Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The L. A. Times takes despicable propaganda advantage of the recent and tragic Encinitas bluff collapse to hype future bluff erosion impacts from 2 meter sea level rise increases that would in fact take over 9+ centuries to occur at existing NOAA tide gauge coastal sea level rise measurement rates.
The Times article notes:
“The sea is rising higher and faster in California — a reality more officials are now confronting. Just last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that amended the state’s Coastal Act to say that sea level rise is no longer a question but a fact.
“With sea level rise, there’s no doubt that we’ll see more cliff failures along the coast,” said Patrick Barnard, research director of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Climate Impacts and Coastal Processes Team.”
The “bill” referred to in the Times article simply adds the words “sea level rise” to the list of issues to be considered for coastal planning contained in Section 300006.5 of the Public Resources Code.
The Times article grossly mischaracterizes and misrepresents the issue of coastal sea level rise by claiming that this change means “that sea level rise is no longer a question but a fact.”
Either this Times reporter is incredibly incompetent or she is being incredibly devious and disingenuous in trying to frame the issue as being whether sea level rise is occurring on California coastal regions or not.
As the diagram below clearly shows sea level rise has been occurring since the end of the last ice age some 20,000 years ago with the last 8,000 years showing low rates of increase.
The controversial sea level rise issue related to climate science has always been whether coastal sea level rise is accelerating not whether it is occurring.
Nowhere does the Times reporter ever mention or address the critical climate science issue of sea level rise acceleration.
There are two long time period NOAA tide gauge measurement stations located near the region of the bluff collapse. These stations are located at San Diego and La Jolla.
These NOAA tide gauge measurement stations have data recorded periods of 112 years from 1906 through 2018. Neither of these stations shows any acceleration of coastal sea level rise during these measurement periods.
The rates of coastal sea level rise at these locations are a consistent 8.5 to 8.6 inches per century as shown below.
The 2 meter sea level rise that the reporter speculatively postulates in this Times article would take 9+ centuries to occur.
This Times reporter has written a number of prior L. A. Times climate alarmist propaganda articles about future sea level rise and has not addressed the issue by using actually measured NOAA coastal tide gauge sea level rise data. She has always addressed future sea level rise based solely upon speculation and conjecture derived from computer models in trying to justify her future sea level rise assertions and this article is no different.
The diagram below shows her attempt to justify the 2 meter future sea level rise speculation resulting in up to 130 feet of future bluff erosion outcome by 2100 using results from a study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2018.
This study contains the following characterization of its significant limitations:
“A calibrated, but unvalidated, ensemble was applied to the 475-km-long coastline of Southern California (USA), with four SLR scenarios of 0.5, 0.93, 1.5, and 2 m by 2100. Results suggest that future retreat rates could increase relative to mean historical rates by more than twofold for the higher SLR scenarios, causing an average total land loss of 19–41 m by 2100. However, model uncertainty ranges from ±5 to 15 m, reflecting the inherent difficulties of projecting cliff retreat over multiple decades. To enhance ensemble performance, future work could include weighting each model by its skill in matching observations in different morphological settings.”
Therefore we have yet another L. A. Times article pushing sea level rise climate alarmist propaganda that ignores and conceals 112 year long time period NOAA tide gauge data measurements while hyping computer models that are “unvalidated” and subject to the pure speculation and conjecture of “retreat rates could increase” from the studies authors.
Furthermore the Times article deliberately misrepresents and mischaracterizes the issue of sea level rise by concealing that acceleration is what is driving this issues controversy not whether sea level rise is or is not occurring.
The prior articles this Times reporter have written about sea level rise do not address sea level rise acceleration or NOAA tide gauge sea level rise measurement data.
Climate alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise are unsupported by globally measured tide gauge data as addressed in a recent study in the Journal of Geophysical Research which concluded that based on actual measurements there was “no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past 100+ years.”
