The View From 1776

The Metastasis Of ClimateGate Criminality

The Global Warming Money Nexus Corrupts Real Climate Research

 

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10/08 at 06:16 PM
  1. Thomas,

    You may be interested in a study released by the Union of Concerned Scientists on October 8th that predicts flooding of coastal cities at high tide will see a tripling in the number of high-tide floods in the next 15 years. High tide floods in coastal cities used to be rare in cities from Maine to Florida, but such flooding is now common due to ocean level rise induced by global warming.

    In 15 years, most of these cities are predicted to see floods twice a month and the more exposed will see 48 floods per year (4/month). In 30 years, this will increase to 240 floods per year for the most exposed cities.

    The most vulnerable cities, Annapolis, Lewisetta, Washington, DC, and Wilmington will see 300 floods per month by 2045.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/09  at  09:02 AM
  2. That last sentence should have been "300 floods per year"
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/09  at  09:04 AM
  3. Mr. Jay, I hardly need to remind you that there are hundreds, if not thousands of computer models of global warming, none of which agree with any of the others. If there were unanimity, then there would no opportunity for climate scammers to petition for government handouts of taxpayer money.

    Why would you place any reliance at all upon the 15-year projections you cite? None of Al Gore's notorious scare-mongering has come to pass. None of the predictions made over the past decade or more has proved even remotely accurate. In fact, as even the UN propagandists and NASA admit, however sotto voce, there has been no warming at all for at least 17 years. Nor does the current excuse hold up; extensive research in the oceans has cut the legs from under the "explanation" that heat has been temporarily trapped in deep ocean waters.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/09  at  07:25 PM
  4. Three hundred floods per year? You can’t be serious even for someone who expects his party to do all his thinking for him. As Steve Malloy once wrote (in response to a similarly self-styled ‘Union of Concerned Citizens’), that’s “… quite an ironic charge coming from a self-described activist group whose left-wing, eco-extremist, anti-biotechnology, anti-chemical, anti-nuclear, anti-defense and anti-business screeds embody the very antithesis of the scientific ideal of objectivity” (see http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/02/27/enviros-commence-election-year-attack/ ). Only last December, Roger Pielke, a noted climate scientist who has done extensive work in storm history analysis, told a Senate panel: “There exists exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media and political debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts have increased in frequency or intensity on climate timescales either in the United States or globally” (see http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/1/pentagon-wrestles-with-false-climate-predictions-a/#ixzz3FnIKXbUq ).

    Even a cursory sanity check suffices to tell anyone not a complete imbecile, this particular claim is bogus, ludicrous, unsupported, and hardly a ‘scientific finding’. First of all, 300 discrete floods a year requires more days than we have in a year for the simple reason there need to be breaks between floods for the waters to recede to something approaching normal. Assuming it takes about a day to create a flood and twice as long for waters to recede and low areas (including basements) to be drained as it takes to create the flood, the maximum we can expect for any given location is around 120 floods. Anything more would be continuous and must be counted, then, as 1 flood per year. Or stating this another way, the area so described would become a permanent body of water (e.g., lake, river or tidal marsh) and not a ‘flood area’.

    Secondly, the historical and geological record provides no evidence the three areas you singled out as having experienced anything like that much flooding regardless the global temperature was significantly higher or lower than it is today. As someone born and raised in Washington, DC, and still a nearby resident of both DC and Annapolis, I can report parts of DC are always flooded because it was built on a tidal swamp. Annapolis is perched on the Chesapeake Bay shore, and parts of it are likewise and perennially ‘soggy’. While less familiar with Lewisetta (in Nearby Virginia), a quick map check indicates it, too, is perched on the edge of the lower Chesapeake where it is subject to tidal flooding and ‘sogginess. As much ink has been spent in promoting such swampy areas as ‘wetlands’ as there is condemnation of manmade global warming, and by the same radical groups, as make any reasonably intelligent person suspect neither is the real agenda. Thus, I suspect the UCS authors of that ‘study’ are playing fast and loose with the facts and chose these particular locations realizing that, assuming they are caught red-handed, they can then claim to have been misunderstood; that they only meant these areas would be subject to ‘somewhat higher than normal flooding’ and they never meant entire cities would be flooded (just some of swampier parts of them). Washington has two rivers and a major creek running through it (plus a number of smaller streams) and is smack dab in the middle of an officially designated ‘flood plain’ (Chesapeake Bay Watershed). Using the same logic used in other of UCS’s studies, a lake, creek or river is a ‘flooded area’, which it can then legitimately cite as evidence these cities will experience frequent ‘flooding’.

