Public Radio: Things Ill-Considered

Guest Essay by Kip Hansen


FEATURED_IMAGE_NPRPublic Radio is the United States’ sort-of-analog of the United Kingdom’s BBC.  While there is a National Public Radio,  the various stations in the network are independently owned, usually by public bodies like universities — and subscribe to content from NPR and other content producers such as American Public Media, Public Radio International, Public Radio Exchange and WNYC Studios. Many also produce their own programs locally.  Almost all public radio stations in the US have always been far-left of center on political and social issues, they have recently begun to mirror the BBC’s editorial policy of broadcasting any and all alarmist climate change stories without any attempt to verify any information offered as factual, as long as it is in line with the “climate change as catastrophe” meme.

The most recent example came as a real surprise to me last month, when a segment was aired about the threats of sea level rise in the San Francisco Bay area of California.    The public radio host was interviewing an advocate/activist from some California-based environmental group about sea level rise in San Francisco Bay.

The punch line of the piece was that “sea level in San Francisco is expected to rise by 7 to 10 feet by 2100” and would thus be a threat even to Silicon Valley.

[ Note:  I have spent way too much time attempting to find a trace of the exact content provider that created the story, including emailing NPR’s  All Things Considered — to no avail. NPR could not find any such content in programs they produced.  I have checked the web sites of APM, PRI and PRX.  They don’t list such a program.   The segment I refer to was broadcast on WAMC (Northeast Public Radio out of Albany, NY) in early August 2019.  My wife and I  heard it, and I commented on it at the time… and it could have been produced by any one of the dozens of content providers to public radio stations. ]

7 to 10 feet expected?

This pronouncement was accepted by the program host without the slightest hesitation or question — despite it being almost double  the  worst-case scenarios from the IPCC.

Let’s look at the real data first, mostly in images, all from the IPCC or NOAA sources:

Past Sea level Rise in San Francisco


The 100-year regional graph for Southern and Central California, which includes San Francisco Bay, shows a long term steady, even rise across the century with about a 6 inch rise in Relative Sea Level.  An eyeball analysis shows what appears to be a leveling off of RSLR, not much happening, since the 1980s.


Snay et al. (2007) examined Vertical Land Movement (VLM) from Continuously Operating GPS Stations (see NOAA CORS) for San Francisco (underlined in yellow, but still hard to see) and determined that the Tide Gauges show a long-term trend of 2.13 mm/year in RSLR (relative sea level rise) and a 1.3 mm/year trend in Absolute SLR (how much the surface of the sea is actually rising), the difference being the 0.83 mm/year of downward vertical land movement (land sinking).   At this rate, RSLR would amount to an additional 6.7 inches (about 170 mm)  by 2100.


Want a more recent analysis?  Again, from NOAA just above, in 2013, based on a 150 year record, Mean Sea Level Trend (relative) is 2.01 mm/yr, taking into account a negative VLM (downward) of 0.36 mm/year.  Again, 80 years of 2.01 mm/yr will bring 161 mms of SLR or about 6.3 inches by 2100.


In keeping with the previously shown records, NOAAs Tides and Currents service for San Francisco shows the same long steady tiny rise of 1.96 mm/year, since the “datum shift” caused by the 1906 Great San Francisco Earthquake.

In the San Francisco Bay, at Alameda Air Station, we see:


What are we not seeing in this data?  We are not seeing any acceleration of sea level rise in the San Francisco Bay area.

Future Sea Level Rise in San Francisco

 What does the IPCC actually project for global sea level rise over the next 80 years, to 2100?


This graph (above) from the Fourth Assessment Report (2007)  shows a maximum projection for global sea level rise of 500 mm — one half a meter or about one and a half feet.  This projection is three times the actual RSL rise in San Francisco over the latest century.


The IPCC upped the ante (above) in the Fifth Assessment Report .  Making a projection specifically for San Francisco (among other cities) with its infamous RCP8.5 gives a likely spread ranging from less than 0.4 meters to almost 1 meter — or 1.4 to 3 feet.  RCP8.5 is considered by many to be improbable and by some to be impossible.

Forbes magazine published (June 2018) an article by Earl J. Ritchie of the University of Houston, titled “Is the IPCC Wrong about Sea Level Rise?” in which he concluded that a “rise greater than 1 meter in this century is highly unlikely”.

Satellite altimetry pegs SLR in a range from 2.6mm/yr to 3.4 mm/yr.  As of today, NOAA says 2.9 ±  0.4 mm/year.  Even the higher estimate only gives us globally 272 mm by 2100, or about 11 inches.

Oft Repeated — but FALSE — meme:

“The pace of global sea level rise nearly doubled from 1.7 mm/year throughout most of the twentieth century to 3.1 mm/year since 1993.”

This statement conflates the long-term tide gauge record with the satellite altimetry data.  Global long-term tide gauge data still shows sea level rise in the 1.7-2.0 mm/yr range.  Tide gauge data does not show 3.1 mm/yr since 1993.  Satellite altimetry shows 3.1 mm/yr since 1993 (actually, current satellite rate is 2.9 mm/yr).

So, where in the world could this 7 to 10 feet “expected sea level rise” come from?

One source of higher projections of sea level come from a single report, Bamber et al. (2019), edited by Stefan Rahmstorf.  [Note that, Rahmstorf “is a co-founder of the blog Real Climate”].  The report is not a study of measured sea level rise nor is it a study of measured ice sheet contributions to sea level rise.  Instead, it is a type of consensus report, a report of combined “structured expert judgement”,  about projected future ice sheet contributions to Sea Level Rise from 22 experts.  The report was not peer reviewed but rather accepted for publication by  PNAS Editorial Board Member Hans J. Schellnhuber.  [ Note that Schellnhuber is on record as stating in 2017, that unless climate action is taken by 2020, the world “may be fatally wounded.” ]  Their published conclusion (of their structured expert judgement exercise) was:

“We find it plausible that SLR could exceed 2 m by 2100 for our high-temperature scenario, roughly equivalent to business as usual.”

[ Note that when they say “business as usual” they mean RCP8.5, specifically a 5°C temperature rise by 2100. They pre-qualify the above with this caveat: ]

 “Limiting attention to the likely range, as was the case in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR5, may be misleading and will likely lead to a poor evaluation of the true risks.”

Journal reference: PNAS, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1817205116

Readers can make of this report what they wish.   It may be highly biased and may be intentionally so, intended to attempt to pressure governments to act on global CO2 emissions.

In NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 083 “GLOBAL AND REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS FOR THE UNITED STATES” (2017) we find the following projections made specifically for the coastal management Sea Level Rise Viewer.


