Sinking the Newest Sea Level Rise Exaggerations

NOAA chart of relative sea level rise at Sewell’s Point in Norfolk, showing a rate of 1.56 feet in rise per century, far lower than alarmist modelers project.

by Steve Haner

So, let me get this straight.  If we willingly keep paying the carbon tax on our electric bills, then thousands of parcels of prime Virginia waterfront won’t slip beneath the waves? Was that the point of these parallel prophecies of doom in the September 12 Richmond Times-Dispatch and Virginia Mercury?

Another day, another dire climate catastrophe story meant to scare readers into dumping fossil fuels. This claim was that sea level rise by 2050 will raise the low tide lines along Virginia’s thousands of miles of tidal waterways, including the creeks and rivers, and cover tens of thousands more acres. The RTD translated that into 160 square miles inundated.

Is there relative sea level rise underway? Yes. There has been since before Jamestown was settled, actually since the end of the Ice Age. Is it rising as fast as they claim? No. But exaggeration makes for more scary copy.

In fairness, it was only Sean Sublette with the Times-Dispatch who went on to link this coming financial calamity (Virginia only taxes land to the low tide line, you see) to the fight over the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and its resulting tax revenue. But the digital-only Virginia Mercury is also working overtime to prevent Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) from removing the state from that taxing compact. More on RGGI later. This column is to dispel the nonsense about the sea swallowing Virginia so rapidly.

The study, from a non-profit dedicated to inventing and packaging climate alarmism for the mass media, is of course based on models of future sea level rise that assume varying rates of acceleration. The models predict the relative sea level will rise faster than the actual record to date would indicate, so the hard data is ignored.

The actual record to date is readily available from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the nationwide list of tide gauges is here.

It is quite useful, showing when the gauge was installed, what the average annual change since then has been in millimeters, and then converting that into changing levels per century. One can’t say “rising” levels because in parts of the country (see Alaska) the relative sea level is dropping. How can that be?

Well, Virginia has some fairly high rates of rising relative sea level due to subsidence. Parts of our coastline are known to be sinking, a fact well known (but completely omitted) by those who wrote the two reports this week and the purported study. But the massive geological forces causing the Chesapeake Bay region to sink are causing the land to rise on the other side of this same tectonic plate in Alaska.

Even within the set of Virginia gauges there is significant variation. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel sensor is showing the most, 1.94 feet of relative (to the sinking land) sea level rise per century. Kiptopeke’s sensor comes in at 1.26 feet per century. Sewell’s Point in Norfolk has the longest set (95 years) of readings and is coming it at 1.5 feet per century.

Yet using the models the authors of the study based their dire projections on almost 1.5 feet more of relative sea level rise from 2000 to 2050, a half century.  No East Coast sensor is showing that rate. And given the variations you can already see between all those sensors, is it logical to suddenly assume straight line and uniform increases going forward? No, it is ridiculous.

If you walk those waterlines, are they all nice one-to-one beach slopes? Are there not often steep embankments, so any rise in the tide just climbs the side of the bank and doesn’t inundate one blade of grass? Aren’t there actual walls on some of the banks? The assumptions pile on the assumptions, which should have bred some skepticism. A few caveats are buried in the report text. Yet the projections of massive inundated areas, plus claimed actual lost tax revenues, are blandly presented as fact in both publications. (“Hey, we just quoted the report! Don’t blame us if it’s mostly bull!”)

The real point of this exercise is easy to spot in the Climate Central report: “Ultimately, reducing and eventually eliminating carbon pollution will prevent the problems identified in this report from getting much worse.” Buy an electric car, dump your furnace for a heat pump, replace reliable electric plants with intermittent wind turbines, and Middlesex County won’t slip beneath the waves.

Then the Richmond newspaper further milked it as justification for continuing to impose the RGGI carbon tax on Virginia’s electricity producers, who then pass it along to their customers. The companies pass all their costs along to their customers, especially any taxes and fuel costs. Virginia has now collected $452 million in RGGI taxes in less than two years.

