Like the Guardian, The LA Times appears unable to distinguish between a wave and rising sea level.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/
Sea level in LA hasn’t risen for 70 years, but I’m sure it is a very serious problem.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410660
h/t to Marc Morano
It’s the perfect non-problem, one can spend at will on job-padding local projects perhaps with a couple of million federal or UN bucks to spare, and since the sea isn’t going anywhere they know perfectly well they’ll be able to proclaim “Victory!” at any time of their choosing.
I posted this:
“What we are dealing with is the reality that sea levels are rising”
LA’s sea-level hasn’t changed in at least 30 years:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410660
So which reality are you referring to, Mayor?
Posted by: Dave N | March 06, 2011 at 05:41 PM
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment
Let’s see if it gets moderated off 😉
Hey.. they published my comment, and Fred Singer’s, etc.
Meanwhile, Adam posted a source full of fallacies including links to Nature articles that have been debunked, such as an ACE study. Needless to say the link is to some No Scientist propaganda.
But what about the critical tipping point, when the Greenland and Antarctic ice all falls into the sea? Then what?
Then the unicorns will surely go extinct.
The Warmists do the same about sea levels here in Florida. They scream that we’re all going to drown, but they never come here and actually bother measuring. Instead, they consult computer models.
There has been zero rise in sea level here in Tampa, St. Petersburg, Sarasota, and even to the far south, Key West, in my lifetime, and probably for far longer. The various published claims of eight inches down to two inches are based on computer guesses, not facts. I challenge any Warmist to come down here and show ANY rise in sea levels. The whole thing is a crock. Insurance companies wouldn’t be falling over each other trying to write policies for man made global warming-caused sea level rises if they actually expected them to happen. It’s a scare designed to sell policies they know they’ll never have to pay up on.
There is a huge difference between beach erosion and sea level increases. Cities like St. Pete Beach spend millions of dollars replenishing their beaches periodically, and after tropical storms, but the water level doesn’t change.
Obviously, coastal Newport Beach properties must be condemned and removed from the tax rolls.
I saw this on PBS last week (left wing show). It wasn’t until 2/3 rds into the segment that they bothered to mention the following:
The city is built on marsh / flood plain.
The land is compressing (sinking)
Newport has a similar problem that Bangkok, New Orleans, and Venice have: Marsh and flood plains requires a continuous supply of new silt. When you build a city on top of them, that replenishment stops and the land sinks.
Venice used to get around this problem by building new structures on top of the old ones as they sank. I have seen stories of excavations where five or six basements were found on top of each other.
Maybe if they just raised the entire city up six millimeters or so, they wouldn’t have to worry about it for another 150 years.