California Coastal Commission to solicit input on Global Warming driven sea level policy document

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 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 (see below). The dates of the two webinars and registration details for each are below.

    After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

  • Other Opportunities

    In addition, Coastal Commission staff may be available to present at other organization meetings. Please send us an email at 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:





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, 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

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.


If you have questions or would like additional information on the guidance, please do not hesitate to contact Hilary Papendick at or (415) 904-5294, or Lesley Ewing at (415) 904-5291. Thank you in advance for your review and comments.


h/t to Mosher

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Brian H
January 8, 2014 10:09 pm

“May” “could” etc. Snowballs in Hell come to mind.

January 8, 2014 10:19 pm

65 inches in 86 years? Excellent. That should show up in the monthly tidal gauges. Within a few months the assertion can be proven.

January 8, 2014 10:29 pm

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.

Jean Parisot
January 8, 2014 10:32 pm

Panic is clearly in order, all concerned should move to Illinois tomorrow.

January 8, 2014 10:33 pm

Archimedes’ principle, what’s that? 🙂

January 8, 2014 10:37 pm

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.

F. Ross
January 8, 2014 10:41 pm

…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.

john robertson
January 8, 2014 10:45 pm

Any way we can speed up that earthquake?
Funny how none of the beach residents are complaining.

Santa Baby
January 8, 2014 11:02 pm

“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?

January 8, 2014 11:05 pm

“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.

Neil Jordan
January 8, 2014 11:05 pm

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:
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]

January 8, 2014 11:12 pm

@Neil Jordan: Latent sea level rise — is the sea level rise hiding in the deep ocean where we can’t measure it? 🙂

Santa Baby
January 8, 2014 11:17 pm

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?

January 8, 2014 11:23 pm

Ah – the disasterologist need a pick me up after the dastardly Polar Vortex 😉

Santa Baby
January 8, 2014 11:23 pm

“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?

January 8, 2014 11:25 pm

Can money be made by betting AGAINST global warming.? Underwriting insurance, things like that?

January 8, 2014 11:39 pm

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?

Henry Galt.
January 9, 2014 12:09 am

Pacific Institute? Peter Gleick? Zero credibility!

January 9, 2014 12:13 am

@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…

January 9, 2014 12:23 am

If I was a Californian I’d be more worried about the next major earthquake, which is well overdue, than sea level rise?

January 9, 2014 12:33 am

“Milk Money” – the government is going to milk this global warming issue for all it’s worth.

Peter Miller
January 9, 2014 12:40 am

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):
2. San Diego (106 years):
3. La Jolla (88 years):
4. Los Angeles (89 years):
5. Santa Monica: (79 years):
6. Santa Barbara (39 years):
7. Port San Luis (67 years):
8. Monterey: (39 years):
9. Redwood City (38 years):
10. Alameda (73 years):
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.

January 9, 2014 12:45 am

Interesting that NOAA can squeeze out positive trend for Alaska out of this data:

David Schofield
January 9, 2014 12:49 am

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.

January 9, 2014 1:03 am

Henry Galt. says:
January 9, 2014 at 12:09 am
“Pacific Institute? Peter Gleick? Zero credibility!”
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?

January 9, 2014 1:09 am

Philip Tomas (@BadScience) says:
January 8, 2014 at 11:25 pm
Can money be made by betting AGAINST global warming.? Underwriting insurance, things like that?

It used to be possible to make all sorts of climate-related bets on Intrade, when it was in operation. There are online UK betting sites, but they won’t take bets from the US. Maybe things will improve in the future.

David, UK
January 9, 2014 1:16 am

Konrad says:
January 8, 2014 at 11:05 pm
“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.


January 9, 2014 1:40 am

your are unlucky the sea is not going to rise in Australia so come on over

January 9, 2014 2:07 am

F. Ross says: January 8, 2014 at 10:41 pm …
I’d guess that the sea level rise has occured, and that 608 inches or so over a century would not have been noticed.
The beach can obviously raise or lower depending on local conditions. The road has no doubt been resurfaced several times. The bird refuge could have gained 6 inches in sedimentation and bird poo in a century. It probably adjusts itself to the sea level automagically.
Your example doesn’t show that the sea isn’t rising – it shows that it doesn’t matter in most circumstances.

January 9, 2014 2:08 am

(oops – Mods, please update preceding post from “608 inches” to “6-8 inches”, thanks).

Gail Combs
January 9, 2014 2:58 am

Maybe William McClenney will go to the meeting and drop Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? and the Late Eemian aridity pulse on them.

