Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The L A Times seems to be addicted to publishing scientifically unsupported climate alarmist articles regarding supposed sea level rise acceleration in Florida.
Just last September the Times published an article on this same topic which was exposed as nothing but climate alarmist propaganda (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/19/l-a-times-climate-science-denial-article-instead-shows-the-times-clearly-denying-well-established-climate-science/).
This most recent Times article repeats scientifically unsupported claims of accelerating sea level rise as well as claims of increasing rainfall in Florida caused by increasing man made CO2 emissions (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-helvarg-florida-climate-change-denial-and-action-20161202-story.html).
As discussed in the prior What’s Up With That article regarding Florida coastline sea level rise rates long time period NOAA tide gauge data updated through 2015 measurements from numerous locations around Florida clearly establishes that coastal sea level rise is not accelerating along Florida coastlines but instead remains steady and consistent with long term NOAA tide gauge measurements.
Claims in the most recent L A Times article speculate that the rate of Florida coastal sea level rise is accelerating to a “conservatively projected 3 feet” per century are likely based on (http://cpo.noaa.gov/sites/cpo/Reports/2012/NOAA_SLR_r3.pdf) a government report created by Obama’s National Climate Assessment initiative.
The range of coastal sea rise projections from this report vary between 8 inches to 6 feet over the next century with an average value of 3 feet.
Most significantly however the range of estimates of coastal sea level rise projected in this report are devoid of any degree of certainty as clearly noted in the report as follows:
Thus the assertion that a projection of Florida future sea level rise of 3 feet per century is clearly not “conservative” is in fact pure climate alarmist speculation.
Additionally the claims in this latest piece of climate alarmism journalism from the Times asserting that Florida is seeing increased rainfall levels are also completely unsupported by Florida rainfall climate data (http://climatecenter.fsu.edu/products-services/data/statewide-averages/precipitation).
This data going back as far as 1895 clearly shows that the highest levels of annual rainfall in Florida occurred in the years 1947 and 1959 at 72.57 and 71.26 inches of rainfall respectively.
Annual Florida rainfall for the period from year 2000 through the latest recorded month in 2016 show no increasing trend in annual rainfall whatsoever nor any annual rainfall amount even close to the peak years of 1947 and 1959.
This latest L A Times article is just another example the papers scientifically unsupported climate alarmist propaganda agenda which is completely devoid of any credible science and demonstrates why the Times had to institute it’s dictatorial censorship policy in its discussion of climate issues which are purely driven by political ideology not science.
The biggest joke is here out West. Unlike the East Coast we are overall not subsiding. The only areas subsiding are certain basins with graben-like characteristics or at least a degree of downwarping, and, places affected by subsidence caused by oil and water extraction. All other areas are either doing nothing or are in uplift. Classic case of the latter is San Francisco. There is no perceptible rise along the SF waterfront. There is minor subsidence due to ongoing fill compaction. Nonetheless, local media hype “the coming inundation.” We’ll see how seriously people who actually own infrastructure, sea defenses and flood control take it. I’ll believe it when real money goes into levee construction along the SF waterfront. Anything less tells me it’s a bunch of BS.
On the same day, the LAT’s also published this in their lackless paper: http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-garcetti-20161130-story.html
Begins on this note:
Bangkok is subsiding at such a rate, that it could be under water in 75 years even if there was no global SLR.
The Clinton’s and our State Dept have obviously been VERY concerned with sea level rise…not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eko_Atlantic
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/17/politics/clinton-foundation-chagoury-state-department/
Well, in all honesty, each time Billie Jeff and KIllery flop their bloated, walrus like forms into any body of water the “sea level” does rise.
The biggest joke is here out West. Unlike the East Coast we are overall not subsiding. The only areas subsiding are certain basins with graben-like characteristics or at least a degree of downwarping, and, places affected by subsidence caused by oil and water extraction. All other areas are either doing nothing or are in uplift chữa thoát vị đĩa đệm ở đâu tốt. Classic case of the latter is San Francisco. There is no perceptible rise along the SF waterfront. There is minor subsidence due to ongoing fill compaction. Nonetheless, local media hype “the coming inundation.” We’ll see how seriously people who actually own infrastructure, sea defenses and flood control take it. I’ll believe it when real money goes into levee construction along the SF waterfront. Anything less tells me it’s a bunch of BS.