From the University of British Columbia, David Flanders is trying to scare Canadians over sea level rise. Only one problem, the math doesn’t work.
Preparing for the flood: Visualizations help communities plan for sea-level rise

Researchers at the University of British Columbia have produced computer visualizations of rising sea levels in a low-lying coastal municipality, illustrating ways to adapt to climate change impacts such as flooding and storms surges.
The researchers are working with a municipality south of Vancouver, Canada that is surrounded by water on three sides and is expecting the sea-level to rise by 1.2 metres by 2100 – a change that would affect a number of waterfront homes, inland suburban developments, roads and farmland.
Considerable infrastructure has been built below current and projected high water levels, and could be inundated in the event of a dike breach. The images produced show how different adaptation strategies that could be implemented in the municipality and are being used to help make decisions about how to best prepare for the future.
“To me, the visualizations are the only way that you can tell the complete story of climate change and its impacts in a low-lying coastal community,” says David Flanders, a UBC research scientist with the Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning (CALP), who will present this research at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver on Sunday. “In other words, seeing really is believing in this case.”
“It can be hard to mentally grasp what rising sea-levels can mean on the ground but our visualizations give people a glimpse of what their future world will look and feel like in their own backyards. They help community members understand how their quality of life can be affected by climate change, and by the decisions they make to deal with climate impacts.”
![]() |
||||
BACKGROUND
The municipality of Delta, B.C. is in an agricultural region with a population of about 100,000 (Fig. 1). Historically, the municipality has used dykes to protect the land from flooding and tides – a common strategy used by coastal communities.
New provincial guidelines for the construction of new homes have more than doubled the recommended finished floor elevation to compensate for rising high water lines. Similarly, the guidelines for sea dike construction have increased considerably, in some cases suggesting a top-of-wall more than two times their current elevation above mean sea level.
Working with the municipality, Flanders and his colleagues at CALP have created visualizations of sea-level rise in Delta and four alternate scenarios that show different ways Delta could adapt. These were constructed using a cutting-edge 3D geovisualization process that integrates climate modeling scenarios, inundation modeling, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data, land use and urban design.
Visualizations of higher water levels in Delta portray what would happen to the community if it does nothing to prepare for climate change (Fig. 2).
“Combine the sea-level rise with bigger storms, more wind, more waves and high-tide and that’s an enormous amount of water,” says Flanders.
The four alternate scenarios show Delta over the next century where the municipality adopts various strategies to prepare for sea-level rise including: raising the dikes (“Hold The Line,” Fig. 3); building offshore barrier islands to absorb the impact of incoming storms (“Reinforce and Reclaim,” Fig 4); moving parts of the community out of the floodplain and on to higher ground (“Managed Retreat,” Fig. 5); and reducing vulnerability through design by raising homes, roads and critical infrastructure above the floodplain (“Build Up,” Fig. 6).
![]() |
||||
The visualizations packages not only show what the region could look at the end of the century but also takes into account other important factors like the cost of each solution for the municipality, the cost to individual property owners, and the trade-offs between protecting roads, habitat, homes, waterfront views and agricultural production.
“What is becoming evident is that there is no single, perfect solution. Each alternative pathway has trade-offs associated with it, and this planning process has been very effective at communicating those trade-offs, and assessing acceptability,” says Flanders.
“Communities will have to decide what their priorities are, and likely plan for a mosaic of different solutions, because each neighbourhood has its own set of concerns and its own idea of what will be possible. This visioning process can help inform these kinds of tough decisions that many low-lying communities will have to make over the next 20, 50 and 100 years.”
To produce the visualizations, Flanders is working with other landscape planning researchers at CALP, climate scientists on the climate forecasts, coastal engineers who can calculate what water will do during a storm when it slams against the dikes, land-use planners who know current policies and how strategies could potentially roll-out on the ground, and a working group of members of the public. These participants helped to build the scenarios and assess their acceptability.
Flanders and his colleagues have begun to show these visualizations to city planners and engineers, local elected officials, and members of the community. He notes that “many individuals seeing the images for the first time had a very emotional response.”
The work borrows from international precedents, but CALP is unique in combining visualization, stakeholder input, and evaluation of results comprehensively in the Delta study.
“Other communities around the globe could gain insight from this on how to address their own local concerns, whether it’s sea level rise, forest fire risk, changing snow pack, or other issues.”
CONTACT:
David Flanders
Research Scientist, Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning
Adjunct Faculty, School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Tel: 604.328.3448
Email: david.flanders@ubc.ca
Heather Amos
UBC Public Affairs
Cell: 604.828.3867
Email: heather.amos@ubc.ca
Simulated images are available by contacting Heather Amos at heather.amos@ubc.ca or 604.828.3867 (cell) and will be available for download Sunday, Feb. 19 at 1 p.m at: http://www.aaas.ubc.ca/media-resources/photos/
Photos of Flanders are available at: http://www.aaas.ubc.ca/media-resources/photos/. A video of Flanders is available at http://www.aaas.ubc.ca/media-resources/videos/ ]
==================================================================
OK let’s review this statement:
“…expecting the sea-level to rise by 1.2 metres by 2100 – a change that would affect a number of waterfront homes, inland suburban developments, roads and farmland. ”
Current rate of sea level rise is 3 mm per year, as has been shown repeatedly, there’s no evidence of acceleration.
This is supported by tide gauge data, for example:
Battery Park tide gauge from NOAA:
Let’s do the math for British Columbia.
Sea level rise is 3.0 millimeters per year, per TOPEX satellite data. We have 88 years left to 2100.
88 years x 3 mm/year = 264 mm or .264 meter
1.2 meters – .264 meters = 0.936 difference, almost a whole meter.
The press release and study is simply more of this silliness without paying attention to reality:
Freaking out about NYC sea level rise is easy to do when you don’t pay attention to history
Read the whole story to see how badly these predictions fail under the slightest scrutiny






“the visualizations are the only way that you can tell the complete story”
“seeing really is believing”
“They help community members understand”
This is a waste of money and total BS being misrepresented evidence.
The story of what? Believing what? Understanding what?
The story of using fossil fuels will flood their community?
Seeing pictures of flooding will make people believe in AGW?
Understanding that it’s hard to live in a house that’s been flooded?
“Other communities around the globe could gain insight from this on how to address their own local concerns, whether it’s sea level rise, forest fire risk, changing snow pack, or other issues.”
No they won’t. There isn’t any insight to be gained at all.
What is “address their local concerns” supposed to mean?
The only thing it will provide is more bullshat for local bureaucrats to produce more of their local useless crap to present.
James and Latitude, please show some respect for poor landscaper.
This is all no more than a complete scam to provide the planning arena endless busy work.
Bureaucracy after bureaucracy will get involved and produce mountains of thoroughly useless
reports.
Here’s a perfect example of what they will be producing with endless millions of tax dollars for years to come.
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/coastal/Pages/SeaLevelRiseAdaptation.aspx
Anthony,
I love the tropical sunset and palm trees in the background of your graphics.
Have you gone over to the dark side and borrowed Willis’ Mac?
S
Robert, if you and others like you want to live below sea level, that’s fine with me. Just don’t complain about flooding, and don’t expect the taxpayers to bail (pun intended) you out in the event of flooding. You assume the risk.
The famous poem “In Flander’s Fields” was written by a Canadian, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae. But that was based upon fact.
If I were in the business of writing proposals to spend other people’s money I would request funding to study ice depletion by elevation and latitude. When H2O that was sequestered in land ice for hundreds or thousands of years melts, presumably sea level will rise. Such land ice at lower elevations and/or lower latitudes ought to melt before land ice at higher elevations and/or higher latitudes. Additionally, we can, I think, accept that there is altogether less ice left to melt on land than there once was. So, there is less ice to melt and it is in places where it does not melt so easily.
