L A Times supports mandated relocation of coastal properties based on climate alarmist flawed sea level rise claims

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The Los Angeles Times ran yet another scientifically unsupported climate alarmist sea level rise propaganda article supporting the position that government entities in the state need to mandate relocation of coastal properties away from the coast based upon speculation and conjecture derived from unvalidated and failed computer model outcomes of future sea level rise.

State government mandated relocation actions potentially involves politicians dictating control of homeowner and business property values of tens of thousands of properties representing billions of dollars in property value located along the 840 mile California coastline resulting in Draconian economic impacts being foisted upon these property owners as determined by the state’s climate alarmist government politicians.

clip_image002

The Times article notes: “Lawmakers have told cities they must start addressing climate adaptation in their planning, but have otherwise shied away from issuing mandatory directions. The California Coastal Commission, through modest grants and some general guidance, has been encouraging local officials to consider “everything in the toolkit” — including the controversial option of relocating oceanfront properties and critical infrastructure away from the water — when updating city policies.”

The Times article bases its climate change hyped sea level rise alarmist propaganda on computer model output derived from a 2017 California report that utilized UN IPCC AR5 report future emission scenarios that are characterized by the UN as being simply “illustrative” and “plausible” with no probabilities associated with the assumptions employed in these scenarios meaning

outcomes using these scenarios amount to nothing but conjecture and speculation.

The Times article utilizes climate alarmist characterizations of California’s future sea level rise concerns as follows:      

“The rising sea might feel like a slow-moving disaster, they said, but this is a social, economic and environmental catastrophe that the state cannot afford to ignore. By the end of this century, the sea could rise more than 9 feet in California — possibly more if the great ice sheets collapse sooner than expected.”

clip_image004

The California sea level report attempts to assign probabilities to the ranges of sea level rise calculated by computer models using the various UN IPCC AR 5 emissions scenarios by combining these speculative scenarios with the UN reports assessments by its alarmist writers of “level of confidence” and “assessed likelihood” qualifiers assigned to the reports outcomes.

These UN report “confidence and likelihood” qualifiers are completely subjective and represent manufactured and fabricated assigned values that form the basis for the California report sea level rise “probabilities”. These “probabilities” are nothing but subjective opinions  – they are not calculated probabilities.

Thus the California sea level rise report outcomes represent opinions based upon speculation and conjecture regarding future claims about California’s coastal sea level rise.      

As noted in a WUWT article at the time of the UN IPCC AR 5 report: “The UN IPCC has completed its three part (WGI, WGII, WGIII) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) process where future climate findings are portrayed using “level of confidence” and “assessed likelihood” qualifiers that attempt to cast these outcomes in a cloak of scientific certainty.”

As always the Times the article fails to note that coastal sea level rise has been occurring along the California coastline for tens of thousands of years based on natural climate behavior since the last ice age with the rate of sea level rise remaining at low levels for at least the last 8,000 years.

clip_image006

Additionally the Times article as always conceals and suppresses the more than 30 year failure of climate alarmist scientists claims of accelerating sea level rise made before Congress in 1988 where their computer models showed that sea level rise would increase by between 1 to 4 feet by mid century with this outcome completely unsupported by global tide gauge data that reflects no coastal sea level rise acceleration occurring during the last three decades.

clip_image008

The climate alarmist embarrassing failure demonstrated by extensive NOAA tide gauge data measurements that do NOT reflect acceleration of coastal sea level rise as hyped by failed climate alarmist computer models over the last more than 30 years is illustrated by the 120 year long tide gauge measurement sea level rise data recorded at San Francisco shown below with this long record of steady sea level rise of course unaddressed by the Times alarmist article.

clip_image010

The Times article mentions the usual idiotic assertion, as clearly displayed below, that California coastal sea level rise could increase by 9 to 10 feet by the end of the century based on pure speculative from computer models. This flawed claim is about the same rate of sea level rise increase hyped by climate alarmist “scientists” testifying in 1988 before Congress with that assertion shown to be flawed and failed over the last three decades.

clip_image012

Computer models created and utilized by climate alarmist propagandists for political purposes are incapable of accurately representing global climate either regionally or globally regardless of the climate metric being evaluated including global temperatures which are grossly overestimated by these models.

clip_image014

California’s purely politically driven climate alarmist government needs to abandon the use of incompetent, inaccurate and failed sea level rise computer models and instead utilize actual measured coastal sea level rise data to establish meaningful, justifiable and cost effective government climate policy actions.

87 thoughts on “L A Times supports mandated relocation of coastal properties based on climate alarmist flawed sea level rise claims

  1. They may be doing the right thing for the wrong reason. It’s not climate change that should be moving people off the coasts. It’s Cascadia fault lines and tsunami risk they should be worrying about.

