Slashdot Mirror
Sea Level Rise in the SF Bay Area Just Got a Lot More Dire (wired.com)
An anonymous reader writes: San Francisco Bay Area residents have long been aware of the threat that sea level rise poses to their coastal existence -- but things suddenly look a lot more serious. A new study examines the simultaneous phenomena of rising sea levels and subsiding coastal land, and as Wired reports, the situation is pretty dire. Models that factor in just sea level rise predict that at least 20 square miles could be underwater by 2100. Once you add in subsiding land, that jumps to nearly 50 square miles, and could get as bad as 165 square miles. Or, put another way, by the end of the century, half of the runways and taxiways at San Francisco Airport could be submerged.
The study found that most of the Bay's coastline is sinking at a rate of less than 2 millimeters a year -- and while that may not sound like a lot, the millimeters can add up fast. "You talk to someone about, 'Oh the land is going down a millimeter a year,' and that can be kind of unimpressive," says William Hammond, a researcher at the University of Nevada Reno who studies subsidence (but was not involved in this particular project). "But we know as scientists that these motions, especially if they come from plate tectonics, that they are relentless and they will never stop, at least as long as we're alive on this planet."
The study found that most of the Bay's coastline is sinking at a rate of less than 2 millimeters a year -- and while that may not sound like a lot, the millimeters can add up fast. "You talk to someone about, 'Oh the land is going down a millimeter a year,' and that can be kind of unimpressive," says William Hammond, a researcher at the University of Nevada Reno who studies subsidence (but was not involved in this particular project). "But we know as scientists that these motions, especially if they come from plate tectonics, that they are relentless and they will never stop, at least as long as we're alive on this planet."
sigh.
Just need to put a wall and lock system across the span where the Golden Gate bridge is. Problem solved!
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Asking for a friend.
"Subsidence is a great driver of our economy." - SF Bay Gondoliers Association
Rising sea levels will submerge cities and kill millions. I wonder how many people have to die before left wingers in SF allow us to solve climate change? Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear energy.
Ahh sea level apocalypse! Not!
I love watching this guy make scientists look silly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phkjtNcrjdU
I'm just not sure that this is really news. I guess it's mildly interesting to combine both tectonic subsidence and sea level rise, but, frankly, most of San Francisco is hilly. There won't be much impact. A small amount of the waterfront may get more wet, but most of SF will remain high and dry.
SFO airport is indeed at sea level-- it's right on the bay. But you can build runways up if you need to; it's not hard.
No big deal.. Create a breath using a straw app
Given the work on self-driving cars (think fleet of electric cars where you work en route), Hyperloop, and other automation taking out the need for dense centralised cities, it will not be a catastrophic problem.
There will be huge changes in real estate price distribution, remote work, and in general overall world of work. Think back to 1998 and how little of the internet and mobile devices were used.
That is the difference 20 years can make.
The real catastrophic problem will be what Syria and Lousiana - erratic rainfall, storms and unpredictable weather patterns. Sea level rise is huge, but those things will become more troublesome much sooner.
San Fran is a human shit and syringe covered cesspool right now. They need a good cleaning.
As the Joker said, "This town needs an enema."
If you look at the base data from the study, you can find the images for projected innovation at 2100 - it's not that much, mostly down at the end of the bay. Considering we are talking about nearly a hundred years for this change to occur there is a LOT of time to adapt - either by raising the land at risk (we are talking about just a meter of sea level change at worst in the most likely scenario), or building seawalls at the end of the bay the way the Netherlands has done.
San Francisco itself, is of course quite hilly as anyone who has ever visited knows, and is hardly impacted at all.
One final flaw in this study is the reoccurring flaw, they present a doomsday scenario that is "if nothing is done". But they totally do not account for the inevitable shift to solar/electric for power and transportation that will increase dramatically in the coming decades. This shifts all of the predictions to the low end in reality as the most likely scenario, by quite a lot in fact.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Perhaps now the tides will act to flush all of the feces off the streets.
Chris has his life jacket built in! Fucker's gonna float all the way to Japan, only to be harpooned for "research"!
If one person, say, a PC magazine columnist of yore, sees NOTHING today outside of his window..then nothing will happen ever, in the future.
'Oh the land is going down a millimetre a year,' and that can be kind of unimpressive," says William Hammond, a researcher at the University of Nevada Reno who studies subsidence (but was not involved in this particular project). "But we know as scientists that these motions, especially if they come from plate tectonics, that they are relentless and they will never stop, at least as long as we're alive on this planet."
Actually as scientists we know that's not true provided we hang around for long enough (several hundred million years) as some other species have managed to. Plate tectonics can also uplift land and is responsible for mountain building. As new plates form and others merge the effects in one location can change....but you will need to hold your breath, literally, for a few million years or more (or, on that timescale, evolve gills) so it's not particularly helpful!
"The study found that most of the Bay's coastline is sinking at a rate of less than 2 millimeters a year -- and while that may not sound like a lot, the millimeters can add up fast."
So, in 100 years the coastline will have sunk less than 8 inches. Not quite the runaway train they make it out to be.
No worries - just turn in your SUV and pay higher taxes (oh - and I'm sure giving up your guns will help too somehow) and all these problems are as good as solved.
The Activists "Scientists" are fudging the numbers again
If the sea rises the tide will clean the pee and poo from the streets.
Stop pushing bullshit and check the data for yourself. Everywhere the data clearly says this is little to no change in sea level rise. Period. End of discussion. That's the facts. Anyone saying otherwise is lying.
The areas right along the bay that are at risk of flooding are at far greater risk of earthquakes. The article says that subsidence is happening faster than water level rise, and the subsidence is happening due to the fact that these areas are largely built of filled in soils.
Filled in soil that is saturated with water due to being right along the edge of the bay is a nightmare for liquifaction during a quake. Your toes may get wet 50 years from now due to encroaching water, but many of the buildings around these areas are likely be demolished after a large quake before then.
Are house prices declining as a result of this?
Just sell the properties to Trump voters, they'll just ignore it until they'll hopefully drown.
John C. Dvorak (yes, *that* curmudgeonly fellow of PC Mag fame) can see the SF bay literally outside his home office window, and regularly reports the live situation as some meme on his No Agenda podcast (http://www.noagendashow.com/) with Adam Curry. Last update on this topic, in fact, was on the last show, I think (https://noagendaplayer.com/listen/1014). Unfortunately it hasn't been tagged yet, or I would've provided a link directly to the segment where they start taking about this. Pretty sure it was within the first hour. It might be tagged by the time others will read this.
Every report is the same--and the same, as he always says, as it's been since at least the 1880s. After living there for decades, he never reports any change whatsoever, even though there's a highway nearby that's barely 3 feet above the ocean level.
We are all doomed!
So may as well enjoy Sicilicon Valley Comic Con 2018 in the mean time :)
--
New Video: "Outlining Batman, Robin & Riddler in Photoshop (Time Lapse)"
Is this the same kind of dire Obama promised Syria if they used chemical weapons on their own people?
... we're all fine.
Because if it is
The American way of life is doomed. It cannot continue as it is. We've passed the tipping point of recovery.
One side here wants to do everything we can to mitigate the problems associated with the change and make as painless as possible.
The other side just ignores it, calls it a Liberal Hoax or Chinese Hoax, thinks if there is a problem but so what it's natural and Jesus will save us. In the meantime life and business as usual. The shock they will experience will devastate them.
Plan for the worst; hope for the best - Winston Churchill.
It will all be OK! Don't overreact, just move all the conservatards there! Since they live in a subjective-reality of "truthiness" instead of, you know, actual reality, they can just use that unwavering belief to live in the alternative-reality in which their unable-to-change "minds" believe! It's a win-win for everyone involved.
First of all â" bullshit.
Second of all â" Iâ(TM)ll be dead 50 years before 2100, so what the fuck do I care?
So in recent memory, we've seen 'natural disasters' that were exacerbated by man-made choices:
New Orleans/Hurricane Katrina - what made Hurricane Katrina so bad was the decision to build a major coastal city on land below sea level.
Fukushima Reactor disaster - as bad as the event was, it was amplified by the decision to locate a nuclear reactor with an ocean front view and beach side parking.
San Francisco Airport (future problem) - the brilliance of locating an airport with easy access to the bay will be questioned when the impact of the decision to locate their runways at approximately sea level is made clear.
Ken
Not to worry. Billions in tax dollars will be used to prop up the houses of the wealthy.
California's red tape high taxes will hold it back,it has held back the people and their businesses for years.
