There is an interesting interactive map and chart of sea level trends on the NOAA website, See Tides and Currents, "Sea Levels Online". I think this is information is topical since we live on the coast, (Bob Hutchinson).
Note: the "mm" abbreviation below refers to a "monthly means" (not millimeters). Calculations are measured and estimated in inches (based upon foot unit measurement). Change in sea levels are based upon recorded data during a described given period, with an extended equivalent estimate over 100 years. Based upon the color chart, the sea level trend for the San Francisco Regional Bay Area exists in the green, 0 to 1 foot category over 100 years. Examples follow, but you may also wish to view the link above.
Point Reyes, CA. The mean sea level trend is 2.10 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 1.52 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1975 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.69 feet in 100 years.
San Francisco, CA. The mean sea level trend is 2.01 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.21 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1897 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.66 feet in 100 years.
 |
| The San Francisco sea level increase trend is estimated at 6.6 inches over 100 years |
Point Reyes, CA. The mean sea level trend is 2.10 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 1.52 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1975 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.69 feet in 100 years.
San Francisco, CA. The mean sea level trend is 2.01 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.21 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1897 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.66 feet in 100 years.
Alameda, CA. The mean sea level trend is 0.82 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.51 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1939 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.27 feet in 100 years.
Redwood City, CA. The mean sea level trend is 2.06 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 3.12 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1974 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.68 feet in 100 years.
Monterey, CA. he mean sea level trend is 1.34 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 1.35 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1973 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.44 feet in 100 years.
The Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services has been measuring sea level for over 150 years, with tide stations of the National Water Level Observation Network operating on all U.S. coasts. Changes in Mean Sea Level (MSL), either a sea level rise or sea level fall, have been computed at 128 long-term water level stations using a minimum span of 30 years of observations at each location. These measurements have been averaged by month to remove the effect of higher frequency phenomena (e.g. storm surge) in order to compute an accurate linear sea level trend."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
17 comments:
Interesting that many locations have seen a sea level drop and on average there is no real rise so far.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, and you've totally misunderstood the NOAA data. Not the first time.
1036, fair enough, explain the data. Otherwise, it seems that NOAA studies and those of Sharp Park golf course research are about the same: that the Pacific ocean is projected to rise about 6.6 inches over the next 100 years.
Get a grasp on reality. 6.6 FEET is the conservative global mean average sea level rise, it will be higher for our part of the coast. Google is your friend.
6.6 ft is at the high-end of estimates. It's not a conservative estimate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
It's just this kind of exaggeration that ruins the credibility of our local enviros.
0.44 is less than 6 inches not 44 feet.
I'm reading about the new report on climate change from the UN, and the scientists who produced it are now estimating sea level rise of between 26 cm (10.3 inches) to 82 cm (32.3 inches) over the course of the century.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615
6.6 feet is the "mean" (as in average) global figure. It does not even take into account various factors will make the actual figure closer to 23 feet and that may be too low. And that is based on old data. The fact is that sea levels have risen almost twice as fast from 1993 to 2010, compared with the amount of sea level rise recorded from 1901 to 2010. The acceleration in melt of ice is now measured at 60% faster then what was projected in 2007, and getting faster. So stop relying on BS that makes you feel good. It wasn't that long ago you were probably a global warming denier, but now everyone laughs at those dead-enders, I bet even you. Soon, the "it's-not-as-bad-as-they-say" losers will be the next set of clowns. I wonder what the argument will be then?
1204 At that point, they'll be getting religion. They'll be looking for obscure bible phrases, slick evangelists, and the occasional wild-eyed, bearded prophet.
Would conversion therapy help some of these posters?
Jesus for the love of god and country.
.44 is not 4.4 feet.
I am glad none of you people are general contractors.
12:04PM, let me repeat -
"It's just this kind of exaggeration that ruins the credibility of our local enviros."
Gotta wonder how long before someone on City Council proposes that we hire a consulting firm to study the potential impact on Pacifica? Will Park Pacifica becomw beach front property? that new library be built on stilts ? Property owners in Miramar are now required to build with the ground floor designated as a no-occupancy zone.
Highway 35 will be the new Hugh tide water mark. With that .44 rise in sea level.
Eye roll!
City hall is hiring a 4th grade math teacher to teach you people the difference between 44 feet and .44 feet.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-locking-in-quickly-cities-threatened-16296
get those teachers in here quick! Pathetica, 20 years behind the curve and proud!
739 ding ding ding consultant on board! was there ever any doubt?
Post a Comment