tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post3674367618780218272..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: Miami Residents Discover Climate Change Costs MoneyDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-41840565182981223012014-07-25T22:21:58.392-07:002014-07-25T22:21:58.392-07:00"The cities will continue to adapt over the n..."The cities will continue to adapt over the next few 100s of yrs."<br /><br />It's not a question of adapting -- Miami and surrounding areas will be inundated with water. Unlike New Jersey, where houses are being raised to (now) withstand strong storm surges, Miami will be underwater each day, every day, forever. There will be little land, if any. Parts of Miami already flood with rain storms. A lot of real estate will disappear. Eventually NJ's barrier islands will go too.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-23134288163407464252014-07-25T22:14:51.794-07:002014-07-25T22:14:51.794-07:00"To accommodate the large uncertainty in SLR ..."To accommodate the large uncertainty in SLR projections, it is necessary to estimate<br />inundation losses for the Florida Keys from a large array of scenarios ranging from<br />0.15 to 5.1 m SLR. Results from this study showed that a 0.6 m sea level rise at theClimatic Change (2011) 107:129–146 145<br />end of this century would inundate a large area, about 70% of the total area of the<br />Florida Keys. However, this level of sea level rise would not impact an equivalent<br />amount of population (17%) or real property (12%) in the Florida Keys. A 1.5 m<br />sea level rise would cause catastrophic inundation to the Florida Keys, leading to<br />direct inundation of 91% of the total island area, displacement of 71% of the total<br />population, and a loss of 68% of the property value.If sea level rises 1.8 m, there<br />would be very little habitable area remaining in the Florida Keys."<br /><br />Climatic Change (2011) 107:129–146<br />DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0080-2<br />Assessment of sea level rise impacts on human<br />population and real property in the Florida Keys<br />Keqi Zhang · John Dittmar· Michael Ross·<br />Chris Bergh<br />Received: 3 June 2010 / Accepted: 31 March 2011 / Published online: 15 May 2011David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-68400658251766852982014-07-25T22:13:13.958-07:002014-07-25T22:13:13.958-07:00"For a SLR scenario of 0.3 m, there is a 40 k..."For a SLR scenario of 0.3 m, there is a 40 km2 increase in the amount of inundated area, 1,400 people are added to the impacted population, and an additional $430 million in property values are lost."<br /><br />Climatic Change (2011) 107:129–146<br />DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0080-2<br />Assessment of sea level rise impacts on human<br />population and real property in the Florida Keys<br />Keqi Zhang · John Dittmar· Michael Ross·Chris Bergh<br />Received: 3 June 2010 / Accepted: 31 March 2011 / Published online: 15 May 2011David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-67328795296322794032014-07-25T22:06:42.635-07:002014-07-25T22:06:42.635-07:00"A 0.5 m sea level rise at the end of this ce..."A 0.5 m sea level rise at the end of this century would inundate a large area of Everglades National Park and the marsh areas in southeastern Miami-Dade County."<br /><br /> http://seflorida.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2012/12/KeqiZhang-PPT.pdfDavid Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-30686718799185942662014-07-25T22:04:00.024-07:002014-07-25T22:04:00.024-07:00Figure E-1:
http://southeastfloridaclimatecompact...Figure E-1:<br /><br />http://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/sea-level-rise.pdfDavid Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-73186387813672919932014-07-25T21:45:43.330-07:002014-07-25T21:45:43.330-07:00Your original claim was about Miami. Proven inadeq...Your original claim was about Miami. Proven inadequate there, you are now going hunting for other sites in Florida.<br /><br />You're done here Charles. I am tired of your false claims, your posts with bad arithmetic, your refusal to admit errors, and correcting you over and over again to no avail. That's it. Good bye.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-31882276934317194412014-07-25T21:42:55.187-07:002014-07-25T21:42:55.187-07:00"We hope this will be enough."
"I..."We hope this will be enough." <br /><br />"It better be. Their chances of selling their house are dwindling rapidly, now that the real estate people know about this problem.<br /><br />http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/09/3742641/rising-sea-levels-falling-real.html"<br /><br />This is not a new problem. Cities are already mitigating for high storm surges by changing the building codes as I explained. The cities will continue to adapt over the next few 100s of yrs. If they are unable to adapt, population will first stop increasing and ultimately start to decrease gradually. We do need to stop the feds from subsidizing coastal rebuilding.<br /><br />I recently watched a This Old House program regarding the rebuilding of the Jersey shore. New building codes require houses to be build on pilings with collapsible first floor walls.charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-80746893334644901642014-07-25T21:29:12.980-07:002014-07-25T21:29:12.980-07:00"All the NOAA data for florida says 2.4."..."All the NOAA data for florida says 2.4."<br /><br />What data is that? The data that ends in 1980?"<br /><br />see<br /><br />http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.shtml?region=fl<br /><br />the following data 1965 to 2012<br />key west is 2.24mm/yr,<br />naples 2.02, <br />ft meyers 2.4 charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-33943736481892621522014-07-25T21:11:11.097-07:002014-07-25T21:11:11.097-07:00"Yes, your two linked articles disagree somew..."Yes, your two linked articles disagree somewhat. One says 2.4 and the other says 3.2."<br /><br />It doesn't say that. It says " after correcting for glacial isostatic adjustment, the estimated rate of rise is 3.2 ± 0.4 mm year−1 from the satellite data and 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year−1 from the in situ data."<br /><br />"All the NOAA data for florida says 2.4."<br /><br />What data is that? The data that ends in 1980? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-8450688312626962692014-07-25T20:55:16.206-07:002014-07-25T20:55:16.206-07:00"v(2014)= 1.4 + 1 =2.4"
Nope.
http://s..."v(2014)= 1.4 + 1 =2.4"<br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />http://sealevel.colorado.edu/<br /><br />Yes, your two linked articles disagree somewhat. One says 2.4 and the other says 3.2.<br /><br />All the NOAA data for florida says 2.4.charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-28681840391692048232014-07-25T19:20:35.429-07:002014-07-25T19:20:35.429-07:00"(Reuters) - South Florida's coastal real..."(Reuters) - South Florida's coastal real estate may become uninsurable as the sea level rises unless Miami's county government takes urgent action, a task force said on Tuesday."<br /><br />http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-usa-florida-sealevel-miami-idUSKBN0F65IN20140701David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-81669079710746355592014-07-25T19:17:17.369-07:002014-07-25T19:17:17.369-07:00"v(2014)= 1.4 + 1 =2.4"
Nope.
http://s..."v(2014)= 1.4 + 1 =2.4"<br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />http://sealevel.colorado.edu/<br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-71654850764660991492014-07-25T19:14:50.802-07:002014-07-25T19:14:50.802-07:00"We hope this will be enough."
It bett..."We hope this will be enough." <br /><br />It better be. Their chances of selling their house are dwindling rapidly, now that the real estate people know about this problem.<br /><br />http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/09/3742641/rising-sea-levels-falling-real.htmlDavid Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-70507647914299504062014-07-25T19:14:12.719-07:002014-07-25T19:14:12.719-07:00"I was comparing 1900 to 2014. so t=114. and ..."I was comparing 1900 to 2014. so t=114. and v0=1.4."<br /><br />v(2014) does not equal v(1900). (That's what acceleration means.)"<br /><br /><br />v(t)= v0 + at<br />v(2014)= v(1900)+ 0.009 * 114<br />v(2014)= 1.4 + 1 =2.4charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-36459622747587740272014-07-25T19:07:15.884-07:002014-07-25T19:07:15.884-07:00"or whether it diverges like the temp model/d..."or whether it diverges like the temp model/data have."<br /><br />You didn't answer my earlier question about this -- what climate model forecasts intervals of just a decade? I don't know of any.<br /><br />--<br />I'm tired of having to correct nearly everything you claim, which you then ignore instead of admitting. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-19103266024905895262014-07-25T19:06:31.248-07:002014-07-25T19:06:31.248-07:00FWIW, my daughter husband and two daughters live i...FWIW, my daughter husband and two daughters live in Homestead Florida. Their front door is about 5ft above sea level. Their front door opens outward so that flood water (storm surge) will force the door closed.<br /><br />Their homes wall's are also built with concrete block and the second floor is concrete. In the event of a hurricane and storm surge they will move everything upstairs and put on the storm shutters. We hope this will be enough.charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-86035320524145925612014-07-25T19:04:37.288-07:002014-07-25T19:04:37.288-07:00"I'm just using the numbers in the abstra..."I'm just using the numbers in the abstract of the paper you linked."<br /><br />No you're not. You're making assumptions about the numbers in order to calculate something. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-70571784073519029262014-07-25T19:03:37.207-07:002014-07-25T19:03:37.207-07:00"I was comparing 1900 to 2014. so t=114. and ..."I was comparing 1900 to 2014. so t=114. and v0=1.4."<br /><br />v(2014) does not equal v(1900). (That's what acceleration means.) David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-45889938304760096322014-07-25T18:59:58.578-07:002014-07-25T18:59:58.578-07:001) Yes, I forgot to divide by 2. Fixing that.
ass...1) Yes, I forgot to divide by 2. Fixing that.<br /><br />assuming<br />d=d0+vt+1/2at^2<br /><br />d=d0+1.7mm*t+1/2*0.009*t^2<br /><br />for t = 100 yrs (1900 to 2000)<br /><br />d=d0 +170mm + 45mm <br /><br />d=d0 +215mm (8.5in)<br /><br />for t = 200 yrs (1900 to <br /><br />2000)<br /><br />d=d0 +340mm + 180mm<br />d=d0 +520mm (20.5in)<br /><br />An increase of 315mm or 12in from 2000 to 2100. That's pretty close to what the IPCC projects (20-50cm).<br /><br />2) "Also, for this equation:<br /><br />"v = 1.4 + 0.009 * t"<br /><br />you took v(2000) = 1.4 mm/yr<br /><br />when it's more like 3 mm/yr.<br /><br />v(2014) = 3.2 mm/yr<br />See http://sealevel.colorado.edu/"<br /><br />I was comparing 1900 to 2014. so t=114. and v0=1.4. <br /><br />Assuming v = v0 + at<br />v = 1.4 + 0.009 * t<br />for t=114 (1900 to 2014)<br />v = 1.4 + 1.03<br />v = 2.4mm/yr (yr 2014)<br /><br />which you point out is slightly less (2.4 vs 3.2)than the sat data you linked. <br /><br />3) I have no idea if the acceleration factor will increase, stay the same, or decrease. I'm just using the numbers in the abstract of the paper you linked.<br /><br />It will be interesting to see in the future if the actual SLR data matches the abstract (IPCC) model or whether it diverges like the temp model/data have.<br /><br />If this really concerns you then I invite you to support advanced nuclear (e.g. LFTR like the Chinese and James Hansen). You are not going to control co2 with the wind/solar alternatives to coal. That has been tried and it has failed (see Europe).charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-35735748886599191412014-07-25T18:02:41.621-07:002014-07-25T18:02:41.621-07:00Also, for this equation:
"v = 1.4 + 0.009 * ...Also, for this equation:<br /><br />"v = 1.4 + 0.009 * t"<br /><br />you took v(2000) = 1.4 mm/yr<br /><br />when it's more like 3 mm/yr.<br /><br />v(2014) = 3.2 mm/yr<br />See http://sealevel.colorado.edu/David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-5246615371262895182014-07-25T17:58:36.169-07:002014-07-25T17:58:36.169-07:00Also, in this equation
"d=d0 +170mm + 90mm&q...Also, in this equation<br /><br />"d=d0 +170mm + 90mm" <br /><br />you forgot to divide by 2 in the last factor.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-33945891270940075712014-07-25T17:39:45.267-07:002014-07-25T17:39:45.267-07:00"Is this a correct way to test the implicatio..."Is this a correct way to test the implications of data in the abstract?"<br /><br />No.<br /><br />1) you assume the acceleration will be constant, which you haven't proven.<br /><br />2) you assume the current rate of SLR applies to all places, when it only applies to the global average.<br /><br />3) You assume the sea will stop rising in the year 2100.<br /><br />4) You assume your result is an insignificant amount for every place, without justification.<br /><br />5) You assume there is no land subsidence, again without proof.<br /><br />6) You ignore the added impact of storm surges.<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-28582476373483423532014-07-25T17:24:33.686-07:002014-07-25T17:24:33.686-07:00"Can you express the acceleration in a formul..."Can you express the acceleration in a formula so I can calculate the expected rise in 100 yrs?"<br /><br />No. If you can't calculate such a trivial thing, you have no business having a scientific opinion about anything. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-27540203746179230722014-07-25T10:47:09.014-07:002014-07-25T10:47:09.014-07:00Abstract
We estimate the rise in global average se...Abstract<br />We estimate the rise in global average sea level from satellite altimeter data for 1993–2009 and from coastal and island sea-level measurements from 1880 to 2009. For 1993–2009 and after correcting for glacial isostatic adjustment, the estimated rate of rise is 3.2 ± 0.4 mm year−1 from the satellite data and 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year−1 from the in situ data. The global average sea-level rise from 1880 to 2009 is about 210 mm. The linear trend from 1900 to 2009 is 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1 and since 1961 is 1.9 ± 0.4 mm year−1. There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year−2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year−2, respectively. Since the start of the altimeter record in 1993, global average sea level rose at a rate near the upper end of the sea level projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports. However, the reconstruction indicates there was little net change in sea level from 1990 to 1993, most likely as a result of the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.<br /><br />assuming<br />d=d0+vt+1/2at^2<br /><br />do you agree with this?<br />d=d0+1.7mm*t+1/2*0.009*t^2<br /><br />for t = 100 yrs (1900 to 2000)<br /><br />d=d0 +170mm + 90mm <br />d=d0 +260mm (10in)<br /><br />for t = 200 yrs (1900 to <br /><br />2000)<br /><br />d=d0 +340mm + 360mm<br />d=d0 +700mm (27in)<br /><br />An increase of 17in from 2000 to 2100.<br /><br />Assuming v = v0 + at<br />v = 1.4 + 0.009 * t<br />for t=114 (1900 to 2014)<br />v = 1.4 + 1.03<br />v = 2.4mm/yr <br />or ~2.4mm*14=33.6mm 1.32in (2000 to 2014)<br /><br />so another 17in - 1.3in = 15.7in by 2100.<br /><br />Is this a correct way to test the implications of data in the abstract?charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-4130021294338057292014-07-24T20:36:01.569-07:002014-07-24T20:36:01.569-07:00Can you express the acceleration in a formula so I...Can you express the acceleration in a formula so I can calculate the expected rise in 100 yrs?charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.com