We’re All Going To Drown–Part 98
By Paul Homewood
I am not sure why they are worried about sea level rise in Wiltshire!
Global warming could lead to many areas in the South West of England being consumed by the sea before 2050, according to a climate change study.
Climate Change Central is an independent organisation of scientists and journalists who have researched the change in our climate and the drastic impact it could have.
The organisation has developed an interactive map using current projections to show which areas could be lost to rising sea levels by 2050.
It should be noted the data is only a projection and the consequences of rising sea levels will be less severe if global temperatures are kept below one degree Celsius, claims the group.
The map shows that places such as Weston-Super Mere, Bridgewater and Burnham-on-Sea would be underwater if current trends persist.
Moreover, parts of Bristol including the Temple Meads area of the city would be consumed by rising sea levels.
Moving slightly north, Gloucester would be another city that would be affected.
The cathedral that attracts hundreds of tourists would be lost.
https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/20072415.areas-south-west-england-water-2050/
It is the usual fraud from Climate Change Central, who regularly send this nonsense around the media.
The locations mentioned in Somerset, such as Bridgewater and Burnham, are about 6 to 8 meters above sea level. Gloucester Cathedral is 22m above. The idea that sea levels will rise this much in less than 30 years is preposterous, even under the most extreme projections.
In the South West, seas have been steadily rising at 1.84mm a year since 1915, with no sign of acceleration – about 7 inches a century:
https://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=170-161
According to NOAA, the most extreme projection is for about one foot of sea level rise by mid century. Climate Change Central claim their projections are based on “moderate” emission cuts, which would equate to about 3 feet of rise by the end of the century. But, of course, neither of these projections bears any resemblance to what sea levels are actually doing.
https://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=9410170
The whole thing is simply an attempt to scare the public into accepting wholesale changes to their lifestyles, as Climate Change Central admit:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
I thought we had already been wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels because of global global warming over twenty years ago. That’s what the experts said.
https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Notice the semantics of “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”. They give a timescale for ‘reversing global warming’ but not for when ‘nations will be wiped’, which they could claim is centuries away. Their problem is, the greater the time gap, the more preposterous is their claim.
It really is so scary that there are people in this day and age that can spout such incredible nonsense.A quick look at the Tides and Currents site may calm their fevered brows somewhat;if of course they are capable of some critical thinking.
And of course this ambulance chasing has nothing to do with keeping nice little earners from continuing…..The whole climate frenzy exists because of the money pumped into it. If the money stopped tomorrow these clowns would also stop. They are all addicted to keeping the money flowing so they come up with ever new ways to promote project fear to the weak minded public.
Even scarier – that there are people in this day and age who are gullible enough to believe it.
… and journalists stupid enough to peddle it.
I think you mean ‘There are politicians in this day and age who are so STEM-illiterate that they believe this guff.’
JF
“Wales Online”, the Western Mail’s feeble online incarnation, has uncritically repeated Climate Central’s lurid flood forecasts for Wales in the past 18 months. As with many other media outlets, their environment correspondent’s role seems to be regurgitation of whatever nonsense the Blob comes up with.
So, CCC is a group of “independent scientists”.
Are they panicing in Holland?
Puddletown and Piddletrenthide will have to change their names!
I dropeed the following comment on there:
“Sensationalised nonsense. People and the media have got to stop being scared to death by useless computer model predictions. Its not science, its garbage.
The low areas around the Somerset levels were reclaimed from the sea centuries ago. Long term tide gauge data (Jevrejeva 2014) clearly shows sea level rising at a steady linear rate since around 1860, way too early to be caused by anthropogenic global warming.
The long term linear rate of sea level rise since 1860 is about 2mm per year. So by 2050 we might expect sea level to rise 56 mm or just over 3 inches. Quite naturally.
Since 1860 the Somerset levels have already been exposed to a sea level rise to date of about 324 mm or over 1 foot. Quite naturally. Nothing’s happened, the world didn’t end, Bridgewater is still there.
