Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The Orange County Register ran a story hyping the usual speculative climate alarmist propaganda claim that sea level rise “could wipe out beaches”, jeopardize “90 beach front homes” and “threaten” the railroad and pier in the city of San Clemente.
“Sea-level rise in San Clemente will threaten portions of the seaside railroad, increase the pier’s exposure to high surf, radically shrink beach size, hurt surfing quality and eventually erode bluffs that are topped with homes, according to a vulnerability assessment presented to the City Council on Tuesday, Nov. 5.
Like most coastal cities in Orange and Los Angeles counties, San Clemente is analyzing the threats of rising seas and beginning to develop strategies for dealing with increased flooding and erosion.
While significant changes to San Clemente’s beaches could occur by 2030, time projections for sea-level rise are imprecise and it could be 2100 before the railroad is seriously threatened, according to the study by Moffatt & Nichol, an engineering and infrastructure firm consulting a number of coastal cities on sea-level rise.
On the other hand, the critical height for jeopardizing the railroad — estimated at 3.3 feet of sea-level rise — could happen as soon as 2070, the study notes. Major alterations would need to be in place by the time of 4.9 feet of rise, which the report said could happen as soon as 2080.”
These usual dire and hyped coastal sea level rise claims are based upon calculated output that arise from unvalidated “computer models” that are supposed to help city officials evaluate future coastal protection actions.
Front and center in the consultant report used to support the hyped “computer model” sea level rise manufactured outcomes is the following disclaimer that clearly demonstrate the high level of speculation and conjecture behind such “estimates”:
“It is understood that estimating and projecting future weather, tidal, ocean and on-shore conditions and their impacts upon existing or contemplated developments or resources is difficult, complex and based on variable assumptions, and further, is impacted by factors potentially beyond the Consultant’s ability to predict or control. Accordingly, any estimates, forecasts reviews or assessments provided as part of the Services are presented solely on the basis of the assumptions accompanying the estimates, forecasts, reviews and assessments, and subject to the information or data utilized at the time of this project.”
The consultant report does not provide explicit and available NOAA tide gauge data as noted below showing that the actual measured rate of coastal sea level rise at the closest regional location which is La Jolla is just 8.5 inches per century with that rate having remained consistent for the last 95 years.
Nor does the consultant report provide any information showing that climate alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise have been on going since Congressional hearings took place in 1988 and that after more than 30 years these claims are not supported by actually measured tide gauge data as provided in a prior WUWT article noted below.
“NOAA has updated its coastal tide gauge measurement data through year 2018 with this update now providing 30 years of actual data since the infamous 1988 Senate hearings that launched the U.S. climate alarmist political propaganda campaign.
In June of 1988 testimony was provided before Congress by various scientists, including NASA’s Dr. James Hansen, claiming that man made greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for increasing global temperatures with the New York Times reporting, “Global Warming Has Begun, Experts Tells Senate”.
The Times article noted that “The rise in global temperature is predicted to cause a thermal expansion of the oceans and to melt glaciers and polar ice, thus causing sea levels to rise by one to four feet by the middle of the next century. Scientists have already detected a slight rise in sea levels.”
“In all more than 200 coastal locations are included in these measurements with more than 100 of these coastal locations with recorded data periods in excess of 50 years in duration. None of these updated NOAA tide gauge measurement data records show coastal location sea level rise acceleration occurring anywhere on the U.S. coasts or Pacific or Atlantic island groups.”
Climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry has studied claims of sea level rise acceleration for years and concluded the following concerning such assertions:
“Sea level is rising, but this has been gradually happening since the 1860s; we don’t yet observe any significant acceleration of this process in our time.” Here again, one must consider the possibility that the causes for rising sea levels are partly or mostly natural, which isn’t surprising, says Curry, for “climate change is a complex and poorly understood phenomenon, with so many processes involved.”
“Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project,” she complains. In other words, “the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.”
The longest available record of coastal NOAA tide gauge data measurements is at The Battery in New York shown below with measurements covering a period of more than 160 years of data indicating no sea level rise acceleration occurring with a consistent rate of rise of about 11 inches per century.
