California Coastal Commission Goes Berserk Mandating Future Coastal Sea Level Rise Hype

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The California Coastal Commission has established that the state must plan as a minimum for 3.5 feet of coastal sea level rise over the next 30 years.

This ludicrous rate of coastal sea level rise is 26 times greater than the rate of coastal sea level rise that has been measured by NOAA tide gauge data over the past 30 years at numerous coastal locations including 7 locations with between 75 to 115 years of continuous NOAA tide gauge coastal sea level rise data which shows these locations will average only 1.6 inches of coastal sea level rise in the next 30 years – not 3.5 feet!!

Additionally, the long time period NOAA coastal tide gauge data measurements establish that no acceleration (rates of coastal sea level rise are not increasing) of coastal sea level rise has occurred over the past 30 years (and longer) despite ridiculous, flawed and erroneous claims otherwise by climate alarmist models that have been proven to be completely wrong based upon actual data measurements.

These idiotic schemes by the Commission to mandate a 3.5 foot minimum (or even worse as the report suggests below) future coastal sea level rise over the next 30 years threatens to impose massive bureaucracy and waste trillions of dollars in unnecessary expenditures and endanger the state’s economic viability.

NOAA coastal sea level rise tide gauge data for California as illustrated below with data from San Diego and San Francisco shows coastal sea level rising consistently (no increasing rates of sea level rise over time) at only about 2 mm/year at these locations not 35.5 mm/year as mandated by the Coastal Commission bureaucracy.

The California Coastal Commission is simply out of control and performing in a completely incompetent manner based upon its reliance on scientifically unsupported and purely speculative coastal sea level rise climate model alarmist propaganda while completely ignoring and concealing measured, consistent and hugely lower rates of coastal sea level rise representing more than 100 years of California’s history. 

5 28 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joao Martins
September 2, 2021 6:12 am

It is erosion, stupid!

Nothing to do with climate.

Reply to  Joao Martins
September 2, 2021 9:57 am

I know nothing of this area but it looks vulnerable, with very low lying houses adjacent to the sea, a road also at a low level behind them, what looks like sandstone cliffs directly behind the road, which presumably means the beach front houses are built on the remains of those cliffs. so probably pretty foolish to have developed the area in the first place.

Rock ‘armour’ would protect the road and the houses on top of the cliffs for many years but that still leaves the lower houses vulnerable, even assuming the area is not prone to subsidence.

Reply to  tonyb
September 2, 2021 5:25 pm

But, but, but… Obama just spent $15 MILLION on a oceanfront property on Martha’s Vineyard!

Have they declared that an “exempt” zone for sea level rise?

Perhaps I could get that for a Lake Michigan property?

Reply to  Kpar
September 2, 2021 8:31 pm

Obama got the State of Hi. to do him a big favor. It does not appear that neither the Obamas, nor the State are very concerned about sea level rise.
One can only wonder that the very folks who yell the loudest about SLR are the very ones who purchase multi-million dollar property on beaches.

Oceanfront Property Tied to Obama Granted Exemption From Hawaii’s Environmental Laws

BILL Gate’s million dollar clones
The Washington Examiner story missed Leonardo DiCaprio’s very low-lying private island he’s developing in the Caribbean. DiCaprio is “one of the most active celebrities in the climate change movement.” He “produced, hosted, and narrated the documentary Before the Flood about climate change.”

Brooks H Hurd
Reply to  tonyb
September 3, 2021 8:56 am

With the Pacific Plate subducting under the North American Plate, subsidence is highly unlikely.

Reply to  Joao Martins
September 2, 2021 10:38 am

When you see coastal photos of nice, sandy beaches with large pillars of eroded rock several hundred feet away, shouldn’t that be A Clue?

Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2021 10:55 am

Clues don’t work with “people without calculators” running amok. Humanity would be better served if these people went back to digging ditches and filling them in, on the same middle class salaries. They’d get some exercise too.

Peter East
Reply to  Sara
September 2, 2021 3:52 pm

That assumes that the powers that be can apply critical thinking, or a modicum of commonsense!

September 2, 2021 6:12 am

I used to live in the Peoples Republic of California, and the simplest conclusion is that the Coastal Commission wishes to block all development anywhere near the coast, as is their practice, and has only come up with another “reason”.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 2, 2021 7:25 am

Their “scientific” reasoning is quite simple and elegant. It is based on BANANA.

(Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.)

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 2, 2021 7:54 am

Some taxpayers should challenge this in court.

Reply to  DrEd
September 2, 2021 8:01 am

You would be appalled by the “expert” witnesses qualified by the courts. As the judges are mostly scientifically illiterate, calling on a PhD will suffice.
Consider the glyphosate cases, which really should have resulted in a RICO prosecution of the plaintiff’s lawyers.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 2, 2021 8:58 am

Those lawyers were just a more clever version of Michael Avenatti trying to extort Nike for a $25 million out of court settlement on a phony claim. Avenatti’s crime was stupidity. He tried to shakedown a politically connected company with a solid track record of campaign donations to Leftist causes, even as it cranks out shoes in China with Uighur slave labor..

As long as corporations pay huge campaign “donation” protection money to Leftist politicians who have weaponized the Justice System, they can expect to be protected.

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 2, 2021 9:04 pm

I would have until I went back to school for a second time for another degree, this one in healthcare as a Respiratory Therapist. Our Medical Director, a Pulmonolgist, was late for class one day. He explained he’d been on the phone with a Calif. attorney who was trying to get him to testify, for a considerable sum of money, at a trial for woman’s lawsuit that the factory she had worked at was responsible for her getting lung cancer and that the two packs of cigarettes she had smoked per day for 20 years had nothing to do with it. He had refused but he told us the attorney would find some doctor who would testify to just that.

Steve Z
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 3, 2021 8:34 am

There are a lot of dishonest “expert” witnesses out there who use their PhD’s to try to fool juries into believing lies to be able to fleece millions of dollars from companies trying to making an honest living.

I used to work for an expert witness in toxic tort cases for defendants who were sued for large emissions of air pollutants. There were many instances of opposing expert witnesses who would write extravagant claims into their reports, which could be easily rebutted by simply performing a mass balance around the process during the incident, showing that the actual amount of pollutant emitted was hundreds of times less than what the opposing expert witness claimed.

Then there were expert witnesses who claimed that people were hospitalized due to breathing air pollutants, even though the plaintiffs were upwind of the emission at the time, according to nearby weather stations.

A skilled liar with a PhD can be very dangerous in court!

Reply to  DrEd
September 2, 2021 8:39 pm

Oh, Californians have been fighting in court with the Coastal Commission for years.
Del Mar CA demonstrates the idiocy of “managed retreat” from sea level

Reply to  Tom Halla
September 2, 2021 12:11 pm

in Costa Rica the first 100 meters of shoreline are public property . its pretty nice actually

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 3, 2021 6:19 am

California needs to elect Larry Elder as governor. I bet Larry would actually look at the sea level data, and then set the Coastal Commission straight.

Don’t let those cheating Democrats cheat you ought of a future, Californians. Get out and vote for Elder and report any voter fraud you see to Larry Elder’s website. Voting is going on now, through the middle of September.

Save yourselves, Californians! Now’s your chance!

Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 3, 2021 11:59 pm

Yes, you don’t need to be Californian, anyone can chip in to his campaign funds at

MSM already trying to trash him as “the black face of white supremacy” ! Sounds like he’s got them scared.

Where is the CRT of the left demanding “equity” of outcomes are more black leaders?

Oh, not THAT kind of black leader!

September 2, 2021 6:13 am

I don’t know about California, but Vero Beach in Florida is alarmingly existential …

September 2, 2021 6:13 am

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but the power of stupidity in Sacramento is absolute insanity…

Stan A Christman
September 2, 2021 6:35 am

Appears post is confusing/mixing sea and tidal water level rise (relative to center of earth) with the separate science risk of coast subsidence and erosion. It appears Coastal Zone Commission is trying to address likely future water levels coming inland due to to sea level rise and apparent substantial land subsidence (compaction, tectonics, and also erosion. As linked article describes the significant subsidence in parts of California coastal land, and I would add that the serious erosion in parts of the coast.

Curious Georgel
Reply to  Stan A Christman
September 2, 2021 11:47 am

Let’s demolish these pesky tide gauges!

Ed Bo
Reply to  Stan A Christman
September 2, 2021 1:09 pm

Stan: The post specifically refers to the relative sea level rise as measured by local tide gauges. These include any of the subsidence and tectonic effects you refer to.

