California and the L. A. Times latest climate alarmist absurdities

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

An L. A. Times story addressed climate alarmist claims made in a report by the State’s Natural Resources Agency hyping its dire speculation and conjecture based on “climate models” whose “projections” we are supposed to believe represent real world outcomes.


The Times article fails to note the UN IPCC conclusions regarding the undisputed inadequacy of  “climate models” which it described in its AR3 climate report as “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

The Times article provides speculative alarmist “model driven” assertions about future coastal sea level rise contained in the state’s report which it characterizes as “Until recently, scientists and state policymakers worked with a projection that sea level rise by the end of this century could amount to about 5.48 feet in California under the worst case scenario. But the latest reports and state policies are now accounting for the extreme possibility that sea level rise could exceed 9 feet.”

Of course as is always the case with these wild and absurd sea level rise claims actual California coastal sea level rise measured NOAA tide gauge data with records going back more than 100 years is completely ignored by the state and L. A. Times because it shows absolutely no coastal sea level rise acceleration occurring at the states coastal locations with sea level rise occurring at steady rates between about 3 to 8 inches per CENTURY.



The Times article notes the reports claims about the states wildfire history and attempts to link the reports “climate model” projections to these fires by noting that  “The projections come as Californians contend with destructive wildfires, brutal heat spells and record ocean temperatures that scientists say have the fingerprints of global warming.”

The Times article completely ignores the states Little Hoover Commission report issued in February which strongly criticized the role California government played in mismanaging the forests and urgently recommending the need for the state to dramatically change its disastrous forest management polices which are driving more damaging and destructive wildfires throughout the state.


Specifically the report notes that:

“The Little Hoover Commission released a new report Monday, calling for a dramatic culture change in the way forests are managed to curb a disastrous cycle of wildfire and tree deaths.

Instead of focusing almost solely on fire suppression, the state must institute wide-scale controlled burns and other strategic measures as a tool to reinvigorate forests, inhibit firestorms and help protect air and water quality, according to the Commission’s report, Fire on the Mountain: Rethinking Forest Management in the Sierra Nevada.

Immediate action is crucial, according to Pedro Nava, chair of the Little Hoover Commission. “Dead trees due to drought and a century of forest mismanagement have devastated scenic landscapes throughout the Sierra range,” said Chair Nava. “Rural counties and homeowners alike are staggering under the financial impacts of removing them. We have catastrophe-scale fire danger throughout our unhealthy forests and a growing financial burden for all taxpayers and government like California has never seen.

Over the course of the Commission’s year-long study, the number of dead trees in the Sierra rose from 102 million to 129 million.”

The Times article notes that the report claims that 20th century warming is driven by greenhouse gases without offering anything but biased speculation to support such assertions when it states: “California has already warmed 1 to 2 degrees since the beginning of the 20th century as a result of the human-caused buildup of greenhouse gases.”

Further using the reports “climate model” projections the Times claims future temperature increases could far exceed 20th century temperature growth by stating: “That figure could rise to between 5.6 degrees and 8.8 degrees by 2100, depending on the amount and rate of pollution spewed into the atmosphere, according to the report.”

Climate models projections have been found to be scientifically inadequate by the UN IPCC. In addition “climate models” have shown that they notoriously overstate future projected temperatures as noted Dr. Christy in his Congressional Testimony before Congress in 2017.


The so called new report by the State’s Natural Resources Agency and the Times article addressing this report is just more of the same absurd scientifically unsupported climate alarmism speculation and conjecture propaganda that Gov. Brown and the L. A Times have been pushing for years.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bruce Cobb
August 29, 2018 5:29 am

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”
Vladimir Lenin

Gary Hudson
August 29, 2018 5:35 am

If California REALLY believes the pacific ocean will rise 9 ft in the next 80 years, then they should start building a 10 ft sea wall. This will surely benefit the state without impoverishing other areas by banning/curtailing fossil fuel use. Partial clearing of the forests is probably of great benefit in the long run, but will run afoul of the greenies who will insist it will cause a rise in CO2 in the near term.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Gary Hudson
August 29, 2018 5:41 am

The wall needs to be built on the eastern side of Kalifornia.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Gary Hudson
August 29, 2018 7:00 am

If the sea level rises by 9′, but only in CA then the ocean will have a slope. That’ll make water-skiing so much easier!