People are leaving Cali in droves why would anyone want to move there regardless of who they vote for?
"Models that factor in just sea level rise predict that at least 20 square miles could be underwater by 2100. Once you add in subsiding land, that jumps to nearly 50 square miles, and could get as bad as 165 square miles. Or, put another way, by the end of the century, half of the runways and taxiways at San Francisco Airport could be submerged. "
...BILLION square miles.... prove me wrong!
So.. you know, it could be 20 square miles... it could be 50 square miles... or it could be 165 square miles.... according to you know, models.... in 80 years when we'll all be dead...
My prediction: In 80 years it will be one... *pinky in corner of mouth*
Climate Change is a theory. That land isn't subsiding. Sea levels aren't rising. The Arctic ice cap isn't melting. Antarctic ice sheets aren't collapsing. Glaciers aren't retreating.
And 60% of Americans now alive will be dead by the turn of the century. If we were wrong, your grandchildren will deal with it, not you. There, don't you feel better now?
Go back to watching the news about Twitler and Stormy Daniels while we gut bank regulations. The bank regulations that were put in place to protect you from our co-conspirators in the banking industry.
"...a lot more dire..." is that even English?
What's on from there, "totally humongously dire, dude!" ?
Is Trump editing /. now?
My lawn - you know what to do.
The article could have just as easily said "Coastal developments, including San Francisco Airport, that were build on landfill are sinking and may need remediation to prevent flooding in the future".
The study says "However, rates exceed 10 mm/year in some areas underlain by compacting artificial landfill and Holocene mud deposits.", which means it is sinking a lot faster than the water is rising.
Many parts of the city are built on alluvial silt dredged up from the bay (e.g. the Marina District), so yeah... it's going to sink. But that's only the areas that are a few feet above sea level to begin with.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The globe is getting warmer and climates are changing and it's real.
But this level of fear-mongering is not helpful and diminishes our side of the argument. At this point anyone who argues that the world isn't getting warmer is seen as an idiot. Anyone who argues that it's not humanities fault is a blowhard. The current debates are how bad it's going to be and what we can do about it.
at a rate of less than 2 millimeters a year -- and while that may not sound like a lot, the millimeters can add up fast.
No. It doesn't. It adds up at a rate of 2mm/year. That is not fast. It's not compound. There is no interest.
San Fran has 100 years to deal with 20cm, or 8 inches. Parts of New Orleans are currently several feet underwater. They got flooded once during a hurricane. It sucked, but it's not the end of the world. If sea-levels rise 2 meters in 100 years, yeah, we've got a lot of trouble and expensive relocation. Or expensive and questionable dikes. But 2mm a year sound manageable.
And this motherfucker is trying to get us worried about PLATE TECTONICS. Not earthquakes, the SPEED at which they MOVE. Dude.
People would have to be complete morons to not understand that it's nothing but a tidal surge. If it was sea level rise, it would happen all over the planet with minor changes for the tides.
Put a dam across the mouth of the San Francisco Bay, the further West the better. Drain most of the Bay (leaving a few canals for the rivers to flow into) and reclaim the land.
This would solve SF's housing problem by providing lots of new land to build on, and it'll shorten the coastline, making it much easier to fortify against the rising sea level.
>half of the runways and taxiways at San Francisco Airport could be submerged.
In other words, the land will return to its natural state, which infill tends to do.
3,796,577 square miles to go.
Move somewhere else. The population density of the US is low, low, low. You don't all need to live within 100 miles of one another.
Money, good wine, and nice weather is for CRAZY people.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
SF Chron in its piece on this noted that some areas are sinking at a rate of about 3/4 inch per year (about 20mm/year). That compares to actual sea level rise of about 2mm/year, or predicted at something like 4-5mm/year. This is not a climate problem.
For decades, the left has fought against additional landfill in SF Bay. That is why there is an organization called "Save SF Bay." In the 70s, there was success in halting additional landfill. The bay is already something like 50% filled from its original size.
"Important" parts of SF and elsewhere lie on bay landfill. That includes the SF financial district, some SF residential areas, and fancy silicon valley places like Facebook.
The landfill is where the subsidence is happening. This is a 100% manmade problem; nothing to do with climate change. In addition to being subject to subsidence, bay landfill is also subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake. These are exactly the same places, and for a long time the left has wanted to return them to wetlands.
