Alarming Climate Change Effects on Florida

denialists will chuckle, won't they, Clarke. But indeed, Miami Dade is only a few feet above sea level and if sea level rises 2 or 3 feet by 2100, it gets harder to protect buildings from flooding. You can't just build a sea wall all the way around south Florida, it's not a realisitic possibility.

I have a sister in Boca Raton, and she has already told me that insurance companies charge so much for hurricane insurance in Florida now that some people are just taking their chances.

Luckily with the current rate of sea level rise we're looking at 3.4 inches by 2100

But indeed, Miami Dade is only a few feet above sea level and if sea level rises 2 or 3 feet by 2100, it gets harder to protect buildings from flooding.

Your sister is right to worry, Chris, at least for her children. According to NOAA (as in National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration), the IPCC AR4 projected that the total global-average sea level by the end of the 21 Century would be 7 - 15 inches for low emission scenarios and 10 - 23 inches for high emission scenarios.

Unfortunately for us, it seems the projections will underestimate the level of sea level rise as we've underestimated the rate and magnitude of ice sheet and glacial melting.

In fact, more recent data from several peer reviewed studies show that we can expect up to around 1 meter (about 40 inches). Some studies project sea level rise to approach 2 meters (about almost 80 inches).

These data come from, of course, actual climate researchers and not anonymous bloggers citing non-science denialist-funded blogs. A good summary of the recent peer-reviewed science can be found here.

Unfortunately for us, it seems the projections will underestimate the level of sea level rise as we've underestimated the rate and magnitude of ice sheet and glacial melting.

indeed David. The rich irony, that Dan and Bill below go on and on about global warming alarmism, when in reality many climatologists play it conservative in order to be taken seriously by denialists (not working, that).
How to explain a way that the planet could be 2 or 3 degrees warmer in another 50 years without melting much ice. Hey guys, when it gets warm, ice melts. I think I have noticed that each Spring. :)

"How to explain a way"

We don't have to explain away any thing Chris, the reality is that nearly all of the predictions made by global warming alarmists have failed to materialized.

It is you alarmists who are left trying to explain away the failure of your (IPCC) science.

Chris,
Here are some links highlighting the failure of IPCC science;

Are the oceans rising?

Empirical Data Vs Predictions

Failed predictions human/model

Nearly 300 articles highlighting errors in the IPCC scientific predictions.

It could possibly be that the global warmists scientists are being so conservative in their suggestions because they've been proven wrong so many times already and the records of late just hasn't been supporting their current conclusions.

when in reality many climatologists play it conservative in order to be taken seriously by denialists (not working, that).

Climatologists are conservative, but not "in order to be taken seriously by denialists." All science is inherently conservative. We observe, hypothesize, try to prove ourselves wrong over and over, discuss all the uncertainties, and generally understate our results even when we are nearly absolutely sure.

Which is why when the science is so overwhelming that virtually all climate scientists have agreed the data unequivocally demonstrate man-made climate change, well, the conclusions are undeniable.

Denialists, on the other hand, are almost all non-scientists. The professional denialist industry consists of the non-science lobbyists (e.g., Heartland Institute, Cato Institute) and all the other ExxonMobil and Koch brothers funded front groups (e.g., the anonymous C3 Headlines, Marc Morano's Climate Depot). They are paid to lie about the science in order to keep policy-makers from having honest debates about the best policies to deal with the science. Then there are the amateurs. These are the people that the professional lobbyists rely on to saturate the internet with blatant falsehoods. The amateurs are the ones who mindlessly repeat nonsensical, many times proven false, and intellectually dishonest flotsam over and over. Some do so out of intentional ignorance, some out of intentional dishonesty, and some out of both...to the point of not caring how obvious it is that they contradict themselves and lie repeatedly.

So scientists are inherently conservative while denialists are inherently unskeptical.

I'm sure you can see the irony in that fact, Chris.

bill matthews Nov 25, 2011, 10:42am EST
That's right Chris we are chuckling! Actually it's more like we're laughing at you. You obviously didn't spend much time reading your post of last week. Huricanes are not going to become more frequent just stronger. And who can forget the part where it says natural forcings will be the main contributor for the next 20 to 30 years.

