Salt Water Taffy for Politicians

Sea Level Rise is a cynical, ladder-climbing politician's perfect issue.  It is notoriously hard to measure.  It's even harder to predict.  And if anything noticeable happens IRL, the politician will be long out-of-office and probably off the planet.  But they can appear to Care and to Be Doing Something About It.  It's perfect.  There might even be some federal money in it.  The insurance companies love it too since it allows them to raise the risk factor which raises the rates and everybody says "yup".  I just reread Steven Koonin's chapter about it in Unsettled?.  Let me try to "boil it down" for you from his Chapter 8:

The sea level has been rising and falling, and rising and falling, and rising and falling for all of determinable time--more than 400,000 years. 

"Slow cycles--variations in the earth's orbit and the tilt of its axis over tens of thousands of years--change the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Northern and Southern Hemispheres...(this) cases the ice sheets covering the continents to grow or melt, putting more or less water in the oceans....So the question is not whether the sea level is rising--it's been doing that for the past 20,000 years.

Climate scientists use the concept of Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL), which is inferred from measurements over the whole globe; even though "water seeks it's own level," there are variations that are important given the fraction-of-a-millimeter precision required--the GSML is rising today at a rate of only a few millimeters per year.

And it varies all over the globe for a dozen reasons: differences in the earth's gravity from place to place, ocean currents, temperature and salinity of parts of the ocean, air pressure, local land sinking (think pumping ground water) and the vagaries of instruments like the satellites circling at 600 km (370 miles above the earth) detecting fractions of a millimeter in ocean height.  Given all of that, the rise in more recent decades is higher than the average for the 20th century, but similar to the rise from 1920-1950--a period before carbon intensive development.  On May 26, 1927, Henry Ford watched the 15 millionth Model T Ford roll off the assembly line at his factory in Highland Park, Michigan.  There are 289.5 million cars in the US right now.

In fact, the rate of rise between 1925 and 1940--a period almost as long as eighteen-year satellite record now available--was almost the same as the recent satellite value, about 3 mm (0.12 inches) per year.

If the B'game city council wants to put new Bayfront buildings on stilts and build levees because the sea might rise a foot in the next 30 years (333% more than it may have risen over the last 30 years)  and "up to six feet over the next century", go for it.  But boy do I wish they were as worried about having too little fresh water as much as they are worried about facing too much salt water.

March 1 update:  Here is the Greenland chart that is referenced in the comment section.

 

Comments

[Cassandra]

Like I said a few years ago on this blog: Take a fifth-grade class to Coyote Point and measure the sea level on a rock each year at the same tide. When it gets foot higher then you can start planning on changes to the levee or building codes.

For the politicians: Think of the cute photo-ops as you March the kids down to the bayside with their rulers and chisels.

In the meantime: Catch up with the other cities and ban leaf blowers and get some security cameras to protect the health and safety of your voters.

[Cassandra]

PS- Headlines today is that San Jose is using $250,000 in federal relief funds to buy security cameras. We’ll soon be the last town without moats and alligators and where do you think the vandals will come to pillage?

[Joe]

And right on schedule:

California water officials acknowledged Wednesday that another painful year of drought is likely, and warned the many communities receiving water from the State Water Project that they may get no water at all next year, except in cases of emergency.

The record low 0% water allocation would leave parts of the state, including San Jose, much of the East Bay and Napa County, with significant dents in their water supplies.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/California-drought-State-anticipates-virtually-16666856.php

You have to wonder how they will handle their RHNA requirements.....nah, know you don't. Just stick head in sand and approve more housing.

[[email protected]]

A Couple of things.
Cassandra, Cassandra, Cassandra. Whoa.
Sounds like a "Bad Day."
About 10 years ago there was a "push" for a COB Park to be built along the Bay Trail. Is that still under consideration?
Merry Christmas Everyone.
Merry Christmas Cassandra.

[uh uh]

nother shooting in Shoreview tonight maybe da sea rise will wash da blood offf defund???????

[Joe]

A bit off topic and if there is more, I will start another post, but here is the SMPD report:

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/san-mateo-police-investigate-shooting-in-north-shoreview/article_370433c0-5493-11ec-8bd4-7377759a20c3.html

[Joe]

Koonin published a piece in the WSJ about Greenland's ice and then some Danish study authors had a letter published in response. It's long but interesting for B'game--here's most of it:

One of the most sacred tenets of climate alarmism is that Greenland’s vast ice sheet is shrinking ever more rapidly because of human-induced climate change. The media and politicians warn constantly of rising sea levels that would swamp coastlines from Florida to Bangladesh. A typical headline: “Greenland ice sheet on course to lose ice at fastest rate in 12,000 years.”

With an area of 660,000 square miles and a thickness up to 1.9 miles, Greenland’s ice sheet certainly deserves attention. Its shrinking has been a major cause of recent sea-level rise, but as is often the case in climate science, the data tell quite a different story from the media coverage and the political laments.