…a late Eemian aridity pulse lasting 468 years with dust storms, aridity, bushfire and a decline of thermophilous trees at the time of glacial inception… The late Eemian aridity pulse occurred at a 658 N July insolation of 416 Wm22, close to today’s value of 428 Wm22 (ref. 9), and may therefore be relevant for the interpretation of present-day climate variability.

Not to mention the other papers in his arsenal and confuse the heck out of them.
Be nice to see them get tangled in trying to explain why the present warming cycle is not an end interglacial warming.
Boy, a bunch of geologists could really have some fun at this meeting with all the papers that are out on the termination of the Holocene.

Jim Barker
January 9, 2014 3:06 am

Obviously, sea level rise is hiding in the ocean deeps with the missing heat.

Mike McMillan
January 9, 2014 4:13 am

Jim Barker says: January 9, 2014 at 3:06 am
Obviously, sea level rise is hiding in the ocean deeps with the missing heat.

+0.3 mm/yr of it is. That’s the GIA adjustment to compensate for the sea bottom getting deeper. The sea level isn’t really going up that much more, but if the bottom weren’t getting deeper, it would be, so we add that much to what is really happening so we get a fuller picture of what would have been happening otherwise.. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Of course.

juan slayton
January 9, 2014 4:16 am

At San Francisco, NOAA reports change at .66 feet per hundred years:
Meanwhile, right across the bay at Alameda, NOAA reports change at .27 feet per hundred years:
Clearly, the land is rising and falling locally. Unless they can quantify and predict this, it is pointless to pretend to plan for future (relative) water levels.

January 9, 2014 4:19 am

Alternate Title for their request: Bankrupt State seeks more ways to waste money.

Mickey Reno
January 9, 2014 4:26 am

Hmmm, I smell a dirty stinking gleick.

Gail Combs
January 9, 2014 4:36 am

Santa Baby says: @ January 8, 2014 at 11:23 pm
… Basically what they do first is to destroy private property value and then they just take it?
Here is an example of how it is done:
June 2011: L.A. County’s Private Property War
As you read the article notice two points.
#1. The area is the middle of the Southern California high desert, Antelope Valley
#2. “…the authorities eventually would enact some of the most powerful rules imaginable against rural residents: the order to bring the home up to current codes or dismantle the 26-year-old cabin, leaving only bare ground.”
So why Antelope Valley?
January 2013: Warren Buffet Buys Antelope Valley Solar Projects for $2.5 Billion

MidAmerican Energy Holding Co., the energy utility owned by Warrant Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, has agreed to pay SunPower Corp. between $2-2.5 billion for the design, development, and installation of the 579MW Antelope Valley solar projects.
The two solar installations that make up the 579MW project have been described as the largest photovoltaic development in the world. Construction is expected to begin this quarter and be completed by the end of 2015….

The [self-snip] sons of syphilitic camels were not only not willing to pay these people for their homes but made them destroy and dismantle them at THEIR COST!
Anyone who thinks these government ‘Socialists’ have the best interests of the people at heart have their heads wedged.
California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law is given $737m of taxpayers’ money to build giant solar power plant in middle of the desert
Heck the project is not even in California, it is in Nevada.

Bruce Cobb
January 9, 2014 5:08 am

They really should be preparing for sharknadoes, which “could” happen. After all, the economic consequences of those would be severe as well. Think of the children. While they are at it, what about preparing for possible invasion by aliens from outer space? Indeed, with so many bogey men to “prepare” for, it hardly seems wise to simply settle on SLR.

January 9, 2014 5:18 am

And add Crescent City CA where for the last 80 years sea level has fallen at the rate of -.21 ft per century. But why muck up the narrative.

January 9, 2014 5:44 am

It is like that crappy “Day After Tomorrow” movie has become the guiding light for policymakers. From polar vortex to a might slr, policy makers are making a parody out of a fantasy.

tom s
January 9, 2014 6:01 am

Yet sea level continues to rise at 1-3mm/yr as it had likely done for centuries with no indication of accelerated rates. Prepare for that fools!

Gail Combs
January 9, 2014 6:05 am

Why doesn’t someone really scare these people and show them how the California coast (Pacific plate) is being subducted into the Mariana Trough and that the Pacific Plate is the fastest moving plate on earth.
California is at the edge of the North American Plate/ Pacific Plate where they are moving past each other. But one can always tell them the San Andreas Fault is the edge of the North American Plate and California is going to get sucked into the interior of the earth.