Reply to  Gary Hudson
August 29, 2018 9:07 am

Sell the coast lands now for $0.10 on the dollar and save yourselves now. If Californians believe this, put you money where your mouths are. I’ll buy and i’m Sure there will be many more. I’ll take some of that yet to be underwater property now.

Mike Bryant
August 29, 2018 5:59 am

We are in for an unimaginable struggle against the forces of collectivism, globalism and sheer stupidity. I hope we’re up for it.

michael hart
August 29, 2018 6:02 am

Sometimes I almost feel sorry for politicians.
Even if they honestly want to know the truth and ‘Do the right thing’ they are so often surrounded by corrupt agencies and complete liars who will feed them information to suit their own agenda. And that is before the NGOs with their media lackeys come knocking the door down. I often ask myself “What would I do in their situation?”

August 29, 2018 6:12 am

The Little Hoover Commission …

… investigates state government operations and promotes efficiency, economy and improved service … link

It’s like the Auditors General in other jurisdictions. A good Auditor General can point out stupid and wasteful government policies and save the people much money and misery.

If politicians think they can sweep crap under the rug they will do really stupid things. If they fear the Auditor General, politicians will be much more careful.

There was an Auditor General’s report in Ontario just before the latest election. link The Liberals were probably doomed anyway but the report may have been the last nail in the coffin.

I hope the people of California pay very close attention to the Little Hoover Commission.

steve case
August 29, 2018 7:14 am

Sea level is routinely hyped by our wonderful media. Here’s a recent headline & link

31 communities at risk from flooding and erosion, but
water levels in much of coastal Alaska aren’t monitored

The map at NOAA’s Tides and Currents
shows that Alaskan sea levels are dropping.

August 29, 2018 7:56 am

Isn’t state-level fear mongering illegal ? It should be. This seems like a form of consumer fraud, since people rely on news media for truthful information — they buy into the news media with an expectation of acquiring some semblance of accuracy. If the media should be reasonably expected to know the accuracy or inaccuracy of certain facts, and yet frame issues around these facts as truth, then the media is being fraudulent, causing emotional distress, at the least.

Neil Jordan
August 29, 2018 8:05 am

CA and LA Times left out another pesky detail, FEMA’s coastal study. See:
California Coastal Analysis and Mapping Project-Open Pacific Coast (CCAMP-OPC). The study is a joint effort with FEMA, NOAA, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and coastal engineers, two of whom I have talked to. From 16 long-term tide gages, OPC recommends about 2 mm/year sea level rise focused on San Francisco´s record. Average is 1.69 mm/yr, standard deviation is 1.22 mm/yr, net of subsidence or uplift. That comes out to about (cue trumpet fanfare) 6 inches by 2100. An anemic snail could crawl out of harm’s way faster.

August 29, 2018 9:43 am

Compilations of multiple tidal locations on sea level rise indicate that average sea level responds to the degree of global temperature change. In the Los Angeles sea rise graph, from the 1998 El Nino until today, sea level at LA rose about 20 centimeters over 20 years, or about 10 mm/yr — higher than global rise rate of ~3 mm/yr. Over 1958 to 1998, sea level generally rose about 12 cm over 40 years, or ~3 mm/yr.

Local sea rise is quite variable among different locations and over time. Reasons are variations in local sea surfaces due to currents, tides, temperature, and other factors (including el Nino), and to vertical changes in the sea shore (typically uniform over short times). For a particular location, what the local sea level is doing is far more important than what the global average sea level (determined by satellite) is doing.

