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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

87 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 9, 2019 2:39 pm

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.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
December 10, 2019 5:58 am

+10

The Jerry Brown Real Estate Co. experts are here to help you.

someguy
December 9, 2019 2:46 pm

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

Tom in Florida
December 9, 2019 3:19 pm

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

RB
December 9, 2019 3:54 pm

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.

griff
Reply to  RB
December 10, 2019 12:04 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
December 10, 2019 7:50 am

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.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
December 10, 2019 2:28 pm

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.

MarkW
December 9, 2019 4:23 pm

Any excuse for more control.
It’s what socialists do.

December 9, 2019 6:06 pm

“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.

MarkMcD
December 9, 2019 6:37 pm

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? 😀

Gums
Reply to  MarkMcD
December 10, 2019 6:38 am

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…

Darrin
Reply to  Gums
December 10, 2019 1:13 pm

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

Ronald Bruce
December 9, 2019 7:02 pm

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.

December 10, 2019 4:46 am

Cartology affirms that relative sea levels were the same or higher than now during the Little Ice Age:

https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/05/cartology-affirms-relative-sea-levels-were-the-same-or-higher-than-now-during-the-little-ice-age/

Coach Springer
December 10, 2019 6:26 am

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.

Joe G
December 10, 2019 7:56 am

A chicken-little migration?

Editor
December 10, 2019 12:40 pm

For a pragmatic look at California sea level problems, see my essay from 2017 SEA LEVEL: Rise and Fall – Part 1. Los Angeles has sea level problems in the present — and ANY sea level rise spells trouble for areas built a foot or two above today’s highest tides.

For a more intensive report, see Judith Curry’s Special Report.

Jim Whelan
December 13, 2019 10:39 am

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?

Verified by MonsterInsights