Scientific evidence shows an increase in sea level, combined with subsidence, rise for the region to be anywhere from 15-24 inches.
“NOAA’s last technical report in 2017 similarly predicted about a foot of sea level rise — but by the end of the century. This week’s document allows more precision and speeds up the timeline, officials said during a virtual press conference.”
5 years ago, end of the century estimates were a foot. Now we are talking mid-Century and a foot-and-a-half to 2 feet.
A good basis to remain in the RGGI to help pay for resiliency projects because, as one oceanographer said, “We aren’t holding back the tides.”
50 thoughts on “Bad News for Sea Level Rise”
Yeah, I’m going to write to Ms Hafner to explain to her why she should not be so gullible.
There is no new data to support those estimates, only a new set of models, which all are based on the same assumptions, but are considered to be verified because they agree with each other. As if any other result were possible.
Think about it.
Currently sea level has been rising at about 2.2mm per year based on GPS corrected tide gauges, or 3.3mm per year by questionable satellite measurements. There has been no measured acceleration. To reach the 15 to 18(1/3 of which is subsidence) inches by 2050, the orthostatic rate would have to be 10 to 11mm per year, and it would have to immediately increase to that level and maintain it. If it were to gradually increase over that time period, it would have to reach 20mm per year by 2050.
The article is nothing but fear porn.
Thank you for the expected denial and “Alarmist propaganda” comment that was fully expected.
I find it a bit surprising that a man of medicine and science only believes in the deniers science and gives no account to that which tends to be the consensus. science and doubts anything that goes against he preconceived notion. And even if the projections are off by 50%, the rising seas and sinking land should make even the loudest of deniers think twice.
And I do hope the compound stay afloat long enough for your progeny to enjoy it for generations to come.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Check my math
Check YOUR bias.
The data and simulations take into account the increase not only in sea level rise and subsidence, but also increased rainfall from weather events. The atmosphere is holding more moisture and then dumping it heavier than historically seen.
Maybe you should take a closer look at the professionals who study this for a career and their math. They back up their conclusions.
So, you didn’t check the math.
Oh, and heavier rainfall does not raise sea level. Not at all. Where did you think the water for the rainfall came from?
And you NEVER check your own bias.
Accordingly, you don’t check sciences that goes against your own preconceived, anti-climate science notions.
Read what the SCIENTISTS stated concerning heavier rainfall. I understand the water cycle, but perhaps you don’t realize that your biases prevent you from seeing things through the eyes of those who do this for a living.
But when your grandkids have to abandon the compound because you taught them not to believe science that you filter through your own biases, I will feel sorry for them.
Again, check the math and tell me if the sea level rise in the article is possible in 30 years.
Math doesn’t care what the experts say, and the experts rice bowl is dependent on keeping the populace in a state of fear.
The experts’ math is justified by the increase in melting polar and glacial ice, along with increased rain fall.
Again, your experts have their own biases as well. And because you think it is a rice bowl issue, they are wrong. Got it. Sunshine, rainbows and unicorns. The only real thing there in Libertarian land is sunshine.
The Central Ice Sheets of Greenland and Antarctica are gaining mass faster than the coastal glaciers are losing it.
Look at the link I provided. The sea level rise data used there comes from NOAA and NASA. The observed rate of rise is 2.2mm/year. To reach the rise in the article it would have to immediately go to 10mm/year which is impossible.
The rate of sea level rise has been constant as long as you have been alive.
“Sewells Point in Norfolk has seen a rise of 17 inches since 1927, compared to about 7 to 8 inches globally.”
“But federal officials said this week their analysis comes with backing across government agencies and renewed confidence from the data.”
““One of the big signals we’re seeing in the data is increased precipitation events,” Easterling said. “Virginia’s starting to see their share.”
That may seem like it would negate drought issues. But alongside increasing temperatures, droughts actually worsen. Soil loses moisture at a higher rate during more dry spells, he said.
As the atmosphere warms, it holds more moisture, and the cycle of more rain continues, Easterling said.”
I disagree with your assessment as the data is showing the increase in sea level rise and increased rainfall..
NOAA and NASA aren’t in business JUST for climate science. If the climate were to slow its warming, these number would change.
Change seems to be something you are afraid to admit to. In LOTS of areas.
You still haven’t shown me that my math is wrong.
TO get the sea level rise claimed we would have to AVERAGE 10mm/year for 30 years, not counting subsidence.
The last time that happened was the end of the last ice age.
So you rule it out completely? Kind of dangerous if you live close to the water.
I do hope their projections are wrong, but until we see a decline in blue sky flooding and a decrease in heavier rain events, I will remain concerned.
You will not see a decline in flooding.
Orthostatic sea level rise will continue at about 2.2mm/year, or about an inch every 11 years.
