[closure]

I stopped reading here:

“If San Francisco residents really believed that sea levels were rising, they’d have all sold their homes by now.”

Apparently the author has never been to San Francisco or seen the sea level estimates for the next 30-70 years.

The last time I looked the northernmost and easternmost parts of SF will have some trouble, but by far the biggest areas of concern are east of 101 south of the city. And yes, if people thought ahead that far they would probably be concerned but even in the areas that are predicted to have the most impact we’re still talking 25+ years.

[yongjik]

Yeah, seriously. Anyone who's ever driven in SF should know this city is not going to be underwater (well, mostly). There are hills smack in the middle of SF that are > 200 ft (~60 m) high[1].

Meanwhile, to pick a random example, "Much of Florida has an elevation of less than 12 feet (3.7 m), including many populated areas such as Miami which are located on the coast."[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hills_in_San_Francisco

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Florida

[BashiBazouk]

Exactly. The highest point in San Francisco, Mount Davidson is 928 ft above sea level and is close to three times as high as the highest point in the entire state of Florida, Britton Hill at 345 ft...

[Naritai]

I was going to comment on this one too. There are lots of projections of which sections of SF will be underwater, and those are the cheapest places to live. It is already priced into the market.

[pwaai]

An overwhelming sense of relief washes over me as I read your comment. It's obvious the author of the article doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about.