Half of that tax money is dedicated to flood mitigation and prevention programs, and the Richmond newspaper noted some of them being funded so far in two counties it mentioned as vulnerable to losing huge amounts of land. The projects involve building vegetative buffers intended to mitigate future flooding, but none of them can or will deal with this problem of creeping low tide lines (even if creeping much more slowly than claimed).

Humankind cannot hold back the rising tide. But since we can actually measure it, don’t lose any sleep over projections that double or triple the rate of change we do observe. If you are looking for actual measurements of sea level rise, start with the islands on that NOAA table. (Honolulu, a half-foot per century, Midway Atoll, a half-foot per century, San Juan, Puerto Rico, seven-tenths of a foot per century.) You never see those mentioned.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

62 responses to “Sinking the Newest Sea Level Rise Exaggerations”

  1. Nor do you hear about all those climate change wakos buying waterfront property.

  2. Meanwhile, there’s this from Time: “China is planning to build 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces — equivalent to adding about 1.5% to its current annual emissions — according to a new report. The new projects were announced in the first half of this year despite the world’s largest polluter pledging to bring its emissions to a peak before 2030.”
    https://time.com/6090732/china-coal-power-plants-emissions/

    If the world is going to flood, the world is going to flood regardless of what Virginia does to achieve a net zero carbon economy. Maybe Virginians should think more about mitigating sea-level rise (of whatever magnitude) rather than trying, Canute-like, to turn back the tides.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      And the best way to mitigate sea level rise is to stop allowing building near the coastline. Or, if not prohibiting such building, tell the owners they are on their own with flood insurance. No disaster relief when they flood. No subsidized flood insurance.

    2. The Amazing Criswell Avatar
      The Amazing Criswell

      Carbon in our atmosphere follows temperature. Rising temperature means rising carbon. Not the other way around!

  3. DJRippert Avatar

    “In Accomack County on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, for example, the study found that almost 14,000 acres of property that currently lie above the elevation of the mean low-water line are projected to be at or below it by 2050. The affected acreage has an assessed land value of $58.1 million.”

    Ok, let’s go with 18 inches of water rise per century. That’s 0.18 inches per year. There are 28 years between today and 2050. Just over 5 inches of rise from today until 2050. If your lot has 200 feet of shoreline then you will lose 2,400 inches times 5 inches or 12,000 sq inches of land. There are 144 sq in in a square foot. That comes to 83 sq ft of lost land. That’s equivalent to a patch of land about 9 feet by 9 feet. There are 43,560 sq ft in an acre. You lost 0.002 acres of land.

    Does anybody really believe that the tax assessor will reduce your assessment over .002 acres?

    I believe that human-caused climate change is real. I believe that humanity needs to take steps to reverse that change. I also believe that the “cure” has to be implemented at a pace that won’t kill the patient.

    Scare stories like this help nobody.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Your calculation assumes a 1:1 slope for your entire waterfront property (i.e., a 5 inch rise in water will only flood five inches into your property – that means your property is on a 45 degree angle). Very unlikely, imo. I would say a 1:100 slope would be more common on the eastern shore – using your calculations that would mean you would lose about 20% of an one acre lot for each 200 feet of shoreline with 5 inches of water level rise. Looking at it another way, you would loose 41 feet of a 200 X 200 foot waterfront lot – that is not insignificant. I have seen some small waterfront lots that are 50 by 50 foot and you would still lose 41 feet of such a lot – that is 82% of the entire lot.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        And you nailed the actual issue.

        Hurricane Sandy demonstrated that effect in New Jersey.

        https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20121206/new-york-city/fema-redrawing-citys-flood-zone-after-superstorm-sandy/

      2. DJRippert Avatar

        I on a waterfront home on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Like most homes I have a combination of sea wall and rip rap. In my case, 5″ of sea rise would do nothing to reduce my lot since the water never gets within 5″ of the top of the sea wall or the top of the rip rap. If the water rose 5″ I would get more wash in a storm but, like almost all houses on the water, my land is sloped to drain the water back into the bay.