The UAH global temperature chart does not show a warming trend (cherry-pick dates and you can show that it does), and is (for January) below the long term average. The red line (24 month G. average) in the chart embedded in the post is slightly declining recently, as expected, based on the conjecture in the first paragraph.
If you are in the business of writing proposals to spend other people’s money, feel free to jump on this issue. [Can you put enough in your travel budget for me to visit Iceland? Thanks.]
I would grade this report a F-. The author failed the most basic test, He didn’t “ground truth” his findings with real world data which is available with a click of a mouse. As a graduate of UBC (1964) it pains me that this sort of bunmf is allowed off campus.
My yard ends on Ganges Harbour, an arm of the Pacific Ocean, and since we bought the property in 1988 I’ve not noted any systematic change is sea level.
On the other hand we have earth quake insurance.
“Flanders fearful flooded fields flounders fabulously”…
When will this failed CAGW theory be thrown on the trash heap of history?
CAGW models projections are already over 2 standard deviations off from empirical observations, yet this failed CAGW theory continues on like the Eveready Bunny…
Climategates 1 & 2 (among other opportunities) offered politicians a graceful exit, and yet they failed to capitalize on these golden opportunities and decided, rather, to doubled down…
Will it take the UN building being under a mile of ice before politicians decide to give up on this ridiculous hoax?
It’s so frustrating.
Anyway, keep up the excellent work WUWT!
The truth will set you free, but in the interim, it’ll drive you nuts…
Reiterating what has already been said, there is a definite risk of sea level rise in that area. Fukushima Prefecture saw a permanant 40 cm rise recently… and that happened at a much faster rate than 3 mm/yr.
Fukushima Prefecture, Japan – Next to a subduction zone capable of megathrust quakes.
Delta British Columbia, Canada – Next to a subduction zone capable of megathrust quakes.
http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/japan_earthquake_increases_flood_risk_fukushima-77280
Vancouver underwater…
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/cities-underwater-2/
In Flander’s fields sea waters flow,
beneath the satellites, tide gauges row.
From the link Hutch provided: “It is important that coastal communities and governments at all levels be aware of these projected changes and potential impacts when planning coastal infrastructure and land use. To this end, Fisheries and Oceans Canada research scientist Dr. Richard Thomson of the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, British Columbia, led a study on projected sea level change in the province. Among the study’s findings:
•Based on present rates of sea level rise and a projected 30 cm rise in mean eustatic sea level (global scale changes in mean sea level due to changes in the volume of water in the ocean) during the 21st century, Vancouver, Victoria and Prince Rupert are predicted to undergo a mean relative sea level rise of 20 to 30 cm by 2100, while a rise of 50 cm is predicted for the Fraser River Delta region. These estimates are up to 70 cm higher when one includes the possibility that rapid ice sheet melting will cause a 100 cm increase in global mean sea levels by 2100”
===
This is of course pure BS considering measurements from ENVISAT 0.754 mm/year… as for subsidence of deltas this is well known and has been for quite a while. Regardless of the fearmongering, irresponsible politicians have allowed extensive development in zones notoriously prone to flooding even with a small variation. Just like floodplain development, we did not wait the global warming alarmism to know for a fact it is a bad idea to urbanize floodplains. Thomson is simply recycling IPCC BS and no one is updating… how convenient!
NOAA Tides and Currents provides the sea level trends measured in the region around Vancouver, BC-
Prince Rupert: +1.1 mm/yr, +/- 0.3 mm/yr
Vancouver, BC: +0.3 mm/yr, +/- 0.3 mm/yr
Victoria, BC: +0.6 mm/yr, +/- 0.2 mm/yr
Tofino, BC: -1.7 mm/yr, +/- 0.3 mm/yr
Average sea level rise in Vancouver region is +0.1 mm/yr, +/- 0.5 mm/yr.
In other words, zilch.
Time to rise 1.2 meters = many, many millenia.
