This Google map simulates a sea level rise of 1 meter in Eureka.
Development projects along the coast may have to plan for rising sea levels, according to an article in the Daily Triplicate.
Crescent City could be one of the first cities to test out a new policy that takes into account potential sea-level rise when considering new developments along the coast…
The commission also decided to add new policies that would require the city to look at potential flooding from tsunamis and sea-level rise as a result of climate change before approving development on the coast.
“This is the first time (the Coastal Commission) has addressed sea-level rise,” the agency’s Executive Director Peter Douglas said at its most recent meeting in Marina del Rey.
Should be interesting to see how the issue is handled if Eureka bigshot Rob Arkley’s Marnia Center project ever makes it before the Coastal Commission.
To see how your house or business fares under various changes in sea level, check out the flood map simulator.
RSS - Posts
June 23, 2009 at 7:13 am
Seeing how there are no sun spots, the Earth will begin to cool over the next decade- this will make it hard for offshore banks, Gore included, to keep telling lies how carbon taxes paid to offshore central banks will save the planet.
Who would even imagine how taxes paid could save the world when government killed more people in the last century than anything else?
June 23, 2009 at 7:24 am
I have a problem with any organization enforcing rules based on something that can’t be predicted. What does the commission intend to do? Say the waterfront can’t be developed? Use the concept of global warming to micromanage development? The concept of the CCC is a good and useful thing – the execution is getting out of hand. Can you say micromanagement?
June 23, 2009 at 7:34 am
Global warming bunk
http://oldgloryradio.com/wordpress/?p=839
June 23, 2009 at 7:55 am
they must not really believe there is a danger or they don’t care about the people who already reside in these areas, only the next person getting a permit.
June 23, 2009 at 8:14 am
Wow ld Glory, 100 days straight eh? Those melting glaciers up north must just be a mirage-
June 23, 2009 at 8:37 am
Just think about the various projects and grant monies local jurisdictions have slid through the door knowing that “rising sea levels” would be another tool for “monkey wrench processes” that the Coastal Commission would use to abuse. Often, scrupulous politicians will hold off on their agendas so that “special people and their pet projects” get to slide on through immediately before taking up “new agendas and political issues” which would have otherwise made it near impossible for those same very “special people” to get a leg up on a process that insiders are made aware of, but the general public is left out in the cold until a strategic offering point for P.R. purposes.
Maybe, choreographing each individual situation into “an emergency” will in “lock-step” void the requirements, just like the public jurisidctions allow for with public and public/private projects in enough situations, whether justifiable or not.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
June 23, 2009 at 8:39 am
421: Talk about NAIVETE!!!!
Have you ever in your whole life thought for yourself? Have you ever in your life considered that just because there IS a bureaucracy does not mean it is NEEDED, honest, or even constitutional? (Yes, I am aware of the recent case constitutional challenge of the Coastal Commission that was lost.)
And what neomoderate said is the understatement of the millineum: “micromanagement” indeed. Can you spell
oligarchy? Can you spell tyrannical?
And as for Peter Douglas; Can you spell DESPOT?
June 23, 2009 at 8:47 am
The glaciers in washington State are growing, the ones Gore uses in his film to lie about are on the Atlantic Coast of South America- glaciers along the Pacific Coast are all growing.
Regardless, how is paying a tax to a private, offshore bank going to help anything?
June 23, 2009 at 9:28 am
that map is pretty interesting–just 1 meter increase in sea level and Humboldt Bay would be back to just about its original extent before EuroAmericans started playing God. I bet that would help the fish!
June 23, 2009 at 10:35 am
Tell ya what, let’s pick a future date for a Told Ya So! Party, say Solstice 2050, a mere 41 years away… Progency proxies okay for the Boomer demographic… We all meet out on the east end of the Eureka boardwalk. The skeptics bring the hot chocolate and ice skates; the true-believers bring the beer and boogie boards. One way of the other, we can put this whole kerfuffle to rest and have great time either lutzing around Woodley or catching that gnarly right break out off the Adorni.
June 23, 2009 at 10:48 am
At 2 meters you have the outline of Humboldt Bay as it was before the big earthquake of 1700 which uplifted the coastline by about that. Very interesting. I wonder what comes first- another earthquake with an uplift or global warming and the anticipated (by some) raise in sea level.
June 23, 2009 at 11:20 am
Just another scare tactic from the radical left
in their attempt to shut down Humboldt Bay
Harbor. They will stop at nothing.
