From a comment on the article -
“Instead of sea rise, Paul Rogers and Mecury News should reference an earlier article of theirs, the one that notes land subsidence at airports for San Francisco and Oakland.
The article states 7 feet of loss due to subsidence. The number dwarfs sea rise at 8 inches by a factor of 10.
See: Ideas showcased to prevent SF Bay flooding from global warming
at https://www.mercurynews.com...
That 2009 article states:
“According to a study last year by the U.S. Geological Survey, based on current warming trends, it will rise 16 more inches by 2050, and as much as 55 inches by 2100, as ice caps around the world continue to melt.”
This 2019 article states:
“According to tide gauges, San Francisco Bay has risen 8 inches since 1900. Scientists project it will rise another 1 foot by 2050 and another 3 feet or more by 2100. Heavy winter storms, especially during high tides, already cause flooding in some parts of the Bay Area. Waves have over-topped the berms and existing sea walls on occasion at SFO, causing minor flooding issues.”
If we wait enough decades, the predictions will get the rise down to nothing.
Meanwhile, the popular narrative has been used to justify massive borrowing for a public facility. When the city fails, maybe they can get the U.S. Government to bail them out.“
It would seem to me that if their numbers are what they claim for sea-level rise, the airport will no longer be usable by 2050. They need to move the airport inland....maybe forty miles, to higher elevation. This should be top priority of the local government.
Same thing for JFK Airport, and Miami’s Airport.
Oh, yes, those ice-caps all around the world. The ones in the mid- Pacific, the ones in Africa, the ones near India.
Thank you for posting... It is NOT about the “climate change” melting of the ice caps showing up at SFO airport perimeter, and no where else in the world to the same extent.
Water being non compressible generally would have to rise everywhere in the world as it finds its “level”.
The airport LAND is sinking— now why would that be? Possibly because it was dredged in the first place, and, just as in the many earthquakes— dredged land when jiggled— liquifies (just like we beach sand when jiggled).
Excellent post— and it should be all over the news that they are using a FALSE narrative to justify huge sums of money for ANOTHER causality purpose— instead of just calling it what it is! Subsidence.