Report: Rising Sea Levels, Temperature Inevitable In California, State Must Prepare

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Even if the world is successful in cutting carbon emissions in the future, California needs to start preparing for rising sea levels, hotter weather and other effects of climate change, a new state report recommends.

It encourages local communities to rethink future development in low-lying coastal areas, reinforce levees that protect flood-prone areas and conserve already strapped water supplies.

"We still have to adapt, no matter what we do, because of the nature of the greenhouse gases," said Tony Brunello, deputy secretary for climate change and energy at the California Natural Resources Agency, who helped prepare the report. "Those gases are still going to be in the atmosphere for the next 100 years."

The draft report to be released Monday by the California Natural Resources Agency provides the state's first comprehensive plan to work with local governments, universities and residents to deal with a changing climate. A final plan is expected to be released in the fall after the public weighs in.

The report was compiled after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger directed agencies in November to devise a state climate strategy. It comes three years after the Republican governor signed California's landmark global warming law requiring the state to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Most countries have focused on cutting greenhouse gases in the future, but researchers say those efforts will take decades to have an effect while the planet continues to warm. States have only recently begun to look at what steps they must take to minimize the damage expected from sea level rise, storm surges, droughts and water shortages because of the climate changes.

Over the last century in California, the sea level has risen by 7 inches, average temperatures have increased, spring snowmelt occurs earlier in the year, and there are hotter days and fewer cold nights.

The report warns that rising temperatures over the next few decades will lead to more heat waves, wildfires, droughts and floods.

"We have to deal with those unavoidable impacts," said Suzanne Moser, a research associate at the Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of California Santa Cruz. "We can't pretend they are not going to happen and we have to prepare for that."

To minimize the potential damage from climate change, the report recommends that cities and counties offer incentives to encourage property owners in high-risk areas to relocate and limit future development in places that might be affected by flooding, coastal erosion and sea level rise. State agencies also should not plan, permit, develop or build any structure that might require protection in the future.

The report suggests the state partner with local governments and private landowners to create large reserves that protect wildlife threatened by warmer weather. Similarly, wetlands and fish corridors should be established to protect salmon and other fragile fish.

The report says farmers should be encouraged to be more efficient when watering their crops, and investments should be made to improve crop resistance to hotter temperatures.

Comments

[2tango]

Relapolitic don't waste your time trying to explain the rela situation, Like you said this deniers (product of ignorance) will die with their "Boots on"
And than when something goes wrong they are always the first ones to run for help.

We are living in a Country that for 30 years was in denial with common sense, Right now all these deniers are so frustrated (with themselves) that they can't NOT even trust their own shadows.

Is not their fault, Is just the system kept them busy for a while dreaming that they were great, and special Just to find out that the Country is Broke under their own noses, and they were the "Authors"
of such crimen By cheerleading their political unscrupulous leaders.

So here we are...living in a country thats falling off from It own map, In a society totally destroyed by its own mentality call "Individualism" and greed, and totally contaminated by it own suffering desperation of Identity and Integrity.

And finally....we are in place that neglects Dicipline because everybody is against the common sense
and welcome the profits before the consequences.

[SFTor]

How is the hurricane tally doing for 2009 by the way? Up? Down? The same?

[Richard2]

The sea level rise in California during the 20th Century was only 7 inches. None of this increase has been proven to have been caused by CO2 emissions.

The sea level has declined slightly since 1998. None of this decrease has been proven to have been caused by CO2 emissions.

California has a state Coastal Commission that can review and overturn development proposals in cities and counties along the entire California coast, and frequently does. In addition, 100 year flood maps effectively communicate where the low areas are that might be impacted by high water. Development in flood plains is restricted.

Californians have little to fear that rising or falling sea levels will do significant harm to existing or proposed development in coastal locations.

[realpolitic]

Back in the real world, California homes are already falling into the sea, as the picture in the link below reveals.

http://www.markgibsonphoto.com/static/1377.html

"In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey studied this phenomenon and concluded that over 60% of the beaches in California have eroded over the past 25-40 years. "

"As recently as in March 2009, the Oakland Pacific Institute reported an increased risk of flooding due to the increase in sea level, primarily from increased greenhouse gas emissions. Such flooding could mean accelerated shoreline erosion or a wearing of land and beachfront through wave activity."