Tommy E
January 9, 2014 6:08 am

Jean Parisot says:
January 8, 2014 at 10:32 pm
Panic is clearly in order, all concerned should move to Illinois tomorrow.
NO! Don’t send them here, as we already have more than enough loons to go around.
And from a science perspective, why Illinois? The average elevation here is only 600ft above MSL with a minimum elevation of 279, and a maximum elevation of 1,235 ft. At that rate, California style sea level rise will inundate Illinois in just 4,430 years !!! I hope they put all of the doors back on the service tunnels under The Loop by then. I think I will by stock in Dayton Bag & Burlap, as there is going to be a rush on sandbags. (^_^)

Doctor Gee
January 9, 2014 6:11 am

Researchers at Southern Cal recently published a “study” of the potential impact of up to 66 inches of sea level rise on future storm damage events in the LA area in the 21st century as part of a “science-based” adaptation plan. As usual, science plays little role in establishing the basis for the projected sea level rise, which is “based on numeric climate models developed for the IPCC”.

Bill Illis
January 9, 2014 6:46 am

The San Francisco Tide gauge is now co-located with a GPS station.
GPS indicates the actual tide gauge station is sinking at 1.12 mms/year. Tide Gauge indicates sea level is rising at 1.68 mms/year. Actual sea level rise 0.56 mms/year.
Los Angeles GPS/Tide Gauge station sinking at 0.68 mms/year, Tide Gauge sea level rising at 1.27 mms/year. Actual sea level rise 0.59 mms/ year.
San Diego – two co-located stations. One has net sea level rise at 0.46 mm/year; the other has net sea level decline of -1.12 mms/ year.
Bookmark the Sonel site which is now the goto place for sea level and GPS montoring.

Rob aka Flatlander
January 9, 2014 6:56 am

OMG this is so ludicrous, I spent my vacation this year in SF and visited the Monterey Bay Aquarium, because I’m interested in all this Climate Change stuff my son and I paid particular attention to tidal gauge info. We also paid attention to the historical photos.
Alcatraz, the golden gate, fisherman’s wharf are NOT being flooded. Pictures of the construction of the Golden Gate and the design etc are the SAME!!! What an utter load of crap. Love how they convert to cm when convenient to get 2.54 times the reaction when posting numbers. Amazed they did not use mm. In this gallery they had a full year of tidal templates and historical tidal books that correlate past to present.
The fact that the entire coast of California lies on an active fault line? hmmmm the plate movement?

January 9, 2014 7:16 am

Notice no mention of a lack of global warming these days

January 9, 2014 7:18 am

Rob-the exploratorium was part of the NSF-funded constructivist science Centers for Learning and Teaching and is now committed via more federal grants to what is called Vygotskyian “informal learning.” Reality is not the focus. Politically useful perceptions are. The National Science Foundation even funds the curriculum development of what it calls Understandings of Consequence that will mesh with daily experiences to hopefully drive students believing in a need to take action for social change.
Which was actually what I came here to post about. The UK RSA in December said we are not going to debate climate change, we are moving straight to having governments mandate behavior and social change. The Garrison Institute in US with participants like Andy Rivkin from the NYT is doing the same. It is described here after the Synthesis Report for Action came out within last few days. Very alarming 20 page or so document from the Climate, Mind and Behavior Symposium.

Rob aka Flatlander
January 9, 2014 7:30 am

Just a thought on this sea level stuff, does anyone have a link to a Dutch (Nederland) historical sea level data? This country is mostly under sea level and any increase would be carefully watched. Also how many rivers have tidal reversal salinity issues? I didn’t find any googling that topic. It would be a huge issue as many delta areas are used for food production.

Tom J
January 9, 2014 7:37 am

Could this possibly mean that Leonardo DiCaprio’s going to relocate his California beachfront home to safer pastures such as Indiana? Or, does it mean that to avoid any further carbon disturbances in the Universe (and thus California’s beachfront) he’ll suddenly decline to take that carbon vomitting space flight on Virgin Galactic?
Or, is this thoroughgoing bunch of nonsense a form of reverse Robin Hoodism whereby us inland suckers get to transfer our meager wealth in the direction of the elites who can actually afford the beachfront homes that sea level rise may maybe, possibly, perhaps damage 100 years hence?

Jim Ryan
January 9, 2014 7:48 am


January 9, 2014 8:02 am

Reblogged this on World Examiner and commented:
more populist poppycock!

