…..a-loa-2015

        You sure you want me to go away? I’m the only one who tries to educate you about facts. I know Bailey hardly tries.

        1. NOAA? Those same people who’ve been fabricating temperature data out of whole cloth for decades because the real data didn’t fit their preconceptions?

          1. Says it all.

            1. Too bad you just can’t see it. Maybe if we give you a booster chair it might help.

            2. It’s true. The latest manipulation was tweaking the surface temp data upward to match the unreliable and warm tending marine intake temperatures. This is not science. It’s politics. And you are a buffoon for believing in it.

            3. Jackand Ace|3.15.16 @ 1:25PM|#
              “Says it all.”

              How do we get right with Gaia, Jack?
              Do you have a news letter? What’s the holy day? Can we work on that day?
              I wanna KNOW

        2. Jackand Ace|3.15.16 @ 1:20PM|#
          “…I’m the only one who tries to educate you about facts.”

          Yeah, Jack, we hardly ever read lefty lies without you around! Why the media is all FOX news all the time, right?
          Again, when’s your next sermon?

    5. joe has good reason to be concerned about a 6′ rise.

    6. The arctic isn’t melting at rates unseen before?

      Take away that question mark and you’d have a true statement. In recent years Arctic ice has increased. Remember Whatshisname whose expedition got stuck in the Arctic sea because the idiot believed Al Gore when he predicted an iceless sea by what? 2005?

      These predictions are all highly suspect because of the modelling failures and the shenanigans with the surface temp data. The only way to get any idea is to take the current trend and extrapolate is geometrically. And that is–as the article says–10 inches in 84 years.

      1. “February’s record warmth coincided with record ice shrinkage. Arctic sea ice measured 14.22 million square kms that month, the lowest measurement since satellite records began in 1979, the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) reported in early March.

        Based on this data, The Climate Council’s Professor Steffen predicted that the planet may have already crossed a “tipping point” in Arctic melting that will irreversibly warm the planet through “reinforcing feedbacks”, no matter what humanity does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

          1. Shouldn’t you be getting back to the Lollipop Guild, you disingenuous little crapweasel?

        1. You left out a piece of data.

          Temperature records for the 20th century have 1979 at a low point on a sinusoidal graph. So naturally, 1979 will have more ice lying around than one of the plateaus. This sinusoidal pattern just happens to match up to a solar cycle which just happens to effect the thermal output of the sun.

        2. Professor Steffen is hanging his ACGW hat on February, 2016? I’ll take that bet.

        3. …the lowest measurement since satellite records began in 1979…

          Oh noes, we’re all gonna die. This means nothing. I’ve been an adult since 1979. That’s not a very long time for records. Again the CAGW crowd is wetting its collective pants over extremely incomplete data. Furthermore, there is not enough data to speak of trends, which is what you and your master are saying there is. Come back when you have a couple of centuries of trend data.

      2. Also note how they never mention the increasing ice in the Antarctic.

    7. Well, the pro-CAGW folks such as yourself were very concerned with models, using them as the basis for their ultimate premise and as prods to legislation and policy. The crux of your argument relies on those models, otherwise CO2 levels have no relevance. Until you’ve proved conclusively that a.) human activity is the predominant cause of atmospheric CO2, b.) CO2 levels are unnaturally high, c.) CO2 levels are causing warming, and d.) the amount of warming is catastrophic, you’ve got nothin’. And by prove I mean conclusively prove with unbiased research, one indication of which would be the ability to produce reliable models that accurately depict historic trends and predict future trends without having to be massaged or relying on cherry-picked data. And no, just saying “the debate is over” doesn’t actually end the debate; in fact, if you have to tell someone that the debate’s over it’s probably because the debate obviously hasn’t ended.

    8. The arctic isn’t melting at rates unseen before?

      There is no such thing as ‘permafrost’.

      CO2 levels aren’t at the highest level in thousands of years?

      Glacial conditions aren’t norms–the planet has spent much more time WITHOUT glaciation than it has with glaciation. Glacial conditions are aberrations from the norm

      Humans evolved and flourished WITHOUT glaciation.

      Facts. Not models. Not AGW bleever wishing.

    9. The arctic isn’t melting at rates unseen before?

      There is no such thing as ‘permafrost’.

      CO2 levels aren’t at the highest level in thousands of years?

      Glacial conditions aren’t norms–the planet has spent much more time WITHOUT glaciation than it has with glaciation. Glacial conditions are aberrations from the norm

      Humans evolved and flourished WITHOUT glaciation.

      Facts. Not models. Not AGW bleever wishing.

      1. ah, it was squirrels.

  22. It’s called CLI-FI.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_fiction
    Though they (you know “them”) prefer to call it eco-fiction.