In many ways, this seems to be a way to leverage climate panic to pay for bulwarks against landfill problems being suffered by companies who want the taxpayer to foot their bills.
It will start washing away all the syringes littering the streets.
And being up the hill in Fremont means if I just wait, I'll have waterfront property, instead of having to walk down 3 block to the canal.
Same with San Francisco: they can either do what the Dutch and Vietnamese have done - dikes, floating houses that rise when the floods come with garage patios below (sometimes with showers), or they can learn to swim.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This isn't news, this is just silliness.The idea that someone is complaining because they were stupid enough to buy or build a house at or near sea level at the edge of an ocean makes me think that we have even more stupid people living on this rock than I thought .....
It will at least wash away all of the human piss and feces.
How much of that is due to the Pacific Plate and North American Plate contact line? And is it actual sea level rise earth core relative or is some other mechanism at play. This could be an everything looks like a nail scenario.
j/k
As a full-service Sanctuary City, they're simply adding an Aquatic Sanctuary.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Global warming. Rising sea levels. Plate techtonics. Salad bowl techtonics. Russian interference. Vaccinations. Sub-atomic particles. Extinct passenger pigeons. False prophets I say. It's all fake science; fake news. The only True News is the Galactic Confederacy Network Xenus. Film at eleven.
My "base data" is from the study the article is based upon, brainiac.
Maybe you should try following the links and reading the actual study/data instead of thinking with your fingers?
Subsidence is a comparatively minor factor and in no way warrants the screaming doom headlines. The study is saying because of subsidence, somewhat more land may be at risk than previously thought, and tries to lay out what that might be... the data I point to and the points I make refer to the areas affected AFTER subsidence is factored in by the study. It still affects almost none of SF, South Bay mostly.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That will come down to what works cheapest in the shockingly poor rural areas of India and China.
I've been to really poor rural villages (like village uses a single well for water poor) in China and already see a lot of solar panels, also electric scooters. Because what ends up being really cheap is something you never have to travel to fuel.. a poor village is willing to wait a long time for chargers to charge up whatever.
In the end solar is by far the cheapest path for rural areas and electric motors are way easier to manufacture than combustion engines.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Be scared. Of anything really. Or everything.
The only news today is what you should be afraid of. Which is everything.
Yes go on. Be scared.
It's what being an American is all about anymore . . .
First Airport was in 1910 (approx) It's been 110 years. Will the SF Airport be relevant in 100 years?
Airports are already overcrowded, bottlenecked, and supposedly terrorist targets. The current model has a LOT of problems. Would you really expect the current model to still be relevant in 100 years?
As with all climate change discussions, I wonder why we're so interested in maintaining the status quo. Let's try something different. ;)
--Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
Really? Every time someone tweaks the model and generates a new data set we get a news story? Because predicting the future is a thing?
"Ahhh, it's gone, it's gone, it's gone...All the shitty shows are gone, all the idiots screaming in the fucking wind are dead, I love it...leaving nothing but a cool, beautiful serenity called Arizona Bay. That's right, when L.A. falls in the fucking ocean and is flushed away, all it will leave is Arizona Bay." - Bill Hicks.
Clean coal won't help one bit with man made global climate change, we need dirty coal to blot out the sun.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Don't click on his homepage link! creimer is trying to get you to subscribe automatically to his youtube channel, force you to watch his digi-feces videos and make money off you!
CREIMER' SUBMISSIONS UPDATE: /. so make sure to go to:
Note also that creimer is trying to regain karma by getting his submissions published as articles on
https://slashdot.org/~crreimer
https://slashdot.org/~cdreimer
https://slashdot.org/~criss69
https://slashdot.org/~Anonymou...
https://slashdot.org/~FatCashe...
https://slashdot.org/~ILoveFat...
https://slashdot.org/~IHateFat...
https://slashdot.org/~IAteFatC...
https://slashdot.org/~ITapeFat...
https://slashdot.org/~IApeFatC...
https://slashdot.org/~IPrayFat...
https://slashdot.org/~FatCashe...
and mod down his submissions as well. The great thing is that you don't even need mod points to mod down a submission, just click on the "minus" icon!