June 23, 2009 at 11:29 am
I think it is already shut down.
June 23, 2009 at 11:32 am
basic economics is the worst enemy for the harbor & railroad
June 23, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I believe the Humboldt Bay is subducted in a major seismic event.
Reports from the 1850’s (ish) quake had the wharf sink a yard. Core samples taken on the North Peninsula show evidence of the same, 3 feet per event. One good quake and you get the equivalent of 1 Meter sea level rise…
June 23, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Here’s what HSU’s Gary Carver co-wrote up on Humboldt Bay subsidence:
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/23/1/77
June 23, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Carbon taxes are coming soon…..
June 23, 2009 at 6:00 pm
hey birdie fyi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
June 23, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Sea level is rising, it should be a concern. There will be more and new coastline for the coastal commission to think about.
My house is good for a 16 meters rise…
June 23, 2009 at 11:21 pm
“Can you spell oligarchy? Can you spell tyrannical?
And as for Peter Douglas; Can you spell DESPOT?”
not very well, but I know Peter can spell NO to Que VI
June 24, 2009 at 6:55 am
Hey, VG. Can you spell ostrich? The ocean is already rising. Alaska glaciers and summer icepack are already melting. Now let’s all ignore the evidence in front of us at least until our feet get wet. Pretty smart, eh? Can you swim?
June 24, 2009 at 7:09 am
it is predicted to be less than 2′ in the next 100 years. at the rate of a few mm per year, we can probably figure something out.
June 24, 2009 at 8:07 am
look for the warmest temp recorded in the artic- compare with the temp ice melts- Al Gore thinks it’s funny too.
June 24, 2009 at 8:50 am
There sure is a whole lotta confidence in scientists being able to predict the future, considering they have never seen this scale of climate change in their lifetimes and there are numerous large system variables influencing those changes, the main one (the sun)not even being heard from for awhile. There is a Momentum of climate change occurring. It may be historical, or it may be cyclical, but it is occuring in the form of erratic weather. From my dyspeptic dystopian perspective, to think that we can predict what is going to happen is like believing the weatherman.
If I can get the jetpack on my wheelchair tuned up, I hope to make that 2050 “wha happened” party. May I suggest an inland venue?
June 24, 2009 at 9:14 am
Today on the San Francisco news channel, Treasure Island development was discussed with over 5,000 new homes going to be built and high rise office buildings going in. That is controlled by the Coastal Commission and apparently has been approved. This entire island will be under water if the sea rises much. So how did that one get passed?
June 24, 2009 at 9:23 am
Get a clue, the Coastal Comm doesn’t belive the
sea level rising BS either..
June 24, 2009 at 11:51 am
Sea level is NOT RISING
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
And how do you prepare for sea level rise AND tsunami? One is doubtful, the other will surely happen one day.
Why even bother discussing the first?
They can’t even predict tomorrows weather, srsly.
June 24, 2009 at 12:13 pm
421, not sure where you’re getting 2′/C; although there’s some apparent converging consensus on 3 to 6 feet by 2100, the models’ rates are all over the place:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm
http://deltavision.ca.gov/BlueRibbonTaskForce/Sept2007/Handouts/Item_9.pdf
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-014/CEC-500-2009-014-D.PDF
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/index.htm
http://www.deltacommissie.com/en/advies
June 24, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Actually, n.o.a.a. does predict tomorrow’s weather with a pretty good degree of accuracy (though not 100%, obviously). However, predicting weather two weeks out is much less accurate, not to mention modeling climate changes 20 or 100 or 1,000 years from now.
That being said, there IS a clear scientific consensus that global warming IS already occuring, and that human activities, especially greenhouse gases, account for a significant amount of the climate change.
Skepticism is always appropriate, of course, but a cynical dismissal of the scientific consensus in favor of cherry-picked data used in the kind of Junk Science that’s produced by oil-industry funded pseudoscientists — well, that is just the ostrich sticking it’s head in the sand.
Yes, there are non-human-caused factors that contribute to climate change (solar factors, volcanic eruptions, etc.) but it’s not a question of one or the other, it’s both: if we’re in a “natural warming cycle,” that doesn’t mean that human-related greenhouse gas emissions won’t make it worse — they will. And if we’re in a “natural cooling cycle,” then this may be masking the effects of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions — and when the natural factors turn the other way we could be in for a really ugly surprise.
