The coastal range which lifts straight out of the sea was created by earthquake. Subduction of the Pacific plate as it slips under the North American plate to be exact.
As each earthquake rocks California the coastal range gets a little bit higher.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ regional/ states/ historical_state.php#california
There’s just a partial list of 20th century quakes.
And you bunch of bozos are going on about millimeters of water by the end of 2100?
Climb out of the clown car.

And it will be interesting to see what will ensue.

The mainstream media is dependent upon fossil fuel revenue to operate. Accurate reporting on Climate Change directly challenges their revenue stream. They simply can not point out the lies of the deniers. They are PAID to promote those lies.

I feel that we are going to wait until events are deeply tragic before major Climate Change remediation becomes a priority on par with the US military budget. For most of us that means years of preparing, gathering tools, learning and distributing knowledge and prototyping methods.

The Climate Change “Pearl Harbor” has yet to happen.

Let me try to briefly explain. None of our ’systems’ have evolved in such a way for us to ‘know’ how to deal with the problem. So, we struggle.

Start with the human brain. As an infant, one has a sense of ‘now.’ As an adult, many of us have a longer sense of time scales, but these are good for no more than a few decades. So, when we’re told of some very dire consequences in 2100, it’s hard to relate. Add to this the fact that some people don’t care about 2100 because they won’t be around then, and they don’t care about those who will. Finally, in the brain compartment, you have the problem that human nature is not to learn by being told, but to learn by experience, hot stove-style–and that doesn’t bode well here!

Moving on from the brain–one can think through the other ’systems’ we have, and consider how well they’ve been ‘designed’ to deal with a problem as massive and as gradual as anthropogenic climate disruption.

Think about our legal system. We’ve developed, from experience, laws that exclude from free speech the right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre. Why? Because we saw that people could get hurt in the panic that might ensue. Now, s-l-o-w d-o-w-n the clock from today’s so-called ‘internet time’ to something I’ll call ‘climate time.’ Then picture a U.S. senator operating a full-time climate change denial shop out of his office. Given the benefit of yet-to-be-seen experience, this would be made illegal very quickly. But we can only hope that the ghost of climate future might visit Oklahoma to help Scrooge understand his wicked ways.

It grows late, and short comments rule, but I urge Joe, and fellow readers, to think through these other systems too (not that I’m against them in any general way): 1) Our economy, wherein, to a large degree, corporations tell customers, through advertising, what they want–with a view towards maximizing next quarter’s earnings (think GM); 2) Our government, wherein our elected officials, rather than lead, often look back to who it was that helped them get elected, or (especially in this case) what a naive, largely under-informed constituent seems to want. And so on, and on…

What to do? I agree with Joe, having concluded a while ago that, given the magnitude and under-appreciated urgency of the problem, there is only one person who can get things turned around quickly enough to give us decent odds of avoiding a future climate catastrophe, namely Obama.

Bottom line: President Obama should go on national, prime-time television to carefully explain, with the proper blend of motivating fear and soothing hope, that we must, as a nation, declare war on manmade climate disruption. His plan for how we can constructively deal with this problem, if done right, could unite us, while also stimulating the economy.

Granting that politicians, oil companies, and deniers funded by them, have done their unholy best to discredit the science of climate change, I think there may be an increase in people who disbelieve, even in the face of mounting evidence, simply BECAUSE of the mounting evidence. The predictions that are the most recent are so horrific, so monstrous, so soul-destroying to contemplate, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is leading more people to fiddle while Rome burns.

Particularly in America, where there is in addition, enormous guilt in the picture. It’s more likely that someone who lives with a smaller carbon footprint would recognize and condemn reckless burning of fossil fuel than someone who can hardly imagine living a more modest and sustainable lifestyle having indulged in it for years.