Yes, believe it or not, creimer owns all the above sock puppet accounts. It is a mystery why Slashdot management tolerates it!
creimer wrote:
I don't bother with mod points. I'm doing something much more sinister. It took ten story submissions ? I'll have to double check the number ? to move cdreimer's karma from neutral to excellent without ever being exposed to the capricious mods. Mmmmmwwwwahahahahahahaha!
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! Creimy is posting more than 2 posts a day. Hurry! mod down otherwise /. will go to hell again!
Note: you can mod down even if already at -1 to lower karma and to prevent lost /. users to accidentally mod up.
creimer wrote:
All you need to do is find a website with a permissive TOS, say, Slashdot, create a Python script to scrape your own comments, sprinkle Amazon affiliate links in various posts, and then re-post past links whenever possible. Won't be long before you start making "coffee money" each month.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
C.D. Reimer is a renowned Slashdot collaborator, as he puts it himself; "Because of the quality of my posts and my article submissions, I'm a highly rated commentator and moderator."
But does anybody ever wondered what "C.D." stands for? Well, it stands for Creimy Dumpty of course!
Creimy Dumpty sat on the wall,
Creimy Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses
And all the king's men
Couldn't put Creimy Dumpty
Together again.
Creimy's siblings video and theme song, very realistic, especially the pants, just like Creimy's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
With "Vice President Pence Vowing US Astronauts Will Return To the Moon", we are sure they will need miracle workers up there, here is what it would look like. Note that Creimy takes care of bringing a lot of food to the moon as depicted below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Creimy's real pictures:
Before the sex change:
https://ibb.co/cc7Ddw
After the sex change:
https://ibb.co/gVad65
Most if not all wastewater treatment facilities are located in low-lying coastal areas. Such facilities already frequently fail whenever there is excessive storm water drainage (from heavy storms), releasing untreated sewage into the bay.
Imagine the cost of having to completely replace all these treatment facilities at a time when all these other things are already going critical.
Another sad thing will be the loss of a lot of the protected wildlife habitat zones which exist around the bay. That they were even created after a more ruinous, environmentally catastrophic earlier period was a big thing. But now that they're established they will soon disappear.
One other thing - they're planning to build the new high-speed rail along the same corridor that is used by Caltrain - a corridor which almost hugs the coastline. When everything goes critical from rising water levels, sections of this line will either be submerged or extremely close to being submerged. It was probably a major mistake to build the high speed rail corridor along that route instead of further inland.
AFAIK, most of the route between SF and SJ will be aerial by then, anyway.
Apparently Palo Alto was throwing tantrums & demanding a tunnel, then Caltrans basically said, "You'll approve aerial tracks, or we'll do nothing at all & you can endure 110mph grade crossings and trains every 3-10 minutes in perpetuity once HSR launches".
Did I read that right? 2 mm * 82 years = 6.5 inches or so. Is that amount really going to cause runways to be flooded?
Please explain how gravity works.
http://mochimachine.org/wastel...
That might be a separate issue about overpasses. Unlike for instance Germany where there are virtually no road/rail crossings, the corridor along the peninsula has many road/rail crossings (and consequent traffic snarls, pedestrian deaths, vehicles being hit).
Part of the money for the high-speed rail project will be to eliminate road/rail crossings along the corridor and have only overpasses similar to places like Germany.
I live at an altitude where, in a practical sense, no water could ever reach my home. Not trolling, these are all real game-enders. For the record I consider all of these important issues. If you reduce emissions enough to repair the climate you doom the economy - and therefore humanity which depends on it. If you build sea-walls to deal with sea-level rise you likely save some humanity - but you doom every swamp/lowland/river delta and it's ecosystem worldwide. Biodiversity isn't optional, destroying the global floodplains will be as damning as reducing the emissions. What to do?
How do we deal with the emissions, economy, and biology? We seem to have arguments for 2 of 3.
And yet California has a bigger economy than all but 5 nations in the world. Doesn't seem like enough people are leaving to having an effect on that.
Actually global sea level doesn't act like a bathtub. There are all sorts of effects that cause variations in sea level, currents, gravity among others.
Doom, doom, doom and people accept it without critical thinking. Global warming fanatics are always predicting doom just like all end of the world cults. Of course, like all cults it's always doom in the future. How much has sea level rise over the last 10,000 years affected people who fall for this future doom prophecy? Not at all. How much will sea level rise affect future people? Not at all unless we start living 1000 or more years. People and civilization adjusts. It's not like God created the Earth at the perfect temperature and perfect sea level although honestly I don't think most people in the Global Warming Cult realize that deep down that's what they seem to believe.
