High and Dry in San Francisco - NOAA's Ark?

Here's a beach pic at the Presidio, north of San Francisco, not that far from the Golden Gate bridge (seen on the extreme left).

Weather's a bit dull, but there's plenty of sand on the beach. Here's a sunnier view.

The small hut on the right contains the tide gauge for San Francisco. Both pics are from the NOAA station information page for that gauge. Based on the first pic, how would you rate the chances of the gauge registering low water accurately?

Missing the Point in California

We read a sad tale on the Climate Watch blog - Rising Seas Threaten California’s Coastal Past, "Higher tides and increased erosion will wipe out archaeological sites"

This site and these cultural resources — some of them a thousand years old or more — might not be around for much longer. These pieces of California’s history are in danger of disappearing as the Pacific Ocean claws at the base of this cliff. Sea level rise is accelerating the problem.

It’s not just that the tides will be higher. The cliffs are so soft, they could recede hundreds of feet back, with just a few feet of sea level rise.

So "sea level rise is accelerating the problem", and the evidence for that is...?

A tide gauge in the nearby Golden Gate has recorded eight inches of sea level rise in the past century. Scientists project it could rise three feet in the next.

That "whole eight inches" (20cm) is indisputable, the record shows it, and it's equal to the average global rise during the 20th century, but "accelerating the problem"? Mr. Newland, an archaeologist at Sonoma State University and the president of the Society for California Archaeology, seems to think so, but why, if he's so concerned about Point Reyes, is he quoting a statistic for San Francisco, when there's a gauge right on his doorstep at Point Reyes lighthouse? Perhaps this is the reason:

Source: PSMSL

... just about zero rise since 1980, clearly shown by the 5-year (61 month) moving average. This is in common with most stations from Point Reyes southward, including his quoted San Francisco. Sea level rise along this coast is a documented non-problem at the moment, and has been so for 30 years.

Source: PSMSL

I sympathise with him, but before blaming some "climate change" induced effect for what's happening, make sure you're in possession of the facts. Soft rock erodes quickly with wave action, rising sea level or not - it's part of a natural cycle, returning sediment to the sea floor to form new rock in time.

Local and city authorities are scurrying about, wringing their hands in despair, worrying about inundation of wetlands, coastal highways and houses, when sea levels along the Californian coast aren't rising, and haven't risen for around 30 years. In North Carolina, state legislators have taken a pragmatic "wait and see" approach to sea level rise and have been castigated for their common sense, The cries of "we have to act now" are nonsensical. They have to act on what's happening now, and make plans for the foreseeable future If an acceleration establishes itself, there'll be plenty of time to bring forward future plans, and formulate new ones.

In the case of Point Reyes, Mr. Newland should cite facts, not "climate-change" sound-bites to bolster his case for action. Unfortunately, this tactic is rapidly becoming the norm.

A Tale of Two Cities

I recently posted a chart of Los Angeles annual temperatures 1881-2011. Here it is again:

Los Angeles annual temperatures 1881-2011 GHCN via GISS

Looks like a fairly typical temperature chart - a warming trend into the 1930s, a dip in the 1940s, then a climb to a peak in the 1990s, followed by the un-typical dip to lower temperatures this century, the subject of that post. The data is GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) provided by the NOAA GISS website, and denoted as "unadjusted" which means no further adjustments by GISS. The GHCN data is most certainly adjusted however, as the following chart shows.

Los Angeles annual temperatures 1881-2011 GHCN vs Unadjusted (raw)

GHCN have lowered the raw data from 1881 to 1930 to produce a convincing upward trend. Note that the adjustment is progressively less, from a massive 1.9°C in 1881, smoothly to zero in 1930. There can be no justification for this "adjustment to fit an agenda", which is exactly what it is. Note the difference in the trend line slopes: from 0.08°C per century (raw), which is effectively zero trend, to 1.62°C per century. Instant global warming sans added heat. I've plotted data from the same sources for San Francisco:

San Francisco annual temperatures 1881-2011 GHCN vs Unadjusted (raw)

This is even more blatant jiggery-pokery, with a progressively increasing negative adjustment from zero for the present all the way back to 2.1°C in 1881. GHCN has turned a slightly negative (effectively zero) trend into a surprisingly (is it a surprise?) similar trend to that for Los Angeles of 1.62°C per century. The precise values are 0.016157 for LA and 0.016144 for San Francisco. Coincidence, perhaps, but I think not. I've seen some large GHCN adjustments, but the blatant fiddling here takes the prize.

As I said earlier, "instant global warming" without added heat. There are those who call sceptics "deniers". To those I say "explain or deny this if you can".

UPDATE 13th Feb 2011

I've just checked the GHCN data for both stations on the GISS site, and both have changed slightly since I downloaded the data on 7th Feb. I also had a dataset for SF from December last, and that's different too. Not just rewriting the past, but doing it regularly. I though only totalitarian regimes rewrote the past?

UPDATE 13th Feb 2011

Just a few minutes ago, I had displayed the GHCN temperature chart for Rochester, Minnesota, among others. With a dozen browser tabs open, I didn't realise that the chart was still displayed, so I reselected it from the GISS station selector, and displayed it again. Unbelievably, the data had changed by a few tenths of a degree (both for early and late years) within ten minutes! Some kind of official investigation is needed of this unjustifiable shenanigans.