  23. “So researchers can now get their studies published in a prestigious scientific journal and publicized by leading newspapers by merely assuming a catastrophe. Neat trick.”

    Don’t forget that sweet grant money.

    This is the global warming scam in a nutshell.

  24. You know What Else was 3 Feet High And Rising?

    1. Joe climbing a step ladder to reach the cookie jar?

  25. Mr. Bailey put a post six years ago addressing this in a different way. It had to do with a statistic Lomborg quoted:

    “Let’s imagine that over the next 80 or 90 years, a giant port city – say, Tokyo – found itself engulfed by a sea-level rise of about 15 feet. Millions of inhabitants would be imperiled, along with trillions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure. Without a vast global effort, could we cope with such a terrifying catastrophe?

    Well, we already have. In fact, we’re doing it right now.

    Since 1930, excessive groundwater withdrawal has caused Tokyo to subside by as much as 15 feet. Similar subsidence has occurred over the past century in numerous cities, including Tianjin, Shanghai, Osaka, Bangkok and Jakarta. And in each case, the city has managed to protect itself from such large relative sea-level rises without much difficulty.

    The process is called adaptation, and it’s something we humans are very good at.”

    https://reason.com/blog/2010/11…..-level-ris

    If Tokyo can handle an effective sea level rise of 15 feet over 80 years without much difficulty, then America should be able to handle a rise in sea level of three to six feet over 100 years without much difficulty, as well.

    Again, the alarmists are mostly alarmed because they don’t understand capitalism.

    1. And because they want to be alarmed.

      1. Yeah, the other half of, “Never let a crisis go to waste” is, “Crises can be made to order”.

    2. They’re alarmed because they hate capitalism and love statism, and anything that hinders the creep of government power is anathema.

      1. I think part of it, too, is that scientists can make measure all sorts of things they never could before (because of things like satellites) and can make predictions like they never could before (because of things like computers).

        Being able to predict things like they couldn’t before gives all kinds of new ammunition to utilitarians–and that’s fueling a lot of this stuff. People think if the government knows what’s going to happen, it should do something.

        They just can’t get their heads around the fact that 350 million people of average intelligence, all pursuing their own interests in a market, can make quantitatively and qualitatively better decisions for themselves and the nation than a committee of PhDs from MIT. That just goes against the nature of their expertise.

        How can people who believe in creationism, the flood, conspiracy theories, and Donald Trump outperform the experts?

        The success of ant colonies depends on every ant working independently from each of their own subjective perspectives–not that ants even posses anything like we think of as consciousness . This is the amazing, great thing about markets: They make foolish people behave as if they were smarter than PhDs. It’s an affront to all PhDdom!

        1. “…thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike”

        2. “The success of ant colonies depends on every ant working independently from each of their own subjective perspectives”

          But there’s one problem. Ant colonies are not going to stop the sea from rising. To stop the rising seas, massive public works projects are necessary.

          1. Ant colonies are not going to stop the sea from rising.

            Neither are humans, mtrueman. We cannot stop the sea from rising. We cannot cut CO2 back to 280 ppm. We cannot stop the climate from changing. We can only adapt. And adapt we will–dragging the luddite, pants-wetting, true-believing environmentalists kicking and screaming into the future–unless they kill the rest of us off, first.

            1. “Neither are humans, mtrueman”

              Yet Ken assures us: “And in each case, the city has managed to protect itself from such large relative sea-level rises without much difficulty.” He doesn’t say that HOW these cities managed to protect themselves, or even that humans were involved. Maybe it was ants, after all.

              “unless they kill the rest of us off, first”

              You are 60? 70? Sedentary, obese and won’t be with us much longer. Nobody has to concern themselves with something as dramatic as killing you off. Whether you know it or, you’re already irrelevant.

              1. Ken was talking about human adaptation, not human manipulation of the sea.

                I’m not yet 60 and I do have progeny, whom I am teaching to filter and reject bullshit. To listen to alarmists, the world will end catastrophically before I’m 80. Several of my ancestors lived into their 90s. So, no, I’m not yet irrelevant. But in relation to the earth and its atmosphere, we’re all irrelevant.

                1. “Ken was talking about human adaptation, not human manipulation of the sea.”

                  He’s talking about protecting cities from rising seas: “If Tokyo can handle an effective sea level rise of 15 feet over 80 years without much difficulty, then America… ”

                  Tokyo and America. Ringos and Apples, right?

                  ” I’m not yet irrelevant. ”

                  Yes you are. And listening to alarmists doesn’t make you any less irrelevant.

                  1. He’s talking about protecting cities from rising seas

                    And you’re moving the goalposts. Ken was talking about human adaptation while you were talking about humans keeping the sea level from rising. They are not the same thing. They’re still not the same thing with the posts moved.

                    And listening to alarmists doesn’t make you any less irrelevant

                    So I shouldn’t listen to them? Great. Because I don’t anyway.

                    1. “And you’re moving the goalposts. Ken was talking about human adaptation while you were talking about humans keeping the sea level from rising. They are not the same thing.”

                      Ken was talking about a lot of nonsense. It wasn’t individuals in the market place that stopped Tokyo from subsiding, it was a lot of intensive effort on the part of a particularly heavy handed branch of a heavy handed government. It’s no more capitalism in action than any other public works project you care to name.

          2. “But there’s one problem. Ant colonies are not going to stop the sea from rising. To stop the rising seas, massive public works projects are necessary.”

            You’re missing ignoring the point that whatever it was that the people of Tokyo, Shanghai, Osaka, Bangkok, and Jakarta did that accounted for more than 6 feet of subsidence over the last 80-90 years, they did it without a massive public works project 100 years in advance.

            Geography changes over time. People adapt. Each of those people made choices from their own perspectives about how best to handle it over the years–and that solution worked just fine. Tokyo, Shanghai, Osaka, Bangkok, and Jakarta are just as fine today as they were.

            Coastal metropolitan Tokyo is 15 feet lower than it was 80 or 90 years ago. Earth to Truman? Do you read me Truman?

            Did I miss the story about the great flood that wiped out Tokyo, Shanghai, Osaka, Bangkok, and Jakarta?

          3. All of those cities survived (and thrived) despite the sea level effectively rising more than twice the size of the “crisis” these scientists are pedaling. People making choices for themselves will always make better choices for themselves over time than experts on high making choices on their behalf.

            Socialism is experts making choices for us. Markets are people making choices for themselves. That’s how markets work.

            That’s how evolution works, too, you know? Are you a creationist or something? If ants couldn’t act independently without direction from the queen, the colony would collapse.

            That’s the way the real world works. Deal with it.

            1. “That’s the way the real world works. Deal with it.”

              You’re not talking about the real world. You’re talking about places you have no knowledge of. To think that letting people ‘make decisions’ is how Japan’s Ministry of Construction, their version of the Military Industrial Complex, deals with subsidence/rising seas, is wrong headed.

              1. 90 years ago, they did not build whatever infrastructure was necessary to account for an effective 15 feet of sea level rise.

                They did not make the sacrifices in the GDP by way of taxes to stop climate change.

                They did none of these things, but this is what the climate change alarmists want us to do because of this data.

                You’re being even more willfully obtuse than they are.

                1. “90 years ago, they did not build whatever infrastructure was necessary to account for an effective 15 feet of sea level rise.”

                  I never claimed they did. What I’m claiming is that the efforts to deal with the subsidence were spearheaded by Japan’s Ministry of Construction. Ring a bell? How about Tanaka Kakuei? Still nothing? It’s not about individuals making choices. It’s about the actions of probably one the most over-bearing, wasteful organizations on the planet. But go ahead and keep lauding them as an example for the rest of us to follow. Good for a laugh, until you get back to your ants, anyhow.

                  1. mtrueman|3.15.16 @ 7:19PM|#

                    “90 years ago, they did not build whatever infrastructure was necessary to account for an effective 15 feet of sea level rise.”

                    I never claimed they did.

                    mtrueman|3.15.16 @ 4:05PM|#

                    But there’s one problem. Ant colonies are not going to stop the sea from rising. To stop the rising seas, massive public works projects are necessary.

                    1. Stopping rising seas and dealing with ground water depletion are two separate problems. Prepare yourself for a shock but Japan has dealt with both by massive tax funded public works projects. You can argue that these efforts should not have been carried out, but carried out they were. You can still promote individual choice making, I don’t really have a problem with that. Just get your facts straight. Stick to a part of the earth you have some familiarity with. And don’t hold up these Eastern nations as examples we should be falling over ourselves to follow.

    3. “Similar subsidence has occurred over the past century in numerous cities, including Tianjin, Shanghai, Osaka, Bangkok and Jakarta. And in each case, the city has managed to protect itself from such large relative sea-level rises without much difficulty.”

      I’d be surprised if these cities managed to ‘adapt’ without public spending. Do you know anything at all about Tianjin? Did you know it’s in China?

      1. If there was public spending on this, it was incremental changes made on a budget by budget basis. Nobody looked 100 years ahead and said, “Oh my God, we’ve got 15 feet of subsidence we’re going to have to deal with over the next 100 years–let’s crush the economy with taxes and spend, spend, spend on infrastructure now, now, now!”

        That would have been incredibly stupid.

        Again, just because you can correctly predict a problem doesn’t mean you should address the problem in a stupid manner.

