Act now to stop environmental destruction, while it's too soon

Here's another post on an alarmist claim about sea-level rise. I know, I know, but it's my bag an' you just gotta put up with it. Look at it from my point of view and sympathise. Now where was I? Oh yes - Mike Heral of the Daily Aztec (I wouldn't want to meet him in a dark alley, all that tearing out beating hearts and such) bemoans that America's seeming indifference to sea-level change is "pretending the monster isn't there". He obviously hasn't been reading what I see daily, reporters, bloggers, greenies and "sea-level coordinators" verbally spreading their arms like anglers "It'll be that high or maybe three times as much". Reporters need to get out more, or rather stay in and read more. Enough beating about the heart bush, read what he has to say in Act now to stop environmntal [sic] destruction.

America’s reaction to the rising sea level is even more disappointing than the San Diego State’s men’s basketball season. Or I should say, our non-reaction to rising sea levels. When we were young and scared of monsters under our beds, we’d close our eyes and pretend the monster wasn’t there. Our wishing made the monster go away. Pretending climate change and a rising sea level isn’t happening will not make it go away. Irrational denials have lasted too long. The time to prepare for rising sea levels is now. Too bad San Diego isn’t listening.

San Diego, in particular the ordinary citizens and those who actually know what's happening down on the beaches, isn't listening because there's currently nothing to listen to. There's no "rising sea level" on those sun-kissed beaches (I can wax quite lyrical at times), and there hasn't been for three decades. The long-term rate of rise has been dropping, and is now less than it was in 1983. Below I provide a couple of "irrational denials" to illustrate what I mean. They should make Mike's monsters go away, but Mike wouldn't listen anyway. he's quite at home with his monsters, but wouldn't admit it. Alarmists often (not to say usually) project their faults onto sceptics. One such projection is to claim that sceptics are "hiding their heads in the sand". Mike could have been hiding his head in the sand at San Diego since the early '80s, and wouldn't have got his hair wet, with the exception if the upward spikes caused by the '83/84 and '97/'98 El Niños.

San Diego, California - annual averages 1906-2011                 Data source: PSMSL

This is what Mike could see if he took his head outa the sand.

San Diego, California - 1980-2011                                  Data source: PSMSL

The trend evolution plots the trend from 1906 to the year on the bottom axis.

San Diego, California - trend evolution 1970-2011             Data source: PSMSL

There's your "monster", Mike - because the sea-level isn't rising, the long-term trend is still dropping, and there's no sign of it stopping (yet). There's no sign of ostrich-like alarmism stopping yet either. Mike finishes by saying

Protection costs. Imagine how much less the cost would’ve been if San Diego began preparing for sea level rise in the ‘90s. Imagine how much more it will cost if the city waits another decade to begin. The more cities wait to fortify threatened communities the more the taxpayer will pay.

Imagine how the taxpayers might have complained about having forked out for something unnecessary back then. There'll be plenty of time to act if and when the situation changes. Mike, you need a simple lesson in economics. Building back then wasn't cheaper, it just cost fewer dollars. It's called inflation, and building now or in the near future will be cheaper because of more efficient techniques and better materials and design.

UPDATE 1st March 2013

I left a comment on the Daily Aztec page, not using my blog handle, nor linking to this blog, politely pointing out a few facts about sea-level at San Diego, and linking to NOAA & PSMSL pages showing no net change in three decades. My comment remained "awaiting moderation" for 3 days. It has now disappeared. Inconvenient facts simply don't make a good story.

San Diego - time to get worried?

The powers-that-be in San Diego, California are getting worried about sea-level rise.

Buildings, shoreline parks and recreational facilities, transportation systems, and energy and water facilities are at risk, regional groups said Thursday.

So says U-T San Diego "Plan for sea-level rise in San Diego Bay". The article begins

A coalition of local agencies on Thursday announced one of the nation’s first regional plans to prepare for sea-level rise. Focused on San Diego Bay, it’s designed to help the region adapt to one of the more visible aspects of climate change.
Sea level could rise by as much as 17 inches by 2050 and five feet by 2100, when many areas around the bay could be permanently inundated, according to a recent assessment. The greatest cause for concern is the likelihood of increased frequency and severity of flooding during storms or very high tides.

I notice the neither the current nor past rates of sea-level rise at San Diego are mentioned. The  "coalition of local agencies"  doesn't seem to think it matters,  in common with most such organisations worldwide. It's not clear where the "17 inches to 5 feet" comes from, it's not mentioned in any of the sources I've read. However, Google gives a source for that phrase on Wired, and that article links to Think Progress - where else? Our Joe says 
 Arctic Assessment bombshell: “Global sea level is projected to rise by 0.9“1.6 meter by 2100″. I don't know why there's a strange character (in the title, not our Joe) between the 9 and 1, should be a dash I assume. Anyway, the 5 feet would seem to be a global estimate, so here as elsewhere, planners assume a global prediction rather than get a local estimate.

The analysis was supported by Port of San Diego, San Diego County Airport Authority, The San Diego Foundation and ICLEI–Local Governments for Sustainability USA. Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City and San Diego also helped develop the strategy.

So that's alright then - these august bodies can surely be trusted to use taxpayers' money in a timely and efficient manner to protect beaches and seafront dwellings, businesses and roads. Romm cites the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme's "Snow, Water, Ice and Permaforst in the Arctic" report. That's not my typo - it's copied from their website. Anyways, it's a global figure, as I said, and quite likely may over- or understate the situation for San Diego. So what is the situation for San Diego? The local tide gauge tells all, from 1906 too.

San Diego Sea-level from 1906-2010  Data Source: PMSL

 No spectacular acceleration evident there, in fact it looks like it's levelling off:

San Diego Sea-level from 1990-2010  Data Source: PMSL

 That seems pretty level to me, but of course I'm not Peter Gleick. He can see the horizon sloping upward from left to right. Those spiky graphs are hard to digest, so let's see if the annual average removes the noise.

San Diego Sea-level - annual average 1906-2010

 That's interesting, if my Mark One Eyeball doesn't deceive me, the 11-year moving average has levelled off after about 1987. One sure way of finding out is to plot the calculated trend over a period of years, for example from 1906-1970, then 1906-1971 and so on.. It's called asymptotic analysis, where the plot might move up and down, but settles at near the true rate as the finish year approaches the end year (here, 2010).

San Diego - evolution annual sea-level trends

 Now that's interesting too -the sharp rise from 1982 is a result of the sharp upward El Niño spike seen in the first chart. There were two large spikes in the El Niño years of 1992-3 and 1997, and these show in the rate change above. However, the rate declined after 1998, and still seems to be dropping. It's lower than it has been since 1983, the second year of the largest spike in the first chart. Bear in mind that a decreasing rate doesn't necessarily indicate declining sea-level, the overall rate is still positive to the end of the trend chart. But the rate is still decreasing, and we've seen that there's been no net rise since 1990.


Gazing into the future is pointless unless your feet are firmly anchored in the present. No bank would advance money solely on the basis of future projections of income. They want to see your current financial situation, and past figures too, in order to assess the validity of those projections and therefore the risk. Is the "coalition of local agencies" listed above even aware of the current "plateau" at San Diego? If not, why not?