This latest climate alarmist sea level rise article from the Register is basically a repeat of the same type of alarmist article that ran on April 24, 2016 falsely claiming that a sea level rise of 3 feet could occur by year 2100 with that article addressed at WUWT and concluding:
“The NOAA tide gauge data for these locations which covers time periods from more than 80 to over 100 years ago through 2015 data measurements shows that there is no sea level rise acceleration taking place at these locations and that the rate of sea level rise is stable and between 3 to 9 inches per century at these locations not the 3 feet proclaimed in the alarmist article. This NOAA tide gauge data should have been discussed and presented in these Register articles.”
“These stories based their sea level rise information on the “National Climate Assessment” report and incorrectly applied the mid range scenario to Long Beach, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach. Additionally the articles failed to make any mention of the huge qualifications and limitations of the National Assessment reports global sea level rise scenarios.”
The recent sea level rise hyped Register article is just more of the same scientifically unsupported climate alarmist sea level rise propaganda.
Looking at the La Jolla tide gauge history, it doesn’t appear much has happened since around 1983. Some up and some down, and the last data point is pretty much back to where it crossed the line in 1983.
I’m guessing this data is a little harder to fudge than temperatures.
people and pictures remember sea tide levels… not temperatures.
NASA and NOAA run into the Tangled Web with that deception.
Warming… probably some. Accelerating SLR… no.
Climate Change alarmism and rapidly accelerated SLR is total junk science.
The Left lies its butt off to claim otherwise.
Far past time to kick them under the bus.
The Right doesn’t seem to have the scientific knowledge at high enough political levels to rebut them.
I’m still struggling to understand how the consensus composite analysis of global sea level can obtain a very striking accelerating curve, from the effective average of what at face-value are a large number of straight line trends at various NOAA recorded gauges around the world.
Since almost every single North American, European and Australian long term record shows a pretty consistent linear trend over the last one hundred years, then is it possible that some faulty data from poor quality mid-Pacific or mid-Indian Ocean sites are having a vastly disproportionate impact on an area weighted analysis?
What “consensus composite analysis” are talking about , there is no analysis of data , it is just based on computer models as the article states. Nothing to with Indian ocean etc.
I think Curry has it in a nutshell:
“Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project,” .
That’s all you need to know to avoid confusion.
It’s almost time to abandon the term climatology. Let it be associated with these modern Piltdown men and move the actual science to a new field. I fear the climatology ‘brand’ is irrevocably tarnished.
More like Climastrology now. Anyone have some climate crystals?
‘Climate Science’ has become part of the Dark Arts….
indefatigabefrog
“I’m still struggling to understand how the consensus composite analysis of global sea level can obtain a very striking accelerating curve, from the effective average of what at face-value are a large number of straight line trends at various NOAA recorded gauges around the world.”
How many of them did you have a look at? There are over 1500 of them in the PMSL data set:
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
Processing this data set gives you for example, for all stations having provided sufficient data for anomaly construction wrt the mean of 1993-2013, info about their sea level trends for that period:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kLZZQH-zQjkWMvwT72JxAM34cLPOUjMr/view
If you exclude all trends above e.g. 10 mm/yr and below -10 mm/yr (stations in the near of land sinks or of glacial isostatic rebound), you obtain an average trend of 2.7 mm/yr for that period, what roughly corresponds to the sea level increase detected on average by satellite altimetry.
Surprisingly, this (very rough calculated) average trend is not far away from that computed when you carefully extract vertical land movements out of the data.
This is all not so dramatic for the moment. But that is no reason to ignore it.
As far as I am aware, the satellites do not provide a sea level rise rate. Since the satellites experience an unknown orbital decay which is greater than the mm per year claimed rise.
The SLR is added to the satellite data, by making an adjustment based on comparison with one or more sea surface location here on earth.
This was done by CSIRO to my recollection. And so, the fact that the satellite rate matches their tide gauge analysis is hardly surprising, since assumptions about the latter seem to have been used to create the former.
And regarding you first point; I have looked at dozens of quality site in the NOAA database, as graphs – and what I see are straight lines. i.e. linear trends, at all the long term non-seismic locations in developed nations.
However, I also see some shocking oddities such as the weird graph at Manila (I think it was). It would be alarming to me, if those locations were being added in to the final product. Especially since they potentially are used to represent the ocean surface for a vast area, compared to their European and American counterparts.
So, the question remains; why is Church and White banana shaped (i.e. accelerating dramatically), when all the reliable long term records in developed nations show a nice straight line (i.e. no significant acceleration) for 100 years or more?
A large part of the “accelration ” is an artifact of the change in the method of measurement from tide gauges to satelite.
