"By 2045, Some East Coast Cities Could Flood 3 Times a Week" Topic

Abstract:

Tidal flooding is among the most tangible present-day effects of global sea level rise. Here, we utilize a set of NOAA tide gauges along the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts to evaluate the potential impact of future sea level rise on the frequency and severity of tidal flooding. Using the 2001–2015 time period as a baseline, we first determine how often tidal flooding currently occurs. Using localized sea level rise projections based on the Intermediate-Low, Intermediate-High, and Highest projections from the U.S. National Climate Assessment, we then determine the frequency and extent of such flooding at these locations for two near-term time horizons: 2030 and 2045. We show that increases in tidal flooding will be substantial and nearly universal at the 52 locations included in our analysis. Long before areas are permanently inundated, the steady creep of sea level rise will force many communities to grapple with chronic high tide flooding in the next 15 to 30 years.

link

So the date has moved from 2005?

So the date has moved from 2005?

I think I get the reference – the misquoting of Dr. Hansen's gut estimation of what water levels in NYC would be in in 2028 if CO2 were in the 560ppm range?

Backstory

One projection follows another. As is the nature of things everyone has something to sell.

Why don't you alls just get a room and keep this private.

Not sure what the point of these continued posts are.

You are convincing no one who doesn't already believe you. If you like the choir of bobbleheads who agree with you, get their emails and leave the rest of us alone.

You are essentially troll baiting those who don't believe you. We've seen proof that it works, and the DH gets its rooms occupied.

You've seen proof that the nations of the world aren't committed to doing what they say needs doing on the scope and time scale science says is needed.

You've seen proof that the IPCC doesn't even believe what they are shoveling to change the way they do business.

These posts are completely pointless.

And as I've said repeatedly before WE'RE DOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!

So give it a rest and us a break.

Long before areas are permanently inundated, the steady creep of sea level rise will force many communities to grapple with chronic high tide flooding in the next 15 to 30 years.

You want to post something useful and informative? Stop telling us we're doomed because of X and tell us about what science is doing to deal with X other than polishing their prediction numbers.

Federal Agency Eased Sanctions for Plagiarism, Data Fabrication in Taxpayer-Funded Research. IG reports from 2015-2016 identified at least 31 cases of plagiarism and data manipulation…A federal agency that funds scientific research nixed punishments recommended by its own ethics watchdog for some academics who plagiarized and manipulated data in grant proposals and taxpayer-funded research, public records show….In nearly every case, the punishments imposed on scientists and academics found to have manipulated data or plagiarized agency-funded research were temporary and allowed the culprits to continue conducting taxpayer-funded work after a probationary period.

One researcher working on projects funded by the NSF and the National Institutes of Health admitted "that he falsified data in three publications," according to the IG's findings. The IG recommended that he be debarred for five years, but the NSF opted to reduce that period to three years.

The NSF did not respond to questions about the IG's findings and concerns over academic misconduct in federally funded scientific research.

link

I'm betting they were all peer reviewed as well.

I'm betting they were all peer reviewed as well.

Which is how they got caught, JJ.

By the way, in 2016 there were 2.5 million scientific publications produced. And I'll take that bet, as the article is combining grant proposals with published research. You seem to be conflating them. It looks like 23 instances are with proposals and only 8 instances are from publications. Either way it's bad but you should be asking why the NSF is reducing the punishments of those caught cheating.

Also, non sequitur duly noted.

These posts are completely pointless.

The posts are actually about science. You disagree with the whole premise, I get that. No one is forcing you to read this or comment on it.

As a matter of consistency, where was your righteous indignation when GWA presented his "review" of Dawkins' The God Delusion? That post was completely pointless on the Science board.

Which is how they got caught, JJ.

No the ethics watchdog for the group caught them. NOT the peer reviewers. And why weren't the recommendations of the ethics watchdogs followed? Gotta protect those liars, right? Shows integrity and commitment to honest science, right?

The posts are actually about science. You disagree with the whole premise, I get that. No one is forcing you to read this or comment on it.

I didn't claim they weren't about science. I claimed they were pointless. I recognize no one is forcing me to read them or comment – you'll kindly note I've been absent for a long time and leaving again shortly.