"The environmental hydrology firm of Philip Williams & Associates concluded that Californians could well lose some 40 square miles of coastline by the year 2100, thus endangering the homes of another 14,000 people."

"A policy of coastal armoring could be adopted which would necessitate the construction of more than 1,000 miles of dikes, dunes and seawalls to guard against flooding. Such structures would cost about $14 billion dollars for construction and annual maintenance fees of $1.4 billion."

http://surfingsportsandnews.com/2009/06/27/coastal-erosion-in-california-fact-or-fallacy.html

[SFTor]

Yes, realpolitic, homes are falling into the sea. It's called erosion. The Philip Williams quote is all about erosion. It has nothing to do with ocean level rise.

I suggest a large cocktail and a good night's sleep.

[realpolitic]

Meanwhile, back in the real world. Here is a link showing California homes falling into the ocean due to coastal erosion.

http://www.markgibsonphoto.com/static/1377.html

"As recently as in March 2009, the Oakland Pacific Institute reported an increased risk of flooding due to the increase in sea level, primarily from increased greenhouse gas emissions. Such flooding could mean accelerated shoreline erosion or a wearing of land and beachfront through wave activity."

"The environmental hydrology firm of Philip Williams & Associates concluded that Californians could well lose some 40 square miles of coastline by the year 2100, thus endangering the homes of another 14,000 people."

"A policy of coastal armoring could be adopted which would necessitate the construction of more than 1,000 miles of dikes, dunes and seawalls to guard against flooding. Such structures would cost about $14 billion dollars for construction and annual maintenance fees of $1.4 billion."

http://surfingsportsandnews.com/2009/06/27/coastal-erosion-in-california-fact-or-fallacy.html

[Richard2]

The California coastline has been eroding for hundreds of years. This erosion is a historical fact. Parts of the coastline are made of sandstone, which is made of ..... sand. As rain, wind, and waves pound on the western face of the coastline, it very, very gradually erodes. This process is a natural one. From time to time, a house perched on the edge of a sandstone cliff will be captured by this slow geological process. Makes for great film at eleven.

[realpolitic]

Sorry for repeat! Moderation so slow!

[realpolitic]

Kruddler, I'll make another comment up here, in case you miss those below. The distinction between Emmanuel and Webster vs. Pielke and Landsea is more than a "hissy fit" argument. The two groups of scientists are using different data bases. Pielke and Landsea are considereing only those hurricanes that made landfall. Most do not and those that do have already dissipated most of their energy. Emmanuel and Webster are considering all the hurricanes in the basin and not just those that make landfall. Further, they consider them over their entire lifespans and not just at one point in time. Looking at the strength of the hurricanes at frequent intervals is how Emmanuel arrives at his Power Dissipation Index. There is a major distinction in methodologies and thus the two groups arrive at different conclusions! The database of Pielke and Landsea is much more limited than the other two.

"However, Emanuel (2005b) notes that a
PDI series such as Landsea’s (2005), based on
only U.S. landfalling data, contains only about
1 percent of the data that Emanuel’s (2005a)
basin-wide PDI contains, which is based on all
storms over their entire lifetimes. Thus a trend
in basin-wide PDI may not be detectable in U.S.
landfalling PDI since the former index has a
factor of 10 advantage in detecting a signal in a
variable record (the signal-to-noise ratio)."

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/sap3-3-final-all.pdf

[rblackbird]

In response to Richard2's question below, yes, there is a very large glacier growing in the crater of the Mt. St. Helens volcano. The volcano remains active. The "Crater Volcano" became apparent in the 1980-81 winter, less than a year after the great eruption. Many years of continued volcanic activity have occurred on the crater floor, building a new lava dome, several hundred feet high. Yet, the glacier remains. In 2004 it covered .36 square miles. In 2006 the average height of the glacier was 300 feet with a maximum height of 650 feet. It has more volume than all the glaciers on Mt. St. Helens at the time of the 1980 eruption combined.

