From the “we’ve already made up our minds, these hearings are simply for show” department.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (excerpt from the PDF report)
Climate change is upon us, and almost every facet of California’s natural and built environment is being affected. Increasing global temperatures are causing significant effects at global, regional, and local scales. In the past century, average global temperature has increased by about 0.8°C (1.4°F), and average global sea level has increased by 17 to 21 centimeters (7 to 8 inches) (IPCC, 2013). Sea level at the San Francisco tidal gauge has risen 20 centimeters (8 inches) over the past century, and the National Research Council projected that sea level may rise by as much as 140-165 centimeters (55-65 inches) in California by 2100 (NRC, 2012). The Coastal Commission has developed this guidance to help California’s coastal communities prepare for the effects of sea-level rise.
The economic impacts of sea-level rise in California could be severe. Many parts of the state’s $1.9 trillion economy – including coastal tourism, commercial fisheries, coastal agriculture, and ports – are at risk from sea-level rise. In addition to potential loses in revenue, the Pacific Institute estimates that $100 billion worth of property is at risk of flooding during a 100-year flood with a projected 1.4 meters of sea-level rise. This property includes seven wastewater treatment plants, commercial fishery facilities, marine terminals, Coastal Highway One, fourteen power plants, residential homes, and other important development and infrastructure (Heberger et al. 2009). Also, public beaches and recreational resources may be lost, and wetlands and other sensitive resources may disappear. These resources provide invaluable benefits to California, including recreation and tourism revenues, habitat for commercial fish species, enhanced water quality, and increased quality of life.
More here: the PDF report
DRAFT Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance
The California Coastal Commission Announces the Release of Draft Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance for Public Review
Commission staff is now seeking input on the Draft Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance. The Draft Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance document provides an overview of best available science on sea-level rise for California and recommended steps for addressing sea-level rise in Coastal Commission planning and regulatory actions. Click the link for the Coastal Commission’s Public Review Announcement.
Opportunities to Learn More about the Draft Guidance Document
California Coastal Commission staff is conducting a number of outreach events designed to give an overview of the Draft Sea-Level Rise Guidance, as well as to answer questions from interested parties and members of the public. Commission staff will present the document at two Coastal Commission Hearings and will host two online webinars. Details on these events are below.
Coastal Commission Hearings
- Commission staff will present the Draft Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance at two regularly scheduled Coastal Commission Hearings. Both hearings will also include time for public to register official verbal comments on the document. The dates of the two hearings are as follows:
- Thursday, December 12 at the Radisson Hotel Fisherman’s Wharf, 250 Beach Street, San Francisco.
- January 8-10 at the Catamaran Resort Hotel, 3999 Mission Blvd., San Diego. Check Agenda for Date.
See http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html for more information on Coastal Commission Hearings
- Public Webinars
Commission staff will conduct two public webinars, each of which will include a summary of the document, descriptions of sea-level rise projections for California, and recommendations for addressing sea-level rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits. Each webinar will be the same. Participants are welcome to ask questions during the webinars, but official comments are best submitted to SLRGuidanceDocument@coastal.ca.gov. (see below). The dates of the two webinars and registration details for each are below.
- Webinar #1: December 4, 10:30am – 12:00pm. To register, go to: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2883128749907020034
- A PDF of the webinar presentation and a recording of the webinar are now available.
- Webinar #2: December 17, 2:00 – 3:30pm. To register, go to: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3107175134787345922
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
- Webinar #1: December 4, 10:30am – 12:00pm. To register, go to: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2883128749907020034
- Other Opportunities
In addition, Coastal Commission staff may be available to present at other organization meetings. Please send us an email at SLRGuidanceDocument@coastal.ca.gov to arrange a meeting.
Download Document
Click the link to download the full Draft Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance document.
To download a specific chapter, click the link below:
- INTRODUCTION
- GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ADDRESSING SEA-LEVEL RISE
- SEA-LEVEL RISE SCIENCE
- ADDRESSING SEA-LEVEL RISE IN LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS
- ADDRESSING SEA-LEVEL RISE IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
- ADDITIONAL RESEARCH NEEDS
- NEXT STEPS
APPENDICES (All Appendices A-F)
Appendix A. Sea-Level Rise Science and Projections for Future Change
Appendix B. Developing Local Hazard Conditions Based on Regional or Local Sea-Level Rise Using the NRC 2012 Report
Appendix C. Adaptation Measures
Appendix D. Resources for Addressing Sea-Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs
Appendix E. Examples of Sea-Level Rise Preparation from Other State Agencies
Appendix F: Coastal Act Policies Relevant to Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Hazards
Submitting Comments
Please send your comments as soon as possible, and no later than 5:00 pm Friday, February 14, 2014. Comments can be submitted via email to SLRGuidanceDocument@coastal.ca.gov, by U.S. mail to the address below, or orally at Commission public hearings in November, December, 2013 and/or January 2014.
