Anthony Watts reported yesterday that Jerry Brown is worried about LAX drowning, as it is only 125 feet above sea level. But what about SFO, which is only 10 feet or so above the Bay? At current rates of sea level rise, SFO will be underwater in only infinity years.
Data and Station Information for ALAMEDA (NAVAL AIR STATION)
That’s horrible. Just think of all the infrastructure that will be built and then damaged by sea level rise in that length of time!
You have inadvertently posted the detrended data. There are other plots available with the trend displayed (0.82 mm/year).
Alameda is on the East side of the bay. For the West side, where SFO is, try this graph showing 2 mm per year, not a problem yet:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290%20San%20Francisco,%20CA
It is mind boggling that anyone could actually believe that sea level is rising at a different rates on opposite sides of the bay.
Oh, please! It isn’t the sea level, but the land movement. Alameda is a little island. Pick a few more places than just Alameda.
Here’s one Steve did for Fort Point:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/screenhunter_26-jun-23-07-34.jpg
Oh, man, I wonder what the viscosity of this “water” stuff is. Probably something like 500000000000 Saybolt seconds.
Get the pontoon planes out of the hanger, said the SFO air traffic controllers
This is simple. Build the new SFO in Fresno, at the north end of the high speed rail. That way, all the international passengers going to Bakersfield can easily get from the airport to the train. The train to no where.
“But it gets there fast!”
It’s 4:20… Do you know where Michael Mann is??