...already, or would be if it weren't for non-engineered salt pond levees holding back the flood. Portion of the north bay are in the same category. The real question isn't who will be underwater, but how much it will cost to ensure that they aren't.

20 feet is a nice, bruisy purplish-red.

On the upside if both poles go I'm literally sitting on beachfront.

Everybody used to believe they had the Great Lakes high water periods figured out (Mid-1970s, mid-1980s & cetera). And everybody was all concerned the last time the water was high.

But now the Great Lakes are near record low, and nobody who has been around and paid attention for the past half-century has any reasonable explanation. Last time they was high, I went into the seawall business, aka "Last Refuge of a Scoundrel." If they had stayed high one more year, I probably would be rich. But they went down, and they still are down.

Don't tell me that you get it. Don't tell me that the oceans are different. Do not go by common sense. Our waters are utterly mysterious, beyond our comprehension. Wait and see. In the meantime, I advise you not to say anything we might laugh about in a few years.

In my previous post, stupid "was" should be were.

Thanks for the link -- it's an interesting view.

Realistically, Berkeley and the rest of the SF Bay communities will be safe because there will no doubt be a dyke built across the Golden Gate as the water rise becomes obvious. Old technologies -- dykes and locks (locks will be needed to let through the extensive ship traffic) will solve the problem. Of course, all that fresh water flowing down from Sacramento could be a bit of a problem, but if Northern California is smart they'll sell the excess fresh water to Southern California and Arizona, who are going to need it as Colorado Plateau rainfall is expected to diminish as the Earth warms.

No, SF Bay will probably do fine. Other parts of the globe won't do so well.

The Washington Monument will be on an island! Also, the Mall could be landscaped into a nice Japanese garden. You could take paddle boats to travel from one museum to another!

As well she should.

If you divert water that would otherwise flow into the ocean into refilling the Caspian, the Great Salt Lake and others by pipeline, tank trains and canals, then not only do you reduce the rise of the oceans, but you create fisheries and weather - like rain where we need it.

It will take a hundred years, but ut us worth it.

If you divert water that would otherwise flow into the ocean into refilling the Caspian, the Great Salt Lake and others by pipeline, tank trains and canals, then not only do you reduce the rise of the oceans, but you create fisheries and weather - like rain where we need it.

It will take a hundred years, but it is worth it.

I'm not going to touch that one.

However, this brings up something I have been wondering about...

The Sacramento River is navigable east from San Francisco Bay to the deep water ports of Stockton and Sacramento. As the sea level rises I assume there is going to be more and more salt water finding it's way inland. Currently the California Water Project pumps fresh water from the Sacramento Delta to Southern California. How are they going to protect this vast area of fresh water and its ecosystem? Will they perhaps build locks in the Carquinez Straits between Benicia and Martinez or further up stream?

In attempt to answer my earlier question regarding the effect of sea level rise on the Sacramento - San Joaquin River Delta I found the following scholarly report if anyone is interest.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/GlobalWarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/JSAW5HJQPR/$File/rtc_california.pdf

I think maybe I'll retire in Redding.