In this chart from that report, we see that in 2012, Parris et al. pegged the highest likely SLR at 2.0 meters, or 6.6 feet.

Five years later, Sweet et al. produce another report for the same purpose, NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 083 — GLOBAL AND REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE SCENARIOS FOR THE UNITED STATES.  [Sweet (2017)].


Even when extended upward to take into account the long-tail probabilities of Antarctic melting, the maximum Global Mean SLR is 2.5 meters (8.2 feet).

How improbable are those probabilities?


The stated probability of a 2.5 m rise in global sea level by 2100?  0.1%  or in plain numbers a probability of 0.001 — one in one thousand.   This is, of course, at very best, a guess — that is, it is no more scientifically valid than any other guess and means simply that it is not considered absolutely impossible.

And Bamber et all their experts?


Silicon_ValleyAnd Silicon Valley?

 [ click to see map in original  pdf document ]

Silicon Valley, circled in red on the map, generally refers to the Santa Clara Valley area, which includes Santa Clara County, stretching from Menlo Park to San Jose, but as an economic ecosystem, it can be said to include much of the western shore of the San Francisco peninsula on San Francisco Bay, the city of San Francisco (top left) and its suburbs and perhaps up the eastern Bay Shore from San Jose north to Oakland.


And there’s the rub…the topo/contour map of the southern bay shows that much of the land in the southern-most end of the bay is not only low-lying — but like much of the inundation-prone portions of other cities (Miami and Los Angeles), there are areas virtually at sea level (MHHW can flood these areas) made up of dikes and canals, with the land (in quotes, it is not real land] in narrow strips a foot or two above the tides. Silicon Valley is on the western shore of the bay, stretching from the bridge in the middle of the image south to the city of San José, at the bottom.

It will be apparent, in the next image, that much of this very low-lying ground along the Bay is already classified as nature preserves, designated wetlands, ecological reserves, National Wildlife reserves, or otherwise left to flood with the tides.  The animation shifts from a street map view to a satellite photo.




So, that 7 to 10 feet?

It comes from the “Sea Level Rise Viewer – NOAA Office for Coastal Management”.  The purpose of this tool is to help local communities plan for possible future sea level rise and storm surge by showing them various scenarios of what areas would be inundated by how much rise in water levels.  It is a worthy project, in my opinion.  The coastal Georgia barrier island, Tybee Island, has put it to good use in formulating the “Tybee Island Sea-Level Rise Adaptation Plan”.

Looking at what the Sea Level Rise Viewer has to say about San Francisco and Silicon Valley:


This animation starts with current Mean High High Water (the mean of the  higher of the high tides seen today).  Green areas on the map are areas that are “low-lying” — meaning already flooding at higher tides — these are wetlands etc.  The animation then runs through Intermediate, Intermediate High, High, and Extreme scenarios.  The last frame shows inundated areas in pink for contrast.  (Yes — I’ve skipped the Intermediate Low scenario — I’ll show it later on).

There it is, at the Extreme scenario — 10.2 feet — flooding much of the coasts of Silicon Valley on the bay.

Puzzled by the figure of 10.2 feet, I queried NOAA’s Office of Coastal Management and received this answer:

“The 2.5m from the Sweet et al, 2017 report is global sea level rise.  The regional scenarios from the report are based on both a 1 degree grid and at NOAA tide gauges.  So for each tide gauge, there is a Regional Scenario computed that includes the following factors

1.)  global sea level rise – so for extreme it would be 2.5m

2.)  regional oceanographic variation (ex. El Nino, PDO, ADO)

3.)  ice sheet mass loss gravity redistribution

4.)  vertical land motion.

So for your example. in San Francisco.  the extreme is 10.2 FT  or 3.11 meters (make sure you click on ft/meters button on bottom of slider)   this is higher that the global 2.5m due to 2-4 variables above…most of which is vertical land motion which for that NOAA gauge is -0.00023 ft/year  [ 0.07 mm/yr – kh ]

the vertical land motion and other factors make the local / regional SLR scenarios higher or lower.  In places where land is rising (ex. AK)  sea level is actually projected to go down, even though globally it is rising.  The extreme case for local SLR being higher than global rate is Grand Isle, LA … Extreme by 2100 is 3.78m.

Hope this helps,  Another place to read about these scenarios is NCA4 CSSR – Chapter 12.    12.5.4 describes the regional projections. “

They take their Ice Sheet Mass loss, not from measurements (no measurements of the future) but from the “structured expert judgement” of Bamber et al. (2019)  and add that on top of the 2.5 meters projection from Sweet (2017) and, throw in some for Vertical Land Movement (San Francisco is sinking the tiniest bit every year).  They cannot predict El Niño, La Niña, PDO, or ADO out to 2100 — so that bit is questionable — maybe they do it in the decadal projections.

We must allow them to make these Extreme scenario projections for some coastal planning purposes.  For instance, if your locality is planning on building a sea side nuclear power plant (say in San Mateo or Alameda Air Station (across the Bay to the east from San Francisco) then it had better pay attention to these projections.   I would think that a mere 10.2 feet would be far too close to sea level for safety and would say that double or triple that would be a better safety margin.   Even a hospital or sewage plant would need to be minimally at the extreme projection to account for storm surge, tsunamis and other episodic events.

Even though we should make planning allowances for such extreme projections, they should not be considered “expected” quantitative projections of sea level rise.  The extreme scenarios, like the IPCC’s RCP8.5, are highly improbable, bordering on physically impossible.

Here is what the probable Sea Level Rise future looks for the San Francisco Bay:


Bottom Lines:

Sea Level Rise is an ongoing Modern Scientific Controversy — the science itself is uncertain and opinions are polarized, both scientifically and politically.  Projections for the future are highly uncertain. This essay includes some of my personal opinions — hopefully I have indicated them clearly.  All reports in the mass media and many journals (including this essay) should be considered biased and your critical thinking skills should be turned up to Maximum.

The long-term tide gauge sea level trends are currently our most reliable measurements of Regional and Global Sea Level change.  Individual tide gauge records represent only Relative Sea Levels until they are coupled to a CGPS@TG (same structure) to correct for Vertical Movement of the tide gauge itself.  [ ref:  Bevis (2002) “Technical Issues and Recommendations Related to the Installation of Continuous GPS Stations at Tide Gauges” ]   Global long-term tide gauge data currently shows sea level rise in the 1.7-2.0 mm/yr range.

There is no real-world difference between the Tide Gauge GMSL Trend of 1.7-2.0 mm/yr and the Satellite GMSL Trend of 2.9 mm/yr.   In the 81 years remaining until 2100, the Tide Gauge Trend will equal about 162 mm or 6.4 inches while the Satellite Altimetry Trend will equal 239 mm or about 9.2 inches, the difference of < 3 inches is trivial.

Localities that are concerned about future SLR values below 2.5  meters (~ 8 feet) already have sea level problems that need to be solved and solved in this generation.  Remember, Tropical Storm Sandy brought 13 feet of storm surge to New York City.    Many US coastal cities are currently in trouble if they get as little as 1 meter (3 feet) of SLR.  These quantitative values (1 to 2.5 meters) for future sea level are very real and very possible when allowing for episodic events like hurricanes, tropical storms, tsunamis and seiches.

San Francisco Bay will not see 10.2 feet of SLR by the year 2100However, Facebook, Tivo, Yahoo and Symantec headquarters should be prepared for episodic flooding by the turn of the century.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

Sea Level Rise is the new Polar Bear Scare for those who promote Catastrophic Climate Change, Climate Crisis, Climate Emergency and the Green New Deal.  We should not let the misuse of information and projections about Sea Levels and their rise or fall by some for propaganda purposes blind us to the real-world problems that many low lying sea side localities face.

The seas are not all warm cuddly beaches to visit on our honeymoons.  Earth’s seas are huge energetic masses of water churned by chaotic forces mostly beyond our comprehension and on time scales from centuries down to minutes.  Many of us have been out on the seas in conditions that try men’s souls.

Sea Level Rise is not a joking matter nor is it an impending disaster.  It is simply a fact of life for those living at its edges.

My recommendation for those wishing to keep up with the topic is to read Dr. Judith Curry’s recent paper and related blog post:  “Special Report – Sea Level Rise” and “Sea Level Rise:  what’s the worst case?”.

Address comments to “Kip…” if speaking to me.

# # # # #

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 12, 2019 6:40 pm

Bummer … The SFEI is only “planning” for a 5ft increase in Bay waters. Hint: my home is safe … nowhere near a FEMA map. Therefore, I don’t care.

comment image

I only care about a FAILED PG&E that might burn me out of my home … or keep shutting OFF my power whenever they choose. What a long downward spiral of a once-successful public utility. Green policies, and politically-correct hiring practices has RUINED a once great, and competent company. Sad.

Reply to  Kenji
September 12, 2019 10:19 pm

Kenji ==> Planning for 5 feet, if one includes episodic events, is not bad for SF. The City of San Francisco is almost totally immune to anything under 2 meters — it is the low lying Bay wetlands (and converted filled wet;lands) that are at risk.

It is too bad about PG&E.

Reply to  Kenji
September 13, 2019 8:34 am


It seems that my pre 1965 power pole is good to go for another few years. PG&E outsourced most of it’s maintenance years ago so I wasn’t surprised when an older forestry truck was in the driveway earlier this week. The three man crew who evaluated our pole, and put some treatment into the pole, spent about 15 minutes at our place. I was reminded a bit of how CAL Trans project teams are staffed.

When I attended a “Public Power Shutoff” meeting I was informed that PG&E is processing medical baseline requests rapidly these days. The medical baseline allowance is an additional 500 kWh at Tier 1 rates. I was presently surprised to find out that charging a mobility device (wheelchair) qualifies for the benefit and if I heard the representative correctly so do breathing assistance devices. Thought you might like to know about the program as the climate credit doesn’t go as far as it use to.

Reply to  Kenji
September 15, 2019 8:27 pm


The “culture war” talking points don’t really apply here.

Yes, the push for renewables has contributed to PG&E’s current sorry state of affairs. PC hiring practices, not so much. FAR more to blame is cost cutting.

For decades, PG&E has been thinning its linesman/maintenance segment of employees. Deferred maintenance is evident everywhere, especially tree work near high voltage lines, and cleaning transformers in urban areas (Dust and debris build up on the transformers, esp. in cities like SF, which have frequent fog. When dust builds up a thick enough layer and fog wets it: pole fire. PG&E used to have crews clean the equipment periodically. Now “the fire department will put it out” is the protocol.)

Its a heartless, bean-counter philosophy: It is simply cheaper to pay off victims of explosions and fires than to employ a huge preventative maintenance workforce, with training, benefits, salary, pensions, etc.

That’s why the Energy sector is one where public entities are actually more effective operators than private companies. Some vital parts of our economy simply aren’t profitable when run correctly. Police, Fire, Transit, Energy…

Jim Veenbaas
September 12, 2019 6:58 pm

San Francisco is so much more vulnerable to an earthquake than sea level rise. These useful idiots keep pounding the table about a non-existent crisis, forgetting the real threat staring them in the face.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
September 12, 2019 8:10 pm

Jim this is the wrong attitude. .Your observation is correct and should be added to the sea level rise threat. That way people can be doubly fearful.

Think of the money that can be made when people are twice as desperate to be led to safety and security. And don’t forget the power that can be accumulated. Most things have an upside….

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
September 12, 2019 8:27 pm

Absolutely true and few people know how much of the city is built on landfill not a great combination when another big quake strikes.

Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
September 13, 2019 2:17 am

Tsunami’s would reach them before sea level rise ever would. Weird how Bay Area real estate prices never reflect purported sea level rise. Huh.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 13, 2019 10:52 am

Perhaps I am wrong…

From my understanding tsunami are more common with subduction zones and not thrust faults. The faults off the coast of California at these latitude are of the thrust type. It the coast of Oregon and Washington that has subduction zones.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 13, 2019 6:29 pm


I completely agree. I am also aware of the topography of the Bay. I use to work for Hewlett-Packard and Agilent Technologies. I have also worked with various Bio-tech or pharmaceutical companies which had regional offices located in and around the Bay Area.

However, I did find these: —> me this may just weird tidal effect

September 12, 2019 7:00 pm

GIS topographic mapping programs, and really kewl computer graphics means that it is SO EASY to frighten the numbskulls. Make a few .gifs and voila!! Climate PANIC!! We’re all gonna Dieeeee!! FAKE science brought to life with colorful animations … which MUST make it so.

Well … not ALL of us are gonna die. Just those living in; North Richmond, Marin City, East Palo Alto, West Oakland … just all the “poor” communities living on the muddy edges of the SF Bay. Nope. Really RICH$$$ People, like Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein living in Sea Cliff, and St Francis Wood … will be high and dry. Ohhhhh mammmma … only the poor, underserved, neediest people are being disproportionately harmed by (theoretical) CAGW. Ohhhh mammmmmaaaa. If you aren’t willing to help the poor, then you’re immoral. If you don’t “believe” the sea levels are going to exponentially accelerate their rise in the coming decades, then you are … vile. You have the lowest possible Google Social Credit score if you are a sea level CAGW … denier. Off to the re-education camps with you

Reply to  Kenji
September 13, 2019 11:29 am

Facts don’t matter when your stock in trade is hysterical emotional raving. For some strange reason, these cultists “need” to believe this nonsense. If only the governments of the western world would start ignoring them, they’d have about the same credibility as sandwich-sign and robe- wearing doomsday cultists who rave “The End is Near!” on street corners.

September 12, 2019 7:06 pm

Is that really a datum shift in the early 1900’s on the San Fran relative sea level grapb or was that the earthquake?

Reply to  JaneHM
September 12, 2019 10:27 pm

JaneHM ==> After the earthquake, re-leveling the bench marks created that shift. So, it may or may not represent an actual change in the land altitude — but the tide gauge shifted about 4 inches as a result of the earthquake.

Bryan A
Reply to  JaneHM
September 12, 2019 10:30 pm

The split appears to be around 1900 but the solid line is what I believe denotes 1906. The shift appears to be before the quake

Patrick MJD
Reply to  JaneHM
September 13, 2019 12:23 am

In that 1906 quake, most destruction was caused by the fire dept. by using explosives to try to put out fires. This method does work but in a very controlled way. This did not happen in 1906 and the city burned.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 13, 2019 6:24 am

Patrick MJD ==> For a fabulous description of the 1906 SF earthquake, read the recent book “Black Death at the Golden Gate”.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 15, 2019 8:52 pm


“Most destruction was caused by the fire dept using explosives…”


Fires destroyed most of San Francisco. This happened because water supply lines were broken by the quake and there was no water for fighting fires.

That is why the modern Fire Dept. constructed, maintains and continues to expand its own SEPARATE water system, which includes, among other things, a network of dedicated high-pressure hydrants, fed by 3 million gallons stored in two tanks and a reservoir.

September 12, 2019 7:12 pm

Kip Hansen wrote: “[ Note that Schellnhuber is on record as stating in 2017, that unless climate action is taken by 2020, the world “may be fatally wounded.” ]”

There are only three months to go before 2020 and there won’t be any significant climate action taken**.

It’s all over, folks. It’s every man, woman, and child for their self. Be prepared to adapt.
{H.R. throws up hands and begins looking for a cave to occupy.}

**Just what the heck is ‘climate action’?!? I know what it means when used by alarmists; raise taxes, eliminate fossil fuels, stop eating meat, redistribute wealth so everyone is equal except for those who are just a little bit more equal, and form a One-World government.

But ‘climate action’ doesn’t really have any meaning. Actions can be taken to attempt to change the climate (geo-engineering), but no one really has any idea what change, if any, would actually come about and no one has a clue what the change in climate would actually be if we did somehow manage to change it.

Words matter. Meaningless words don’t matter unless they are used to produce FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) in a propaganda effort.

Sky King
September 12, 2019 7:20 pm

By 2100 I hope that Silicon Engineers will have discovered a way to build a 7ft sea wall. I know this would be the equivalent of WWII and the Manhattan project, but they have many really smart people who have already mastered Javascript and HTML. And we have 80 years to discover the technology we will need.

Reply to  Sky King
September 12, 2019 9:04 pm

Sea walls? Nahhh … just have every PRIVATE building owner retrofit the ground floors of their building to accommodate occasional flooding. Same thing as when we improved and increased our codes for seismic safety … every building owner in CA retrofitted their buildings with steel brace frames. No public funds necessary. No “climate responses” necessary … just private building owners … protecting their investments.

So how has the city of Venice managed to stay afloat for hundreds of years of sea intrusion?

Bryan A
Reply to  Kenji
September 12, 2019 10:33 pm

Sea wall across the golden gate with 2 large locks for Military, Cargo, Oil, and Cruise Ships and several smaller ones for private vessels

Reply to  Sky King
September 12, 2019 10:32 pm

Sky ==> Berms, levees and dikes would easily protect important areas — the existing wetlands are already although some may have been converted to wetlands housing tracks. Much of the land along the Sacramento River (top right of the sea level viewer images) is already protected by levees. These are pretty low-tech devices and used all up and down the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers — where the usually work.

Reply to  Sky King
September 13, 2019 6:39 am

Walls don’t work! I have been told this over and over so stop suggesting it.

September 12, 2019 7:49 pm

Kip, I often listen to NPR (here in LA it is KCRW) while commuting. I am also often annoyed by outlandish claims stated on NPR, but mostly it is the slight backhanded dig such as tonight’s boner regarding CA redwoods burning more intensely recently in forest fires “due to global warming”, but researchers have found that thinning the forests has had a great effect on reducing the fires intensity. Why the superfluous and false attribution of the problem to global warming when they obviously stated the known cause and solution?
I will often just change the channel to avoid further frustration. The traffic in LA is stressful enough.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
September 12, 2019 9:12 pm

All of the self-described “intelligentsia” here in the SF Bay Area listen to NPR. And I gave it a fair try. Listened to it for a few months. But every time I listened, it sounded like a Maoist propaganda channel. I simply cannot tolerate the hardcore leftist slant one each and every program. It is impossible to become “intelligent” listening to this constant brainwashing. Had to turn it off.

Reply to  Kenji
September 13, 2019 2:05 pm

Kenji it can be stressful listening to the inane diatribes often heard in NPR, but keep listening. In that way you will be wiser than those who spout this stuff.
Know your adversaries.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” – Sun Tzu

Reply to  Kenji
September 13, 2019 6:30 pm

I keep waiting for the clowns pitching a plant-based diet to tell us how we’re all to magically sprout the 4 stomachs of ruminants . . . NPR can cause excess rumination, that’s for sure!

Reply to  Rocketscientist
September 12, 2019 10:44 pm

Rocketscientist ==> I am forced to punch the radio power button far too often when listening to public radio. I privately refer to my local station as WDNC — acknowledging their apparent existence as a public outreach for the Democratic National Committee.

I learned to drive on the LA Freeways — when their were four of them all meeting at the cloverleaf downtown. I wouldn’t last an hour under present conditions without losing what is loft of my mind.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 13, 2019 7:33 am

You’d probably last an hour, but depending on the time of day you might not have traveled very far. 🙂

I imagine the NPR affiliates around the country vary somewhat between homey and outright radical socialist. KCRW is nearer to the socialist end of the spectrum.

Reply to  Rocketscientist
September 13, 2019 8:15 am

Rocket ==> Yeah — Santa Monica is not exactly the center of conservatism in the LA Basin.

I’d probably last several hours and only get five miles…..

Philip Schaeffer
September 12, 2019 8:00 pm

Kip, have you asked WAMC if they produced the segment themselves?

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
September 13, 2019 6:31 am

Phillip ==> The segment included “sights and sounds” (radio version — I used to do this type of radio journalism back in the day) of Silicon Valley — so pretty sure it was a National or West Coast outfit. It was certainly recorded out there — WAMC does not travel out of the Northeast.

Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
September 13, 2019 8:19 am

Phillip ==> Thought I’d answered this already…but here goes again:

The segment included “sights and sounds” (radio style) of San Francisco Bay — so believe it was recorded locally in Silicon Valley — WAMC people only cover Upstate NY, Vermont and Western Mass.

The station was originally chartered by the Albany Medical College (thus the AMC)

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 13, 2019 8:38 pm

Kip, I would suggest asking WAMC. I’m pretty sure if you give them a date, they’d be able to give you the details. I work in community radio in Australia, and if you gave me the date something was played on our station, I’d be able to find what was played and where it came from pretty easily.

September 12, 2019 8:41 pm

I will say it again, think NPR is vulnerable to a lawsuit having put out false news stories on the climate for years and years.

September 12, 2019 10:46 pm

INGIMUNDUR S KJARVAL ==> It will get worse next week — they are part of CJR Climate News Cabal.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 13, 2019 5:16 am

My point being and written about it before, think it way past time to sue, hold the news media responsible for this scare mongering. The court the best place to show no facts are behinds these predictions or agreement on these future scenarios, that the media should be obligated to show different views. Laws protect the media, NPR gets funds from the government, with that must come obligations. Even if these lawsuits do not get anywhere, just filing them sends a message. Some crowd funding should be possible, the money raised for Dr. Ridd shows people are ready to fund lawsuits. I firmly believe the climate debate can only be solved in court, not in politics, not by public debate, the justice system the only thing that can save us from this utter nonsense. The Great Monkey Trial a proof the climate debate belongs in the courts.

Steve Case
September 12, 2019 9:06 pm

Sea level rise is the biggest scare story in “Climate Change” and as such it is regularly exaggerated. You don’t have search very long for a news article that lists some over the top figure for sea level rise by 2100.

September 12, 2019 9:50 pm

Kip – don’t doubt you, but feel you could have been listening to, watching or reading any media these days and get the same exaggerated reporting, e.g. this is CBS-owned. the 7-10 ft prediction isn’t included:

AUDIO: 58sec: 1 Aug: KCBS: Thousands Of Bay Area Homes At Risk Of Sea Level Rise
Billions of dollars in Bay Area real estate could be at risk of flooding due to rising sea levels, according to a new analysis.
By the year 2050, Bay Area homes worth about $50 billion are at “grave risk” of coastal flooding, according to the study by Zillow and Climate Central (LINK).
If nothing is done to combat global warming, more than 80,000 properties could be underwater by 2100, the study found.
Across California, more than 140,000 homes are threatened by rising see levels. There’s an interactive map that shows which sections of the Bay Area are most vulnerable.
Alameda County has more than 21,000 properties that could be underwater, the most in the Bay Area.

AUDIO: 1min08sec: 4 Aug: KCBS: Is The New Chase Stadium Safe From Climate Change Flooding?
by Matt Bigler
A report from Zillow found that $50 billion in Bay Area real estate could be at risk from flooding due to rising sea levels if nothing is done to curb climate change. By the year 2100, much of Mission Bay could be under water, including the new Chase Center…

9 Aug: Sierra Club SF: Are we in over our heads? How to plan for and adapt to sea level rise
By Katherine Howard
To learn more about the potential impacts of sea level rise, I spoke with Arthur Feinstein, Sierra Club California State Conservation Chair and champion of bays and estuaries. Feinstein and a Sea Level Rise Task Force have just finished developing a set of positions for Club members to follow when addressing sea level rise issues…
Various government and international agencies have released reports on expected sea level rise over the next 100 years. By 2050 it is expected that the oceans will rise steadily about 1.0 to 1.5 feet. Scientists say that there is nothing that can be done about this rise; it is locked in, and it is going to happen. After 2050, the amount of sea level rise will be both faster and more unpredictable. No one is certain how soon the ice in the Arctic, Antarctica, and Greenland will melt. ***Final predictions for sea level rise now go as high as a 10 foot rise by 2100…

8 Feb: San Francisco Chronicle: These swaths of San Francisco could be underwater in just 70 years, extreme models suggest
By Michelle Robertson
IMAGE 1 of 32: San Francisco in 2100 – modeled by Climate Central
Google Earth images show San Francisco now, and how it could look by 2100. The 2100 images were modeled by Climate Central using NOAA data and represent a worst-case scenario for sea level rise in San Francisco.
In this extreme scenario, which is highly unlikely yet now being researched as scientifically plausible, the Antarctic ice sheet would have to begin collapsing, triggering a sea level rise of 10-12 feet for most coastal states.
The new, most extreme models could mean a 10-12 foot sea level rise that also includes the collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet, according to a Climate Central report released in April, 2017…
The public can explore the tool directly here (LINK) and see snapshots in the gallery at the top of this article…
Climate Change, an organization of scientists and journalists, does rate the extreme case as extremely unlikely, but possible. The group adds, “Under the extreme scenario, the sea would not stop rising that year. Rather, it would continue to add more than 1.5 feet per decade, and exceed 30 feet by 2200 for all coastal states.”…

21 Sept 2018: Scientific American: Prepare for 10 Feet of Sea Level Rise, California Commission Tells Coastal Cities
Though an extreme scenario, it should be factored in to coastal infrastructure planning, new guidance suggests
By Anne C. Mulkern, E&E News
Earlier commission guidance put top sea-level rise at 6 feet by 2100. But according to the new report (LINK), there’s the “potential for rapid ice loss to result in an extreme scenario of 10.2 feet of sea level rise” by the end of the century…

Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 14, 2019 4:35 pm

Kip, regards Alameda data, I can clearly spot 7-8 pulses up and 7-8 pulses down.

Would need data to analyze en liu solar minimums (super-minimums) to see if there is a connection.

If you analyse this and there is a connection (maximum seawater levels coinside with solar maximums), credit to Oddgeir in a future blog/post-article?

No answer required (it will be entirely by chance if I return to this particular article.)


Bryan A
September 12, 2019 10:26 pm

If sea level within the bay is SUCH a threat, the solution is relatively easy. Sea wall and Lock crossing the Gate outside the GG Bridge from SF to Marin. Short span and inside the S.A. fault zone on the N.A. plate not extremely deep there either.

Reply to  Bryan A
September 12, 2019 10:56 pm

Bryan ==> Geography would defeat such an idea. The entirety of California’s Central Valley drains out to the Pacific through SF Bay. That’s a lot of water flowing down and out.

The real trouble occurs in the areas that are already wetlands and at elevations of less than a few feet above MHHW. However, unlike New York, SF Bay is unlikely to see a Hurricane Sandy type of storm surge. Like many localities, that nice flat land along the Bay looked so inviting for housing tracks and development — already nice and flat — and only a foot or two above high tide.

The Army Corps of engineers has made proposals for a storm surge barrier across the Veranzano Narrows in NY City.

Reply to  Bryan A
September 12, 2019 11:18 pm

Bryan A ==> The SF Bay is created by geography and is a river mouth, not just a bay. The Sacramento River flows to the sea through the Bay — and it’s watershed is HUGE. See the amp at CalFish.

In no time the Bay would fill up with fresh water coming in from the east and you’d have to pump all that water up into the Pacific Ocean…..

Bryan A
Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 13, 2019 7:06 am

I think that Mans ingenuity could devise a pump and flow measuring system to allow for both removal of river runoff inflow and simulated tidal action in wetland areas as well as create the needed influx of ocean water to maintain the saltiness in the bay.
Keep in mind, this would only be necessary IF the predicted SLR happened (unlikely though given the last 100 years increase.)

Reply to  Bryan A
September 13, 2019 8:21 am

Bryan ==> Massively complex — but maybe? in three hundred years?

Bryan A
Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 13, 2019 9:38 am

I wonder how many Marinites would be willing to pay for it to eliminate King Tide Flooding? (0)
Or how many San Joseans in the Silicon Valley? (0)
Perhaps Google and Apple could fund it as a Public Campaign? ($0.00)
They all THINK there is a problem but they ALL want “someone else” to pony up.

September 12, 2019 11:02 pm

I have not read every word of your essay so please forgive me if this point has been covered.
Sea level does not need to rise at all for low lying areas to be inundated, IF!, extra water is added into the ocean via ice melt or volume increase via thermal expansion.
The ocean basin is not straight sided therefore an increase in the volume of water may indeed show a very low rate of SLR while the surface area increases. Think of adding a thimble of water to a glass of water or the same amount to a puddle. One would show a measurable rise and the other would not. In such a case, it would be possible to see flooding in these low lying areas and observe little if any SLR. Seems to me this important point is often left out of the discussion.
Of course I have no idea just how much the volume of the ocean is increasing annually if at all but some places like Bangladesh and parts of the US do seem to be having problems and this could explain it.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 13, 2019 11:49 pm

That’s not what I said. I said the level need NOT rise for the surface area to increase.

Rod Evans
September 13, 2019 1:11 am

What amazes me is the constant desire by the left wing’s extreme angst movement to pick on villains that are so easy to show are actually virtues.
First we had Man Made Global Warming or AGW blaming CO2. The projections, or flawed computer models produce a scary immediate future, but reality refused to confirm those projections, reality shows everything is benign and normal. The lobby groups attempting to use CO2 as a proxy to destroy energy/capitalist driven by fossil fuel use, have been shown by scientific study after scientific study, to be barking up a non existent tree.
Consequently the mood music by the alarmists has altered. Having failed to achieve catastrophic warming or traction in the public’s mind, they adopt Climate Change. This provides endless opportunity to focus on “all” the scary events. Things such as endless hurricanes, wild fires, biblical floods, record heat, record cold and so on. As all of those weather events are public affairs and obvious to all, they thought they were on to a winning idea. Sadly for the left wing alarmists every modern claim of hottest, coldest, wettest, windiest, is beaten by what has happened in recent recorded history. Even NASA’a efforts to change the data making past periods look cooler, to make current temperatures graphs look hotter, have been shown up for the fraudulent non scientific adjustments they are.
Now, the lefts big push scare is sea level rise.
This has to be one of the easiest scare stories to disprove. The sea is rising by its normal long term rate. It may be set for a period of reduced rise, and possibly a fall over the next twenty and more years. We won’t have long to wait to find out.
We should be grateful they haven’t resorted to past tried and tested crazy ideas. The Green socialists might fall back on throwing (capitalist) virgins into the volcano to satisfy the gods, (no offence to communist virgins, you will have your chance) put nothing past these anti science zealots.
Their villains and track record so far:-
1. Nuclear power is too dangerous. The truth. Nuclear power is the safest most reliable least polluting source of energy yet devised.
2. CO2 causes runaway green house conditions. The truth. CO2 enables essential chemistry to take place and its increase to 412 PPM in the atmosphere is feeding the growing world population. We need more of it for healthier lives. There are no scientific studies that show CO2 leads to runaway atmospheric heating.
3. CO2 is turning the oceans acidic. The truth. If all of the CO2 in the atmosphere every last molecule was absorbed by the oceans the oceans would remain alkaline. However should such a situation arise where the CO2 is continuously taken into solution by the seas, we would not have to concern ourselves about it. We would have become extinct along with all other life forms long before the sea was fully satiated.
4. Hurricanes and wild fires will become commonplace and more devastating, as CO2/temperatures increase.
The truth. Both wild fires and hurricanes have moderated over the past century, we are in a very low incidence period for these events.
5. The alarming rise in sea levels will flood coastal regions and low lying islands. The truth. Sea levels are maintaining their normal levels and normal slight increase post the past ice age warming planet. This warming happened prior to human activities, and will continue. It will then reverse over time with or without human input.
6. Fossil fuels are bad for the environment. The truth. Pollution from fossil fuels is undesirable and should be reduced and where economically possible eliminated. Note CO2 is not a pollutant, burning fossil fuels to produce CO2 is a good thing. NOx and SOx plus particulate emissions are bad and must be mitigated. Having accepted there are negatives associated with fossil fuel burning, we need to also weigh in the balance the positives. Fossil fuels have allowed the world to evolve and prosper, as never before. The economic plus from its use far outweighs the negatives. Without fossil fuels disaster relief efforts would not be possible.
Without fossil fuels, it would not be possible for well known anti fossil fuel advocated to fly from LA to London to advocate the banning of fossil fuels….

Mark Broderick
September 13, 2019 1:56 am

“Why a high-profile climate science opponent quit Trump’s White House”

“When William Happer realized this summer that his plan to question climate science had been shut down by the White House, he knew he’d stick to his promise: to serve exactly one year in President Donald Trump’s administration and then leave.”


Don K
September 13, 2019 2:26 am

Kip: Good article as usual. FWIW, there used to be a large area — many square miles — on the SouthEast side of San Francisco bay used to “manufacture” table salt by allowing the flats to flood at high tide, then blocking off the flow and letting the sun evaporate the water. The evaporation ponds were, and presumably still are, quite colorful because various algae colonize them during the evaporation phase. Obviously, that won’t work if sea levels are rising dramatically.

The colorful evaporation ponds used to be easily visible to anyone flying into and out of the area airports.

Actually, the salt ponds seem to be under threat, but not from sea level rise. They are slowly being returned to a more natural state as part of a wildlife refuge. Probably a good idea because Californians apparently can’t be restrained from “developing” the state’s limited wetlands into housing.


BTW: Does anyone know why NOAA seems to have chosen to “move” the Great San Francisco Earthquake from 1906 to 1900 in the chart of San Francisco sea level? Maybe some sort of artifact of filtering? I’ve long thought it remarkable that that tide gauge didn’t even seem to notice the earthquake.

Don K
Reply to  Don K
September 13, 2019 3:18 am

Kip: I see that the earthquake date “offset” is addressed in comments upthread.

BTW: I also am becoming exasperated with NPR’s increasingly one sided and sloppy reporting on climate issues. If you’re going to call your news show “All things Considred” then try considering all things … Dammit.

Reply to  Don K
September 13, 2019 6:46 am

DonK ==> “If you’re going to call your news show “All things Considered” then try considering all things ” well….yes, that’s what I think.

Reply to  Don K
September 13, 2019 11:19 am

It’s not “sloppy”, it’s deliberate. On NPR, heard a reporter state that “larger and slower moving hurricanes like Dorian are now the norm”. Stated as a fact. On NPR, heard a pundit state – as a fact – that “25% of all carbon emissions” were from agriculture. 25%? Of ALL emissions? I’m not a scientist and even I know that’s not even remotely connected to reality. But things like this are repeated ad nauseum on NPR on a daily basis – and will never be challenged. It’s not possible to be so consistently wrong about something unless you’re doing it on purpose.

September 13, 2019 2:39 am

Even in the very unlikely event of enough ice melting to make this
happen, 100 years is a very long time . Enough time to adapt to it.

Ask the Dutch people, they learned a long time ago how to protect low
lying areas. But to do this our economy must be a rich one, so forget such
things as the CC stuff.


Don K
Reply to  Michael
September 13, 2019 3:40 pm

Well, yes. But they learned the hard way. 5.6m storm surge. 1836 dead. 70,000 evacuated. Massive property damage.

Coram Deo
September 13, 2019 3:53 am

Fear ye not Me?” saith the Lord. “Will ye not tremble at My presence, who have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it; and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?

John Garrett
September 13, 2019 4:08 am


Super job— as usual.

Reply to  John Garrett
September 13, 2019 6:48 am

John ==> Thank you. A lot of waiting for a response from NOAA in this one….

September 13, 2019 4:39 am

Kip, see also projections by COPC

comment image

The graph displays three projections of mean sea level at San Francisco CA. The tidal gauge trend adds 0.2 meters (0.7 feet) by 2100. California Ocean Protection Council (COPC) has issued 2018 guidance on sea level rise along the California coastline. COPC takes IPCC models as gospel truth and projects future sea levels accordingly. The orange line represents COPC Medium-High risk aversion and produces 1.75 meters (5.7 feet) rise by 2100. The red line represents COPC Extremely High risk avoidance (worst case) resulting in 3.1 meters (10.2 feet) rise by 2100.

Reply to  Ron Clutz
September 13, 2019 6:52 am

Ron ==> Thanks for that — they are pretty straight forward until they get into the future…and skew the extreme scenario skyward at 2080…

September 13, 2019 5:31 am

“Many also produce their own programs locally.”

“Many also produce their own propaganda locally.” — Fixed

September 13, 2019 5:54 am

“This is, of course, at very best, a guess — that is, it is no more scientifically valid than any other guess and means simply that it is not considered absolutely impossible.”

Find a blank 16 foot wall, a blindfolded dart thrower, a dart. Throw the dart. Label where the dart lands with the consensus agenda. It is not even a guess; it is scientific malfeasance.

I have spent the better part of the past year traveling(flying) from Knoxville, TN to Hayward, CA and drove past all of these places on these maps. Some of those low lying areas are reclaimed from the bay, especially on the western side of the bay around the San Mateo bridge with commercial and residential facilities. The next big earthquake will just cause most of this “land” to liquefy. And this death and destruction will be direct results of man’s actions.

Reply to  JEHILL
September 13, 2019 6:57 am

JEHILL ==> Yes, salt ponds too. Mankind is not known for its wisdom in locating homes and buildings….apparently the ancient middle eastern peoples built on the sand far too often and warnings against the practice moved into common folklore — “the foolish man built his house upon the sand”.

Bayside wetlands are great places for nature preserves and salt ponds….not so good for corporate headquarters.

Stephen Skinner
September 13, 2019 5:56 am

Being able to measure sea levels to fractions of a mm sounds like false precision. Considering the mean depth of the world’s oceans is 3,790 m (3,790,000 mm) and the surface area is 361,000,000 km2 (361,000,000,000,000 mm2), then what is the value in trying to determine if sea level has risen by 0.07mm? In addition what precision is actually achievable considering that a completely smooth sea surface to fractions of a mm does not exist on earth except perhaps temporarily and in a very small location (theoretically)? In addition what is the reference point that determines where global sea level should be considering all the things that interfere with calculation a smooth level surface, such as earth’s non perfectly spherical shape, the variations in earth’s gravity, tidal ranges caused by the moon and the movement of oceans caused by the earth’s rotation and resultant weather?

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
September 13, 2019 6:11 am

Stephen, some of your vary valid issues are discussed in a study Why would sea-level rise for global warming and polar ice-melt? By Aftab Alam Khan published in Geoscience Frontiers.

My synopsis is≠-sea-level-rise/

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Ron Clutz
September 13, 2019 7:25 am

Thanks Ron. Very helpful. I haven’t read all of your synopsis yet but the question is what precision is possible? For example satellite photos of any planetary surface give a precision of 1 pixel = 1 m2 or similar. This kind of precision is also testable just by looking at the output. Therefore, there must be a stated precision for sea level measurements.

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
September 13, 2019 7:41 am
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
September 13, 2019 7:00 am

Stephen ==> See my Sea Level series here. The various parts are listed on that link.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 13, 2019 12:21 pm

Thanks Kip. Very helpful and useful as always.

September 13, 2019 6:29 am

Does this mean it will clean the streets of SF by then?

Reply to  ResourceGuy
September 13, 2019 7:05 am

ResourceGuy ==> Sea Level Rise, even 10 feet, will hardly affect San Francisco City at all — use the Sea Level Viewer (linked in essay) and zoom in on The City.

So no, SLR will not wash the filth from the streets there.

September 13, 2019 6:42 am

“San Francisco Bay will not see 10.2 feet of SLR by the year 2100”

A good earthquake/fault could do it quite quickly–in fact sometimes almost instantaneously
There was over 5 metres of subsidence in Tennessee associated with the New Madrid earthquakes of 1812

So why not Silicon Valley ?
Nothing to do with sea levels rising though.

Reply to  GregK
September 14, 2019 7:25 am

Greg ==> Coastal California’s earthquake risk is a result of the San Andreas fault (among others).

The Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 was horrific but did not, as far as the historical record shows, cause any tsunami type event.

Just to the south, at Monterey, ” the earthquake permanently shifted the course of the Salinas River near its mouth. Where previously the river emptied into Monterey Bay between Moss Landing and Watsonville, it was diverted 6 miles south to a new channel just north of Marina. “

Spalding Craft
September 13, 2019 7:39 am

Kip, as usual thanks for the fact-based article.

And you are quite right to conclude as you did, with an admonition to not ignore the many locations with sea level problems already, caused by simply building too close to sea level. You have contributed much to this literature.

I would take it a step further – we should support writers who understand this situation and who write frequently about places like NYC, the La. river delta and South Florida, and who don’t demagogue the issue by repeating speculation about future sea level rise. Andy Revkin, for example, is quite correct to write about the “expanding bullseye” of natural disasters caused by concentration of population on or near the water.

Reply to  Spalding Craft
September 13, 2019 8:11 am

Spalding Craft ==> Revkin has been a supporter of the reality that humanity has tended (for centuries) to “build in harm’s way” — on the beach in hurricane alley, on the critical slopes of mud-slide prone foothills in Los Angeles, flood plains of the great middle America rivers and in the middle of fuel-burdened coniferous forests all over the West.

Much of the problem with sea level is caused by absolutely horrible local planning board neglect — in allowing the rich to build expensive houses that are likely to be washed away in the next storm — and not requiring hurricane proof building codes.

Do you know where Revkin is now? Doesn’t seem to be at ProPublica anymore….his email there bounces.

Reply to  Spalding Craft
September 13, 2019 8:28 am

Spalding ==> (I seem to be dropping replies in the the system, so this may be a double answer…)

Yes, Revkin has acknowledged for years that mankind “builds in harm’s way” — over and over. And it is, of course, absolutely true. We build on the beach in hurricane alley, on the floodplains of America’s main rivers and build very flammable houses in the middle of fuel-burdened coniferous forests all over the West.

Do you know where Revkin writes now? Doesn’t seem to be at ProPublica anymore (his email there bounces).

Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 13, 2019 8:44 am

I believe he writes for National Geographic now. He is on Twitter a lot, talking about that Expanding Bullseye.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 13, 2019 9:23 am

About Revkin ==> Apparently he is now at Columbia:

Journalist Andrew Revkin to Head New Communications Initiative

Where I expects he is participating in the CJR’s Climate News Cabal

Spalding Craft
Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 13, 2019 2:51 pm

Yes, he’s at Columbia. You can follow him on twitter-@Revkin. Now that he works for climate advocates he’s of course changed his tune a bit. But he’s always on point, except when he retweets nonsense.

Curious George
September 13, 2019 8:53 am

How much taxpayer’s money does the NPR get?

September 13, 2019 3:26 pm


Could this be the show you were listening to?

Originally aired on Oct 26,2017, but could have been a replay…
Jeff Goodell is a true alarmist, great fodder for NPR listeners.
We used to listen to WAMC before it went South-Left (SL – a new direction!).
Now mostly jazz over the Internet, much more interesting.


Reply to  yirgach
September 14, 2019 7:31 am

yirgach ==> Thanks for the link to the Goodell piece. (But, no, it was much more recent…)

Joe Donahue is a pretty good interviewer, but like most of his colleagues, makes no real attempt to keep his own opinions and biases out of the conversation. He is not a journalist — more of a columnist (in the radio sense), so if we don’t like him, we hit the channel selector.

I am not a fan of Goodell =– who hasn’t learnt to separate out activism from journalism.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
September 15, 2019 5:06 pm

Yeah, I lost the charm of NPR a long time ago. Used to get into email “discussions” with Chartock about his use of the Internet back in the days. He is very opinionated, to say the least.
He is after the almighty $ to pursue his agenda, not journalism or anything else.
So it goes.

September 13, 2019 3:40 pm

Now superimpose the frequency of very large tsunamis for comparison and meteor strikes for that matter.

September 13, 2019 3:45 pm


The 7-10 ft sea level in the Bay Area came from the KCBS radio show “In Depth” some years ago. I can’t remember exactly when. It’s a half hour uninterrupted by commercials show aired on Saturday and Sunday mornings for decades. I do remember thinking at the time that the claim was completely outlandish as there would need to be a huge uptick in sea level rise for it come true. Sorry I can’t be of more help but maybe this will give you somewhere to look.

Ian Hawthorn
September 13, 2019 4:44 pm

We need a graph showing the history of predictions of the sea level rise in 2100 to illustrate how these predictions change from year to year. Following climate science methodology, I’d like to put a line through this graph and extrapolate what the predicted sea level rise in 2100 would look like … in 2100.

Reply to  Ian Hawthorn
September 14, 2019 7:33 am

ian ==> The projection keep getting more radical as activists take over climate science and Antarctic Ice sceince.

Read the two Curry bits linked in the Author’s Comment section.

Gary Pearse
September 13, 2019 5:00 pm

Kip: have NOAA, etc. not included a steric component of warmer water in their projections? They imply hotter temperatures pointing to ice melt. I guess when you are talking about a 10 ft rise you can ignore steric expansion of water.

Regarding ice melt, the way much of the popularized writing on the subject is done, they ignore that you have to reach the melting point of water before it melts. Using “expert” opinion gets around stubborn data that confounds the models they used to use. A couple of degrees of warming in the polar regions doesn’t necessarily translate into much melt, i.e. going from -52C to -50C in Antarctica. Also Greenland and certainly East Antarctica are high altitude – altitudes that in the temperate zones support perrenial ice.

Gail Schubert
September 13, 2019 5:22 pm

Kip If you consider WAMC an NPR station I will totally disagree with you. Why NPR allows Alan Chartoc to remain in their family boggles my mind. He’s way to the left of this Democrat’s rather liberal bias. And many of their programs come from far left groups. My money goes to NCPR in the north country.

Johann Wundersamer
September 15, 2019 4:54 pm


that “sea level in San Francisco is expected to rise by 7 to 10 feet by 2100” –

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights