Sea level rise could cost area billions, countywide study finds

Doesn't matter if climate change is caused by human pollution or by natural forces. We need to study and prepare for it one way or another.

Kate Bradshaw tells us:

<i>By 2100, the sea water that surrounds the San Francisco Peninsula is expected to rise anywhere from 17 to 66 inches,</i>

Data from the San Francisco Tide Gauge
Web Link
suggests a projection of about five inches by 2100.

Steve Case - Milwaukee, WI

From Fire Board 2017 President's Report:
President’s Report:
"Sea Level Rise Planning and Preparedness
Over the next few decades a large portion of the Eastern side of the Fire District (Menlo Park and
East Palo Alto) will be below sea level and an even larger portion will be subjected to significant
seasonal flooding. There has been no planning for this hazard and significant efforts need to be
made now to mitigate those flood hazards, to provide for a real time warning system that does
not rely on cell phones or the internet and to provide well thought out neighborhood evacuation
plans for all of the potentially impacted areas AND for the adjacent areas which will, of
necessity, serve as evacuation sites (whether planned for or not).
Reference: The Water Will Come: Rising Seas, Sinking Cities, and the Remaking of the Civilized World
by Jeff Goodell
In addressing these challenges, I note with concern that there is a huge disconnect between the
Fire District’s responsibility to respond to these disasters and the County, Cities and Town’s
legal responsibilities for transportation design, approval of new commercial and residential
developments, disaster planning (including warning systems and evacuation plans) and post
disaster rebuilding.”
********

I note that this study does NOT included fire agencies as one of its stakeholders and explicitly states:
""Fire stations were not evaluated in detail for this analysis”.

Where did all the deniers go?

Now: they can hopefully be honest about their mistakes and lies, at least to themselves if not their children and grandchildren.

Great job believing the Exxon and fox lies.

@denier...

You expect mea culpas from fringe deniers? Do not hold your breath.

Jump to page 26 of this doc to see the probability of sea level rise in 2030, 250, 2100 and 2150, with the estimate of how many feet it will rise.

Web Link

To summarize the "likely" scenario, scientists except the SF bay sea to rise .6-1.1 feet by 2050, and between 1-3.4 feet by 2100, depending on how much greenhouse gas is in the atmosphere and other factors.

There is a 1 in 200 probability of sea levels rising 7-10 feet locally by 2100.

And people think we have a housing crisis now? Just wait.

Nobody will be able to afford to live here by then, anyway. So no harm done.

@ Steve Case,
Your simplistic linear extrapolation is not a viable prediction strategy given the heating models. But Milwaukee / Lake Michigan is way above sea level so you can afford not to care..

Our government planners are basing their policy on model output, ignoring the fact that the models do not agree with observations. Sea level has been increasing at a constant rate of about 7-8 inches per century at San Francisco for over 100 years, see Web Link

Meanwhile, models have been predicting large increases in the rate of sea level rise for at least the past 10 years. Observations show that rate remains steady. That means either the 100 years plus of observations are wrong, or the models are wrong. How long do we base policy on models we know to be wrong?

As a meteorologist and oceanographer, I would not trust models that can not follow historical observations, and continue to do so for decades?.

Can we reasonably plan for 8 inches of sea level rise over the next century? Of course, but government and reasonable is an oxymoron. After all, it is our money they are spending, not theirs.

This report is one of a long line of alarming scientific findings that have been published by reputable organization going on decades. Sea level rise—and its impacts on our built communities—will cost us a lot. Even before then, we will see plenty of other impacts from ocean acidification, saltwater intrusion into our water system, and rising costs from extreme weather events, like wildfires, such as we had last year. Not only must we look ahead and do better planning to mitigate these locked-in impacts, we need to get much more clear-headed about reducing carbon emissions to prevent worst-case scenarios. In my mind that means demanding utilities deploy all carbon-free energy sources at their disposal and drive to zero emissions. The decision to close California's largest source of carbon-free energy, Diablo Canyon, moves us decisively in the wrong direction and for all the wrong reasons.

California is no longer a climate leader: New York State is. (Syracuse.com, Governor Cuomo says Fitzpatrick nuclear plant saved: Whole state should be smiling, Sarah Moses, August 9, 2016 at Web Link

Have we looked at the Netherlands and what they've accomplished? I also visited Venice last summer - everything looks normal.

@Dutch, pretty good article on Venice's plan to combat sea rise. They are planning for a 2ft increase by 2050.

Web Link