Sea Level To Rise Up To a Foot by 2050, Interagency Report Finds (nasa.gov) 163
NASA, in a blog post: Coastal flooding will increase significantly over the next 30 years because of sea level rise, according to a new report by an interagency sea level rise task force that includes NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other federal agencies. Titled Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States, the Feb. 15 report concludes that sea level along U.S. coastlines will rise between 10 to 12 inches (25 to 30 centimeters) on average above today's levels by 2050. The report -- an update to a 2017 report -- forecasts sea level to the year 2150 and, for the first time, offers near-term projections for the next 30 years. Agencies at the federal, state, and local levels use these reports to inform their plans on anticipating and coping with the effects of sea level rise.
"This report supports previous studies and confirms what we have long known: Sea levels are continuing to rise at an alarming rate, endangering communities around the world. Science is indisputable and urgent action is required to mitigate a climate crisis that is well underway," said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. "NASA is steadfast in our commitment to protecting our home planet by expanding our monitoring capabilities and continuing to ensure our climate data is not only accessible but understandable." The task force developed their near-term sea level rise projections by drawing on an improved understanding of how the processes that contribute to rising seas -- such as melting glaciers and ice sheets as well as complex interactions between ocean, land, and ice -- will affect ocean height. "That understanding has really advanced since the 2017 report, which gave us more certainty over how much sea level rise we'll get in the coming decades," said Ben Hamlington, a research scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California and one of the update's lead authors.
NASA's Sea Level Change Team, led by Hamlington, has also developed an online mapping tool to visualize the report's state-of-the-art sea level rise projections on a localized level across the U.S. "The hope is that the online tool will help make the information as widely accessible as possible," Hamlington said. The Interagency Sea Level Rise Task Force projects an uptick in the frequency and intensity of high-tide coastal flooding, otherwise known as nuisance flooding, because of higher sea level. It also notes that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, global temperatures will become even greater, leading to a greater likelihood that sea level rise by the end of the century will exceed the projections in the 2022 update.
"This report supports previous studies and confirms what we have long known: Sea levels are continuing to rise at an alarming rate, endangering communities around the world. Science is indisputable and urgent action is required to mitigate a climate crisis that is well underway," said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson. "NASA is steadfast in our commitment to protecting our home planet by expanding our monitoring capabilities and continuing to ensure our climate data is not only accessible but understandable." The task force developed their near-term sea level rise projections by drawing on an improved understanding of how the processes that contribute to rising seas -- such as melting glaciers and ice sheets as well as complex interactions between ocean, land, and ice -- will affect ocean height. "That understanding has really advanced since the 2017 report, which gave us more certainty over how much sea level rise we'll get in the coming decades," said Ben Hamlington, a research scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California and one of the update's lead authors.
NASA's Sea Level Change Team, led by Hamlington, has also developed an online mapping tool to visualize the report's state-of-the-art sea level rise projections on a localized level across the U.S. "The hope is that the online tool will help make the information as widely accessible as possible," Hamlington said. The Interagency Sea Level Rise Task Force projects an uptick in the frequency and intensity of high-tide coastal flooding, otherwise known as nuisance flooding, because of higher sea level. It also notes that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, global temperatures will become even greater, leading to a greater likelihood that sea level rise by the end of the century will exceed the projections in the 2022 update.
Coming to Real Estate ads soon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Florida isn't going to cede a single damn inch of developed coastline to rising sea levels. With the possible exception of an area north of West Palm Beach where there's an oddly high coastal ridge, pretty much every inch of beachfront real estate in Florida sits on top of a manmade hill built from crushed limestone dredged from a canal or lake nearby, or trucked in from a limestone mine further inland.
You know those apps that purport to show Miami underwater with {n} feet of sea level rise? They're 100% BU
Re: (Score:3)
Case in point, to illustrate the houses on the beach in SW Florida that are ALREADY replacing the older houses built prior to ~1980. Note that these aren't condos or multifamily buildings... they're SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, and the older house they completely dwarf is about the size of a normal 1970s-era 3/2 single-family home (but up on pilings).
https://goo.gl/maps/mXzTuw9eRm... [goo.gl]
Re: (Score:2)
Another view of the same area (opposite side of the road, a few blocks further north) that shows the progression of house elevations and sizes from the 80s, 90s, and today. The house on the left is probably inhabited by a retired couple, and will be sold, demolished, and replaced by a house even bigger than the one on the far right within a few years.
https://goo.gl/maps/n42Jee4U7d... [goo.gl]
Re: (Score:2)
ok (Score:2, Informative)
It's a blog post to a report that doesn't have citations.