For discussion of anything related to science.

Posts like this are akin to UM postings that it is predicted that wars in the future will kill even more people due to advanced intel and more lethal weaponry combined with an enemy that hides in the populace. True but utterly pointless. What is to discuss?

Same here. We'll be flooding more. And…?

How many "We'll be flooding more because of global warming" posts does it take to establish that we'll be flooding more from global warming?

Is science doing any research into how to deal with it? THAT would be worth posting. The continued droning that documents that we are doomed as proven yet again by the folks who proved it before and before that and before that? It doesn't promote discussion. The quoir will nod their respective heads, and the doubters will fume and get DH'ed because of a totally pointless post that serves no purpose.

As a matter of consistency, where was your righteous indignation when GWA presented his "review" of Dawkins' The God Delusion? That post was completely pointless on the Science board.

Quite likely it was posted while I was ignoring the board. My righteous indignation needs to be spread over several different places. You can't expect me to use it all here, especially while I'm trying to be a good citizen and not continually pointing out WE'RE DOOOOOOOOOOMED!!! every time we get another global warming post.

JJ,

I posed this one because I found it interesting, and it reinforces the point I make here every so often about how rising sea levels can be detrimental to human habitation without permanent flooding. I completely ignored David Rose's (of The Fail on Sunday) current ongoing foolishness – precisely because he's a being a public idiot and does nothing to advance the state of science.

Secondly, the adaptation and mitigation research is also being done by other scientists and engineers (and has two working groups at the IPCC (WG II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and WG III: Mitigation of Climate Change). However, in order to make cost-effective decisions on how to deal with future problems, they need accurate projections about what's going to happen. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of lobbing million dollar ordinance at peasants who's crappy imitation AK knock-off represents a substantial portion of their net worth.

Martin,

You've established that the flooding will occur…how many times now? And what discussion occurred?

Give it a rest and maybe post about ""the adaptation and mitigation research is also being done by other scientists and engineers (and has two working groups at the IPCC (WG II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and WG III: Mitigation of Climate Change)."

JJ

Surely it's bound to flood much higher than that. I better hurry and buy "beachfront" property then … in Austin. :)

Go ahead, pick a level. Any level:

link

link

Dan
link

No the ethics watchdog for the group caught them. NOT the peer reviewers.

No. In the case where there were misrepresentations in publications the Inspector General of the NSF was informed of the fabrications. How do you think he found out? Their own website indicates that they operate a hotline for scientific abuse and fraud. The bad scientists are ratted on by the good scientists. The IG doesn't know from shinola when it comes to scientific fraud.

nsf.gov/oig/report-fraud

There is no peer review for grant proposals.

And why weren't the recommendations of the ethics watchdogs followed? Gotta protect those liars, right? Shows integrity and commitment to honest science, right?

I agree with your first sentence. But since I'm a Canadian, it is you that should be concerned about malfeasance in your federal agencies. The NSF and those in the Office of the Inspector General are bureaucrats who should answer to the taxpayers. You're asking the wrong person. And in the wrong place.

As for integrity, how many scientific papers out of the 2.5 million papers are published in the US. Maybe a million? And the OIG investigated and found fraud in 8 publications?

I am concerned about this and a lot of other malfeasance in my federal and state agencies. And I am as happy to shove pointy sticks in their ears as I am here.

By your logic, All the posts here are to the wrong people and in the wrong place.

Thanks for the correction on the fraud. It is my understanding from a university professor that you don't have to know ships from shinola on any topic. There are multiple ways to discover it using the net. He's found a few in his classes. I would hazard a guess that any paper, published online or not can be scanned in and compared.

The percentage isn't the issue. Nor would I imagine all studies are of equal significance. A doctor gives a patient two aspirins for a headache. A doctor removes a brain tumor. Each is a medical procedure.

There is only one way to stop this.

Everybody go out and drink a lot of water and then hold it in.

Do your part today.

By your logic, All the posts here are to the wrong people and in the wrong place.

No JJ, that's not it. You asked me specifically to comment on why a governing agency is acting like it is and it's motivations for doing so. I can't answer that.

It is my understanding from a university professor that you don't have to know ships from shinola on any topic.

