We May Be Sinking Faster Than We Thought

They're just fabricating these statistics....I actually live at the beach, no noticeable change last 60 years...

Has anyone replenished the sand on your beach?

I know that Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey beaches need to be replenished every few years as they are constantly being eroded away. They do this by dredging sand from offshore and depositing it at the shoreline. Does that not happen in Florida?

The amount of sand on the beach doesn't effect the water level....

...but it does affect the proximity of the shoreline to permanent structures.

As well, I watched, in the Fall of 2018, as heavy equipment built up the dunes on a barrier island in an effort to protect inland structures.

There's not enough sand to do what you're thinking, you seem to be thinking we are building sand dikes...I mean really, you think that would work?

This is what the beach looks like after a hurricane...I can remember walking up to Ft Lauderdale beach after a storm and seeing a 10ft drop back in the 60's after hurricane Donna....that's the sand that must be recovered...

Even though dredging sand to build up the beach only affects the water level an immeasurably miniscule amount, building up the beach does make guesstimating whether or not sea level has increased by a couple of inches based on off the cuff visual clues even less accurate.

This is not new sand, it's the same sand, it washes out, they dredge it back....beach maintenance....

Here's a picture from the 50's....

Back in the 30's...

Do you really, really think that these old, not to scale, pictures prove anything but your indifference to, or ignorance of, reality? You're only convincing yourself, and a few of your like minded deniers?

I can always count on you to obfuscate.

You live out in the desert, you need to worry about the sand rising....

The 50's pic doesn't show up, broken link or something.

The pics don't allow any comparison of the movement of the shoreline as there's no reference to compare it to.

I'll note though, that the owners of the high rises will spend a lot of effort to keep the sand where it is, either through paying for dredging on their own or, more likely, greasing the right palms to have the govt do it.

Shoreline is one thing, but given the constantly changing tides, it's hard to put a number on nominal sea-level through simple observation. I think oceanographer's collection of data over 60 years is a little more reliable indicator than your subjective observation of the Florida beaches.

Highway A1A runs right along the beach all along the coast, that's the road you see in the pics....That road has been there for 92 years...

It makes an excellent reference point...

In fairness, sections of A1A have been destroyed and rebuilt after many hurricanes. I don't know where but I'm sure some of the rebuilding efforts have included relocation and realignment.

I doubt that there are any online records of these changes to A1A.

Really, could you then cite some, or even one, of those locations and link a ref?

...because to my knowledge this has not occurred...the section of Flagler beach that was just rebuilt after being washed out in the last storm has been rebuilt in the same location....

...as you can see there are properties along A1A....I think they are adding seawall of sorts...

Naw, I'm not all that interested in spending time looking for that stuff. But I do distinctly remember one. There were major changes to A1A near St Augustine. Probably late '50's or early '60's when we used to stop there on our way to visit my uncle in West Palm.

But if you don't believe me, that's fine. I'll survive.

There is this submerged former section of A1A I believe it is in Palm Beach county in a place that use to be called Manalapan. The current route is significantly further west than this section.

This is not due to sea rise, but construction. erosion, and dredging of an inlet....

..."Coastal erosion is the wearing away of land and the removal of beach or dune sediments by wave action, tidal currents, wave currents, or drainage. Waves, generated by storms, wind, or fast moving motor craft, cause coastal erosion, which may take the form of long-term losses of sediment and rocks, or merely the temporary redistribution of coastal sediments; erosion in one location may result in addition of much more landmass nearby. The study of erosion and sediment redistribution is called 'coastal morphodynamics'. "...

..." The Town of Palm Beach, located on a barrier island, has been concerned about erosion for over 70 years beginning with construction of the Lake Worth Inlet jetties and navigational channel in the 1920s. Prior to 1970 all material dredged to maintain the channel was deposited offshore, meaning nearly two million cubic yards of sand were lost to the beaches. The 1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane was an intense tropical cyclone that affected the Bahamas, southernmost Florida, and the Gulf Coast of the United States in September 1947. It reached a peak intensity equivalent to that of a Category 5–the highest possible ranking–180 mph (290 km/h).Widespread flooding and coastal damage resulted from heavy rainfall and high tides. Many vegetable plantings, citrus groves, and cattle were submerged or drowned as the storm exacerbated already high water levels.

