npr edvertisers
visitors movie times

Santa Barbara Weather: 54.1°F | Humidity: 72% | Pressure: 30.04in (Rising) | Conditions: Clear | Wind Direction: SW | Wind Speed: 6.0mph [see map]

Free Newsletter
  login You create the news! Send items of interest to ed@edhat.com
    17875 Subscribers
      548 Paid (3.1%)
     121 Commenters
     97374 Page Views

Buy Edhat Shirts
Buy Edhat Shirts
Buy Edhat Bags
Buy Edhat Bags
Advertise on Edhat
Advertise on Edhat
Buy Edhat Hats
Buy Edhat Hats
News Events Referrals Deals Classifieds Comments About

Local Stories by Local People
updated: Dec 13, 2012, 4:05 PM

Residents living beach side in California have a better idea of how our coastline will look 30 years from now, when the sea level is projected to rise by a foot.

External Link

Comments in order of when they were received | (reverse order)

 COMMENT 353739 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-13 04:17 PM

Uh, oh, here we go again.

Also, when did the term "king tide" begin? I'd never heard of a king tide until a day or so ago and now everyone's using the term as if it's always been extant. Did I miss something?


 COMMENT 353743P agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-13 04:23 PM

The southbound Coast Starlight train was stopped at Elkhorn Slough just south of Watsonville until the water level receded.


 COMMENT 353751 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-13 04:43 PM

How can we be going there again if this is the first time you've heard the term, Rex? Besides 30 years from now you'll be pushing up daisies.... as will I. ;-p


 COMMENT 353758 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-13 04:49 PM

Rex is only 27, so I think that constitutes a death threat ...


 COMMENT 353767 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-13 05:03 PM

@751: The "uh, oh" referred to the fact that this isn't the first time that the mention of rising tides has brought a huge local reaction. Remember the "blue line" that the City Council authorized to be painted in low-lying areas of town until the project went down in flames amidst a sea of controversy?

Further, I used the word "also" in connection with the so-called king tides, to separate the "uh, oh" remark from the one about the so-called king tides.

@758: Oh, would that it were so! I'm not only not 27, but I'll never see 30 again either.


 COMMENT 353796 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-13 06:12 PM

More Al Gore fear mongering. Hurry, give up all your tax dollars or we will all drown. Global warming is this biggest hoax perpetrated on mankind. Even if it is warming, it has been far warmer in the past and life thrived. There's something called the sun out there people, which is more powerful than we will ever be!


 COMMENT 353800 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-13 06:18 PM

Don't talk about things you clearly don't understand, 796. Even better, we have a number of great educational institutions here which can give you a decent education in the physical sciences so that you may understand that anthropogenic climate change is not, in fact, a "hoax" and is not only widely understood but also widely accepted amongst scientists.

Who are, you know, generally the people to trust about this sort of thing. Unless you're the kind of person who subscribes to the anti-intellectual bent that has consumed this country over the past 30 years.


 COMMENT 353805 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-13 06:41 PM

786, I don't even understand how anyone living in this day and age can actually believe global warming is a hoax.

It's science, not (in)convenient opinion!

As for Al Gore, that old trope got old a decade ago. Please join us in the now, where real issue are just that...real.


 COMMENT 353831 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-13 07:48 PM

Science is not done by consensus, ever. The more scientists that sign off on man-made global warning, the less I believe it. Well, that's not quite right, since I believe it not at all, and never have. But if it were true, a solution is at hand! Simply release more particulate pollution into the atmosphere. That will lower the temperature, as it does every time there's a significant volcanic eruption anywhere on the planet.


 COMMENT 353862P agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-13 09:37 PM

The less you know about a problem, the easier it seems to be to solve. Thus, 831 has an easy solution.

Science is done by consensus of the facts. When there's a complex problem of which you do not have applicable domain experience, though, you look to the consensus of experts in the field:


 COMMENT 353887P agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-14 01:52 AM

REXOFSB: I have a whole collection going of these "new" names for old occurrences.

It used to be called fog, now it's "marine layer."

It used to be called overcast skies, now it's "June Gloom."

It used to be called Santa Anas, now it's "sundowners."

We used to call them bums, now they're "the homeless." (Or "domicile-challenged," but that's too hard to say.)

What used to be called "super high tide" is now a "King Tide."

It's fun to hear the "experts" (what we still call "the imports") weigh in.

Just sit back and enjoy the show.


 COMMENT 353896 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-14 06:11 AM

Global warming is indeed happening but it is natural. A few thousand years ago Manhattan used to be covered by a mile of ice. Gas-guzzling American cars didn't cause the warming that melted it, natural climate cycles did. And there is no proof that the current warming is happening faster than any other time in Earth's 4 billon-year history, a claim alarmists make when backed into a corner.


 COMMENT 353912P agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-14 07:32 AM

1976: Global Cooling
1986: Global Warming
1996: Global Climate Change
2006: Anthropogenic Climate Change (means caused by man)
2016: ?

I am a man of science and study these things at great length. It (all the above titles) is a fear mongering hoax designed to con money and political influence. It's obvious to anyone sitting outside the debate looking in.

Neither side of this issue does itself any favors when they defend their wrong position.

And yes, I like the old way of just calling things what they are, like "really big tides" instead of "king tides" and "shell shock" instead of "post traumatic stress disorder"...etc.


 COMMENT 353954 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-14 09:24 AM

Those on the left have learned to use virtually everything to dream up a way of making lots of money, while appearing to be championing some cause. (Al Gore is a perfect example) The biased writer of this article characterized these tides as "slamming our shore". These "causes" may be global warming, "homelessness", subsidized housing, healthcare, clean energy, extinction or "endangered species" from rats to bats, sustainable anything, etc. These are the same "green" folks that changed the English vernacular so that problems became issues. Now "issues" cover everything. You can have "health issues", "housing issues", "climate issues" etc. I actually heard one fellow say to another, "I have issues with your issues". It is clear we are becoming a nation of fools lacking in any common sense, preoccupied with being politically correct and championing many causes which take on the characteristics of the windmills being chased by Don Quiote!


 COMMENT 354010 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-14 10:56 AM

Were it not for the multi-trillion dollar a year industry that has been rapidly built up around the "green" movement, I'd believe everything I've read about global warming. If global warming was not man-made, there wouldn't be any money to make off of it. Thus it must be man-made.


 COMMENT 354034 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-14 11:29 AM

Very glad to see others on edhat who agree man made climate change is a hoax. I graduated from UCSB with a degree in geography. We studied this quite a bit and we were told the sky would be falling ie oceans rising by a foot by 2000 (this was 1986). Well it just is not happening. So I started doing some research and there is crazy $$$$$ behind this. Please read agenda 21. This is another plan by the elite (CFR, Trilateral Commision, Bilderburg etc) to have another reason to tax us. Here is one basic question. How can we say this is man made when the earth has had huge climate swings in the past before we were even burning fossil fuels?


 COMMENT 354036 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-14 11:29 AM

912P is not a man of science, else they would be aware of the vast amount of scientific evidence supporting the current understanding of climate change.

954 is a partisan ideologue, more preoccupied with trashing the attitudes and methodologies of people they don't agree with (in this case, liberals/leftists) without actually addressing the issue.

010 is... I'm actually not sure. I can't really figure that POV out.


 COMMENT 354139 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-14 03:57 PM

@954: "...being chased by Don Quiote." Wouldn't that be the Roadrunner?



 COMMENT 354173P agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-14 04:40 PM

And 034 is into the looney trilateral fantasy.


 COMMENT 354200P agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-14 05:28 PM

For those of you not concerned with climate change, check out our military's concern. It's easily searched online. They are preparing.
Google "global warming + pentagon"


 COMMENT 354250 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-14 08:15 PM

I've observed these same tides this time of year for the past 30 years. Nothing new here folks, move along.


 COMMENT 354730 agree helpful negative off topic

2012-12-16 12:15 PM

The problem is that "scientists" have largely been co-opted by the "moneyists" i.e. those who own industries profiting from the clamour or profiting from government grants generated by this clamour and influenced by the huge political contributions to politicians by these same profiteers. "Insider trading" is epidemic amongst these "scientists" and politicians who either know about things before others or are able to "create events" that are claimed will occur in the future to prompt this "science for profit" scheme. Why do you suppose that Obama's favorite U.N. ambassador Rice is so heavily invested in the Canadian pipeline? She knew once the election secured Obama's position wth the "green elite", that he will eventually "greenlight" it's development and he and his croneis will profit some more.


27% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.



Add Your Comments

Edhat Username



Don't have an Account?

Don't know if you have an account?

Don't remember your account info?


ENJOY HAPPY HOUR! ... Between 4:00pm & 5:00pm only happy comment are allowed on the Edhat Comments Board.

If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all.

Hide Your Handle, but show paid status (paid subscribers only)
NEW - use verified name and picture (contact ed@edhat.com to be verified)
Find out About Becoming A Paid Subscriber
NOTE: We are testing a new Comment Preview Page. You must hit OK on the next page to have your comment go live. Send Feedback to ed@edhat.com.

get a handle   |  lost handle




# # # #


Send To a Friend
Your Email
Friend's Email

Top of Page | Old News Archives | Printer-Friendly Page

  Home Subscribe FAQ Jobs Contact copyright © 2003-2015  
Edhat, Inc.