    • Its astonishing that this logic is not applied to people building houses in the urban wilderness interface let alone the middle of the forest like paradise. No catastrophe 100 years in the future. It will be a reality (again) starting next summer. The insurance companies wised up and tried withdrawing coverage for such but the CA legislature is legislating a stop to that!

      Wake up and smell the wildfires CA!

      • Why don’t authorities keep their bureaucratic noses out of this altogether. Just leave it all to the insurance companies and to the market – and there will be no problem. To come in and institute “mandatory directions” is both inane and unnecessary (and in fact impossible). One cannot “plan” for sea level rises : the time frame is completely unknown. We simply have grin and bear it and take it as it comes – like humankind has done things for 100,000 years.

        • Bureaucrats control. It’s what they do. It’s why they became bureaucrats in the first place.

          Telling a bureaucrat not to control is like telling a shark not to swim.

  2. ” … social, economic and environmental catastrophe that the state cannot afford to ignore. ”
    Refers to what CA is guilty of in regard to their bad forest management policy.

    • Don’t worry. They’ll use the “eminent domain” to relocate folks from dangerous coastal areas – for their own good.. Then elites will buy the land at a very affordable price.

      • Someone will have to buy those properties otherwise the property tax revenue takes a huge hit.

        • Tom , I have been leasing a beachfront condo for a long time now in Florida, gulf side, so far have seen zero evidence of sea level rise and the beach where I stay has been growing, dunes expanding and covering what were sea walls in front of some properties. Sand has to plowed away every year and bridges covering “environmentally sensitive” areas also have top uncovered as the sand just keeps filling them. As you suggest, who is going to pay the taxes that the multimillion dollar home owners pay where we are? I stay in Redding Shores, do these people suggest that the entire area from Clearwater to St Pete’s be returned to nature, ha freakin ha.

      • Will they relocate Obama, the Kennedys, President Trump? All the elite own oceanfront property, is this an attempt to get more?

  3. So California is now going to treat the coast like flooded property; forcing everyone to abandon their homes/businesses in the potential flood zone, and no one allowed in the zone??? I probably shouldn’t be giving them any ideas.

    • Salute!
      That is exactly what they should do.
      Ask folks in Louisiana about their insurance and such after Isaac flooded places that had never seen water. Not due to climate change but a storm that sat still in a place like never before.
      Remember that folks are living in places that were pristine natural settings just a hundred years ago.
      Let them pay!

      Gums sends…

      • Gums
        One problem with the government buying lands subject to flooding is that what was usually productive farm land gets turned into low-use ‘open spaces’ or parks. It was the annual flooding that made the Nile Delta the exceptionally productive source of food for Egyptians for centuries.

        Alternatives are zoning that prohibits high-density subdivisions (which preserves agricultural production), and insurance rates that encourage farmers to put their homes on stilts, or build dikes around farm structures.

        • Salute!

          You are correct for the most part, Clyde

          I am a New Orleans native, but moved out when I entered the military over a half a century ago. My family remained and I returned frequently until they went west. So I have seen subsidence more than sea level rise. I have seen paving and asphalting and folks building on slabs (versus those 3 foot piers I grew up seeing), all of which caused runoff and reduced the hyrdological pressure that great river exerted beneath us.

          Building a fishing camp on pilings was the norm, and folks that didn’t reinforce roofs and such paid the price.

          The interference of the government by offering a federal flood insurance subsidy only encouraged ignorant folks to build where we had beautiful marshes and wetlands. So my example on previous post had to do with folks that had never seen a 100 or even 200 year event, and their property was declared at a higher risk site. This did not affect the federal flood insurance rates as much as the private ones such as State Farm, Allstate, and so forth. Here in Florida, our “wise” legislators passed a bill or two that required insurance companies to raise the minimum deductable for “storm” damage to an obscene percentage of our insured value. So no longer a thousand dollar or even two thousand dollar deductable. It has to be a certain percentage of what the tax man appraises – maybe 2 or 3 %, but I don’t care and I ain’t gonna check right now. And the worst part is that I cannot get regular rates for thunderstorm wind damage or even a tornado if a tropical storm hits Key West while I am having a great time here in the Panhandle before the thunderstorm blew thru. But tjhose legislators know more than us, huh?

          Folks here on the Gulf coast understand the risks, and we are willing to pay the going rate for insurance according to actuarial data of storm frequencies and their intensity. My family relatives in Louisiana feel the same. What we do not want is the government setting rates that require folks in Iowa to pay when we get blown away or flooded. There are many places in Florida that have never had tidal surge or never will, but they have to pay the same as someone living 10 feet above the water and in a poorly constructed place. Oh well.

