Oh, Noes, Jersey Shore Is Doomed From “Climate Change”

And Chris Christie is a Bad Person from not passing legislation that Does Something. The Star Ledger’s Julie O’Connor has a typical Warmist meltdown

One year ago, when Hurricane Sandy struck our shores, Gov. Chris Christie’s approval rating hit a historic high. Who could forget the blue fleece? With his bear hugs for flooding victims, bro-hug for President Obama and lambasting of congressional Republicans who tried to hold our relief money hostage, he truly rallied the public.

Too bad that strong leadership didn’t extend to telling New Jerseyans what we needed to hear most: that we must protect ourselves from rising sea levels that worsen severe flooding, and mightier storms in the future.

Strange, 2013 was one of the quietest hurricane seasons on record.

But to ignore the science on this is crazy. Global warming is raising sea levels at an accelerating rate, and it’s worse in New Jersey than most other states, in part because of the retreat of glaciers from Canada since the last Ice Age, Rutgers scientists say.

They predict sea levels here will rise up to 2 feet over the next 30 years, and 3.5 feet or higher over the next century. To understand the danger, consider this: With just 3 more feet of sea level rise, the nor’easter that came right after Sandy would have produced even worse flooding than we suffered with Sandy.

Ignoring science is crazy, huh? Well, here’s some science

Atlantic City has the longest data-set, yet we’re looking at 1.31 in 100 years. Julie hyperventilates about 2 feet in the next 30.

What caused the sea rise in the early 20th century, when CO2 was at a safe level below 350ppm? Why is there no acceleration? Why does this seem normal when compared to the data for the other warm periods during the Holocene?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

19 Responses to “Oh, Noes, Jersey Shore Is Doomed From “Climate Change””

  1. Jeffery says:

    W.T.,

    The essayist was arguing for NJ to rebuild similar to neighboring states, raising buffers 2 to 3 feet.

    Seems like a valid argument, and prudent, regardless of the reason for the sea level rise.

    She was advocating adapting to the results of climate change, not trying to stop it.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    Jeffery,

    O’Conner advocates doing something based on “climate change” and prognostications that do not match actual scientific data.

    The point of Teach’s post is that we should act on facts, not hysteria.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Even the most optimistic interpretation (W.T.s) of the actual ‘scientific’ data predicts a 14 inch rise by 2100. Wouldn’t the 2 foot buffer be prudent? Actual climate scientists claim the rate of change will increase and we will likely have about 3 ft by 2100.

    W.T.’s point was to mock someone with whom he disagrees.

  4. Julie asked some “experts ” who looked into their scrying pools and said 2 feet in 30 years. The data doesn’t support that. Nor 3.5 by end of the century.

    Despite several high warming times during the Modern Warm Period, there are no huge spiking periods. There is no acceleration. We’re talking science, Jeffrey, not carnival fortune-telling.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    Except for the fact the woman claimed a 2 foot rise over the next 30 years not over the next hundred. And in fact, she claimed 3.5 feet pver 100 years.

    So in essence, your “prudance” doesn’t match her own predictions. (Either that or you can’t read and comprehend the article itself.)

    And thank you for admitting the climate models don’t match the actual data. Even afyer the admission, you tried to dismiss the data instead of the faulty conclusions.

  6. Jeffery says:

    WT,

    Again, a simple linear extrapolation of the data predicts a 14 inch rise by 2100. People who study such things model that the rate of change will increase. The IPCC estimates a 28 cm to 98 cm rise by 2100, depending on CO2 output. We should expect the high side since we have no plans to limit CO@ production. How the essayist came up with the 2 ft rise by 2030 is not explained but is clearly outside the mainstream. As I said earlier, none of this matters since we have chosen to do nothing about it.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    Hey Teach,

    Isn’t it amazing that Jeffery relies on models that are inaccurate and then tries to dismiss actual data?

  8. Jeffrey’s no different from any Warmist, GC. They prefer computer models versus actual real world data. Plus, he’s ignoring that Julie used the figure of 2 feet in 30 years, as we’ve pointed out multiple times. Perhaps I should have put it in bold (actually, I think I will). Consider this gem

    The IPCC estimates a 28 cm to 98 cm rise by 2100, depending on CO2 output.

    That’s one hell of a variance, well outside the range of tolerance. And notice it’s all based on CO2, as if the myriad natural processes which have always been the primary drivers of climate for 4.5 billion years make no difference.

  9. Overtaxed_Gumballs says:

    Republicans who tried to hold our relief money hostage

    hey, no, it wasn’t your money. It is America’s money. We wanted to make sure there was a way to pay for it. Also, we were not sure there was a need for it.
    Second, J, when you claim “actual scientists”, you do realize that it was the REAL scientists who collect most of the data that your so-called climate scientists create all of your cults incorrect models from?

    So, the actual data shows no such rise in sea levels. And the actual data shows no such ACCELERATION of sea level rise. You can lie all you want, but data that is collected, stored, presented and analyzed correctly is the real deal.

    Global warming is raising sea levels at an accelerating rate,

    no, it is not. sea levels have risen near linear rate over last 100 years despite many changes in global temps. FAIL!

