New York Times Says That Sea Level Will Rise More Than Six Feet This Century

As a result of recent calculations that take the changes into account, many scientists now say that sea level is likely to rise perhaps three feet by 2100 — an increase that, should it come to pass, would pose a threat to coastal regions the world over.

And the calculations suggest that the rise could conceivably exceed six feet, which would put thousands of square miles of the American coastline under water and would probably displace tens of millions of people in Asia.

Sea level was 7 mm (one third of an inch) lower at the end of 2000 than the most recent measurement. At that rate, it will take over 2,000 years for sea level to rise six feet.

Which again begs the question – what on earth are these people smoking?

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to New York Times Says That Sea Level Will Rise More Than Six Feet This Century

  1. MikeA says:

    Steven, it also begs the question of what are you smoking, unless you’re based in California of course.

    • What a stupid comment.

      • MikeA says:

        Suit yourself, “Reefer Madness” is one of my favorite movies

      • Russ says:

        Your right Steve, that was a stupid comment.

      • Thon Brocket says:

        No. What *are” you smoking? 7mm/year for 2000 years is 14 metres, or 46 feet. Foam-flecked innumerate bullshit is the warmies’ territory. You’re not helping.

        OK, a blunder. What’s worrying is that it’s taken 12 comments before anybody’s pulled you on it.

      • Thon Brocket says:

        Whoops – stepped on my crank there. 7 mm in ten years, not a year, so the arithmetic’s roughly correct. You’re wrong about the rate though. Long-term trend is about 3.1 mm/year. See, which is your cited data, but graphed, far as I can tell. 31 mm since 2000. Basically sod-all, a foot in a century. You don’t have to cherry-pick, the way you’ve done, to make the point – that just hands them ammo. Lay your hand and forearm flat on your desk. The back of your wrist is about 50 mm off the surface. At 3.1 mm/year it will take 16 years for the ocean to cover your hand. Like, run-for-the-hills time, eh?

      • Thon Brocket says:

        Nonsense, yerself.

        2000.8867 -0.656
        2000.9139 7.767
        2000.9410 4.404
        2000.9682 7.279
        2000.9953 13.480 – Last in 2000: anomalous random spike. With a big juicy cherry on it.
        2001.0225 2.611
        2001.0767 -0.125
        2001.1039 2.938
        2001.1310 -1.982 Mean of nine: 4 mm

        2010.4700 30.099 And the most recent six. Mean 24mm.
        2010.4971 28.410
        2010.5243 23.340
        2010.5514 18.192
        2010.5786 19.231
        2010.6057 22.615 – Have another cherry. Enjoy

        So we’re at 9 mm in 10 years, not 7 mm, even on your own claim, where in fact the true value on trend is around 20 mm, as the figures show. Cherry-picking is a warmy job. You need a union card, which you don’t have. Seriously, that kind of stuff just hands the Goreites ammunition and confirms their view of us as Neanderthal teabagging ignoramuses.

        Notice that the overall trend is give as 3.1 mm/y, but the last 10 years show roughly 2.0 mm/y. That suggests that you’re right in principle; sea level rise may be slowing. Push that idea, sure; but do you homework.

      • Thon Brocket says:

        Great news. One in the eye for the warmies.

        But nothing whatever to do with the UColorado data you cited up yonder, and your “7mm in 10 years” claim, which is patently cherrypicked. I can move the slider a matter of months on that same data set and show 31 mm rise in less than ten years:

        2000.8867 -0.656
        2010.4700 30.099

        If a warmy pulled that you’d be all over him. You’re not doing it right. ‘Nuff said.

      • Thon Brocket says:

        I sure hope so; I’ll be in the front rank, cheering and throwing bog-rolls. It’s my belief that sea-level will be the real silver bullet in the AGW vampire’s centre of mass, because it’s pretty much unfakeable, as you and I are both seeing. Which is why it makes no sense to indulge in tendentious cherrypicking like your “UC data shows 7mm in ten years” claim. The data is on our side, and it speaks for itself.

  2. Paul H says:

    Even the scientists involved in this exercise admit that they have not got a clue how all this compares to the past, even recently never mind in the 1930’s.

    They also admit that the warmer water is arriving from further south, not that it is warmer per se.

    I think we can safely ignore such alarmism.

  3. Frank Lee says:

    Rhetoric police (a subdivision of the grammar police): to “beg the question” actually means to offer a circular (and therefore illegitimate) argument wherein you assume as a given the very thing you are obligated to prove.

    • I didn’t want to be the one to say it, but you’re exactly right.

      People use “begs the question” routinely to mean “raises the question,” or “brings to mind the question.” It is absolutely wrong in that application, and I’m amazed at how many people do it, including many, such as Mr. Goddard, for whom I have great respect. (I shouldn’t have to say it, but I will: My respect for Mr. Goddard remains unblemished. In other words, the error is of no consequence in the larger context, i.e., the content of his remarks.

      I’m pretty sure we’ll see this incorrect usage of “begs the question” become standard in the next 30-50 years, along with the incorrect usage of “ironic” and bad spelling such as “supercede.” It’s the nature of our language. If enough people use “alternative” language often enough, the English language evolves to accept it as standard. Thanks for pointing out the incorrect usage, in case someone might benefit from it.

      • Which begs the question: Why did I not close my parentheses above, as in “…the content of his remarks.)”

      • Jason says:

        There’s nothing incorrect about the modern usage of ‘begs the question’. It makes far more sense than the original.

      • Argue all you want. The grammarians know more than you.

        The “modern usage,” by which you mean the “incorrect usage” has not yet been accepted as standard usage. It will eventually be accepted, but AS OF YET IT HAS NOT. So, argue with yourself, then slap yourself up ‘side the head.

  4. 1DandyTroll says:

    When NY Times went the road of the communist hippie media outlets I stopped reading the paper. Are they still dumb enough to try and charge readers for old articles even though they earn revenue from commercials showing the same articles to the paying reader?

  5. Little Joe Romm is very exercised over the gaspworthy news that we’ll all bake, sizzle and drown, drown, drown by 2100. (I wonder if he was named for Little Joe Cartwright, from the old Bonanza television series. I hate to think the appellation arises from a deficit of some sort.)

    I made the remark elsewhere that Little Joe has been wringing his hands so constantly lately, while salivating over the lurid apocalyptic porn spewing forth from his PC keyboard, he’s at risk for snapping off a couple of fingers, and then losing them in the spittle. How fortunate am I, that I’m not a paramedic in Little Joe’s neighborhood.

    So, I don’t know what else we can do, other than hang out a “Closed” sign on the door of Western Civilization. I mean, we really have ruined the Garden of Eden, after Gaia fixed it up for us, all nice and cozy. She even set the thermostat (repeatedly). And we repaid her voluptuousness how? Not very well, I’d say. We industrialized the planet, and now we’re in double-secret-ungood danger, Will Robinson, danger, Will Robinson.

    I regret the rudeness in which I’m about to engage, but Little Joe Romm is a snot, and so unreliable a source as not to be believed. Hey, much like the NYT, right?

  6. Pingback: Tweets that mention New York Times Says That Sea Level Will Rise More Than Six Feet This Century | Real Science --

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s