Global warming, global cooling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rising sea level gets city's attention
New report says Bay, creeks would flood Mountain View's job centers

The city's Planning Department is taking seriously a projected rise in the San Francisco Bay's water level that could lead to periodic flooding of much of the Shoreline business district and Moffett Field by 2100.

According to a March 11 report by Oakland-based Pacific Institute titled "The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast," a 4.6-foot rise in sea level predicted by 2100 could make the Bay swell high enough for flood waters to hit the northern edge of the mobile home park on Space Park Way after swamping the Shoreline Amphitheatre, NASA Ames and Google's headquarters.

The 75-acre research park planned at Moffett Field stays dry, however, according to the report.

"The thing about sea level rise is that it doesn't really stop," said Jeff Segall, a chemist who studied the issue as a member of the city's Environmental Sustainability Task Force.

While the Pacific Institute's illustrative flood maps are not intended to replace official FEMA flood maps, the predictions have caught the eye of the city's Planning Department.

"There been several of these maps that have been published," said planning director Randy Tsuda. "One of the things any community needs to look at are the implications of climate change. If sea level rise is a part of that, I think it's our responsibility as city officials to look at what those implications are."

The predictions may prove valuable as the city revises its General Plan, the city's blueprint for future development.

"This is certainly one of the things we need to look at in the General Plan," Tsuda said. "Under the General Plan we are required to address safety issues. Certainly this is a safety issue."

Throughout the Bay Area, 140,000 residents are currently at risk from a 100-year flood event, said Matt Heberger, one of the Pacific Institute report's co-authors. But given today's population, that number would increase to 270,000 in the event of a 1.4-meter sea level rise by 2100.

The report warns that at least 480,000 California residents could be affected in floods by 2100. A wide range of critical infrastructure and almost $100 billion of property would also face an increased risk during a flood throughout the state. But almost two-thirds of the areas at risk in the state are in the Bay Area, the report's authors discovered.

The bathtub effect

Sea level is projected to rise between 1 and 1.4 meters (3.28 to 4.59 feet) by 2100, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Because of the "bathtub effect," the increase in sea level could mean more storm flooding along Mountain View's Permanente Creek and Stevens Creek, both of which flow into the Bay, Segall said.

"The combination of a lot of water coming down and high tides combine to give you a flood. The sea level rise just makes the overall level higher," Segall said. Neighbors of Permanente Creek north of about Middlefield Road would be most effected, he added.

Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, believes it could take as little as a six-inch rise in sea level to make 100-year floods happen every 10 years in some low lying areas.

In Mountain View there are 3,170 parcels of property in the 100-year flood zones along Permanente Creek, according to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Most are north of El Camino Real, but some are near the Los Altos border.

Permanente Creek runs through the middle of Google's headquarters, about a mile from the Bay, where the Internet giant is already planning for flood walls along the creek as it builds a pedestrian bridge over it. Meanwhile, the water district is working on a plan to create flood basins at Rancho San Antonio open space preserve and Blach School in Los Altos, and the Cuesta Annex and McKelvey Park in Mountain View, to help prevent destructive floods along Permanente and Hale creeks.

Last year, several members of the now-disbanded Environmental Sustainability Task Force recommended that the city build housing in the Shoreline area, so that employees, such as those of Google, would rely less on cars. But members of the task force's "Adaptation to Climate Change" working group recommended a building moratorium in the area in light of the future flood predictions. After getting some feedback from the rest of the task force, the climate change group eventually changed its position to say that housing could be protected from flooding if built atop commercial space in the Shoreline area.

"Until there is a plan for the whole area in terms of what the flood protection looks like, I wonder if it's a good idea to add additional buildings," said Segall, who was a member of the climate change working group.

Google has planned a one million square foot building on the northwestern corner of Moffett Field on what used to be wetlands. And several city buildings lie in the predicted flood areas, including several at Shoreline Park and the fire station on Shoreline Boulevard, which is undergoing a major redesign. It will likely be rebuilt using brick and metal construction materials, an asset during flooding, despite its initial high cost.

Design features

"One of the things being looked at is designing buildings so they can withstand flooding," said Will Travis, director of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. "One of the greatest problems in New Orleans was caused by sheetrock." The older stone buildings were fine, he said, but "newer buildings with sheetrock -- once they got wet they got moldy and had to be torn down."

In terms of city planning for floods, pavement is a major element to consider, said Ann Draper, assistant operating officer with the water district.

"When people pave over the ground you get more runoff," Draper said. "You could have 10 times more runoff if the ground is impervious."

Travis has been trying to raise awareness about the issues of the rising Bay. He says wetlands are "sponges" that help with flood control, but soon there will be no wetlands and the focus will be on saving land and buildings. He is calling for a regional approach to the problem among the Bay Area's 110 municipalities.

Over a year ago Travis talked to NASA Ames employees who were concerned about how the rising sea level might affect their workplace, which is adjacent to the Bay and not far from Stevens Creek.

"It's like the airports, it's going to be protected -- you are not just going to allow it to go under water," Travis said, likening NASA Ames and Moffett Field to the Oakland and San Francisco airports on the edge of the Bay. "It's not as daunting as it would seem at first blush."

Causes of floods

Travis says cities should begin to plan for sudden rises in sea level that could be caused by large ice sheets sliding into the oceans off Greenland and Antarctica.

In Greenland, "The water is actually getting underneath the ice sheet and lubricating it," Travis said. "The concern now is that instead of melting slowly they could melt and slide into the water. Then it would be like taking a glass that's full and throwing some ice cubes in it. That is something scientists are worried about."

Global warming may cause floods another way: It may not bring more rainwater, but scientists are beginning to agree that there could be more intense storms as the planet's temperature rises.

"The growing consensus is that they could be more intense and more flashy," Draper said. "The 100-year flood could be more frequent."

A new report

Local officials are anticipating another report on the rise in sea level: the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. An ongoing joint effort by the water district, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California State Coastal Conservancy, the report is partly intended to identify areas in need of levees, dikes and other protective measures in light of the rising Bay.

"The levees in the Shoreline area built by Cargill were never meant to be protective levees," said the water district's Draper. She said the Shoreline study will predict flooding out to 2067.

Draper said the Pacific Institute flood projections don't take into account things like creek and salt pond levees, storm drains and pump stations. But "it's a credible, good start," she said. "More study is needed -- we're in the process of doing that" with the Shoreline study, portions of which are due by the end of this year.

Planning director Tsuda said he is anticipating the Shoreline study as well.

"Until that comes out we're speculating," he said.

http://www.mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=1313
 
Sea level is projected to rise between 1 and 1.4 meters (3.28 to 4.59 feet) by 2100

There's the crux of the whole article. If the water doesn't rise by the estimated amounts, none of this happens.

I don't trust weathermen...I certainly don't trust weathermen who also think that they're fortune-tellers.
 

First of all, does anyone here realize how far off 2100 is? Ninety-one years!

Anyone here ever notice that when these clowns make a prediction that is within our lifetimes it never comes to pass? Global cooling, a new ice age, no fish left in all of the oceans. You get my point.

So how can anyone give any credence whatsoever to those who make predictions outside of our lifetimes? They are simply feathering their nests; and they know that by the time their prediction fails to manifest that they, and most of those who were paying attention to them, will be long dead. The goal is the immediate change to the lives, liberty, and freedom of the populace and the spending of their money. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong as long as the perception is that they are right and their agenda is met.

Look at the article and take a count of the weasel words:

COULD 12 times
IF 4 times
MAY 3 times
WOULD (If the rise occurred) 7 times
MIGHT 1 time

I don't want a bunch of my tax dollars spent on a "problem" which may, might, could, if it would, ever show up 91 years hence.
 
You want to know what really worries me? What with all the contradictory data and opinions, it's pretty obvious that the scientific community either is totally clueless, or is available to the highest bidder ..... which leaves a much more worrying possibility... either they've really no fucking clue ... or they do, and this is the false flag they're waving to distract people from the real problem. If that's the case, just how much worse is the real problem.
 
spend some time in the kitchen and you'll know that scientific communities often disagree with one another. there are competing and disagreeing streams in most disciplines.

whattya want, something forcefully univocal like the ten commandments, that you can go marching to???

er, i didn't really need to ask, now did i?
 
IMO science and the bible don't conflict really.
Science however, should deal mainly with tangible type evidence, except in theoretical terms.
 
Will those who advocate measures against global warming take responsibility if those measures cause global cooling and a new ice age?

I won't wait for that admission. They will simply say that they were right in the seventies and no one would listen.
 
Will those who advocate measures against global warming take responsibility if those measures cause global cooling and a new ice age?

um, what???

so, it's still an open issue as to environmental impact of certain activities of humankind.

almost all of the "countermeasures" against "anthopogenic" warming have to do with NOT doing shit - not releasing carbon, et cetera.

you want the greenies to take responsibility for NOT doing anything, that will CAUSE global cooling?

nice going jim. :drink:

i guess people's activities really can have an environmental impact, eh? seems to undermine a lot of the other shit you've been spouting about a LACK of human impact.
 
If you would read more on the subject instead of trying to use your imagination you would find that it has been suggested by GW proponents that human activity is staving off GW.

Read THIS and THIS and THIS and get some edification on how simple things like contrails from jet aircraft MAY affect GW.

From the CNN story:

While the temperature range is significant, whether the jet clouds have a net effect on global warming remains unknown.

From the berkeley.edu page:

This would mean contrails shield the Earth from the sun during the day,
causing lower temperatures, and warm it at night, trapping the Earth's
heat like a blanket. Because there are generally more flights and more
trails during the day than at night, Travis speculates contrails have a net
cooling effect on the Earth. His conclusion is a radical departure from the
conventional theory that contrails contribute to warming.

``Contrails can cool or warm the Earth. The key is, there are more contrails
at day than at night,'' Travis said. ``Because of that, the daytime effect is
likely to dominate,'' meaning contrails do more cooling than heating.

Travis said his background as a climatologist helped him arrive at that
answer. Most previous knowledge of contrail effects had been gleaned
from complex meteorological theories. But Travis compared hard data from
the Sept. 11 shutdown to previous climate history and based his
conclusion on what the evidence told him.

``Most of what my colleagues have done is theoretical modeling done with
computers,'' he said. ``I'm an empirical researcher looking at data.''
 
And for outright desperation on the GW front, try this:

SOURCE

Fatties cause global warming

By BEN JACKSON
Environment Editor

Published: Today

THE rising number of fat people was yesterday blamed for global warming.

Scientists warned that the increase in big-eaters means more food production — a major cause of CO2 gas emissions warming the planet.

Overweight people are also more likely to drive, adding to environmental damage.

[more]
 
i don't care what THEY are suggesting, jim.

you're not digging yourself out of your own silly contradiction.
 
I'm just curious ... since this seems to be a topic everyone's got an opinion on ... how many of you have actually bothered to keep track of your local weather? Anyone keep a weather journal?
 
i don't care what THEY are suggesting, jim.

you're not digging yourself out of your own silly contradiction.

Its not my contradiction. The contradiction belongs to those who contend that both global warming AND global cooling are man made. I say that neither is true and that all warming and cooling is natural. No contradiction there.

My question was rhetorical but, you being such a literal guy, you couldn't see past it.
 
For consideration.

SOURCE

April 20, 2009, 9:07 pm
The Richer-Is-Greener Curve
By John Tierney

In my Findings column, I explain how researchers have discovered that, over the long term, being richer often translates into being greener. Many environmental problems get worse as a country first industrializes, but once it reaches a certain level of income, the trend often reverses, producing a curve shaped like an upside-down U. It’s called a Kuznets curve (in honor of the economist Simon Kuznets, who detected this pattern in trends of income inequality).

As promised in the column, here are some graphic examples of Kuznets curves for sulphur dioxide pollution, as measured in an assortment of rich and poor countries, and also as measured over time in the United States.

20tlab_chart1.480.jpg


Each line is an environmental Kuznets curve for a group of countries during the 1980s. The levels
of sulphur dioxide pollution (the vertical axis) rise as countries becomes more affluent (the
horizontal axis). But then, once countries reach an economic turning point (a gross domestic
product close to $8,000 per capita), the trend reverses and air pollution declines as countries get
richer. In this analysis by Xiang Dong Qin of Clemson University, the green line shows countries
with strong protections for property rights; the red curve shows countries with weaker
protections.


I’m not trying to argue that all environmental problems fit these curves, or that these improvements happen automatically.

How fast the environment improves depends not just on money but on whether a country has an effective government, educated citizens, healthy institutions and the right laws. (For discussions of the variability of these curves and the factors that affect them, see this PERC report by a group led by Bruce Yandle of Clemson University and this article in Environment, Development and Sustainability by Kuheli Dutt of Northeastern University.)

But rising incomes can make it more likely that improvements will come, and these Kuznets curves give more reason for optimism than the old idea that economic growth endangered the planet. In the 1970s, rich countries were urged to “de-develop” by Paul Ehrlich and John P. Holdren, now the White House science adviser.

I welcome your thoughts on what can be learned from Kuznets curves — and whether people at opposite ends of the curves can find common ground.

20tlab_chart2.480.jpg


As America got richer in the the 20th century, emissions of sulphur dioxide rose. But thanks to
new technologies, new laws and new desires for cleaner air, the trend reversed, and sulphur-
dioxide pollution declined even though population and wealth kept rising.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top