        In my decades of observation, most waterfront homes are built to withstand high tides and storm surges – mostly by building up the land within a few feet of the water. Unimproved lots are a different matter. They might lose land on the order of magnitude you describe.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar

      re: ” I believe that human-caused climate change is real. I believe that humanity needs to take steps to reverse that change. I also believe that the “cure” has to be implemented at a pace that won’t kill the patient.”

      so not with Haner on the science?

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        That is largely my position. To attack me, you invent positions for me (and others.) It’s why few engage with you and frankly I don’ much.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          You do and often guy. Your position on the science in my perspective is to associate with known climate deniers like whatupwiththat.com and others. Sea Level rise is suspect also.

          DJ is not denying the science. He’s accepting it but arguing about the cost – which is sorta where you started before you slipped into denial IMO.

          I have zero trouble with “engagement” here … do you read the comments?

        2. DJRippert Avatar

          I see that Steve answered your point I thought he would use – he believes in climate change but wonders about the timescale and whether we are ready for the economic impact of moving to a drastic reduction in carbon over the next decade or two.

      2. The Amazing Criswell Avatar
        The Amazing Criswell

        It cannot be reversed. Period.

    3. The Amazing Criswell Avatar
      The Amazing Criswell

      If the oceans rose about 200 feet since the end of the last Ice Age, without human help, what are humans going to do to stop a few inches over the next 200 years? Learn history. Forget propaganda. Climate change is nothing more than a tax and fundraising scheme.

  4. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Let’s see. What are the correlations between owning beachfront property and income and wealth? So, assuming arguendo that paying carbon taxes will reduce flooding of beachfront property, what is the likely transfer of money from non-beachfront property owner to beachfront property owners?

    Of course, if journalism were still a profession, someone in the MSM would have investigated this issue year ago.

    And bonus points for explaining why my distant cousin, former President Obama, bought an incredibly expensive beachfront property. He’s not a stupid person by any measure. Needless to say, no reporter has asked him that question.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      There’s actually a lot of reporting on how sea level rise is going to effect tax revenues and turn some of those places into the coastline equivalent of zombie towns who have lost their tax base.

      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-rising-sea-levels-will-erode-local-tax-bases-zombie-towns/

      What this means in part is that infrastructure to counter rising sea levels won’t be funded which will then cause other properties to be inundated and abandoned and no longer paying taxes.

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        You’ve missed my point. People who own beachfront property tend to have a lot more money than people who don’t. Taxing the latter to help the former will cause more money to be transferred to the former. No one is talking about this issue.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          I’m not really getting your point.
          Are you talking about owners of properties in flood zones or something else?

          1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            Yes. Clearly, owners of beachfront or say, Chesapeake Bay, homes would have more wealth and more savings than the average American. Similarly, commercial and residential property values and the amounts of money needed to purchase and develop those properties tend to be higher than similar amounts associated with non-waterfront property. So far, so good?

            If the average American pays either more taxes and/or higher prices to fund programs that protect waterfront properties, be it higher prices for fossil fuels and products and service produced with fossil fuels or constructing dikes and other flood protection measures, the average American will be transferring wealth to the wealthier.

            I’m not arguing against measures to reduce carbon emissions. But I am pointing out that many of anti-emission measures, most especially raising the price of fossil fuels will also result in a transfer of wealth to the already rich.

            What too many people don’t understand is that actions can often have multiple effects. Why isn’t anyone discussing this?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar

            Okay, thanks. But not everyone in places that flood are wealthy. Lot of lower income also.

            Beyond that , if you lose the tax revenues from the higher dollar places then how will you fund services like schools and public safety for the places that did not flood?

            Roads, water, sewer, electricity, etc that go under water… and no longer serve the areas that did not go under water.

            it’s just not a neat and tidy boundary line between flooded and not flooded, wealthy and not wealthy.

          3. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            You are making an argument for taxing owners of non-waterfront properties in the same locality as the waterfront owners but not people who live in “flyover land.”