The fact remains that the Coastal Zone Commission is using relative sea level rise rates, including these effects, that are over 25 times greater than the very steady rates we have seen for the last century, including the periods before large increases in CO2 concentration.

R Grubb
Reply to  Ed Bo
September 2, 2021 6:45 pm

Yet this rate of rise is not evident, reported or claimed on the rest of the US Pacific coast, Mexican or Canadian coasts. Let alone anywhere else in the Pacific or other oceans. Methinks some stinks.

Ron Long
September 2, 2021 6:47 am

Earth to griff! Earth to griff! Come in please! I am waiting for griff to weigh in on this cold water on CAGW nonsense, especially considering his previous request for me to mention science, which I did utilizing sea level normal cycles. griff? griff?

Reply to  Ron Long
September 2, 2021 9:57 am

One demerit for calling for Griff
Two demerits if he shows up.
Three demerits if he says something dumb.
Si it’s either one, or three !

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 2, 2021 10:12 am

It’s three

Coeur de Lion
September 2, 2021 6:55 am

There should be a discernible rate within five years. Compilers should be challenged to place a large five year bet in their own money.

DD More
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 2, 2021 10:29 am

Interesting story on water level at San Fran.
SAN FRANCISCO / TIDES OF HISTORY / Presidio gauge has measured the bay’s rise and fall for 150 years
Over the years, the gauges also showed a gradual rise in the sea level — eight inches in 150 years. However, there was also a period of 38 years, ending in 1913, when the sea level declined. 

The San Francisco gauge also measured other phenomena — such as the effect of the El Niño condition on water levels. The highest tide ever recorded was on Jan. 27, 1983, when the surface of the water at the Golden Gate reached 8.78 feet above mean sea level, or zero. The lowest tide was on Dec. 17, 1933, with minus 2.9 feet. The 1983 high tide accompanied a downpour associated with the El Niño condition; the lowest accompanied a period of the exact opposite condition. 
The normal tidal range is about 5.8 feet, more when the moon is full. The tide also affects the currents in the bay, which are strongest in the Golden Gate, and in the San Pablo and Carquinez straits.

What does Presidio tell us about sea level from a gage situated on a stable landplate? 

From June 30, 1854 to Dec, 1932 the level was going down and before Dec. 17, 1933 there was NO rise. Since Jan. 27, 1983, levels have all been lower, or no rise.
Total average gain is 8 inches total, while the twice daily Range is over 5 ft – 9 inches
An El Niño, i.e. when that 1 meter higher sea level by Japan sloshed back to the west & a lot of rain runoff caused the RECORD HIGHEST and not CO2.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
September 2, 2021 1:31 pm

When the original report was in review I requested they should include periodic checkpoints comparing their predictions to the tide gauges, since they were so obviously completely off the scale. Nothing was in the report about validating the predictions.

I was looking at this last year, and seeing how their predictions compared to the tide gauges asI think it’s ten years in, from what I recall San Francisco sea-level has dropped slightly.

Then I moved out of state, and somewhat lost interest.

September 2, 2021 7:12 am

Every inch of the UK coast has a plan for managing both erosion and sea level rise (and has had for some years!)

Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 7:27 am

nothing wrong with planning but plans should not be based on insane IPCC low probability scenarios. Especially in light of lengthy tidal records with a well defined trend. That should be the default for planning purposes.

Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 7:28 am

And once again, griff swings and misses.
The article has nothing to do with whether having a plan is a good idea or not.

Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 7:31 am

Very easy you change the continent to provide your BS

Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 7:37 am

Having a good plan is worth having, but only, and only, if the plan is enact-able and sensible, history is always the best judge, and most of the time history simply laughs at the fatuous planning ideas. I have to listen on a regular basis over the years to all sorts of people with all sorts of claimed insider knowledge and all sorts of plans, I used to keep lists but lists and filed reports but these dont work as feedback to a belief system.

Alan Rakes
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 7:45 am

Every inch of the UK coast has a plan for managing both erosion and sea level rise (and has had for some years!)

So what. Did anyone state above that there should not be an erosion, sea level rise, and more importantly in most places subsidence plans. No stated there should be no plans. The point of the article was that the plan from the commission was ridiculous and had no Science behind it. Even if you put in a 6-sigma tolerance, it would be nowhere near their numbers.

Try addressing the actual point of the article instead of hiding behind meaningless statements.

