![]() |
Guest post by Jim Steele,
Venice is composed of a hundred linked islands and sits in the center of the shallow Venice Lagoon. Island elevations are low and easily flooded during storms. The Great Flood of 1966 was the worst on record. Since then, Venice has been working to avert the next inevitable flood. But because its flood control projects were fraught with corruption and other difficulties, the government failed to prevent the 2019 flood. So, now experiencing its 2nd greatest flood, the mayor covered his political derriere and immediately blamed climate change. But that’s a tactic typical for politicians these days. In California, ex-governor Jerry Brown vetoed a bipartisan bill to secure the electrical grid. Shortly thereafter power-line sparks ignited some of California’s biggest wildfires, so of course Brown blamed climate change to disguise his policy failures.
As seen in Figure 1 above, sea level rise in the Venice Lagoon is modulated by how much water from the Adriatic Sea enters the lagoon via 3 inlets and how quickly it flushes out again. To prevent further flooding, Venice began designing the MOSE project, which would construct inflatable barriers that could be deployed when weather conditions predicted threatening inflows from the Adriatic Sea. High inflows from the Adriatic Sea are driven by the strength of the Sirocco and Bora winds that cause local sea level to surge.
Increasing Venice’s vulnerability, the land has been sinking. Dwarfing the 1.4 millimeters per year of estimated sea level rise, from 1930 to 1970 Venice sank at the rate of 2.3 millimeters per year, largely due to ground water extraction. After addressing that problem, the rate of sinking slowed, but Venice continues to sink at a rate of 1 millimeter per year. Furthermore, due to alterations of the lagoon’s basin, the amplitude of tides have been changing, which accounts for 20% of the rise in extreme sea level events. That tidal effect was largely due to alteration of flows through the inlets due to dredging for ship traffic, and alterations from the MOSE project.
As has become typical for every catastrophe, media outlets shamelessly and mindlessly blame climate change for Venice’s flooding. Others, like Dr. Marshall Shepherd writing for Forbes, attempted to appear more objective by acknowledging many factors had contributed to the flooding. But Shepherd’s real intent was to ensure that people would still blame climate change, at least a part, and that skeptics were biased by only focusing on Venice’s sinking land. But there is much more to the skeptics’ arguments. Furthermore Dr. Shepherd failed to provide any support for his climate change claims. But that is to be expected as the evidence provides very little support for Venice’s mayor or Shepherd.
If climate change had really played a significant role, then we would expect the flooding to be worse in 2019 when compared to the more “natural flooding” in 1966. But a comparison of floodwaters inundating Doge’s Palace (see below) suggests the flooding was slightly worse in 1966. Official measurements likewise determined flood levels in Venice Lagoon peaked at 74 inches, shy of the 1966 record of 76 inches. The climate change argument is weakened further when it is understood that the 1966 flood happened during a low tide, in contrast to the 2019 flood that happened during an extreme high tide. Furthermore, there is no correlation with global warming as the November 1966 flood happened when Venice experienced its coldest temperatures since 1924. Recent Venice temperatures are slightly less than the 1950s (Figure 2).
![]() |

The Venice Lagoon is situated at the northernmost end of the Adriatic Sea. The Adriatic Sea is bordered by mountains on both its eastern and western boundaries. That geography creates a funnel effect. Each autumn the Sirocco Winds begin to intensify. These winds drive warm air from Africa northward, which in turn pushes Adriatic Sea water northward up the “funnel”. The end result is sea water piles up in front of the 3 inlets and begins flooding the shallow Venice Lagoon. Stronger winds drive greater flooding. And if the winds are strong enough, they temporarily prevent sea water from exiting the lagoons, causing sea level to rise even higher.
Naturally it would be natural to ask if climate change has caused an increasing trend in the Sirocco Winds. But there has been no trend.