            How is someone who lives Omaha, Nebraska negatively affected if a Virginia Beach or Nags Head waterfront property owner’s property is worth less than it was due to flooding? How is that same person negatively affected if a person in Nags Head or Virginia Beach receives a property tax boost due to flooding of his/her waterfront neighbors’ land?

            As citizens of the U.S., we all are responsible for addressing flooding at the Norfolk Naval Base. But I don’t see the moral imperative or logic of bailing out private property owners in waterfront communities.

            It’s thinking like this that triggers support for idiots like Trump. The coastal elites want welfare from ordinary people.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar

            I was thinking more of a county that has part of it waterfront with wealthy and part of it not waterfront but still susceptible to flooding with lower income and then the rest of the county not at risk but the county funded by all of them.

            If the wealthy waterfront leave and take their tax revenues with them.

            When you speak of Omaha… are you talking about FEMA flood insurance?

            Do you see that differently than FEMA helping people from hurricanes, tornados, inland river flooding (like Kentucky and Jackson Miss) and other disasters?

            We’re in agreement on not providing subsidized flood insurance. No argument there.

            But you’re opposed to the concept of RGGI where everyone pays into it and then it is used to help communities that flood?

            Would you be opposed to the money only going for municipal infrastructure and none to private? Isn’t that the way it is anyhow?

          5. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            I have no problem with FEMA. If there is a hurricane that creates significant damage at Virginia Beach or Nags Head, there is certainly a role for FEMA. I don’t see FEMA having any role when the issue is gradually rising sea levels.

            Taxing carbon and using the proceeds to address private property subject to gradually rising sea levels is simply wrong. It’s shifting money from ordinary people in a manner that often protects and assists wealthy people.

            We get our water and sanitary sewer from the City of Raleigh. Some of monthly charges are for capital needs for periodically rebuilding infrastructure. I think this is an appropriate charge for all customers to pay. I don’t think the City should impose charges that go to rebuild the infrastructure in the nearby city of Durham. Those needs must be funded locally by users served by the City of Durham.

            If Virginia Beach or Nags Head wants to impose local taxes to protect waterfront property from rising water levels, that may well be reasonable. But I don’t think that people in Roanoke or Wake Forest, much less Omaha, should pay to protect private waterfront property from the impacts of higher water levels.

          6. DJRippert Avatar

            I agree with you. I bought my waterfront home in large part because it sits well above the water. First, that provides a better view. Second, it indemnifies me against any reasonable level of sea level rise.

            Anybody who lives on the water should have the sense to take precautions against king tides. Those precautions will generally protect you from a few inches of sea level rise.

          7. Virginia Beach created the Sandbridge Special Service District, which includes an ad-valorem tax, to cover the costs of annual beach restoration and other measures needed to protect private property in the area from erosion and flooding. If I am reading their tax table correctly the tax is an additional $0.06/$100 for real estate, and also includes a 8% tax on short-term house rentals so that transient residents also pay a share without further burdening the land owner.

            There is currently no mention in the Code of ‘addressing the effects of sea-level rise’ being a purpose for that district, but a Code revision or a new similar Taxing District for that purpose would go a long way towards keeping the rich from getting richer as we protect the shorelines of the Commonwealth.

            PS – Va Beach also has Special Service Districts, with varying ad valorem taxes, for other waterfront areas of the city.

          8. Virginia Beach created the Sandbridge Special Service District, which includes an ad-valorem tax, to cover the costs of annual beach restoration and other measures needed to protect private property in the area from erosion and flooding. If I am reading their tax table correctly the tax is an additional $0.06/$100 for real estate, and also includes a 8% tax on short-term house rentals so that transient residents also pay a share without further burdening the land owner.

            There is currently no mention in the Code of ‘addressing the effects of sea-level rise’ being a purpose for that district, but a Code revision or a new similar Taxing District for that purpose would go a long way towards keeping the rich from getting richer as we protect the shorelines of the Commonwealth.

            PS – Va Beach also has Special Service Districts, with varying ad valorem taxes, for other waterfront areas of the city.