        And letting people make choices for themselves about how to handle it is far better than doing something stupid. When people make choices for themselves, the outcomes are better, the qualitative satisfaction is higher, the interested parties pay, the disinterested parties don’t, the people who need to make sacrifices do so of their own free will, the people who don’t need to make sacrifices don’t have to–it’s just a much better outcome all around.

        1. “People making choices for themselves will always make better choices for themselves over time than experts on high making choices on their behalf.”

          You keep bandying about these vague solutions of people ‘making choices’ stopping their cities from flooding. You really seem to have no idea of the role that massive public works and social engineering have played. No longer so surprised to see China lauded as an example for America to follow. It comes natural when the platitudes run dry.

          1. Some people will choose not to pay flood insurance rates high enough to live on the coast.

            Other people will choose to pay the local taxes necessary to construct levies and dikes.

            Some people will choose to move inland.

            Some people still pay a premium to live on the coast.

            Just like the people of Tokyo over the past 90 years.

            These are not vague solutions. And the best solution may not be to fend off every encroachment of the sea. Hell, some environmentalists might appreciate the encroachment of wetlands.

            Imposing your solutions on other people–like keeping the sea out everywhere–is not the best solution for everybody. Stop trying to impose your solutions on other people. You don’t know what other people want. You don’t know that people are willing to make the sacrifices necessary for what you want.

            Over the next 100 years, people will make all sorts of decisions about what they want. And they freer they are to make the choices that are right for them, the better off our country will be.

            1. “Some people will choose not to pay flood insurance rates high enough to live on the coast.
              Other people will choose to pay the local taxes necessary to construct levies and dikes.
              Some people will choose to move inland.
              Some people still pay a premium to live on the coast.”

              You really have no idea just how extensive the public works in and around Tokyo are, do you? Instead of lecturing me on a subject you know nothing of, why not find something else to do? And don’t start in again on how China and Japan are free market models that we need to follow.

              1. How much do I need to know about Tokyo, Shanghai, Jakarta, Osaka, and Bangkok to know that they didn’t put a crippling tax on their economy 100 years ago and invest it in giant infrastructure projects to thwart effective rising sea levels?

                You’re being willfully ignorant.

                If an actor is someone who acts, and a swimmer is someone who swims, then you–being someone who is willfully ignorant–are an ignoramus.

                1. “How much do I need to know about Tokyo”

                  More if you want to lecture me about it. Did you know that Japan’s Ministry of Construction budget is funded by tax-payers? Can you even begin to guess at the number of Yen spent over the century on dealing with Tokyo’s flooding problems? That’s how much you need to know. But forget about all that. You’re doing fine with your tedious bluster and insults.

                2. “How much do I need to know about Tokyo”

                  Here’s something for you. How many of those concrete tetrapods do you figure are deployed within 100 kms of Tokyo Tower? Are there any? If there are, how did they get there?

  26. Whoa, wait a minute:

    If a rising sea costs the US 14 trillion over 100 years, that’s a massive economic boost to the Keynesians, right? After all, if Krugman says that an alien invasion is good for the economy, then surely a slow flood, right?

    I’m not really sure how what I just said isn’t “logically” consistent. AGW is an economic stimulus.

  27. The costs of relocating that many people could be as much $14 trillion.

    6 years ago this would’ve been considered stimulus. What happened?

    1. That would run counter to what they want to impose right now

  28. “According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminisrtration, average global sea level rise has speeded up and is now increasing at 0.12 inch per year.”

    So if it isn’t an inch higher in 8 years we can assume they’re wrong?

    Oh, but it’s “average global” rise – which I assume means “it’s based on a few point checks that are mostly local guesswork”.

    Sea level measurement is bullshit, is the problem.

    (This is not meant to accuse them of lying as such, since it’s legitimately a very difficult thing to measure properly, both because the surface is in constant motion and because every reference point we have that’s plausible for fractional-inches of change is also liable to settle or rise independently.

    The “bullshit” part is the idea that NOAA can tell us “.12 inches per year” as if that’s not just handwaving guesswork full of caveats that I wouldn’t bet a dollar on at thousand to one odds.

    Remember how various atolls were supposed to have been entirely submerged a decade ago – but are, as far as anyone can tell, exactly as above water now as in 1995?

    This is why I have little confidence in “.12 inches per year”.)

    1. “Remember how various atolls were supposed to have been entirely submerged a decade ago – but are, as far as anyone can tell, exactly as above water now as in 1995?”

      No. Do any of these ‘various atolls’ have names? Was that NOAA or someone else?

      “Sea level measurement is bullshit, is the problem.”

      I agree, and I have to add that it’s just so wrong to even try to measure it. Don’t they realize it’s a surface in constant motion??

  29. If the sea level were to rise 6 feet and displace the 13 million people mentioned above, the cost to move those people would hopefully be born by the individuals, not the government. After all, they chose to live in coastal areas.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.