There has been a big push by the climate liars recently to scare Californians into sea level neurosis
Satellites show that California sea level has been falling slightly since the start of records in 1992.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Quadrupled Border Crossings
- “Ranked most liberal compared to All Senators”
- Hottest Day Ever
- Radical Communist Donald Harris
- Same Weather As Always
- “Climate Change Is Killing People”
- Fifty Years Ago Today
- Miami Drowning
- Blocked By Ice
- Will He Be Disappointed?
- Don’t Be A Conspiracy Theorist
- Washington Post Spy Analyst
- Summer Heat And Burn Area
- Climate Heresy
- “I do not want to hear about the 1930s”
- “33 storms”
- Something New In North Dakota
- Survival Of The Planet
- “baseless far-right conspiracy theory”
- The BBC
- Biden Uniting America
- Firearms Safety Rules For Actors
- Science Banned In France
- Global Warming in Nevada
- Saving The Climate With Soy
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Quadrupled Border Crossings
- arn on Quadrupled Border Crossings
- Bob G on Quadrupled Border Crossings
- Gamecock on Radical Communist Donald Harris
- Luigi on Hottest Day Ever
- Disillusioned on “Ranked most liberal compared to All Senators”
- Bob G on Hottest Day Ever
- Bob G on “Ranked most liberal compared to All Senators”
- Bob G on “Ranked most liberal compared to All Senators”
- arn on “Ranked most liberal compared to All Senators”
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9419750
Actually, parts of California have a declining sea level but Los Angeles has an extremely slight increase, namely, 83 mm per century.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410660
The rise is linear (not accelerating) so we can predict 83 x .87 or about 72 mm rise during the rest of this century, not the 600 to 1700 mm they are predicting in this fictitious article. But you have to admit, science fiction is fun, isn’t it?
These are satellite measurements, and are not affected by things like the Santa Monica pier sinking.
Talking about San Pedro. Local tide gauge is a more appropriate indicator of threats to Los Angeles.
Catastrophic sea level rise would be necessarily global. Small local variations mean almost nothing.
This is an article about Los Angeles
’round Pedro and Long Beach, etc, you’d have to examine subsidence from all the oil extraction over the years…
local variations aren’t an overall increase or decline, their just local variations.
Ironically, “TruthDig” reports fantasy; the only thing threatening is lack of funding for storm surge mitigation and more regurgitation of flawed projections.
“Drilling behind the headlines”? They’re doing it by hand with a blunt bit.
My post earlier over at “Truth Digs”
***************************************
According to Tim Radford’s report, “Sea levels are expected to rise somewhere between 0.6 metres and 1.7 metres by the close of the century.”
Really? He should do some arithmetic.
There are 5 tide gauge stations
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obta…
in the Los Angeles area that have records sufficiently long enough to see overall trends. Those stations with sea level rise in mm/yr for all years and for the last 30 years are:
Station …….. All years ….Last 30 years
Port San Luis .. 0.7 ……… -0.8
Santa Monica … 1.4 ………. 1.0
Los Angeles …. 0.9 ………. 0.3
La Jolla ……. 2.1 ………. 0.6
San Diego …… 2.1 ………. 0.4
San Diego has the longest record going back to 1906 and its greatest 30 year rate was 3.7 mm/yr ending in 1983.
In order to reach 0.6 – 1.7 meters by 2100 the average annual rate would have to average 7 to almost 20 mm/yr every year for the next 86 years. Considering that the highest rate for the region was less than 4 mm/yr and that the recent trend has been toward a lower rate, it begs the question of when the switch to 7 – 20 mm/yr is going to begin.
Anyone with some curiosity and modest Excel skills can verify the above numbers.
Steve Case – Milwaukee, WI
All of calif is an active tectonic zone. La Jolla is within a 1/4 mile of an active fault. I would go with the satellite record, but either way , as you note, there is nothing to fear and zero indication of any anthropogenic cause.
Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
Truth and lies!
http://youtu.be/8EMoU8OOsBs
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
“There has been a big push by the climate liars recently to scare Californians into sea level neurosis…”
Some of the Californians I have met are just so full of neurosis that a little more sea level may be a help…
I don’t even need research to find the idea of sea-level rise along California laughable. I’ve been going to Southern California beaches since 1973. Except for the decline in quality of the riffraff they still look the same with the same distance to the water as then. Most of the rentals along them are still the same. The Big One will probably permanently alter sea levels in human terms. Scientists keep promising, but they have obviously failed to deliver. LOL
To hell with the east coast, I am going to start worrying about the west coast because I do not have enough to do and I need a neurosis to be like one of the gang.
Reblogged this on Climatism.
Mörner’s global assessment: 5 cm. by 2100. About 2″. Hansen multiplies that by 20 to try and whump up some worry. Yawn.