US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

from the picture it looks like they are causing a lot of emissions. What do they do the other 6 months?

The tamd41's get about 3 gph each and he runs one engine or the other alternating as running both only gains him a half knot speed . We burn about 300 gallons a year with that vessel.
The other 6 months Snow skiing actually. As of right now he is in Tahoe on the fresh powder .
I am here doing the engine maintenance on his diesel engines. Tomorrow

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by Montanan

The Fight Over 'Managed Retreat' From Sea-Level Rise In CA Coastal Towns Makes It to 'This American Life'

https://sfist.com/2022/02/17/the-fig...american-life/


"If you don't live in a low-lying beach town in California or know anyone who does, you'd be forgiven for never having heard the term "managed retreat." But it's a hot topic in places like Pacifica and Stinson Beach, where planning for sea-level rise means some very tough conversations for property owners whose homes might someday soon be underwater."

I recall as a kid quite a few wonderful weekends and beach weeks when family and friends would rent homes on Stinson Beach in Marin County, just north of San Fransico, California. A truly spectacular beach. Seemingly very vulnerable to sea level rise along with the many wetlands along the Marin coastline.

Might, Someday, and Soon. Its the kind of word salad that is based on infrastructure damage IF there was SLR. This sounds like a song, but isn't. Its the California Coastal Commission. I was a member of the Sierra Club in the 80s for back packing reasons (trail maintenance, awareness, and mountain access), but the CCC is against access.

At Pillar Point, the cliffs are crumbling into the water, due to heavy surf pounding it day and night. We used to stay at the Point Montara Light house overnight in the late 80s, and the pounding at the guest house bunk rooms was something. You knew you weren't at the motel 6 along I-5 in Kettleman City.

The Alameda Tide gage data (SF Bay) shows this-

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=9414750

4 inches rise in 100 years, based on the DATA.

So unless California's horizontal plane is warping big time, it can't be OK in this one place and "someday soon be underwater" 30 miles away. And if it is, then its not SLR, but simple wave action.

Read Two Years Before the Mast by Dana (1840s).

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

The Alameda Tide gage data (SF Bay) shows this-

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=9414750

4 inches rise in 100 years, based on the DATA.

Why are you using a tidal station inside San Francisco Bay to represent locales outside of the bay?

Pillar Point is is closer to these two gauges both if which have rates twice as high as Alameda





{edit} posted wrong tidal station.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Why are you using a tidal station inside San Francisco Bay to represent locales outside of the bay?

Pillar Point is is closer to these two gauges both if which have rates twice as high as Alameda





{edit} posted wrong tidal station.

Sorry but no measurable change in first graph in the last 40 years since 1980 to present.


The second graph actually looks stable with two rises and a major drop in the middle . Look at the graphs not just the number at the top.

[jackdale]

Here is a more comprehensive analysis of San Francisco.

The quadratic trend, shown in darker orange, indicates that sea level is not only rising at this tidal station, but that the rate of sea-level rise is accelerating with time. In other words, the rate of sea-level rise is best represented by a quadratic curve rather than a straight line. Comparing the quadratic and linear projections shows an exponential rise in sea level will result in a significantly higher sea level in future years

https://www.vims.edu/research/produc...sfca/index.php

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Here is a more comprehensive analysis of San Francisco.



https://www.vims.edu/research/produc...sfca/index.php

What about the isotastic adjustment in the San Francisco region wrt the cordilleran ice sheet compression as well as the withdrawal of groundwater and oil in the region ? It does matter . Some of which are man caused but none are man caused climate issues.

[jackdale]

For those who are too lazy to check out the VIMS web site. Here are the factors affecting San Francisco sea level rise, all of which are associated with global warming. Isostatic rebound has no effect. Ocean dynamics are suppressing sea level rise.

Shifts in wind patterns, ocean currents, and water masses can affect sea-level height. A shift in wind patterns along the U.S. West coast occurred during the mid-1970s, resulting in a regime shift from cold to warm phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Bromirski et al. (2011) suggest that these winds have been dynamically suppressing sea-level rise along the West Coast since the 1980s. A reversal in this trend would result in acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise.

The “inverted barometer” effect (e.g., Piecuch and Ponte 2015) is the response of ocean height to atmospheric pressure. Sea level rises beneath a low-pressure system, most noticeably during hurricanes and other intense storms. Conversely, sea level falls beneath a high-pressure cell, as seen during periods of clear, calm weather. Consistent winds can produce a similar effect, pushing water levels higher downwind and causing water levels to fall upwind. Although pressure and wind effects act in the short term, they may affect the trends seen in long-term tide-gauge analyses and thus need to be considered in our analysis.

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by jackdale

For those who are too lazy to check out the VIMS web site. Here are the factors affecting San Francisco sea level rise, all of which are associated with global warming. Isostatic rebound has no effect. Ocean dynamics are suppressing sea level rise.

Why are you using a tidal station inside San Francisco Bay to represent locales outside of the bay?

Pillar Point is closer to these two gauges both if which have rates twice as high as Alameda

Being inside the 'Gate' a few miles creates a more stable reference for SLR measurements. The Golden Gate entrance is very close to Alameda. It is 21 miles from the gage at Pillar Point, so not out of the ordinary.

Pillar Point (you have been there, no?), is located along a rocky coastline that gets the full exposure of waves, and this stretch along highway 1 is not as stable as inland (Alameda) is. The gage is at the pier at the end of Johnston Street, at the Harbor Master's Office. There are a couple of interleaving breakwaters, but this whole area has had highway 1 maintenance due to slides and settling from Pacifica to Monterey.

I chose a better location. Thats why they are slightly different.

Here is a good view with the VAFB tracking site at the upper left, just out of the image.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...t=0&ajaxserp=0

[Ryban]

This is a depressing thread. It's 2022 and clearly people are still denying climate change like there's some agenda out there that has convinced the entire scientific community to perpetuate a lie, and to what end?

Sea levels will rise, but it is by far the least consequential impact of climate change, even for the cruising community. As far as this community is concerned, the primary impacts will be economic as well as a decrease in global security due to resource shortages. Perhaps secondarily, less predictable weather patterns than the ones we're used to seeing in various parts of the world.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Ryban

This is a depressing thread. It's 2022 and clearly people are still denying climate change like there's some agenda out there that has convinced the entire scientific community to perpetuate a lie, and to what end?

Sea levels will rise, but it is by far the least consequential impact of climate change, even for the cruising community. As far as this community is concerned, the primary impacts will be economic as well as a decrease in global security due to resource shortages. Perhaps secondarily, less predictable weather patterns than the ones we're used to seeing in various parts of the world.

Amen. Insofar as the crazy denialist nonsense we are seeing here, there are very few of these kinds of people. They only appear to be comparable to the sane by the internet and subsidized by the fossil fuels lobbyists. Plenty of people are Ok with accepting ACC and most just don't care one way or another. They just want a way to live their lives. That can happen with sound policies that take into account the true costs of fossil fuels.
This is an argument they are terribly afraid of - ending the obscenely large subsidies for fossil fuels (or equalizing the subsidies, either would work) would put us on a very good track to mitigating ACC.
Ultimately, market-based solutions without the current grossly distorting government subsidies is what we need. Ironic, is it not, that arguing for market-based solutions and ending government subsidies is contrary to the position of the denialists? It is just one of the innumerable incoherencies of that crew. Don't even try to reason with them, it is hopeless.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Why are you using a tidal station inside San Francisco Bay to represent locales outside of the bay?

Pillar Point is closer to these two gauges both if which have rates twice as high as Alameda

Being inside the 'Gate' a few miles creates a more stable reference for SLR measurements. The Golden Gate entrance is very close to Alameda. It is 21 miles from the gage at Pillar Point, so not out of the ordinary.

Pillar Point (you have been there, no?), is located along a rocky coastline that gets the full exposure of waves, and this stretch along highway 1 is not as stable as inland (Alameda) is. The gage is at the pier at the end of Johnston Street, at the Harbor Master's Office. There are a couple of interleaving breakwaters, but this whole area has had highway 1 maintenance due to slides and settling from Pacifica to Monterey.

I chose a better location. Thats why they are slightly different.

Here is a good view with the VAFB tracking site at the upper left, just out of the image.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?v...t=0&ajaxserp=0

You really did not answer the question. My only conclusion is that you are cherry picking a tidal gauge with one of the lowest rates of increase.

BTW - here is The VIMS analysis of Alameda data

The quadratic trend, shown in darker orange, indicates that sea level is not only rising at this tidal station, but that the rate of sea-level rise is accelerating with time. In other words, the rate of sea-level rise is best represented by a quadratic curve rather than a straight line. Comparing the quadratic and linear projections shows an exponential rise in sea level will result in a significantly higher sea level in future years

https://www.vims.edu/research/produc...alca/index.php

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Amen. Insofar as the crazy denialist nonsense we are seeing here, there are very few of these kinds of people. They only appear to be comparable to the sane by the internet and subsidized by the fossil fuels lobbyists. Plenty of people are Ok with accepting ACC and most just don't care one way or another. They just want a way to live their lives. That can happen with sound policies that take into account the true costs of fossil fuels.
This is an argument they are terribly afraid of - ending the obscenely large subsidies for fossil fuels (or equalizing the subsidies, either would work) would put us on a very good track to mitigating ACC.
Ultimately, market-based solutions without the current grossly distorting government subsidies is what we need. Ironic, is it not, that arguing for market-based solutions and ending government subsidies is contrary to the position of the denialists? It is just one of the innumerable incoherencies of that crew. Don't even try to reason with them, it is hopeless.

I have to sigh every time I read nonsense like this.

Don’t know why but apparently it’s too difficult for some people to differentiate between natural and anthropogenic climate change. No one is denying the former. And no one has yet quantified the latter if in fact it exists at all.

There are ample evidence and data to demonstrate the climate has historically and will continue to change.

What is startling here is that the climate change wackos seem to always conflate the two as though it’s completely human induced. It’s not! Deny that!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Amen. Insofar as the crazy denialist nonsense we are seeing here, there are very few of these kinds of people. They only appear to be comparable to the sane by the internet and subsidized by the fossil fuels lobbyists. Plenty of people are Ok with accepting ACC and most just don't care one way or another. They just want a way to live their lives. That can happen with sound policies that take into account the true costs of fossil fuels.
This is an argument they are terribly afraid of - ending the obscenely large subsidies for fossil fuels (or equalizing the subsidies, either would work) would put us on a very good track to mitigating ACC.
Ultimately, market-based solutions without the current grossly distorting government subsidies is what we need. Ironic, is it not, that arguing for market-based solutions and ending government subsidies is contrary to the position of the denialists? It is just one of the innumerable incoherencies of that crew. Don't even try to reason with them, it is hopeless.

Agreed lets get rid of all government subsidies and let the open market decide . But in the process we need to also get rid of any and all legislation/ regulations that are preferential in any way.

But first you may want to read this article .

https://insidesources.com/us-still-s...rly-7-billion/

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

I have to sigh every time I read nonsense like this.

Don’t know why but apparently it’s too difficult for some people to differentiate between natural and anthropogenic climate change. No one is denying the former. And no one has yet quantified the latter if in fact it exists at all.

There are ample evidence and data to demonstrate the climate has historically and will continue to change.

What is startling here is that the climate change wackos seem to always conflate the two as though it’s completely human induced. It’s not! Deny that!

You sigh - I laugh.
As I said - incoherent.
Half-truths and outright falsehoods to perpetuate denialism.
On and on and on it goes...

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You really did not answer the question. My only conclusion is that you are cherry picking a tidal gauge with one of the lowest rates of increase.

BTW - here is The VIMS analysis of Alameda data



https://www.vims.edu/research/produc...alca/index.php

I did answer it, look at the picture I sent you of Pillar Point Harbor. Read up on the history of Highway One through that area. Common sense to me to pick a tide gage on more stable ground inside the gate.