More Science Garbage Parroted By The LA Times

Rising sea levels are expected to significantly alter the state’s long coastline

Expected by whom? According to NOAA records, there has been no change in sea level in San Diego for 30 years. Same for La Jolla. Same for Los Angeles. Same for Santa Monica. Same for Santa Barbara. Port San Luis has never seen any sea level change. Monterey hasn’t seen any change for 30 years. Same for San Francisco. Alameda has never seen any change in sea level. Point Reyes has never seen any change in sea level.Port Chicago has not seen any change for 30 years. North Spit may have gone up a few millimetres, and Crescent City has been going down.

That is all of the functional NOAA sea level gauges in CA. Not only is sea level not “significantly altering” the California Coast, it isn’t altering it at all.

140 years at La Jolla

h/t to reader “peterhodges”

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to More Science Garbage Parroted By The LA Times

  1. Sean says:

    The article referenced more about the speeding up of the hydrological cycle and river flows rather than sea level rise. I’ve heard other skeptics say that if it did get warmer, the hydrological cycle would speed up and this would mitigate any further warming, i.e. a negative feedback. (The latter makes more sense to me.) In any event, with shortages of fresh water looming in different locations around the globe, I don’t see the downside of a faster water cycle unless you get unusual blocking patterns like last summer over Pakistan. The author looked at increased run-off in the Central Valley of California over the last 30 years (during a warm PDO) which I would characterize as a gift from heaven in the semi-arid region. With a cool PDO recently established that favors more La Nina conditions, the rainfall in the southern half of the state will likely go down which is going to be a much worse problem for the folks in that state.

  2. Paul H says:

    This is where Lazarus usually says “Ah but they did not say when”.

  3. peterhodges says:

    sean

    i think that has been correct regarding recent la nina, but based on past records and proxies, the southern mid-latitudes should get noticeably more precipitation during the negative pdo phase.

    and i don’t know about LA, but it has been raining alot out in the desert, where there was also extensive snow cover last winter. adn we’ve had snow everymonth except july, and while oct-nov have been warm it has been…raining.

  4. Leon Brozyna says:

    Ahh well … what can one expect from the journal of record for la la land?

    • peterhodges says:

      typical AGW rubbish loaded with contradictions and refuted by fact. my wife was stuffing it in the stove for firestarter and started giggling and reading me excerpts…

      “If the water cycle intensifies, then we will see more frequent, more intense floods, and more persistent drought,” Famiglietti said.

      ??

  5. R. de Haan says:

    Did someone send the L.A Times a link of this post?

  6. Pingback: More Science Garbage Parroted By The LA Times | Global Warming Skeptics

  7. MikeTheDenier says:

    Climate scientists plan campaign against global-warming skeptics

    The American Geophysical Union plans to announce Monday that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. The effort is a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

    In the week that Abraham and others have been marshaling the rapid-response team, 39 scientists agreed to participate, including Richard Feely, senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Michael Oppenheimer professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,3784003.story

    Ok, which is it? 700 or 39?? :-))

    • Mike Davis says:

      As your list does not contain any scientists who have not been thoroughly discredited, and it is a TRAVESTY, we can expect more pathological science BS. Maybe the group that is studying Cow excrement should start with this crowd of heifers.
      As far as the LA times report. I think Steven might be right about the dramatic effects expected as the glaciation increases. 140 meter drop would probably have a drastic effect on the coast line. Even if my projection is off by ten or twenty meters it will still be dramatic. Rising water will have little effect because the coast is already primarily concrete and steel compared to its natural state.
      Having lived in Nevada I spent vacations at the beaches and driving along the coast since the late 60s

    • ChrisD says:

      Ok, which is it? 700 or 39??

      Both. There are separate efforts along similar lines by John Abraham and the AGU.

      • Mike Davis says:

        It is probably just proper climate science math because they do not use the same math as the rest of science.
        700 and 39 are actually consistent with each other if looked at from the proper perspective using the latest in hallucinogenic driven GCMs.

      • ChrisD says:

        Mike, this is just silly. You asked a question and I answered it. They’re two different groups.

      • ChrisD says:

        Nope.

        Repeat: Mike asked a question. I answered it. That should have been the end of the story, but Mike couldn’t stop himself from turning it into something more. So I suggest that you ask Mike about obsessing, not me.

      • Mike Davis says:

        ChrisD:
        I know how to read, which apparently you do not. Mke the denier asked the question that you and I both attempted to answer in our own ways. You with your form of logic and me with mine.
        You have little contact with reality as you have already provided evidence of your obsessive nature on other threads.
        To me they are all the same “GROUP” / TRIBE.

      • ChrisD says:

        Mike, I apologize for not noticing that the question was posed by Mike the Denier and that the comment to which I responded was by Mike Davis. Unlike the blog owner, I am happy to admit to my errors.

        However, the tantrum about “climate science math” was still unnecessary. It was a simple question, asked and answered, whether or not I failed to notice that there were two different Mikes in the thread.

        As to “obsessive nature” in other threads, it comes down to the very issue of admitting mistakes. When the blog owner attempts to run around the fact that opinions in an op-ed piece should not be ascribed to the publication that contains it, or that the 8th Amendment doesn’t apply to civil cases, etc., etc., etc., it becomes necessary to repeat the point. If he would simply admit it when he makes a mistake, as normal people do, there would be no need for “obsessive” behavior.

      • Mike Davis says:

        ChrisD:
        Climate science math is to show that models that can not agree with each other or with real world conditions are consistent with observations.
        Climate science math provides results that are consistent with desired results.
        Climate science math is to form a result first and find create evidence to support it.
        Open and transparent are only methods used in real science. Hidden and obscure are standard in climate science. We are observing a circling of the wagons.

      • ChrisD says:

        Mike, climate science math has nothing to do with whether there are 39 or 700 scientists doing this thing. It was far off topic, and if I had done that I would be accused of spamming.

      • Mike Davis says:

        There you are wrong because Climate Science shows Robustly that 39 and 700 are consistent with observations as they both provide the desired results. That makes the numbers basically the same or if you will statistically significant to the 95 percentile within the climate tribe.

  8. pat says:

    Hey. The sea levels are rising. Its just that land is rising faster…or something like that.

  9. Nobama says:

    Moonbeam will be pleased. With the rapidly rising waters expected soon, he can declare the entire coastline off limits to development…. except, uh…. he’s already done that.

    Well, he could protect the Sacramento River Delta by increasing flow of the river and shutting off water to the Central Valley….but, they’ve already done that too.

    It’s time for the Guvnah to move inland with his scorched earth policy…..

  10. Chris J says:

    I live on treasure island and drive along the city side of the island everyday. Yesterday sometime until some point this afternoon (nov 9) the water level had risen well over 4 feet and suddenly went back down. I don’t mean swells or waves, but the whole bay’s level was risen. The water was fairly calm too, so I’m not sure what would cause this phenomenon. I used the old broken down pier as a reference, which usually is about 4 to 6 feet out of the water and was only about 1 or 2 feet above for this time. Can anyone help explain this? Is there something I’m missing? When driving across at around 5pm today I noticed it went back down, and you could see the wet ring around the island and in the supports for the bay bridge. It was at least 4 feet… ???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s