During volcanic activity starting in 2004 the glacier continued to grow despite the lava dome eruptions. From its starting point at the south end of the crater, the Crater Glacier completely surrounded the lava dome by 2008. Other, new glaciers have also appeared in the crater.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_St._Helens#Crater_Glacier_and_other_new_rock_glaciers
The article cites several U.S. Geological Survey reports.

[realpolitic]

Kruddler, what do you think about an anthropogenic signature on hurricanes? Has your thinking evolved or do you still argue no anthropogenic warming signature on hurricanes?

[Kruddler]

I think that the systems involved in global air circulation are so mind-boggling complex that to pin an anthropogenic signature on hurricanes given our current knowledge is premature and probably overstated, if true.

[realpolitic]

Yes, it may be too complex to theorize that the storm surge associated with hurricanes may be greater with higher sea levels, increased severity of rainfall may lead to greater inland flooding, and increased wind speeds may lead to greater damage because "damage is proportional to the cube of the wind speed", or it may be commonsensical!

[Richard2]

Samantha Young,

Can you identify one instance of major property damage that has occurred in California in the 21st Century where the cause is identified as rising sea levels? Where the cause is identified as declining sea levels?

The state of California faces a major budget crisis. What is the rationale for California self stimulating over natural sea level changes? If the government is looking for programs to cut back or eliminate due to the budget crisis, anything associated an invisible sea level crisis should be first on the list.

[realpolitic]

(cont.)

"Another critical issue is that of the impacts of
hurricanes and sea level rise, which is often ignored
(e.g., Pielke et al. 2005). Douglas et al. (2001) describe
how even a minimal rise in sea level can have catastrophic
consequences when intense storms strike.2.....Even without the projected
increase in hurricane winds, the higher sea
level will result in greatly increased coastal erosion,
shrinking protective beaches and wetlands.


"Several studies (Landsea et al. 1998, Pielke et al.
2005) have concluded that the recent observed increases
in Atlantic hurricane frequency and intensity
are within the range of observed multidecadal variability....A number of multi-year-scale atmospheric
and oceanic patterns of variability, including the
El Niño–Southern Oscillation phenomenon, the
quasi-biennial oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation
(NAO), and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
(AMO), have a large impact on hurricane frequency,
intensity, and tracks. But to therefore assume that all
of the variability during the twentieth century has
been natural is not valid (e.g., Houghton et al. 2001;
Feldstein 2002; Gillett et al. 2003; Hoerling et al.
2004; Gillett et al. 2005)..."

"However, while there are obvious large and
natural oscillations, in our view the growing body of evidence suggests a direct and growing trend in
several important aspects of tropical cyclones, such
as intensity, rainfall, and sea level, all of which can be
attributed to global warming."

http://www.nwf.org/hurricanes/pdfs/HurrBAMSmayAnthes.pdf

[realpolitic]

(cont.)

"Although rainfall-induced inland
flooding and storm surge are the leading causes of
damage and loss of life in hurricanes (Simpson and
Riehl 1981; Pielke and Pielke 1997; Rappaport 2000;
Negri et al. 2005), possible increases in these due to
global warming are not considered by Pielke et al.
(2005)."

"The projected SST
changes in the three tropical cyclone basins studied
ranged from +0.8° to +2.4°C. The aggregate results,
averaged across all model simulations, indicated a 6%
increase in maximum tropical cyclone wind speed.
While this may appear to be a relatively insignificant
increase, nonlinear effects can make even a small
increase important in causing damage, because damage
is proportional to the cube of the wind speed."

"Thus, even
relatively small increases in mean maximum wind
speeds may shift the probability distribution function
and cause a significant increase in the number
of occurrences of winds exceeding a given threshold,
resulting in catastrophic failures for infrastructure
designed to the threshold."

[realpolitic]

Most of Kruddler's artices point out the generally accepted conclusion that the total number of storms may decline, but the number of the most severe hurricanes in the North Atlantic will increase. Kruddler points to Pielke to undercut the findings of Emanuel and Webster and others that the most severe storms may not increase. According to Trenberth, Anthes, Correll, Hurrell, MacCracken, the Pielke findings are misleading.

