Latest Sea Level Junk Science
By Paul Homewood
h/t Oldbrew
Latest sea level scare from Phys.Org:
Failure to meet the United Nations’ 2ºC warming limits will lead to sea level rise and dire global economic consequences, new research has warned.
Published today in Environmental Research Letters, a study led by the UK National Oceanographic Centre (NOC) found flooding from rising sea levels could cost $14 trillion worldwide annually by 2100, if the target of holding global temperatures below 2 ºC above pre-industrial levels is missed.
The researchers also found that upper-middle income countries such as China would see the largest increase in flood costs, whereas the highest income countries would suffer the least, thanks to existing high levels of protection infrastructure.
Dr. Svetlana Jevrejeva, from the NOC, is the study’s lead author. She said: "More than 600 million people live in low-elevation coastal areas, less than 10 meters above sea level. In a warming climate, global sea level will rise due to melting of land-based glaciers and ice sheets, and from the thermal expansion of ocean waters. So, sea level rise is one of the most damaging aspects of our warming climate."
Sea level projections exist for emissions scenarios and socio-economic scenarios. However, there are no scenarios covering limiting warming below the 2°C and 1.5°C targets during the entire 21st century and beyond.
The study team explored the pace and consequences of global and regional sea level rise with restricted warming of 1.5 ºC and 2 ºC, and compared them to sea level projections with unmitigated warming following emissions scenario Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5.
Using World Bank income groups (high, upper middle, lower middle and low income countries), they then assessed the impact of sea level rise in coastal areas from a global perspective, and for some individual countries using the Dynamic Interactive Vulnerability Assessment modelling framework.
Dr. Jevrejeva said: "We found that with a temperature rise trajectory of 1.5°C, by 2100 the median sea level will have risen by 0.52m (1.7ft). But, if the 2°C target is missed, we will see a median sea level rise of 0.86m (2.8ft), and a worst-case rise of 1.8m (5.9ft).
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-sea-world-trillion-year.html
Meanwhile back in the real world, Jevrejeva’s own research shows that global sea levels have been rising at a pretty steady 1.9mm/yr, with no acceleration, other than the effect of the slow down between 1960 and 1990.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/jevrejevaetal2013gpchange.pdf
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
An entire fleet of junks have been launched, but still the believers in AGW rush to buy waterside property. In Australia Rudd, Gillard, Flannery for starters. I know of Gore and Suzuki in North America. Anybody know of other ‘sceptics’?
Flannery’s house is in Sydney, my city.
There is a tide gauge at Fort denison, Sydney.
The tide gauge data shows a steady rise of about 100 mm in 100 years.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/196.php
The Sonel GPS shows a subsidence over 8 years of -0.33 mm/year.
http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=gps&idStation=2405
Giving about 70mm if you extrapolate the subsidence over 100 years.
So about 0.7mm/year
Not exactly something to be alarmed about.
The biggest of all, UN Messenger of Peace (with a special focus on climate change), Mr Leo Di Caprio.
http://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/travel-food/article/2138373/dicaprios-eco-resort-just-one-delights-backpacking
I thought we knew all of this already? What is different about this, what is new and interesting?
Is climate science really just about regurgitating the same stuff over and over again, with slight tweaks here and there?
Er, yes!
But no evidence that the rate of sea level rise is responsive to the rate of emissions.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3023248
Let’s not be picky.
AFAIK Phys.org tricks a lot of people into thinking it’s a genuine scientific publisher, when in fact it’s just an automated website which scrapes the web for new science news
..and then repackages it surrounded by adverts
eg I guess they have repackaged the abstract
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aacc76
Similar stories emerged on Newseek etc.
http://www.newsweek.com/rising-seas-could-cost-world-14-trillion-year-2100-1006823
June 29th presented at conference
Then discussed by Betts, Ken Rice, Judith Curry thread
But it’s kind of a bit weird that the NOC , put the same wording on their own page only today AFTER the news orgs
https://noc.ac.uk/news/rising-sea-levels-could-cost-world-14-trillion-year-2100
Sea level rise is esoterica, just like Arctic sea ice*. Should the rate of sea level rise jump by 3X, it would still have no discernible effect on humans. In fact, it would take ocean side dwellers years to even notice it.
*Arctic sea ice goes up and down, year after year. No one would even know if we weren’t told.
The headlines are always doom will happen, the articles are if this and that happen then doom may happen.
Does that graph of sea-level not show the LIA cooling of the oceans, and the very beneficial recovery from that very clearly as 1860 ? It seems that the LIA is not fully accepted by the Manns’ etc, as being worldwide, this seems to show it quite well (to me anyway).
“Sea level projections exist for emissions scenarios and socio-economic scenarios. However, there are no scenarios covering limiting warming below the 2°C and 1.5°C targets during the entire 21st century and beyond.”
The “scenarios” that are missing are those that will tell us how to avoid all of this projected catastrophic damage, realistically. They are always couched in a scary scenario… “It’s real, it’s happening”… Act Now!
“Project Fear” is alive and well and paid for by UK taxpayers.
Someone should take Jevrejeva’s ‘Fig 3’ chart and plot his predictions of 0.52m (1.7ft), 0.86m (2.8ft), and 1.8m (5.9ft) — at the same scale.
Ha like Paul does on the next post ..to get a massive hokey-stick graph
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hokey
Something that is viewed with suspicion and/or cornyness, (i.e. a hokey sales pitch)
Thanks – a long day of travel – just saw it.
$14 trillion in 2100? What a horrendous price. Let’s pay $1 trillion a year to prevent that.
There is no evidence in the data that the rate of sea level rise is responsive to emissions. Please see
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3023248
So the next century is the new goal post and it’s closer than we think!
If, and only if, humanity’s use of CO2 causes a temperature increase, the ONLY real reason to be concerned is if that increase evolves into a “run away” scenario, with a resultant existential threat to life on Earth. If not, who cares about warmer weather? Life adapts. If sea levels rise at a rate that we have not yet seen, that’s a problem for NY, Florida, Banglasdesh, etc. Its not a problem for the vast majority of life, which lives inland. Its not an existential threat. Its also not insurmountable, nor is it a problem that cannot be addressed in a matter of years. Could someone please explain to the Warmists that sea level rise is only a problem (in 300 years) to be addressed – its not an extinction event.
P.S. Please don’t bleat that its existential for Tuvalu……
Don’t these idiots realise that heat content is measured in Joules and you need a hell of a lot of them to shift the oceans even by a Celcius? If you can’t move the oceans you can’t move the atmosphere.