To the Editor: The Beacon continues to parade the fear about impending sea rise, now as much as 9.8 feet by the end of the century. Three years ago the Beacon went on record to proclaim that the sea would rise by three feet by end of century, now they
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
To the Editor:
The Beacon continues to parade the fear about impending sea rise, now as much as 9.8 feet by the end of the century. Three years ago the Beacon went on record to proclaim that the sea would rise by three feet by end of century, now they have more than doubled their estimate, but this time our Democrat leaders of doom have their hands out for lots of cash – one trillion dollars – the price of bovine manure has gone up.
Grab your wallet, folks, because something is very, very fishy about these Democrats and their sycophants in the Beacon and in state government. They quote recent NOAA modeling that shows an increase of 9.8 feet rise for this century, but no proof is offered, just mass hysteria. In contrast, if you go to NOAA's own website (tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html), you'll find the following, which shows that throughout southern New England (with the exception of Long Island, etc.) the rate is between zero and three millimeters per year, which translates to a sea level rise of zero to one foot per century.
At the Providence station, 8454000, “the mean sea level trend is 2.22 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of 0.25 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1938 to 2015 which is equivalent to a change of 0.73 feet in 100 years.” At the Newport station, 8452660, “the mean sea level trend is 2.72 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of 0.17 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1930 to 2015 which is equivalent to a change of 0.89 feet in 100 years.” This is from their own website!
Two thousand years ago, there were eyewitnesses that saw the risen Christ, but there is no such thing for the risen seas: only speculation, conjecture and a corrupt imagination.
Erik Thorp
Warwick
2 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
tberesfo
Erik, please note that the majority of projections of sea level rise are non-linear; they are exponential. In other words, you cannot simply project a simple linear rate of rise (the 3 millimeters that you mention) into the future. This makes sense when you think about the compounding effects and their interactions that contribute to climate trends, including our own exponential increase in rates of carbon emissions over the past century. more importantly: you are interpreting past data (1938 to 2015) to directly infer future sea levels. This is equivalent to saying that the past 100 years will essentially repeat itself, in spite of the trillions of tons of carbon that humans have released into the atmosphere, and its compounding (again, non-linear) impact over decades.
Climate scientists have reached consensus regarding the certainty of sea level rise. This is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of extrapolating trends evident in the climate data collected in recent decades (including sea level rise already witnessed), and their correlations to records of compounded carbon emissions. There are a range of scenarios with consequences that vary in severity, but they are ALL much more severe than anything that we have witnessed in the last decades or century. The degree of severity and its rate of acceleration are the only unknowns here:
http://cpo.noaa.gov/Home/AllNews/TabId/315/ArtMID/668/ArticleID/80/Global-Sea-Level-Rise-Scenarios-for-the-United-States-National-Climate-Assessment.aspx
As, a result, sea level rise is ultimately a risk management problem: what are the opportunity costs if we regulate carbon emissions, which are contributing to this problem? What are the risks if we don't? Scientific consensus suggests that the risks are orders of magnitude greater than the short-term cost.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017 Report this
RISchadenfreude
Besides the evidence that most of the Global Cooling / Global Warming / Climate Change / Extreme Climate / (insert next self-serving name here) data has been manipulated (NOAA being a proven culprit), the anthropogenic global warming narrative is still being pushed, but with less effect. It seems that the more they're dismissed, the louder they shriek.
The fact is, the Earth is going to continue to get warmer, and the UN's socialist wealth redistribution scheme will do nothing to stop it. The last Ice Age ended approx. 100,000 years ago, and the last Glacial Period ended approx. 10,000 years ago.
It's always funny when the left cries "science!" when it's convenient, but dismisses it and goes for the emotional response 9 times out of 10 (i.e.; gender dismorphia).
Friday, May 26, 2017 Report this