    It would be unreasonable of me claiming UCS would do such a thing, except that it already has in several its so-called ‘studies’. A little research into the Union of Concerned Scientists (see reading list below), their methods and agenda reveals deliberate obfuscation and manipulation is typical of them and lies at the heart of their self-described ‘studies’ (which are no such thing). As far as I can tell, UCS hasn’t produced a single legitimate or ‘scientific’ study in its entire career. What it does produce is highly biased hatchet pieces dressed up to look like unbiased studies, but which are 9/10ths opinion with a smattering of hastily gathered, unconfirmed factoids thrown in. Despite it was founded by scientists in 1969 to oppose a war, and despite it has a following composed partly of scientists and partly of gullible worshipers of all things ‘scientific’, the UCS is not a scientific body; nor does it have any scientific standing other than as an advocacy group. It claims its advocacy is in support of science, but there is little to no evidence of that. Instead, what it supports are politically motivated agendas using science (or pretend science) as window dressing. Clearly, UCS is a shill for the warming agenda (and related causes), and recruits its study authors from among those willing to ‘bend the truth’ a little. Thus, their advocacy is the opposite of the objectivity we expect of ‘scientists’.

    Possibly, you misread the UCS study (or the MSM misreported it) and the actual claim is more like 300 per decade? Yet, even that would be highly improbable under any conditions of temperature. Did you bother with reading the study you cite in opposition? I did, and I can report there isn’t much in it to cause me to rethink my opinion of global warming and/or UCS’s bias. Yes, the study’s authors have the requisite credentials (I checked them out, and two of them hold impressive degrees in climate and geophysics). However, except for Dahl, none have spent much time actually researching climate factors; and her contributions to this study appear to have been minimal). The other two, since graduating, have spent their careers in management and activism. The numbers they cite in the study (after averaging and other statistical checks) are at the extreme of predictions IPCC recently listed. This makes their claims even more outrageous than even IPCC’s (which, at least, presented us with a range of outcomes from mild to highly improbable). Without exception, UCS chose locations subject to significant flooding (safe bet enough flooding will occur in enough areas to make claims plausible), and applied the same scalar increase to all 29 locations indicating they spent little effort in differentiating those locations according to effects. It is also a safe bet that, by the time UCS’s predictions are debunked, no one will care or remember. You always insist we need to cite ‘peer-reviewed’ articles in support, yet, as far as I can tell, this is not a peer-reviewed study. The study depends utterly on there being a sea-level rise citing only the presumption of an abnormal rate of warming; which, thus far, is a not occurring other than in anomalous regions. They also depend on there being a substantial decrease in land-ice displacing seawater resulting in an abnormal global rate of rise; also not happening. The study takes as gospel (just as you do) these effects are already occurring, despite the mass of evidence points at conclusions ranging from inconclusive to downright contrary. The study does claim flooding occurrences might exceed 300, but only for two of its 29 locations, with a mean value of 122 occurrences and a standard deviation of 107 (i.e., lots of variation). However, and as I showed above, even this much is an extreme and highly unlikely prediction as discredits UCS and its staff of propagandists as reliably ‘scientific’ witnesses or referees.


