I question the study too. If it takes 125-yrs to raise sea level 18-inches why would anyone think that the sea level would raise 60-inch in 75 years instead of 416 years? Did they cherry pick the worse 19 years for the study? Subsidence is causing the land and inland structures of the East coast to sink so there are many more factors at play here than "melting ice" which is being proven wrong too. Either way, some new rules may need to be written. Nice job of making us all aware that government is going to make it impossible to live on the coast like man has always done.
Living here at the jersey shore (Manasquan) all my life, some of what you say, I agree with. As of today, 8/24, new headwater regulations are being discussed in Trenton. Legislation has been drafted and will become law after review. Once enacted, baseline demarcation will be revised from 50 feet to over 150 feet. This certainly will affect all of our coastal structures. While everyone knows and assumes that new construction will be revised. Structures that have been built for 100's of years will now be affected. Just how they can be reconstructed or even what renovations can be done, will affect our way of life here. For those in the comments that say "you are just trying to protect your business" I say, no, our way of life. Existing marinas, commercial docks (where your lobster comes from) restaurants, homes, and many other structures will be affected. I agree back bay and head water management must be considered. Dredging the material is a great idea. If you'd like to read the lengthy regulations being considered, request it from the DEP NJ.
Thank you for your comments. My concern is for our oceans and Shore communities. My point is one study based on a small amount of data could be wrong. I am sure you don't have the best results from decisions made on only a 17% probability. 🤔
The 19-year average in the study is just the baseline measurement, it has nothing to do with the projections themselves. The projections are done through incredibly complex computer modeling of many different factors. Admittedly, several of these factors are unknowable, such as how much the US and other countries will curtail green-house gas emissions over the coming decades, which is why the chart you show has three different projections each for 2070, 2100, and 2150, each at five different percentages of likelihood. I agree that 17% is not high, but why ignore the 50% projected likelihood for a 3.3 ft increase by 2100? Or the 83% projected likelihood for a 2.0 ft increase by 2100? Or any of the other higher likelihood projections? The point is that sea levels are rising at a higher rate than in the past. Past coping mechanisms for flooding, like dredging back bays, will not suffice.
Thanks for your comments and thoughts on this subject. Does it make sense to only use 19 years of data to run these incredibly complex computer models to base all of our future building codes? Cape May was founded in 1620 and 400 years later it is still not under water.
@@jerseyshorerealestateexperts The methodology employed in this report is far more comprehensive than your comment suggests. It does not rely solely on 19 years of data, but incorporates multiple lines of evidence: - Long-term tide gauge records dating back to 1911 - Satellite observations since 1993 - Geological data spanning millennia - Advanced climate models - Expert assessments of ice sheet dynamics Recent data is crucial due to the observed acceleration of sea level rise, particularly since the 1960s. This non-linear trend cannot be captured by simple extrapolation of historical data. Your reference to Cape May's longevity since 1620 fails to account for the unprecedented rate of current climate change. The report documents a sea level rise of 17.6 inches along the New Jersey coast from 1911-2019, with an accelerating trend. Past stability is not indicative of future conditions. Modern sea level projections synthesize a broad spectrum of scientific evidence, considering various emissions scenarios and providing probabilistic outcomes. This approach is consistent with methods used by major scientific bodies globally and is designed to be regularly updated. In short, the projections in this report are based on robust scientific methodology, not merely 19 years of data. They provide essential, actionable information for planners and policymakers facing the realities of accelerating sea level rise.
shame on you. You’re just concerned about protecting your business, and really don’t care about the health of beautiful beaches in New Jersey. Everyone needs to pay attention to this Rutgers study and start taking immediate action to prevent effects from climate change destroying beaches.
Shame on me? We are bringing this to the attention of homeowners, investors, and vacationers radical changes to our communities based on one study. Would it not make the best sense to have open discussions and ideas from both sides of the discussion?
@@jerseyshorerealestateexperts Your perspective on the need for open discussion is valid, but it mischaracterizes the nature and scope of this scientific study. Here's why: 1. This is not "one study": The report synthesizes a vast body of scientific research from multiple disciplines, including oceanography, climatology, geology, and atmospheric sciences. It incorporates data from numerous sources and methodologies. 2. Peer review and consensus: The findings align with broader scientific consensus, including reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Climate Assessment. This represents the collective work of thousands of scientists globally. 3. Consideration of uncertainties: The report explicitly addresses uncertainties, providing ranges of projections and probabilities rather than single predictions. This approach acknowledges the complexity of the system and potential variability. 4. Regular updates: The report recommends revisiting projections every 5 years to incorporate new data and improved understanding, demonstrating a commitment to ongoing scientific scrutiny. 5. Practical implications: While the study informs policy, it does not dictate specific "radical changes." It provides information for informed decision-making by various stakeholders. 6. Both "sides" are not equivalent: In scientific discourse, the weight of evidence matters. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on the reality of human-caused climate change and associated sea level rise. 7. Open discussion already occurs: The scientific process inherently involves rigorous debate and peer review. Skeptical viewpoints are considered when supported by evidence and sound methodology. Your call for open discussion is admirable, but it's crucial to recognize that in scientific matters, not all opinions carry equal weight. The most productive discussions occur within the framework of established scientific methods and evidence-based reasoning.
I question the study too. If it takes 125-yrs to raise sea level 18-inches why would anyone think that the sea level would raise 60-inch in 75 years instead of 416 years? Did they cherry pick the worse 19 years for the study? Subsidence is causing the land and inland structures of the East coast to sink so there are many more factors at play here than "melting ice" which is being proven wrong too.