Reply to  Alan Rakes
September 2, 2021 10:13 am

That’s the standard tactic for leftists. If you make a claim that a particular regulation goes to far, they respond with the claim that you want no regulations.

Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 10:04 am


As I was responsible for helping to implement those plans for several flood defence schemes in the south west of the UK I can confirm that the UK has a very good scheme originally based on the kyoto agreement. It requires nothing remotely like the 3.5 feet in 30 years protection cited here.

Having said that, there are some vulnerable areas here that would not be protected as they would not pass a cost/benefit analysis test, and the houses in the photo accompanying this article reminds me of the soft sandstone cliffs in Norfolk.

If this was the UK I can not see that the houses in the front line in the photo would be protected ( unless this was a misleading photo).

From looking at the photo only, they should never have been built there and it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to bail them out

Dave Fair
Reply to  tonyb
September 2, 2021 11:58 am

Take a guess at how much people pay to live in those houses. People vote with their wallets and feet.

Reply to  tonyb
September 4, 2021 12:12 am

The east coast of the UK is sinking due glacial rebound: the Irish sea was mostly a frozen glacier at the last glacial maximum. The NW of Britain is rising , SE is sinking.

Richard Steward
Reply to  griff
September 2, 2021 2:21 pm

Yes, griff the UK has a plan alright. It is to ‘Manage Realign’ and ‘No Active Intervention’ (abandon) 340 miles of previously protected coast to the sea on the basis of the IPCC’s extreme accelerated sea level rise projections. See Lord Deben’s Committee on Climate Change ‘Progress Report’ 2013, Chapter 5, page 107.

Reply to  griff
September 3, 2021 1:38 am

Griff if the UK was at the front of the AGW pack you need to be planning for 6m sea level rise are you doing that?

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2021 7:08 am

Griff “How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it’s exposed in the bright light of day, he still clings to it — indeed, clings to it all the harder? No amount of logic can shatter a faith consciously based on a lie.”
~ Lamar Keene, a scam artist who posed as a psychic, describing why it was so easy to fleece people.
Wake up, Ed.
You know that you are fooled …

Brooks H Hurd
Reply to  griff
September 3, 2021 9:03 am

The plate tectonics of the UK is totally different than the massive subduction zone that is just off the California coast.

Christopher Paino
September 2, 2021 7:37 am

The All-mighty Dollar.

Shoki Kaneda
September 2, 2021 7:44 am

26X? Sure, that’s within the error bands.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
September 4, 2021 12:57 am

Ha ha! You do realise those error bands continue to get ever wider due to climate change alarmists need for alarms. I think it must be due to CO2 being an error band widening gas. What else could it be….? 🙂

mark from the midwest
September 2, 2021 7:49 am

Mandating preparation for 3.5 feet will have a huge impact on the shipping industry. My son in law runs a marine engineering company out of Calumet Harbor, IL, They make a very good living off the fact that the Great Lakes do vary +-3 feet over the long run. I can only imagine what that means for money spent in and around Long Beach and Port of L.A. over the next 30 years, and of course the new “woke” military establishment will jump on board and waste billions in Federal dollars to accommodate the fairy tale.

Ed Bo
Reply to  mark from the midwest
September 2, 2021 1:12 pm

But, but, but… Kamala Harris said that the rising sea levels at California ports were already responsible for this year’s supply chain problems!

Pat Frank
September 2, 2021 7:53 am

Deus ex machina. Data are an annoyance. Only models matter.

Reply to  Pat Frank
September 2, 2021 9:19 pm

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

Dodgy Geezer
September 2, 2021 7:55 am

This is a ‘purity spiral’ – well documented in cult sociology.

It occurs when cult members gain extra status by producing ever higher levels of adherence to a belief. Thus one religious fanatic who shows his faith by fasting all day is eclipsed by another who whips himself…

In this case status is gained by predicting larger and ever-increasing levels of disaster.Look for a new leader of the California Coastal Commission replacing the current leader by claiming a six-foot increase. In ten years….

September 2, 2021 8:02 am

I continue to believe that the US
should return California to Mexico,
and demand our $15 million back.

The coming climate crisis is nothing more than a prediction,
that started in 1957, with oceanographer Roger Revelle,
and got louder and more hysterical for the next 64 years.

Since the climate crisis is imaginary,
why not imagine huge increases
of sea level?

There is no similarity between actual global warming
and sea level rise in the past 45 years, and the predictions
of doom for the next 45 years.