  5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “But the massive geological forces causing the Chesapeake Bay region to sink are causing the land to rise on the other side this tectonic plate in Alaska.”

    Huh…??

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      https://sealevelrise.org/states/alaska/

      Glacial isostatic adjustment….the land is still wobbling from the retreat of the glaciers! 🙂 Hampton Roads apparently also has problems they blame on a meteor strike, and of course subsidence from ground water withdrawal.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      https://sealevelrise.org/states/alaska/

      Glacial isostatic adjustment….the land is still wobbling from the retreat of the glaciers! 🙂 Hampton Roads apparently also has problems they blame on a meteor strike, and of course subsidence from ground water withdrawal.

      1. Kiptopeke is inside the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater (as is Mathews) and protected from the subsidence caused by excessive draw down of the Potomac Aquifer in Hampton Roads. The aquifer dips down 2500+ ft under the crater soit’s too deep to drill into, and it barely moves horizontally toward the ocean. The transmissivity in feet squared per day is 0.0001, so inside the crater, it’s not affecting the land above it.

      2. Wording is misleading. Same principle, but two different events and effects. The adjustment on the Alaska land mass is a rising as it recovers from the weight of the glaciers that had been pressing it down and the viscous mantle returns to where it had been pushed down and away. On our side of the continent, the glaciers pushed the land southward like a throw rug held down at one end and the other end is moved toward it causing raised areas. As the glaciers withdrew, the pushed up areas have been flattening out so the elevation is gong down here down. https://gps.alaska.edu/jeff/Classes/GEOS655/Lecture20_GIA.pdf

        1. LarrytheG Avatar

          That’s a pretty good reference. thanks.

          also…. when glaciers “withdraw”, they go into the ocean and increase sea levels , right?

      3. LarrytheG Avatar

        here’s what NOAA and science says:

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3c2aea651a04151cbb289993d041a7c0e59cefed53ddd9ea168925322940685b.jpg

        “Sea levels nationwide will rise about a foot in the next thirty years — as much as it’s gone up in the past century, according to a recently released report by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration.

        But for Juneau, circumstances may see the sea levels dropping instead, said University of Alaska Southeast geophysics professor Jason Amundson.”

        “Here in Southeast Alaska, we have quite a bit of uplift. It seems like we’re outpacing the sea level rise,” Amundson said in a phone interview. “Since 2006 to basically today, the land has lifted about 30 centimeters, about a foot.”

        https://www.juneauempire.com/news/sea-levels-projected-to-rise-nationwide-but-juneau-faces-different-changes/

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Yes, NOAA has embraced the models and ignores their own century of real data. There is a policy agenda overriding the science. That opening sentence even ignores the vital point about “relative” sea level. No way actual sea level rises a foot in 30 years. Only in big subsidence areas might it come close, and you can’t stop “subsidence” by changing the atmosphere, so they pretend it isn’t there.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Nope. You use their data but you disagree with THEIR analysis.

            This is NOAA:

            ” Sea levels nationwide will rise about a foot in the next thirty years — as much as it’s gone up in the past century, according to a recently released report by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration.”

            You are not a scientist , no training at all, and you disagree with hundreds of well-educated career scientists. You label them as wrong, incorrect, incompetent, etc, with zero science yourself.

            You disagree with models because you do not understand them and how they work because you are not trained in that field which has thousands of scientists around the world that are,

            You don’t even allow that you could be wrong… which even science does.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I would think that having extra subsidence relative to sea level rises on the Virginia coast would cause a sense of “uh-oh” rather than an argument that there is nothing to worry about…

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            yes… but it’s apparently more important to deny the sea level rise and blame the subsistence than to look at the net outcome.

