2005 : Climate Experts Wanted To Evacuate The Coasts

October 4, 2005
Some Experts Say It’s Time to Evacuate the Coast (for Good)

By CORNELIA DEAN
PENSACOLA, Fla. – As the Gulf Coast reels from two catastrophic storms in a month, and the Carolinas and Florida deal with damage and debris from hurricanes this year and last, even some supporters of coastal development are starting to ask a previously unthinkable question: is it time to consider retreat from the coast?

Yes, said Howard Marlowe, president of Marlowe & Company, a lobbying firm that represents counties and local governments, often in seeking support for coastal infrastructure, like roads, sewers and beach replenishment. “I think we need to be asking that and discussing that, and the federal government needs to provide leadership,” Mr. Marlowe said.

He added, “I have never been an advocate for the federal government telling people that they have to move out, but it’s important to have a discussion at all levels of government about what can be done to make sure more people do not put themselves in harm’s way. It will not be an easy dialogue.”

Some Experts Say It’s Time to Evacuate the Coast (for Good) – New York Times

Since the 2005 hysterics from the experts, the US has experienced the quietest period on record for hurricanes.

About stevengoddard

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

23 Responses to 2005 : Climate Experts Wanted To Evacuate The Coasts

  1. OK, to recap. Human induced climate change is measured by climactic changes, e.g. averaged land, sea and air temperatures over the long term, e.g. 100 years; and on a global basis.
    Therefore, only a moron would use any of the following types of arguments to claim HICC is not happening because they just scream I DON’T KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT:
    It’s unusually cold there this month.
    It’s unusually hot there this month.
    In 1936 scientists said: x.
    In 1885 scientist y said this.
    In 1998 scientist z said this
    There’s a global conspiracy of climatologists (the 97%) being manipulated by an axis of evil cabal to force one world (socialist) government on us all.
    Renewable energy only makes sense to combat the AGW we know isn’t happening.
    Coal is great.
    What happens in New Hampshire happens worldwide.
    Picking ANY SOLE DATA POINT to make an argument.
    Cliven Bundy is a worthwhile topic of discussion under any circumstances.

    • gator69 says:

      Only a moron would call natural cycles man made. Here’s your sign!

    • Morgan says:

      Well, there actually is a global conspiracy, and it’s called the “I like money and want more” conspiracy. Only people who like money and want more would be interested in joining this conspiracy. And that percentage is around 97%.

      The US government likes money and wants more, so they take it from evil CO2 makers.
      Third world nations like money and want more, and if they say they believe in catastrophic global warming, the UN will hand them American money.
      Universities, who like money and want more, rely on government grants, and also rely on recruiting students, most of whom get government student loans. If the Universities only hire professors who pretend to believe in CGW, the government hands them money.
      NASA does whatever the president says. The president hands them money.
      The list goes on.

      Stop calling it climate change. It’s global warming. Only a moron thinks climates don’t change. Your claim is global warming from CO2. You can’t change your claim just because it turned out to be wrong.

      • Morgan says:

        Hey hoaxy hoax. Did you know that when the Intergovernmental Pretenders of Climate Catastrophe redistributes wealth to poor countries, the first thing they do with it is buy fossil fuels for their new buicks?

        There’s your sign.

    • tom0mason says:

      OK, to recap. Human induced climate change is a fantasy theory (that is it has NO evidential proof). Here on called nonsense.
      This nonsense is propagandized by idiots, 97% are useful idiots for ‘the cause’ have not clue about the world, nature, or climate.
      The other 3% are busy with ‘the cause’ by making money from the nonsense.

    • Gail Combs says:

      OK, to recap:
      The authors of the following papers simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, and the highest period of glacial growth has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% less (~120 kW/m² less) solar energy.
      Also the Holocene Highstand (highest sea levels) was 5,000 to 6,000 years ago.

      Abstract

      Beachrocks, beach ridge, washover and backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes. In combination with data from the final marine flooding phase of the incised Mekong River valley, the sea-level history of South Vietnam could be reconstructed for the last 8000 years. Connecting saltmarsh, mangrove and beachrock deposits the record covers the last phase of deglacial sea-level rise from − 5 to + 1.4 m between 8.1 to 6.4 ka. The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka. This highstand is further limited by a backshore and beachridge deposit that marks the maximum springtide sea-level just below the base of the overlying beach ridge. After 5.0 ka sea level dropped below + 1.4 m and fell almost linearly at a rate of 0.24 mm/year until 0.63 ka and + 0.2 m as evidenced by the youngest beachrocks.….
      (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113001859

      Note: 0.63 ka = beginning of the Little Ice Age.

      Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue

      Abstract
      …..We therefore conclude that for a period in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer……
      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185

      Abstract

      …..Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean……
      (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185

      A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier

      …. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589411001256

      Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

      …. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded…

      Click to access MillerArctic.pdf

    • Gail Combs says:

      OK, to recap:
      The IPCC actually said in the Science Report in TAR:

      “in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible”

      IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

      Dr. Robert Brown, a physicist at Duke University made this comment on climate, chaos theory and “strange attractors”

      …..Let me also comment on the connection between HK dynamics and statistics and chaos. Complex nonlinear multivariate systems often exhibit “strange attractors” — local fixed points in a set of coupled nonlinear ordinary differential equations — that function as foci for Poincare cycles in the multivariate phase space. In classical deterministic chaos, a system will often end up in a complex orbit around multiple attractors, one that essentially never repeats (and the attractors themselves may migrate around as this is going on). In a system such as the climate, we can never include enough variables to describe the actual system on all relevant length scales (e.g. the butterfly effect — MICROSCOPIC perturbations grow exponentially in time to drive the system to completely different states over macroscopic time) so the best that we can often do is model it as a complex nonlinear set of ordinary differential equations with stochastic noise terms — a generalized Langevin equation or generalized Master equation, as it were — and average behaviors over what one hopes is a spanning set of butterfly-wing perturbations to assess whether or not the resulting system trajectories fill the available phase space uniformly or perhaps are restricted or constrained in some way. We might physically expect this to happen if the system has strong nonlinear negative feedback terms that stabilize it around some particular (family of) attractors. Or, we might find that the system is in or near a “critical” regime where large fluctuations are possible and literally anything can happen, and then change without warning to anything else, with very little pattern in what happens or how long it lasts…..

      The present continent configuration, with the closing of the Isthmus of Panama and the opening of Drake Passage had a major impact on the Earth’s climate causing the present Ice Age and we are in an ice age, just the warm phase. You can see in this graph of the last five million years the switches from one ‘Strange Attractor’ to another.

      If you look at the Wisconsin glaciation, between the last interglacial and this one you can also see these “abrupt swings” called Dansgaard–Oeschger events in this graph

      Both of these graphs support the idea of the climate as a “Complex nonlinear multivariate systems… exhibit[ing] “strange attractors”

    • Gail Combs says:

      OK, to recap:
      In looking at the long term climate, global warming is just not in the cards. The only real climate question is whether or not the earth is going into a full glacial and how soon.

      A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic D18O records

      January 2005.

      [1] We present a 5.3-Myr stack (the ‘‘LR04’’ stack) of benthic d18O records from 57 globally distributed sites aligned by an automated graphic correlation algorithm. This is the first benthic d18O stack composed of more than three records to extend beyond 850 ka, and we use its improved signal quality to identify 24 new marine isotope stages in the early Pliocene. We also present a new LR04 age model for the Pliocene-Pleistocene derived from tuning the d18O stack to a simple ice model based on 21 June insolation at 65°N. Stacked sedimentation rates provide additional age model constraints to prevent overtuning. Despite a conservative tuning strategy, the LR04 benthic stack exhibits significant coherency with insolation in the obliquity band throughout the entire 5.3 Myr and in the precession band for more than half of the record. The LR04 stack contains significantly more variance in benthic d18O than previously published stacks of the late Pleistocene as the result of higher- resolution records, a better alignment technique, and a greater percentage of records from the Atlantic. Finally, the relative phases of the stack’s 41- and 23-kyr components suggest that the precession component of d18O from 2.7–1.6 Ma is primarily a deep-water temperature signal and that the phase of d18O precession response changed suddenly at 1.6 Ma.

      page 9
      Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA Community Members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with d18O values below 3.6% for 20 kyr, from 398 – 418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6% for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398– 418 ka as from 250– 650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence
      http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf

      This paper essentially quashed Berger and Loutre’s 2002 modeling ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/engels/Stanley/Textbook_update/Science_297/Berger-02.pdf, and if you have been paying attention to the literature there is nothing since 3005 to refute this paper.

      So, if the Warmists are correct, the only reason we came out of the Little Ice Age is because of anthropogenic emissions. Otherwise we would still be in a ‘Little Ice Age, or much worse, a Big Ice Age. That is if the Warmists are correct…..

      From the paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? I extracted the 21 June solar insolation @ 65◦ N for several glacial inceptions:

      Current values are insolation = 479 W m−2

      MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
      MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
      MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
      MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
      MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2,

      depth of the last ice age – around 463 W m−2
      NOW (modern Warm Period) 476Wm-2

      This would indicate that when the solar insolation calculated from the Milankovitch cycles gets somewhere below 500 W m−2 other factors can tip the climate into the cold state.

      Solar activity reaches new high

      Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years. Ilya Usoskin and colleagues at the University of Oulu and the Max-Planck Institute for Aeronomy say that their technique – which relies on a radioactive dating technique – is the first direct quantitative reconstruction of solar activity based on physical, rather than statistical, models (I G Usoskin et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 211101)…
      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/dec/02/solar-activity-reaches-new-high

      A new approach to the long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing
      Abstract

      The variable Sun is the most likely candidate for natural forcing of past climate change on time scales of 50 to 1000 years. Evidence for this understanding is that the terrestrial climate correlates positively with solar activity. During the past 10,000 years, the Sun has experienced substantial variations in activity and there have been numerous attempts to reconstruct solar irradiance. While there is general agreement on how solar forcing varied during the last several hundred years all reconstructions are proportional to the solar activity there is scientific controversy on the magnitude of solar forcing. We present a reconstruction of the Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance covering 130 nm-10 mum from 1610 to the present with annual resolution and for the Holocene with 22-year resolution. We assume that the minimum state of the quiet Sun in time corresponds to the observed quietest area on the present Sun. Then we use available long-term proxies of the solar activity, which are 10Be isotope concentrations in ice cores and 22-year smoothed neutron monitor data, to interpolate between the present quiet Sun and the minimum state of the quiet Sun. This determines the long-term trend in the solar variability which is then superposed with the 11-year activity cycle calculated from the sunspot number. The time-dependent solar spectral irradiance from about 7000 BC to the present is then derived using a state-of-the-art radiation code. We derive a total and spectral solar irradiance that was substantially lower during the Maunder minimum than observed today. The difference is remarkably larger than other estimations published in the recent literature. The magnitude of the solar UV variability, which indirectly affects climate is also found to exceed previous estimates. We discuss in details the assumptions which leaded us to this conclusion.
      Full Paper: (wwwDOT)mendeley.com/download/public/4546061/3769892321/e8f61061299da6fa325466e6bf016b3212b5d7d4/dl.pdf

      This paper found UV varied a heck of a lot. 20-25% in some bands. Not to go into the nitty-gritty but UV wavelengths affect ozone which in turn affects the jet streams and UV penetrates the deepest into the oceans. The authors of the above paper cite another paper that supports the conclusion of a strong UV / climate link.

      A puff piece in New Scientist grudgingly admits the sun is a variable star but of course that has no influence on the Earth’s climate.
      Solar activity heads for lowest low in four centuries

      November 2013
      The sun’s activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist….. “Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment,” Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. “We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years.”

      Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first “grand solar minimum” for four centuries….

      Lockwood thinks there is now a 25 per cent chance of a repetition of the last grand minimum… Two years ago, Lockwood put the chances of this happening at less than 10 per cent…
      (wwwDOT)newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries.html#.Us1NV7ARh0E

      Looks like all that worrying about Arctic sea ice is not really need going forward.

    • philjourdan says:

      Perhaps your time would be better spent lecturing the morons making the moronic predictions. Which never come true.

    • Justa Joe says:

      That prettymuch make “HICC” a moronic subject because it’s proponents traffic in all those kinds of arguments.

      Also if “HICC” is just the “averaged land, sea and air temperatures over the long term, e.g. 100 years;” there wouln’t be much to worry about. Would there?

  2. Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) says:

    Steve, are Joe Bastardi or anyone else, saying anything about this year’s hurricane season yet? I’m curious to see if the wind patterns hold, and knock the storms down like they did last year.

  3. tom0mason says:

    This item from October 4, 2005 just shows that hoaxing hoaxers are always wanted by the gullible.

  4. The Griss says:

    I hope people realise that the ElNino of 1998 added about 0.25°C to the atmospheric temperature.

    Now if you subtract that from the RSS data after the ElNino, you get this…

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/offset:-.25/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/offset:-.25

    As you can plainly see, once the ElNino effect is removed, there ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 BASED WARMING in the whole of the RSS record.

    The ONLY warming in the satellite record is due to the NON-CO2 induced 1998 ElNino. !

  5. jdseanjd says:

    Hi Gail,
    you passed me a ref a while back, re a CIA report on climate & the coming ice age.
    Any chance of that ref again please?

    Thanks,
    JD.

  6. Greg Locke says:

    Mr. Hoax, a bit of advice. Calling those who disagree with you “morons” is a poor way to win them over to your point of view. Same thing for shouting. Yelling adds nothing to your argument, especially when you completely miss the point of Steve’s post. Perhaps you could enlighten us, the great unwashed, as to why you believe your rhetorical flourishes accomplish anything other than encouraging Ms. Combs to again give you and your flawed reasoning a thorough thrashing.

  7. RAH says:

    Oh, I get it! AGW_Hoax_Hoax (@AGW_Hoax_Hoax) is with the morons that wanted to evacuate the coast and apparently still believes we should?

  8. Jl says:

    Mr. Hoax-“climate change is measured over the long term, e.g. 100 years.” Actually, looking at only 100 years, and especially the last 100 years, is the biggest hoax. When looking at the over 4 billion years of climate change, what does or doesn’t happen in 100 years hardly justifies as any kind of a trend. Unless you know with some degree of certainty what happened over all the other 100 year periods. Which you don’t.

  9. _Jim says:

    Maybe Hoaxy Hoax will take it from this guy – “George Carlin on The Environment”

    “We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

    The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

    We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

    The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

    Plastic… asshole.”

    ― George Carlin

  10. Gunny G says:

    Reblogged this on CLINGERS… BLOGGING BAD ~ DICK.G: AMERICAN ! and commented:
    GyG!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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