Scientists say that Silicon Valley is going to drown due to sea level rise.
Facebook’s shiny new HQ will disappear thanks to global warming
Had they done even the most minimal research, they would have know that sea level in the San Francisco Bay is currently 8.6 inches lower than it was on the same date 75 years ago.
Sea Level Trends – State Selection
Climate scientists collect huge amounts of grant money to simply make up propaganda for the government.
Originality-free science, too. I saw the same map 15 years ago and I don’t think it was new then. What will they do next, claim that worries about sea level rise are causing stomach ulcers?
Great news! Just wonderful! I wonder why our Green friends (FoE & al) are not happy with this? Are they actually secretly pro-technology and against nature? Hug your nearest tree; it will drown in 35 years.
I wonder if Sir Cook has been taking part in the ‘group of scientists’.
So that’s what Mark Zuckerberg’s up to! I always thought the privacy reasons for buying his Palo Alto neighbors’ houses were bogus. Like he’s gonna tell you. Why wouldn’t Mrs. Zuckerberg just buy curtains at Target like the rest of us?
Demand for islands is high and the inventories are low so he’ll just wait a little until the valley floods. The shrewd SOB’s gonna build an island right on his parcels!
I very seriously doubt that Silicon Valley is in any danger of being swept away. But assuming that climate changes (as it always has done) and the seas rise, humanity will have to adapt (as it always has done) going back to the Ice Age and beyond.
By the eyeball test it looks like Alameda sea level has “dropping” since the mid 80’s
Sea level is the biggest scare they have and in my opinion some of most egregious bullshit is contained in sea level “news” stories, especially on the west coast. It’s as if the reporters and “experts” never looked at the tide gauge records. There’s a John Englander, Author of “High Tide on Main Street” running around scare mongering like there’s no tomorrow.
Granted, I am an engineer, actually an old Naval Architect with a wind waves, physical oceanography experience and understand Archimedes principle. So where does all of the water come from? Take a glass of water full with ice. Make certain that the ice is ABOVE the top of the glass and floating. Dry the glass and table it is on. And let the ice melt. Will the ice melt and spill over the top of the glass? I think not if Archimedes is right. SO all of the free floating ice in the world will not raise the water level AT ALL!
Please does someone out there have an estimate of the amount of ice on land? Also you know ice has more volume than water, so does all these water getting warmer taking more volume concerns start with the initial REDUCTION in volume going from ice to water? Just an old ill-educated engineer, never taught to think like Liberal Arts or Social Science Alarmists not to mention the pseudo-scientists are. Socrates said that NO ONE KNOWS THE TRUTH! but through argument (discussion) you can get closer. Need both sides of the argument for that, that IS CALLED science.
As much of Antarctican land is below current sea level then just converting the 100% melted Antarctic ice into global sea level rise doesn’t work. I don’t know what volume has to be deducted though.
Antarctica ice is not going to melt unless warmed by volcanic action from below.. (ie West Antarctic peninsula)
Its ALWAYS well below zero down there. !
The group of scientists united under the banner OUR COAST , OUR FUTURE is given their unsubstantiated statements about rising sealevels , a kind of a racketeering organisation looking at extorting money from our society through fraudulent scheming .
First they are creating a scare , where there is absolutely not a stitch of valuable scientific evidence to support the scare , on the contrary if you are looking seriously at the data , the facts , reality is almost certainly the other way around . Secondly they will demand more research into this matter by their friends and followers , who are happy to continue the lies and to give them a pseudo scientific marker for a lot money payable by the taxpayer . Thirdly they will claim newly discovered scientific evidence for new climate -disasters projected for the near future and the carrousel will continue roling again and again and again . This is not only pseudo-science of the worst imaginable crookery , but in reality a Ponzi-scheme with our society of mainly goodwilling and innocuous persons , who are going to be stolen from their wealth .
Well if there is one group of people for which the racketeering laws of the US were meant for , it is for these climate-gangsters . I sincerely do hope that the next US president will take a careful look into these practices , so well brought to daylight by the underpraised Tony Heller . From Barack Obama , who has mastered this kind of societal blackmail , we cannot expect a thread of morality .
The whole concept of “climate goals” is a farce because there is absolutely no valid physics linking carbon dioxide with potential surface warming. The whole radiation paradigm is the wrong one altogether, because radiation impinging on a planet’s surface is NOT the primary determinant of the surface temperature. Hence you cannot correctly deduce that radiation from IR-active (GH) gases will raise the surface temperature. It certainly can’t for water vapor, because we KNOW that more moist regions have a lower temperature gradient (aka lapse rate) than dry regions, and thus a lower surface temperature. An empirical study I published confirms this from real world temperature and precipitation data. Consider the following:
A location on the Moon’s surface can cool by over 200 degrees in about two weeks, getting down to around -150°C on the dark side. Now, Antarctica is on the dark side of Earth for over three months in winter, but its temperature remains fairly steady in the vicinity of -50°C to -60°C. But there must be at least some loss of energy via radiation through the atmospheric window to Space. So what replenishes that energy? Clearly the difference between the Moon and the Earth has something to do with the atmosphere. Hence the energy must come from the atmosphere, but wherever the atmosphere is colder than the Antarctic surface, there can be no heat transfer by radiation. There can however be a process which increases entropy in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics* and you can read about that process at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com because that is where this mystery energy does in fact come from. When you understand this process and note the overwhelming evidence supporting its existence then, and only then, will you have a correct understanding as to why the radiative greenhouse is nothing but fiction.
* Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases.
If you look up the top left of the map, you’ll find yourself, Tom Nelson, Mark Morano & James Delingpole, with many connections.
My mention is close to insignificant. :)
Bernie Sanders number of connections is disturbing.
The fact than ANYONE would even bother about mapping climate change comments on twitter says OH, SO MUCH about the climate change agenda. :-)
If you want to control it, you must first find it and map it. It’s speech they are after.
Yep, welcome to Galileo’s world. I know Oceanography Professors censored for explaining the difference in water level rise between the effect of free floating ice versus ice on land melting. Obama and Lynch want to prosecute “deniers”, something that upturns freedom, science and democracy back to the Magna Carter, Galileo, Kepler and Socrates. We are in a war with intellectual Fascists.
Another Socrates Quote: “I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.”
If an earthquake causes the earth level to subside in the Valley and it floods from the Bay, the warmers will blame global warming, though. Send funding now, either way that’s the goal.
Ref. Doug Cotton’s comment – you may find of interest the review and comments relating to his booklet “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” and the blog articles on which it is based ( see https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3L4RWMLCPUD1O/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1478729228