This hurricane's massive waves and strong winds caused extreme erosion and pulled a 5 mile (8.5km) stretch of Florida's famous A1A beach highway into the ocean in the City of Manalapan, Florida (South Palm Beach, Lake Worth) A1A was rebuilt by straightening so to keep it farther away from the ocean to prevent another occurrence, and over time condominiums now separate the old sunken A1A from its new replacement, however the Island has continued to lose approximately 550,000 cubic yards of sand per year. The effects of this loss have cumulatively reduced the storm protection capabilities of the existing beach.."...

..."In the late 1950s, a sand transfer plant was constructed to capture some of the sand that could not pass around the inlet and place it on the beaches to the south, As well as authorizing a seawall and groin construction program in 1956. The seawalls have continued to provide storm protection, yet many of the groins have deteriorated or have been removed. Responding to the need for an overall program to protect the island, the Town of Palm Beach authorized development of a Comprehensive Coastal Management Plan (CCMP) in April 1986 One of the most interesting geological landmarks in South Florida, a piece of this road can be obtained during Florida Stormy season as the edges become battered and break away, and you can see the many layers when this road was paved over time and time again in the past. This land is now currently home to many small tropical fish and sea creatures."...

Nice piece of little known Florida history...

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4NB1G_sunken-a1a?guid=4f05298b-6371-4243-9a19-1b90a34f1dd1

Indeed.

I wasn't claiming it was due to sea rise, though.

Solar Eagle had asked if one example could be provided in response to Hooker's comment:

'... In fairness, sections of A1A have been destroyed and rebuilt after many hurricanes. I don't know where but I'm sure some of the rebuilding efforts have included relocation and realignment. ..."

.

...and that section of A1A seems to fit the bill.

..."Over 100 years ago Highway A1A began as a narrow brick-paved road used to facilitate the movement north of Florida citrus and other exports. In the early 1900's the automobile began to revolutionize the transportation industry, and with it the future of Florida. Henry Ford completed the first production Model T in 1908 and by 1927 his company had built and delivered around 15 million vehicles. "...

It's not so easy to move a highway...Plus it has scenic route status and is historically preserved...St Augustine Florida is America's oldest city...est 1565

https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/florida/100-years-ago-fl/

https://www.guidestar.org/profile/01-0817026

2.8 to 3.2 mm/year is a far cry from several inches. Been doing just that for as long as measurements have been taken.

If that were true and the sea level had risen 1 foot over the last 100 years, then the high tide swings would be how much higher do you think? Certainly much more than a foot because of the increase in mass and tidal forces...I would think at least 10 feet, we would already be experiencing massive flooding at high tide...When I was a young boy I can still remember that at least once a year sometimes for several days that sections of A1A would flood a little maybe for a few hundred feet....any change would be apparent during every spring tide...yet it still looks the same every year this happens...

Now I see the same conditions and it is claimed as sea rise and global warming...

When I was a boy in Florida in the late '60s the reef at what is now Singer Island state park near West Palm Beach was at the waters edge and at low tide you could walk out on the coral and dive into deeper water off of it if you could time the waves (I was too young for such foolishness). When I visited last around '83 it was 100 yards out, more or less, from the waters edge and never got uncovered at low tide. I wonder where it is now. I'm sure sand was washed away but did the reef sink or move or did the sea level rise?

SE - You may be the proverbial frog in the pot witnessing the change slowly over time and never realizing that is has changed. Especially as the adjacent areas are adapted to the new sea level a little at a time.

Well the buildings haven't moved, and neither has A1A...I just showed you pictures from nearly 100 years ago....If the sea level had risen 1 foot, they would all be gone by now...furthermore the tidal range is about 4.6 ft, if the sea had risen 1 ft then the range would have increased exponentially in the last 100 years....

This is the oldest reference I could find for tide swings...1970...4 - 5 ft difference between high and low tide...

https://www.almanac.com/astronomy/tides/zipcode/32904/1970-11-12

That's a cool looking frog!

Can you provide a reference for the exponential rise in range of tides attributed to incremental rise in level that you keep referencing? Seems reasonable, but not patently obvious, I would appreciate learning about this phenomena.

Found this interesting article...will have to corroborate this info...

..."we have just passed the peak of a little-known phenomenon, the 19 year tidal epoch, known as the lunar nodal cycle. It partly explains why sea level has risen so quickly for the last decade in some areas.

However, we are now in the downward phase that will have a negative effect on the rate of sea level rise for the until the year 2024. "...

https://www.johnenglander.net/sea-level-rise-blog/why-high-tide-can-be-0-to-30-feet/

https://www.amazon.com/Tides-Science-Spirit-Jonathan-White-ebook/dp/B01N2HCB1E

Thanks for the link. It doesn't discuss the phenomena you refered to in earlier posts, but it is interesting and worth reading.

Thanks.

"... If that were true and the sea level had risen 1 foot over the last 100 years, then the high tide swings would be how much higher do you think..."

.

If this is a real effect, there should be easy to find scientific papers on it and no shortage of references. Can you provide links to any?

It seems like if this were a real effect that people hyping the coming sogpocolypse would already be running around screaming about 10 foot higher tides for every foot of sea level rise.

2.8 to 3.2 mm/year js not a far cry from several inches if it has been happening as long as you say.

3mm/year becomes several inches in just a quarter century. Not a far cry at all. Note the comment being discussed mentioned having observed for 60 years.

It is a far cry from a far cry.

How could the post to which I am replying possibly be off topic? If you disagree with the facts as stated or with the rudementry calculation involved, please grow a pair and articulate your disagreement.

The rising seal level may only stop if China stops building islands from reefs..

So you believe China is transporting in from a mine on dry land the material to bring the reef up to sea level?

I believe so since some mountains in the Philippines completely disappeared. Claimed to be leveled off when the Mount Pinatubo erupted which created lavas to flow that covered some nearby towns..

But apparently some local town folks noticed continued activities for years, claimed as rehabilitation initiatives by the government?

Rehabilitations that included “big boulders from the surrounding mountains were seen being carted off, loaded on big barges claimed to be going to China as authorized by some high ranking government official”..

Technically we are aware that dredging dirts and sands from the ocean may enable the building of a castle, but to not enough to build and support an island complete with an airbase in the middle of an ocean?.. Which will require the dumping of big rocks to hold and keep those dredgings together..

The displaced waters caused by big boulder rocks used as foundations of the islands will naturally may contribute to the subtle rise of ocean waters. Unlike dredgings, those big boulders that were dump came from the land..

Even if big boulders were required and those big boulders had to come from somewhere high and dry,, building such artificial islands would only tend to increase sea level (an impreceptible amount) if the volume of boulders brought from high and dry locations that were placed below sea level were greater than the volume of fill dredged from underwater and placed above sea level to build up the island.

I agree..

Although the size of the fabricated island is quite large enough, possibly displacing some considerable volume of sea water since the big solid portions of the fillers that were used came from dry land..

Yet that displaced volume may still be comparatively minuscule when to the size of the vast ocean water.. Which may hardly contribute to a millimeter rise in sea level, in my guestimations.

You are unquestionably the most ignorant person on this site.

Don't let the facts stand in your way.

OK, now it's time for your little buddy, SE, to come at me with some more garbage!

/ADMIN NOTE/

User was temporarily banned for this comment.

My profound apologies to you.

The comment was in reference to, and directed toward, another member's post, not yours. Not sure how it happened, but I take the blame for it.

No one is perfect, least of all I.

Apology accepted.

Mistakes definitely happen. I could have been less abrasive in my reply. I appreciate the fact that you didn't get hung up on that and proceeded toward reconciliation despite my tone.

Under the circumstances, your reply was well taken and accurate.

The indisputable fact is that the oceans will, they already are, rise as the polar ice melts, which it is doing as we speak.

No one can spin this away and deny facts.

Don’t know about Maryland or Delaware... but wasn’t New Jersey current coastline artificial made.

It appears that way from my vantage too, though it would be hard to see given the hundreds of millions of dollars Florida spends on beach nourishment, beach widening, beach erosion repair, beach fill, beach restoration and other operations that place tons upon tons of replacement sand upon the shores.

What you are talking about is a so-called sand replenishment effort, and what should be called a beach reclamation effort...

Should I be worried for a recent government edict has classified our farm as being coastal and the run off threatens the great barrier reef, what good news.

Now for some facts. The farm sits 480m above sea level with the lowest point being 400m above seal level so where we once looked out over hills then by virtue of the coastal nature should we now proclaim them sand dunes even though we are 75Km from the nearest ocean as a crow flies?

And the gullies which have no water, either permanent or semipermanent are designated as streams.

Mean while we are surrounded by "forests" dead weeds and dead trees which have had their life, choked from overgrowing, and a habitat for all manner of feral creatures. But these are not cleaned or burnt for the sop to the green movement. However they are likely to generate a wildfire from any unwanted ignition source be it lightning or power lines.

Meanwhile we have to maintain firebreaks to protect our assets all for the sake of the climate change trough gobblers. So we are sinking faster than we thought, but what if the trees are growing which would make their tops higher so the distance from the satellite to the tops would be less so to fit our hypothesis the ground is sinking, oh dear time for more funding!

"... what if the trees are growing which would make their tops higher so the distance from the satellite to the tops would be less so to fit our hypothesis the ground is sinking, ..."

.

This doesn't make sense. If trees grew, decreasing the distance to satellites, it would give a possible error making the ground appear to be increasing in height from actual, not decreasing.

Don't work yourself into such a fit trying to show everyone how illogical the other side is that you yourself lose touch with logic.

Once again, the comment to which I am replying has been rated as 'off topic' yet it is hard to imagine what convolutions were used to get to that opinion.

Just a thought about this thread...

One of our (Virginia) US Senators, who just happened to be the running mate of Hillary, has been making a lot of noise lately about sea level rise destroying Norfolk, Va and its environs. He totally disregards Coast & Geodetic Surveys over the last 50 or more years that indicate that the land is subsiding by large structure building (everything is built on sand and pilings to bedrock are not required). When I brought this to his attention he pointedly ignored me. It obviously didn't fit his agenda.

My God several hundred miles of coastline along Virginia and North Carolina are nothing more than sand on top of clay. The sand moves. Constantly. I've seen inlets disappear. And reappear. The landscape changes constantly, especially during storms.

To attribute any land movement, rise or fall, to climate change in those areas is just sheer lunacy.

Thus the beach replenishment programs. To keep the tourist dollars flowing in.

You said, "To attribute any land movement, rise or fall, to climate change."

The subject is ocean rise, not land movement.

Rising oceans threaten to submerge 128 military bases : report

Climate-change risks include 128 military sites threatened by rising ...

You'd better alert the Navy of their mistake.

So what do we measure to arrive at the "ocean rise"? High tide, low tide, spring tide, no tide, storm surge, Tsunami, or do we use still pipes and tide gauges to get a value that varies once or twice daily? Or is it like the quantum story that by our looking at the value the value varies. Magic or smoke and mirrors?

No, the subject has morphed into exposure of fraudulent claims of catastrophic ocean level rise.

And the Navy in Norfolk is hardly panicking over the news.

Navy as an authority?? The same group the spec'd carrier elevators that don't work? And certify OOD's that run into other ships.

Even if they have to spend billions to rebuild the bases, compare that to AOK's green New Deal to stop CO2 in the atmosphere:

"I could not be more glad that the American people will have the opportunity to learn precisely where each one of their senators stand on this radical, top-down, socialist makeover of the entire US economy," McConnell said Monday. "Every American taxpayer will get to learn if their senators support saddling our nation with the astronomical cost of this socialist fantasy -- tens and tens of trillions of dollars, a tax burden that would be certain to hurt not just wealthy Americans but the middle class as well."

cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/green-new-deal-senate-democrats-block/index.html

Wouldn't it be best to wait until one base needed help before saying the sky is falling?

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/can-new-york-be-saved-in-the-era-of-global-warming-240454/

...."Next year, if all goes well, the city will break ground on what’s called the East Side Coastal Resiliency Project, an undulating 10-foot-high steel-and-concrete-reinforced berm that will run about two miles along the riverfront. It’s the first part of a bigger barrier system, known informally as “the Big U,” that someday may loop around the entire bottom of Manhattan, from 42nd Street on the East Side to 57th Street on the West Side. Zarrilli likes to underscore that the barrier will be covered with grass and trees in many places, as well as benches and bike paths – it’s the East Side equivalent of the High Line, the hugely popular elevated train track on the West Side that has been transformed into an urban park. There are plans in the works to build other walls and barriers in the Rockaways and on Staten Island, as well as in Hoboken, New Jersey, across the Hudson River. But this project in Lower Manhattan is the headliner, not just because the city may spend $3 billion or more to construct it, but also because Lower Manhattan is some of the most valuable real estate on the planet – if it can’t be protected, then New York is in deep trouble."...

Yeah, that'll work.....wall in the rich people...

Let me get this straight, there are no catastrophically increasing sea levels and therefore it must be the vegetation covering up the changes in land elevation, which puts our coasts at risk?

This is new effort at the front of climate alarm.

But let me ask you this, is climate change also responsible for land elevation or subsiding? They should ask some geologist as it seems the climate researchers are out of their depth with this one.

And last I read the report of coastal risks for my home beach, the main problem was erosion.

Daytona Beach in the 20's and today...

Oh really? ...What would you say the elevation is on that beach?....and if the sea is rising what happens to the elevation?

The elevation of the land at the beach beach is dependent on how you measure it. "Above sea level", or by distance from a satellite. If the land doesn't move and the sea rises, it sinks. The elevation of the land, relative to sea level is in question. As the sea rises it washes over the land. How do you propose to PROVE that the sea level has not risen? Your photos are worthless.

OK so if in another hundred years I show you pictures of the beach and it still looks the same , what will you say then?

We won't be here in another hundred years.

Perhaps your grandchildren will reap the benefits of air pollution, water pollution, no affordable health care/insurance and the many other attacks on our environment brought on by your stable genius.

Again, the pictures prove NOTHING!

Residents Of An Eroded Alaskan Village Are Pioneering A New One, In Phases

"If only there was no erosion, no flood, no permafrost melting, we would still be over there," she says. "But we'll get used to it."

From your link:

"Charles' grandparents told her about the plans to move when she was 16. That was in 1994.

"I remember being really excited, thinking it was gonna happen in one year, but every year there would be a delay," she remembers. "Is it 30 years later, no 25 years later, we're finally gonna move."

For Alaskan Coastal Village, Erosion Hits Home

...Tom says millions of dollar in grants were mismanaged and lost in the early days of the relocation process. He blames it on disagreements within the village's leadership."

Wow, they had plans in place to deal with river erosion but it took them 25 years to do it. How is any of this related to Donald Trump? And if the permafrost was melting in 1994 it isn't changing very fast, is it? This is left-wing spin out of control. Get a brain and stop posting garbage.

"..How is any of this related to Donald Trump?... ...This is left-wing spin out of control. ...'

How is any of this related to Donald Trump, indeed.

I can't find any mention of Donald Trump in the line of comments/replies prior. What compelled to you to come to Donald Trump's defense at the point? Did the same thing trigger your assessment that this is 'left-wing spin out of control'?

If you knew Lyn you would realize that "stable genius" was a facetious reference to Trump. I am not defending him, just trying to keep the thread on topic.

You said this was a, "facetious reference to Trump."

It is a well documented state made by Trump himself. There is NOTHING factious about someone who indulges in self-aggrandizement every single day.

I could cite hundreds of such statements, but, why bother.

Enough already, we get you don't like the Republican party since you got dumped off the gravy train...grow a pair and get over it...

Politicians ride the gravy train. I worked for my money, as I assume you did.

If you were not being facetious, then you are saying that Donald Trump is a stable genius. I don't care to debate that with you.