H2O 2012 conference theme: "please send money"

From Stanford University , this press release with a “who the heck cares?” question as a title. We have far bigger problems in California to worry about. It is another one of these “might result” weasel word press releases in the guise of “please send money”, see my bolding. The digs where they are holding this conference of course show no sign of being worried about money. At least Gleick didn’t attend.

Is California preparing for climate change?

Results from new climate adaptation survey

A majority of California’s coastal planners and resource managers now view the threats from climate change as sufficiently likely that practical steps on the ground need to be taken to protect against growing threats, according to results from a new survey published by Stanford University’s Center for Ocean Solutions (COS) and the California Sea Grant.

Survey respondents acknowledge the need to prepare for changes along the coast that might result from rising sea levels and other impacts, such as more floods, loss of beach access, coastal erosion and potential damage to transportation infrastructure, including highways, roads and ports.

The new survey – an update on a similar one conducted six years ago – shows a strong uptick in California coastal professionals’ attention to preparing and planning for climate change. Results reveal that managers are ready and willing to develop adaptation strategies, despite tighter belts in most local and state agencies in recent years. But lack of money to prepare and implement plans, insufficient staff and lack of technical know-how are significant challenges.

“Communities are willing to adapt to the reality of climate change, but they are struggling. This is a story that needs to be told when billions of dollars in assets are at risk,” said Susanne Moser, Director of Susanne Moser Research & Consulting in Santa Cruz and a Research Associate of COS. She worked with colleagues at University of Southern California Sea Grant, California Sea Grant and the University of California, Berkeley, and an unprecedented collaborative of 12 other coastal organizations in California to systematically probe coastal professionals’ knowledge and attitudes toward global warming, their level of preparedness for the future, and the challenges they face in taking action.

The survey shows that 40 percent of coastal professionals who are responsible for protecting natural resources, property and human safety have begun trying to understand the risks they face, and another 40 percent are actively planning for climate change impacts, such as sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion. Yet, only about 10 percent are actually doing things on the ground that may reduce the full brunt of climate change.

“The big take-away from the survey is that coastal managers are knowledgeable and understand the importance of preparing for climate change,” said USC Sea Grant Associate Director Phyllis Grifman, a co-author of the survey report, Rising to the Challenge: Results of the 2011 California Coastal Adaptation Needs Assessment. “And they are doing what they can even before there is a mandate to develop adaptation plans. They know it is important, and they are concerned, both personally and at work, but they need help.”

Most of the nearly 600 coastal professionals who responded to the survey describe a work environment that is already consumed by other pressing issues and constrained by limited fiscal and staff resources. More than 70 percent also indicate that they believe the severity of their leading management challenges, such as protecting water quality and wetland habitats, will further intensify in the next five years, creating yet higher hurdles in meeting the state’s call to prepare and plan for rising sea levels.

The survey also allowed coastal managers to identify the information, training needs and tools that would make their work more effective. According to Juliette Finzi Hart, Regional Research and Planning Specialist at USC Sea Grant and lead author of the survey report, “The organizations that worked together on this survey have an opportunity – and a responsibility – to help California coastal managers meet the challenge of climate change. Information alone won’t solve the problem, but we can help build coastal professionals’ capacity to make our coasts a safer place to live and work.”

Today at the Headwaters to Oceans (H2O) Conference in San Diego, Grifman will moderate a discussion of the survey results at a session on climate adaptation and coastal management. Panelists include Hart and co-authors Monique Myers of California Sea Grant, and Julia Ekstrom, a postdoctoral researcher at UC Berkeley.

In a second panel today, co-author Adina Abeles of COS will moderate a session of several survey partners addressing what California coastal managers need, in terms of information, training and tools, to deal with sea level rise and other climate change impacts, and how these organizations are helping to provide this technical assistance.