    ..and it’s worse in New Jersey than most other states, in part because of the retreat of glaciers

    That does not even make sense. Sea levels will rise only in NJ because of regional glacier retreat? That’s wholly 180degrees opposite.

    consider this: With just 3 more feet of sea level rise, the nor’easter that came right after Sandy would have produced even worse flooding than we suffered with Sandy.

    Yeah, and if the sea were 10 feet lower, you’d not feel much of anything with a cat5 hurricane. Or, if the sea were 30 feet higher, you’d not be living where you are now and thus,,,,,,, well, you’d still be affected by storms no matter what the sea level is.
    idiots on parade.

  10. Jeffery says:

    wt,

    The IPCC states that the 28 to 98 cm range depends on the how much CO2 we continue to add to the atmosphere. If we cut CO2 we end up in the lower range – if we don’t, we end up higher.

    Your model (linear extrapolation of current rate) predicts 36 cm additional rise in NJ by 2100.

    What do you mean by “well outside the range of tolerance?”

  11. Overtaxed_Gumballs says:

    So now CO2 causes seas to rise?
    We need to tell Sweden, you’ve found the GOD particle.

    OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG
    Really and truly? 36cm after 100 years? Can you tell me also if it will be cloudy 100 years from now? Will it be rainy or foggy?

    So, you want us to cripple our economy over a “hypothetical” 3.6cm rise/decade? Remember, extrapolation does not mean reality.

  12. Jeffery says:

    GumMyBalls,

    Yes, an increase in the Earth’s temperature leads to an increase in sea level by (1) the thermal expansion of water and (2) melting ice on land. This is offset partially by an overall increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.

    36 cm is wt’s estimate, I think the sea level will rise 2-3 feet on the East coast by 2100. But even the 14 in rise that wt predicts is a lot.

    No, climate models can not tell you if it will be rainy, cloudy or foggy 100 yrs hence, but they could tell you if it would be rainier, cloudier or foggier.

    Where does this notion that understanding climate change will cripple our economy come from? Your Great Recession took more from our economy than renewable fuels ever will. Our plutocratic elites keeping our workforce effectively at 10% unemployment for years is more damaging than a rebated gas tax. Your sequester and gov’t shutdown did more economic damage than a cap and trade program. There is no evidence, none, that conservatives have any interest in the economy other than to make sure the current rich stay rich.

  13. […] Noes, Jersey Shore Is Doomed From “Climate Change” thepiratescove.us/2013/10/28/oh-… #GlobalWarmingScam 57 minutes ago Follow @1IDVETLife Member Life Member Life Member […]

  14. A couple points, Jeffrey.

    First, it’s not my prediction, that is the trendline from the hard data. It could be more, it could be less.

    2nd, during a normal warm period we should expect 1-2 feet per century. At least. The average over the last 7k is 6-8 per century. Since the cool periods have latex longer than the warm, and we would expect low to even negative sea rise, warm periods need high sea rise.

    Third, any rise doesn’t probe anthropogenic causation. This has happened before and will happen again.

    Give up your fossil fueled vehicle yet?

  15. Overtaxed_Gumballs says:

    Every time you guys type Jeffery, I can’t help but think of that giraffe from Toys-R-Us.

    Yes, an increase in the Earth’s temperature leads to an increase in sea level

    Except, that is not what I asked and that is not what you stated.
    You stated:

    The IPCC estimates a 28 cm to 98 cm rise by 2100, depending on CO2 output. We should expect the high side since we have no plans to limit CO2 production.

    So, you claim that IPCC says that CO2 leads to sea level rise. And, you stated that in order to arrest sea level rise, we must “limit our CO2 production”. Thus, you link CO2 with rising sea levels. I asked how can a molecule of CO2 create rising and falling seas, snow and heat, rain and drought, rising and falling temperatures.

    You keep claiming that models tell you these things, but you keep ignoring the FACT that the models are all wrong, and the programmers admit that they don’t have or know all of the data. If you put wrong or not enough data in to a program, no one of sound mind expects it to operate properly. WEll, except Obama and HHS and their FailCare.

    This is offset partially by an overall increase in water vapor in the atmosphere.

    Yet, despite the cult’s projections and predictions, this has not happened either, has it? Another FAIL.

    36 cm is wt’s estimate, I think the sea level will rise 2-3 feet on the East coast by 2100

    NO, it wasn’t and anyone with a twit of a brain would know it was not Teach’s number. 36cm is also in line with you stated was the boundary of IPCC “guesstimates”. But, you, the eminent scientists extraordinaire claim that the real number is 2-3 feet!!! Well, it could be. It could also be 0. It could also be negative. Thing is, you can’t PROJECT based on a trend line and expect reality.

    Just because the TREND is an increasing one of the recent years, does not mean that the trend will continue. Especially when you have other data that states seas have risen and fallen over time.

    But, you socialist twits who want to control the weather and the turning of the sun, think that the models are GOD. And when your god speaks then it must be true. Therefore, without even looking at the data, you want to curtail other people’s society and economic development so that the dreaded PROJECTION won’t come true.

