Nonsense on climate change again

Major storms could submerge New York City in next decade

Sea-level rise due to climate change could cripple the city in Irene-like storm scenarios, new climate report claims

My word, gosh, that\’s terrible. How will this happen?

The report, commisioned by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, said the effects of sea level rise and changing weather patterns would be felt as early as the next decade.

By the mid-2020s, sea level rise around Manhattan and Long Island could be up to 10 inches, assuming the rapid melting of polar sea ice continues. By 2050, sea-rise could reach 2.5ft and more than 4.5ft by 2080 under the same conditions.

The actual report doesn\’t say anything so drivellingly stupid of course. For the melting of \”sea ice\” won\’t change sea levels by any amount whatsoever. \’Coz sea ice is that ice which floats on the water.

So an F for The Guardian on that little point.

What the report does do however is take the IPCC models (fine, good, people should) and then add another one. What happens if West Antarctica and Greenland both suddenly melt?

Well, yes, I suppose, so, what would happen? Except everyone except the most fantastically alarmist of buffoons has this pencilled in for 2500 AD, not 2050 or 2025.

I think I\’ll file this report in the \”don\’t bother with\” bin.

7 comments on “Nonsense on climate change again

  1. Well if sea ice melts there is thermal expansion of the rest of the sea – presumably the ocean is a little bit warmer and hence a little bit larger.

    Which can amount to quite a lot over the entire planet.

    But this claim is bollocks on top of ice cream. The planet is not warming. The oceans are not rising. There is no reason to think they will any time soon.

  2. It is interesting that people actually in charge of vulnerable infrastructure take the reality of climate change seriously. The confusion of sea ice with land ice is a minor journalistic error – c’mon, its a newspaper, what do you expect – and in this case anyway can be interpreted in a way that makes sense.

    What you’re missing here is that IPCC AR4 isn’t all that useful for SLR projections because it deliberately avoided factoring in ice melt. So if you want to do projections, you have to do your own or borrow someone else’s. So you too get an F- for your “What the report does do however is take the IPCC models (fine, good, people should) and then add another one” – how ironic.

  3. William M Connolley (or should that Con-nolley?).

    “It is interesting that people actually in charge of vulnerable infrastructure take the reality of climate change seriously.”
    Yeah, that’s real interesting. They were so busy looking at such crap that the missed one or two little things like Katrina.
    Real dangers are ignored while leftist fantasy garbage consumes time and resources paid for by tax thieving.

  4. William M. Connolley – “It is interesting that people actually in charge of vulnerable infrastructure take the reality of climate change seriously.”

    No it isn’t. People who benefit from billions being spent on infrastructure demand billions be spent on infrastructure? It is not even a news story. It is a cliche.

    “What you’re missing here is that IPCC AR4 isn’t all that useful for SLR projections because it deliberately avoided factoring in ice melt.”

    Or to put it more accurately, this product of the work experience children from Greenpeace is not all that useful. No more.

  5. As I remember, Manhattan Island was supposed to be under 10ft of melt-water from a combination of rising sea-levels (actually falling) and melt-down of permafrost from the Canadian Shield by now. Last time I looked, there was a distinct absence of wet suits on Wall St.

  6. “What the report does do however is take the IPCC models (fine, good, people should) and then add another one. What happens if West Antarctica and Greenland both suddenly melt?”

    No it doesn’t – and obviously not since if that happened it would cause far more than 4.5 ft of rise.

    Here is a passage from the report:

    “Sea level rise projections that do not include significant melting of the polar ice sheets (which is already observed to be occurring) suggest 1 to 5 inches of rise by the 2020s, 5 to 12 inches by the 2050s and 8 to 23 inches by the 2080s. Scenarios that include rapid melt- ing of polar ice project 4 to 10 inches of sea level rise by the 2020s, 17 to 29 inches by the 2050s and 37 to 55
    inches by the 2080s.”

    Nothing there about *sudden* melt of Greenland and West Antarctica, which really would be disaster movie stuff.

    Rather, it seems to me that it says that if rapid melt occurs (and in fact an equally plausible way of reading it is ‘continues’), this is what they expect.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.