California Coastal Commission
c/o Sea-Level Rise Work Group
45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
or send by email to SLRGuidanceDocument@coastal.ca.gov
The 90-day comment period is provided to maximize public and agency participation in the discussion and review of the Commission’s proposed Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance. We encourage broad participation in the review of the document and welcome all feedback.
Questions?
If you have questions or would like additional information on the guidance, please do not hesitate to contact Hilary Papendick at SLRGuidanceDocument@coastal.ca.gov or (415) 904-5294, or Lesley Ewing at (415) 904-5291. Thank you in advance for your review and comments.
===============================
h/t to Mosher
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“May” “could” etc. Snowballs in Hell come to mind.
65 inches in 86 years? Excellent. That should show up in the monthly tidal gauges. Within a few months the assertion can be proven.
Good news on this in Australia. Recently the Premier of New South Wales ordered local councils to ignore the IPCC reports on sea level rise and seek independent scientific advice. Common sense seems to be creeping in- at least in some places.
Panic is clearly in order, all concerned should move to Illinois tomorrow.
Archimedes’ principle, what’s that? 🙂
Given that half the state is ready to slip into the Pacific Ocean, California is the last place on earth I would use a tide gauge.
”
…and average global sea level has increased by 17 to 21 centimeters (7 to 8 inches) (IPCC, 2013).
…”
”
…and the National Research Council projected that sea level may rise by as much as 140-165 centimeters (55-65 inches) in California by 2100 (NRC, 2012).
…”
As a long time resident of Santa Barbara, I’d like to know where the sea level rise is occuring. Santa Barbara has a brackish/fresh water bird refuge located at or near sea level, in the 66 years I have lived here the bird refuge is no closer to being joined to the Pacific ocean than it was 66 years ago. It is separated from the ocean only by Cabrillo Blvd. [which has been flooded twice to my knowledge during years with extremely high rainfall levels] and a stretch of sandy beach.
A couple of hundred years ago – well recorded in historic times – Santa Barbara had an estuary at the lower end of Laguna St. (“lagoon” in Spanish). That area is now populated with businesses and residences and has not been a lagoon for more than 125 years and is certainly not now threatened by any impending rise in sea level. Note: this area has rarely been flooded during years of heavy rainfall but that has nothing to do with sea level rise.
Beachside motel/hotel development seems to be continuing at what appears to be normal levels – something one would not expect if there were an imminent threat sea level rise and flooding.
I call B.S. on the Coastal Commision.
Any way we can speed up that earthquake?
Funny how none of the beach residents are complaining.
“National Research Council projected that sea level may rise by as much as 140-165 centimeters (55-65 inches) in California by 2100 (NRC, 2012).”
This sounds strange in the light that current trend is the same as it has been last 100 years, 20 cm a century.
I have the feeling that it’s more about policy based science with political aims in California?
Is it about private property along the coast and getting rid of them?
“Climate change is upon us…”
Climate change is always upon us, whether it be icebergs of Constantinople, grapes in Scotland, ice fairs on the Thames or a dinosaur taking a comet full in the face. No news there.
They want “input”?
They can input that document where the SW does not radiate.
Real sea level rise is 0.83 +/- 0.27 mm/year equivalent to 0.27 feet (3-1/4 inches) in 100 years for Los Angeles Harbor, here:
http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410660
Any computer-modeled sea level rise in excess of actual sea level rise is chalked up to “latent sea level rise” that will manifest itself at some unspecified time in the future.
On Page 20 of the draft policy, there is a disclaimer for constitutional taking where a virtual (latent) coastline is established inland of actual coastline. I have quoted this section here:
[begin quote]
Finally, this guidance does not address how sea-level rise may involve private property rights and takings issues in specific cases. Accelerating sea-level rise may raise difficult issues with respect to what kinds and intensities of development are allowable or that must be allowed, in specific areas threatened by sea-level rise in order to avoid a “taking” of property within the meaning of the United States and California constitutions. Coastal Act Section 30010 prohibits the Commission, ports, and local governments from exercising their coastal development permitting authority in a manner that will take or damage private property without just compensation. Evaluation of whether a particular regulatory action would constitute a taking involves consideration of a wide range of site- and project-specific factors. How to perform this evaluation is outside the scope of these Guidelines. Agencies implementing the Coastal Act should obtain legal advice regarding specific situations that raise takings concerns.