But subsidence in this area will also continue at about 3mm/year and in some areas built on fill, settling will be even faster.
I certainly hope the rain increases, we have a serious problem with saltwater intrusion here, and more rainfall would help.
…”we have a serious problem with saltwater intrusion here, and more rainfall would help.”
If it can get into the aquifer before running off into the local waterways.
A couple of years ago there was a program studied by HRSD to use clean wastewater to pump into the aquifer to help with both the sea water intrusion and subsidence. I wonder what happened to that because it seemed plausible and beneficial.
As far as I know that project is still on track.
The problem here is deforestation. That allows rainwater to run off into waterways too quickly. Most rain events here are followed by a frontal passage and north winds that temporarily suck water out of the rivers to be replaced by brackish bay water when the wind subsides.
Delaying the rainwater entering the river preserves a head of fresh water to keep the brackish water out. The bottomland forests held the water for 2 to 3 days, allowing the wind event to pass before the water hits the river. But much of the water runs off of soybean fields in a few hours, and it is lost to the north wind.
Deforestation here is the result of wood pellet exports for England’s renewable energy subsidies.
“The problem here is deforestation.”
Blaming deforestation on capitalism (selling products to customers) and blaming soybean farms for runoff sounds like an issue for you.
Deforestation can be controlled and still provide for the commerce aspect of the lumber industry. Managing tree farms and natural growth areas that are harvested for their lumber products is pretty cut and dry. Pennsylvania does a decent job of that and could be a model for VA to follow.
Also, the majority of pellets are made from scrap products after lumber is harvested. (My father-in-law worked at a PA mill for decades and got a lot of wood for his house from the scrap pile.
First, a monoculture pulpwood tree farm is not a replacement for a bottomland hardwood forest, either in hydrology or biodiversity.
Those forests survived since colonial times because there was no market for the wood, The highest use for the landowner was leasing it to hunting clubs as it would take too long to recover the costs of clearing the land for agriculture. It was not until the artificial market for wood pellets as part of a carbon trading scheme that clearing the land became feasible.
That is not capitalism. That is a government intrusion into the market with catastrophic unintended consequences.
Lumber mills now use all of their scrap products to power their own processes, primarily for wafer board and plywood, which require a lot of steam.
…”a monoculture pulpwood tree farm is not a replacement for a bottomland hardwood forest, either in hydrology or biodiversity.”
The hardwood (and softwood) managed proerties in PA think you are mistaken.
“Lumber mills now use all of their scrap products to power their own processes, primarily for wafer board and plywood, which require a lot of steam.
The mill in PA that my FIL worked (as well as most others) use sawdust for those purposes, including steam generation. (Even after he retired, Skip would get calls in the middle of the night to run up to the mill and stoke the boilers with sawdust.)
The scarp pile was stumps, bent pieces and nasty ends that are being processed for wood pellets. That market has been beneficial to that small mill and have kept them operational in recent years.
And it is NOT government intervention, it is the market evolving to meet the needs of consumers. Producers sell products to customers. It is capitalism.
No, the pellets are exported to England which counts them as renewable energy. Burning wood pellets earns them credits that allow them to burn coal.
It is in no way a free market, It is entirely artificial.
Our companies have wood products and lumber byproducts that can be made into pellets that European countries want to purchase. Its about as free market as you can get. Otherwise there is a lot of scrap wood laying around and too much of it to be used in hunting and fishing camps or other wood burning stove users.
How many wood pellets do you think English power companies would buy were it not for the carbon trading credits? Consider it costs about twice as much as their own coal.
And the pellets ARE NOT coming from scrap. They are coming from clear cut bottomland forests that have been untouched since colonial times, and if we tried really hard, it would take that long again to reproduce them. Biodiversity apparently doesn’t matter when their are fortunes to be made on crony carbon trading schemes.
For all the Democrats claim to be supporters of the environment, they apparently don’t give a shit about the hundreds of species we will lose forever for those damned wood pellets.
“And the pellets ARE NOT coming from scrap. ”
And you know this how?
Also, properly managed forest with replanting and proper techniques can and do reproduce.
I know this because the trucks hauling the logs to the pellet mill pass by my house and I can see the loss of the forests from the river.
Sweet gum and swamp maple and other lowland forest trees have no commercial value for anything other than pellets.
That is why proper management is essential. But that falls into the definition of “regulation” which I know you tend to abhor.
“Sweet gum and swamp maple and other lowland forest trees have no commercial value for anything other than pellets.”
Sounds to me like you need to discuss this with the capitalists running those companies.
No, absent the English carbon trading scheme creating an artificial market, there would be no profit.