"For example, the recent article with the allencompassing title “Hurricanes and global warming” by Pielke et al. (2005) raises several important points,
yet it is incomplete and misleading because it 1) omits
any mention of several of the most important aspects
of the potential relationships between hurricanes and
global warming, including rainfall, sea level, and
storm surge; 2) leaves the impression that there is no
significant connection between recent climate change
caused by human activities and hurricane characteristics
and impacts; and 3) does not take full account
of the significance of recently identified trends and
variations in tropical storms in causing impacts as
compared to increasing societal vulnerability. In
a similar vein, public statements and testimonies
by prominent hurricane forecasters have denied or
minimized important connections between global
warming and tropical cyclones, attributing interannual
variations in tropical cyclones only to natural
variability (e.g., Mayfield 2005)."

[Kruddler]

Actually, realpolitic, I didn't use any of Pielke's papers at all except one where he's a minor author.

[realpolitic]

Yes, deniers are never wrong, just misunderstood. It is a wonderful position to have! Most of the papers besides Pielke and Landsea support the IPCC position, if you understood them before I explained them to you!

You mean you can't even answer a basic question after all the work I did: Has your thinking evolved about an anhropogenic signature on the severity of hurricanes or do you think the anthropogenic signature is too minimal to mention. You can be courteous enough to answer that question after all the work I did. It is not too much to ask!

[Kruddler]

re: point no. 2. This is too funny. Of course he's trying to leave that impression! He's a denier, isn't he?

[fumes]

more good news:

''Washington's South Cascade glacier has lost half its volume since 1960 and is predicted to lose half its current volume in 100 years.'' ~ from cnn

this means that it is now melting at a much slower rate than it was since 1960!

[fumes]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/08/07/global.warming/index.html

[realpolitic]

Fumes, you have an interesting way of interpreting an article entitled "Glaciers a Canary in the Coal Mine of Global Warming," but I notice many deniers are capable of such mental gymnastics.

According to the article, "Edward Josberger, the lead researcher on the study with the USGS Washington Water Science Center says "Basically, in the past 10, 15 or 20 years these three glaciers are wasting away. The melting has far exceeded the amount of snow that falls on them in the winter, so they're retreating far up valley. And this retreat is taking place all over the Pacific Northwest and Alaska."'

Yes, very good news! Sure!

[realpolitic]

"Evidence shows" the more than doubling in numbers of major hurricanes between quiet and active decadal periods in the Atlantic. (Goldenberg et al. 2001)

"Thus, although variability is large, trends associated with human influences are evident in the environment in which hurricanes form, and our physical understanding suggests that the intensity of and rainfalls from hurricanes are probably increasing (8), even if this increase cannot yet be proven with a formal statistical test. Model results (14) suggest a shift in hurricane intensities toward extreme hurricanes."

In addition to interannual and multidecadal variability, there is a nonlinear upward trend in SSTs over the 20th century. This trend is most pronounced in the past 35 years in the extratropical North Atlantic

(Trenberth 2005, in Nature)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5729/1753?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=trenberth%2C+K&searchid=1118955398811_9068&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=6


Atlantic tropical cyclones are getting stronger on average, with a 30-year trend that has been related to an increase in ocean temperatures over the Atlantic Ocean and elsewhere. Over the rest of the tropics, however, possible trends in tropical cyclone intensity are less obvious

Elsner1, James P. Kossin2 & Thomas H. Jagger1,
"The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones," Nature 455, 92-95 (4 September 2008)

[Kruddler]

Part X

Briggs (2008) developed statistical models for the number of tropical cyclones, the rate at which these cyclones became hurricanes, and the rate at which the hurricanes became category 4+ storms in the North Atlantic, based on data from 1966 to 2006; this work led him to conclude that there is “no evidence that the distributional mean of individual storm intensity, measured by storm days, track length, or individual storm power dissipation index, has changed (increased or decreased) through time.”

Briggs, W.M. 2008. On the changes in the number and intensity of North Atlantic tropical cyclones. Journal of Climate 21: 1387-1402.

[realpolitic]

Are you reading these studies? According to researchers, the number of the most severe hurricanes is supposed to be increasing. your authors found that to be true!