[10:04 a.m. | Insert | The summary contains a sobering message for those eager to point to current patterns of extreme weather as the manifestation of greenhouse-driven warming:

The quote above was from a link provided by David K

Not to mention the newly released e-mails where they show how they are using the weather to increase the urgency and get people like you to blindly point to weather as proof of AGW. The Actavist Green machine that is the IPCC has you eating right out of thier hands spreading the word of the IPCC religion.

The activist denialist machine is working hard to obfuscate the facts, and you have obviously bought the package. The rise in sea level will make low-lying coastal areas uninhabitable all around the world...and there are a lot of them. Your argument about storm frequency is an irrelevant diversion from the real effects of AGW...rising sea levels.
You can't call that "weather" when we are talking about what will happen over the next hundred years. Weather is what happens this year or next. Climate is concerned with long-term trends. But you know that, I am sure, which is why I find it so hilarious when you deniers sneer and call us alarmists who don't understand the distinction between weather and climate...until a big snowstorm or cold snap hits the east or midwest, and then you hypocritically point to the snowdrifts and ridicule global warming science.

Bill, do you even bother to read/understand what you write?

You obviously didn't spend much time reading your post of last week. Huricanes are not going to become more frequent just stronger.

Perhaps you should reread it. The post I saw says explicitly: "How about hurricanes? Well, the number of hurricanes is NOT going to go up. But the intensity of hurricanes is going to go up."

And why do you think that stronger hurricanes are nothing to worry about even if the frequency remains the same? Remember Katrina in 2005? Well, many of the people displaced by that "strong hurricane" are still not back in their homes. So if we have 10 hurricanes and the number that are Category 5 rises from 4 of 10 to 6 of 10, are you going to tell the people that lose everything in the 5th and 6th one that their plight is immaterial just because the number of storms didn't change? That's barbaric.

Also, maybe you could actually provide a link the post rather than saying something that seems to be totally divorced from fact and leaving us to guess what you might be talking about. Since you're too lazy to bother, here it is.

And who can forget the part where it says natural forcings will be the main contributor for the next 20 to 30 years.

First off, that is your interpretation, not the IPCC. Secondly, you seem to think that if statistically the contribution of man-made influenced forcings is smaller than that of natural forcings than they are inconsequential. That would be both incomplete and potentially inaccurate.

The quote above was from a link provided by David K

And if you looked at the quote you would have seen that it wasn't the IPCC, it was a quote from a reporter, thus reflecting the reporter's judgment and not scientists. And again you are too lazy to link to the source so we can see what you're talking about rather than have to guess. Frankly, you've been asked many times to do this one simple thing (which Gather makes so easy any child could do it), so one has to wonder whether you are intentionally not linking the source so people can't find out how you have misinterpreted it. Here it is for those who want to see how you misrepresented the source.

Furthermore, if you read the passage in context you would have seen that it was more reflective of the fact that certain weather extremes (e.g., hurricanes) are wildly variable so that projections for relatively short periods of time (like, for example, 20 to 30 years) are not long enough to give a high degree of statistical confidence. That doesn't mean that weather extremes are not occurring, just that they are harder to separate from the noise at the 95% level of confidence that most statisticians use as a measure of significance. But being 90% or 80% sure is still pretty darn sure, even if it doesn't meet the "virtual certitude" of 95%.

Also, if you had bothered to read the actual summary for policymakers and not just cherry pick a quote out of context from a blog article about it, you would have seen that the SPM (see it here) discusses how many of the extreme weather events are predicted to be strongly influenced by human activity and man-made climate change in the decades following out to the end of the 21st century.

For example, "It is virtually certain that increases in the frequency and magnitude of warm daily temperature extremes and decreases in cold extremes will occur in the 21st century on the global scale."

And "It is very likely that mean sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme coastal high water levels in the future."

And many more. Needless to say it is easier to project for certain extreme events than it is for others, mainly due to a combination of wide natural variability and/or amount of data available. But the sum total demonstrates that as the 21st century progresses we will be seeing increased frequency and/or magnitude of many extreme weather events.

