Which part of the US will succumb, to SEA LEVEL RISE, first?

Okay so this op was written 11 long years ago.

I haven't read it all because I don't have time nor interest, but I do live in Florida am I supposed to start worrying now or later? Is this one of those things I'm supposed to worry about in my spare time? You know like you can't sleep at night and you're worrying about white supremacy and other things you're supposed to stay in a perpetual state of anxiety over?

Has Miami been swallowed up by the Sea yet?

 

Other Floridians talk of problems and what it will cost to mitigate them.




https://databasin.org/datasets/dd54d301894f4322a7a30832572c4a7e/

Hope you don’t live in the blue bits

This one is fun! You can flood the USA

https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/...atellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion

 

Your map is from 2015 the blue bits are still here dear

 

That's right, because I have stated many times that it is. You just make $#!+ up and falsely attribute it to me, then crow that I am not supporting the absurd views you made up. It's always the same.

I read enough to quote the relevant fallacy from it.

 

Unfounded criticism is a way to avoid discussing the data.

 

Figure it out yourself. The sea level rate of rise has been ~ 3mm per year (~ 300mm per century which is ~ 1 foot per century) for the last century or so. That rate is not increasing. And that rate is very easily adapted to. Global warming is net beneficial.

 

Didn’t say they weren’t…….dear

And you did did not read the link did you? You know the one I supplied that talks about ground water contamination porous rock underpinning in Florida and how even a modest rise will have far reaching effects

 

And you did not do the think, did you?

Groundwater contamination in FL has been caused by extraction of fresh water from groundwater reserves, leading to intrusion by sea water precisely because the geology in FL is so porous. Nothing to do with rising sea level. Which in turn has nothing to do with CO2.

Do the think. Seriously. It's time.

 

Actually, just reading the simple blurb it posted both agrees with the image you posted, and what is known of plate tectonics. So why dismiss it?

Sea level change in that area (as in many others) has nothing to do with the oceans at all, but the rise of the plates. Something most "climate scientists" know nothing about.

When I see some pointing at Venice or New Orleans and show it is proof of "sea level rise", I just want to smack my head. Shows how little of science they really know.

 

Not unlike what is killing a lot of trees in California.

Something "scientists" and politicians do not want people to know out there is that there is no drought. Rainfall has barely changed in thousands of years. Generally on a 7 year cycle with alternating el niño and la niña events.

But what has happened is an explosion of population, and they have drained the aquifers. Over 170 years ago when it was first populated by farmers, the water tables were so high that digging a dozen yards would produce a well. The ground was saturated in water, and that is what the trees tapped into. But since then the water table has been pumped down to over 1,000 feet. And more and more of the rivers are being pumped of all their water to supply the megacities, so it can not replenish itself as it should.

It is not global warming, it is nothing other than simply too many people trying to live in an area not designed to support that many. When I was born, California had a population of just over 15 million. Now, it is almost 40 million. There is not a drought, there are just too damned many people living there for the environment to support.

 

It is (heavily subsidized) agricultural use of water rather than residential or industrial use that takes so much of CA's fresh water.

 

The largest population of any state has to figure in there somewhere.

 

My late mother lived in Prescott, AZ, a beautiful area. Mrs. Hays and I gave serious thought to retiring there ourselves, but were dissuaded by the explosive population growth and the strain on water supply.

 

No links?

 

Lols I love the word scientists in quotation marks from someone who has not backed statements and theories with citations

 

Plus yhe fact that California hasn’t built a reservoir in over 40 years. California has ~ 40 million residents but infrastructure for only ~ 20 million.

 

You are aware that California produces more food than any other state, right? In fact, the annual production (over $50 billion) is almost twice that of the number two producer (Iowa at $27 billion).

So what, you want to end that and grow less good? Welcome to runaway inflation and possibly even starvation.

Still does not alleviate the fact that the population is using far more water than it used to. In fact, that is what has driven water use down in the agricultural industry. And it is not helping, as the people are still demanding more and more.

 

I am talking about those that are speaking outside their area of expertise. It may be great if somebody has a degree in biomechanics or engineering. But just because they are a "scientist" does not make them any more of an expert than anybody else when discussing things outside their area of education.

I think that is the difference. I see the difference between an expert in their field, and somebody blowing smoke up my posterior just because they have a degree.

 

Oh, and citation.

https://webcache.googleusercontent....ars-scientists-say/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

And the reason for that is how far they have pumped down the aquifer in the last century and a half. The Central Valley had agriculture for a century before all of the modern aqueducts were built. And they simply pumped the water out of the ground, the same way most of the cities used to do it. But they pumped it so low that it is no longer reachable economically.

And then there is geology. How many are even aware that the Colorado River once ran through California? And I am not even talking pre-history here, as recently as around 1580. Six times larger than the Salton Sea, it made most of the region a lush environment. Then there is Tulare Lake, in the southern end of the Central Valley. Once the largest lake in the US contained within a single state, it died due to excessive water use and the pumping of groundwater in the surrounding area. Massive floods for 19 of 20 years from 1850-1878 caused the state to divert all water going into it to stop the threat, and killed the lake.

I find it interesting that I know the story of both of those lakes off the top if my head, but I bet many have never heard of either of them.

 

I am just over and completely disgusted with the demonisation of science - if you want an example then look no further than these threads where people like Christopher Monckton is held up to be the last word on a subject when they are posting made up graphs in non peer reviewed blogs that are unreferenced

 

Oh, it gets worse than that.

In 2015 the San Clemente Dam which provided water to Monterey was demolished.

There is an active movement to remove many more dams. Including 4 on the California-Oregon border, and also O'Shaughnessy Dam, which provides water to over 2 million people in the Bay Area.

IN the midst of a "drought" and blackouts, they are actually destroying dams.

 

"Demonization of science".

Translation: I do not like what you say nor do I like your references of people who are talking in areas they are knowledgeable. Therefore I am going to make rude noises at you!"

BTW, I love science. In fact, I have been into geology for well over 45 years. And when looking at "historical climate", that is actually what I look to. Not some "meteorologist" or "Environment scientist", but to a geologist that can actually tell us what the environment was like in the past. You know, real hard science, and not something made up for grant money.

 

Thank -you

Yes it is a complex issue including the effects of the Pacific Ocean ENSO which actually affects both the East coast of Australia and the West Coast of USA

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ninonina.html

 

Why? I mean I know some dams probably need to be destroyed and rebuilt as many date back to times when no thought was given to silting up but it seems the problem is a lot more complex

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201110-the-largest-dam-removal-project-in-american-history

what is probably needed is a radical rethink of how we manage water storage

 

I did very specifically talk about El Niño and La Niña. Which is generally a seven year cycle and mostly predictable. But we know it dates back to at least 12kya. Yet about half way through a cycle, the media and politicians in California start screaming about the "biggest drought ever", and that "emergency actions must be taken". Literally like it is the first time, and it has never happened before. Then when the flooed come they once again scream "global warming", and that there had "never been flooding like that before".

Never mind it has been going on since the Clovis People were the dominant humans on North America, and before any civilizations even formed. I myself have gone through and remember a great many ENSO cycles, and honestly laugh each time. Hell, I remember I could not even get to school for 2 days in 2983 because of the severe flooding in LA literally made two roads I crossed into ankle-knee high rivers. And the same storm wiped out most of the piers along the coast.

And move forward 5 years, and it was "record drought". Until when a couple of years late the 1993 cycle once again devastated the state with massive flooding (7 years is average - it may run from 5-12 years though). Drought-flood, drought-flood, and each time acting as if it had never happened before. Or was never as bad as the current cycle.