[end quote]
@neil Jordan: Latent sea level rise — is the sea level rise hiding in the deep ocean where we can’t measure it? 🙂
I smell elements of Agenda 21 policy based “science”. They need much more than 20 cm a century in order to implement radical changes along the coast?
Ah – the disasterologist need a pick me up after the dastardly Polar Vortex 😉
“Coastal Act Section 30010 prohibits the Commission, ports, and local governments from exercising their coastal development permitting authority in a manner that will take or damage private property without just compensation.”
I wonder what “just compensation” will be based on the policy based science claims that the shore line in a few years will be in the kitchen?
Basically what they do first is to destroy private property value and then they just take it?
Can money be made by betting AGAINST global warming.? Underwriting insurance, things like that?
1650mm/86years is about 19mm a year.
I’d say the commission could be done and gone in about five minutes:
Commission: Has the sea level risen faster than 5mm/year this year?
Scientist: No.
Commission: Let’s convene again in ten years.
Scientist: What about my funding?
Commission: Fund what?
Pacific Institute? Peter Gleick? Zero credibility!
@newlifenarrabri, well it is a good thought. However, word here in NSW is that the local councils are still going for the “soft option”. Use their own best judgement? Consult their own experts? Answer, stick with the IPCC and CYA. Thus, no accountability. Sad but true…
If I was a Californian I’d be more worried about the next major earthquake, which is well overdue, than sea level rise?
“Milk Money” – the government is going to milk this global warming issue for all it’s worth.
Apart from being a compelling argument for a bigger regulating bureaucracy, this document ignores a couple of inconvenient facts, this from NOAA showing the rate of increase in sea levels is currently static to declining (sometimes significantly) compared to the past century:
1. San Francisco (108 years): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.shtml?stnid=9414290
2. San Diego (106 years): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.shtml?stnid=9410170
3. La Jolla (88 years): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.shtml?stnid=9410230
4. Los Angeles (89 years): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.shtml?stnid=9410660
5. Santa Monica: (79 years): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.shtml?stnid=9410840
6. Santa Barbara (39 years): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.shtml?stnid=9411340
7. Port San Luis (67 years): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.shtml?stnid=9412110
8. Monterey: (39 years): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.shtml?stnid=9413450
9. Redwood City (38 years): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.shtml?stnid=9414523
10. Alameda (73 years): http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_update.shtml?stnid=9414750
So in summary, first the long term trend in mms/year, then the figure for 2012:
1. San Francisco: 2.01 versus 1.92.
2. San Diego: 2.06 versus 2.04.
3. La Jolla: 2.07 versus 2.02
4. Los Angeles: 0.83 versus 0,82
5. Santa Monica: 1.47 versus 1.37
6. Santa Barbara: 1.25 versus 0,32.
7. Port San Luis: 0.79 versus 0.65
8. Monterey: 1.34 versus 0.93.
9. Redwood City: 2.06 versus 1.06
10. Alameda: 0.82 versus 0.66
The simple averages are:
Long term average sea level rise: 1.47mms/year
2012 sea level rise: 1.18mms/year.
At the risk of being accused of cherry picking the year 2012, similar figures of sea level rise over the past 5 years have been recorded at 8 out of the 10 sites, the exceptions were Monterey and Santa Barbara.
My advice?
1. Disband the bureaucracies who created this alarmist nonsense, and
2. Bar any politician, who believes this alarmist nonsense, from public office forever.
The alternative is: Let’s spend gazillions of dollars in support of a scary theory totally unsupported by the facts. As it is California, following this second option is more likely.
Interesting that NOAA can squeeze out positive trend for Alaska out of this data:
http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9455920
I’ll believe it when beach front house prices start dropping.
Here in Dorset we have holiday beach huts (a shed), yards from the sea, selling for £200,000 plus. And prices are rising.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-23264052
Henry Galt. says:
January 9, 2014 at 12:09 am
“Pacific Institute? Peter Gleick? Zero credibility!”
—————————————————————-
Zero?
You do realise that it is posible to have negative credibility?
Pehaps you are not familliar with the handling and use of the Gleick 9mm?
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=20qyxsp&s=5#.Us5lRjiIq3o