Not to mention the newly released e-mails where they show how they are using the weather to increase the urgency and get people like you to blindly point to weather as proof of AGW.

They do no such thing. These are just more of the same emails stolen in 2009 and the amount of twisting and distortion by the denialist industry is even more cynical and dishonest than they were with the first batch. You know, the ones where 5 or 7 independent investigations ALL concluded that the scientists didn't do anything wrong and the denialist industry was lying about what was said within the context it was said. The fact that the denialist industry has rolled out more fake charges just before the current IPCC meetings, just like they did before the Copenhagen meetings, demonstrates that they are intentionally lying in order to disrupt an honest discussion of science and policy.

"when you deniers sneer and call us alarmists who don't understand the distinction between weather and climate"

I really think it's the other way around, plus you G/W enthusiasts take so much effort(i.e. words) explaining your positions, that I'd dare to say that YOU are contributing to any negative climate effects by blowing all that HOT air!

Hi Bill,
If we look at the statistics extreme weather events are on a down trend, hurricanes are neither increasing in number nor intensity, dollar losses and lives lost are at an all time low.

Chris's post, "IPCC report predicts increase in extreme weather events."are just more of the IPCC's failed predictions based upon modles which have not to date come through with any of their catastrophic predictions.

"IPCC failed predictions"
Sea level rise according to the IPCC

And you are correct about the new round of climategate emails

My latest post Climate gate 2.0 excerpts the latest releases just reinforce the lengths the global warmists will go to deceive the public.

I really think it's the other way around,

Why would you think that? You think climate scientists don't know the difference between weather and climate?

plus you G/W enthusiasts take so much effort(i.e. words) explaining your positions, that I'd dare to say that YOU are contributing to any negative climate effects by blowing all that HOT air!

So rather than see facts you would prefer bumper stickers? From anonymous blog posts by denialist industry-funded bloggers who have been shown to intentionally manipulate and provide irrelevant data? The anonymous bloggers who cite as "sources" other non-science, anonymous bloggers?

You really would prefer inaccurate non-science offered in easy bumper sticker format instead of having to be bothered reading lengthy and accurate scientific information taken directly from the climate scientists who actually study the climate?

That is really your position? Don't bother you with facts? It takes too long to read?

I'm very sorry to see such a desire to remain intentionally uninformed. Unlike some of the dishonest people who intentionally provide false and self-contradictory disinformation, you, August Lady, are capable of handling fact and science. To choose not to accept it because it is "too many words" is really rather unfortunate.

"YOU are contributing to any negative climate effects by blowing all that HOT air!"

Priceless Lady! LOL!

And yes the Gather global warmists have to be wind bags it adds to the deception.
We have seen their predictions fail time and time again but they carry on in their chicken little blustering.

Lets take a realistic look at sea level rise;



View original graph

oh boy

Dan I totally agree with you sea level has risen in the past, Ice has melted in the past and there is no proof of increased extreme weather. I was just pointing out how they have been led like sheep to carry the message of these fraudsters. It's all in the the emails in black and white and in their own words. Not from some oil lobby fox news blog.

I don't care if they where stolen they cannot hide from the facts. How anyone can read them and say that this is the way science is done is beyond me. I don't care how many inquiries cleared them it's obvious they didn't go through the archives and check the other e-mails.
We know how Penn state conducts inquiries into their people. I guess OJ was proven innocent. I really don't know.

There is so much about Mann and his hockey stick he shouldn't even be allowed to teach after reading the damaging emails about him. How they hand pick the people to review their papers or how they choose people for the IPCC. They even pick the story they want to get across then find the Science to back it. It's totally scandelous.

I didn't even mention the FOI emails. I don't know about you but if my Science was beyond reproach I would be showing everyone. The intillectual property thing is crap this isn't the cure for cancer or the cure for the myth of global warming. It's also funded by tax dollars so it really isn't theirs to hide.

bill, "hurricanes" has two Rs, just an fyi. :)

Thanx Chris. Is that all you have to say LOL