RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

You are here: Home / Archives for Climate Science / Sea level rise

Sea level rise

We need NOAA now more than ever

by

Guest commentary by Robert Hart, Kerry Emanuel, & Lance Bosart

Protester holding a homemade "Defend NOAA" sign in Washington Square. Credit: Gavin Schmidt

The National Weather Service (NWS) and its parent agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), delivers remarkable value to the taxpayers. This efficiency can be demonstrated by its enormous return on investment. For example, the NWS costs only several dollars per citizen to operate each year, yet results in an estimated 10-100 times larger financial return that includes: improved citizen preparedness, improved transportation efficiency and safety, increased private sector profits, improved disaster prevention and mitigation, and impressive scientific research innovation that is significantly also contributed to by other related federal agencies, the private sector, and the academic research community.

Recent NWS initiatives have even more directly connected weather and ocean observations and forecasts to emergency preparation and public impact. To quote a 2019 study referenced below, “Partnership with the NWS has revolutionized this Emergency Management community from on that reacts to events to one that proactively prepares and stays ahead of the extreme events.” The societal benefits of reasonably predicting the future cannot be understated, and such prediction and resulting benefits were unimaginable only 75 years ago.

Critical taxpayer-funded investments over the past decades have led to greatly improved weather forecast models, observations from the ocean, ground, aircraft, and space, and theoretical understanding through scientific research. These all have had an enormous impact on lives and property. The forecasts and associated critical watches and warnings we see every day on television, the internet, or phone apps could not be possible without NOAA and the NWS. It is estimated that the tax revenue generated from the private sector using NOAA data and services easily pays for the entire cost of the NWS.

Those who remember weather forecasts from the 1970s through 1980s can appreciate these dramatic evolutionary improvements given how inferior those forecasts were compared to today. Going further back, landfalling hurricanes in the first half of that century often came with no warning. If you read newspaper front pages from the mornings of September 7, 1900, or September 21, 1938, you will find there is no mention of the historic and catastrophic events about to unfold only hours later. This would be unthinkable today given the scientific investments we have paid for.

These massive improvements extend beyond hurricane (and also snowstorm) forecasting and preparedness. Tornado warning lead time has also improved markedly during the same time period. Casualty rates from tornadoes have not increased despite a very rapid increase in population. At minimum, hundreds of thousands of people are alive today who would not be without our investments in NOAA and NWS.

The advent of skillful weather forecasting, along with the increased preparedness it allows, remains a landmark achievement of not only this country but of the human race. There are few other fields in the sciences where skillful prediction not only has had immense impact on our society, but is even possible. We should be extraordinarily proud of this achievement.

The current expulsion of primarily younger NOAA employees without cause and with disturbingly short notice is cruel to them personally and professionally. The youngest employees are the future of any organization, government or otherwise, and bring with them unique energy, skills, and ideas. Every government organization should strive to become more efficient, and must be subjected to careful oversight, since taxpayer funding is precious and entrusted to the government by the people. However, the instrument of wise oversight is the scalpel, not the chainsaw. The recent seemingly arbitrary and capricious reductions, notably made without Congressional oversight, are seriously jeopardizing the future of the country and more generally the property and lives of hundreds of millions of tax-paying families who have invested in these truly remarkable achievements over many decades.

References:

“National Weather Service Enterprise Analysis Report. Findings on changes in the private weather
industry”, 2017.

“Evolving the National Weather Service to Build a Weather-Ready Nation: Connecting
Observations, Forecasts, and Warnings to Decision-Makers through Impact-Based Decision
Support Services”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, October 2019.

“Using the National Weather Service’s impact-based decision support services to prepare for
extreme winter storms“, Journal of Emergency Management, November/December 2019.

“Impact-Based Decision Support Services (IDSS) and Socioeconomic Impacts of Winter Storms”,
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, May 2020.

“Communicating Forecast Uncertainty (CoFU) 2: Replication and Extension of a Survey of the US
Public’s Sources, Perceptions, Uses, and Values for Weather Information.” American
Meteorological Society Policy Program Study, September 2024.

“The Social Value of Hurricane Forecasts”, SSRN Journal, December 2024.

