Sea Level Rise Study

C

chrissteel

Exceptional Member
Messages
182
First to use actual observations:


In 2021, the IPCC published new sea level projections. For the first time, the projections gave insight into expected relative sea level rise locally. A prudent designer of coastal infrastructure will want to know how the local projections compare to local observations. That comparison, to date, has not been made. We compared local projections and observations regarding the rate of rise in 2020. We used two datasets with local sea level information all over the globe. In both datasets, we found approximately 15% of the available sets suitable to establish the rate of rise in 2020. Geographic coverage of the suitable locations is poor, with the majority of suitable locations in the Northern Hemisphere. Latin America and Africa are severely under-represented. Statistical tests were run on all selected datasets, taking acceleration of sea level rise as a hypothesis. In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations. On average, the rate of rise projected by the IPCC is biased upward with approximately 2 mm per year in comparison with the observed rate.
 
Could this article go under the general climate change thread?

nycfan

Politics Thread 'Climate Change Catch-All'

Thought we had one but couldn’t find it. Will merge if it pops back up.

Anyway, I remember really wanting to go to a music festival here back in the 90s but it was not accessible by Geo Metro. Now it may be one of the first refugee crises created by Climate Change.

 
I recommend reading the LinkedIn chat the principle author hosted.

www.linkedin.com

It's a wrap! This week my new paper on sea level rise appeared in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. Together with my co-author Rob D., I statistically tested over 200 sites all over the… | Hessel Voortman | 93 comments

It's a wrap! This week my new paper on sea level rise appeared in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. Together with my co-author Rob D., I statistically tested over 200 sites all over the world for accelerated sea level rise. Background: projections and observations are both...
www.linkedin.com www.linkedin.com
 
Last edited:
"North Carolina: Ban on Consideration of Sea-Level Rise in Building Coastal Communities

In 2012, North Carolina legislators forbade the use of the Coastal Resources Commission’s (CRC) 2010 report demonstrating that the sea level could increase up to 39 inches by 2100, which could endanger 2,000 square miles of eastern US coastline. The CRC was formed in 1974, when the North Carolina General Assembly approved the Coastal Area Management Act, to identify regions of environmental concern, create policies for coastal development, and authorize local land use proposals. Some legislators and lobbyists were concerned about the report’s potential interference with development of coastal real estate. They attempted to undermine these scientific findings in order to defend homeowners’ property rights. As knowledge of the repercussions of sea-level rise would likely halt the repair or reconstruction of oceanfront homes and raise insurance costs, the report was perceived as threatening.

To undermine the scientists’ work and protect the interest of real estate, House Bill 819 was written with the following components: the Coastal Resources Commission must produce a new report predicting a smaller increase in sea levels over the next 30 years (rather than 100), review scientific research invalidating rising sea levels, and to include the monetary costs the state would face if it restricted development due to sea level increases. The law, sponsored by former real estate agent Pat McElraft, passed without the governor’s signature and was approved at the same time that the U.S. Geological Survey predicted that the sea level from Cape Hatteras to Boston was rising at a rate four times that of the U.S. average. Moreover, a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that 2.5 million homes and businesses worth a total of $1 trillion will be threatened by sea-level rise by 2100. Due to continued flooding, many people could lose their homes or real estate investments, and millions of dollars in property taxes used by North Carolina to pay for schools and public safety could be jeopardized. Yet, these alarming statistics and projections were cast aside by legislators in North Carolina in favor of the short-term interests of real estate. As Deborah Ross, a Democratic representative of Raleigh at the time, stated, “By putting our heads in the sand, literally, for four years, we are not helping property owners. We are hurting them because we are not giving them information they may need to protect their property.”

 
chrissteel said:
First to use actual observations:


In 2021, the IPCC published new sea level projections. For the first time, the projections gave insight into expected relative sea level rise locally. A prudent designer of coastal infrastructure will want to know how the local projections compare to local observations. That comparison, to date, has not been made. We compared local projections and observations regarding the rate of rise in 2020. We used two datasets with local sea level information all over the globe. In both datasets, we found approximately 15% of the available sets suitable to establish the rate of rise in 2020. Geographic coverage of the suitable locations is poor, with the majority of suitable locations in the Northern Hemisphere. Latin America and Africa are severely under-represented. Statistical tests were run on all selected datasets, taking acceleration of sea level rise as a hypothesis. In both datasets, approximately 95% of the suitable locations show no statistically significant acceleration of the rate of sea level rise. The investigation suggests that local, non-climatic phenomena are a plausible cause of the accelerated sea level rise observed at the remaining 5% of the suitable locations. On average, the rate of rise projected by the IPCC is biased upward with approximately 2 mm per year in comparison with the observed rate.
Click to expand...
chrissteel, I would be interested to read, in your own words (not from the paper or anyone else) how you explain the details of this projection issue, the local aspect, and what it means in the bigger context of the entire subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top