Being a progressive means just making stuff up, in order to scare other equally stupid people.
Sea level in the San Francisco Bay is lower now than 70 years ago.
Data and Station Information for ALAMEDA (NAVAL AIR STATION)
Satellites show sea level falling along the California coast since the start of records in 1992
There is absolutely no basis for the San Francisco Examiner claim. Progressives live in a fantasy world of endless lies.
h/t to Andy Oz
Wait! Don’t forget that San Francisco’s City Hall is at an altitude of sixty feet above sea level. How far below the bay’s surface will a “three foot rise in sea level” put City Hall? How many hundred feet? I keep forgetting what the latest and greatest drunken rants claim.
I notice this SF gauge shows a rising sea level, just several miles West of the Alameda Island gauge Steve linked:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/10.php
I would love to hear your opinion on this one: http://www.arupconnect.com/2014/08/11/on-resilient-infrastructure/
Saw your letter over at the Examiner (-:
And I saw your comment also. Excellent! Interesting that every comment seemed to take the skeptical side of rejecting the SF Examiner conclusion. Except for one comment, which I think was sarcastic (without the /sarc), from Jack Wolf:
Right. Previous predictions from the Chicken Littles:
“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” -Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
“If present trends continue the world will be.. eleven degrees colder by the year 2000.” “[Inaction will cause]… by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” -Mustafa Tolba, 1982, former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program
-Kenneth Watt, Earth Day 1970
“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989
I see that I somehow jumbled those quotes a bit. If I make this one quote clear, the others should also be clear:
“If present trends continue the world will be.. eleven degrees colder by the year 2000.” -Kenneth Watt, Earth Day 1970
Additionally, saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers is compromising fresh water sources, and being accelerated by sea-level rise. Coastal erosion is another resulting problem, breaking down natural barriers between the sea and coastal communities, the report says.
Pumping the aquifiier ‘dry’ has nothing to do with salt water intrusion?
And if it wasn’t for the fact that some of the most expensive property in the country is along the CA coast, which has always been prone to crumbling into the ocean, because of its geological composition, nobody would give a damn.
The saltwater intrusion into the bay is a natural part of a cycle that has been dated back to prehistoric times. During drought times the salt water invades the marshes. This can be seen by changes in marsh plants and animals. During these periods the Indians migrated to the shoreline and made big piles of clam shells. When the situation reversed the plants and animals changed, the forests grew and greened up, and they moved away to hunt game inland. The recent mild climate in California is not the historic norm. There have been wild, deep, and long swings in drought and wet periods not seen in the modern record. This includes century long droughts.
I’m not saying that man hasn’t contributed to the problem, but don’t draw hasty conclusions that don’t take into account the climate record, also.
That is, The Bay, ie, San Francisco Bay.
They get 3 feet of sea level rise twice a day
But that is weather. 😉
A collectivists wet dream.
“California should prepare”
‘California is “woefully unprepared”’
“San Mateo County “ground zero” for sea level rise on the West Coast because so many of its assets are located at sea level.”
Is this San Mateo’s assets, or the people of San Mateo County’s assets? Does the County think it owns the people’s property?
“As a response measure, the report calls for coordinated planning across jurisdictional boundaries, claiming important decisions will need to be made about where to “armor” the coast, in areas where possible, and when retreat from the coastal zone should be encouraged.”
Translation: “You must give us control over your lives and property!”
“Among policy recommendations, the report suggests educating the public in order to achieve community “buy-in” towards making the issue an immediate priority.”
Translation: “Vee must scare die volks into accepting our program!”
If the good people believe everything that appears in The Examiner without question then they deserve everything they get.
The Examiner’s rate of sea-level rise is more than 9mm/year!
Unfortunately, I’ll also get what they deserve.
That is, as you say, unfortunate for you. You have my condolences.
Reblogged this on makeaneffort and commented:
Indeed.
“There is absolutely no basis for the San Francisco Examiner claim. Progressives live in a fantasy world of endless lies.”
Then I would have to say that extreme conservatives live in a world of deception and endless manipulation.
Point One: On the chart you have red-inked the highest reading from the past and a low reading from now. This gives a false impression. The spike in the 1940’s is lower than the spikes in the 1980s and ’90s. So the sea level is lower at this moment than the highest reading from a moment in the 1940s. Take the trend line of lowest levels. They have been rising. The chart shows that from around 1980s and on the readings of sea level have, on average, risen.
Point Two:
The map shows that the trend along the California coast since 1992 has dipped ever so slightly from that date to now….maybe less than a mm to 3mm. While the map is mostly yellow with peaks as high as 15mm. The map shows that the sea levels have been rising since 1992.
So given a century there will be significant sea level rise. The scientists are correct.
Very good, Fish! Your points “One and Two” represent what is known as “cherry picking”. Which, of course, is just a method to misrepresent the complete picture. You demonstrated exactly the point of this post: “Progressives live in a fantasy world of endless lies.”
Point One: No, shit, Sherlck, anyone with half a working brain cell can see it is a direct 1944/2014 comparison. A direct comparison of 1944 and 2014 would have been met wiith “show the other data”. Well, showing the other years isn’t good enough for our resident liiberal/Progressive nitpicker, either. I bet our host can provide a table, list or whatever other form of data you’ll deem acceptible, if he gave a damn about whatever mushy thinking you call your thought processes.
pesc,
I hope you aren’t as dense in real life as you pretend to be.
Maybe you should look a little closer at that map. The colors show a 3 mm drop along the California coast, Baja maybe a 3 mm rise. One would normally attribute the conflicting changes to land rise.
I loved this quote: Thomas Pynchon: “if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”
So, keep the laser focus on the issues and ignore the “wrong questions”.
Point three-even if the “scientists” are correct (you sure you mean all scientists?), that proves absolutely nothing as to the cause of the (non) rise. Point four-you’d have to prove that this rise was somehow different than the other rises that have been occurring over the last 4 billion years. Point five- you can’t.
It could be from all the melting ice or is it the water deposit in the form of snow is now headed back toward the global mean 😉
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/89799.html
70 years ago it was 1944, when the sea level was 6998mm (lower than it is now) according to the data you link to, so your opening claim is false.
Did the sea fall or did the land rise?
Yes. The surface of this planet is a dynamic place.
For “Steady State” bodies one needs to look at small, cold, dead asteroids… until they run into something and become dynamic again.
Hope this is all saved as it will be needed as De Facto evidence in the Climate Trials coming soon LOL. BTW Maybe Steyn v Mann will open Pandoras box.
From ‘Sea Level Is Not Rising’ by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner (2010)
Satellite altimetry (1992-2009)=3mm max
Global Loading model (Peltier) =~2.4mm/yr
Global Loading model (Lambeck) =~1.9mm/yr
Selected tide-gauges (ref N-A Mörner) =~1.6mm/yr
Original IPCC estimated(1910-1990)=~0.9mm/yr
Maximum average range of estimated sea-level rise is 2-3mm/year
Minimum average range of estimated sea-level rise is 0-1mm/year
To rise 3 feet or 914.400mm
At 2 mm/year = 457 years
at 3 mm/year = 304.666′ years
To rise ‘The Examiner’ in a century would require 9.14mm per year, or more than 3 times current estimates, which as all sane scientist know is just not going to happen.
Just curious – what’s up with that bulge in the W Pacific?
Careful calculation shows that 3 feet is equal to 914.4 mm.
Also, “this century” has either 85.5 or 86.5 years to go. [When will the new century begin: 2100 or 2101?) So let’s call it 86.
The sea level rise will have to equal 10.6 mm (0.417 inches) each year to get to that 3 feet of rise.
The page used as the source of the map has estimates on the left side of GMSL rates from five sources:
CU: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr
AVISO: 3.3 ± 0.6 mm/yr
CSIRO: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr
NASA GSFC: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr
NOAA: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr (w/ GIA)
There is nothing near or above 10.6 mm and for each year that number is not reached the remaining years will have to have a still higher rate. Consider me doubtful.
Looked at another way: in just 27 years sea level will need to rise 1 foot if that 3 ft. target is to be. Those still here should notice that. Get the popcorn ready and watch this not happen.
The 3.2 mm number is a complete fraud. It is less than half that.
3.2 +- 3.2
mostly minus
I used their estimates so I could not be criticized for making up my own or using a less reputable source. I’ve coined the phrase “The easy ice has already melted.” This is my way of quickly saying that the low latitude and low elevation ice from the last glacial advance is long gone – think the Puget Lobe of the Fraser Glaciation. Another “easy ice” aspect is that rain on ice is a rapid melting process and high latitudes and/or high elevations are less likely to have warm rain than Iowa or Puget Sound. Sea level rise is more likely to slow down than to speed up.
Seems tom0mason and I had the same idea. I was working on my version and did not see that one. We do arrive at the same conclusion.
But you correctly saw that it is 86 years till the end of the century so your rate of rise from The Examiner’s quote is correct at the rediculous 10.6mm per year.
I find that spike and subsequent fall by 200 (mm?) in the early 1980’s to be interesting. Does that suggest that the same thing happened to sea level the world over? Hmmm.
So, according to CU, in the near future we will have to sail uphill to get to the Philippines. And then surf back!
You do realize that if the population of the Bay area sees your comment a not insignificant number of them may actually travel to the Philippines on one way tickets (having shipped their boards via FedEx) assuming that they CAN surf back.
The picture in the article shows a flooded neighborhood, implying that the flooding came from the rising San Francisco Bay. But in between that neighborhood and the Bay is a little thing called the San Francisco International Airport, which to my knowledge has not been flooded recently…
Pish-posh…little things like geography, facts and reality don’t matter to a good crisis.
Sea level in the San Francisco Bay is lower now than 70 years ago.
And the century of unrestrained runaway hockey stick style warming we should have had 10 to 20 meters of sea level rise like the Chicken Little Brigade keeps saying will happen.. someday. But we got… nothing. Zero. Oh yeah, less than zero. Something doesn’t add up.
Yeah…the amount spent on funding the research wasn’t enough…we need to spend more so we can find a better way to fit the data to the ‘theory’.
Progressives don’t think. Their master tells them what to do
They really do not think. More exactly, they are very poor at “rational, logical, linear, Western European, patriarchal, thinking” — a process that was formerly referred to simply as “thinking.” We humans have two eyes, and two lungs, and two kidneys, and (at least metaphorically and maybe even more than that) two brains — or at least two very different ways of thinking. We have a way of thinking emotionally, and we have a way of thinking intellectually, logically. The emotional center is very fast at processing information and works well with events and things that we have as common daily factors. The intellectual center is especially good at symbolic manipulation and is essential when we are interacting with things that we have little previous experience with. Progressives are bad at logical thought because they have grown up sheltered in a hothouse. They have been protected so long that their ability to reason out foreseeable consequences of unexpected factors has atrophied.
On the other hand, their emotional centers are extremely sensitive, hypertrophied, in fact. They will literally choose courses of action that lead to their own death rather than go outside their emotional programming. They are very much blind to what should be a fundamental ability, and that is how they have been domesticated and controlled.