We should also analyze how much has sea level rise affected Venice? It could certainly be argued that rising sea levels since 1900 contributed about 100 millimeters (4 inches) to the 1966 Great Flood as there was a steady rise in sea level between 1900 and 1970. But between 1970 and 2000 the Venezia (Venice) tide gauge shows sea level peaked around 7150 millimeters and then plateaued (Figure 3). Unfortunately, that tide gauge then moved to a new location designated Venezia II. There sea level began at a lower elevation and rose from 2001 to 2010, again plateauing just under 7150 millimeters (Figure 4).
![]() |

![]() |
Because various parts of Venice are sinking at different rates, it is difficult to know how much the new tide gauge location affected new estimates of sea level change. However, due to the uncertainty caused by Venice’s sinking land, researchers typically compare Venice sea level trends to neighboring Trieste in the far northeast corner of the Adriatic Sea. There the land appears to be more stable. Surprisingly, the Trieste sea level trend has been declining since 2000 (Figure 5). So, it would appear impossible to attribute sea level rise in the Adriatic Sea and climate change to the 2019 Venice flood.
However, there is another factor to consider. The winds in the northern Adriatic Sea cause sea levels to oscillate from east to west across the Adriatic’s northern basin. When sea levels fall around Trieste, they often surge around the Venice Lagoon. That sea level surge is associated with higher sea levels in the lagoon. Thus, at least in part, higher sea levels in the Venice Lagoon are driven by an ocean oscillation that creates higher sea level surges. And when that oscillation coincides with strong Sirocco Winds, a sinking Venice should expect more flooding.
In contrast, it’s unclear what effect is caused by global warming. Perhaps it’s negligible. Unfortunately for the public, that doesn’t stop media outlets from falsely hijacking the hardships in Venice to push a climate crisis. Alarmists continue to falsely suggest that every catastrophe has been partly driven by CO2 global warming. Sadly, as savvy propagandists know, if you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will start believing the lie.

Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus and authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.




The jet stream, which falls to Africa, pulls lows over Venice.
A great article–it seems like Venice is prone to mini-“storm surges” whenever the prevailing wind is out of the southeast. The fact that the sea level is falling at nearby Trieste rules out any effect from global warming or melting of the ice caps.
There was a similar storm surge effect in Raritan Bay (off northeastern New Jersey) and New York Harbor, causing major flooding during Hurricane Sandy. Lots of commentators at the time (2012) blamed “global warming”, but the real problem was that the center of Sandy made landfall near Atlantic City, with strong winds out of the southeast (with a long fetch of ocean water) into Raritan Bay and New York Harbor. Most other strong storms in that area have winds out of the north or northeast, which tend to push water out of New York Harbor. The center of Sandy was pushed westward into southern New Jersey by an unusually cold air mass over the North Atlantic, and Sandy brought heavy snow to West Virginia in late October. But the AGW alarmists blame global warming for everything, including cold storms!
To add to Steve Z’s post, a similar hurricane on a similar track occurred in 1903, however, with much less improvement along the NJ coast, there was a dearth of reported damage. That 1903 event was apparently a smaller storm geographically, though, whereas Sandy was larger, and consequently surge damage occurred much further north in the NYC area and western Long Island. Of course, the 1962 nor’easter of record was just as devastating as Sandy, but a tad further south so it affected NJ and points south along the Delmarva peninsula and DE Bay. Of course, it was a much longer duration event, 5 high tide cycles, so the devastation was done through a different mechanism. And, by the way, Sandy really was a hurricane at landfall, as temperatures rose at at least one observation site on the coast (so it was still slightly warm core). But, of course, as the call had been made days prior to landfall that Sandy would become extratropical before landfall, observations be damned. Thanks, NOAA. /sarc
Venice was built on wood pilings driven into mud banks for defensive purposes. First from the Huns as the Roman Empire declined and could not defend it’s self and later from other invaders or competing city states during the dark and middle ages. The security that the very limited avenues of approach provided is the primary reason for the accumulation of the architectural and other treasures there which tourists flock to see today. People with means flocked there because of the stability the security provided.
One problem I have read about elsewhere I did not see Jim mention, I assume because it has nothing to do with “climate change”, is erosion of the wood pilings. Motorized craft and ships traveling in the shallow waters kick up silt and sand which is abrading the pilings along major waterways.
rah,
For the sake of relative brevity, there are many things I did not write about. I can only present a relatively short essay that people can finish and hope it serves as a springboard for further discussion. The WUWT readers are highly educated, and like you do a good job of filling in the “blanks”
rah & Jim,
Good comments from both of you. And Thanks for the work on this, Jim.
I’ll toss out the question about sedimentation from the hinterlands.
Or said another way, has the volume of the lagoon decreased as
physical weathering in the uplands proceeded.
Sedimentation is the primary reason why the once major port of Pisa is now about two miles from the coast.
So too Cairo.
Visited Venice several years ago. How they deal with sewage disposal is interesting. With the mold scares of recent years one would wonder why this doesn’t seem to be a problem with Venetians.
I was there a few years ago and a king tide caused some minor flooding, but enough to see how precarious the situation is. It’ll be very tricky to fix the problem (or environment around it).
No need to worry there is a duplicate Venice in Las Vegas.
And a Paris.
Without the snot globs, dog turds and urine. Paris wold be great apart from the French.
I’ve been there several times in the last forty years. My spouse, who’s been there many more times, could navigate the place blindfolded.
Raised walkways to handle minor flooding have always been a common sight. When you see them the first time you wonder what they are for! They look like a bunch of cheap folding tables strung out for a hundred feet or more.
In 1966 a bad flood affected Venice as well as Florence on the Arno river, resulting in some major loss and damage to precious art objects, including Cimabue’s crucifixion.
So…Major floods go way back, and can’t be blamed on AGW.
Apparently, so-called journalists have never heard of subsidence.
Venice would be already save, had the dam project not been cancelled in 2006 do to green and EU pressure.
https://twitter.com/MaximumCities/status/1196212648771231745
Venice also gets very low tides. So much water drains from the canals that gondolas and vaporetti are unable to run. My recollection is that this occurs when there is a strong high pressure system stationary over the region, but more expert readers may have a better explanation.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/venice-runs-dry-with-rare-low-tide-20080220-gds1vi.html
The jetstream falls over Spain and pulls lows over northern Italy. There than it is blocked by the eastern high. Therefore, the water in Venice will not fall quickly, and may even rise as the front over Venice passes. This is happening now.

http://themeditelegraph.com/en/shipping/cruise-and-ferries/2019/05/25/venice-port-dredging-should-start-immediately-interview-hpdYTamDABosaCgWxcRFiO/index.html
This dredging has been going on for years. They still want more. When channels are larger, there is less resistance to flow when the sea level changes. Water will rise faster in the city center, brought in by the dredged channels, resulting in less elevation difference between the sea, and the city center at maximum. Wind driven water levels are also impacted. Do you want tourist dollars, or lower levels? The same authorities screaming climate change causes voted for dredging, and are pushing for more.
The data set of the tide gauge in Venice stopped 2000. There is also the issue, that the land near Venice sinks down. I checked the gauge in Trieste, only 115 km away from Venice and also measuring the tide of the Adria. The impact of the global SLR should be identicaly. The data of Trieste: https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/154.php .
Since 1966 ( the last big Venice flood) the sea level rise was 5.7 cm. The present flood was 1.20 above normal, this gives about 5% as the part of the SLR. Not a very strong argument for the claim: SLR causes the going down of Venice.
Great Job.
“690 A.D. At Venice and Liguria Italy, there were great floods from violent rainstorms In Venice and Liguria, Italy, happened the greatest tempest of rain, thunder, lightning and inundation, felt or seen since Noah’s Flood, with the greatest damage.” See also 1773:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/weather1.pdf
Hello, congratulations on the excellent work. I am preparing a huge article with dozens of studies on sea level worldwide, as a non-existent threat. Specifically Venice suffers problems due to other factors, because the sea level remains stable, there is no acceleration or anomaly.
-MÖRNER, N. –A. Chapter 12 – Sea Level Changes as Observed in Nature. Evidence-Based Climate Science (Second Edition). Data Opposing CO2 Emissions as the Primary Source of Global Warming. Pages 215-229. 2016.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000124
Abstract
“Observational facts recorded and controllable in the field tell a quite different story of actual sea-level rise than the ones based on model simulations, especially all those who try to endorse a preconceived scenario of disastrous flooding to come. ”
“Poster sites” like Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Kiribati in the Pacific have tide gauge stations indicating stable sea-level conditions over the last 20–30 years. The Maldives, Goa, Bangladesh, and several additional sites in the Indian Ocean provide firm field evidence of stable sea-level conditions over the last 40–50 years.”
“Northeast Europe provides excellent opportunities to test regional eustasy, now firmly being set at +1.0 ± 0.1 mm/year. Other test areas like VENICE, Guyana–Surinam, Qatar, and Perth provide a eustatic factor of ±0.0 mm/year. We now have a congruent picture of actual global sea-level changes, ie, between ±0.0 to +1.0 mm/year. This implies little or no threat for future sea-level problems.”