More totally non-scientific drivel and using that drivel in a political fear mongering attempt.
How bad is the drivel, scientitically? Way bad.
The first bad is the last, in which subsidence is erroneously connected to any presumed sea level rise. It isn’t. Geogrophy, geology, land use, natural water effects, and the use and abuse of major waterways, such as the Missiippi River and the watershed of the coastal area of Gulf are all factors in subsidence.
As to the sea level rise predictions, which do not match empirical evidence, now or earlier, the scientific drivel and fear mongering deludes the sheeple into thinking CO2 regulations now will change that (if it were true).
Yet the science of the CO2 alamists has an “inconvenient truth” in it, that, due to the presumed atmospheeric life of CO2 released to the atmosphere, the most stringent CO2 controls enacted right away will have zero impact on the build-up in CO2 in the atmosphere for possiblly another 100 to 200 years, and then only if CO2 exhuasted by global human society is reduced to nil by then. In other words, if the science of the alarmists is correct, massive CO output reductions enacted soon will have no impact for generations, if then.
So, if the sheeple in Louisiana believe the alaramists, then they can forget about helping the situation in their, their children, their grandchildren or great grandchildren’s lives - they are already doomed if they stay.
If they believe “the sky is falling”, then leaving now would be better than voting for politicians seeking to vote for more regulations.
Not to mention that Kavanaugh can at most only influence the carbon emissions of the United States, which rapidly shrinking from an already small percentage of the worldwide total.
I am speculating that much of the rise in sea levels is due to sediment flowing into the ocean from rivers and streams. Any truth to this hypothesis?
I am thinking my sediment hypothesis has some validity. Here is a description of the Mississippi Delta situation that is relevant to the to Louisiana:
“The 300 kilometer-wide Mississippi River delta plain and its associated wetlands and barrier shorelines are the product of the continuous accumulation of sediments deposited by the river and its distributaries during the past 7,000 years. Regular shifts in the river’s course have resulted in four ancestral and two active delta lobes, which accumulated as overlapping, stacked sequences of unconsolidated sands and muds. As each delta lobe was abandoned by the river, its main source of sediment, the deltas experienced erosion and degradation due to compaction of loose sediment, Marine coastal processes eroded and reworked the seaward margins of the deltas forming sandy headlands and barrier beaches. As erosion and degradation continued, segmented low-relief barrier islands formed and eventually were separated from the mainland by shallow bays and lagoons.” — Louisiana Coastal Wetlands: A Resource At Risk