Reality has been mild harmless climate change
since the mid-1970s = not scary.

But the predictions can be scary,
like a horror movie.

Because the coming climate crisis exists in only one place:
In the over-active imaginations of leftists.!

Curious Georgel
Reply to  Richard Greene
September 2, 2021 11:50 am

Not even a prediction. They are selling it as a projection. An important legal distinction.

Reply to  Richard Greene
September 2, 2021 9:27 pm

Demand our 15 million back with interest?

At this point, we would have to pay Mexico many billions to take it back, if they have any sense. I’d be quite willing to contribute to a fund for Mexico to take Calif. back and would totally support giving it to them for free with the condition they would build a Wall around the entire State and execute those who tried to go over the Wall.
(OK, the execute part may be a bit extreme. 20 yrs. in prison would do.)

September 2, 2021 8:05 am

“These idiotic schemes by the Commission to mandate a 3.5 foot minimum (or even worse as the report suggests below) future coastal sea level rise over the next 30 years threatens to impose massive bureaucracy and waste trillions of dollars in unnecessary expenditures and endanger the state’s economic viability.”

Not sure why you’re all worked up, Larry. We already know CA has a massive death wish for their state and economy. CA is going into a long-term death spiral. But the state can serve as an object lesson for the rest of the US and the rest of the world… just the way Green Germany, Australia, the UK and TX are doing as well. People can’t grasp the cost of catastrophic idiocy until they see the deadly consequences with their own eyes.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Posa
September 2, 2021 12:08 pm

“People can’t grasp the cost of catastrophic idiocy until they see the deadly consequences with their own eyes.”

Problem is… they never make the connection between their liberal (emotionally base) policies and negatives caused by those policies. When they finally get sufficiently disgusted with the destruction of their current environment they migrate to a new one and begin screwing that up.

Thus, Man is surpassed only by the goat in destroying his environment!

Reply to  Joe Crawford
September 2, 2021 12:43 pm

That’s where Darwin comes in.

Reply to  Joe Crawford
September 2, 2021 1:38 pm

Leftists are taught to believe that as long as they have good intentions, everything will work out in the end.
Therefor, since they know they have good intentions, if things don’t work out, it’s because the evil capitalists have too much power and we have to make government bigger and stronger so that nirvana can descend.

September 2, 2021 8:18 am

I suggest they require all houses that are at 15′ or less above sea level be demolished. That would take out Malibu and a whole lot more desirable areas. Probably sure even former Vice President of the United States Al Gore will be involved. It’s coming. Give them 5 years to get it done.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  rbabcock
September 2, 2021 12:13 pm

…without paying for ’em. Just change a couple of building codes to make them prohibitively expensive to maintain.

September 2, 2021 8:51 am

Get off my lawn! We control the public lawn and all lands visible from those areas. Get off my (our) lawn!

Joel O'Bryan
September 2, 2021 8:51 am

I just did a study and found that 1,000 meters of SLR would would put 70% of the continental US underwater and would necessitate the relocation of 290 million Americans. Of course, with most arable lands under seawater, starvation would obviate the need for that relocation.
It’s science folks.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 2, 2021 12:15 pm

Great… beachfront property here in West Virginia.

Reply to  Joe Crawford
September 2, 2021 1:40 pm

I doubt you will have any beachfront property in WV. However you will be able to hear the ocean.

September 2, 2021 8:59 am

Anybody have an authoritative source for this nonsensical 10 ft. of SLR by 2100 claim? I have seen it in the popular press, as hysterical fearmongering, but I do not know where it comes from.
Anyway, I plotted it up a while back to see what it looks like. As you can see, it is not even remotely plausible. I did Boston, just because that is the tide gauge I follow. Note especially the curve for the constant acceleration case. Look at the astonishing *rate* of SLR after 80 years of constant acceleration. The other case, constant rate, caused a step change which would be visible by now. (This was back in early 2020)
Here it is:

Dave Fair
Reply to  TonyL
September 2, 2021 12:05 pm

The beauty of CliSciFi is that you just have to put the next green squiggle on the current year and superimpose the red/pink lines for all subsequent years. Saves on thought.

Jim Whelan
September 2, 2021 9:06 am

Photos like the one published by the OC Register could have been taken any year since photography was invented. All you have to do is wait for high tide and high surf from offshore storms to coincide.