January 9, 2014 8:13 am

What California needs is an army of Rosa Koires. Too bad there is only 1 Rosa Koire.
These meetings look like they will be using the Delphi Technique. She’s an expert in UN Agenda 21 tactics and the Delphi Technique. She has first hand knowledge of these meetings and was an eminent domain expert in the San Francisco area:

Adrian O
January 9, 2014 9:56 am

Sea water levels are sneaky.
They grow at the usual 8in/century, unchanged, as all the gauges show.
Then, just when you expect it less, they grow by the remaining 50 inches.
As you look the other way.
All the Californian beaches should be kept empty, just in case!

Dave in Canmore
January 9, 2014 9:59 am

Anyone in California going to show up and present some tide gauge data to these parasites?

Adrian O
January 9, 2014 10:03 am

California could replace the southern fence with panels:

January 9, 2014 10:17 am

Bill Ellis
Can you post a link to data for a station at Sonel?

Bill Illis
January 9, 2014 10:53 am

phodges says:
January 9, 2014 at 10:17 am
Bill Illis
Can you post a link to data for a station at Sonel?
San Francisco GPS
Page will link you to the near-by tide gauge data held at the Permanent Mean Sea Level Service

January 9, 2014 10:58 am

No thoughts on this from the person that found it ? 🙂
“(h/t to Mosher)”
Oh well.

January 9, 2014 11:50 am

coastal tourism income will surely rise if the sea level rises
all those submerged human artifacts to scuba dive around and all those artificial reefs created as the waters cover the buildings. the shiny hotels with water right up to the restaurant window and gondolas park right outside, surely coastal tourism isnt dependant upn the geodesic psotion of the mean shore line.
The fish will live closer to the houses too so less C02 miles per tonne (ton) of caught fish and no more towing the boat to the marina to launch it, sounds like heaven to me
And how can ports, famous for silting up, loose income by having a deeper berth, I would have thought bigger boats means more income.
Welcome to downtown LA, and its Venice themed waterfront,
Or is that a Dutch themed watefront where nothing changes except the 6 foot high dyke (levee)
could have some nice windmills on them doing productive things like milling flour, what a tourist boom that wound be.

January 9, 2014 12:18 pm

The lighthouse is under the scrap cars

January 9, 2014 12:48 pm

Only one place in this entire document that is focused on sea level rise is there a graph of actual sea level rise. That does not occur until page 109 … and it shows that sea levels have been approximately flat (in the Bay Area) since the early 1980s. They even mention the “flat” period visible in the five-year average.
This is immediately followed with projections of meter-scale and multi-meter-scale rises.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

January 9, 2014 12:53 pm

‘“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.’
Yes, but every Scientist knows that the properties of CO2 are completely different in the 21st century. That’s why historically recorded warming is 0.8C (after adjustments), but predicted warming is anything up to +6C (Uni of NSW’s latest It’s Worse Than We Thought paper). It’s because of the Feedbacks ™ that didn’t exist in the previous 4,600,000,000 years.

Bob Diaz
January 9, 2014 12:55 pm

Bla, Bla, Bla, …
Solution: Let’s raise taxes, increase stupid regulations that don’t do anything, and cut back on people’s freedoms and choices.

F. Ross
January 9, 2014 1:01 pm

steveta_uk says:
January 9, 2014 at 2:07 am
I realize that my post was anecdotal only and therefore, not proof that the sea has not risen.
On the other hand, it is also possible that the local geological structures are rising [and thus lowering sea level locally]. And all the unknown unknowns are the whole point; there are too many “if,” “may,” “could” and other indefinite statements for me to believe the coastal commission.

January 9, 2014 1:53 pm

Per NOAA’s data, there has been essentially zero increase in sea level along the California coast for the past 30 years (1983-2013).
See Appendix, pgs 20 and 21 for graphs of sea level vs time. Published in May, 2013 so fairly recent.
The report shows similar zero or minimal sea level increase for several other US coastal areas, including Hawaii, Western Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic Bight, Southeastern Alaska, and Southern Alaska and Aleutian Islands.
It is irrational to worry about sea level rise when the clear evidence shows there is no cause for concern.

January 9, 2014 2:40 pm

You would think that seeking independent scientific advice on sea level rise would be a good thing wouldn’t you! However here in NZ such a study has concluded that the IPCC has underestimated the sea level rise by 2115 by 100%!!!! I’m Sure further studies will be needed to confirm this.

Rob aka Flatlander
January 9, 2014 7:52 pm

Crazy idea Land ponzi – Let’s start a new corporation selling future ocean side property ( a block or two back ) and then use the money to buy ocean side ( currently submerged) futures from the government, either way the govt wins.

