From the Department of You-Will-Pay-For-Climate-Change-One-Way-Or-Another:
Miami Beach is proposing an 84 percent increase in storm water fees — the cost of keeping rising seas at bay — with more rises in the future.
(source:
Miami Herald). Total expected cost: $300 million.
The city hopes to pay for infrastructure projects, which include pumps to suck water out of soggy streets. About $30 million in storm water improvements are already approved. Plans call for 65 new pump stations and improvements to 21 existing wells.
“It’s just essential,” Commissioner Joy Malakoff said at a committee meeting.
41 comments:
1) 2-3mm/yr
2) for the last 100 or so yrs
3) ~1ft over the next 100yrs
not a co2 driven thing
not a crisis
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8723170
Why assume the rise is linear?
Why do you think Miamians have come to a different conclusion than you?
"Why assume the rise is linear?"
Because it has been linear thus far and there is no reason to expect it to change.
"Why do you think Miamians have come to a different conclusion than you?"
If they have it's probably because they don't see the actual data in the press. None of the press I read presented the NOAA data I linked. Are the press irresponsible, stupid, or intentionally trying to mislead the public? Press always likes a good crisis and bogey man.
Scientists think the rise is not linear. What do you know that they do not?
Your graph at your link stops in the early 1980s. Why? Do you think the last 30 years might be important to know when assessing Miami's rate of SLR?
"Scientists think the rise is not linear. What do you know that they do not?"
Are these the same scientists that believed temps would be rising faster than they are? No sign in the data of an acceleration.
"Your graph at your link stops in the early 1980s. Why? Do you think the last 30 years might be important to know when assessing Miami's rate of SLR?"
Good question. It's NOAA's graph not mine. NOAA's graph for other Florida cities show more current data (and none of them show an acceleration). If you have a graph with current data for Miami please provide a link.
Charles: Why do you think there was supposed to be an acceleration in surface temperatures over the last 10-15 years?
"Good question."
Yes, it is. Amd you should have noticed that before you tried to pass it off as proof of something.
""Good question."
Yes, it is. Amd you should have noticed that before you tried to pass it off as proof of something."
You are the one who should have presented the data to your readers regarding sea level rise in Miami. You made the claim that it was due to co2 and a crisis with no data what so ever. You are as bad as the news media and you should know better.
"Charles: Why do you think there was supposed to be an acceleration in surface temperatures over the last 10-15 years?"
I don't. And, I never said anyone does. But as you well know, surface temps have not risen like the climate models said they would. Thus projections for sea level rise acceleration based on the same flawed models are not believable.
David, don't let CH change the subject when caught. Sea level rise is increasing.
Best,
D
David, don't let CH change the subject when caught. Sea level rise is increasing.
Best,
D
"David, don't let CH change the subject when caught. Sea level rise is increasing.
Best,
D"
OK Dano. Let's see YOUR graph of sea level rise accelerating over the last 10-20 yrs as CO2 level rise.
"But as you well know, surface temps have not risen like the climate models said they would."
I'm not aware of any computer models which make short-term predictions. Please specify which ones you're talking about.
Let's see YOUR graph of sea level rise accelerating over the last 10-20 yrs as CO2 level rise.
Why do you think a 10-20 year interval would show acceleration?
There is this:
“Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century,” John A. Church and Neil J. White, Surveys in Geophysics, September 2011, Volume 32, Issue 4-5, pp 585-602.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-011-9119-1
From the abstract:
"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."
You made the claim that it was due to co2 and a crisis with no data what so ever.
I assume my readers are well aware of SLR and why it's happening, and the well-known problems in Miami, and am not going to explain the simple things to people like you time and time again.
OK Dano. Let's see YOUR graph of sea level rise accelerating over the last 10-20 yrs as CO2 level rise.
You can do it yourself on your Googles.
This is one of my favorite things to do to show denialists that the stuff they choose to believe his hokum.
Here it is:
5 Insane Steps to Show a Trick to Find Sneaky Sea Level Rise:
1. Remember Google doesn't have a "wisdom" button.
2. Use Googles to find "cu sea level research group"
3. Use Google Images.
4. Look at different time periods.
5. See how the older charts have a lower rate than today.
Voila!
Best,
D
Can you express the acceleration in a formula so I can calculate the expected rise in 100 yrs?
Abstract
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.
assuming
d=d0+vt+1/2at^2
do you agree with this?
d=d0+1.7mm*t+1/2*0.009*t^2
for t = 100 yrs (1900 to 2000)
d=d0 +170mm + 90mm
d=d0 +260mm (10in)
for t = 200 yrs (1900 to
2000)
d=d0 +340mm + 360mm
d=d0 +700mm (27in)
An increase of 17in from 2000 to 2100.
Assuming v = v0 + at
v = 1.4 + 0.009 * t
for t=114 (1900 to 2014)
v = 1.4 + 1.03
v = 2.4mm/yr
or ~2.4mm*14=33.6mm 1.32in (2000 to 2014)
so another 17in - 1.3in = 15.7in by 2100.
Is this a correct way to test the implications of data in the abstract?
"Can you express the acceleration in a formula so I can calculate the expected rise in 100 yrs?"
No. If you can't calculate such a trivial thing, you have no business having a scientific opinion about anything.
"Is this a correct way to test the implications of data in the abstract?"
No.
1) you assume the acceleration will be constant, which you haven't proven.
2) you assume the current rate of SLR applies to all places, when it only applies to the global average.
3) You assume the sea will stop rising in the year 2100.
4) You assume your result is an insignificant amount for every place, without justification.
5) You assume there is no land subsidence, again without proof.
6) You ignore the added impact of storm surges.
Also, in this equation
"d=d0 +170mm + 90mm"
you forgot to divide by 2 in the last factor.
Also, for this equation:
"v = 1.4 + 0.009 * t"
you took v(2000) = 1.4 mm/yr
when it's more like 3 mm/yr.
v(2014) = 3.2 mm/yr
See http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
1) Yes, I forgot to divide by 2. Fixing that.
assuming
d=d0+vt+1/2at^2
d=d0+1.7mm*t+1/2*0.009*t^2
for t = 100 yrs (1900 to 2000)
d=d0 +170mm + 45mm
d=d0 +215mm (8.5in)
for t = 200 yrs (1900 to
2000)
d=d0 +340mm + 180mm
d=d0 +520mm (20.5in)
An increase of 315mm or 12in from 2000 to 2100. That's pretty close to what the IPCC projects (20-50cm).
2) "Also, for this equation:
"v = 1.4 + 0.009 * t"
you took v(2000) = 1.4 mm/yr
when it's more like 3 mm/yr.
v(2014) = 3.2 mm/yr
See http://sealevel.colorado.edu/"
I was comparing 1900 to 2014. so t=114. and v0=1.4.
Assuming v = v0 + at
v = 1.4 + 0.009 * t
for t=114 (1900 to 2014)
v = 1.4 + 1.03
v = 2.4mm/yr (yr 2014)
which you point out is slightly less (2.4 vs 3.2)than the sat data you linked.
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.
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.
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).
"I was comparing 1900 to 2014. so t=114. and v0=1.4."
v(2014) does not equal v(1900). (That's what acceleration means.)
"I'm just using the numbers in the abstract of the paper you linked."
No you're not. You're making assumptions about the numbers in order to calculate something.
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.
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.
"or whether it diverges like the temp model/data have."
You didn't answer my earlier question about this -- what climate model forecasts intervals of just a decade? I don't know of any.
--
I'm tired of having to correct nearly everything you claim, which you then ignore instead of admitting.
"I was comparing 1900 to 2014. so t=114. and v0=1.4."
v(2014) does not equal v(1900). (That's what acceleration means.)"
v(t)= v0 + at
v(2014)= v(1900)+ 0.009 * 114
v(2014)= 1.4 + 1 =2.4
"We hope this will be enough."
It better be. Their chances of selling their house are dwindling rapidly, now that the real estate people know about this problem.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/09/3742641/rising-sea-levels-falling-real.html
"v(2014)= 1.4 + 1 =2.4"
Nope.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
"(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."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-usa-florida-sealevel-miami-idUSKBN0F65IN20140701
"v(2014)= 1.4 + 1 =2.4"
Nope.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Yes, your two linked articles disagree somewhat. One says 2.4 and the other says 3.2.
All the NOAA data for florida says 2.4.
"Yes, your two linked articles disagree somewhat. One says 2.4 and the other says 3.2."
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."
"All the NOAA data for florida says 2.4."
What data is that? The data that ends in 1980?
"All the NOAA data for florida says 2.4."
What data is that? The data that ends in 1980?"
see
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.shtml?region=fl
the following data 1965 to 2012
key west is 2.24mm/yr,
naples 2.02,
ft meyers 2.4
"We hope this will be enough."
"It better be. Their chances of selling their house are dwindling rapidly, now that the real estate people know about this problem.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/09/3742641/rising-sea-levels-falling-real.html"
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.
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.
Your original claim was about Miami. Proven inadequate there, you are now going hunting for other sites in Florida.
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.
Figure E-1:
http://southeastfloridaclimatecompact.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/sea-level-rise.pdf
"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."
http://seflorida.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2012/12/KeqiZhang-PPT.pdf
"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."
Climatic Change (2011) 107:129–146
DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0080-2
Assessment of sea level rise impacts on human
population and real property in the Florida Keys
Keqi Zhang · John Dittmar· Michael Ross·Chris Bergh
Received: 3 June 2010 / Accepted: 31 March 2011 / Published online: 15 May 2011
"To accommodate the large uncertainty in SLR projections, it is necessary to estimate
inundation losses for the Florida Keys from a large array of scenarios ranging from
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
end of this century would inundate a large area, about 70% of the total area of the
Florida Keys. However, this level of sea level rise would not impact an equivalent
amount of population (17%) or real property (12%) in the Florida Keys. A 1.5 m
sea level rise would cause catastrophic inundation to the Florida Keys, leading to
direct inundation of 91% of the total island area, displacement of 71% of the total
population, and a loss of 68% of the property value.If sea level rises 1.8 m, there
would be very little habitable area remaining in the Florida Keys."
Climatic Change (2011) 107:129–146
DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0080-2
Assessment of sea level rise impacts on human
population and real property in the Florida Keys
Keqi Zhang · John Dittmar· Michael Ross·
Chris Bergh
Received: 3 June 2010 / Accepted: 31 March 2011 / Published online: 15 May 2011
"The cities will continue to adapt over the next few 100s of yrs."
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.
Post a Comment