August 29, 2018 10:08 am

Correction to my above comment on LA sea rise rate. I used the San Diego rate. The LA rate is lower.
Another comment on sea rise.
It is estimated that about half of the global, satellite-measured sea rise rate of ~3 mm/yr is caused by warming of the ocean. If we assume the globe warmed ~0.7C and sea level at LA rose 0.15 cm since 1920 (~1.7 mm/yr), we might infer that another global warming by 0.7C might produce a similar sea rise at LA.
Definitely not a worry.
The other half of sea rise derives from melting glacial ice, of which melting of non-polar mountain glaciers produces more melt than either Greenland or Antarctica currently produce. But the remaining mountain glacial ice is limited, and likely cannot produce more than 1 meter of sea rise (probably less) if all of it melted.
Greenland sheet ice is melting faster than west Antarctica ice (east Antarctica ice is growing). So whether LA will experience a significantly growing sea level probably depends on the Greenland melting rate. At that current GL melting rate, possibly 1,000 years would be required to melt it all.

August 29, 2018 11:43 am

Larry wrote: “actual California coastal sea level rise measured NOAA tide gauge data with records going back more than 100 years is completely ignored by the state and L. A. Times because it shows absolutely no coastal sea level rise acceleration occurring at the states coastal locations with sea level rise occurring at steady rates between about 3 to 8 inches per CENTURY.”

If you did a multiple linear regression of sea level vs t and t^2, you would find that acceleration (twice the regression coefficient for t^2) in indistinguishable from zero, but that the 95% confidence interval for acceleration is relatively wide. Sea level rise at a single tide gauge is far to noisy (due to changing winds and currents) for acceleration to be detected. (Since that noise is similar in LA and SD, you can also see the likely effect of local vertical motion in the doubled rate of SLR in SD.)

Furthermore, there is good to suspect that the SLR began to accelerate sometime after 1975 when the rate of warming rose. Tide gauge data is so noisy that the 95% confidence interval for the rate of rise since 1975 could include zero. (To properly calculate a 95% confidence interval you need to account for auto-correlation in the data. For satellite altimeter, 18 months of sea level data produces one independent measurement.)

So, data from a tide gauge is totally incapable of telling us ANYTHING USEFUL about acceleration and is barely useful for determining an AVERAGE rate of rise over a period of a half-century or more, not over a one or two decade. To say anything useful about sea level rise and acceleration over a one or a few decades, one needs dozens of tide gauges or satellite altimeter, which provide more data to average out noise.

One shortcut to thinking about accelerating SLR is to realize that the current rate of global sea level rise is about 1 inch/decade and that we need to experience an acceleration of 1 inch/decade/decade to reach 36 inches of SLR rise by the end of the century (the infamous 1 m). If SLR rose to 2 inches/decade by 2030, we would be on track to experience roughly 1 m of SLR by the end of the century. The problem is that is would take far longer that one decade to accurately measure an average rate of SLR at a single tide gauge. So even if the rate of rise DOUBLED in the next decade, a single tide gauge is incapable of detecting this change.

1 inch/decade in less tangible terms is 2.5 mm/yr and 1 inch/decade/decade is 0.25 mm/yr. The statistically-significant acceleration recently reported from a quarter-century of satellite altimetry data (which has been – and could continue to be – the subject of large to systematic error corrections) is about 0.075 +/- 0.25 mm/yr, about ONE THIRD the amount needed to produce 1 m of SLR by the end of the century. This puts SLR on track for the central estimate of the IPCC’s projections. Doubling to 2 inches per decade at the current rate of acceleration will take about three decade – 2050.

August 31, 2018 7:34 am

The whole key to this sorry argument is the action of a force called surface tension. Surface tension blocks heat from penetrating the ocean surface, it does not block radiated energy from the sun. Radiated energy heats gas as it passes through the atmosphere but because of the existence of surface tension that physical heat can not penetrate the ocean surface thats why the computer models are all wrong. If you want to test what I’m saying get yourself a heat gun and try heating a bucket of water through the surface

%d bloggers like this: