The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-19/the-nightmare-scenario-for-florida-s-coastal-homeowners

[dead0man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know a lot about tides, but I know enough to know this makes no sense.  There are a little less than two "high" tides per day, it doesn't matter if the sun is up or not.

(note, I'm not saying the sun doesn't play a role in tides, I'm saying the sun being up or not doesn't tell if you the current tide is a "high" one)

[mencken]

Taking the article's word for it, they think sea levels will go from rising four inches in twenty-five years to rising thirty-six inches in forty-three years? Not that such a chaotic shift is impossible, but they better have some extraordinary evidence to justify such extraordinary extrapolation. Given past performance of such models, I think the low (i.e. linear) estimate is a more reasonable projection.

[Brittain33]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know a lot about tides, but I know enough to know this makes no sense.  There are a little less than two "high" tides per day, it doesn't matter if the sun is up or not.

(note, I'm not saying the sun doesn't play a role in tides, I'm saying the sun being up or not doesn't tell if you the current tide is a "high" one)

I'm pretty sure the contrast is with rainy days that swell flooding, rather than with nighttime. People find flooding during a rainstorm less inexplicable than flooding beneath the sun.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Taking the article's word for it, they think sea levels will go from rising four inches in twenty-five years to rising thirty-six inches in forty-three years? Not that such a chaotic shift is impossible, but they better have some extraordinary evidence to justify such extraordinary extrapolation. Given past performance of such models, I think the low (i.e. linear) estimate is a more reasonable projection.

A linear projection is probably too conservative.  From https://seagrant.noaa.gov/Portals/0/Documents/what_we_do/climate/Florida%20Report%20on%20Climate%20Change%20and%20SLR.pdf:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However, I agree that an increase of 36 inches in 43 years seems extremely high.  The above study says that it's probable that "Global average sea level will rise by 0.5–1.0 meter
(about 20–40 inches) and possibly more by 2100", and that it's possible that "Major inputs of water from the melting of high-latitude and high-altitude ice reservoirs could cause a global average sea-level rise of up to two meters this century and several more meters over the subsequent centuries (Rahmstorf, 2010)."

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Floridians need not worry! The King Canute routine of their chosen leaders Rick Scott and Donald Trump will surely save them from rising sea levels!

[dead0man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know a lot about tides, but I know enough to know this makes no sense.  There are a little less than two "high" tides per day, it doesn't matter if the sun is up or not.

(note, I'm not saying the sun doesn't play a role in tides, I'm saying the sun being up or not doesn't tell if you the current tide is a "high" one)

I'm pretty sure the contrast is with rainy days that swell flooding, rather than with nighttime. People find flooding during a rainstorm less inexplicable than flooding beneath the sun.

ahhh, that makes sense.  "out" vs "up"

nit pick rescinded

[Beet]

Taking the article's word for it, they think sea levels will go from rising four inches in twenty-five years to rising thirty-six inches in forty-three years? Not that such a chaotic shift is impossible, but they better have some extraordinary evidence to justify such extraordinary extrapolation. Given past performance of such models, I think the low (i.e. linear) estimate is a more reasonable projection.

A linear projection is probably too conservative.  From https://seagrant.noaa.gov/Portals/0/Documents/what_we_do/climate/Florida%20Report%20on%20Climate%20Change%20and%20SLR.pdf:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However, I agree that an increase of 36 inches in 43 years seems extremely high.  The above study says that it's probable that "Global average sea level will rise by 0.5–1.0 meter
(about 20–40 inches) and possibly more by 2100", and that it's possible that "Major inputs of water from the melting of high-latitude and high-altitude ice reservoirs could cause a global average sea-level rise of up to two meters this century and several more meters over the subsequent centuries (Rahmstorf, 2010)."

True but that paper is from 2010. Last spring new estimates were released revision projections sharply higher.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/antarctic-loss-could-double-expected-sea-level-rise-by-2100-scientists-say/?utm_term=.7bec5114bac7

[Tintrlvr]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't know a lot about tides, but I know enough to know this makes no sense.  There are a little less than two "high" tides per day, it doesn't matter if the sun is up or not.

(note, I'm not saying the sun doesn't play a role in tides, I'm saying the sun being up or not doesn't tell if you the current tide is a "high" one)

I'm pretty sure the contrast is with rainy days that swell flooding, rather than with nighttime. People find flooding during a rainstorm less inexplicable than flooding beneath the sun.

It's not totally crazy, either, since sunny weather is associated with higher atmospheric pressure, which lowers tidewaters, while rainy weather is associated with lower atmospheric pressure, which raises tidewaters (storm surge), sometimes quite extremely when associated with large pressure anomalies (such as those found near the center of tropical cyclones).

[pbrower2a]

Telling that their houses will go from supremely valuable to unmarketable will really scare people.

[Hermit For Peace]

Sorry but this subject doesn't seem like it belongs here.

[mencken]

Taking the article's word for it, they think sea levels will go from rising four inches in twenty-five years to rising thirty-six inches in forty-three years? Not that such a chaotic shift is impossible, but they better have some extraordinary evidence to justify such extraordinary extrapolation. Given past performance of such models, I think the low (i.e. linear) estimate is a more reasonable projection.

A linear projection is probably too conservative.  From https://seagrant.noaa.gov/Portals/0/Documents/what_we_do/climate/Florida%20Report%20on%20Climate%20Change%20and%20SLR.pdf:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

However, I agree that an increase of 36 inches in 43 years seems extremely high.  The above study says that it's probable that "Global average sea level will rise by 0.5–1.0 meter
(about 20–40 inches) and possibly more by 2100", and that it's possible that "Major inputs of water from the melting of high-latitude and high-altitude ice reservoirs could cause a global average sea-level rise of up to two meters this century and several more meters over the subsequent centuries (Rahmstorf, 2010)."

I was citing the figures in the paper cited in the article itself. The graphs on page 36 show that the out-of-sample data fits far better with the linear estimate than the catastrophic exponential estimates.