There are a couple of other factors to keep in mind:
(1) Positive feedback loops — for example, current global warming is causing the rotting of permafrost soils, which is releasing huge amounts of methane, a VERY potent greenhouse gas. This means that a relatively small amount of human-caused global warming may lead to a much larger increase in temperature in the future due to positive feedback loops like the melting/rotting permafrost soils.
(2) Phase change — Melting of glaciers, snowpack and sea ice is a “phase change” between a solid state and a liquid one. Basic physics includes the fact that the phase change itself absorbs a lot of energy. In other words, as the ice melts, that melting process absorbs a lot of the heat, preventing the global sea temperatures from immediately rising very much. But as the amount of remaining glacial ice, snowpack and sea ice shrinks, the smaller amount of phase change taking place will no longer be absorbing as much additional heat and sea temperatures may rise much faster.
Long story short: Better safe than sorry. Reduce greenhouse gases today and there will be less risk of rapid sea level rises in the future. Our grandchildren’s grandchildren will thank us.
June 24, 2009 at 1:40 pm
421, not sure where you’re getting the 2′/C. The rates coming out of thee various models are all over the place.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm
http://deltavision.ca.gov/BlueRibbonTaskForce/Sept2007/Handouts/Item_9.pdf
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-014/CEC-500-2009-014-D.PDF
http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/index.htm
http://www.deltacommissie.com/en/advies
Gee, I don’t know, Maria… Any chance Nils conclusions might be more of an outlier worthy of exclusion rather than a central value in a non-normal distribution?
June 24, 2009 at 1:49 pm
skippy, you and longwind are sooo much more articulate on so many topics that i might try and write a semi-lucid paragraph or two .. thanks for saying stuff so well, saves the blog audience listening to my ol’man platitudes on a regular basis. i have enjoyed your comments since you showed up.
June 24, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Thanks, olmanriver. I try to add what I can.
June 24, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Nobody answered how paying a tax to an offshore bank is going to help anything except put people in deeper debt to banksters who will use the carbon credits as a global currency & bank followed by world government run by those very same banksters.
Some of you are for this?
I like the enviroment, but allowing the bankers to run the planet is way off base.
June 24, 2009 at 7:01 pm
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_level.html
June 24, 2009 at 10:05 pm
If he doesn’t mind, I’d like to appoint Skippy to attend to the barbeque at the next Humboldt Bloggers Picnic, and Olmanriver can bring a couple of bags of ice.
June 25, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Sure, always like a good picnic. But I have to admit that I don’t quite understand the Ranger’s post. Was that supposed to mean something?
June 25, 2009 at 7:13 pm
It’s a shame people can’t shout at each other in this forum, the way they do on the TV news channels. But shouting isn’t really enough anymore. I think the “debate” should be made spicier by handing out loaded weapons before the verbal “fireworks” begin.
June 25, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Skippy— Every year the “Bloggers” invite the commenters who post the most to their picnic and either turn them to the “Blogside”, or devour them. But hey, you are the “appointed” one, I am just the ice boy…I aint worried.
June 25, 2009 at 9:16 pm
421 thanks for that last link—good one.
June 26, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Yikes!
I should mention that my flesh is well-marbled with delicious fat…
Wait, maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned that!
June 27, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Sorry there is NOT a consensus.
NOT!!!!!!!
And anyway, since when is consensus part of the scientific method?
Seems like that’s the opposite of science.
June 27, 2009 at 3:57 pm
When a scientific finding is confirmed by other scientists, that is called “replicability” and is a cornerstone of science. Enough replication and you have a “scientific consensus” and then the idea moves from being considered a theory to being considered a widely-accepted “fact.”
Global warming being at least partly caused by human activity is now moving more and more into the latter category. If a preponderance of evidence was found in contradiction to the theory, it could always go the other way, but that’s not what’s happening, the great majority of climate scientists and their studies have come to the conclusion that the planet IS warming and that some of that warming can be attributed to human beings.
Most of the (relatively few) scientists and studies that claim that global warming isn’t happening, or isn’t at least partly our doing, are scientists and studies specifically funded by the petrochemical and other polluting industries, and their findings are in many cases just not credible.
The presence of a few outliers within a large set of gloabl-warming-confirming data does not “disprove” the Greenhouse Effect or Global Warming. Touting those outliers as if they were meaningful is more along the lines of PR / propaganda than science.