Protecting Palo Alto From Non-Existent Sea Level Rise

Experts say the Palo Alto, CA Baylands will drown in the next 30 years.

With rising tides threatening to submerge the Palo Alto Baylands by mid-century, city officials agreed on Monday that they need to explore new barriers — both physical and legislative — to protect coastal area from sea level rise.

Palo Alto prepares for sea level rise | News | Palo Alto Online |

That sounds awful. Twenty years ago I lived and worked adjacent to the Palo Alto Baylands, and went running in Baylands Park every day.

One minor problem with the experts claim though, is that it has no basis in science or reality. Had these experts done any actual research, they would have known that sea level in the San Francisco Bay is almost exactly the same as it was in 1940.

Sea Level Trends – NOAA Tides & Currents

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts

– Richard Feynman

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Protecting Palo Alto From Non-Existent Sea Level Rise

  1. GW Smith says:

    But “experts” are soooooo authoritative. Who can resist them?

    • rah says:

      Anyone listening with a lick of common sense?

      I am saying it long past the time to take off the gloves. No quarter given just go in for the kill. To give you an idea how I mean that let me explain an exchange with a nephew of mine last Christmas. We have a close family and I like my nephew. He works in the family business which is metals fabrication and warehousing. He is in charge of running the CNC Plasma, water jet, and oxy acetylene cutting tables. He’s no dummy and a computer whiz but like so many that are 30 years or younger he has been exposed to the propaganda for his whole life.

      He approached me on climate change questioning my beliefs. I didn’t fool around trying to teach the kid science or arguing the science. I just pointed out he drove his corvette there and brought candied bacon he’d made with him and just bought a house with natural gas heat and he worked in an industry that the greens believe to be bad for the environment. Then I told him when you start walking the walking instead of just talking the talk I’ll believe you mean it. Till then your just being another climate change hypocrite. I walked away.

      • Jason Calley says:

        +1

        Hey rah! Not only are you being correct and honest, you are being effective as well. People who believe in CAGW have been persuaded because purported “experts” have claimed it is true. Believers have not actually done the research and investigation. They have adopted their beliefs because of an emotional attachment toward deferral to authority. Only an emotional rebuttal will un-convince them of CAGW.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        I do the same with our “progressives”. I’m tired of people who live a great life in the best country on Earth and benefit from its constitutional system but constantly badmouth it. I don’t expect any quick results, though. Borrowing an old bit of cowboy wisdom:

        There’s two theories about arguing with a Boulder Progressive. Neither one works.

      • GCSquared says:

        rah: That’s well and good, but how do you handle Volt-driving vegans with off-grid solar systems? Absolutely the worst!

        • Rah says:

          Don’t have to deal with them. They’re a distinct minority and at least they aren’t hypocrites.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          More power to them, GCSquared. I mean DC voltage power to the off-gridders, the “aussteigers”, from the few PV panels they own. God knows they need it.

          By the way, I don’t think even one of the few I know drives a Nisan Leaf or Chevy Volt, let alone Tesla. Not enough dough.

          Maybe you know the rare exceptions who inherited their folks’ money. Boulder is full of “progressive” trust funders but none I know live off the grid. Too inconvenient. They drive Audis, Jeeps, Subarus or trucks.

          Also, people rarely see the real off-gridders. They are too busy surviving by living off the land.

  2. steve case says:

    Tony

    Thanks for posting. Sea level is the scariest hobgoblin the Climate Cult has. The nut jobs regularly make absurd claims that require that sea level is on track to increase several times the current rate by 2100. Their dopey claims need to be exposed for what they are.

  3. Gator says:

    All surface features of this planet are transient, and coastlines are one of the most changeable features. It would be absolute insanity to build barriers to preserve what nature says is over. God, leftists are stupid and dangerous.

  4. John F. Hultquist says:

    Anyone want to bet that their wetlands plans will do more harm than good?

    • Gator says:

      I’ll take that bet!

      In testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania, described research he conducted with Kesten C. Green, University of South Australia, and Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, to determine the validity of scientific forecasts with respect to global warming…

      In this ongoing study, we have, to date, identified 26 historical alarmist movements. None of the forecasts for the analogous alarms proved correct. In the 25 alarms that called for government intervention, the government imposed regulations in 23. None of the 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them.

      As Reagan famously said…

      https://youtu.be/xhYJS80MgYA

    • czechlist says:

      The lifeblood of polititions is they can brag about solving short term minor issues ( usually imaginary – per Mencken) by creating long term major problems.
      Race relations, education, immigration, homeless… If they ever solved anything what would they campaign on?

  5. spike55 says:

    Vegetation will grow with the tiny slr.

    SLR will inundate more of the area, INCREASING the size of the baylands.

  6. Steven Fraser says:

    Hi, all.

    A question about the chart…

    What was going on in the 1940s and around 1980 to produce those two peaks?

    • Ed Bo says:

      All of the spikes in any seal-level chart for California are during El Nino events. I’ve lived in CA through the 1982-83, 1997-98, and 2015-16 events.

      I believe there is a general failure of tropical trade winds to “push” water to the western Pacific. If you look at SLR data for the western Pacific, you get “valleys” during El Ninos.

  7. Samuel Glasser says:

    Although I agree conceptually with this post and with the commenters, there is little scientific data to corroborate the various conclusions. First, the selection of Alameda as the representative of sea level behavior is poor. Keep in mind, we are dealing with relative sea level, not absolute. The Bay Area contains two major faults (San Andreas and Hayward) and is subject to tectonic rise and fall. I have on many occasions surveyed all California and all World stations. Looking on the NOAA maps, the most common color on the arrows is green representing 0 to 3 mm per yr rise. The observed median of all station data is 2 mm per yr rise or 8 in per century. At this rate, by mid-century, Palo Alto will see a linear rise of 2-1/2 in. This will not submerge the Bay lands, as proclaimed. A careful examination of all sea level data will show an interesting feature in a large portion of the graphical data. And that is flat sea levels over the years since 1980. That may correspond with the decline in maximum temperatures, as posted at this site. My conclusion is that sea level data does not verify any abnormal sea level rise. As all the stations are represented by linear trends, there is absolutely no evidence of any influence whatsoever from climate change’.

  8. Ed Bo says:

    It should be pointed out the the low hills in the background of the photograph are from old trash landfills, used (IIRC) until the 1980s.

  9. Karl W. Braun says:

    This notion of imminent sea level rise gets recycled in our local rag every few months or so. Despite posting the very same graph that Tony uses to dispel the myth, it matters not; my efforts are, one could say, as futile as countering the tide.

    • Steven Fraser says:

      Oh, they could counter the tide if they wanted to. A set of locks would do the job nicely. All known tech, with hundreds of years of precedent.

      They could pick the EXACT level of the bay, if desired. But, IMO would rather just bitch about it.

  10. GCSquared says:

    I live on the opposite side of SF Bay. The PTB’s sent a survey out, asking multiple-choice questions about interest in the wetlands. It had a few expected zingers, like whether we’d find projected sea level rises of 1 foot, 2 feet or 3 feet objectionable, and whether we should build dams to keep the Bay out. In the opinion section, I told them I looked at the tide gauge records (the Alameda one you show), didn’t see a problem, and they should have a look, too. Not that I expect it to do much good.

    Sad to say, I think they were trying to generate support for general maintenance. I did say I’d support infrastructure projects to mitigate excessive damage from storm surges and flood runoff. Trouble is, they probably couldn’t get much support for something so sensibly unsexy, but I betcha that ginning up the alarmism works just fine. If you were trying to get support, could YOU resist?

    We are so screwed.

Leave a Reply to spike55 Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.