The current survey revealed a strong increase in adaptation activity compared to the very low level observed at the time of the first coastal adaptation survey conducted in 2005/2006. That survey – conducted by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, including Moser – found that among the local governments in coastal areas that were surveyed, only two counties at that time had begun considering climate change in their planning efforts, and another six cities and four counties were in the process. Five years later a marked shift is evident: today 93 percent of all survey respondents (including representatives from local, regional, state and federal entities) say they are in the process of understanding their climate change risks, assessing their adaptation options, or implementing a strategy.

“The survey results are timed perfectly with ongoing state efforts to update the 2012 California Climate Adaptation Strategy,” said Abe Doherty, a project specialist at the Ocean Protection Council, one of the 15 organizations that collaborated on the survey. Others include the California Coastal Commission, NOAA Coastal Services Center and Southern California Coastal Ocean Observing System.

“It is important to get feedback on what coastal managers are using for information and what they need for technical assistance and training,” said Doherty, who is currently drafting the ocean and coastal resources portion of the climate adaptation strategy. “The barriers are mostly fiscal for communities. We know we have limited funds, so what is the best approach for moving forward? We have to craft strategies and focus staff time strategically. The survey results help us prioritize staff time and resources.”

###

The USC Sea Grant and California Sea Grant programs are part of a national network of 32 programs of marine research, outreach and education activities and part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce. Sea Grant is dedicated to helping citizens use scientific information to support a vibrant economy and ensure ecological sustainability.

The Center for Ocean Solutions is a collaboration among Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment and Hopkins Marine Station, the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. Across these institutions, COS draws from about 80 scholars, researchers and educators who work on coastal and ocean ecosystems in the natural, physical and social sciences. COS also works with experienced conservation practitioners and policy experts. Located at Stanford and in Monterey, California, COS is uniquely positioned to leverage expertise and develop practical solutions to the most urgent and important ocean conservation problems.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
65 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
R. Wright
May 30, 2012 6:31 am

The most recent update of sea level data along the California coast shows a continuation of the decline in sea level since the 1990s. In particular, the longest running tide station, San Francisco, shows another drop in average sea level. This is in addition to the decline over the first decade of the 21st Century.
At the La Jolla tide station, the average sea level for the entire first decade of the 21st Century was LOWER than the average sea level of the entire decade of the 1990s.
If coastal managers need to be concerned about sea level changes, they should be concerned with the continuing moderate decline in sea levels, not about rising sea levels. But is this even a problem?

juanslayton
May 30, 2012 7:30 am

The Park Service posts a scare exhibit for the tourists at Alcatraz:
http://www.nps.gov/goga/naturescience/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=280517
Meanwhile, just across the bay at Alameda, the error bars for the alleged sea rise neatly bracket zero change:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414750
and the trend for sea rise is falling:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.shtml?stnid=9414750
I find it interesting that their flood map is credited to the Pacific Institute, a bastion of ethical integrity.
/sarc

Hoser
May 30, 2012 7:49 am

In the 60s and 70s, one of my favorite beaches in CA was Greyhound Rock. It was named for a massive isolated piece of a hill surrounded by water and sand. There was a big sandy beach and even a hill of sand kids used to slide down on cardboard. Today, most of the sand is gone. Even the “rock” is almost gone. The problem is people don’t live long enough to see the natural changes occurring slowly, year after year. When you finally get old enough, you can compare what you see to what you remember.
Greyhound Rock isn’t gone because of a rising sea level. It’s gone because the world is not static. We live in a dynamic environment. Change is the nature of Nature. Living systems change all the time. I’m not a change denier. I do deny that you can succesfully legislate stasis, or that you should. Adaptation is the correct approach, but most of what we hear from government sounds more like mitigation. Mitigation assumes you know what’s going to happen and you can do something to change the outcome. Good luck with that. Perhaps finally we recognize we don’t have the money to waste on mitigation.
Anthony is right. We have far bigger problems to worry about. The biggest mitigation boondoggle, AB32, will kick in next year. We’ll get our own cap and trade, rising energy costs, and even more regulations to crush business. If we thought the California economy was in trouble now, just wait.
It’s sad when even the USGS is in on the hysteria.
http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/what-water-worries-will-climate-change-bring/?from=textlink
They “downscaled” 14 climate models to arrive at foregone conclusions. It’s amazing they can try to sell this garbage as serious science. Of course it is politics, not science.