Re:ok (Score:4, Informative)
First paragraph states they are pulling data from here: 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report [noaa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the sea level report [windows.net].
With the error bars added, they are expected between 6 cm and 50 cm change by 2050.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not easily falsifiable because of waves (so you need more equipment than just a ruler), because of tides (you need to take multiple measurements and average them or something to come to a single number) and because you need to take measurements around the globe to find the global average (since ocean level changes are different at different locations).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about we agree that it's definitely falsifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huge Uncertainties (Score:2, Informative)
If you go out to 2100 the upper limits are over 1.5m and the lower limits and around 10cm. What the science is actually telling us is that we do not have enough understanding to make an accurate prediction BUT that serious sea level rise is a possibility eve
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be grand if things always turned out at the best possible result of the uncertainty limit?
That's what most climate change denalists want to convince us of, in addition to "humans don't cause it so what can humans do to stop it?"
Mind you, at that lower limit and the climate changes that are happening along with that lower limit, incredibly large sections of coastline will be gone as well as disruptions that many will find... fatal.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what most climate change denalists want to convince us of
The problem is that that sort of claim is just as dishonest as assuming the worst possible value and, if the basis of your argument is just as wrong as the people you are arguing against how are you going win that argument? Let's face it this climate alarmist approach is clearly not working for a sizeable fraction of the population so perhaps it's time to try something different and arguably more honest?
Re: (Score:3)
Where is this "honesty" you wish to find in uncertainty limits? Do you want that "sizeable fraction of the population" to pick up their statistics textbooks they never owned or studied to gain a deeper understanding into the honesty of certainty and uncertainty?
Would you like to let everything related to the climate play out and analyze it retrospectively? Will there be more honesty in that approach?
Re: (Score:3)
Where is this "honesty" you wish to find in uncertainty limits?
Saying that a study predicts that sea level will rise between 5-25 cm by 2050 with 15 cm being the most likely value is accurately reporting the results and does not need any statistics textbooks to understand. Yes, it is not as exciting but it's a lot more honest.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what most climate change denalists want to convince us of
The problem is that that sort of claim is just as dishonest as assuming the worst possible value
Which is why TFS quotes the most likely scenario, 1ft (30cm). Which is the least dishonest way of reporting it, given that it links to the primary report for more detail.
Re: (Score:2)
There's regional variation in sea level rise, so the uncertainty is in part because the increase in level won't be nicely equal and uniform.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on what temperature (Score:2)
To me, a report saying the seas level is going to rise X inches is pretty much worthless unless you also are starting what temperature increase you base that estimate on.
We already know that the total average rise by 2050 is going to be a lot lower than originally predicted, say 1.5 to 2C. Is this sea level range based on the downwardly revised figures? Or is it based on the extreme upper end of the potential changes we were talking about before, because all government climate reports have devolved into t
Re: (Score:3)
To me, a report saying the seas level is going to rise X inches is pretty much worthless unless you also are starting what temperature increase you base that estimate on.
So why don't you read the report and find out? It's here: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/... [noaa.gov]
Oh, that's right-- slashdot readers don't actually care about knowing what they're talking about, they just want to kvetch.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't say the sea level is going to rise by X inches. They say the GLOBAL sea level is going to rise by X +/- Y, but that every single region will experience a different sea level rise.
Re: (Score:2)
So why don't you read the report and find out?
I already did,
Then why did you ask?
only *I* linked to the report directly (which I also skimmed), not the weak abstract you linked to there.
??
The site I linked [noaa.gov] was the full report by sections. I usually don't put a link to a 22 MB file without warning people (just habit from the old days when large files were slow to load, I guess), but if you wanted the whole 22 MB in pdf form [windows.net], instead of selected chapters, that was the very first link, at the top of the page in a red box, hard to miss.