          Gums sends…

          • The probability of an event of 0,01 probablity per year happening twice in 19 years is 0,0361, so the expected number of people to experience this out of 50,000,000 would be about 1,800,000.

            Of course this assumes normally distributed probabilities, but since hydrological events are usually Hurst-Kolmogorov distributed the number of affected people is very likely larger.

      • In the Houston area:

        ” . . according to United States Geological Survey data, approximately 4,700 square miles of land in and near Baytown and Pasadena sank by at least six feet between the years 1943 and 1973.”

        Some areas near downtown have subsided as much as 10 feet since 1891.

  4. Starting forthwith…
    ALL So Cal sea side and coastal properties, in the name of Climate Hardening, Must be picked up and relocated to the top of Mammoth Mountain and the Transverse Ranges.
    Government $$$ will be awarded to the best Idea for how to move Parcels and Homes intact so that they’re unaffected by Sea Level Rise

  5. Hey, I think it would be a great thing to inconvenience the elites who own all the coast. Let them feel the pinch of climate change alarmism and see if they like it.

    I suspect there are a whole bunch of elite bureaucrats who see an opportunity for the state to take over and run rental “condos” that specialize in providing government employees “down time” at these recently obtained properties

  6. So Obama should be compelled to move his nice new mansion away from the beach?

    Odd place to buy for someone who preaches sea level rise due to global warming.

  7. Well we’re 20 years past due for the predicted climate refugees so why not mandate that these people are climate refugees and then we can write about how climagheddon is already here and worse than we thought.

  8. Dr. Soon-shiong should have just let LA Times dry up and die a couple years ago rather than buy it with the intention to restore a true journalistic voice to Los Angeles. It’s shameful that a physician turned scientist-entrepreneur billionaire could be responsible for the further disintegration of cogent thought displayed daily in LAT. I had thought he would use his eminent credibility to fix the newspaper but sadly am wrong.

  9. Kalifornica is a prime example of water on the brain.

    If the sea level rises, I dare say that the people themselves can decide as to when to leave.

  10. Well, gee whiz, maybe California should take a look at how long it’s taking for Lake Michigan to erode its shore line and make people abandon certain spots. I guess the difference is that people who live on the shore in houses that were built 100 years ago knew they’d have to some day reinforce the beaches and have done so, but in California, they just put it off until some government entity says “Evacuate!”

  11. When my family moved to Santa Barbara about 75 years ago, Cabrillo Blvd., which runs right along the coast line, was about 2 feet above sea level. Now Cabrillo Blvd., all these years later, is about 2 feet above sea level.

    I wish all the Gaia saviors would just butt out, burn their mortar boards, and mind their own business.

    • F. Ross
      On the other hand, there used to be a restaurant in Half Moon Bay in Northern California in the ’70s (I don’t know whether or not it is still there) that had a picture of the original restaurant (circa 1920s) that was sited on what is now a reef about 100 yards offshore. So, locally, there have been significant changes. It is difficult to make generalizations about what is happening along the coast.

    • F. Ross
      P.S. The original coast highway (Rt. 1) south of San Francisco has had to be re-routed in many sections because of extensive landslides along the coast, which removed the road. Similarly, there have been many tract homes that have been condemned, which were built on the edges of cliffs, in the same general area south of San Francisco.

      • Clyde, That’s NOT due to sea level rise.

        Up and down the coast it’s the same as in Santa Barbara: ZERO sea level rise, for decades.

        Sure, a few isolated areas see beach erosion due to changes in current flow, or are impacted by landslides but that again is not due to sea level.

        • Eric
          Well, it certainly isn’t evidence of a lowering sea level or rising land. Although, the Merced formation there is basically unconsolidated sediments which are subject to weakening from the close proximity of the San Andreas Fault.

          But, the other way of looking at it is that wide sandy beaches and kelp colonies protect the shoreline from erosion, even with slight increases in sea level. It seems that recently there has been an explosion of purple sea urchins along the northern California coast, wiping out the kelp and creating what is known as Urchin Barrens. It will be interesting to see what happens to the coast line in the absence of the kelp.

  12. My apologies to the “good people” of California- those with a healthy dose of skepticism- but I kind of hope they do it. This vast swath of oceanfront land sitting vacant can remain in pictures as a monument to the stupidity of those following a clearly corrupt movement intended to alarm and disrupt the lives of the masses for their own personal gain. In future all school children can be shown what happens when (yet again) we follow madmen in their dreams of world domination.