"The North Atlantic has seen an increase, but the North Indian and West Pacific (since 1990) have seen decreases." (Other studies confirm the increase has been in the North Atlantic.)

"The rate at which hurricanes evolve into category 4+ storms does appear to have increased and this is due to the increasing variability in individual storm intensity." (This statement is key to greater storm intensity!)

"We find little evidence that, overall, the mean of the distribution of individual storm intensity has changed since 1975, but the variability of the distribution has certainly increased." (Yes, more powerful hurricanes occur more frequently than before.)

"This is most likely because the variance of PDI has increased, meaning there has been an increase of both stronger and weaker storms, but that this change has balanced (in the sense that the mean has stayed the same)."

Kruddler, the fact that there are more weaker storms to balance the more pwerful storms and thus the "mean of the distribution of individual storm intensity has not changed since 1975" is not relevant. What most researchers agree on is that there are a groing number of the most powerful storms. Do you see?

[Kruddler]

I'm providing the papers, not my personal opinion.

[kwombles]

Kruddler!

Just wanted to say hi! :-)

[Kruddler]

Hey kwombles!!! How's life? Still battling autism disinformation?

[Kruddler]

Part IX

Scileppi and Donnelly (2007) report that “several major hurricanes occur in the western Long
Island record during the latter part of the Little Ice Age (~1550-1850 AD) when sea surface temperatures were generally colder than present,” but that “no major hurricanes have impacted this area since 1893.” Noting that Emanuel (2005) and Webster et al. (2005) had produced contradictory analyses suggesting that “cooler climate conditions in the past may have resulted in fewer strong hurricanes,” Scileppe and Donnelly remarked that “other climate phenomena, such as atmospheric circulation, may have been favorable for intense hurricane development despite lower sea surface temperatures.”

Scileppi, E. and Donnelly, J.P. 2007. Sedimentary evidence of hurricane strikes in western Long Island, New York. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems. vol 8.

[realpolitic]

The film "The Perfect Storm" was based on a true event in 1991.. It happened near western Long Island.


"In October 1991, a dying tropical hurricane from Bermuda collided with a cold front from the Great Lakes, resulting in a "perfect storm" of previously unknown destructive impact that resulted in 100-foot waves; tragically, the crew of a fishing boat was lost in the midst of the fearsome storm. When the ship's refrigeration system goes haywire, they have to return to shore as quickly as possible before the fish spoil, sending them into the middle of the worst storm in history. "

Your authors say “no major hurricanes have impacted this area since 1893.”

[Kruddler]

The authors were looking at hurricanes that made landfall, as they were using proxies. I suspect that the "perfect storm" you refer to did not.

[Kruddler]

Part VIII

Latif et al. (2007) analyzed the1851-2005 history of Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) Index for the Atlantic basin, which parameter, “takes into account the number, strength and duration of all tropical storms in a season.” The authors report that “the ACE Index shows pronounced multidecadal variability, with enhanced tropical storm activity during the 1890s, 1950s and at present, and mostly reduced activity in between, but no sustained long-term trend.”

(This bit's really cool) For the extreme 2005 season, the authors report that “the tropical North Atlantic warmed more rapidly than the Indo-Pacific,” which reduced vertical wind shear over the North Atlantic, producing the most intense Atlantic hurricane season of the historical record. By contrast, they say that the summer and fall of 2006 were “characterized by El Niño conditions in the Indo-Pacific, leading to a rather small temperature difference between the tropical North Atlantic and the tropical Indian and
Pacific Oceans,” and they say that “this explains the weak tropical storm activity [for 2006].”

Latif, M., Keenlyside, N. and Bader, J. 2007. Tropical sea surface temperature, vertical wind shear, and hurricane development. Geophysical Research Letters 34

[realpolitic]

That is the argument that makes the hurricane data complex. One of the hurricane researchers originally thought there was a simple cause and effect relationship between hurricanes and warmer sea surface temperatures. I forgot his name. It turns out warming may increase the wind shear, I think, and reduce the overall number of hurricanes. But most researchers believe the number of the strongest hurricanes have and will continue to increase. They find more precipitation with hurricanes, more powerful hurricanes over the life of the storm, and greater storm surge with higher water levels.