            This is not just in Virginia either.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e3e25d85faf3fa0c05617cd05145193f2c2b93b7eab97cd489193ab6e9ccab50.jpg

          4. DJRippert Avatar

            True, but the effects of subsidence are much more localized and happen much faster than sea level. Sharps Island in the Chesapeake Bay is one example. While the 600+ acre island is now under about 10 feet of water nearby Tilghman Island continues to look much like it did 250 years ago.

            https://www.proptalk.com/chesapeake-history-sharps-island

          5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            From what I have read the largest subsidence rates are about 3mm/year in the mid-Atlantic. If that is true, it only represents about 4 inches of subsidence-related sea level change over 30 years (note it seems that the groundwater related subsidence has reversed in recent years, btw). If sea levels rise a foot over all… that seems to dwarf the subsidence numbers.

      4. LarrytheG Avatar

        Haner – you KNOW that website references NOAA out the wazoo, right?

      5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        I had never heard that the Chesapeake Bay area is sinking because of glacier retreat. Groundwater withdraw… yes… man-made… A great deal of subsidence can also come from sediment loading (think deltaic deposits) but that would be local and not have anything to do with rising elevations in the west. Just seemed a very strange way to phrase the concept.

        1. DJRippert Avatar

          My understanding is that there is a vast layer of fresh water buried under the Chesapeake Bay and surrounding land. It’s segmented into many lakes. Sometimes one of those lakes starts to leak and the land above it sinks. When that happens the subsidence can occur very fast as was the case with Sharps Island. At least, that’s one type of subsidence.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I have heard of subsidence from groundwater extraction (and subsequent sediment compression) and yes it can happen quickly. Not heard of underground lakes under the Chesapeake though. Typically you only hear of large underground bodies of water in karst (weathered limestone) formations. But nothing surprises me these days.

          2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            I have heard of subsidence from groundwater extraction (and subsequent sediment compression) and yes it can happen quickly. Not heard of underground lakes under the Chesapeake though. Typically you only hear of large underground bodies of water in karst (weathered limestone) formations. But nothing surprises me these days.

      6. The Amazing Criswell Avatar
        The Amazing Criswell

        For what it is worth, as a child camping with my family in Highland County, the mountains, at the bull pasture river, we found fossils of salt water clams. Explain that.

  6. Fred Costello Avatar
    Fred Costello

    https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases shows that all that we are doing is having no impact on green-house gases in the atmosphere.

    1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Probably not very good news…. of course, stopping the use of lead in gasoline did not actually remove lead from our environment (same thing with banning PCBs).

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        no quick fixes – long, long slog

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ff185bead71be391a6606add0ca4c6e67e38c8ed2e2b288af73a126568aec63a.jpg

        https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/ozone-levels-declining-over-worlds-most-populous-areas#:~:text=Research%20published%20in%20American%20Chemistry,stratosphere%20and%20at%20the%20poles.

        the question asked and derided is “Can mankind really influence climate, ozone, and other planet-wide things..

        and/or – if we do , can we really do much about it..???

      2. “of course, stopping the use of lead in gasoline did not actually remove lead from our environment”

        It did stop adding more lead to the environment. As the old adage goes, when you’re in a hole the first thing you have to do is to stop digging. Lead levels in people plummeted with the removal of lead from gasoline. That translated directly into reduced behavioral issues as lead free kids grew up.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          Agreed and apt…

        2. …and paint.

        3. …and paint.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Probably not very good news…. of course, stopping the use of lead in gasoline did not actually remove lead from our environment (same thing with banning PCBs).

  7. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Thwaite a minute, I suppose you’ve included glacier melt?

    Let’s see the world… https://www.cargoshipvoyages.com

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      There has been SLR since the end of the ice age for that very reason, but again, much more gradual than they want to admit. So they come up with scary scenarios about acceleration, “tipping points” (a catch phrase in this “report” too.) The poles were supposed to be ice free by now!! Uh, not even close, and Antarctica is growing in places.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        25 years of elevation measurements do indeed show gains in elevation, but it’s a net loss. But then you, as a former downhill racer, would also know that 12″ of fresh powder is about 1.2″ of ice.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      There has been SLR since the end of the ice age for that very reason, but again, much more gradual than they want to admit. So they come up with scary scenarios about acceleration, “tipping points” (a catch phrase in this “report” too.) The poles were supposed to be ice free by now!! Uh, not even close, and Antarctica is growing in places.