  13. The California coast is disappearing under the rising sea. Our choices are grim

    https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-sea-level-rise-california-coast/

    This article, explains the Calif. (and West Coast, for that matter), shoreline issues. You have to wade through the AGW sea level rise garbage to get to it but it’s clear that the shorelines are eroding. Per NOAA, there’s been no sea level rise since 1980. The ocean is eating away the coast, as oceans do and the loss has been aided and abetted by land use and stream changes as well as efforts to “save the beaches” which affects the sand on the beaches and accelerates the erosion.
    My question is why does anyone who built on or near the shoreline think taxpayers should save them from the choices they made?
    I’m sure California will make some totally stupid and expensive effort but, it is doubtful that even Calif. or the Fed. taxpayers have the money and ability to defeat Mother Nature.

    • KcTaz
      Yes the problem is more complex than just rising seas. Dams that trap sediment and prevent replenishment of coastal beaches that loose sand to the southerly long-shore transport play a part. Loading the cliffs with homes contribute to landslides. Also, water runoff from roofs and roads change the hydrology and can cause local issues contribute. A transgressing sea plays a part, but it isn’t the whole picture.

  14. I wonder if the State of CA is going to pay to relocate all those very expensive beach front properties. And relocate them to where? My vote is the Oregon/WA coastline. A little bit closer to that Cascadia fault. Isn’t there a huge military base down in San Diego? I guess that needs to be moved too. Such logical thinking….

  15. Government and the news media will protect us and solve all our problems with dictatorial nonsense and scoop up big money at other’s expense.

    It may be a while and all that vacated sea front property with infrastructure will not go to waste. The only change will be who owns it.

    In reality it is not going to happen.

  16. Holy mackerel! Should be immediate mandatory evacuations to high ground behind the San Gabriels! The ice sheets could collapse at any minute!

  17. “These UN report “confidence and likelihood” qualifiers are completely subjective and represent manufactured and fabricated assigned values that form the basis for the California report sea level rise “probabilities”. These “probabilities” are nothing but subjective opinions – they are not calculated probabilities.”

    “Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief.”

    ho hum

  18. “Computer models created and utilized by climate alarmist propagandists for political purposes are incapable of accurately representing global climate either regionally or globally regardless of the climate metric being evaluated including global temperatures which are grossly overestimated by these models.”

    wrong.

    • True, those 10 correct model runs are reasonably accurate. That can’t be said of the remaining 9,990 runs.

    • The models said it would get warmer, and it got warmer, therefore the models are perfect and may not be criticized.
      Ignore the fact that the models predicted 3 times as much warming as actually occurred.
      Ignore the fact that the rate of warming during the time of rapid CO2 increases was the same as before that time.
      Ignore the fact that the earth is still cooler than it has been for at least 80% of the last 10,000 years.

      Those are mere details, we have already determined that the models are perfect.

  19. I don’t understand these liberals…trying to crash their own economies

    It’s like they don’t understand all the money they want to spend…is tax money

    • Leftists truely believe that government can spend your money better than you can.
      In their minds giving everything to the government is the road to wealth for all.

        • So, you believe in a society where the individual is a slave to the collective? That a person has no right (i.e. doesn’t own) the fruits of his or her own labor?

          rip

        • Like most socialists, griff believes that the purpose of government is take money from those who work and give it to him.

          Spreading out the wealth only destroys that wealth.

        • Griff, if you even out, I will stay home and live on your taxes. Do not dare to stop paying them; I will cause social unrest if you try to do so.

        • You are correct Griff.
          It does even out the societal wealth.
          Everyone has nothing and the government has everything.

          Why is everyone so Gung Ho to take wealth away from those who know how to make it and “Give It” to those that only know how to spend it?

          If you give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day, If you teach him how to fish, he’ll eat for the rest of his life.

          If you penalize the wealthy by taking wealth from those that know how to make it, you will remove their incentive to do so.

          A thought experiment Griff…
          Say you knew how to create wealth and could produce $200,000 in annual income. Now lets say the government determines that you only need $25,000 per year and the remainder should be redistributed to 7 less fortunate souls (7 people who don’t want to work for their money and so turn to government handouts of your cash). So the government takes $175,000 from you and gives $25,000 each to 7 other individuals who are less fortunate than you (don’t want to work, just take government handouts).
          How long would you continue to try and produce wealth at the rate of $200,000 annually if the government will take 87% yearly?
          Would you try to create additional wealth (say another $200,000 per year) since the government is taking so much?
          Then the government would still come to you and say you owe an additional $200,000 in wealth redistribution taxes. Please pay now.
          So now the fruits of your labor are producing $400,000 per year but you still only get $25,000.
          Would you continue to extend the effort necessary to create wealth at the rate of $400,000 per year if you only get to keep $25,000?

