But there’s been no sea-level risk in SF Bay for 70 years.
Read the scare.
See the data.
Only a maroon would make such a claim for San Francisco. It comprises 43 hills. Sacramento is more vulnerable than San Francisco.
We’ve noted here many times that the predicted — not actual — changes in sea level are smaller than normal tides and smaller than normal variations in tides. They would threaten San Francisco (if they were real) only if normal monthly changes in tide levels would threaten San Francisco.
Such a lovely state; the voters have chosen leaders that have made it beautiful to visit and impossible to live in.
On the other hand, San Fran has needed a good flush for a long time….
At least he didn’t say that if the “sequester” happens, that will hasten global warming and flood SF even faster.
John B; The end-of-the-world will only happen on the 1st of March if Obama doesn’t get his way. If he does get his way, it will happen March 2nd.
A little sea level rise in San Francisco might be good for cleansing the City of crony politicians and environmentalists. It used to be a nice place to live in the 50s and 60s. Not today.
I used to think I would love to live in CA. But that was before everyone went nuts there. Judging byt the governments they keep voting in the citizens of CA have been properly brainwashed. A shame. It could have been nice.
The data for San Francisco itself is available at http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/10.php
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 2,169 other followers