[wildleg]

I was reading the news this morning, and this article claims that seas have risen 8" since 1971. I didn't realize it was that much. I know that some changes have been made in NJ because of Sandy, but I was curious if changes have been made to the Datum Plane heights for any other coastal areas, or by Pocos for service heights ? Any changes in your area ? Anyone think maybe the height above datum plane should be adjusted in the code ?

here's the article:

Oceanographer William Sweet looked at coastal sites across the nation, focusing on 25 places with records that go back beyond 1950. Fifty years ago the 25 sites averaged about 2.5 days of minor flooding a year. Now those places average about 14 days a year.

All 25 of those locations saw increases in the number of minor flood days; 22 of them saw more than doubling of nuisance flooding since the late 1950s and early 1960s. Those 25 cities have also seen sea level rise nearly half a foot since 1963.

The biggest increases are in the mid-Atlantic region. Charleston, South Carolina, San Francisco and Port Isabel, Texas, also showed more than four-fold increases in flooding.

Annapolis, Maryland, had the biggest percentage increase. From 1957 to 1963 it averaged 3.6 minor flood days a year; now it averages more than 39 a year. In 2011, Maryland's capital had 66 minor flood days.

University of Maryland environmental scientist Donald Boesch, who wasn't part of the report, said this type of event is probably more meaningful to people than the bigger and less frequent storms. He noted that sea level has risen about 8 inches in Annapolis since 1971.

"Simply stated, the cause of the increase in inundation frequency is sea level rise attributable to global warming," Boesch said in an email.

Sweet said sinking land and building construction are factors in the increased flooding, but not nearly as much as rising seas.

"It's going to become the new normal," Sweet said. "That is how we can identify with the impacts of sea level rise."

http://www.wtop.com/209/3671291/Annoying-minor-floods-are-increasing

 

[backstay]

Funny you need a scientist to tell you this when any dock owner would be a better source.

http://www.dailypaul.com/322982/it-...a-faked-by-govt-to-fit-climate-change-fiction

 

[wildleg]

while I appreciate your skepticism, I'm really not sure what the observational data indicate. Additionally, even if some of the data is skewed by incorrect knowledge regarding benchmarks of elevations that, in reality, can be attributed to large land masses moving downward, the datum plane question would still be relevant.

It's unfortunate that we only have a few years of satellite data.

It's also unfortunate that there is no core coalition of "scientists" that cannot be tainted by political and monetary motives to represent true scientific study. i am very disillusioned over that fact. (pro or con, pure science seems to be a wet dream these days).

by posting the image below, don't get the idea that I'm buying that a mere 40 years of data is conclusive, regression accuracy or not. (this is similar to the "price of copper" thread last month were 3 of us posted different time frames that showed drastically differing curves. )

I find it highly intriguing that the data is flat from 1997-2012. especially with the recent industrial trends in china)

how accurate do you suppose NOAA's measurements are ? (I have always had faith in NOAA). At least they publish their corrections, and their science. but can the numbers (especially the results) be trusted ?

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/

 

[backstay]

while I appreciate your skepticism, I'm really not sure what the observational data indicate. Additionally, even if some of the data is skewed by incorrect knowledge regarding benchmarks of elevations that, in reality, can be attributed to large land masses moving downward, the datum plane question would still be relevant. It's unfortunate that we only have a few years of satellite data. It's also unfortunate that there is no core coalition of "scientists" that cannot be tainted by political and monetary motives to represent true scientific study. i am very disillusioned over that fact. (pro or con, pure science seems to be a wet dream these days). by posting the image below, don't get the idea that I'm buying that a mere 40 years of data is conclusive, regression accuracy or not. (this is similar to the "price of copper" thread last month were 3 of us posted different time frames that showed drastically differing curves. ) I find it highly intriguing that the data is flat from 1997-2012. especially with the recent industrial trends in china)

I read that off the coast of Holland, they are finding artifacts that point to settlements where there is now ocean. So pre industrialized Europe saw ocean rises in the tens of feet. While 8 inches seems like a lot, things like storm surges, wave action and tides are more likely to effect the equipment.