  8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “If you walk those waterlines, are they all nice one-to-one beach slopes? Are there not often steep embankments, so any rise in the tide just climbs the side of the bank and doesn’t inundate one blade of grass? Aren’t there actual walls on some of the banks?”

    From the study you cite:

    “Initial delineations of affected areas are refined by removing low-lying areas that appear to be protected from the ocean by natural topography or by levees.”

    AND

    “The real point of this exercise is easy to spot in the Climate Central report: “Ultimately, reducing and eventually eliminating carbon pollution will prevent the problems identified in this report from getting much worse.” Buy an electric car, dump your furnace for a heat pump, replace reliable electric plants with intermittent wind turbines, and Middlesex County won’t slip beneath the waves.”

    Absolutely untrue on two points:

    1. You ignore the entire precursor to this one line that provides very practical things that should be done to prepare and mitigate the effects of rising sea levels (regardless of cause):

    “To increase resilience and reduce risks to property and lives, communities, counties, and states have several
    options. They can:
    • Adjust land use policies to encourage development outside the risk zones, and to limit new growth in the
    risk zones.
    • Participate in the National Flood Insurance Program and the Community Rating System incentives to help
    improve financial resilience for residents, indirectly supporting the tax base.
    • Use science-based analysis to inform investments in infrastructure interventions, such as improving
    stormwater systems, raising roadways, building levees, or improving coastal wetlands, that will, at least for
    a time, help protect the tax base.
    • Educate and inform taxpayers so that they may constructively participate in adapting the local economy
    and tax base to the rising sea.”

    Many of these points are echoes by even Conservative commenters here.

    2. They are saying that dealing with carbon-based seal level change will help avoid matters getting MUCH WORSE than they cite. They are generally not blaming climate change for these sea level rises but natural causes. In fact, they state that “Future emission levels will dramatically affect the rate and extent of sea level rise, mainly
    after the year 2050.
    ” They also state plainly that: “Although the analysis presents data through the century, much of this summary is framed around findings for
    2050—a period currently within the range of a typical 30-year mortgage—to emphasize the imminent risks for
    homeowners and coastal communities.”

    The message: regardless of what happens after 2050 our coastal areas face a dim future in the near term and it will cost us all. There is a secondary point that if you apply the projections of the climate models, it gets much worse come 2100.

    I can’t help but notice the areas that will be most hard hit (both physically and financially) are Louisiana, Texas, and Florida. How should we (the rest of the country) react when they come to us with hat in hand…??

  9. Ruckweiler Avatar

    ‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
    H. L. Mencken

  10. The Amazing Criswell Avatar
    The Amazing Criswell

    Thank you for this Steve. I’ve been going to Deltaville routinely since the 1960s. The water line at high and low tide is exactly where it has always been, to my memory. Not a foot higher and not 2 feet higher. The same. We know for a fact that the oceans have risen around 200 feet since the end of the last Ice Age. Whatever is going on now is natural and cannot be stopped, but it is de minimus compared to 200 feet. Why is the left so anti-nature? Oh, that’s right. It’s a fundraising scheme.

  11. Merchantseamen Avatar
    Merchantseamen

    I remember learning in school. Three states of water. Gaseous, solid and liquid. The planet is in a closed loop. We don’t gain and we don’t lose “water”. Some areas of the planet have more water, some have less water. Apparently they do not teach this concept and science fact anymore. With that being said …In 1992 a WWII P-38 fighter plane was discovered in Greenland buried under 300 feet of ice. This is one of 6 P-38’s and two B-17’s that were forced down due to a blizzard. All crewmen were rescued however the planes were abandoned. 300 feet down. Granted you have shifting glacier ice, snow, blizzards etc. 300 feet down. Global warming is a scam. However I do agree we need to steward our planet vs the waste and pollution from everyday consumable items. Carbon we need to live. Nitrogen we need to live. This is all about control. They know it. We know it and they know we know it.

Leave a Reply