Posted on 04/30/2017 8:40:18 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
A slow-moving emergency is lapping at California’s shores – climate-driven sea-level rise that experts now predict could elevate the water in coastal areas up to 10 feet in just 70 years, gobbling up beach front and overwhelming low-lying cities.
The speed with which polar ice is melting and glacier shelves are cracking off indicates to some scientists that once-unthinkable outer-range projections of sea rise may turn out to be too conservative. A knee-buckling new state-commissioned report warns that if nothing changes, California’s coastal waters will rise at a rate 30 to 40 times faster than in the last century.
The potential result: crippled economies, compromised public safety, submerged infrastructure, and a forced retreat from our iconic Pacific coast.
No state has done more than California to curb greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change and sea-level rise. But experts say that even if carbon reductions continue, residual warming of the ocean will continue unchecked, breeding surges that will impact the state’s coast and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.
A consensus of scientific research makes catastrophic projections that, in the worst case, will be reality by the end of this century
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Tennessee Possom Holler Seaport ready for it.
10 feet. A nice, even number. Funny how nature always works out that way.
10 feet / 70 years = 1.7 inches per year. Even the IPCC says sea level is currently rising at only 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) per year. We’ve got a lot of catching up to do.
But wouldn’t the seas rise 10 feet EVERYWHERE on Earth and not JUST the California coast? Or is gravity simply weaker along that coast and water piles up extra higher there than, say, the coast of Central America just further south or the coast of Alaska further north?
Too bad basic science is no longer taught in government schools, or more people would recognize the idiocy of claiming that oceans could rise more in one area than another because more water was putatively being added to the oceans. (BTW, oceans can appear to rise or recede locally, but what’s really happening is tat the shore itself is rising or subsiding due to local geological forces, such as over pumping local groundwater.)
Perhaps that beach front property in Arizona isn’t a bad idea at all.
Fake news about fake science.
Ah the Murky News....lying through their teeth again
They have been singing this since at least the 70s. Then, most of the doomsday scenarios were more toward the end of the century.
Well, the end of the century came ... and went ... and most of us survived Y2K — relatively unscathed.
So, a 10-foot rise in California coastal ocean level in 70 years. How is that going to be impacted by the mini-ice-age predicted for the 2030s?
==
IIRC, zero (0) of Al Gores pre-Y2K climate predictions ever came to pass.
could / could not
idiotic / not idiotic
fear mongering / not fear mongering
It would take an astounding amount of water to raise the ocean level by 10 feet world-wide.
And no, it can’t just rise off the coast of California and nowhere else.
The land mass is roughly 25% of the Earth’s surface. The oceans make up 75%.
I’m not sure what amount of dry (for argument’s sake) earth is covered by snow, but my guess would be 10-25%.
10 to 25% of land surface being covered by snow would work out to between 2.5 and 6.25% of the earth’s surface.
I am very skeptical that if all the snow and ice melted on 6.25% of the Earth’s surface, it would raise the water level of the oceans by ten feet. If it raised it by one foot I’d be surprised.
The polar ice cap with all of its polar bears could also move to California in 70 years. There’s fake news and then there’s stupid news. This is stupid, fake news.
If you look at the data the sea level at the deactivated Alameda Naval Air Station is about where it was in 1940
Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL)
ALAMEDA (NAVAL AIR STATION)
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/437.php
LOL ... this always just slays me.
It’s supposedly GLOBAL warming, yet the article talks only about California’s coastline and California’s efforts to cut greenhouse gasses .... as if other areas on the planet who don’t cut greenhouse gasses should have rising oceans and not California.
It’s so illogical that it is hysterical.
More like California’s shores sinking?.
Can’t be. Obama stopped the seas from rising.
No, it would only rise along the California coastline.
Lets all be at the beach in six months when it’s risen a half of a foot then next year when it’s risen a foot. I can see in my head a reporter out there daily measuring the sea level them sadly proclaiming there hasn’t been any movement in sea levels on the California coast.
That would require an almost total melt down of the Antarctic and since it has an annual average temp. of approx. -49 degrees F, that ain't gonna happen. But if it did, that would mean that the planet was so hot that even plant life would likely die......
That’s why they should support nuclear power.
They will claim that the sea level is in fact rising but it seems that continents are also rising.
The ocean level, world-wide, has not changed in millions of years. The LAND, however, has moved up and down in various places.
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.