Re: (Score:3)
To me, a report saying the seas level is going to rise X inches is pretty much worthless unless you also are starting what temperature increase you base that estimate on.
They're not basing the prediction on a correlation with temperature. They are basing it on an extrapolation of current trends.
Re: (Score:2)
The headline would be just as accurate to say, "Sea levels to rise no more than a foot by 2050."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Sea level most likely to rise by about a foot" would be useful, though.
But would be false.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sea level most likely to rise by about a foot" would be useful, though.
But would be false.
So what is the correct most likely figure?
Re: (Score:3)
Good question, I don't see in this paper where it gives an answer: https://aambpublicoceanservice... [windows.net] If it were a normal distribution, you could say the middle is the most likely, but I don't see anywhere that says it's a normal distribution.
Based on naive extrapolation of current sea level trends, the most likely scenario is near the bottom. So we're going to need to see a lot of acceleration to reach the 1 foot level, which is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on naive extrapolation of current sea level trends, the most likely scenario is near the bottom.
Since it's an accelerating trend, yes that's naieve.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to take that back. I've had a rubbish day, but that's no reason to be insulting. Apologies.
The trend is accelerating (I posted a link elsewhere). From other information, though, from other studies, somewhere around 30cm seems to be fairly well attested as the most likely scenario. I don't keep a compendium of links, so I would have to look that up afresh, but similar research was doing the rounds a bit less than a year ago, so I read about it then.
Re: (Score:2)
somewhere around 30cm seems to be fairly well attested as the most likely scenario.
That doesn't seem to be what this paper says, and it's a compilation of the latest research on the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AR6 is old compared to this report. This one has better info.
Re: (Score:2)
AR6 is relative to 1900, and is reporting on global mean sea level rise. This new report is relative to 2005 and reports on continental US sea level rise.
Even once you've aligned the baseline, the CONUS results differ from the GMSL value used to define a given scenario due to the combination of regionally relevant factors that are discussed in Section 2.1.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that's good to know.
Re: (Score:2)
AR6 is old compared to this report. This one has better info.
AR6 is in preparation. It isn't old. This is the up-to-date information that will be going into AR6.
https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/
The IPCC is now in its sixth assessment cycle, in which the IPCC is producing the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) with contributions by its three Working Groups and a Synthesis Report, three Special Reports, and a refinement to its latest Methodology Report.
The Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis was released on 9 August 2021.
The link I posted is discussing the work of Working Group I. It's only months old.
Re: (Score:2)
WG1 is done.
No we don't know that (Score:4)
We absolutely do NOT know that. Temperatures have already risen 1.1C above per-industrial levels. A 1.5 degree rise is actually the best case scenario in which emissions drop to net-zero by 2050 (highly unlikely). You might want to read this article (even though it's from Business Insider, you'll probably dismiss it as "leftist" lame-stream media). [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even sure this is "Lower than originally predicted". The first IPCC report in 1990 suggested we'd see "a likely increase in global mean temperature of about 1C above the present value by 2025, if we followed "Scenario A"- their worst case scenario.
Needless to say, we didn't follow the worst case scenario, but we're still on track for 0.82C of warming since 1990 [woodfortrees.org]. (RSS has 1990 at -0.0167468 C with 0.0233522 C per year since)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/new... [bbc.co.uk]
A 2'C rise would result in Spain's temperatures going up by 6.4'C, so we've got to be a bit careful with averages.
I absolutely agree with you that it is important to look at the science and data, not the journalistic conclusions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6... [www.ipcc.ch]
Going by the 2021 report, I can see where NOAA were getting their figures. You want figure SPM.4, SSPS-8.5, which is the level of emissions we'd expect if every nation continues with current policies unmodified until
Re: (Score:2)
The word is... (Score:2, Insightful)
..."speculates".
FTFY.
On the up side ... (Score:2)
The 5-mile walk from my house to the beach is going to get easier ...
Wanna bet? (Score:3)
I'll take the first 1bch wager that it's at least a 3x overestimate by 2050.
Re: (Score:2)
We have no choice but to bet, because we aren't going to prevent this from happening.