So countries buying products from our country does not constitute free market? So what if its driven by government policy. We have the material they want to buy. We have companies that can sell it to them. That is the basis for a free market whether it is based on government policy or not.
And the irreparable harm to the environment resulting from false market signals is not a concern to you?
If so, I will regard you as forever disqualified from judging others on environmental issues. The loss of these forests is far worse than anything climate change will do to the region.
There is NO false market. That is YOUR narrative because you believe that anything geared toward green technologies will “bankrupt” the country.
And while I agree with the loss of forests being an issue, I again say that you should be addressing your concerns with the COMPANIES, you know, the CAPITILISTS, working to make money in the MARKET.
The market and the environment can be a mutually beneficial relationship. You just don’t think it is possible.
Of course there is a false market. And false environmental justification.
Absent the carbon trading credits, there would be no reason for English power companies to import the pellets. They cost a great deal more than coal or natural gas power.
Further, the fossil fuel expended to cut the trees, haul them to the mill, grind them to dust and then bake them into pellets, to be transported by ship to England exceeds the savings in CO2 emissions avoided by not burning local coal. There is no climate benefit, no cost saving, and not reason to cut those trees other than that by doing so, English power companies earn credits that allow them to burn local coal.
It is totally artificial start to finish.
If the government offered contracts to build useless pyramids, private companies would bid on those too, but that would still not be capitalism.
BTW, the 7 to 8 inches of global sea level since 1927 in the article comes to just over 2mm/year.
Where do you think the authors back up their conclusions?
There is no new data, The satellite measurements of 3.3mm/year increase come from a satellite radioaltimeter with a 3.5 CENTIMETER margin of error.
All there is backing this are new models that have not been able to predict the present.
I would provide a link to Judith Curry’s excellent video on the limitations of climate models, but Youtube has censored it.
Here is the pdf version
Can you explain WHY NOAA and NASA would make these projections? They don’t have a rice bowl when it comes to studying the climate and the effects we have see, continue to see and are projected to see.
You would think they would want to preserve their credibility.
But none of their earlier projections have panned out and the press doesn’t call them on it.
Remember that the Artic was supposed to be ice free last summer. Did you see any headlines about the ice extent reaching a 40 years high?
Thank you, Doctor, for bringing common sense to this post.
On this he might as well be a chiropractor.
Common sense says look at what professional climate scientists, oceanographers, and simulation runners have to say and compare it to what 1) you can see with your own eyes (increasing blue sky flooding in the area comes to mind, and 2) what is actually happening with our shifting climate.
You seem to be blinded by Dr. Tabor’s biases as well.
Math is not a bias.
But what goes into the formulations IS. You say the experts in the article are biased because of the rice bowl; I say yours are biased because they live in unreality.
Then it should be really easy for you to show me where I am wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “You seem to be blinded by Dr. Tabor’s biases as well.”
You keep barking up the wrong tree, Mr. Green. The satellite data Dr. Tabor refers to is not susceptible to bias. It is pure observation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One good thing about this latest bit of alarmism, It is easily falsifiable.
Every day this sea level rise acceleration fails to show up on tide gauges makes the required rate of rise down the road become more ludicrous.
Perhaps a year from now we will be able to drive the final nails in this monster’s coffin.
“Perhaps a year from now we will be able to drive the final nails in this monster’s coffin.”
Or better yet, have resiliency projects ready to go.
Resiliency projects are a good thing, but they should be paid for by property taxes on the affected properties, not by higher electric rates for people who did not build on low lying areas.
Paying for it with property taxes will help determine which areas are worth saving and which should be cleared and allowed to return to wetlands.
…”not by higher electric rates for people who did not build on low lying areas.”
People who don’t live in low lying areas benefit from those who do (and vice versa). To say otherwise is to deny a bit of reality.
Really? Can I dock my boat in their back yards?
No, unless you pay them for the privilege. Besides, in about two to four years you may be able to dock it in your OWN back yard.
But I’m supposed to pay to protect them from their own folly for building in low lands near the water?
How long have those coastal properties threatened by sea level rise been in existence? They didn’t just build there yesterday.
And I guess the Navy should just move inland because, well, they are supported by people who live in the mountains.
Relative sea level has been tracked at Sewell’s point since 1880. The rate of rise has been nearly constant the whole time.
It would take a rise on the order of 5 feet to make the Navy relocate.
Then explain why the Navy is building piers to withstand the coming changes? Money that could be used for new weapons, new barracks, pay raises for enlisted personnel is being used to build multi-million dollar resiliency piers.
Because much of the Navy property is built on filled land, which is settling in addition to the regional subsidence. That would require mitigation even if globally sea level didn’t rise a millimeter. The measly 2.2mm per year contributed by actual sea level rise is dwarfed by the settleing and subsidence.