Alexa, I'll be underwater in 100 years, what am I going to do?
Alexa: Take corpse swimming lessons!
While I agree with you on the minimal effect of emigration, that doesn't refute GP's point that red tape is holding California back. Without red tape, perhaps California could have a bigger economy than all but one nation in the world.
But not faster than less than 2mm per year...
Maybe that'll help flights get into and out of SFO on time. Can't make it worse. Good riddance, shitty airport.
Niagara Falls is only a shadow of it's former self of 150 years ago. And the Mississippi river is 120 miles shorter than it was in 1850. The earth collects 2 feet of water from outer space each million years, so in another 4.5 billion years, all animal life will need to migrate to mountainous areas at altitudes greater than 8900 feet above current sea level. All of it caused by natural events, no global warming, climate change or any other man-caused calamities required.
Control the flow from the ocean at a single location...
If California is concerned, how do you think the residents of Atlantis felt when the Northern Polar ice cap was melted by a meteor and flooded their city as well as several others, including one in Japan?
I have absolutely 0 sympathy for people who build RIGHT on the shore line. I lived in the arrea, saw people building right on the coast line, if this is such a big concern perhaps they shouldn't be handing out building permits for building on the coastline.
A quick look at a map confirmed my suspicion that the airport was just built on landfill. It looks like there is also a significant risk of liquefaction when the next earthquake strikes. https://priceonomics.com/what-...
Millions of people will move to places that aren't underwater. It's the people already there that will kill them, because, dirty foreigners get out! They will probably kill each other a fair bit.
That's nonsense. Almost all plants benefit dramatically from higher CO2 levels. That's why commercial greenhouse operators commonly use CO2 generators to increase CO2 levels to 800-1200 ppmv above average outdoor levels: because it makes the plants much healthier, faster-growing, and more productive. Plants do not "have a harder time producing proteins" (unless underfertilized), they do not have "trouble reproducing," and they are not "weaker" with higher CO2 levels. Crops grown in greenhouses with CO2 levels 3x outdoor levels are just as nutritious as when grown outdoors, and plants are just as hardy, but at 3x higher CO2 levels they are much more productive.
Nor is there any evidence of harm to marine life from CO2. The most significant change seen is the increase in calcifying coccolithophores, which remove CO2 from the water.
Higher CO2 levels are dramatically beneficial for both agriculture and natural ecosystems. That fact has been known to science for about a century! In fact, way back in 1920 Scientific American called anthropogenic CO2 "the precious air fertilizer," because it is so highly beneficial for plants.
The claim that higher CO2 levels cause significantly accelerated coastal sea-level rise is falsified by the measurement data. As it happens, one of the USA's best long sea-level measurement records is from San Francisco. Since the 1906 Earthquake, sea-level at San Francisco has risen at just 2.0 ±0.2 mm/year (7.1 to 8.7 inches per century), and there's been no "acceleration" in rate, at all.
Here's a graph showing sea-level measured at San Francisco juxtaposed with CO2 level:
http://sealevel.info/9414290_SanFrancisco_2016-12_since_1906-05.png
That includes both global sea-level rise (about 1.5 mm/yr) and local subsidence (my guess is about 0.5 mm/yr, though Prof. Richard Peltier estimates 0.32 mm/yr [ICE6G/VM5a] or 0.42 mm/yr [ICE5Gv1.3/VM2]).
As you can see from the graph, CO2 level has no perceptible effect on the (minuscule) rate of sea-level rise.
The rate of sea-level rise at San Francisco is slightly higher than average (because of subsidence), but the lack of acceleration is typical. Most sites have seen little or no sea-level rise acceleration since the 1920s or earlier. Coastal sea-level is rising no faster now, with CO2 level at 407 ppmv, than it was nine decades ago, with CO2 level 100 ppmv lower.
Although the Earth's climate has warmed modestly, the increase in CO2 level and the resultant warming have had no detectable effect on the rate of sea-level rise.
BTW, if you aren't sure what "acceleration" looks like in a graph, here's a little primer that should help:
http://sealevel.info/acceleration_primer.html
From the combined effects of global sea-level rise and local land subsidence, San Francisco is on track to experience only 6 to 7 inches of sea-level rise by 2100.