Well this doom and gloom made the Vancouver BCTV news tonight. Mike Killeen the anchor desk reporter as evidenced from past announcements has swallowed the warmers mantra hook line and sinker. This is after all the home of de-smog, Andrew Weaver and Davide Suzuki. Also British Columbia has a carbon tax but at the same time will sell all the oil, natural gas and coal it can.
With the AAAS meeting in Vancouver the media up here has been trotting out one doom and gloom announcement after another, nothing on Heartland. Oh Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria a bastian of warmers says burning of the worlds coal will raise the worlds temperature by 15c. Must be true, he said it and the media reported it.
Sorry Chris y, but you can’t mix data from three distinct tectonic environments on the Pacifc NW coast to estimate an average sea-level change rate for the Fraser River delta. Prince Rupert is in northern BC, well beyond the limits of the Cascadia subduction zone in an area of translational (or perhaps oblique subduction) tectonics; Tofino is on the west coast of Vancouver Island, and, like its neighbours to the south (the tide gauges at Bamfield and Neah Bay) is currently subject to a regime of interseismic uplift (typically ~15 mm of uplift per year?). Vancouver and Victoria are far “inboard” of the deformation front associated with the Cascadia interplate boundary, and are apparently being uplifted at a rate far less than that of the outer coast of Vancouver Island. These two gauges gauges probably (along with neighbouring Friday Harbor, etc.) allow a closer approximation of the relative sea-level (RSL) trend in the vicinity of the Fraser River delta. But, as I’ve pointed out above, the pile of sediments that comprises the Fraser delta is subsiding, so the rate of RSL increase there is greater than that in the adjacent “stable” areas.
Oops–the average rate of interseismic uplift on the west coast of Vancouver Island is about 1.5 mm per year, NOT 15!
Apologies.
The public is slaughtering the MSM in Vancouver for reporting this obvious computer model BS.
[Reply: Linky goodness would be nice. ~dbs, mod.]
Hmmm… My own little take on sea levels in that area. Interesting that over a 140 km long window, we go from a falling sea level to a rising sea level.
Huh – maybe all that talk about geologic instabilities in the Pacific Northwest and earthquakes and such is really true?
Nah – Global Warming!
@Jay Davis
Perhaps you should learn a thing or two about the Netherlands, first of all it is not called the Netherlands for nothing, the other name Holland refers to a older age when most of the Netherlands where still covered with dense woodlands (Hol or Hout wich translates as wood).
http://youtu.be/oBfxNIk9mGc
The safest river delta on this planet, we have been working on this since the middle ages, but if it goes wrong in the once in a 10.000 year storm than it will go wrong spectacular, think about the 11 march 2011 Tohoku earthquake, but then for us it will be a flooding,
Oh and I live inside dijkring 14.and the YT movie is a part from an excellent Dutch series named “The Netherlands from above” (Nederland van boven).
http://www.youtube.com/user/NLvanBoven?feature=watch
The “Nederland van boven” youtube channel
Sorry they have removed the story and have a replacement without the comment section option.
Ah, hidden but not gone. Here is the link..
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/South+Delta+faces+rising+threat+from+floods/6178549/story.html
ctv.ca carried the story:
“Future floods could leave much of Delta under water”
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120220/bc_delta_flooding_120220/20120220
–
In the article they reference this story – which was in the news yesterday:
“Coal, not oilsands, causes global warming: study”
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120219/bc_coal_oilsands_climate_change_120219/20120219
“One of the world’s top climate scientists has calculated that emissions from Alberta’s oilsands are unlikely to make a big difference to global warming and that the real threat to the planet comes from burning coal.
“I was surprised by the results of our analysis,” said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate modeller, who has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “I thought it was larger than it was.””
“Burning all the oil in the world would only raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes.”
“In contrast, the paper concludes that burning all the globe’s vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature. Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by more than three degrees.”
“When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 degrees C.”
@TomRude
Very Important: Any idea why ~1924-1940 data are missing?
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/175_high.png
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/175.rlrdata
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/175.php
–
Everyone:
This page has data links for a long list of tide gauge stations worldwide:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
This is a very useful resource for studying natural variability.