71–80 of 91 posts
In the free market of ideas, no one actually believes this will happen. Just look at coastal real estate. Buyers and lenders would have to be colossal fools to pay such premiums to be waterfront. Even Obama just plunked down 12M on a waterfront mansion on the low lying island of MV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Optimistic of you to expect the Bay Area to build more housing anywhere. Look at the people displaced by fires in the North Bay who now can't afford to live anywhere nearby.
I think the OP meant more expensive housing in the hills. Not affordable or dense.
> In the worst-case scenario, in which sea levels rise by six feet by 2100, ... Where does six feet come from? It seems very suspicious. It contradicts NOAA Sea Level Trends data of tide gauge measurements, going back to 1930 and sometimes earlier. According to the map, in almost all places in US the projected sea level trend is no more than 1-1.5 feet by 2100: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any ice below sea-level will melt into water that will take up exactly the same amount of space. So any ice below sea-level that melts will not cause sea levels to rise.
Could you please elaborate on your claim? I feel confused. I learned that ice has a (slightly) lower density than water, hence it usually floats. I was convinced that submerged ice is doing so because of an additional weight on top of it (above-water ice pack). Maybe there is also ice that is submerged without this extra weight, but then its density should be lower than water. Either way, I don't see how submerged ic…
When that ice melts, it still weighs the same amount and fills exactly the amount of space that it was displacing. In other words, it fits perfectly in the space in the water that it was already occupying.
So floating ice that melts (above or below the water) doesn't change sea levels at all.
Only melting ice that is currently supported by land will increase sea level.
I find it hard to imagine 200k people leaving San Mateo County. most of the county is above 6ft elevation, and there's just so much money I would think dikes could be built to keep the flats dry. At the worst I would expect more housing to be built in the hills.
> In the worst-case scenario, in which sea levels rise by six feet by 2100, ... Where does six feet come from? It seems very suspicious. It contradicts NOAA Sea Level Trends data of tide gauge measurements, going back to 1930 and sometimes earlier. According to the map, in almost all places in US the projected sea level trend is no more than 1-1.5 feet by 2100: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html…
Most of your comment is flat-out false. That page shows current instantaneous sea level change; it doesn't show future predictions (except in, say, the paper linked at the bottom about predicted sea level change). Sea level rise is increasing each year and is projected to continue increasing faster each year, the rate dependent on how much CO2 we keep putting into the environment. 2m in sea level rise is roughly the…
What is the basis for 2 m prediction?
> giving the 2018 sea level rate change as "1.34 feet per 100 years" is NOT a prediction that the sea level will change 1.34 feet over the next hundred years?
Global 0.3 m rise is among the possible scenarios.¹ And this scenario is consistent with historical measurements. Also note that CO2 level has been rising for the last 60 years. Sea level trend stayed the same compared to the period before industrial CO2 rise.
¹ https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/techrpt83_Glo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you please elaborate on your claim? I feel confused. I learned that ice has a (slightly) lower density than water, hence it usually floats. I was convinced that submerged ice is doing so because of an additional weight on top of it (above-water ice pack). Maybe there is also ice that is submerged without this extra weight, but then its density should be lower than water. Either way, I don't see how submerged ic…
Ice that is floating displaces an amount of water whose weight equals its weight. That's why a little bit floats above the water and most is under the water. When that ice melts, it still weighs the same amount and fills exactly the amount of space that it was displacing. In other words, it fits perfectly in the space in the water that it was already occupying. So floating ice that melts (above or below the water) do…
> In the worst-case scenario, in which sea levels rise by six feet by 2100, ... Where does six feet come from? It seems very suspicious. It contradicts NOAA Sea Level Trends data of tide gauge measurements, going back to 1930 and sometimes earlier. According to the map, in almost all places in US the projected sea level trend is no more than 1-1.5 feet by 2100: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html…
I had this wonky idea that maybe buildings in these area should be adapted to have their first floors underwater yet still usable in some ways.
No because you'll get black mold growing that will spread throughout the structure. Maybe in otherwise dry areas, but I doubt it.
In the 1800s, Chicago was lifted up from nearly being at the same level as Lake Michigan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_Chicago