Global Warming and Sea Level
As you can see from the comments, I have a critic on this topic. Here is a new, peer-reviewed paper that makes the same points.
----
Perhaps because I live in Kansas, the sea level rise aspect of global warming has been one of lesser interest to me. I have pointed out from time to time that if the predictions about sea level rise were correct, then there wouldn't have been a hotel building boom in the Maldives in recent years, which was supposed to be the first victim of sea level rise.
On Twitter and elsewhere, you see images like these. Are they valid?
It certainly would appear that sea level rise is much less of a threat than global warming zealots would make it appear.
Let's do a little computation from two respected sources on the topic.
NOAA Tide Gauge, New York City
NOAA says the rate of rise is, on average, 2.92 millimeters per year, going back to 1855.
University of Colorado Satellite Sea Level Measurements
They come up with a rate of 3.5 millimeters per year going back to 1992. 
Thoughts
So, there are 305 millimeters in a foot. If we say 3 millimeters per foot (NYC's average) it will take 100 years for sea level to rise one foot. If we take the University of Colorado's 3.5, it will take 87 years for sea level to rise a foot.
It certainly appears the global warming hype machines have wildly oversold the danger of sea level rise.
The University of Colorado's sea level data is considered the "gold standard" of sea level data. The NYC (it is at The Battery) tide gauge is considered the gold standard of the NOAA tide gauges.
ReplyDeleteThe Maldives were forecast to be more or less underwater by now. I'm very familiar with ROI, etc. No one would be building these new resorts if there was any serious concern about sea level rise.
Yours reads as though you missed the point, by defending Mr. Smith's sources and restating portions of his original post. And again, likely not understanding the difference between ROI and, for example, recovery of capital, which are two different metrics.
ReplyDeleteAs posted above, dive into sources such as this [posted above] - https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2022/08/31/maldives-construction-boom-despite-climate-fears-many-new-resorts-expected-to-open-by-2025/ - and others to fully understand why resort construction in the Maldives is not an indicator that "global warming hype machines have wildly oversold the danger of sea level rise".
MIKE SMITH HERE, for some reason, part of the Blogger software is not working this evening. For my critic(s), a new (2024) peer-reviewed paper makes the same points I did in the piece. Please take a look.
ReplyDeleteWould enjoy reviewing the paper when a link is provided.
ReplyDeleteA link to the peer-reviewed paper mentioned by Mr. Smith? Thank you in advance.
ReplyDeleteFound the paper to which believe Mr. Smith refers in his comment above...
ReplyDeletehttps/www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17538947.2024.2329816.pdf
After studying it, don't see the through line to his conclusion, "It certainly appears the global warming hype machines have wildly oversold the danger of sea level rise."
To the contrary, as at page 21 [to select one of many references] of the paper we read this: "The Maldives, a small island developing state, has shown that coastal stabilization measures not only safeguard fragile ecological systems but also support sustainable economic growth (Corral
and Schling 2017). Nonetheless, the effectiveness of hard protection measures such as seawalls in
island settings remains academically debatable. Critics argue that such interventions are often
unsuccessful and may even worsen shoreline erosion, failing to safeguard property, land and
food production (Klöck, Duvat, and Nunn 2022). Particularly in remote locations, the construction
of seawalls is not seen as a viable short-term response to emerging challenges and is considered
ineffective in assisting coastal communities to adapt to long-term shoreline changes (Nunn,
Klöck, and Duvat 2021)."
Unless missing something, after taking in the entire paper the opposite of what the original post suggests seems true, in that according to this paper, there is no overselling of the danger of sea level rise in the Maldives, or elsewhere.