Bill Illis
January 10, 2014 3:26 am

Tim says:
January 9, 2014 at 2:40 pm
You would think that seeking independent scientific advice on sea level rise would be a good thing wouldn’t you! However here in NZ such a study has concluded that the IPCC has underestimated the sea level rise by 2115 by 100%!!!! I’m Sure further studies will be needed to confirm this.
The eastern side of New Zealand is actually sinking. Probably a combination of being an island sub-continent in the middle/side of an oceanic plate which is slowly sinking in the mantle and the extra weight of the sea water on land which was previously above sea level during the ice ages (isostatic adjustment). Its a fairly high number exceeding 1.0 mm/year. New Zealand was probably submerged about 20 million years ago but has been raised up as it overrode the Pacific plate. The process may have stopped now and is going the other way again.

January 10, 2014 10:32 am

The California Coastal Commission [CCC] is a bureaucrat’s wet dream. It was set up by an initiative, and commissioners are all very wealthy, far-Left meddlers who take pride in rejecting anyone’s petition to improve their coastal property. The property doesn’t even need to be near the coast.
There was a recent article [I’ll try to find it] that showed the flaming hoops that a petitioner was forced to jump through in order to improve his property. Naturally, he was rejected in the end.
This kicker to the story: a CCC commissioner wanted to improve his own property, and his application sailed through, getting approved in record time.
The CCC is an undemocratic, thoroughly corrupt bureaucracy; one of many in California [like actor Rob Reiner’s 50¢ a pack cigarette tax, which his initiative-created bureaucracy gets to spend however they like].
The CCC should be abolished immediately, due to its uncompensated ‘taking’ of the property belonging to private citizens. But because it was created via initiative, getting rid of it would be almost impossible.

January 10, 2014 2:51 pm

A heads up that the deadline for comments is 5 pm Wednesday, January 15, 2014, i.e. this coming Wednesday.
I’m not sure where the 5th Feb comes from in the article.

January 10, 2014 3:54 pm

Sorry, not sure where the Feb 14th comes from.

January 10, 2014 7:12 pm

I’ve been sending comments in, e.g:
Page 125 says:
“The NRC projections stop at 2100 and provide no guidance for extrapolation of the range of sea-level rise projections past that time.”
and (the 38 footnote)
“2.6 – 7.5 meters of sea-level rise over the next 2,000 years”
Current SLR is 2mm/year
NCR projection is 16.7mm/year at the high end,
2.6 – 7.5 meters over the next 2,000 years is 1.3 to 3.7mm/year
Q1) How can you reconcile the peak estimate of 3.7mm/year with the the NRC projection of 16.7mm/year?
On page 17 it states:
“The [NRC] projections also only provide estimated sea-level rise ranges through 2100, although sea level will continue to rise at an accelerating rate beyond the end of the century.”
Q2) On what is this assertion of “accelerating rate” beyond this century based? Any scientific reference? Especially since on page 125 it states the NRC provide “no guidance for extrapolation .. past 2100”.
Q3) Note 38 on page 125 (see above) gives a peak SLR of 3.7mm/year, this is a reduction in rate compared to the NRC projections, so this contradicts the assertion accelerating rate, in fact it is a decreasing rate. Does this need to be corrected?

January 10, 2014 7:51 pm

Seeing as California is having a lot of uplift, sea level rise is exactly a zero concern issue. The yacht harbor at Alviso is now a reed bed in the process of becoming dry land in my lifetime. Hardly an issue of drowning coastlines…
We’ve had several FEET of rise in some coastal mountains during ONE earthquake.
Heck, most of the coast has cliffs of about 50 foot or more height, with a little scrap of sand at the bottom due to the very rapid rate of uplift happening.
This is just so insane.
Having been born in the State, and lived there for 60 way too long years, I’m incredibly happy to have escaped from there to Florida. (BTW, in cooling episodes when the Gulf Stream slows down, Florida warms up… the choice was not accidental…)

January 13, 2014 6:18 pm

Decide the breed of dog you want to cultivate. , Charleston, SC: 15.
This time frame accounts for approximately 2,000 generations of humans since the great split,
during which time modern genetic features developed

Brian H
January 19, 2014 12:58 pm

Steve Richards says:
January 8, 2014 at 11:12 pm
@Neil Jordan: Latent sea level rise — is the sea level rise hiding in the deep ocean where we can’t measure it? 🙂

No, it’s hiding in Antarctica, where we also apparently can’t measure it!

%d bloggers like this: