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.
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
I’m wondering how this impacts the mobile-home park in Malibu…
Well, technically, they are mobile – hitch ’em up and move on.
Needs a rewrite, sober down a little.
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.
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.
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…
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).
Somehow Bill Gates didn’t get the message about sea level rise:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/real-estate/story/2020-04-22/report-bill-and-melinda-gates-buy-43m-del-mar-home
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.
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.
Truth is not a friend to our “climate warrior” friends.
“…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)
“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?
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.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-matthew-dowd-100-million-climate-change-deaths
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.
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
http://bit.ly/3pBcWMM
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..
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.
https://politi.co/3uayWS4
Updated: 01/28/2020
Biden family’s Keewaydin vacation home sold for $1.35 million to local architects
https://bit.ly/2ZujiCV
6/27/18
Naples
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.
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.
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 (msn.com)
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. 🙂
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.
The Coastal Commission has been out of control for at least the past 32 years that I have lived on the Central Coast.
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.
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.
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.
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.