Is It Time For San Francisco Residents To Become Mermaids Cause Climate Change?

That’s sorta the question Warmist Zachary Slobig asks

Is It Time for San Francisco to Declare Defeat in Its Battle With the Pacific?

In a future in which sea levels are expected to rise some three to four feet by the end of the century, San Francisco is in a precarious position—the city is surrounded by water on three sides. Its Pacific face is battered by winter storms and swells that scrape those sandy western fringes, chewing up the southernmost stretch of the coastal road, called the Great Highway. The ocean has slowly, relentlessly clawed at this byway since it was first fully paved in the late 1920s. For nearly a century the city has taken all sorts of approaches to defending its wild border from the Pacific—sea walls, man-made dunes, even gigantic piles of repurposed tombstones fashioned into crude revetments.

Apparently, they have some sort of Master Plan to deal with the problem, which is of course caused by Mankind. But, really, is San Fran Doooooomed by sea rise? Will they see 3 to 4 feet of sea rise by the 2100? The actual data says something quite different from the models

A trend of .66 feet. Big whoop. Like I wrote in regards to Florida sea rise

This is completely in line with the average sea rise over the last 7,000 years during the Holocene. That time period is used because that’s when the massive sea rise from the end of the glacial period ended. One would actually expect much more sea rise during even a low level warm period, since a cool period would see very low to decreasing sea levels, in order to create an average. We should expect more than three quarters of a foot. None of which would mean anthropogenic causation.

Looking at other parts of California

  • San Diego: .68 feet per century
  • La Jolla: .68 feet
  • Newport: .73 feet
  • Los Angeles, which has a nice long data set: .27 feet
  • Santa Monica: .43 feet
  • Alameda: .27 feet
  • And then there’s Crescent City, which has a trend of negative .21 feet, with data going back to 1933, and goes to 2006.

Obviously, Warmists think that models are more important than real world data.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Is It Time For San Francisco Residents To Become Mermaids Cause Climate Change?”

  1. Better_Late_Than_Gumballs says:

    Let me get this straight. THey are whining, crying, bemoaning the loss of the 1%’ers shoreline of a city over a claimed 4 feet of sea rise? But data only shows 2mm/year?

    What is that over 86 years in feet?
    2mm = 00.079in = 0.00656ft
    84 * 0.00656ft = 0.55ft

    So, based on a lack of increase in sea rise, some evidence points to a slowdown, they proclaim that the sea will end up rising 0.6 inches per year. A 660% increase. Each and every year!!!!!

    What is sad is that a majority of people, and MOST of all San Fran people, will believe this because they no longer have any math or cognitive ability skills.

    Our nation is lost. Quit worrying about a non-existent problem of a small amount of some of the most expensive shoreline in America, and start teaching kids math.

  2. You’d think they’d be more concerned with earthquakes and all they cause in a city with lots of manufactured land. Nope. Tiny rises in the sea level, which is entirely consistent with nature.

  3. Better_Late_Than_Gumballs says:

    Nope, they fixed the earthquake issue. As well as that pesky smog issue.

  4. jl says:

    Speaking of this and other matters, a must-read over at Powerlineblog.com- “Why Global Warming Alarmism isn’t Science” from may 17th. Very, very good. Jeffery- read it and weep.

  5. Jeffery says:

    jl,

    I read those sorts of things every week. Unconvincing. Hinderaker reprinted largely from the denier Don Easterbrook, published at WUWT.

    This sort of denier silliness is all over the internet and pushed by WUWT et al. No new evidence, no new arguments.

    I read it. No weeping. You need to find better material.

    Teach – Your ignorance regarding models is showing. Your model is a linear extrapolation of the existing data (yes, that’s a model – simple as it is). Obviously, the scientists with knowledge of the systems are using models that take into consideration processes that your model does not. For example, the thermal expansion of water with warming, the role of melting glaciers, sea ice and ice sheets.

  6. Jeffery says:

    jl,

    Here’s a nice read, as well, that addresses much of what Hinderaker, Watts and Easterbrook propose.