    No, climate models can not tell you if it will be rainy, cloudy or foggy 100 yrs hence

    very good, now we’re getting somewhere…

    , but they could tell you if it would be rainier, cloudier or foggier.

    Oh dear. You went way off the deep end on that one. If there is no data on clouds in the models, then how can they tell you what the clouds will be doing 100 years from now? And, you really think these god-models are that precise to tell you if the day 100 years from now will be “foggier”??
    Didn’t we just get through talking about how your god-models are always, and always, wrong?!?

    Where does this notion that understanding climate change will cripple our economy come from?

    But that is not what you want to happen J. You are not being honest here. We want an understanding. We are the ones that want more research, more data, more analysis. We are the ones that want more openess in the data and the findings. We are the ones that don’t believe when a graph tells us something, then the science is now settled. We are the ones that believe science is about proving things WRONG, not proving our ideas right.

    It is you and your side that wants to stop all debate, stop all contrary beliefs and research. It is your side that wants to increase taxation, tax producers, tax energy – all in the hope to eliminate it. It is your cult that believes a pyramid-like ENRON scheme of wealth confiscation will stop CO2 from warming the planet. It is you who demand more and more government control over our lives and over the science. It is no longer science when politicians and bureaucrats are in charge of its findings and direction.

    Your Great Recession took more from our economy than renewable fuels ever will.

    Uh, dude. Really? It was a world-wide recession. Everyone was hit hard during that period of the 30’s. And what does that have to do with adding $4Trillion on to the debt to pay off cronies and support an unwanted, unwarranted, unneeded, untested, and not-ready alternative energy ponzi scheme??? You really need to start on those meds again.

    Our plutocratic elites keeping our workforce effectively at 10% unemployment for years is more damaging than a rebated gas tax.

    Oh sweet jezus!! If you are so upset at the power structure for keeping our unemployment so high, then why do you want to keep giving them more of our money and more power to destroy us with more Socialism?? Wow, when you flip personalities, you really flip.

    And…. who gets a rebate on a gas tax?!? I’ve never heard of it and have never received one. And what does that have to do with The Great Depression of the 30s?

    Your sequester and gov’t shutdown did more economic damage than a cap and trade program.

    Ok. Let’s take you to school again. First, and last time we will tell you this, the sequester was the democrats play. They put that in place in order to scare republicans in to accepting their budget increases. It was Obama who signed it because he wanted it. He was the one who demanded it.
    And, when the partial shutdown of the gov’t happened, that was also the democrats, and yes the repubs too, fault. They have delayed and delayed putting up a real budget for 5 years. And they won’t, violating the law and Constitution for as long as there are anti-American Socialists in power. A cap-n-tax plan would cost the economy trillions of dollars. The 2 week partial (numbers cited 18%) shutdown only SLOWWWEEEEDDDD down the expenditure of monies that would have been spent. Our economy did not stop. Our spending did not change. (It did not hurt anything. Except for one lady driving thru WashingtonDC who got shot to death for being afraid or paranoid.) The cap-n-tax will affect energy markets and energy production to the point of shutting down even more power plants than the EPA have shut down already. Did the Gov’t shut down power plants during this partial closure of the national parks??!?!?

    Your childish and infantile rants are getting rather tiresome.

  16. Jl says:

    Overtaxed-Brilliant rebuttal. Jeffery-How does it feel to have cold, hard facts shoved up your “intellectual” arse?

  17. Jeffery says:

    jill typed:

    “Overtaxed-Brilliant rebuttal. Jeffery-How does it feel to have cold, hard facts shoved up your “intellectual” arse?”

    I’ll let you know when one of these simpletons rebuts something.

    simple balls typed:

    “First, and last time we will tell you this, the sequester was the democrats play.”

    I’m glad it’s the last time, I’m tired of your repeated Limbaugh talking points.

    I don’t know if you are being disingenuous or are really as stupid as you pretend regarding the role of CO2 in warming. No matter, you’re just as wrong either way.

  18. gitarcarver says:

    I’ll let you know when one of these simpletons rebuts something.

    Th sad thing is that Jeffery probably believes that, which goes to his maturity and lack of comprehension skills.

    I’m glad it’s the last time, I’m tired of your repeated Limbaugh talking points.

    There ya go Jeffy. Don’t address the point, just try and say it is untrue because of your bias.

    No matter, you’re just as wrong either way.

    If it doesn’t matter, then why do you come here and get your intellectual and moral butt kicked everyday?

    Is it that you like getting smacked around?

  19. Overtaxed_Gumballs says:

    Take note everyone. J loves to argue. He rarely reads the points of the posts he comments on. Nor does he really read the comments. He just spews a cult belief system. When facts are shown to him, he attacks them as if they were the commentor’s personal beliefs. He will then blame his gov’t leaders for phony crimes, all the while ignorant that those are HIS leaders. He berates those who do not follow with child-like awe the models he claims are god-like in their capacity and prognostication.

    J is in fact a sad simple little child who loves throwing sand all around the sandbox without due care of who it may harm.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7298 access attempts in the last 7 days.