[Newsbot]

Title: In Norfolk, evidence of climate change is in the streets at high tide
Category: Environmental
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2014-06-02 07:25:10

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's the first paragraph to a critique on this one.

"One of the problems with so called science writers in the mainstream media today is that few of them have the wherewithal and training to do some basic sanity checking. Lori Montgomery of the Washington Post illustrates this lack of competence perfectly in a piece this weekend titled: In Norfolk, evidence of climate change is in the streets at high tide ."

Here's one of the points he makes concerning the hysteria of the give-me-money, claims of imaginary math based on modeled fantasies in the WaPo article.

$1:

"So, let's do the math to see if the data and claims match. We'll use the worst case value from Sewell's Point tide gauge of 4.44mm/year, which over the last century measured the actual business as usual history of sea level in concert with rising greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. with no mitigation done in the last century of measurements.

Their claim is for the business as usual scenario: by the end of this century, the sea in Norfolk would rise by 5feet or more.

At the year 2014, there are 86 years left in this century.
86 years x 4.44 mm/year = 381.84 mm
381.84 mm = 15.03 inches (conversion here)

Gosh, 15.03 inches is quite a long ways from "5 feet or more".

As seen in the caption for the scary WaPo graph, the entire premise of Ms. Montgomery's article is based on projections related to greenhouse gas emissions, with those emissions set to accelerate sea level rise, yet as we see from the tide gauge graphs, even while GHG gases increased in the atmosphere in the last century, there is no visible acceleration, no curve upwards towards anything that would hint at their worst case scenario."

There's more at the link.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/01/m ... ubsidence/

[Zipperfish]

Poor Anthony Watts (the main force behind the Watts Up With That AGW skeptic site). He's been in damage control lately, trying to change the channel. I expect this to continue to be the case for a while. Then, after everybody else has finally gotten the memo, he'll claim that he never denied it to start with. That's my model prediction.

[N_Fiddledog]

The math is correct or it's incorrect. If the projection the writer gives based on actual data is correct, then the math given for the vastly exaggerated modeled projection is nothing but imagination. The real numbers tell you what reality is saying. The imagined numbers tell you what imagination is saying.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The math is correct or it's incorrect.

15.03 inches assumes a linear melting of ice and a linear increase in tidal levels over the rest of the century. Ice melts faster as there is more surface area, so it's logarithmic. The projections are also logarithmic.

One of these things is not like the other.

[Delwin]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Poor Anthony Watts (the main force behind the Watts Up With That AGW skeptic site). He's been in damage control lately, trying to change the channel. I expect this to continue to be the case for a while. Then, after everybody else has finally gotten the memo, he'll claim that he never denied it to start with. That's my model prediction.

Yeah, all the mental gymnastics required to argue around the science is going to be good training for when they have to deny that they denied it in the first place.

[DanSC]

One thing we can learn from this is that while measuring historical temperatures and sea levels is easy, extrapolating that into the future is an inexact science.

[bootlegga]

There are none so blind as those who will not see...

[Zipperfish]

Delwin Delwin:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Poor Anthony Watts (the main force behind the Watts Up With That AGW skeptic site). He's been in damage control lately, trying to change the channel. I expect this to continue to be the case for a while. Then, after everybody else has finally gotten the memo, he'll claim that he never denied it to start with. That's my model prediction.

Yeah, all the mental gymnastics required to argue around the science is going to be good training for when they have to deny that they denied it in the first place.

He's already started. He's now referring to AGW as "CAGW" (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) presumably because he's been more or less forced to accept the anthropogenic global warming now.

Speaking of which, hears what Stephen Harper said on vaccinations :

$1:

'Don't indulge your theories,' Harper says, 'think of your children and listen to the experts'

Not a bad idea for climate change either, Steve-O.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The math is correct or it's incorrect.

15.03 inches assumes a linear melting of ice and a linear increase in tidal levels over the rest of the century. Ice melts faster as there is more surface area, so it's logarithmic. The projections are also logarithmic.

One of these things is not like the other.

You're talking about the difference between 15 inches and 5 1/2 to 8 feet. Logaritmic my ass. Made up is made up. Tell me again how the "Polar Vortex" is going to make warming freeze the earth. A fancy lexicon might impress the rubes, but they're around the block. Others among us require facts.

BTW did you notice the real math came back for your West Antarctic nonsense?

The final figures weren't the press release BS of a double to triple increase in sea level for a suggested increase of 3 and half metres by the end of the century. In fact I still don't understand how think they got that. They were wrong in any case. It was a double to triple increase in the rate of increase they projected for sea level. That worked out to being about the thickness of a half a fingernail per year. So even if we believe they can actually project that it's only the thickness of 50 fingernails in a hundred years.

Logarithmic is just a silly word if you're pulling the data and the math you're using for increase out your butt. Decrease in albedo, or disruption in the circulation belt isn't going to give you those extra 7 feet either. Don't be ridiculous. This isn't the Day After Tomorrow.

As to using the term CAGW instead of AGW, believe it or not Zip, I didn't invent the term. Other people did to make it clear to political alarmists, warming cultists and the bumpkins they were selling their snake oil to that what the argument was about wasn't whether or not the climate changed, or even if man might had some effect on climate. The argument is whether or not there is evidence suggesting we need to create real crises by pretending we can do something to affect the fantasy of a projected catastrophe.

But hey if we're going to discuss the evolution of terms explain the Global Warming, to Climate Change to Climate Disruption to Global Weirding thing to us. Why was all that necessary? See cause I think it's because what was a transient spike in warming stopped, or at least paused, so the guys at the top wanted to convince us to ignore the obvious in that warming pause by inventing new terms and pretending those were the new reality.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The argument is whether or not there is evidence suggesting we need to create real crises by pretending we can do something to affect the fantasy of a projected catastrophe.

Yes, but the argument used to be that there was no such thing as global warming adn then it was there is global warming but we aren't causing it. Now it's: there is global warming and we might be causing some of it but it's not that bad.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The argument is whether or not there is evidence suggesting we need to create real crises by pretending we can do something to affect the fantasy of a projected catastrophe.

Yes, but the argument used to be that there was no such thing as global warming adn then it was there is global warming but we aren't causing it. Now it's: there is global warming and we might be causing some of it but it's not that bad.

Never with me. I do remember you used to have that one about no warming with Sasquatch. I remember, because I specifically remember thinking to myself, sheesh Sasq calm down. He's got you riled and you're going over the line.

I know I always knew where the line was by the time I came here, because by that time I'd discovered Watts. I also knew about the climate sensitivity thing, because I used to read that Coyote guy's blog. By my memory, you didn't, so there you go.

But hey Zip, now you've got me interested. Are you able to give an honest answer about something, because I'm curious? When did you get interested in climate? Was it here? My interest began at a message board, but not this one. It's funny...Sasquatch used to hang there too.

In fact this thread's not going anywhere so I'll tell you the story.

When I signed up there, not only wasn't I interested in climate. I wasn't interested in politics. I didn't know if I was right or left, or even what that was.

I was an entertainment guy. It was a multiple subject board. Sometimes the entertainment section would get slow, and I'd snoop around the politics section. It was a combative section of message board. They were screamers, mockers and insulters. I didn't know what a Prog was back then, so I didn't know what those members actually were. I just thought that was the way politics was talked out. So I tried to blend in. The worse of the assholes didn't like Sasq, so I decided to be on his side.

Then one day this guy popped in and he seemed to know what he was talking about. He was calm, reasonable and he knew his subject. I'd never seen such a thing in my brief time on a political board. So what I thought was, "Here we go. My hero. I wanna be like youhoohoo." His subject was climate, so that's where I began. That's how I became a political junkie, learned I didn't want to be a prog, and got interested in climate.

I then followed Sasquatch through the maze of failing Canadian message boards until we came here. And trust me, by the time I came here I'd seen the climate graphs.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I didn't know if I was right or left, or even what that was.

I was an entertainment guy.

Was? Believe me; never underestimate your ability to entertain.

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanks.

[BartSimpson]

From the article:

$1:

NORFOLK — At high tide on the small inlet next to Norfolk’s most prestigious art museum, the water lapped at the very top of the concrete sea wall that has held it back for 100 years. It seeped up through storm drains, puddled on the promenade and spread, half a foot deep, across the street, where a sign read, “Road Closed.”

Conclusions:

1) 100 years ago this facility was built in a low lying area that was so low that a sea wall had to be built to keep out the tides.

2) It's a failing 100 year old sea wall complete with failing 100 year old infrastructure behind it.

3) It's time to build a new sea wall.