When the satelite measurement was introduced in early 1990’s (1993?) the sea level rise was 3.1-3.3mm per year with very little if any acceleration in the rate of increase.
While at the same time, the tide gauge sea level rise was approximately 1.4-1.5 mm per year, likewise with very little in the rate of increase, if any. Note also that the tide gauges continue to measure the same rate of sea level rise today.
The climate scientists then “found a measurement error”, and adjusted the salelite measured sea level rise to match the tide gauge measeurement starting 1993.
The believe that satelite adjustment is proper – You have to be able to make the argument that the tide guages were accurate from the 1800’s through 1993 and then with the introduction saltelite measurements, that the tide gauges are no longer correct.
clarifcation
The climate scientists then “found a measurement error”, and adjusted the salelite measured sea level rise to match the tide gauge measeurement starting 1993.
It should state
The climate scientists then “found a measurement error” and adjusted the original satellite measurement to match the tide gauge measurement starting in 1993 (ie 1.4mm ish per year) with an increase to 3.2mm – 3.3mm by 2016. Hence the rapid acceleration of sea level rise.
+10
Joe – the non climate scientist
“While at the same time, the tide gauge sea level rise was approximately 1.4-1.5 mm per year, likewise with very little in the rate of increase, if any. Note also that the tide gauges continue to measure the same rate of sea level rise today.”
To which science corner do you belong?
Did you ever process any tide gauge data?
Look at Church and White’s evaluation of the PMSL tide gauges. Everybody can download the data at the CSIRO site, and compute for example the trends for consecutive periods distant by e.g. 5 years.
Here is a chart showing you that you made, like so many others, a very unscientific beginner mistake, namely to confound the gauge trend for 1880-2013 with its trend for 1993-2013:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ug98VsyZHhr0lFfGk7cThDeoDqpuFayI/view
As you can see, the trend increase for tide gauges did not at all start with the satellite era.
C’mon, scientist!
Download the C&W stuff, and see. Moreover, if you are able to, download the original PMSL data, and generate your own global tide gauge monthly average time series to evaluate the data.
I thought “hockey stick” graphs have been long-ago discredited? And since these RIDICULOUS predicted sea level increases of 3.3ft and more are based on the BOGUS data which created the original hockey stick temperature rise … then how can any public agency take this seriously!?
On another note … Jesus told a parable about building railroads on shifting sand. Or something like that *giggle*.
It would make for great real estate deals if more than 5% of the population actually acted on any of these scares. Beyond that it’s just pulp fiction.
I think most people with a prized coastal property will wait until the waves are crashing on the porch before they chose to run away. They see the ocean every day they are not going to be convince by a computer model in Maryland.
No. Coastal property owners who pony up multi-multi-millions for their beachfront homes are not stupid. They will SELL the minute “the market” accepts this unreasoned, ridiculous, hysterical, catastrophic sea level rise nonsense. And no such thing is happening. In fact, the market continues to rise … farrrrr faster than the oceans
I looked up San Clemente on a map of California land subsidence, and it is not shown in areas marked as affected by water pumping, or oil removal. However, it is not far from the famous Long Beach which has seen the downtown area drop several meters in place.
This sort of subsidence tends to leave an impression on peoples minds when it tends to show sea level RISE.
What I don’t understand is anyone, anyone, can access the NOAA data and find out for themselves what the rate and amount of sea level rise is. I also don’t understand why any so called journalists haven’t done this simple bit of investigation. When confronted by CC alarmists that sea level rise is the “empirical proof” (it isn’t) I ask them if they’ve ever actually looked at the data. None have.
Have you read the local newspaper lately, you can read an article and when you finish you will no useful information. It mostly about feelings and conjecture, completely lacking in data.
Climate is not their enemy. The ground that moves under them is. And the ubiquitous fires that sweep through the overgrown brush filled canyons where they’ve built homes… what about that?
This absolutely irresponsible focus on the scam climate and SLR when brush fires, earthquakes, and tsunamis are the real threat to millions in So Cal is criminal.
But then that is what “Progressives fixated on the climate scam” are… criminals. Newsome is criminal governor. And most the pols in Sacramento are criminals.
So when the Big One hits, and then the quick tsunami sweeps the coast… who will they blame? Someone else.. anyone else, anyone but them. That’s what
criminalsDemocrats do.Earthquakes and tsunamis will be blamed on “global warming” and they will say : this is exactly what our models predicted.
The 1906 San Francisco earthquake offset railways by 18 feet and lifted parts of coastal California by over two feet as evidenced by photographs taken after the event. The 1989 Loma Preita earthquake lifted coastal California by over one foot as evidenced by GPS measurements and harbors and wharf pilings that exposed mussel colonies above sea level.
So, if you survive the earthquakes unscathed, sea level rise is the least of your worries.
Good comment, Doonman. So sea level rises 3 to 9 inches per hundred years and the the convergent west coast lurches upward 1 to 2 feet during earthquakes 83 years apart, so the question is: is Kalifornia eroding or rising? I thought this article was funny until I read the part “hurt surfing quality”! Cowabungga, Dude! We can’t have that.
Were there tsunamis associated with either of those quakes? Not sure that California earthquakes, at least those on land rather than off shore, can cause tsunamis.
Who will they blame? Silly Joel! Why obviously it will be the Republicans fault. That part is certain. How it will be explained at the time has some flexibility, especially since reality never plays a role.
In California they should be more worried about becoming a full blown third world backwater. They sure seem to be well on their way to becoming one.
California alone would be the fifth largest economy in the world, just behind Germany. Land of nuts for sure, but hardly third world.
A third would country is generally a country without a middle class, you have the very rich that live in their enclaves, and the poor that live in shacks or less. California is becoming that regardless of what is economy is producing, add in it politicians are spending the tax money on useless projects and local governments are going bankrupt. Add in now they have some of the most expensive electric power and it is unreliable. If things don’t change soon California is not going to remain the fifth largest economy for much longer.
I think one always has to go back to First Principles when looking at situations like this.
1. No one has ever gotten his research grant renewed for saying everything is just fine.
2. No one has ever made money selling newspapers et al without something scary on the front page.
3. No one has ever gotten another consulting contract for telling his client that something the client believes is stupid.
Here is Andrew Bolt interviewing SL expert Daniel Fitzhenry a few months ago.
Mean SL at Fort Denison Sydney is about the same as it was in 1914 or perhaps even lower.
And the Kench and Duvat island studies show that the majority of coral atoll islands have INCREASED in size over the last 30 years. Here’s the Bolt interview.
Great article thank you.
I recently received a photo on facebook showing two images of Fort Denison from early 1900s to recent showing very little if any change. Upon reposting it to my own facebook page I received a fact check message from facebook claiming the images were not valid scientifically. (Camera angles, time of day, tide cycles, etc) and so on and so on. All I could do then was to post the link to the Bureaus’s own data that reported exactly as Daniel Fitzhenry reports. These show no discernable change. Same sort of results cane found for most of Australia’s tide gauges and those from the pacific islands, Fiji, Vanuatu etc. Little if any discernable trends.
“Upon reposting it to my own facebook page I received a fact check message from facebook claiming the images were not valid scientifically.”
Facebook is now fact checking climate change conversations? What a joke they are! Do they give you a chance to rebut their charges? I’m betting: No.
These busybodies have to have their hooks in all aspects of the lives of the Peons. The unwashed have to be guided in the proper direction.
I have a Facebook account, although I haven’t used it in years. And it doesn’t look from the above like my conversation would be welcomed on Facebook. Some “fact checker” would be hassling me. No, thanks, I’ll pass. Go harass someone else. I’ll stick to uncensored websites.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?plot=50yr&id=680-140
Periodic trend.
Lasse
“Periodic trend.”
Yes, of course! But why don’t you construct the average of all these gauges? Their ‘periodic trend’ differs for each, and the periodic result is… noise.
It doesn’t matter, it is easily calculable that by 2100 we will be unable to walk to the beach anyway, due to acceleration of heel callus growth causing our feet to be very massive. It is also called CC, for Callus Crisis, not to be confused with Climate Change. /sarc, just in case….
The report shows sea level rise rate proportional the CO2 emissions and relies on models to interpret the warming that causes the expected rise. There is no correlation between emissions and sea level rise to date. There is no conclusive empirical evidence that emissions cause warming. There is now good data analysis that shows emissions do not cause warming (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY ). Using GCMs to predict sea level rise is truly compounding propagated error in one with broad uncertainty in the other and a massive waste of time and money.
A USGS topo map (and Google Earth) shows the trail and the RR mostly near and greater than 20 feet elevation.
The plan should be that when the sea level has risen 3 feet, convene a meeting of engineers and city agency department heads. Write a report and agree to reconvene when the rise is four feet.
Meanwhile, relax and chill.
Moffatt & Nichol brought in to lend some perception of credibility to local bureaucrats funded by monies provided by the California Coastal Commission. Irritating to think about the wasted tax dollars burned to generate the collective drivel.
The Environmental Justice section of the report didn’t even mention the plight of the bums who live under the beach side rail line bridges if the projected sea level rise was to occur.
“Moffatt & Nichol brought in to lend some perception of credibility to local bureaucrats funded by monies provided by the California Coastal Commission. Irritating to think about the wasted tax dollars burned to generate the collective drivel.”
If a company misrepresents the facts to their clients, it is fraud. Presenting dubious computer models as facts is what this company is doing. I guess if they told the truth that sea level is rising at about 3mm per year they wouldn’t be hired by alarmist city politicians. Still, it’s fraud to represent computer models as fact. The taxpayers should demand their money be returned.
It blows my mind each time we see one of these sea level rise scare stories that these ‘consultants’ apparently don’t know what a beach is, why a beach is where it is, and most importantly, don’t understand that if sea level rises the beach will move with it.
Yes, I heard somebody once say that beach erosion is a consequence of sea level rise.
So rising sea removes sand… so falling sea adds sand??
Seems more likely that rising sea adds more sand higher, and falling sea would remove sand by wind/rain erosion.
Recent example of this in Southern Australia, a local surf club, build on the beach front sand dunes is in danger of being washed away. CLIMATE CHANGE screams the headlines.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/this-victorian-surf-club-is-under-threat-as-climate-change-eats-away-at-the-coast-20190927-p52vgy.html
Depends where you are;
most beach erosion is caused by longshore drift (complete islands move across the seascape at a surprising speed, just compare old admiralty charts with new ones, & we have satellite photos of rapid movement over the last 40 yrs), some is caused by storm surge & some is wind/rain .
Good points.
Search Google Earth for ‘ North Cove, WA ‘
Zoom in until “eye alt” is between 3,000 to 4,000 feet.
Note the white lines, the streets.
These are shown going across the beach and over the water.
On the lower right is Old State Route 105.
During WWII there were bunkers where the sea is now.
There are photos and attempts at explanation for this area.
Once called Cape Shoalwater, it is known as Washaway Beach.
From the picture I would have thought that the railway was at risk from one good storm even without significant sea level rise. Must be a very tame stretch of coastline to have built it there.
Well see this…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26874503
That rail line had operated without problems for well over 100 years.
Now they are spending 100 million to make sure it doesn’t happen again
A once-in-multi-hundred-year storm in that location. It happens.
At least the article did not blame climate change, and it was in 2014. Have equivalent storms hit that area since?
The article said the damage was fixed (for at least 200 years) at a cost of £35 million, not 100 million. Is there more to the story than shown in your link?
I’m guessing here that you are saying that somehow recent carbon dioxide emissions caused or contributed to this. Even the BBC didn’t claim this. If you are, could you please take us through the steps as to how you got to that conclusion. Take it nice and slow. We’ll be here.
Thanks griff.
This proves the point that sea level doesn’t have to change for storms to erode coasts.
As shown by the BBC,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-26125244
Dawlish.
Now, about your statement “That rail line had operated without problems for well over 100 years.”
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/dawlish-railway-then-now/
Hey Adam, well 1855 is well over 100 years technically, thereby proving it was carbon dioxide wot dun it in 2014. Just waiting for Griff to educate precisely all us scientist-wannabes on how it all happened.
I’ll try to catch him on other threads I guess.
I wonder if there’s someone who take care of Earth Diameter and sub-ocean volcano. I suppose that both involve sea rise level. Too naif?
Emissions?
No connection!
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?plot=50yr&id=9410230
An abiding puzzle surrounds the climate change movement.
If you were planning to inform and influence people, about the effect they were having on the environment/ecosystem/climate, would you have chosen sea level rise and plant food as your villains? Why would you pick two features to concentrate on, i.e. sea level rise due to global warming and atmospheric warming, due to CO2 concentration increase? Those concerns are so easily debunked.
The sea is not accelerating or rising due to global warming. It is rising steadily and consistently due to the natural variation normally experienced by sea level. It is rising at a rate well within the ability of mankind to accommodate it.
Then they feature CO2 as the atmospheric villain in the climate alarm stories. A more beneficial gas contributing to life on Earth does not exist, other than H2O, yet they continue to beat their broken drum. The worn out chant of “CO2 must be reduced to avoid accelerating global warming” is beyond rational discussion. All study shows, CO2 does not correlate with changes in atmospheric temperature. It does not contribute to more severe weather either. All study, would suggest CO2 and its rise, correlates very well with a reduction of severe weather conditions, such as hurricanes, floods, excessive daily temperatures, heat waves and draughts.
With those being the scientific adjusted facts, why did the anarchists determined to wreck stable society and return mankind back to the dark days of serfdom and starvation, choose the villains they did?
The climate alarmists are looking increasingly ridiculous, yet their only answer is to increase the tempo and the scale of their false concerns.
What is wrong with those climate alarm people?
Rod says:
If you were planning to inform and influence people, about the effect they were having on the environment/ecosystem/climate, would you have chosen sea level rise and plant food as your villains?
Exactly Rod — see my reply further down. I mean, the things the propagandaneers try to scare people with are preposterous. They must think their audience is incredibly ignorant & indoctrinated…
Rod asks: ” would you have chosen”
They tried other things:
– wide tree rings,
– snow on Kilimanjaro,
– polar bears,
– fish of one sort or another,
– butterflies,
– penguins, . . . . . . .
Sea level isn’t working either so now Extinction of Everything (E^2) is the game.
Get your red suit and glue — don’t be left out.
well the consultant made his assumptions openly.
larry couldnt even do that much.
1. Assumes Judith is correct.
2. Assumes tide guages are correct
3. Assumes the future will be like the past ( ie assumes past SLR is important)
Now, these may or may not be supportable assumptions. but, they are assumptions nevertheless.
Here is a hint. Nobody will pay larry for his analysis.
wonder why?
Assumes tide gauges are correct? What the heck do you assume about measuring temperatures? That all you models, assumptions and reporting stations are correct? I would trust a tide gauge history one hell of lot more than a fake, homogenized fudged data set.
Seriously, aren’t you the pot calling the kettle black? What a joke.
And Mosher assumes the future WON’T be like the past wrt tipping points and feedback amplification.
wonder why?
……. because they can look up the data for themselves, maybe?
As you know from personal experience though, getting paid to lie about it is an entire industry.
Surprised you couldn’t figure that one out for yourself.
These assumptions are so obvious that adding them to the article would have made it sound downright weird.
The warmest lobby base all of their fear driven “”Facts”” on our coming out of the Little Ice Age, when obviously some warming would occur, long term back
to the MWP.
But there is another way of looking at sea level, all of the indications
appear to show a possibility of a cooler world, in which case water via
evaporation is removed from the sea , but does not return to the sea,,
instead it becomes snow on land
Thus the sea levels will fall.
M JE VK5ELL
Those in the UK might have seen an article in The Times saying x% of Londoners believe what the XR alarmists say about sea level rising etc.
I pointed out that Londoners might then wonder why the engineers at the Thames Barrier have recently had its expected working life extended by forty years (from 2030 to 2070) – because the sea level isn’t rising or expected to rise.
“radically shrink beach size, hurt surfing quality…” Oh, the poor things, the misery they will have to face!
An increased volume of rain over several years has increased the water volume of Lake Michigan by 11 inches, as well as increasing the runoff levels in local rivers. Rain volume is now expected to increase even more, and what will that do? Increase the runoff into creeks, rivers, catchments basins, marshy areas, local lakes and ponds, and finally, Lake Michigan (and possibly the other Great Lakes). That all eventually flows out to –> The Atlantic Ocean and/or the Gulf of Mexico. It appears we inlanders know how to handle such things, which makes it a “so what?” thing.
And these people on the west coast can’t deal with it like grownups? What a bunch of dorks!!!!
What is truly shocking is that this comes from San Clemente! One of the last bastions of Orange Co conservatism. Don’t tell me San Clemente have swallowed the CAGW koolaid!?
The Teenage Super Sleuths totally debunk the Sea Level scare. There are just as many sites with falling sea level as there are rising sea level. The best example is Battery Park NY. There is a gradual uptrend over the past 100+ years and there is no acceleration, which is required if you are having accelerating warming.
https://youtu.be/ZDRvPMvn1kc
CO2isLife
“There are just as many sites with falling sea level as there are rising sea level.”
This sentence is solely valid for those who very probably never had a look at the PMSL data set.
For those who did, here is another interpretation:
1. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kLZZQH-zQjkWMvwT72JxAM34cLPOUjMr/view
2. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MKN4zBzgKIwM9BPBOS6M7Vwoqzm7ahSi/view
Source: https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
Feel free to do some own analysis of that data (please spare us the typical, boring manipulation by excluding stations with less than e.g. 100 years activity), and to come back here with the results.
Please spare us the basic analytic misconception that linear “trend” is an immutable characteristic of tide gauge records that is entirely independent of record length. Given amply-demonstrated, multi-decadal and longer oscillations in the climate system, a century-long record is a reasonable minimum for apples-to-apples trend comparisons.
1sky1
“Given amply-demonstrated, multi-decadal and longer oscillations in the climate system, a century-long record is a reasonable minimum for apples-to-apples trend comparisons.”
You perfectly know, 1sky1, that your claim is no more than a pseudoskeptic trick to exclude valuable data and thus to keep all climate evaluations look like the US and a bit of Europe.
This is an eternal manipulation. The oscillations you are talking about can be perfectly demonstrated using shorter records as well.
1sky1
Maybe you understand a bit better how disingenuous your approach is when having a look at this graph below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_XDvRE3E5qzy0vAgv2fli36wGYktiV1F/view
Feel free, 1sky1, to compare it with NOAA’s trend picture (click on Global before, of course):
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
Oh yes! When reducing the tide gauge data set like you do, one obtains ‘by accident’ exactly what you want: a linear estimate of 1.22 mm/year for the period 1993-2013 (instead of 2.7 with the most conservative approach).
Great job! This is antiscience at its best.
The epitome of anti-science is simplistic number-crunching of inadequately short records that is totally blind to the strong effects of spectral structure upon the widely-scattered estimates obtained for secular linear trend. Ironically, such analytic blindness is touted by novices as a “conservative approach.” C’est la vie!
Come on. The enviro-wacko’s propaganda-spinners HAVE to come up w/something scarier than, oooooowwww — sea-level rise. OMG, the sea rose a millimeter this year! Run for the hills!
Jeesh.
In my paper “Accelerating Sea Level Rise – Reconciliation of Tidal Gauge Readings with Satellite Data” I investigated other curve fitting alternatives. The 3 curves studied were quadratic (because most papers tended to use this as it represented a constant acceleration and is the easiest to use), exponential and sinusoidal. Other the range of data, 1880 to 2013, they all were very similar and subsequent work was based on the quadratic curve.
The sinusoidal curve fitted was eye-balled in and represented a long (770 year) curve. To try to improve this the following process was followed. Assume the curve is given by
y=A+B*sin((C+2x)/D)
Where y is the sea level in mm, A is an adjustment to allow the points of contraflexure not coinciding with y=0, B is the amplitude, C is a phase shift, x is time with 1800 being taken as x=0 and D is the period in years.
Three equidistant readings, each 60 years apart, are chosen to fit the curve through. The process then involves assuming values for C and D, solving for A and B using the outer 2 values, calculating the value at the middle position and checking the error between this calculated value and the actual value, then modifying the phase shift, C, until the error is nearly zero.
What value of D to choose? A value of 1000 years seemed a good start as that is roughly the perceived time gap between Warm Periods. The resulting equation, in EXCEL Format, is
y=250+415*SIN(((1420+2*x)/1000*PI())
This is a curve with an amplitude of 415mm (total range 830mm or 2.7 feet), peaking every 1000 years with the next peak occurring in about 2340. The link below shows a plot of both the quadratic and sinusoidal curves together with the annual averaged Tidal Readings. Other periods could have been chosen but the fit is so good it was considered no necessary.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gjBS78xYrVZ4U2RsZe-AhIF7v5hk4FUI/view?usp=sharing
A few comments I would like to make.
Although I have used extrapolation here, and in my paper, I still believe that is a dangerous technique and I think “Extrapolate and be damned” should apply in most situations.
The quadratic is that obtained from the Tidal Readings with an acceleration of 0.0126, about 1/7th of that obtained by Nerem et al from satellite readings. To extrapolate 80 years based on only 25 years set of results and to report the results in my mind is criminal. In my paper I also undermine Nerem’s methodology as if the approach is applied to sinusoidal set of data closely resembling the satellite readings it still predicts high acceleration levels, whereas no long-term acceleration should be involved.
A question – Is it known if peak sea levels and temperatures, should they both be sinusoidal, might display a pattern where the sea level peaks lag the temperature peaks by a few hundred years.
With respect to accelerations the level of accelerations involved from various decadal ocean oscillations greatly exceeds those seen in the Tidal and Satellite readings. They could influence, particularly the satellite set due to the short period involved and the fact that the coverage is not 100%.
Finally, may I list a link to my (corrected version) paper for anyone who missed it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17lXnNtsLSlzSOx7tRvbDPwYMDibpvXKG/view?usp=sharing
I live in Dana Point and walk down the creek to Doheny Beach most days and have been doing so for 16 years or so ….. I have seen summer & winter weather and being British I make a point of walking when the weather is bad and the waves are rolling in. All along this stretch of “un-protected” beach from Dana Point to San Clemente there has always been Wave Damage from Pacific Storms …… It is called WEATHER !!!.
Note I mentioned UN- PROTECTED, there are no form of beach defenses so of course there will be damage to immediate infrastructure that is exposed to winter wave action. Yes 16 years is a blink of an eye in terms of time, I studied Geology in college so I have some understanding of time scales …… We are still coming out of an Ice Age and if you take the time to look at tide gauge records around the world and not believe the computer generated tosh that the climate alarmist driven media produce, you can see the slow and consistent sea level rise that is in the range of millimeters / sixteenths per year. Both here in California and back in the UK the sea levels are not the alarmist danger that is portrayed by the alarmist loons …… Rant over , have a great day at the Beach ……. Surfs Up
Catastrophic sea level rise is hysterical nonsense. Ask Al Gore where to buy property on the coast.
The claims are propaganda, climate change is not driving sea level or wildfires.
You’ve hit the nail on the head Larry. This is the game that consultants and engineering firms are playing now. They are using propaganda and threats of public legal action against elected officials for inaction. They are using similar intimidation tactics the mob used to get a foot hold, in this case to purchase their services to design remediation against climate change.
I believe the tide gauge of Brest (France) as being one of the oldest, if not the oldest tide gauge in the world since it began its records in 1807 when the Emperor Napoleon the1st ruled this country.
Brest is located in Brittany, on a very stable ground in terms of subsidence/emergence.
http://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=190-091
In my opinion, the sea level as it is monitored throughout the world by hundreds of tide gauges is the Achilles heel of the CAGW.
Jack
“In my opinion, the sea level as it is monitored throughout the world by hundreds of tide gauges is the Achilles heel of the CAGW.”
I’m not interested at all in this boring CAGW / CO2 discussion.
No one of us here understands exactly how the presence of this gas above the tropopause makes our Earth get les and less rid out of all the energy it obtains from the Sun, let alone how that might correlate with temperatures… or not.
But please understand this.
There are about 1500 tide gauges all around the world.
If you select, out of these 1500+, all gauges located “on a very stable ground in terms of subsidence/emergence”,
– that does not necessarily mean that all of them will show sea level data looking like that presented by Brest;
– conversely, you can’t restrict your analysis to such stations, because the other ones may contain, behind the land movement bias, valuable information as well.
You therefore have to do the job of removing, for each station, the vertical land movement around it.
This is what has been done in several studies. I know of three (Church & White, Jevrejeva & al. and the more recent by Dangendorf & al).
Here is a graph comparing these evaluations for their common period (1900-2009), together with satellite altimetry data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11XCSd7YE9QwNFLOrp5a86TVGkf8E6oud/view
Yes: it looks like a joke, but… the green plots come from my little layman evaluation (in which no restriction else than to have sufficient data for anomaly computation was requested from the gauges, and no VLM correction was applied).
In addition, Grant Foster aka Tamino compared these results with an own evaluation (which included VLM handling), and found a good match between his job and Dangendorf’s:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/10/21/sea-level-acceleration-since-the-1960s/
A good reason for me to vote for Sönke Dangendorf and colleagues.
Moffatt and Nichol: If the water goes up, someone will get wet….and we will need to “advise” you city employees the whole time. Hey Aaron? Yes Chris. How bad should we make this look? Bad enough to get me a Hawaiian vacation every year from the CCC man! Ok, sh*t is going under water!!
The one and only Magic spell: “These usual dire and hyped coastal sea level rise claims are based upon calculated output that arise from unvalidated “computer models” that are supposed to help city officials evaluate future coastal protection actions.”
Whisper “super computer models” and the enlightened green choir enchanted carols
The science is settled, blessed are the 97%!