Surely they mean... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No. The global sea level, on average, is going to rise 30cm. It will rise by more than that in some places and less in others. Because all we're given is a global average over the entire year, it's entirely possible for some areas to experience a much greater increase in sea level.
Someone tell Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi! (Score:2)
Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi own beach front houses. Someone tell them to sell them quick!
Unless this is a lie by politically minded scum, like Gore and Pelosi.
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi are not climate scientists and have nothing to do with this report.
Comments about beach houses (Score:2)
Why buy a beach house? Because what this means is that the high tide will be a foot higher than now. In many locations, tides vary 10 feet from high to low, so this rise isn't a big deal.
I have a harder time understanding why anybody wants a beach house that isn't set back on a hill. Those things are always one good storm surge or tsunami away from being gone. People don't handle infrequent catastrophic events very well, I guess. They assume it won't happen, or if it does they'll be away or able to out
NASA's SLC Team is phoning it in... (Score:2)
My beach home (Score:2)
Is a few hundred feet back from the beach, a concrete structure, and about 70 feet above sea-level. It's also outside of the tsunami zone. Hell, I kind of hope there's a tsunami that is a direct hit, because it'll get rid of the other homes in my view.
Let me know... (Score:2)
Let me know in 2050 how that turned out. Meantime, tell me about things that have actually happened.
Re:Climate Doom Porn (Score:5, Informative)
It's a NOAA report. Their funding doesn't change much year to year. . .well, that is when the Republicans are not attempting to whack them for telling the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you hate climate change, you should still want to collect climate data. NOAA does a good job doing that.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, I think the deniers actually believe that if you do not look at it the problem goes away.
Re: (Score:2)
I mostly don't care what they think.
Re: (Score:3)
I mostly don't care what they think.
That may be a mistake. Sure, _respecting_ what they thing is basically impossible. But they are the main hurdle on the way to get this under control, so their inner workings (flawed as they may be) are relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason I come here to Slashdot instead of youtube or reddit is so I can converse with people who can read the paper and glean information from it. And a certain number of people commenting on this story did exactly that. That is why I am here.
As for the main hurdle to get it under control, the problem is that solar and wind (and other renewables) are not effective enough with current storage technology. Otherwise the problem already would have been solved.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the main hurdle to get it under control, the problem is that solar and wind (and other renewables) are not effective enough with current storage technology. Otherwise the problem already would have been solved.
What? Were do you get that from? You seem to have listened top some fossiles or nuclear industry propaganda. You know, dying industries that want to keep their pork coming no matter how much damage that does.
For example, "other" renewables like water or biomass do not even need electricity storage. For solar and wind, there is room for improvement, but there are enough options to store it already to make it a lot cheaper than nuclear. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, "other" renewables like water or biomass do not even need electricity storage
Yeah but water is mostly maxed out in every place it can be used. It's not something that can fill the world's energy needs.
For solar and wind, there is room for improvement, but there are enough options to store it already to make it a lot cheaper than nuclear.
Not without using natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
The deniers understand there are humans behind this and humans are greedy. I know you guys who worship at the temple of Science believe in your priests, but the rest of us know actual scientists and realize they are just humans. Covid taught us that science is driven by greed. Had your tenth booster yet? You guys are way too trusting of science and their corporate and government allies.
Ah, I get it! You are simply stupid or a delusional paranoid. As basically all deniers.
FYI, I know exactly how Science works. I have reviewed tons of papers and I have applied for funding several times. So, no, most of Science is definitely not driven by greed. For one thing, you can simply not make enough money doing Science. Incidentally, while the Covid vaccines did wonders for some stock prices, the actual profits made are small. Astra even made a loss on it. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the UK's science funding is pretty much static and there's no increase to handle global warming issues. There's actually a cut, because Brexit means they don't get EU funding.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just leave this here... [rationalwiki.org]
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll get government bailouts to compensate for their lost property value.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A foot of sea level rise isn't going to make anyone build a giant wall that blocks their views.
Re:I may not be around for it but... (Score:4, Informative)
Of course it is. For instance, San Francisco's waterfront already floods several times a year with king tides. Currently, it's not an enormous problem, but if sea levels were 1 foot higher, the entire waterfront would be flooded with a significant amount of water several times a year.