    Reading list:
    Shows how extreme, biased, hyper-critical, hostile, sloppy, exaggerated, deliberately misrepresent, and unscientific UCS studies typically are:
    http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/05/follow-the-pennies
    http://monsantoblog.com/2013/04/25/another-bogus-study/
    https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/145-union-of-concerned-scientists/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/24/union-of-concerned-scientists-frackivists-taken-to-task-for-willful-misrepresentation-of-facts-in-erie-colorado/
    http://www.aei.org/press/energy-and-the-environment/aei-scholar-joel-schwartz-releases-study-in-response-to-union-of-concerned-scientists-report-on-california-air-pollution/

    The so-called study links:
    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/tidal-flooding-0437
    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/impacts/effects-of-tidal-flooding-and-sea-level-rise-east-coast-gulf-of-mexico
    http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2014/10/encroaching-tides-full-report.pdf
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/11  at  08:58 AM
  5. Note: post #4 was meant for J. Jay.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/11  at  09:02 AM
  6. Thomas,

    High tide flooding is occurring right now in East Coast cities. It does not take reliance on a computer model to see the effects of sea level rise. (From the Report):

    WASHINGTON (October 8, 2014)—Flooding during high tides—something that rarely occurred in the past—is now common in some places and is projected to grow to the point that sections of coastal cities may flood so often they would become unusable in the near future, according to a report the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released today, “Encroaching Tides: How Sea Level Rise and Tidal Flooding Threaten U.S. East and Gulf Coast Communities over the Next 30 Years.”

    “Several decades ago, flooding at high tide was simply not a problem,” said Melanie Fitzpatrick, report co-author and climate scientist at UCS. “Today, when the tide is extra high, people find themselves splashing through downtown Miami, Norfolk and Annapolis on sunny days and dealing with flooded roads in Atlantic City, Savannah and the coast of New Hampshire. In parts of New York City and elsewhere, homeowners are dealing with flooded basements, salt-poisoned yards and falling property values, not only because of catastrophic storms, but because tides, aided by sea level rise, now cause flooding where they live.”

    And Bob, the fact that the cities you mention were indeed built on low swampy ground is exactly the point. These are the areas where a slight increase in sea level is first detected - the canary in the coal mine. Obviously, you don't look for sea level flooding in Colorado.

    The 300 per year rate for tidal flooding corresponds to every other high tide. This flooding means that you may get several inches of water on the streets near the harbor, a phenomenon that is already occurring. But as the oceans gradually rise, the frequency of this innundation will increase.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/20  at  09:58 AM
  7. J. Jay,

    Nobody is contesting ‘sea level rise’, or that flooding occurs. What is disputed is that the increase has any significant human component to it, nor is there anything to your hype regarding incessant flooding. Sea level has been rising more than a century (since the Little Ice Age broke).

    The bogus study you referenced did, in fact, “look for flooding in Colorado”. And, why shouldn’t we look for flooding in Colorado? Do you think only shore areas are susceptible to flooding? What, then, of rapid snow-melting (Colorado gets lots of that, and has plenty of canyons to concentrate melt waters. What of the Mississippi basin well away from and above that mighty river (and oceans) in places where mammoth rainfalls and flooding are a frequent occurrence? What then of the Mojave Desert flooding with some regularity (see http://digital-desert.com/flash-floods/ )? I, personally, have experienced floods from sea level to mountain tops, from dry to wet climates, and from exposed to sheltered locales, so I see nothing to gainsay occasional flooding in Colorado. However, I am hard pressed to see (nor do your so-called experts explain) how they argue the same multiplier for Colorado as they assign to coastal areas based (primarily) on sea level rise (i.e., evidence of scientific dishonesty and/or sloppiness).

    The two quotes you supplied are lifted from the same bogus study I already debunked, so will not waste further ink on that.

    Flooding is highly variable in nature and can have multiple, often unrelated causes (hurricanes, tornadoes, sea surge, underwater earthquakes (tsunamis), terrain susceptibility, rain events, rapid snow-melt, accidental damming (of rivers), etc. So, no J. Jay, recent significant flooding along the U.S. eastern coast does not qualify as a ‘canary in a coal mine’; nor is it a ‘smoking gun’ or proxy for global warming. Once again, repeat after me: coincidence is not causality. Only unambiguously proven causality is causality. A bullet to the head is a cause of death, but not all death is caused by a bullet to the head. You are trying (vainly) to build a case for man-made warming almost entirely on anecdotal and usually inverted evidence. This may be evidence of something, but is definitely not evidence of a globally prevalent effect or trend – unless it is that weather varies.

