HIGHER ROLLERS: Waves pound a beach and structure between Depoe Bay and Boiler Bay on the Oregon Coast.
Image: Erica Harris, Oregon State University
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Armand Thibault looked out over the Pacific's rumbling winter waves from his balcony in Neskowin, Ore. "The predicted high tide today is a 10.1 [feet]," he relayed via YouTube on Friday, January 29. "I'm very glad we don't have a storm surge behind this one. Tomorrow is supposed to be a 10.2, so it should be interesting."
Fortunately, Neskowin didn't experience a storm surge on Saturday either. But like a growing number of seaside towns along the Pacific Northwest coast, it is only a matter of time before another storm blows extreme waves across their coastlines and adds to already massive flooding and erosion. Bigger and more frequent extreme surf, on top of rising sea levels, are the forces behind this damage, according to a study published January 18 in the journal Coastal Engineering. And, based on early results from other research, this phenomenon may not be limited to Oregon and Washington State.
"What is very interesting off of our coast, and not well known yet, is that increasing wave heights have been more important in terms of causing erosion and flooding over the last few decades than sea-level rise," says George Kaminsky, a coastal engineer with the Washington State Department of Ecology. "But because of the amount of attention going to climate change, which is synonymous with sea-level rise for people on the coast, [the latter] is much more on the radar screen."
Kaminsky is working to redirect the attention of local decision-makers toward the growing rollers and the risks they pose for everything from ecosystems and offshore energy structures to coastal development. That effort is made more urgent by the newly published results from Peter Ruggiero of Oregon State University and his colleagues: Whereas global sea-level rise creeps along at a fraction of an inch per year—providing relatively ample time for coastal managers to respond—annual maximum wave heights in the Pacific Northwest are rising at a rate of about 10 centimeters, and sending wave run-up increasingly higher onto beaches. As a result, according to a separate paper by Ruggiero that is currently under review, the contribution of waves to the total water level, or run-up plus tide, is rising an estimated three to 10 times faster than the sea level.
Thankfully, the Pacific Northwest coastline is also home to relatively few people. But could more densely developed regions see changes, too? In an upcoming paper to be published in the Journal of Coastal Research, Richard Seymour of Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, shows wave heights are increasing down the coast through southern California. Peter Adams of the University of Florida reports a similar trend from North Carolina's Cape Hatteras to Florida's West Palm Beach, although his results also await publication. And some of the first evidence that breakers might be on the rise actually came from across the Atlantic: records of an annual increase of about 2.2 centimeters in average wave heights between 1962 and 1986 off England's southwestern tip.
These regions may soon look for lessons from Oregon and Washington, particularly from one troubled town: "Neskowin is on the bleeding edge," says Patrick Corcoran, a coastal hazards educator based in Astoria, Ore. "So there aren't canned things we know are going to work. It's a matter of learning our way through the problem."
Clues from 100-year waves
Here is what Ruggiero is learning: As a student in the mid-1990s, he and his advisor used records dating back to 1981 to project the height of a 100-year wave—a monster bore that appears about once a century—at 10 meters. But then from 1997 to 1999, they recorded at least five wave events higher than that mark. "When you have five or six events that are bigger than a 100-year event occurring over just three years," Ruggiero says, "you need to figure out what's going on."
The answer: Pacific Northwest waves were getting bigger. Based on sophisticated statistical analysis of deepwater buoy data now spanning 30 years, the new 100-year event estimate is 14 meters. Ruggiero even suggests the possibility of one towering higher than a five-story building.
It's too early to say how long the trend will last and how much higher the tallest waves will get. A better understanding of what's behind this phenomenon is needed first. Because the current phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation—an ocean temperature circulation pattern that causes regional weather fluctuations—covers most of Ruggiero's buoy data, natural cycles cannot be ruled out. At the same time, a study published in a 2001 issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society suggests a link between the increasing frequency and intensity of storms, which cause the extreme waves, and sea-surfacetemperatures. And Seymour is working on a paper that he thinks solidifies the connection between global climate change and the wave climate of the U.S. west coast. "I think I have found the smoking pistol," he says.
Layers of variables
But even if that mystery is solved, a confluence of other factors in the Pacific Northwest prohibits easy solutions. "We have sea-level rise on top of El Niño on top of increasing waves and increasing frequency," Kaminsky says. The region is also anticipating a major earthquake, which could instantly raise the region's sea level a meter or more. Not to mention that the Pacific Northwest is already home to some of the biggest offshore swells in the world, averaging about three meters in the winter. This is why the region is also one of the world leaders in ocean-based renewable energy speculation. (But don't start thinking that bigger extreme breakers mean more green energy. A device able to withstand such intense waves would have to be "so big and strong and cumbersome that it wouldn't do a good job of taking energy out of small waves," Seymour notes.)
One common tool used to protect shoreline is a man-made barrier of boulders, called riprap. A continuous line of thick riprap separates the oceanfront homes of Neskowin from the tumultuous tide. But as these rocks get knocked around and sink into the sand, they require frequent and expensive maintenance. Thibault actually features a backhoe excavator in his January 6 YouTube post. "Unfortunately, we're having some work done on our rock, which I was hoping we wouldn't have to do this year," he says. "But the ocean is giving us no alternative."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentEveryone is trying to blame climate change on human abuse of the planet! But the 800 pound gorilla in the room is our Sun which does fluctuate in its intensity of solar storms from year to year and century to century! Al Gore is making millions by promoting himself as a speaker for reducing human impact, which may or may not have a great effect on climate in the larger picture given the Sun's influence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if the same method could be used to increase readership for all articles? Let's see, “Low serotonin levels may prompt mysterious sudden infant death syndrome – a By-Product of Global Warming?” It might work…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm also quite impressed that they're using sophisticated statistical analysis of 30 year buoy data to estimate 100 year events. The unsophisticated kind couldn’t do that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLudicrous. Is this the same dude who said the Himalayan glaciers were melting fast?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suggest they use 30M year ice core sample data to normalize the buoy data to CO2 levels. Then they could produce a 100M year wave height forecast…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou dummies who leave moronic comments REALLY should have stayed in school. Leave the science to the scientists. You suck at it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny thing: changes in solar output don't explain current warming-- people actually made the measurements. Amazing how many people think no one else can think of even the simplest things. As for Al Gore, what he earns from climate change work all goes to charity: pgentry, you've been reading (and falling for) ugly propaganda. Finally, jt, wave distributions, if they're normal (which many natural distributions are), could easily produce a 100 year estimate from 30 years of data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But the 800 pound gorilla in the room is our Sun which does fluctuate in its intensity" - QuackFart #1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup. Solar output down.... Global Temperaturs up.
What's up with that?
An interesting aside that has nothing to do with warming or waves is that the end of January had much of the western US experiencing a long period of very low atmospheric pressure. This resulted in high tides that were up to two feet higher than expected from tide tables. Lucky for us here on the Oregon coast that it was also a period of mild weather.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Unisys weather server provides a nice clip of the last half day's weather over the U.S. During late January it showed a nice, big, warm, low pressure area tearing off the pacific and floating up the west coast eventually traversing the continent - producing a nice warm week.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://weather.unisys.com/satellite/sat_wv_hem_loop-12.html
It also documented the icy cold trough that came before and after that warm air possed over.
Is there any evidence of large waves in other areas, especially the Caribbean?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseddiequest - If you find no objection to publishing unverified predictions of 100 year events produced from 30 years of data, you should not leave your ivory tower. I'll simply chuckle at such nonsense to release stronger sentiments, thank you!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight on, Eddie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'll simply chuckle at such nonsense to release stronger sentiments, thank you!" - jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question is, can you reasonably reconstruct 100 samples from a subsample of 30.
The answer of course is yes, provided you know the nature of the sample distribution. Gausian, Hypergeometric, Poisson , Gibbs, Maxwell, Bose, Fermi, etc.
In fact with a random sample not much larger than 30, you can call the election for the entire U.S., and do so with good reliability
Why do people hate conservation? People don't need global temperatures to rise to figure out that they should produce as little waste as possible. What is so wrong with trying to clean up our inefficiencies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does it matter if the sun is heating the earth more, if we are causing greenhouse effects to rise, or if all the hot air coming out of people's asses are warming the oceans? The Earth's ecosystem is a complex system, and we may never find 1 cause of the trends of the temperature, people can come up with plenty of excuses, some of which may be backed with science, BUT there isn't much we can do, aside from cleaning up our bad habits.
You think the Sun is heating the earth more? Well guess what, there isn't anything you can do about that, so the only thing you can do is tread lightly and try to make the minimal impact.
What's your mentality? Is it that the earth will be heated out of control by the sun and there isn't anything that can be done, so you can go about wasting and polluting as normal? Is it that the sun goes up and down and nothing will change in the long run, so you can go about wasting and polluting as normal? Or do you think that this is made up by scientists to limit your freedoms and rights to waste and pollute as much as you want?
How much the industrial nations waste directly affects the other 95% of countries that survive off of the land they live on. Not to mention the aweful air quality in the cities of those industrial nations.
People don't want to clean up their acts because
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisa) it tends to cost more
b) it takes planning and coordination
c) it takes time away from watching Oprah
Having a conscience is hard work. People are lazy. That's really all there is to it.
AAAA+
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother Asinine Alarmist Article
Keep up the good work SCIAM editors. Greenpeace and the WWF must have called you with their latest non-biased findings.
vendicar9 - No denying that a projection can be made, only that it can be made reliably. Pick your distribution – they’re speculating about a potential influence of global warming. Obviously, too little is known about the complex physical affects involved to arrive at a reasonable specific number. Good luck with your homework!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may or may not get the grade from your professor, but would you bet your livelihood, or for you academics, your invaluable reputation, on your prediction? I recommend you do not, given my 30 years experience. Of course, a 100 year prediction can only be invalidated after 100 years, or if it is exceeded.
"You may or may not get the grade from your professor, but would you bet your livelihood, or for you academics, your invaluable reputation, on your prediction? I recommend you do not, given my 30 years experience." - jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStatistical inference a long studied, well understood, and universally applied in both applied and theoretical science.
Are you suggesting that the worlds mathematicians - those no-goodnicks - in addition to all of the worlds scientists are also involved in this Pikno Commie plot to destroy the world's economy and establish a one world socialist order?
Oh my Gawad it's true.... Those Libertarian Economists were right. The earth can' t be warming because as they said... their ain't no such thing as temperature.
"Science leads you to killing people." - Ben Stein - Republican Speech Writer.
vendicar9 - If statistical procedures were so well understood and reliable in practice, why are there so many math professors, when they could so easily be making a fortune in stock market? My experience with forecasting did involve large capital investments: although I’m no statistician, my success was verified in practice for many years. I would bet against the 100 year peak wave prediction referred to in the article. Good luck relying principally on established theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Oh my Gawad it's true.... Those Libertarian Economists were right. The earth can' t be warming because as they said... their ain't no such thing as temperature." - vendicar9
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If statistical procedures were so well understood and reliable in practice, why are there so many math professors, when they could so easily be making a fortune in stock market?" - jtwryer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, if they had any brains, they would be invested now, and waiting for suckers to jump in, and in a year or two - before the next major downturn - cash out before the cattle.
However outside of the near obvious conditions of the market today, generally the market is in near dynamic equilibrium and a form of self organized chaos, which can not be predicted - even statistically.
It's nature is such that once it can be predicted, and those methods become known, then the use will alter the market making it once again unpredictable.
This is a fundamental characteristic of the marketplace.
How is it that you are clueless about it?
You might care to watch
The Ascent of Money - Planet Finance
And educate yourself.
I apologize to all for my original bad humor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvendicar9 – Please continue your enlightening textbook lectures, hilarious witticisms and courageously anonymous personal remarks. Don’t concern yourself with my withdrawal, I concede - this discussion is pointless.
"Please continue your enlightening textbook lectures, hilarious witticisms and courageously anonymous personal remarks" - jdwalker
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy name is Vendicar Decarian.
Mathematicians cannot make a fortune in the stock market because physics is not the underlying engine producing the data, it is random. Statisticians rely on data being produced from logical systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, you can't negate what one does by what one example of what they cannot do
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHah, he said it better
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems to me the study would have included sedimentary studies of coastal areas where sediments have be preserved and/or eroded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI may have missed it, but I didn't see how they connected the rising wave heights to global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise). I can think of how that may work-higher temperatures means more energy & turbulence in the water and therefore greater wave heights-but they didn't really say anything about that. Regarding predicting 100 year waves with only 30 years of data: 30/100 is an enormous sample size for a Gaussian distribution, you could get very reliable information from that much data. I don't know as much about other distributions, but 30/100 is usually a very good sample, so long as it's truly random and not somehow biased (ex. "we only counted the waves taller than this mark", etc.). I personally wouldn't have mentioned GW here, just because they don't appear to have much of a causative link.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe waging of fingers and the placing of blame is not very helpful. Global warming is a fact no matter who is at fault, so how do we build cities that withstand the rigors of extreme climate; wave heights as a five story building. A wall? A moot? A dome? I the Chinese can build the Great Wall why cant the Japanese?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this