Either way, some new rules may need to be written. Nice job of making us all aware that government is going to make it impossible to live on the coast like man has always done.
Living here at the jersey shore (Manasquan) all my life, some of what you say, I agree with. As of today, 8/24, new headwater regulations are being discussed in Trenton. Legislation has been drafted and will become law after review. Once enacted, baseline demarcation will be revised from 50 feet to over 150 feet. This certainly will affect all of our coastal structures. While everyone knows and assumes that new construction will be revised. Structures that have been built for 100's of years will now be affected. Just how they can be reconstructed or even what renovations can be done, will affect our way of life here. For those in the comments that say "you are just trying to protect your business" I say, no, our way of life. Existing marinas, commercial docks (where your lobster comes from) restaurants, homes, and many other structures will be affected. I agree back bay and head water management must be considered. Dredging the material is a great idea. If you'd like to read the lengthy regulations being considered, request it from the DEP NJ.
You remind me of the guy at the start of the movie who laughs at the scientists warning them
That's exactly who he is, then blame the government for not doing enough.
Thank you for your comments. My concern is for our oceans and Shore communities. My point is one study based on a small amount of data could be wrong. I am sure you don't have the best results from decisions made on only a 17% probability. 🤔
The 19-year average in the study is just the baseline measurement, it has nothing to do with the projections themselves. The projections are done through incredibly complex computer modeling of many different factors. Admittedly, several of these factors are unknowable, such as how much the US and other countries will curtail green-house gas emissions over the coming decades, which is why the chart you show has three different projections each for 2070, 2100, and 2150, each at five different percentages of likelihood.
I agree that 17% is not high, but why ignore the 50% projected likelihood for a 3.3 ft increase by 2100? Or the 83% projected likelihood for a 2.0 ft increase by 2100? Or any of the other higher likelihood projections?
The point is that sea levels are rising at a higher rate than in the past. Past coping mechanisms for flooding, like dredging back bays, will not suffice.
Thanks for your comments and thoughts on this subject. Does it make sense to only use 19 years of data to run these incredibly complex computer models to base all of our future building codes? Cape May was founded in 1620 and 400 years later it is still not under water.
@@jerseyshorerealestateexperts
The methodology employed in this report is far more comprehensive than your comment suggests. It does not rely solely on 19 years of data, but incorporates multiple lines of evidence:
- Long-term tide gauge records dating back to 1911
- Satellite observations since 1993
- Geological data spanning millennia
- Advanced climate models
- Expert assessments of ice sheet dynamics
Recent data is crucial due to the observed acceleration of sea level rise, particularly since the 1960s. This non-linear trend cannot be captured by simple extrapolation of historical data.
Your reference to Cape May's longevity since 1620 fails to account for the unprecedented rate of current climate change. The report documents a sea level rise of 17.6 inches along the New Jersey coast from 1911-2019, with an accelerating trend. Past stability is not indicative of future conditions.
Modern sea level projections synthesize a broad spectrum of scientific evidence, considering various emissions scenarios and providing probabilistic outcomes. This approach is consistent with methods used by major scientific bodies globally and is designed to be regularly updated.
In short, the projections in this report are based on robust scientific methodology, not merely 19 years of data. They provide essential, actionable information for planners and policymakers facing the realities of accelerating sea level rise.
Too many expensive houses built too close to the ocean. A direct hit from a hurricane will cost billions.
We’ll still be going to the beach. The beach is just moving west. As someone in Princeton I welcome the shorter trip
shame on you. You’re just concerned about protecting your business, and really don’t care about the health of beautiful beaches in New Jersey. Everyone needs to pay attention to this Rutgers study and start taking immediate action to prevent effects from climate change destroying beaches.
LOL. Cry more.
Couldn’t stop a pandemic, you’re not stopping “climate change”…. Just an excuse to tax you more and control you.
Shame on me? We are bringing this to the attention of homeowners, investors, and vacationers radical changes to our communities based on one study. Would it not make the best sense to have open discussions and ideas from both sides of the discussion?
@@jerseyshorerealestateexperts
Your perspective on the need for open discussion is valid, but it mischaracterizes the nature and scope of this scientific study. Here's why:
1. This is not "one study": The report synthesizes a vast body of scientific research from multiple disciplines, including oceanography, climatology, geology, and atmospheric sciences. It incorporates data from numerous sources and methodologies.
2. Peer review and consensus: The findings align with broader scientific consensus, including reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Climate Assessment. This represents the collective work of thousands of scientists globally.
3. Consideration of uncertainties: The report explicitly addresses uncertainties, providing ranges of projections and probabilities rather than single predictions. This approach acknowledges the complexity of the system and potential variability.
4. Regular updates: The report recommends revisiting projections every 5 years to incorporate new data and improved understanding, demonstrating a commitment to ongoing scientific scrutiny.
5. Practical implications: While the study informs policy, it does not dictate specific "radical changes." It provides information for informed decision-making by various stakeholders.
6. Both "sides" are not equivalent: In scientific discourse, the weight of evidence matters. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree on the reality of human-caused climate change and associated sea level rise.
7. Open discussion already occurs: The scientific process inherently involves rigorous debate and peer review. Skeptical viewpoints are considered when supported by evidence and sound methodology.
Your call for open discussion is admirable, but it's crucial to recognize that in scientific matters, not all opinions carry equal weight. The most productive discussions occur within the framework of established scientific methods and evidence-based reasoning.