Hopefully he knows the difference in the subject that he holds his professorship in. I don't expect bureaucrats to do so, however.

The percentage isn't the issue.

It is if we want to address comments like, "Shows integrity and commitment to honest science, right?" This is a reasonable concern and I'd worry that my federal agency wasn't punishing cheaters and liars.

To be fair, I believe there is a system of hearings held in situations like this. So the cheater is given a 5 year suspension (Whatever that means) and he asks for a hearing and brings his lawyer. After hearing the evidence and contrition of the defendant the punishment was modified. That could be what happened in the link you provided but it is speculation on my part.

"It is my understanding from a university professor that you don't have to know ships from shinola on any topic."

Hopefully he knows the difference in the subject that he holds his professorship in. I don't expect bureaucrats to do so, however.

I was speaking specifically in the context of spotting plagiarism

It is if we want to address comments like, "Shows integrity and commitment to honest science, right?" This is a reasonable concern and I'd worry that my federal agency wasn't punishing cheaters and liars.

Better way to phrase it.

"By your logic, All the posts here are to the wrong people and in the wrong place."
No JJ, that's not it. You asked me specifically to comment on why a governing agency is acting like it is and it's motivations for doing so. I can't answer that.

No you were replying specifically to the points made about them being pointless, and not belonging here because they don't support discussion. You used the example of a post you said didn't belong here. So it wasn't about the government agency, it was about what gets posted here. It's just a few posts north of here.

Add to all of that, stop pissing away grant money on stuff like this.

A taxpayer-funded study set to find out if people can smell their own "asparagus pee."

Researchers at Harvard on two active studies that received over $3 USD million last year surveyed nearly 7,000 people to determine if their urine smelled funny after eating the vegetable.

link

A taxpayer-funded study set to find out if people can smell their own "asparagus pee."

Well some people are good at curing lymphoma, some are good at detecting water at the Earth's mantle, and then some are good at determining the oxygen content of exoplanets.

Then there are those that research asparagus pee.

Sounds weird but maybe there are some benefits. Detecting diffusion rates of aromatics across the kidney's cell membranes? Which may have implications for dialysis machines. Am I stretching this out too far?

Like I said….."everyone has something to sell"…no matter how ludicrous or implausible it might be. It would not be unreasonable to question the motives of the buyer in such cases…

Careful JSchutt,

Sounds like all science has a justification, and is never driven by greed for $millions in free money or corrupted by politics. And little people like us need to stop questioning their motives, methods and conclusions.

All hail Holy Academia! :)

Dan

We will wait and see since so far the Climate Changers/Global Warmers has had a horrible track record on their predictions.

Mithme, that is blasphemy!!!

Prepare yourself for the Walk of Atonement.

Dan

We will wait and see since so far the Climate Changers/Global Warmers has had a horrible track record on their predictions.

You have a case there Mithmee, since the fear of being branded alarmist and the least-common denominator effect of consusus products such as the IPCC has lead it to systematically underestimate climate change.

This paper is worth the read:
link

Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?

Keynyn Brysse a, Naomi Oreskes b, Jessica O'Reilly c, Michael Oppenheimer d,

a Program in Science, Technology and Society, Office of Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Alberta, Canada
b History and Science Studies, University of California, San Diego, United States
c Department of Sociology, College of St. Benedict/St. John's University, United States
d Department of Geosciences and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, United States

Abstract:
Over the past two decades, skeptics of the reality and significance of anthropogenic climate change have frequently accused climate scientists of "alarmism": of over-interpreting or overreacting to evidence of human impacts on the climate system. However, the available evidence suggests that scientists have in fact been conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change. In particular, we discuss recent studies showing that at least some of the key attributes of global warming from increased atmospheric greenhouse gases have been under-predicted, particularly in IPCC assessments of the physical science, by Working Group I. We also note the less frequent manifestation of over-prediction of key characteristics of climate in such assessments. We suggest, therefore, that scientists are biased not toward alarmism but rather the reverse: toward cautious estimates, where we define caution as erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions. We call this tendency "erring on the side of least drama (ESLD)." We explore some cases of ESLD at work, including predictions of Arctic ozone depletion and the possible disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet, and suggest some possible causes of this directional bias, including adherence to the scientific norms of restraint, objectivity, skepticism, rationality, dispassion, and moderation. We conclude with suggestions for further work to identify and explore ESLD.