Tom in Florida
September 2, 2021 9:08 am

One of the most important principles of risk management is to properly consider the likelihood of the risk. This was not done by the Commission.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 2, 2021 10:53 am

not done on purpose.

Peta of Newark
September 2, 2021 9:30 am

Quote:”Coastal Commission Goes Berserk
Yup. AKA: Paranoia = lack of mental agility, self-confidence and original thinking.
Find it amongst folks who are Chronically Chemically Depressed – through eating a diet of nutrient-free mush revolving around cooked starch: i.e. sugar

Eating sugar has lots of other ugly consequences but they are all ‘Lifestyle Choices’ or ‘Genetic’
That is, blame the hapless victims and if that don’t work, blame the parents. nice not.

Oh you say, how do we know about these Life Choices and Genes?
<whispers> Because a sugar-eater told you so

Just Like Climate Change

“Oh no no no. Not So Fast” you say, Computers & Sputniks tell us about Climate Change”
Well yes they do, but, they are owned, programmed, operated and their outputs interpreted by…
Mmmmm, that’s a toughie, can I fone a frend?

Course you can, – only if it’s one that don’t eat sugar

Now, THAT is a toughie – what’s Mr Trump’s number?

September 2, 2021 10:34 am

As all these coastal properties will be worth nothing in 30 years I’ll offer to buy them all at say 30 dollars a property – no takers ? Nope, thought not as most sane people see this as bullsh**

September 2, 2021 10:42 am

The California Coastal Commission is like CARB – a great way for sections of the private sector to force government and/or private spending.
CARB did it for Tesla, CCC is no doubt doing it for construction companies.
Note the CCC – roughly 1/10th of its people (120 total) are directors getting paid $150K-$200K a year.
So it isn’t a bureaucracy so much as a rubber stamp outfit which has lawmaking capabilities.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  c1ue
September 2, 2021 10:55 am

CCC and CARB lawmaking rules allows the pols in Sacramento not to have their fingerprints at the crime scene.

Curious Georgel
Reply to  c1ue
September 2, 2021 12:10 pm

See also the California Public Utilities Commission. Five members appointed by the Governor. Something is rotten in the state of California.

Reply to  c1ue
September 2, 2021 12:54 pm

Lawmaking by nameless, faceless people with no accountability to the taxpayers or voters.

September 2, 2021 10:48 am

Erosion, and coastal sand movement, has been going on long before California was ever, well, California. I’ve surfed, fished, played on, and watched the California coast for over 70 years and can say from first hand experience the ocean rise has been negligible to unnoticeable. Some beaches have grown and some have shrunk as we develop and change parts of the coastline. Most notable is the disappearing wetlands as we cut off ocean access.

Walter Sobchak
September 2, 2021 11:19 am

I have responded to these items by linking and quoting this song:

California tumbles into the sea
That’ll be the day I go back to Annandale
Tried to warn you
About Chino and Daddy Gee
But I can’t seem to get to you through the U.S. Mail

September 2, 2021 11:54 am

I’m wondering how this impacts the mobile-home park in Malibu…

Reply to  TonyG
September 2, 2021 12:55 pm

Well, technically, they are mobile – hitch ’em up and move on.

Andrew Dickens
September 2, 2021 1:19 pm

Needs a rewrite, sober down a little.

September 2, 2021 1:20 pm

Sometimes the bureaucratic hand goes too far too fast and touches the wrong thing at the wrong time: which causes grief and consternation, retribution to the bureaucrats, backlash, frontlash, and sometimes political castration.
As for the California coastal commission, I would not be surprised if political donations work wonders. Usually the more Byzantine, irrational and complicated the the rules are, the more rot there is.

Reply to  otsar
September 2, 2021 1:43 pm

More often than not, this kind of nonsense is caused by those who already have property on the beach, trying to prevent anyone else from building on the beach.

Old joke:
Q: How do you tell the difference between and developer and an environmentalist?
A: The environmentalist already owns a house in the woods.

September 2, 2021 1:38 pm

There is no question that they are vastly overstating (lying about) sea level rise. I have pointed this out myself numerous times using the same tide gauge data.

On the other hand…

If you plan to build along a rapidly eroding coastline, it’s not the worst thing to require a plan that takes into account the fact that you’re in a high risk area. Even though it’s guided by extraordinarily inaccurate sea level rise estimates, it’s probably easier to illustrate the risk by overstating sea level rise than by trying to define how often a combination of storms, heavy rainfall, and high tides may rapidly destroy your property.

Or maybe they could just include a few videos and pictures like this to underscore the need to buttress their buildings against erosion (not sea level rise) in certain places that are prone to rapid erosion like Pacifica, or not build there at all:

Just thinking out loud…

September 2, 2021 2:19 pm

A few of interesting bits from the report that I copied and pasted.

The probabilities stem from a set of sea level rise projections derived from global climate models; thus, they are not true probabilities in the traditional sense of the word. Rather, they reflect the probability that a group of climate models will predict a certain amount of SLR, given the range of parameters used in the climate models.

Of particular relevance for California will be future redistributions of ice and water caused by the retreat of the polar ice sheets, especially on Antarctica

For every foot of global sea-level rise caused by the loss of ice on West Antarctica, sea-level will rise approximately 1.25 feet along the California coast,

Increases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases have resulted in the Earth’s climate system absorbing more energy than it is emitting back to space

While there has been much progress in recent years in observing and modeling the Antarctic Ice Sheet, the precise magnitude and timing of when it will begin to contribute substantially to rising sea levels remains highly uncertain due to insufficient knowledge of the physics of Antarctic ice loss processes, such that they cannot be faithfully represented in models.

The approach of the California 4th Climate Change Assessment depends heavily on a single recent modeling study in a rapidly developing field and does not provide truly probabilistic information.

The general pattern of uplift is evidenced by the Crescent City tide gauge, which has recorded relative sea level change averaging -0.8 mm/year over the past 84 years, or a drop in sea level relative to the coast climate science and modeling continue to evolve, the sea level rise projections and their associated probabilities are also likely to change, illustrating that the coastline here is rising faster than sea level

The magnitudes of estimated sea-level rise have grown, especially at the upper, low probability “tail” of ranges that have been estimated. sea-level rise projections for 2100 in the California 1st Climate Change Assessment (conducted in 2006) ranged from 6 – 22 inches (15 – 56 cm) above a year 2000 starting point. By comparison, the recently released estimates of the California 4th Climate Change Assessment (California 4th Assessment) range from 14 – 94 inches (36 cm ­ 239 cm) with an additional very low probability worst-case estimate that exceeds 9 feet (274 m).

September 2, 2021 2:45 pm
September 2, 2021 2:53 pm

My observation.
Now – only a very small percentage of California is actually impacted by coastal inundation. Low lying area such is Belmont Beach currently suffer coastal flooding.
Future – as SLR occurs existing low lying ares will get worse. There will hardly be any new areas impacted UNTIL a threshold has been reached.
That threshold appears to be about 3 feet.

Any California who lived on the coast, and checked the level of SLR inundation would find that 1, 2, or even 3 feet is not scary.

September 2, 2021 4:34 pm

California has more real and serious problems to spend money on: such as preparing the infrastructure for the next large earthquake. building more dams to mitigate drought.

September 2, 2021 5:23 pm

Truth is not a friend to our “climate warrior” friends.

Tombstone Gabby
September 2, 2021 5:34 pm

“…massive bureaucracy and waste trillions of dollars in unnecessary expenditures and endanger the state’s economic viability.”

That’s the whole idea, destroy the economy.

Then that earlier occupant in the White House can have his sock puppet say that this has to be done in the other 56 states. (stet)

September 2, 2021 7:33 pm

average only 1.6 inches of coastal sea level rise in the next 30 years – not 3.5 feet!!”

Perhaps they really meant 3.5 cm and don’t understand what they’re talking about?

September 2, 2021 7:38 pm

According to Matthew Dowd, we only have a year or two left to save the planet from complete destruction. No matter what we do, over 100 million will die next year in so called climate disasters.

September 2, 2021 8:13 pm

One would think that if the Commission, or whoever allowed these homes in the picture to be built, had outlawed building on beachfront with cliffs directly behind them, these homes would not now be in danger. Had they never heard of erosion when they approved this?
On top of that, they built a highway there, too? Stupid is as stupid does.

September 2, 2021 8:26 pm

It seem appropriate by way of background to link to this excellent article which appeared in WUWT.

Del Mar CA demonstrates the idiocy of “managed retreat” from sea level

September 26, 2018
Guest “I couldn’t make this sort of schist up, if I tried” by David Middleton
California is feuding with this SoCal city over ‘planned retreat’ from sea level rise..

September 2, 2021 8:58 pm

What is it with the loudest and most powerful of the CAGWers and their affinity for beachfront and tropical islands? Hmmm?
Lobbyist bought tropical land from Biden’s brother
Scott Green, a lobbyist with close ties to Joe Biden, purchased Virgin Islands property from James Biden and then extended him a private mortgage.
Updated: 01/28/2020

Biden family’s Keewaydin vacation home sold for $1.35 million to local architects

The vacation home on stilts which includes a one-bedroom, one-bath guesthouse was purchased by James Biden Jr. and his wife Sara in 2013 for $2.5 million.

September 2, 2021 9:41 pm

One could build a block wall around the sea front property – one block high – and be protected from sea level rise till the end of the century.

September 3, 2021 4:22 am

When the science makes you look bad, simply bully the scientists into submission.

The watermelons don’t do irony. Just ask Peter Ridd about that-
Gaslighting the world: Coalition pressured its own scientists to save reef from ‘at risk’ label (

Tom Abbott
September 3, 2021 6:13 am

From the article: “Additionally, the long time period NOAA coastal tide gauge data measurements establish that no acceleration (rates of coastal sea level rise are not increasing) of coastal sea level rise has occurred over the past 30 years (and longer) despite ridiculous, flawed and erroneous claims otherwise by climate alarmist models that have been proven to be completely wrong based upon actual data measurements.”

You know who you are. 🙂

Steve Z
September 3, 2021 8:48 am

One wonders how the California Coastal Commission can get away with such wild predictions. If the sea level rise rate is 1.97 mm/year in San Francisco and 2.20 mm/year in San Diego, at the higher rate the sea level would rise 66 mm over the next 30 years, or about 2.6 inches.

On what basis does the CCC believe that sea level rise will accelerate by a factor of 16 over the next 30 years?

At a rate of 2.2 mm/yr, the time required for the sea to rise by 3.5 feet (1,067 mm) is about 485 years, or the year AD 2506. Unless the world goes into a cooling trend before then, like it did less than 400 years after the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period. Anyway, it’s a safe bet that no one alive today (including children) will see a sea level rise of 3.5 feet.

Brooks H Hurd
September 3, 2021 8:54 am

The Coastal Commission has been out of control for at least the past 32 years that I have lived on the Central Coast.

September 3, 2021 10:27 am

In 1906, an estimated 8.2 magnitude earthquake ruptured the San Andreas fault from San Juan Bautista to Santa Rosa CA. As evidenced by railroad tracks and mussels on ships wharves pilings, the land rose a foot and moved north 16 feet.

In 1989, a temblor of magnitude 7.1 ruptured the San Andreas fault from San Juan Bautista to Daly City CA. As evidenced by freeway bridges and mussels on ships wharves pilings, the land rose a foot and moved 5 feet to the north.

Since, by observation, the land is being forced upwards by approximately 2 feet every hundred years, Central Coastal California has no reason to plan for any problems from sea level rise by the year 2100. Unless of course, the Coastal Commission believes that the San Andreas fault will stop moving upwards in that area.

September 3, 2021 11:51 pm

In less than two weeks the people of California will have a chance to turn this ship around.
But the usual lack of control of fraudulent mail-in votes is already looming.

Rod Evans
September 4, 2021 1:09 am

It is worth remembering “Climate Models Don’t Lie”.
Unfortunately they don’t tell the truth either. What they do is provide an endless source of unchallengeable climate alarmist copy and ensure the climate alarm industry just keeps rolling along.
I am guessing, I could model it, but a guess is just as real, I am guessing the climate warming alarm, will go on for as long as it provides handsome income for the people claiming and projecting it.
This winter will provide a reality check, as yet more people succumb to the cold due to unavailable energy supplies needed to keep them alive, but now unavailable.
Sadly, the media will just ignore the truth and we will be bombarded by COP 26 alarmist ideas for change.
Good luck to the team suing the President for overreaching his authority, when he shut down the Keystone Pipe Line construction.

September 4, 2021 3:22 pm

California! Land of Fruits, Nuts and Flakes!
Plenty of all three ingredients in the famed Coastal Commission!
Somehow, I doubt many Malibu multi-millionaires will panic over this new silliness.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights