Posted on 01/27/2007 7:04:21 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
The seas have been rising for 18,000 years, but the pace has quickened.
At the Golden Gate Bridge, the Pacific Ocean crept seven inches higher during the past century, as global warming melted glaciers and expanded ocean waters.
Californians are taking notice. In one of the first efforts of its kind in the state, officials are starting to address the threats rising seas pose to the Bay Area.
One of the first steps was to compile maps that show what would happen if the sea level rose three feet -- the upper limit for what might occur by 2100, according to computer models of climate used by the state.
The maps show a dramatic level of inundation: San Francisco and Oakland international airports would be under water, along with Foster City, parts of Redwood City and virtually all the bay wetlands, many of which have been restored at great public expense as habitat for wildlife.
Also at risk are railroad tracks running through Alviso, highways, buildings, and public works projects, such as the East Bay Municipal Utility District sewage-treatment plant in Oakland.
“There are some areas that are extremely vulnerable,” said Leslie Lacko, a coastal planner for the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
According to a 1990 study, a three-foot rise in sea level would threaten $48 billion in real estate, roads and pipes around San Francisco Bay.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
FR has turned into an echo chamber of people parroting the company line. You should always take the right side, even if the mass of parrots disagree.
Everyone loves the charm of Venice...whats the problem?
In the case of the elevation, I was just pointing out the possibility that the aluminum foil hat wearers aren't lying about one small item. Most of the article is the standard "sky is falling, we're all going to die, no scientific evidence" garbage.
On human-caused global warming, since I've done my own extensive research, I'm solidly in the "there isn't any consistent scientific evidence and I remember the global cooling scare 30 years ago so let's don't panic" camp. I always post what I believe is true, no matter the consequences. I've been flamed more than a few times.
But it would have beneficial effects on the electoral college. No red states would be completely inundated.
The Qattara Depression is only one such candidate for such a relatively simple diversion project. Death Valley, California (though much smaller is another). So is the much larger Caspian Sea. A mere 2200 years ago, much of the northermost parts of North Africa were subtropical marshlands and humid jungle not unlike today's Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. This "global warming" was still evident 1000 years later when our viking ancestors were building colonies in what is now Greenland and Newfoundland, most of which were abandoned when the earth went into the current cooling cycle about 1100 a.d.
All the polar ice is not going to melt and raise the ocean levels. Much more of it would be absorbed into the atmosphere, consumed by vegatation and dropped onto the deserts in the form of rain, much as planting ivy along the wall of a home draws excess moisture from the soil.
Why the panic, surely we can all evolve gills by then?
Heck, I'm dying now. I figure in another 30 years or so I ought to be gone entirely...
the Sun!
Run For Your LIVES!
If Sea Levels had risen 7" over the past century, then the 3' rise over the next century would not be implausible. However, it is highly questionable whether sea levels have done so. Local measurements vary all over the world, as crust plates rise and fall. The earth is still stretching back from the deformation due to the weight of the last ice age's ice sheets (springing up where the ice existed, and subsiding in neighboring areas where the ice did not exist), populated lands are falling due to local use of ground water, and California is of course geologically active. Also, continental coasts see varying sea levels due to winds and currents, notably El Nino in the Pacific. Most mid-ocean islands have not seen sea level rises, and there has been considerable sea level fall in much of the Indian Ocean over the past 2 or 3 decades.
Nice analysis in post 70.
However, you still bent to the will of the parrot flock a little.
You make a good case for the sea levels not rising at all, but what you do not say is that your case also allows for a rise of even bigger than 7 inches over the last century.
i understand...thanx
Let's put on our math caps. The year is 2100. It is 94 years from now. Because of human activity the sea level is three feet higher. Let's say the natural rise in global warming with no contribution from man takes 120 years. That is 26 more years for the sea level to rise three feet. So, do we eliminate all human activity on earth to prevent what would happen 26 years later? I think not.
If the 13 year sun cycle is almost over and it is true that the sun has been making just a little more heat and will go back to normal soon, then all the global temps will start falling slightly within the next ten years.
I will be laughing at the warming freaks all day long.
There is not a chance in the world that the sea level will go up 3' in 100 years. One thing they forget to say is more heat means more water vapor, more water vaper means more clouds. Clouds reflect heat back into space so the plaint will cool.
They just make this stuff up.
"Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany argues that climate models may underestimate how fast the seas will rise because they don't take into account some of the complexities of glacier behavior"
Have any of these twits given any thought to what IS going to happen when one of these Pacific rim volcanoes go off and plunge us into a yearlong winter? Global warming is nothing other than socialist BS. Check out "the year without a summer " if you doubt it
Let's see...
That would be a 400 foot rise over about 150 centuries, or about two and a half feet per century.
I wonder how they explain the sudden slowing of the rise at the Golden Gate, with only about one-fourth of the expected rise?
That's why they need massive funding: to answer the questions being raised.
First they must create a problem big enough to justify large funding requests to "study" the problem, so that more data supporting the original premise may be created, so that more funding .......
Now do we see ?
My father had a shorter, free, version that went like this:
"If a frog had a glass a$$, he wouldn't jump".
Algore's global warming golden showers are coming down hard in L.A. right now. I got fairly wet throwing the trash out. I could have thrown the plastic bag out of a window and watch it float downstream, but I'm not stupid enough to do that.
That's what I've been saying for a long time now. ASSUME that the warming models may be accurate and plan ahead (assuming where still on the warming curve from the last ice age). It seems that is what San Fransico is trying to do. And hopefully the planning will include dikes (no pun intended) and levees (no pun intended) and not just some stupid resolutions to get higher mpg.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.