No Change In California Sea Level Since 1871

The animation below compares 1871 sea level in La Jolla, California vs. a recent high tide picture.

https://www.sandiegohistory.org/timeline/images/80-2860.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/090207-LaJollaCove.jpg

About stevengoddard

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

48 Responses to No Change In California Sea Level Since 1871

  1. Bernd Palmer says:

    Amazing.

  2. That’s convinced me.Who needs actual data when you have an old photograph from the internet.

    • You can’t possibly be as dense as you pretend to be.

    • Andy Oz says:

      So a photograph of Jim Hansen is really of Frank Oz and Katherine Hayhoe doesn’t look anything like her picture. And photographs of Obama are really of Mao Zedong. I will never believe any photographs again. Thanks jeff for clearing that up for me.

    • Morgan says:

      Who needs old photographs when you have government tampered data?

    • Scott Scarborough says:

      A photograph, old or new, IS data. Data comes in many shapes and sizes.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Decades ago I frequented a beach with big rocky landmarks, and now I go to the same beach, and observing it at the same tide I see that the sea level is just the same now. And this type of personal observation is shared by countless people the world over, and by countless then and now photographs as well.

      I’m simply amazed that there are people who say that we should put greater stock in the data then in actual current observations on beaches now. Don’t believe your own lying eyes, believe the data. No, it’s “data.”

      • Based on the current rate of sea-level rise (3mm/yr), if you are comparing now to 40 years ago, the sea has only risen 4.7 inches. That is hardly noticeable. Can you see that 4.7 inch difference on the two photos from La Jolla.

        This is exactly the problem with the arguments the Henny Pennys are making. They are talking about 5 to 10 foot increases by the end of the century, a vast increase from the 10 inches one would expect from the current rate of increase. Ten inches over 86 years is hardly noticeable. Five to ten feet would be huge, but unlikely.

    • Gail Combs says:

      It is known as validation. A method for checking the truth of your data by another, completely independent means. Something Climastrologists are completely opposed to.

  3. I used to go to Scripps Inst. of Oceanography regularly and the scene is familiar. Perhaps a better example is Key West which has been barely above sea level past anyones memory.

  4. Ken says:

    Who believes old photos? The fact that they are old makes them unbelievable. /nosarc

  5. theyouk says:

    Jeff Veitch: Here’s your data–http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410230
    Oooh–Scary.

    • Sinking tide gauge, like most of them.

    • Morgan says:

      This one is reliable. Hawaii is not sinking or rising. The islands erode over millions of years after they pass the hot spot, but they don’t sink.

      Sea leve rise for the past 100 years is linear, very slow, and is not accelerating. It does not correlate with CO2 levels.

      Sea level data from satellites is very inaccurate, the error bars are greater than the trend. Most of all, grafting the satellite record onto the tide gauge record at 1992 is fraud. Church and White are the biggest clowns in the sea level rise circus.

      • David A says:

        I am not sure how logical this is. If the force that pushes up hundreds of cubic miles of crust is removed, would that land not both erode and settle when that uplift force was removed?

        • Morgan says:

          It doesn’t push up the crust, it shoots liquid lava up which falls back down and builds islands. The islands are made of lava on a basaltic sea floor, not uplifted crust. Erosion happens from the top down, not from sinking or settling, and it happens over millions of years so there would be no form of rising or sinking during a human lifespan.

        • David A says:

          Sorry but no. Crust both erodes and sinks. Millions of cubic miles of ice on a land mass causes it to sink further into the mantel, forcing, through the mantel, uplift on tectonic plates not so encumbered. When the ice melts, the newly unencumbered plates rise, just as a boat would if it weight was reduced, and the forced upwards through increased mantle plates settle. .

    • All the interannual variation data looks flatter than the mean sea level trend. Why is this?

      • john boy says:

        No comment but 2 questions: 1.) What is the number one Greenhouse Gas released every day? (percentage ?) 2.) What is the Greenhouse Gas released thru cracks in the Earth’s surface near Santa Barbra, CALIF.?

  6. Robertv says:

    Empúries was founded on a small island at the mouth of the river Fluvià, in a region inhabited by the Indigetes. This city came to be known as the Palaiapolis, the “old city” when, towards 550 BC, the inhabitants moved to the mainland, creating the Neapolis, the “new city”.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emp%C3%BAries

    The island is on the right.
    http://www.viajespasion.com/empuries-pequena-gran-joya-en-catalunya.html

    The island on which the Palaiopolis was situated is now part of the mainland and is the site of the mediaeval village of Sant Martí d’Empúries.

  7. theyouk says:

    I should have put a /sarc tag on my comment. The sea level data at NOAA is anything but scary (though I suspect they will eventually ‘adjust’ it) . If only reporters were smart enough to look we could avoid a lot of pure BS hype (and if only I won the lotto…).

  8. What isn’t clear from the two pics is whether they were taken at the same stage of the tides. But I agree, the future extent of sea level rise has been grossly overstated. See this research by Houston and Dean in which they find the average annual rise to be only 1.7mm/year and decelerating: http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

  9. Billy Liar says:

    Ah, but look at all the extra greenery, courtesy of your old friend CO2.

  10. If anything, it looks like the level of the ocean has fallen, not risen.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The sea level has actually fallen since the Holocene Highstand (highest sea levels) was 5,000 to 6,000 years ago. It only makes sense. Aside from rebound of the glaciated areas you have growing glaciers long term.

        The authors of the following papers simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, and the highest period of glacial growth has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% less (~120 kW/m² less) solar energy.

        Abstract

        Beachrocks, beach ridge, washover and backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes. In combination with data from the final marine flooding phase of the incised Mekong River valley, the sea-level history of South Vietnam could be reconstructed for the last 8000 years. Connecting saltmarsh, mangrove and beachrock deposits the record covers the last phase of deglacial sea-level rise from − 5 to + 1.4 m between 8.1 to 6.4 ka. The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka. This highstand is further limited by a backshore and beachridge deposit that marks the maximum springtide sea-level just below the base of the overlying beach ridge. After 5.0 ka sea level dropped below + 1.4 m and fell almost linearly at a rate of 0.24 mm/year until 0.63 ka and + 0.2 m as evidenced by the youngest beachrocks.….
        (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113001859

        Note: 0.63 ka = beginning of the Little Ice Age.

        Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue

        Abstract
        …..We therefore conclude that for a period in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer……
        http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AGUFMPP11A0203F

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185

        Abstract

        …..Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene and there appear to have been periods of ice free summers in the central Arctic Ocean……
        (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185

        A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier

        …. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589411001256

        Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

        …. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded…

        Click to access MillerArctic.pdf

  11. Phil Jones says:

    Classic… Over at Huff Po today they are scaring and preparing their readers for a 10′ Sea Level rise … Thanks to pure speculation about Antarctic Ice Shelves collapsing while in reality we know the South Pole is taking on more ice…

    Progressives … Go buy your hip waders now before that 200 year out Sea Level Rise drowns you!!

  12. Steve, you should have digitally inserted some cute looking polar bears. That’s what the other side does.

  13. CapitalistRoader says:

    Ignored are the catastrophic effects of global warming on the color of the ocean and vegetation. We have less than 500 days to stop them from turning into blinding, phosphorescent blue and green.

  14. john boy says:

    I’m still trying to figure out why the Wisconsin Glacier melted. Must have been in preparation for the coming industrial age.

  15. Crack scientists say Pier 21 and Pleasure Pier in Galveston diverge by 200-300 millimeters. They are a mile and a half apart.

  16. William says:

    So, the large amount of ICE MELT in North Pole area has no effect?
    So, the discovery that the LAND MASS beneath the huge chunks of ice up north that has become missing, and thus sceduling the ice above to become broken up and to float out to sea in such high amounts in the future is nothing to be worried about?
    Okay, I guess one should just let someone ELSE worry about it… right?
    Yeah… I kind of feel tired, anyway.

  17. farang says:

    It is a neat demonstration that there has been virtually no change in High Tide level in La Jolla for at least 143 years. 143 years is a blip, less than a blink of an eye, geographically speaking.

    That this planet undergoes varying climates over the course of it’s 4 billion year history, is confirmed for me by the fact that the present coast line of Guam, an island in the South Pacific, sits at least 100′ lower than the ancient coastline on the cliffs above it. Someday, the entire tourist district of Tumon will be underwater. “Someday” might be the year 10,014 A.D. Or it could happen tomorrow.

    Tthe Earth will eventually swing back into (if not there already) a warming phase, naturally, and we may very well be in that phase now…as there are many underwater ancient cities…which were built and occupied when the planet was in a cooling phase and locking up water into ice, BEFORE this warming phase reversed the trend, and they became submerged. So these cooling/warming phases take thousands of years to complete. With brief periods of contrary phases.

    Myself…I am struck by the fact this solar system hurtles through the vast universe on a 26,000 year journey before returning to the “starting line” again. Who knows what events we have in the past and will in the future encounter on this journey with our star, the Sun. Over and over and over again. We (our Solar System) are literally a tiny “Spinning Top” in a galactic minefield, that must, by all odds, take many direct hits during this journey.

    That is a fact. Look at the surface of the Moon for confirmation. All is not “settled down” in this Solar System: WE are not stationary balloons floating in a sealed environment. Conditions can change *snap* LIKE THAT! Worrying about carbon usage heating up the planet…well, those fuels are finite, and I doubt we can heat up this planet enough to measure before those fuels are totally consumed.

    • Brian H says:

      Say wot? It takes about 250,000,000 years for the Sun to orbit the galaxy once. But about 26,000 years for the Earth to complete one cycle of of axial rotation, and to point at Polaris again.

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