The exploitation of the tragic bluff accident in Encinitas by the Times to push its climate alarmist sea level rise propaganda is despicable.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wrote the following comment on this article on the Times website:
“The Times article notes:
“The sea is rising higher and faster in California — a reality more officials are now confronting. Just last week, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that amended the state’s Coastal Act to say that sea level rise is no longer a question but a fact.
“With sea level rise, there’s no doubt that we’ll see more cliff failures along the coast,” said Patrick Barnard, research director of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Climate Impacts and Coastal Processes Team.”
The “bill” referred to in the Times article simply adds the words “sea level rise” to the list of issues to be considered for coastal planning contained in Section 300006.5 of the Public Resources Code.
The Times article grossly mischaracterizes and misrepresents the issue of coastal sea level rise by claiming that this change means “that sea level rise is no longer a question but a fact.”
Either the writer of this Times article is incredibly incompetent or she is being incredibly devious and disingenuous in trying to frame the issue as being whether sea level rise is occurring on California coastal regions or not.
Sea level rise has been occurring since the end of the last ice age some 20,000 years ago with the last 8,000 years showing low rates of increase.
The controversial sea level rise issue related to climate science has always been whether coastal sea level rise is accelerating not whether it is occurring.
Nowhere does the Times reporter ever mention or address the critical climate science issue of sea level rise acceleration.
There are two long time period NOAA tide gauge measurement stations located near the region of the bluff collapse. These stations are located at San Diego and La Jolla.
These NOAA tide gauge measurement stations have data recorded periods of 112 years from 1906 through 2018. Neither of these stations shows any acceleration of coastal sea level rise during these measurement periods.
The rates of coastal sea level rise at these locations are a consistent 8.5 to 8.6 inches per century.
The 2 meter sea level rise that the reporter speculatively postulates in this Times article would take 9+ centuries to occur.
This Times reporter has written a number of prior L. A. Times climate alarmist propaganda articles about future sea level rise and has not addressed the issue by using actually measured NOAA coastal tide gauge sea level rise data. She has always addressed future sea level rise based solely upon speculation and conjecture derived from computer models in trying to justify her future sea level rise assertions and this article is no different.
The diagram in the article attempts to justify the 2 meter future sea level rise speculation resulting in up to 130 feet of future bluff erosion outcome by 2100 using results from a study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2018.
This study contains the following characterization of its significant limitations:
“A calibrated, but unvalidated, ensemble was applied to the 475-km-long coastline of Southern California (USA), with four SLR scenarios of 0.5, 0.93, 1.5, and 2 m by 2100. Results suggest that future retreat rates could increase relative to mean historical rates by more than twofold for the higher SLR scenarios, causing an average total land loss of 19–41 m by 2100. However, model uncertainty ranges from ±5 to 15 m, reflecting the inherent difficulties of projecting cliff retreat over multiple decades. To enhance ensemble performance, future work could include weighting each model by its skill in matching observations in different morphological settings.”
Therefore we have yet another L. A. Times article pushing sea level rise climate alarmist propaganda that ignores and conceals 112 year long time period NOAA tide gauge data measurements while hyping computer models that are “unvalidated” and subject to the pure speculation and conjecture of “retreat rates could increase” from the studies authors.
Furthermore the Times article deliberately misrepresents and mischaracterizes the issue of sea level rise by concealing that acceleration is what is driving this issues controversy not whether sea level rise is or is not occurring.
The prior articles this Times reporter have written about sea level rise do not address sea level rise acceleration or NOAA tide gauge sea level rise measurement data.
Climate alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise are unsupported by globally measured tide gauge data as addressed in a recent study in the Journal of Geophysical Research which concluded that based on actual measurements there was “no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past 100+ years.”
The comment was removed with the following note provided:
“This articles one of a handful of stories we open to comments each day because we want this to be a space where you can have an in-depth, meaningful conversation. Journalists involved in reporting, writing,editing and promotion of this story may drop in to answer questions you have or address your concerns. Articles with comments enabled can be found on the homepage.