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/17/eight-pseudoscientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

    Despite Teach’s and the “Lord” Monkton’s lies, the Earth continues to warm because of CO2 added to the atmosphere. The glaciers and the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland continue to melt. Sea levels continue to rise. The pH of the oceans continues to decrease. All the evidence points to atmospheric CO2 causing these changes. There is no evidence that “natural cycles” are responsible.

    There are not two equal sides in the scientific argument. One side, the climate scientists, have all the evidence and data. The other side, the deniers, have no evidence or data.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Teach,

    Your usage, “Is It Time For San Francisco Residents To Become Mermaids Cause Climate Change?” makes you appear illiterate.

    You could help yourself and your hapless readers by at least using “because” or ’cause instead of misusing “cause”. Cuteness is not a substitute for meaningful writing.

  8. Your model is a linear extrapolation of the existing data (yes, that’s a model – simple as it is).

    No, Jeff, it’s not a model, it’s a trend. Based on real world, observable, replicable data. Unlike when you Warmists look in crystal balls.

  9. Jl says:

    “From denier Easterbrook, reprinted at WUWT.” Well, that settles it, he’s a “denier” and it was published at WUWT. That’s all you have? Name-calling and guilt by association? You’re the on that’s going to have to do better than that. “Lord Moncton’s lies..” Very, very scientific rebuttal, J. “There is no evidence natural cycles at responsible.” Sure there is J- 4 billion years of natural cycles. What you don’t have is any evidence that this is any different. In other words, what’s your evidence that this warming that’s stopped wouldn’t have happened without man? You don’t, except manipulated models. “The glaciers continue to melt..” So they’ve never melted in the past? And because something is melting, which has melted for billions of years in the past, proves that it’s now caused by something different? Sure. Antarctic ice is growing. Global sea ice is at near record levels. “Sea levels continue to rise.” Again, so they’ve never done that before? All well within natural variability. On the one side , astrologers have a litany of failed predictions from tampered models. On the other side, realists have observable data. Like I’ve said, this hoax is no different than going to a card-reader. “You will meet somebody interesting someday” has morphed into “there will be a flood…someday.”

  10. Jeffery says:

    “No, Jeff, it’s not a model, it’s a trend. Based on real world, observable, replicable data. Unlike when you Warmists look in crystal balls.”

    Sorry to give you the bad news Teach but it’s a model. You don’t need a computer, and you may only need a straightedge, graph paper and pencil, but it’s still a model for projecting what you believe sea level will be into the future.

    Also, I would prefer you never mention my balls again.

  11. Jeffery says:

    jl,

    There is so little to rebut when bloggers blog. Professor Easterbrook claims the Earth is warming or maybe not warming because of the sun, natural cycles… anything is possible except CO2. Yet, the only physical process he sees changing is… CO2. Easterbrook, like most science deniers, hunts and pecks to find a paper here, an abstract there to support his myths. Many of his citations are to the fabulous little “Lord” Monkton, lol, ’nuff said. He relies heavily on the non-peer reviewed work of Roy Spencer, little “Lord” Monkton and H. Svensmark.

    Warming has not stopped.

  12. Better_Late_Than_Gumball says:

    WTH J?!?!?
    Even for you this is stupid.

    Sorry to give you the bad news Teach but it’s a model. … but it’s still a model for projecting what you believe sea level will be into the future.

    And, J reaches new lows for stupidity. Plotting data and putting a trend on previous data is now called modeling and projecting the future.

    I bet J feels camels are racist too.

  13. Jeffery says:

    Gumby,

    Are you saying that since the sea has risen X amount over the past 100 years that that projects nothing for tomorrow? That the sea level is equally likely to increase or decrease or stay the same. Or do you think it suggests it should increase at the same rate at has been for the next 10 yrs, 20 yrs, 50 yrs, 100 yrs?

    If you think that the current data trend is likely to continue, then it is a model. If you think the past trend means nothing then it is not a model.

    Oh, and you are so stupid it must hurt.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10870 access attempts in the last 7 days.