Fort Lauderdale Sea Level Identical To 55 Years Ago

Newsbusters found this. The beach at Fort Lauderdale is identical to 55 years ago, when the movie “Where The Boys Are” was filmed.


ScreenHunter_4022 Oct. 25 08.20 


ScreenHunter_4023 Oct. 25 08.22

‘Where the Boys Are’ Disproves Rising Seas Scare

People claiming sea level rise have no idea what they are talking about


About stevengoddard

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

31 Responses to Fort Lauderdale Sea Level Identical To 55 Years Ago

  1. hell_is_like_newark says:

    Plus the water looks clearer today. And what happened to the jetties in the 1960’s screen shot? Buried in sand?

    • stewart pid says:

      I remember reading the Army corp of engineers was responsible for a lot of these and took most out thinking they were doing more harm than good in most cases but I can’t speak to these ones specifically. Watching the long term effects they discovered most jetties would stop beach erosion where they were built but cause much more beach erosion nearby and so the natural currents were allowed to take back control.

    • Ernest Bush says:

      The water clarity probably has more to do with film deterioration versus a digital image than any actual cleanup.

    • there is no substitute for victory says:

      The North Jetty or pier is still visible. But 55 years of tropical storms and untold generations of ship worms has reduced it to a fraction of its former self. However the fact that it can still be made out puts the lie to gross amounts of beach replenishment.

  2. Dan says:

    Not to be a wet blanket, but you get nothing from comparing public beaches from “then” and “now”. They are commonly reworked, with extra sand added to combat erosion and the like. These picture have more to do with erosion and reclamation efforts and wouldn’t show much having to do with sea level.

    • there is no substitute for victory says:

      Since the Castillo of Pensacola is built out of solid rock, on solid rock, and the last time I looked solid rock only repelled sea water if the rock in question was above the water line, these photos show quite a lot. But what these photos do not show is rising sea levels.

      Maybe all the excess sea water (like Al Gore’s excess heat) compressed itself and is hiding out at the bottom of the Earth’s oceans biding its time to spring a surprise flood tide of epic proportions on mankind? :<(

      I will leave it to others to tally up how many laws of physics or nature this explanation violates, and Tony, Steven, or myself are supposed to be the science illiterates here?

      • What do your comments about rock have to do with the Fort Lauderdale beach?

        There is apparent SLR in Florida, due to isostatic rebound. That doesn’t violate any “laws”, and it has been measured. But that is apparent rise, which in this case is not actual rise. The actual SL is surely about the same, if not lower, than in 1960. Personally, I do not think Tony has any science wrong in this post. I think he engaged in a bit of literary license, which is his right, but the post is fundamentally accurate.


  3. If there were jetties back then, then they are most likely doing beach renourishment in this location. Beach renourishment will be increased as needed to deal with any actual or perceived SLR. And this increased renourishment will for the time being obscure any continued SLR that is happening there.

    I see one of the jetties in the new shot. It is almost completely submerged in the water, and the landward side is completely covered up by new sand that has been added to the beach.

    If there is any apparent SLR, it is the result of isostatic rebound, and would probably be of such a small amount that it could not be detected from this altitude and high angle. If we had shots to compare from down at eye level or below, including the road and the entire beach, and both shots at the same point in the tidal cycle, we might possibly see something. But I doubt it, because continual renourishment obscures small changes.


  4. rw says:

    A similar pair of photos was posted on WUWT a while back. It was along the same coastline; I think the location was near Cape Canavarel. There was an interesting discussion in the comment thread where someone pointed out that, since the slope of many beaches is so slight, even a small increase in sea level (I forget how much but it was an inch or less) would produce an incursion of a few hundred feet. Since the slope here looks pretty slight, we ought to be seeing some difference if the sea level is increasing as advertised.

    • Can’t speak for Canaveral, but I’ve been to the beach in Fort Lauderdale. I observed a rise of 2-3 feet between the water and the street. This is maintained by renourishment wherever necessary. In my opinion, a rise in apparent SL of < 2 in. at this beach would be indistinguishable from looking at these particular photos, even if done at the same point of the tide cycle.

      • Beale says:

        If the level of the sand has been increased substantially since 1960, wouldn’t the sand now be higher than the street?

      • Oh, for crying out loud. For about the third time: beach renourishment is to restore sand to a level it was at before. Sometimes, they add a little more, so they won’t have to renourish as frequently. It’s not like anyone’s going to complain about having too much sand.

        I was not saying the level of sand is higher than the street. What I was suggesting was that if there had been a couple inches of apparent SLR due to isostatic rebound, they would add more sand to counteract that, which would indeed have the effect of making the slope of the beach a little less steep. But we’re talking about reducing the slope by maybe a cm or two over 50 m. Not piling the sand higher than the street.

        I don’t know how much the jetty has reduced in height, or even if the landward side of it is still there. Perhaps it was removed to make the beach experience more pleasant for tourists. All I’m saying is if it’s there, it’s been covered by sand, and the only reason for doing that is to counteract erosion and/or apparent SLR.


  5. Sleepalot says:

    The Internet Movie Database Advanced search
    allows searches for filming locations.

  6. Robertv says:

    Dubrovnik 1905

  7. Robertv says:

    Dubrovnik 1940

  8. Robertv says:

    Dubrovnik 2013

  9. Jeff says:

    The jetties you see in the 1960 Fort Lauderdale photo/video are from the original mouth of the New River, before it was rerouted making Port Everglades.

  10. Peter says:

    A similar process to follow is to tick on/off, the 1945+/- imagery of England, fascinating. There’s also similar data relating to Sydney, Australia.

  11. Keith French says:

    How about the house in Florida built in 1927 on the ocean waterway that hasn’t had any rise, and documented to that fact. Libtards won’t let the facts get in the way of their wacko agenda. How did that y2k thing work out for ya’ll?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s