G. Karst
May 30, 2012 7:52 am

Society, in general, is very vulnerable to it’s trusted advisers. We must select such people with extreme care and caution. Unfortunately, advisers are selected politically, NOT scientifically! Science now serves political policy and agendas and has become just as corrupt as the politicians and lobbyists. Hansen, Mann, Gavin, Biffra, etc are the natural product of such error and no one should be surprised. This conundrum seems to be part of the “human condition”. GK

pyromancer76
May 30, 2012 8:07 am

I want to know who is paying the salaries of those 600 “coastal professionals”. If they are being paid by universities like Stanford, then cutting off taxpayer-backed student loans and stopping government grants because the federal government is in debt passed its “eyeballs” should drop the number significantly. If they are being paid by the state of Kalifornia, then the state’s immenent bankruptcy will eliminate salaries for many. If they are being paid by the federal government, then the coming change in administration and philsophy will eliminate another large group. If they are being paid by the United Nations, then its near-future elimination from the U.S. budget and removal from the U. S. should finish the job. Then we can return to sanity, freedom of oportunity, and commitment to the scientific method. Nothing else makes sense.

Gail Combs
May 30, 2012 9:28 am

Mike Smith says:
May 29, 2012 at 7:38 pm
I am absolutely not a climate alarmist.
However, I do believe that extreme weather is a reality.
____________________________________
Then I suggest Mike, that you place “extreme weather” in the WUWT search box in the right corner under the picture/banner and do a bunch of reading. “Extreme weather” is the next “Sky is falling” hobgoblin for herding the sheeple into the pen for their next shearing – (extraction of wealth)

oeman50
May 30, 2012 9:39 am

One thing to note, if you prepare for floods and a rising sea level, you also prepare for storms that cause both. Less property will be damaged, fewer people will be affected. And doing this is much cheaper than turning your whole energy economy on its head. If you want to invoke the precautionary principle for these efforts, go right ahead, we get a benefit no matter what happens. But that’s it! No more!

Gail Combs
May 30, 2012 10:04 am

nimbunje says:
May 29, 2012 at 8:51 pm
As the last Holocene had a sea level high of 20 to 30 feet higher than today ,its a bit of a no brainer that sea levels could rise again .What goes around comes around.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is so full of errors…
There was no such thing as “the last holocene” it is called an interglacial. And guess what? we are at the TAIL END of the holocene interglacial. The only way we are headed is into the next Ice Age. Even Joe Romm over at Climate Progress acknowledges the Milankovitch Cycles

Absent human emissions, we’d probably be in a slow long-term cooling trend due primarily by changes in the Earth’s orbit — see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds…http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/16/hockey-stick-paper-mcshane-and-wyner-statisticians/#more-31767

Here are two peer-reviewed papers.

Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
….Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages…

This paper also agrees that we are at the point in the earth’s Milankovitch cycle that ushers in an ice age.

Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)
“Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….

Possibly delayed the next Ice Age is more like it. One commenter here who is a Geologist said that while the cycles do not always lift the earth out of an Ice Age they ALWAYS dump it into one. (Sorry no link but somewhere in this thread, which you should read http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/ )
Gerry Roe’s 2006 paper In Defense of Milankovitch, Geophysical Research Letters fine tunes the model and get a very good match with the ice core data. See In Defense of Milankovitch by Gerard Roe over at Luboš Motl website for an easy to read article and pointers to the paper.
Even Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution acknowledges Climate Scientist could very well be barking up the wrong tree.

Abrupt Climate Change: Should We Be Worried? – Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
“Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.
Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth vs climate can shift gears within a decade….
But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur…

David A. Evans
May 30, 2012 10:15 am

May I have notice of the day they plan to push the Moon out of orbit please?
That’s the only way I can see of them stopping coastal erosion. 😛
DaveE.

Gail Combs
May 30, 2012 10:17 am

Graeme No.3 says:
May 29, 2012 at 9:34 pm
I have just come across an estimate that London is sinking at 7.5 mm per year.
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/38351.aspx
While the SE of the UK is sinking, this seems a little high. I point to Traitor’s Gate, the waterside entrance to the Tower of London, built in 1275-6. The above rate would mean the water level is now 18 foot higher than when it was built. Can anyone close-by confirm this?…
_________________________________
That does not agree with Archaeologists Discover Roman Coastline – Two Miles Inland

English Heritage archaeologists, excavating on previously untouched land at Richborough Roman Fort near Sandwich in Kent, have discovered the original Roman coastline at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain in AD43.
“It is widely known that Richborough Roman Fort was the gateway to Roman Britain 2000 years ago,” explained English Heritage archaeologist Tony Wilmot, “but what is really exciting is that we have actually found the Roman foreshore while digging in a deep trench alongside the remains of a Roman wall.”

“Sea level rise” is not as simple as alarmist think. There is “rebound” from glaciers and uprising from tectonic plates and sinking as well. Everything changes.

e. c. cowan
May 30, 2012 11:07 am

‘….potential damage to transportation infrastructure, including highways, roads ….’
I lived in Sana Monica CA for years and there was loss of parts of PCH all the time – from rock and land slides covering stretches of the roadway. They would just move the traffic lanes over closer to the ocean.
How short sighted of them!

Northern California Bureaucrat
May 30, 2012 11:40 am

As one who knows and occasionally has to write the lingo, there’s nothing new here. There’s not a public agency in California who is going to say “yep, we’ve got this whole sea rise thing figured out, and we have all the tools, time, and treasure we need to address it”. Every agency is going to use the climate “crisis” as much as they can as a call for more funding, more staffing, and generally expanding the public sector. CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act) now requires projects subject to environmental review to look at climate change issues, so of course everyone is going to say that they’re doing what the law requires them to do. As for agencies in the process of “understanding risks” and “assessing options”, that can go on for YEARS if you know what you’re doing. It’s especially attractive for those who haven’t drunk the CAGW Kool-Aid but are in a situation where the politics demand that they do something.

Graeme No.3
May 30, 2012 3:51 pm

Gail Combs says:
Thank you for the article. One government hand (UK Heritage) contradicts the other hand (UK environment-agency).
I agree with your comments, it’s not that simple. What I was about was the inflated “estimate” by the environmentalists. I don’t know what explanation they would come up with in the case of Richborough, with the coast line stable between roman and medieval times, and now 2 miles inland, when they want everybody to believe in irreversible coastal sinking in SE England. Probably something like, “someone opened the tide gate and let the lagoon out”.

SteveSadlov
May 30, 2012 6:16 pm

‘ceppin’ the sea ain’t really rising here on this coast.
Oh sure there are some areas where subsidence has caused issues. But no innate sea level rise here.

SteveSadlov
May 30, 2012 6:19 pm

RE:
R. Wright says:
May 30, 2012 at 6:31 am
The most recent update of sea level data along the California coast shows a continuation of the decline in sea level since the 1990s. In particular, the longest running tide station, San Francisco, shows another drop in average sea level. This is in addition to the decline over the first decade of the 21st Century.
At the La Jolla tide station, the average sea level for the entire first decade of the 21st Century was LOWER than the average sea level of the entire decade of the 1990s.
If coastal managers need to be concerned about sea level changes, they should be concerned with the continuing moderate decline in sea levels, not about rising sea levels. But is this even a problem?
===============
Yes it’s a serious problem for navigation and commerce.