The chart nearby paints a bigger picture that is well known to experts but largely absent from the media and even from the most recent United Nations climate report. It shows the amount of ice that Greenland has lost every year since 1900, averaged over 10-year intervals; the annual loss averages about 110 gigatons. (A gigaton is one billion metric tons, or slightly over 2.2 trillion pounds.) That is a lot, but that water has caused the planet’s oceans to rise each year by only 0.01 inch, about one-fifth the thickness of a dime.

In contrast, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that for the most likely course of greenhouse-gas emissions in the 21st century, the average annual ice loss would be somewhat larger than the peak values shown in the graph. That would cause sea level to rise by 3 inches by the end of this century, and if losses were to continue at that rate, it would take about 10,000 years for all the ice to disappear, causing sea level to rise more than 20 feet.

Since human warming influences on the climate have grown steadily—they are now 10 times what they were in 1900— you might expect Greenland to lose more ice each year. Instead there are large swings in the annual ice loss and it is no larger today than it was in the 1930s, when human influences were much smaller. Moreover, the annual loss of ice has been decreasing in the past decade even as the globe continues to warm.
-------------------

Here's the best part from the study authors:

Steven Koonin’s arugment in “Greenland’s Melting Ice Is No Cause for Climate-Change Panic” (op-ed, Feb. 18) is based on an incorrect interpretation of the plotted data, which comes from research by one of us, Mr. Mankoff.

Mr. Koonin claims that “the annual loss of ice has been decreasing in the past decade even as the globe continues to warm.” While that is FACTUALLY CORRECT (Ed: my CAPS), it is an invalid interpretation, considering only the last decade and excluding previous periods. This is often referred to as “cherry picking.”

There are several factors that explain a downward trend in the past decade, including atmospheric changes and associated effects influencing the regional climate, which on short timescales does not always reflect the increase in global average air temperature. What matters is the cumulative effect of Greenland Ice Sheet mass loss. If we add up the loss, which is always positive, the result is around 14,000 gross tons, equal to around 1.5 inches in sea-level rise since 1900 from Greenland alone. While this might seem small, it often causes flooding in cities that did not previously flood.
-------------------
No, it doesn't "seem small", it IS small---about the thickness of one of the Danish pastries at Copenhagen bakery.

[Peter Garrison]

Now the county is considering a parcel tax to fight sea rise and forest fires. They’ll contact voters not to get their opinions but to find the phrases that best help them to craft a proposal most likely to pass.

The present budget surplus could already pay for this local sea level problem. And forest fires? Arsonists, PG&E and lightening should be controlled first?

[Joe]

To Peter's point, here is a bit of yesterday's DJ article on the parcel tax. Today's DJ front page touted Newsom seeking ways to give out a tax rebate....... go figure

The county has been working with the firm, Terris Barnes Walters Boigon Heath Lester, since last April to explore options for a potential revenue measure that would go toward climate resilience and wildfire mitigation.

After almost a year into analyzing the issue, staff will ask the board to approve an amendment to the agreement that would task the firm with conducting additional community outreach through July after increasing the contract by $637,000 for a total of $835,000.

Under the agreement, TBWBHL would help design, plan and implement a public engagement push as well as play an advisory role on the feasibility of a revenue ballot measure. The goal, as stated in the staff report, is to contact each household in the county between four to six times before June.

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/san-mateo-county-eyes-parcel-tax-to-address-climate/article_bbca2882-9e9c-11ec-838f-6b258466989f.html?utm_source=smdailyjournal.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Fheadlines%2F%3F-dc%3D1646751608&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline

[resident]

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/burlingame-plans-for-projected-sea-level-rise/article_d327f3aa-acb7-11ec-82fd-b3da6997e541.html?utm_source=smdailyjournal.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Fheadlines%2F%3F-dc%3D1648303212&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline

[Joe]

Here's a classically counterintuitive LTTE of the Daily Journal that gives (or should give) the politicians and engineers something to think about:

Regarding the May 7-8 story, “Sea level rise work begins,” it is ironic that the examples given for the need to build a sea wall, by OneShoreline’s CEO, were catastrophes caused by pump failure during a rainstorm, not sea level rise. He actually illustrates the best reason not to build a wall, which is far likelier to cause flooding than preventing it.

Fighting nature is usually an expensive losing battle, and this is no exception. We are far better off adapting to rising sea level, rather than fighting it.

Tim Donnelly
Burlingame

You can read the original article about "The Wall" here:

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/sea-level-rise-work-begins-in-burlingame-and-millbrae/article_57b2dbac-cdbb-11ec-b507-8fdc3d9f11f0.html

[JP]

I got the glossy mailer from the county yesterday asking me to fill out the survey on sea level rise. What a waste of time, money, paper and postage. Ugh. Why worry about crime or the drought when we might get flooded one in awhile in 2070?

[Cassandra]

Politicians love big hazy problems that require big hazy government programs with big hazy budgets.

Instead, got a problem with illegal border crossings?
Build a wall. Bus violators back to their country of origin.

Slow travel from SF to LA?
Build another lane or two.

No water for farmers?
Build a dam.

PG&E keeps burning down towns or blacking them out?
Build nuclear power plants.

Schools are dangerous?
Armed teachers or security.

Bad virus floating around?
Stay home if you’re sick, old, or weak.

But it’s easier to keep folks scared.