    While there has been some slightly above normal flooding along the East Coast (entirely due to recent above average east coast hurricane activity), this, again, is not a global trend nor does it suggest one. It is only global trends as matter to this argument; and not cherry-picked, anecdotal evidence of the type you here present. Anecdotal evidence is only useful in disproving an absolute dictum (i.e., A occurred, therefore B does not preclude A from occurring). What you are trying to argue is that: because some flooding has occurred and has been a little higher than recent past flooding, that that combination somehow proves flooding will occur increasingly in future. It doesn’t. It only proves flooding occurred and has been a little greater than some of us are accustomed to. One hurricane of Sandy’s magnitude in forty years is not a trend, it is an anomaly; and it was Sandy that pushed East Coast flooding numbers above the 20 year mark. This combination does not require human caused warming (or even natural warming) to have occurred.

    Flooding is not ‘sea level’ rise, per se, and that is not what your chosen and highly-selective study claimed, per se; or, at least, not all they claimed. You are right, however, to argue we don’t need computer models to see the “effects of sea level rise”, which from where I sit appears to be negligible. As mentioned earlier, I live on the East Coast, was for many years an active sailor on the Chesapeake Bay; and I visit the shore often. I can honestly report familiar landmarks are not sinking from view. I have also, in the last several years visited a number of nearby cities perched along the shore (also familiar to me – ranging from Charleston to New York, and have seen little evidence of a race to stave off tidal flooding as we would expect given there was any significant and widespread level rise since decades old structures were built. So much, therefore, for the casual observational reckoning of rank amateurs like yourself who cannot distinguish normal from abnormal, and who typically distain proofs!

    Casual observation is no substitute for careful (and honest) measurement. Therefore, I did the obligatory search on sea level records (both official and unofficial) you failed to conduct. What I found does indicate some slight to moderate rise, but I see nothing to convince me the rate of rise has accelerated in the last century, or is anything to concern us outside of a few, highly anomalous locales. What I see on official tracking charts is a steady rise of about 1-2mm per year (4-8 inch/century) globally. Locally, rates vary widely, but are still constant for the overwhelming majority of measuring stations. At this rate, we can begin worrying about sea level rise in about 500 years – by which point the structures in question will have been bulldozed and rebuilt several times. Regardless, and as even NOAA admits, there is nothing tying even this much rise to human activity.

    As we have not been systematically collecting sea level data for 300 years (or, if we did, the records aren’t well preserved), how can you argue such hogwash? Yes, I realize your activist pseudo-scientists made the same claim (300 years of relevant data), but it is by now clear they play fast and loose with reality. What we do have is a smattering of systematic records going back ‘as much as’ 300 years for a few major harbors along the east coast only. We do not have data going back 300 years for all the locales they list, and your argument rests on the supposition such a dataset exists. Nor do we have 300 year old data for our Gulf and West coasts with which to compare trends. New Orleans is a steadily sinking bog, so cannot be used for comparison. Washington, DC (founded in 1801 and well above sea level even at water’s edge) does not have such or relevant data, nor does Lewisetta (which was a backwater until recent times). Nor do we have enough data going back that far for enough locations as to generalize data the unjustified way your study authors pretend. It has only been since the 1880’s that such records have been reliably collected and maintained suitable to a multi-decadal scientific analysis of this type. For the rest, we must rely on inferior (large error margins) geophysical and biological proxy data.

    In case you missed the significance of all this, it means you blew it once again. Sorry.


    References:
    http://judithcurry.com/2012/08/01/john-christys-epw-testimony/

    Sea level trend info
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mtsparker.htm - “In recent years there have been numerous studies to calculate global sea level rise from the historical water level record. Most studies have found a rise in global sea level on the order of 1 to 2 mm/year over the last century and no strong evidence for an increase in the rate (i.e., acceleration) of this rise in recent decades.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/latest-noaa-mean-sea-level-trend-data-through-2013-confirms-lack-of-sea-level-rise-acceleration-2/ - “The NOAA data is simply unsupportive of IPCC claims of increasing rates of sea level rise in recent decades.”
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  10/21  at  08:55 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.