Sounds like all science has a justification, and is never driven by greed for $millions in free money or corrupted by politics. And little people like us need to stop questioning their motives, methods and conclusions.

All hail Holy Academia! :)

Yeah, most of that money isn't going to Researchers doing the bench work. Here's a link to the Exposing PseudoAstronomy podcast where there's a in-depth look at how funding science works.
link
link

Most people who do science do it because they love the subject so much their willing to take a pay-cut and do what they like rather than pull in more at a 9-5 job. And that's not even factoring in the pyramid scheme of disposable highly skilled labour in the form of grad students – who have minimal future job prospects because the teaching load is handled more and more by grad students and sessionals rather employ tenure-track faculty like they did before the University was handed over to the MBA types.

University is an archaic Medieval pyramid scheme run by heartless tyrants lorded over by do-nothings fostering degrees with no jobs at the end of them at escalating and out-of-control costs to students….profiting only those at the top…sucking off student loans and shady grants without any accountability.

Countries with socialized "free college" suffer many of the same problems of corruption, have highly discriminating admissions… and are an extraordinary burden on taxpayers who may or may not even benefit from the University system.

Burn the witches!!

For those who still think that Academia is the road to personal enrichment, I'll just leave this here:

link

link

One of the more succinct anecdotes from the second piece:

University of South Florida:

I am a professor at a major research university (Carnegie top 60 in annual research dollars). My contract for my position is for 19.5 pay periods, each two weeks long. For the remaining 6.5 pay periods, I am paid from other sources, if I get grants. There is some summer teaching available, but not much.

Summer research cannot pay me more than my usual biweekly pay rate times 6.5 pay periods, no matter how many grants I get. That is, my pay maximizes out once I get enough grant dollars for 6.5 pay periods. However, if I am getting Federal grant dollars, I can only be paid for 2 months in the summer, max, again no matter how many grants I get. It is not possible for any research institution that receives Federal research dollars to pay researchers more than their normal biweekly pay during summer, no matter where the actual grant dollars come from. So if NSF gives me five grants with full summer salary in each grant budget, I can't pay myself five times my normal salary.

Research dollars for basic research are very hard to come by. The success rate for grant applications at NSF in the Earth sciences is 5-20%, depending on the division. Mine, hydrology, has a success rate of about 5-10%. Climate change research hasn't really become a separate discipline at the main funding agencies. You submit climate change proposals to the same old agency divisions and compete with non-climate change proposals. The Dept of Energy has put forward some large requests for proposals, but despite the large budgets, the salary restrictions are the same. I partnered with an electrical utility to submit a proposal to conduct a pilot CO2 sequestration study. The total budget was $6.5 USD million, but I would not have gotten more than my normal salary. Most of the money went for drilling several deep wells and for subcontracts with oil-drilling service companies to conduct tests on the wells.

No one gets rich on climate change research, unless they are getting their dollars as consultants from Exxon or Peabody. If anyone responds to your request and says how to get rich on grant dollars, please forward their ideas, as I don't see how it is possible.

The only way to make money off of academic research is similar akin to making money off of a gold rush – sell equipment and in this case administrative services.

University is an archaic Medieval pyramid scheme run by heartless tyrants lorded over by do-nothings fostering degrees with no jobs at the end of them at escalating and out-of-control costs to students….profiting only those at the top…sucking off student loans and shady grants without any accountability.

JSchutt, I hope you never have a complicated medical condition that warrants you being sent to a top rated University Medical Center. So if you ever find yourself being treated at Vanderbilt Medical Center, UCLA Medical Center, John Hopkins, Avera McKennan, or Stanford Medical Center, or many other such institutions, you can tell them what a pyramid scheme they are running.

My son will graduate from the University of South Florida Medical School next month and my wife is an Oncology nurse at Moffit Cancer Center located on campus. Having paid for his undergraduate and two Masters I know of what I speak. The other is getting his Masters at Emerson. Me letting them know would be no great revelation….

It's absolutely no great revelation. I concur.