Anyone bothering to go and read the report behind the digital elevation map (DEM) whence that alarming “flood warning” map in this article comes from will note that the areas highlighted are simply those below 5 m above mean sea level (amsl). And that the DEM computer model described in the report has a mean error bar on elevation of +/- 2 metres. So they are claiming to show where will be flooded by 2050 when sea level might have risen 56mm but the prediction has an error bar of at least +/- 2000 mm. So the error is 40 times greater than the supposed change they want to analyse. That’s not science its rubbish. Ignore it, like all the other sensational garbage from computer models that poses as science.”
And have they posted your (excellent critique) of their ‘science’, do you know?
I just checked and they did publish the comment.
‘Climate Change Central is an independent organisation of scientists and journalists’.
Indeed. They omitted to mention ‘independent of a cerebral cortex’.
Things that do worry me include the plans for the Future Systems Operator, which will be tasked with
achieving net zero
ensuring security of supply of electricity and gas
ensuring an efficient, co-ordinated and economical electricity and gas system
With an obligation to take account of:
the need to facilitate competition
the need to facilitate innovation
impacts on consumers, and consumer behaviour
whole system impacts
The FSO will act independently, and is expected to have a high level of operational independence, but will need to operate in the context of wider energy sector policy meeting the Government’s strategic objectives.
That is a quango out of public scrutiny with net zero as its priority. Truly horrifying.
You only have to think of the nonsense in the Future Energy Scenarios to recognise the problem.
We already know that you can’t achieve NetZero while ensuring the other two points.
Climate Central has been Propaganda Central for years. Their output is relentlessly abysmal, bearing zero association with reality. ‘Fraud’ is exactly the right word.
Climate Central blocked me from the Facebook page years ago . Skeptical Science contributors tend to haunt the page ..And a neurotically carping ex Australian Federal Police officer .provocateur They get away with all sorts of unmoderated antagonisms abuse and insults . One of the Climate Central editors standard frauds among the litany of lies and lurid prophesying is the “truncation trick ” : shaving time series to commence around 1970 when temperatures were cooler so the warm 1930’s and 40’s temperatures are hidden and the misleading impression of an upward [ not the true undulating ] trend is created .Have you noticed that ruse Paul ?
Hilary Clinton and Al Gore fangirl Kathryn Murdoch sits on the Climate Central board
There are some interesting developments in the world of greenwashing.
https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/consortium-launches-project-that-allows-hourly-renewable-energy-tracking
A proposal to measure the greenness of supply hourly might have you thinking the aim is an end to greeenwashing. Especially if they were to make the estimates regional, as is done here
https://www.carbonintensity.org.uk/#regional
(Note the new features that show directions of interregional power flows)
However it seems they have other intentions in mind.
Participants will also be able to trade these certificates both bilaterally or on a centralised auction, which will be managed jointly by Granular and Nord Pool. They will be able to use storage within this trading system, allowing certificates to re-issued later.
The use of these more accurate, real-time certificates will help to send an important price signal that can drive investment in green technologies, the consortium said.
“Hourly energy tracking is vital to building trust in clean energy claims and creates a razor-sharp price signal that will accelerate investment in the technologies needed to deliver clean energy 24/7 worldwide,” said Toby Ferenczi, co-founder of Granular.
The Cumbria section being carried by at least one of what passes for local newspapers nowadays looks as if Barrow-in-Furness has already been lost to the sea.
Gory details here, but before ordering a boat…
However, Climate Central admits the calculations that have led to fears of a nightmare scenario include “some error”.
It says: “These maps incorporate big datasets, which always include some error. These maps should be regarded as screening tools to identify places that may require deeper investigation of risk.”
The maps have been based on “global-scale datasets for elevation, tides and coastal flood likelihoods” and “imperfect data is used”.
https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/20083042.areas-cumbria-underwater-2030/
So, what does this independent organisation of scientists and journalists recommend we do to prevent this inundation crisis and global emergency? It’s not very helpful to scare the public when there is no plan on the table to stop sea level rise.
King Canute had something to say about power, hubris and stopping the seas from rising I believe.
Well….they will want the UK to decarbonise – no matter the cost – but will not make such a big splash about what UK’s contribution is likely to be (something like two tenths of bugger-all, if memory serves).
The UK’s contribution is 0.04% * 3% * 1% (atm CO2 conc * man’s contribution * UK’s contribution) , ie bugger all of nothing, as CO2 doesn’t control temperature.
When Ice Packs covered little more than 65 – 75 % of Greenland between 950 and 1450 during the Middle Ages, and Glaciers of the World had receded, why did the Coastal Cities of the World NOT flood? History, Science and Natural Cycles teach us different lessons from those we are being taught by the IPCC and the ‘Man-Made Climate Change’ advocates. These are NOT simple straight-line mathematical calculations. Every part of The Earth’s Cycles is Globally Interconnected. Life on Planet Earth is dictated by Nature, as it always has been. Nothing will ever change this! When glaciers melt, Continents rise on the mantle while the Oceans compress the mantle from the increased volume of water coming from Glacial Melt into the Gyers of the oceans. Remember . . . Planet Earth is a centrifuge!
5 Gyers – North and South Atlantic, North and South Pacific and The Indian Ocean Gyers
The crust of the Ocean Floor or ‘Plate’ is arched. It follows the curvature of the Earth’s Mantle. Water from melting Glaciers collects in the center of the Ocean at the Gyers. They are thousands of kilometers in diameter. Accumulated water at the Gyers applies a downward and outward force against the center of these ‘curved plates’ and the Mantle below. The outward forces cause subduction along the continents that can cause Volcanoes to erupt. Immense pressure caused by the out bound Sub-Oceanic plates causes increased subduction along the continents. For every Meter of Decline applied to the Curved Pacific Ocean Plate, there is a corresponding 3.14 meters of outward spread . . . Pi . . . from Math. C = Pi x D . . . flatten the circumference, you broaden the diameter!
This field of Science, to say the least, is controversial. Any Science pointing to Planetary Dynamics flies in the face of Environmentalist ‘Theology’ and their projections that Ocean levels will rise with Global Warming and shorelines will be flooded. Normal cycles of Warming and Cooling from Nature throughout History proves that the shore lines will NOT significantly rise as Glaciers melt. This research provides a far more clear understanding of how Natural Evolution will cause swings back and forth between periods of Global Cooling to periods of Global Warming. This explains how and why the Earth changes without any Dramatic rise in Ocean levels. During the average 500-year periods of Warming and or Cooling. The shore lines remain relatively stable.
Natural self-regulation from Mother Nature . . .
Peak Warming Peak Cooling
The Tower of London – today Circa 1750 – Painting
Rialto Bridge Venice Italy – today Circa 1750 – Painting
See images . . . Pages 29 – 31
https://www.academia.edu/45570971/The_Environmentalist_and_The_Neanderthal
The More Things Change . . . The More They Stay The Same
” This explains how and why the Earth changes without any Dramatic rise in Ocean levels . During the average 500 year periods of Warming and or Cooling . The shore lines remain relatively stable ” …
.Goodness me you write some absolute garbage…..
Why thank you Mr. Hamish for your generous remarks . . . Please . . . before you explete yourself possibly you could first examine the ‘Proof’ I offered for my commentary. The tower of London was built during the middle ages at a time where global temperatures were warmer than they are today. Sea levels would have been at least as high as they are today. Paintings of the Tower of London circa 1750 at the ‘peak’ of The Little Ice Age, when glaciation was at it’s maximum, show water levels little changed. You can go to the tower of London today as proof.
If Sea Levels rise and fall as predicted . . . the docks at the Tower of London would have been 10′ ABOVE Water in the paintings of the 1750’s. Challenge your thinking beyond the simple propaganda. Again, Planet Earth is a centrifuge, water collects in Equatorial regions of the oceans and at the center points of the 5 gyers . . . Learning new truths does not begin by categorically rejecting the concepts of others . . . It begins with curiosity . . .
No expletives needed .The onus is upon you to establish the ‘proof’ concerning the relevant brief quotation in my comments above that did not mention ‘ the Tower of London ” ….I was not aware they were your ‘concept’s” Do you understand the difference between proof [ evidence ] and ‘concepts” ?
A painting or a visitation to the Tower of London situated in the Thames estuary is meaningless., Are you seriously arguing there were no dramatic rises in ocean levels after 11700 BP ?.. That is nonsense …Examine the geographic locations of ancient port cities in Greece Anatolia Egypt and the Indian subcontinent compared to where they are situated some distance from the coastlines today
” notwithstanding the statements of the IPCC AR4 who assert a sea level status quo from ancient until modern times ….some 3000 years ago there was a further inundation [ think Lyonesse in Cornwall ] and in early Roman times levels were somewhere around current levels . Levels then rose significantly through the Roman period ….” https://judithcurry.com/2011/07/12/historic-variations-in-sea-levels-part-1-from-the-holocene-to-romans/
First I maintain a 10,000 year examination to avoid the extreme changes coming out of the Last Ice Age. You don’t like the ‘Way’ I say things . . . sorry I probably am not as well educated as you. Common sense tends to be my line of thinking. No, my writing style is NOT post graduate grade. However 2 + 2 is still 4 no matter how you slice it. I water levels were NOT down in Venice or London in 1750, the second coldest moment on Earth in the last 10,000 years . . . Not likely to rise now . . . Gyers my dear sir explains most of what happens to water . . . planet earth is a centrifuge . . . the Oceans rise in the middle . . . basic things . . .
You are almost certainly more highly educated than I am [ Whatever that means these days ] I have no post graduate tertiary qualifications and moreover education should not prevent you from researching and verifying the facts online ….. I suspect you are blathering nonsense deliberately ….. Did you perchance read Judith Curry’s blog article ? . Sea levels rose dramatically in the 10 000 year timescale ….What is this fixation you have with 1750 ?…..At least you are ‘committed “
My fixation with 1750 is based on ‘Global Glaciation’ coming to it’s peak. Greenland, the Rockies The Urals, The Alps . . . Maximum ‘Solid Water’ conditions . . . Minimum ‘Liquid Water’ conditions, Globally. Cycles of water on Planet Earth. Equal to the lowest temps of the Iron Age Cold Epoch 350 BC. By comparison the Dark Ages was just a blip, in duration or glaciation.
Where is the “proof’ 1750 was the second coldest year of the Holocene ?…You were rebuked on this assertion previously …Quite obviously the shorelines of coastlines were not relatively stable [ You are yet to comment on Judith Curry’s article ] and commonsense is not your line of thinking
Bless you Sir . . . fresh thinking beyond the known . . not very likely . . . move on . . .
Perhaps being a part of Newsquest’s Climate Campaign [1], such stories have become a regular feature of their titles that cover areas with a coastline. For example, see this January story from Cumbria’s News and Star [2].
[1] https://www.newsquest.co.uk/news/newsquest-launches-climate-change-campaign
[2] https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19819449.areas-cumbria-underwater-2030/
would be underwater if current trends persist
What trends?
2mm per year over 28 years is 56 mm by 2050 on current trends. The error bar on the digital elevation model they are using is +/- 2 metres…..
The only assets going under the water at present should be the stand-by submarines of the British and French ‘Continuous Nuclear Deterrents.’ Talk softly but carry a big stick.
“would be underwater if current trends persist”
No.
Either
“would be underwater if current trends persisted” (Conditional use of Past Participle)
or
“would be underwater should present trends persist” (Conditional use of Subjunctive).
“Why can’t the English teach their children how to speak?”
Quite right, but include American journalists. Many can be excused,though because they speak English as a second language. Perhaps they are cheaper to employ?
I’m wondering how we’re going to get the global average temperature down to “one degree Celsius.”
Leave the fridge/freezer door open …. simples !!
Mr. Terbreugghen, One modest sized Volcano at VEI6 will do that quite nicely . . . just a matter of time . . . Hundreds on record throughout history for your review . . .
What these doomsters need is a projection that hits them in a place where the sun doesn’t shine !
I’m sure the afflicted councils could get some new headed notepaper designed in time. Weston-Super-Mare could just become Weston-Sub-Mare, Bridgewater might be Underwater, while Burnham would have to be Extinguisham. Build houseboats instead of houses, farm fish instead of livestock, can’t see the problem. Go with what you’ve got.
Seriously, I think the phrase I need here is “arrant tosh”.
You will obey!
You will grow to love Big Brother!
Only he can provide the means to save you!
Given that Wiltshire is an entirely land bound county with no shoreline and a minimum elevation of around 50 m and a maximum elevation of around 250 m it seems strange that the Wiltshire Times thinks Wiltshire residents would be concerned about sea level rise.
https://en-gb.topographic-map.com/maps/she3/Wiltshire/
“…Wiltshire residents…”
I am sure Wiltshire would make a very nice island. They should devoutly desire a rise in the sea. They would not have to pay taxes to support Londoners or the Sturgeon mob or…
The headline includes the weasel word “could” , therefore = idle speculation. Far more important things to be concerned with e.g. the current energy emergency where many people currently live in energy poverty and many more people will (not “could”) live in energy poverty.
Burn coal to generate electricity. Burn coal to warm the home.
I haven’t looked into this for a while, but I recall reading that the British Isles are rotating vertically around a pivot roughly from The Wash to St Davids. That is why the Thames Barrier is finding a (slow) sea rise, but Scotland is rising “above the waves”.
It’s probably part of the same tectonic movement that led to the UK separating from mainland Europe, though researchers believe there were other factors at work. It seems Dover Strait may have gone through two breaches. The first one, about 450,000 years ago, was rather modest and formed a smaller channel than the one we see today. The final land bridge to Europe is said to have failed at least 100k years ago.
One of my favourite expressions is “the first answer you come to is not necessarily the best”. Applies big time to the Climate Scam
That’s isostatic rebound after the last ice age. No tectonics separating uk from mainland Europe as we live on the same plate and share the same continental shelf edge.
I listed some of their other efforts and tried to emulate the “prediction” for London 2100 as shown by Justin Rowlatt during a jolly to Antarctica here: https://cliscep.com/2022/01/15/drowning-by-numbers/
The many ways to make money from these scare tactics has just been added to. Our Local Council has announced today that they have “obtained funding” (probably from us poor Tax Payers) to enable 250 local businesses to join, for Free, Climate Essentials, which is part of Climax Community which “is a purpose driven organisation whose carbon analytics and reduction strategy platform brings together different stakeholders to achieve climate pledges by engaging the power of collaborative action.” I don’t know how much money we are paying for this. Links https://climax.community/ and https://climax.community/climate-essentials/
And the benefit for the cost? None whatsoever, not even diddley squat.
Good one Beagle.
Greta says We should look at what the science says.
https://ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trends
only caught the last line of your post … a-level-trends …
and even Greta knows in which direction they are trending.
Not one that gives much hope for inquiring minds to really ‘see what the science says’ on this subject?
Buildup of salt and uranium in seawater is evidence of the silting that–as behind a dam–makes sea bottoms rise. Petr Beckmann covered this back in the 1970s.
Er, no not really.
“a UK-average value for the long term climate change component of MSL change, estimated from a comparison of tide gauge and geological rates at a number of UK sites, was added to make the time series in (b).
This average long term trend is estimated as 1.4 ± 0.2 mm yr”
From – https://ntslf.org/products/sea-level-trends