2 Western Cities Join Suit to Fight Global Warming
Published: December 24, 2002Mayor Jerry Brown of Oakland, who is a former governor of California and a former presidential candidate, said in an interview today that the suit was necessary because “there’s been such an abject failure on the part of the Bush administration to protect the people of this country from the seriously deleterious effects of climate disruption.”
The Oakland city council, which voted on Dec. 17 to join the suit, contends that global warming could cause the sea levels to rise, putting the city’s groundwater aquifers at risk of saltwater contamination and threatening to flood the airport and sewer systems.
2 Western Cities Join Suit to Fight Global Warming – NYTimes.com
The tide gauge at Oakland reports no sea level rise since George W Bush was born in 1946. Facts and progressives are mutually exclusive.
Data and Station Information for ALAMEDA (NAVAL AIR STATION)
Well, of course there will be stations showing no SLR. All that water for the two aquatic mountains in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans has to come from somewhere!
Alameda is an island, not Oakland. Plenty of rise in San Francisco
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/10.png
or Pt. Reyes:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1394.php
Like I said Bob, the water for the mountains has to come from somewhere! If there are aquatic mountains now, then there must also be aquatic valleys. Alameda is clearly in an aquatic valley. Shall we have a celebration, since we’re both so brilliant??
You can’t possibly be that stupid.
The Golden Gate Bridge tide gauge is on fill dirt, and is sinking. Water seeks a level surface. Sea level can’t vary in different parts of the Bay.
The stupidity of progressives seems to be infinite.
No, Tony, the most “likely” explanation is that Oakland is the beneficiary of a couple of highly advanced, “progressive” politicians who have mastered the art of moving seawater around with their mind, and are using it to reward their friends and “punish [their] enemies”.
Is Pt. Reyes sinking too? Best to look at the overall sea level rise instead of picking your favorite station:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2014_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
from
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
“… shows that the block between the San Andreas and San Gregorio fault zone is subsiding at a long-term rate of about 0.2–0.3 mm/yr, with the maximum subsidence occurring northwest of the Golden Gate in the area of a mapped transtensional basin.”
https://profile.usgs.gov/myscience/upload_folder/ci2010May2517435742680Ryan_SAF_step.pdf
P.R. Is clearly part of this region, of you know how to read a map.
Hey, now that’s one nice computer generated fantasy there! Rel4 I see, very nice!
CU rocks (and it’s legal now!) in that area of expertise, leading the country onto new visions of utopia and grand catastrophes. (psst.. pass the joint on down the line bob)
Just kidding and being more serious bob, it does seem Point Reyes is subsiding:
“San Francisco Bay, marshes largely developed from organic- or peat-rich clay materials that rapidly
compacted once levees were constructed between the 1860s and 1960s. The base elevation of diked marshes
in San Francisco Bay is often 7- to 12- feet below that of undiked areas, and subsidence is even greater in the
Sacramento Delta, often ranging between 15- to 20-feet.”
Maybe read more, I’m just not that familiar with the topography of Pt. Reyes but it is thoroughly described within. That is definitely an entire area in vertical flux, without a doubt.
http://www.nps.gov/pore/parkmgmt/upload/planning_giacomini_wrp_eiseir_final_2007_ch3_text_sec2.pdf
gator, so “…subsiding at a long-term rate of about 0.2–0.3 mm/yr,,” but the gauge shows about 2 mm/yr. Anyway, the graph above tells the story.
Pt Reyes:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1394.php
another source
11.Total Steric Sea Level Anomaly (0-2000 meters) layer
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
That graph is completely fraudulent
Hey Bob! You were just educated on local subsidence and fraudulent data torture. That graph tells a tale alright! 😆
That it’s allegedly rising proves absolutely nothing as to the cause of such rising, which is the whole ballgame, correct?
Land subsidence in the Santa Clara Valley, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, California
1971, Poland, Joseph Fairfield
USGS Open-File Report: 71-340
Some grownup reading for little Bobby.
… measured from land (fill and otherwise) that routinely has vertical displacements from temblors that completely cover the Y axis range of your chart by 200 percent or more. Filled areas routinely settle more during tectonic events. Please tell me you are not ignorant enough to trust a shore mounted sea level gauge ANYWHERE in CA.
There are 32 tide gauges on the West coast and 24 of them have records back to at least 1985 and since then 21 of them have shown negative sea level rise, including San Francisco which is negative since 1981.
Sta# Station Negative Sea Level Rise
1633 Cherry Pt Since 1986
384 Ocean Labs Since 1992
385 Neah Bay Always Since 1935
2127 Port Angeles Since 1976
1325 Port Townsend Since 1991
127 Seattle Since 1992
1354 Toke Pt Since 1979
265 Astoria Always Since 1925
1196 South Beach Since 1982
1269 Charleston II Since 1981
1640 Port Orford Since 1990
378 Crescent City Always Since 1933
1639 Humboldt Never Negative since 1985
2125 Arena Cove Always Since 1972
1394 Pt Reyes Since 1993
10 San Francisco Since 1981
437 Alameda Since 1977
1352 Monterey Since 1980
508 Port San Luis Since 1978
2126 Santa Barbara Since 1977
377 Santa Monica Since 1992
245 Los Angeles Since 1991
256 La Jolla Never Negative since 1925
158 San Diego Never Negative since 1906
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
Pretend for a second that you believe co2 causes global warming and contributes to sea level rise…. Ground water extraction in California contributes more to sea level rise than all the coal fired power plant combined:
“A team of researchers reports in Nature Geoscience that land-based water storage could account for 0.77 millimetres per year, or 42%, of the observed sea-level rise between 1961 and 2003. Of that amount, the extraction of groundwater for irrigation and home and industrial use, with subsequent run-off to rivers and eventually to the oceans, represents the bulk of the contribution…”
http://www.nature.com/news/source-found-for-missing-water-in-sea-level-rise-1.10676