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.
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.
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.
At least he didn’t say that if the “sequester” happens, that will hasten global warming and flood SF even faster.
On the other hand, San Fran has needed a good flush for a long time….
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.
Only a maroon would make such a claim for San Francisco. It comprises 43 hills. Sacramento is more vulnerable than San Francisco.
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
The data for San Francisco itself is available at http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/10.php
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.
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.
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.
At least he didn’t say that if the “sequester” happens, that will hasten global warming and flood SF even faster.
On the other hand, San Fran has needed a good flush for a long time….
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.
Only a maroon would make such a claim for San Francisco. It comprises 43 hills. Sacramento is more vulnerable than San Francisco.