Reprint from the Daily Camera

The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report

by

Climate scientists are inordinately excited by the release of a new IPCC report (truth be told, that’s a bit odd – It’s a bit like bringing your end-of-(seven)-year project home and waiting anxiously to see how well it will be received). So, in an uncharacteristically enthusiastic burst of effort, we have a whole suite of posts on the report for you to read.

If/when we add some more commentary as we digest the details and we see how the report is being discussed, we’ll link it from here. Feel free to discuss general issues with the report in the comments here, and feel free to suggest further deep dives we might pursue.

Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?

by

Three new papers in the last couple of weeks have each made separate claims about whether sea level rise from the loss of ice in West Antarctica is more or less than you might have thought last month and with more or less certainty. Each of these papers make good points, but anyone looking for coherent picture to emerge from all this work will be disappointed. To understand why, you need to know why sea level rise is such a hard problem in the first place, and appreciate how far we’ve come, but also how far we need to go.

[Read more…] about Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?

Shellenberger’s op-ad

by

Guest commentary by Michael Tobis

This is a deep dive into the form and substance of Michael Shellenberger’s promotion for his new book “Apocalypse Never”. Shorter version? It should be read as a sales pitch to a certain demographic rather than a genuine apology.

Michael Shellenberger appears to have a talent for self-promotion. His book, provocatively entitled “Apocalypse Never” appears to be garnering considerable attention. What does he mean by that title? Does it mean we should do whatever we can to avoid an apocalypse? Does it mean that no apocalypse is possible in the foreseeable future? For those of us who haven’t yet read the book (now available on Kindle), Shellenberger provides an unusual article (at first posted on Forbes, then at Quillette and the front page of the Australian) which appears less a summary than a sales pitch, an “op-ad” as one Twitter wag put it.

It’s called “On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare”. In short, Shellenberger lands clearly on the naysayer soil. Not much to see, everyone. Cheer up, carry on, these are not the droids you’re looking for.

FEW PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE

In support of this insouciance, Shellenberger offers twelve “facts few people know”. Most of the points are defensible to some extent, and most of them raise interesting topics. A main purpose of this article is to provide references to the relevant discussions. But in going through it, it’s worth keeping an eye on the rhetorical purposes of the items, which appear a bit scattershot, and to the rhetorical purpose of the list, which might appear rather obscure.

Clearly labeling the list “facts that few people know” implies that all these points unambiguously refute common beliefs that are widely. And the “apology for the climate scare” indicates further that these beliefs are widely held by a supposedly misguided community of “climate scared”. A defender of the list, Blair King suggests that “[Shellenberger] identified false talking points used repeatedly by alarmists to misinform the public and move debate away from one that is evidence-based to one driven by fear and misinformation”. That does seem to be a fair reading of the stated intent of the list, but it just doesn’t ring true as a whole.

Speaking as a verteran “climate scared” person, the items don’t seem especially familiar. It’s hard to imagine a conversation like this:“Gosh, climate change is an even bigger threat to species than habitat loss.”“I know, and the land area used for producing meat is increasing!”As Gerardo Ceballos said:

This is not a scientific paper. It is intended, I guess, to be an article for the general public. Unfortunately, it is neither. It does not have a logical structure that allows the reader to understand what he would like to address, aside from a very general and misleading idea that environmentalists and climate scientists have been alarmist in relation to climate change. He lists a series of eclectic environmental problems like the Sixth Mass Extinction, green energy, and climate disruption. And without any data nor any proof, he discredits the idea that those are human-caused, severe environmental problems. He just mentions loose ideas about why he is right and the rest of the scientists, environmentalists, and general public are wrong.

What causes the strange incoherence of these “facts few people know”? At the end of this review I’ll propose an answer. Meanwhile, I will consider several questions regarding each item:

  • VALIDITY Is the claim unambiguously true? Unambiguously false? Disputed?
  • RELEVANCE TO CLIMATE Is the claim directly relevant to climate concern/”climate scare” or is it more of interest to tangentially related environmental issues?
  • SALIENCE Is the contrary of the claim widely believed by environmental activists? Does widespread belief in the claim contribute materially to an excess of climate concern?
  • IMPLICATION What is the rhetorical purpose of the question?
  • REALITY To what extent is the rhetorical purpose justified?
[Read more…] about Shellenberger’s op-ad