Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes Sandy hit at the worst possible time, high tide, full moon but it was not a hurricane at landfall.
Hurricanes show you the worst case scenario and give a good picture about what is going on, the 1938 Hurricane know as the Long Island Express was a CAT 5 but went to a CAT 3 when it reached landfall, it was moving at around 50-70 MPH in addition the CAT 3 winds. The storm surge from that hurricane took houses off their foundations on the bay side of the LI sound, there are homes on LI that never flooded during that hurricane but they were flooded by Sandy, Irene in addition to some tropical storms in the last few years.
The FEMA maps were changed a few years ago for LI predicting increased flood risks inland, they were very accurate.
But if this thread is about Global Climate Change then why are we talking about weather events ie; hurricanes, is your argument that they have been getting worst for the last 100 years or so? because 100 years is not a long enough period to base climate change on.
Sea level has definitely increased on LI and other places on the atlantic coast, personal observation, FEMA and NASA. There is not a community on the eastern shoreline that doesn't see the effects. There was someone who lived in the Norfolk area that charted the flood levels on his garage, they were increasing in both frequency and level. People are retreating from the shoreline for a very good reason, unprecendented sea level rise.
I was mistaken it was the VA legislature, they restricted the use of the words "sea level rise" to "flooding".
I'm not sure what your saying, Do you mean to say the level of the sea is higher at high tide than it was say 70 years ago? and if so how much?
Or are you saying that when we have a storm the storm surge's have been getting higher in the last 70 years or so?
I'm not sure what your saying, Do you mean to say the level of the sea is higher at high tide than it was say 70 years ago? and if so how much?
Or are you saying that when we have a storm the storm surge's have been getting higher in the last 70 years or so?
bill
Sea level is approximately 10 inches in the last century, storm surges have increased from a combination of sea level rise, erosion and development.
Your going to have to back this up with credible proof. 10mm maybe I would have bought that without proof but 10 inches no way
bill
Well, it is feasible with the estimates often referred (ie 2.33 mm per year, or if you go with Topex 3.2 mm a year). In a 100 years, that is over 10 inches. Problem is the details of when and where they are taking such measurements. Also, I don't think he has been taking into account that the sea level, for instance in Topex has been dropping roughly since 2009-2010 and has diverged from the trend (depending on who is doing the adjustments).
If you look at Topex:
You can see the deviation, but note that the original data showed an extreme deviation from the trend and was "corrected" (not the GIA they mentioned) through data homogenization techniques. Point is, even after some major adjustments (which resulted in favor of the argument of rise), it still is off trend.
Not only that, but a lot of the evaluations are modeled historical trends and while claimed as "global", there are many issues in that position (some areas have risen, others have dropped). Then add in the various methodology objections and well... there are issues. Those going on about some steady increase aren't looking into it past a proclamation made by a given agency.
Here is a newer version of Topex:
Which is showing a continued rise back to trend, though... I would be interested to see some in-depth analysis of their methods, there is a lot of "interesting" things done that brings up objections concerning the methodology. As I said previously, when they did the adjustments on Topex a while back, there was a lot of objections in the community concerning how far their "adjustments" deviated from the raw data. Some adjustments were needed and understood, some were not.
It is like the similar problem of comparing surface records between HadCRUT and GISS, where GISS always has a very strong warming trend compared to HADCRUT and that of the original raw station data. That is, the "interesting" part is often the "adjustments" that are made, which unfortunately has a tendency to require FOIA's to remedy.
Let's say we know that the Earth is warming. The real debate is about human activity contributing to it. Given that we know that the climate warms and cools over time, can scientist's explain with certainty the amount of warming that's attributable to natural cycles versus that amount that's caused by humans? Can they demonstrate the exact cause? Can they explain what makes the warming on Earth different from the warming on Mars - unless that rover is responsible?
Having posed those questions, the planet is dirty and we need to clean it up. I buy that part, but there are many unanswered questions about the "science" of global warming. We should just focus on the fact that we need clean air and water and quit with the doomsday scenarios that have lined Al Gore's pockets.
Let's say we know that the Earth is warming. The real debate is about human activity contributing to it. Given that we know that the climate warms and cools over time, can scientist's explain with certainty the amount of warming that's attributable to natural cycles versus that amount that's caused by humans? Can they demonstrate the exact cause? Can they explain what makes the warming on Earth different from the warming on Mars - unless that rover is responsible?
Having posed those questions, the planet is dirty and we need to clean it up. I buy that part, but there are many unanswered questions about the "science" of global warming. We should just focus on the fact that we need clean air and water and quit with the doomsday scenarios that have lined Al Gore's pockets.
No certainty, no exact cause, no empirical results of analysis. That is, they have many speculations to which they create models established on those speculations, but no... they have no "evidence", only casual correlations (which are even questionable in that at times).
Now, there is nothing wrong with that, but reality has diverged from their speculations and rather than scrap or modify the speculation to search for causation, they force fit reality to line up with speculation. The field is heavily invested in politics and the marketed position to such drives its results.
As an example of one of the biggest offenders, James Hansen who lets his political ideology drive his research and who consistently uses his "title" as a means to promote political topics:
That is what the field exists of today (in terms of its "marketed" position).
The science exists, but those actually doing the science don't take such radical positions of certainty when they are only speculating.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