When Hurricane Sandy hit New York, the accompanying storm surge brought sea levels 5 feet above average high tide, causing $60 billion in damages, and put several subways out of commission for several years, after it flooded the system with 15 million gallons of water. With an additional 1 foot of sea level rise, the damage is that much more severe.
New York is going to spend $120 billion dollars building a sea wall specifically to address this.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, San Francisco's waterfront already floods several times a year with king tides.
Which part of San Francisco are you thinking of that would have trouble with a foot of sea rise?
the entire waterfront would be flooded with a significant amount of water several times a year.
Oh, the entire waterfront? Don't make things up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know about tides. Learn to write a useful comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Marina through the south Embarcadero. Potentially inland as far as Front street in the Financial District, and Chestnut in the Marina. It is all built on fill.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not making things up. You can check things yourself https://sfplanninggis.org/floo... [sfplanninggis.org]
Re: (Score:3)
No, that map shows San Francisco is largely prepared for flooding. Most of the flood zones on that map are not built in (or are docks high above the water, or similar, like fort mason).
Re: (Score:2)
btw, nice link. I appreciate it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you're right or wrong about San Francisco currently and with the extra foot is that comes to be. But theoretically, it can't be excluded that a foot of see level rise with the right storm ind
Re: (Score:2)
A foot average increase doesn't mean low tide and high tide increase by a foot each everywhere on the globe.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/... [noaa.gov]
Section 4 of this report shows how different parts of the globe will experience different sea level rises. This doesn't mean that New York will experience a 20 foot increase in sea level, although obviously as long as the global average was one foot then this would certainly be mathematically possible given that all we have is the global mean rise.
However, local variat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They can't plug in all the data from the 60's going forward and have a matching prediction for today 's weather
They can for its climate, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich people can just move later, they want to lay on the beach now.
Re: (Score:2)
The first explanation I found, from Politifact:
The 2002 prediction was made by extrapolating from available data on ice on Kilimanjaro, explained Douglas Hardy, a co-author of the 2002 paper. The researchers relied on existing estimates of the size of the ice fields in 1912, 1953, 1976 and 1989, and on aerial photographs taken during their February 2000 trip to Kilimanjaro.
Hardy, an adjunct professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, said that the prediction was made with an important caveat: "if climatological conditions of the past 88 years continue." Those climatological conditions didn’t persist, he said, meaning the glaciers didn’t diminish as quickly as predicted.
So a prediction was made, with caveats, and the conditions of those caveats were not met. This is part of how science works.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax write offs can make it worthwhile. I can buy beach front property now, and sell it back to my own business. And the business can depreciate it over the several years, setting it up so that I occupy it less than half the time and the other half is therefor for business purposes. Or I can buy it, and then sell it at a loss. Offsetting my gains in other areas to avoid paying tax in those years. Finally, I could buy several properties. Develop them and sell a few of them at hugely inflated prices to friends
Science IS dispute (Score:2)
It is only the religious who believe things to be beyond.
Re:Then why did Obama buy beachfront property? (Score:4)
Obama's not a climate scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the logical fallacy of 'what-about-ism'.
Re: (Score:2)
"whataboutism" is not a logical fallacy at all
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously it is.
https://fallacyinlogic.com/wha... [fallacyinlogic.com]
"Whataboutism is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when a person attempts to divert the focus away from the current issue by making a counter-accusation. "
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Someone screwed the units? (Score:2)
A hockeystick is always possible, but on most tidal gauges you will be hard pressed to find acceleration last decade.
What caused the half a century lag time between the acceleration in CO2 emissions and the imminent acceleration in sea level rise at tidal gauges?
Re: (Score:3)
A hockeystick is always possible, but on most tidal gauges you will be hard pressed to find acceleration last decade.
You may say that, but it's has actually been accelerating
What caused the half a century lag time between the acceleration in CO2 emissions and the imminent acceleration in sea level rise at tidal gauges?
There probably wasn't a lag. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/... [nasa.gov]. Early in systems where change is not linear, it looks linear. E.g., in radians you can approximate sin(theta) with theta initially, but at Pi/4 radians betting on linear would look like a bad choice.
Re: (Score:2)