This is a new system for us and we are working on improvements. Please post your feedback to our reader representative.
Please be polite. It’s OK to disagree with someone’s ideas. But personnel attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. You can also ignore specific comments. Read more about our comments standards in our frequently asked questions.”
An average attention span of a LA Times reader is 3 lines. A 5-line comment might be tolerated, but you went definitely overboard.
Write all the words you like to write, the L.A. Times won’t publish them.
Los Angeles Times: Op-Ed Letters Denying Climate Change Don’t Get Published | HuffPost
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/la-times-global-warming-climate-change_n_4072867
The L.A. Times won’t publish letters from climate deniers | Salon.com
https://www.salon.com/test/2013/10/09/the_la_times_wont_publish_letters_from_climate_deniers/
Larry Hamlin:
Your attempt at scientific persuasion was doomed from the start. Ever since the Chandlers sold the L.A. Times decades ago, its editorial stance on issues has dictated whether any intelligent opposition gets published on its pages. That’s how they foster the illusion that their stance is virtually indisputable.
For those clueless readers who buy the sea-level-rise scare, the most persuasive counterpoint is that Scripps Institution, whose lower campus sits on an even a lower sandstone bluff than coastal Encintas, has absolutely no plans to sell that acreage at any price, let alone at a discount from prevailing La Jolla values.
Larry Hamlin:
You called their bluff. Nicely done.
Larry Hamlin:
You called their bluff. Nicely done.
According to a book published by the University of California Press, “more than 600 feet of retreat occurred between 1883 and 1891” in Encinitas. That’s based on railroad surveys. Bluff erosion isn’t new and isn’t going away. Today it’s caused by increased groundwater due to overwatering, removal of former bluff-top dunes, etc. as well as the relentless pounding of ocean waves. It’s certainly not something that is going to be stopped regardless of what actions are taken to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
Here’s the reference for my quote. See figure 8b.
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft0h4nb01z&chunk.id=d0e918&toc.id=d0e918&brand=ucpress
The gap between the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth in the UK used to be solid chalk cliffs. They are all gone now. Must have been destroyed by SUV use.
Portuguese Bend, anyone?
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that sea level height has little to do with the rate of erosion and only to do with where it happens on the cliff face. If anything, lower sea levels would lead to more loss of cliffs as the waves would be undercutting a much higher cliff face that could no longer support itself.
Another article from the LA Times about their cliff erosion issues. It’s not as AGW alarmist as it is a description of the failure of The California State Gov. to come up with solutions that work. Thus far, they’ve spent a lot of money only to find the ocean is boss and sand does not stay where you put it.
The California coast is disappearing under the rising sea. Our choices are grim
https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-sea-level-rise-california-coast/
…In 2001, officials in San Diego County pumped about 2 million cubic yards of sand from offshore onto 12 beaches — the first large-scale attempt by California officials to add sand to disappearing beaches. It cost city, state and federal taxpayers $17.5 million.
The effort was short-lived. Most of the beaches had narrowed significantly by the following year. The extra sand, Griggs found, “was removed within a day when the first large waves of the winter arrived.” A second attempt by the county — with twice as much money — yielded similar results…
Change the cliffs to massive granite.
It’s as simple as that.
Do away with sandy sandstones and soft limestones.
Sandstone and limestone cliffs could be eliminated by imposing a tax on them.
The existential threat is the merger of agenda science with current events headline writing.
The LA Times is a tree killing machine . It won’t take even 9 years before the LA Times is bankrupt .
what do you do when you have gone all in on a massive fraud ?
It’s like Madcow viewer drop after her hyper ventilated Mueller Report bombed and Mueller came out looking like a dazed and confused lip dribbler .
diagram below clearly shows sea level rise has been occurring since the end of the last ice age some 20,000 years ago with the last 8,000 –> diagram below clearly shows sea level rise has been occurring since the beginn of the last interglacial some 20,000 years ago with the last 8,000