          Now if you stop creating wealth at a rate of $400,000 per year and instead only produce the $25,000 the Government will allow you to keep, how will those other 15 people (now dependent on your efforts) survive if you don’t extend the effort to produce the wealth they need?

  20. Clearly the sea level data have not yet been adjusted for TOBs. I guess that means the problem is worse than we ever imagined.

  21. The idea of them tearing down the Malibu Beach homes of Barbara Streisand and Robert Redford just makes me quiver with anticipation.

    What fun. Make some popcorn and bring me another cold one while you are in the kitchen.

    Couldn’t happen to a more deserving group.

  22. Why not shut down the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach as a test run. The unions won’t mind.

  23. There are property speculators everywhere, who know the real rate of sea level rise and are poised to snap up anything being sold by climate-alarm panicked owners. Like all of climate alarm, there is real money to be made from the panic.

  24. Why isn’t this a matter between the property owners and insurance companies. People shouldn’t be coddled by government. This is particular considering how stable weather is along the Pacific coast vs the East and Gulf coasts. sheesh

  25. Has anyone noticed that the Global Lower Tropospheric Temperature anomaly graph is using a baseline of 1979-1983. Only 4 years? Why those years?

  26. Rather than proactively removing properties, how about they just wait for the properties to experience repeated flooding, then in exchange for assistance, they move their homes/businesses, and the City converts the property to public beaches? That way, if the sea levels show no change in the rate of increase from historical observations (which is what is currently happening despite their claims of pending catastrophe for the past 30 years), then they won’t have wasted their money when nobody experiences flooding.

    • Well, interesting suggestion… but what’s actually going to happen is that a hurricane Sandy type event sweeps in and wrecks a lot of houses at once.

      • 1) Sandy wasn’t a hurricane.
        2) Storms such as Sandy have been hitting that area every 80 to 100 years since the start of record keeping in that area.

      • Hurricane Sandy was a kind of one off event.
        A not particularly strong Cat 1 storm that struck at the height of a King Tide.
        Sandy storm surge was 13′
        King tide event tidal height added an additional 6′ to that surge.
        Sandy + King Tide surge was 19′
        If sandy struck at low tide the total surge would have been 7′ instead of 19′ and Sandy would have been just another Ho-Hum storm.

  27. “Los Angeles Times ran yet another scientifically unsupported climate alarmist sea level rise propaganda article supporting the position that government entities in the state need to mandate relocation of coastal properties away from the coast…

    State government mandated relocation actions potentially involves politicians dictating control of homeowner and business property values of tens of thousands of properties representing billions of dollars in property value located along the 840 mile California coastline”

    Absurd.
    What the L.A. Times is supporting are artificial props to property values.

    If the sea did start rising and lives were really in danger; coastal properties would plummet in value.
    Mandating that government purchase at market value then condemn those properties protects the rich who bought expensive coastal property.

    Let the seas rise.
    The richest can afford to build sea walls.
    Others will move as the seas take their dwellings.

    If by some off chance the models are overly pessimistic and the seas do not rise, people can continue to enjoy seaside living.

  28. Just wondering – where are they planning to move these properties TO?

    And who gets the job of picking up foreshore properties and putting them somewhere else and what compensation is there for the owners of the land where these properties get dumped? 😀

    • Salute!

      Just wondering – where are they planning to move these properties TO?

      I recommend the same place I advised Homeland Security for the illegal asylum seekers waiting for their court appearance – Fairbanks, Alaska!

      With the looming hot Earth accompanying the sea level rise, they will soon be able to grow their avacados and grapes for their wine. Besides, their hired help can accompany them!

      What a deal!

      Gums sends…

      • Gums,

        While I agree with the sentiment of sending them to a cold wet place they’ll likely hate it’s really a bad fiscal idea. Us taxpayers foot the bill for these guys and nowhere in “civilized Alaska” is the cost of living cheap. Now if you want to hand them an axe, hammer, some nails and a saw then send them out to the boonies like a homesteader… OK

  29. Tell that to Obama who just spent 14 million dollars buying a beachfront property at Martha’s Vineyard. Obviously he doesn’t believe it either.

  30. If they force the rich off of the coasts, will there be a reason to stay? And yes, I would get out the popcorn to watch the rich and powerful force the rich and powerful to change their lifestyles.

  31. Why does the government need to be involved. If the sea level is rising as the Times claims then won’t the ocean do the work?

Comments are closed.