SocketSite™

Instead of embracing the human conceit that the way things are is the way things have always been, and the way things always will be, hallelujah amen. Perhaps we could take the long view that the earth is always changing and our land use patterns need to ebb and flow with it. Instead of deciding that we're going to do massive engineering to try to prevent any change perhaps we could stop making investments in areas that are likely to be inundated and start moving to higher ground gradually over the next 100 years.

San Francisco, the Venice of the West, if you pay any attention to the scare mongers. What is so funny is the sheer literalness of their proposed solution. I'm surprised they didn't do a few other cheesy renderings, like SF atop a grid of giant stilts. This is the new century equivalent of "duck & cover." But this time its "lift & separate."

Massive engineering is change, so there isn't really any conflict between accepting planetary change and continuing to develop existing population centers while possible. If sea levels rise greatly then this will only be a temporary fix during which settlements move. The largest human population centers are mostly on seacoasts, so some methods for easing the transition are going to be needed. Environmentalism makes sense as a science, but not so much as a religion.

We have been changing the physical landscape to suit our needs for thousands of years, why stop now?

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that sea levels will rise 18 to 59 centimeters – about 7 to 23 inches. Exagerating the numbers creates credibility issues which hurt the climate change cause.

They rejected my entry: 12 inch waterproof platform flip flops for everyone to keep their mouths above the water line while walking in the newly flooded cities.

well the various levees and such will have the interesting effect of killing boat traffic on the bay as all boats, commercial and recreational, will have to pass through a series of locks to get down to the 'old' sea level.

And I shudder to think of what will happen when a large commercial boat strikes one of the levees.

Also, I guess the rest of the populace can say goodbye to wind surfing and kayaking on the bay outside of any of the levees since there will need to be tight restrictions to allow for commercial traffic to have room to maneuver.

All of this just so we can save a bunch of liquefaction zones that are likely to experience high levels of structural damage during any large earthquake that is sure to happen in the next 100 years.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to allow these areas to return to marsh/wetlands that would actually serve to protect the residents, wildlife, and the Bay.

"why stop now?"

Because we're entering an age of resource limitations and we can't keep throwing away our resources on hare-brained schemes.

lol. Love the irony of the inbound oil tanker -- it looks too lightly-loaded to be a new-normal container ship (consumer electronics and electric cars). Hopefully it's nuclear powered.

Wild guess: these folks do not sail out of the St. Francis Yacht club. They are from Berkeley, so maybe there's even more irony here :)

I'm planting sugarcane in my backyard. Sugarcane is the new corn.

Next I'm gonna build a still to power my hybrid ...

You heard it here first.

Folks who bought at ORH will look like geniuses while those at Infinity and Millennium commute on boats.

how will this affect SOMA valuations?

I'm not sure about SOMA condo valuations, but I'll sell you a raft made of sugarcane stalks if the great flood really happens (after I get the sugar out, of course!).

".....could climb 55 inches beyond today's high tide."

Editors, you left out that this is expected to happen in the next century. In other words, it's somebody else's problem, just like our crushing national debt, peak oil, etc.

So everyone feel free to leave the Suburban running (with the AC on) when you pop into the corner store to buy more hair spray and steaks.

lol jimmy.

actually a lot of properties currently pay some "flood abatement fee" from some property tax bills that i've seen, so we should be ok.

I like how one tower of the bridge (Marin side)and the marin cliffside is behind the levee, but the San Francisco tower is outside the levee....

Just look at how Venice deals with aqua alta.

Chris Daly is gonna propose a law giving all tenants living in ground floor units the right of first refusal to move to higher floors at the expense of landlords.

Really? I heard Daly is going to propose that tenants living in ground floor units with owners living in the buildings be allowed to murder their landlords and take over whatever they want.

they could make a nice cycling bath on the levees.

bikes on dikes.

they could make a nice cycling bath on the levees.

bikes on dikes.

On any other general forum the first 50 comments come in will lambast this as lie and conspiracy. That lack of responses of this intensity seems to reflect SocketSite readers has higher than average intelligence. Good sign.

I don't realize the second floor of the Ferry Building is open to public. Seems like a good excuse for me to check it out during the weekend.

Going back to real estate. My top concern is Treasure Island. It seems to me this piece of landfill in the middle of the bay is the most vulnerable to rising sea level. Given we are planning to put a lot of development onto Treasure Island, I wonder if anyone have given much thought to the risk.

@Wai Yip Tung:

My top concern is Treasure Island. It seems to me this piece of landfill in the middle of the bay is the most vulnerable to rising sea level.

Alameda too. Check out the map at the following link:

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/other/climate_change_and_sea_level/sea_level_rise/sea_level_rise.htm

The entire country of the Netherlands is underwater. Does anyone imagine that a major city, PARTICULARLY San Francisco won't just deploy a bunch of dykes to hold back the tide?

Well actually most of Holland is well above sea level. But you're right Jimmy, that the Dutch have done a great job (at great expense) of keeping the sea out of their below sea level areas as well as reclaiming former seaside marshes into arable land.

SF's unique geography could work in its favor. Put a cork in the Golden Gate and turn the bay into a freshwater lake would save our low real estate though this would be costly in dollars as well as ecological impact. Freshwater entering from the Sacramento and other rivers could be released at low tide.

But the rest of the world would be a mess. Saving a little SF bay area real estate would be the least of our concerns.

Why bother, wouldn't we all be dead by then anyways ;)

Just kidding. On a serious note, Scientists around the world are already predicting food and water shortage in the coming decades (not century mind you).

So I think future WARS would be found over resources like food and water, not oil.

Make way for Jebb Bush to lead the 1st Water War !

If that happens I'm moving back to Canada. Seriously. Plenty of food and water (& oil) up there. No need for wars, eh.

". . .San Francisco won't just deploy a bunch of dykes to hold back the tide?"

i hear trannys are much bitchier

"If that happens I'm moving back to Canada...."

Jimmy, you do realize that Canada is probably the first country us 'mericans will invade in Water War One, right? Although you should still be safe from the zombie apocalypse, alien viruses, and the war with SkyNet. Especially in the deep forests.

I think we could get away with simply "annex"ing Canada..... Why bother with a War when the end means can be achieved without one... Unless of course, like I said, Jebb Bush is our President, in which case we have to invade Canada !

It's a lie and conspiracy!

Did I make the first 50 posts?

Actually this has nothing to do with intelligence of Socketsite readers. More like we're all in groupthink about this whole thing.

A lot of peopel were already under water with their mortgages, this won't help things at all.

@redseca2.... ROFL!

@diemos, "...perhaps we could stop making investments in areas that are likely to be inundated and start moving to higher ground..."

Well..... where would you suggest we move to where there aren't earthquakes, blizzards, fires, hurricanes, tornados, avalanches or wars?

Fill the bay. Problem solved. Plus we get a lot of new real estate, and a better seaway to Sacto (that's where all the fill will come from).

They are from Berkeley, so maybe there's even more irony here :)
We are definitely a special breed over here. Oh the dilemma:
We need to reinforce the cripple walls in our 1906 one-story house. But we live in the Berkeley flats and we are worried about potential flooding. We are not that far above sea level and we don’t think that global warming is a fairy tale.