I would think the dominating factors in Oregon and California are their uplifted soft geologies. The orogenies that lifted the West have resulted in an elevated, cliff-bounded sandy coastline along the Pacific that has been aggressively eroding for a lot longer than humans have been there.
right, except that humans have fixed the high tide lines over whole geolographical areas and done massive work to redirect almost all of the rivers and streams to agriculture, industry and domestic uses, and stopping most of the sand from reaching the ocean, plus sand mining for building is so extensive that there now shortages, meaning that the main surface sources are gone.
those fixed high tide lines are also the collateral for trillions of dollars in loans and investments, and given the tripple wammy described in the article, things could get out of hand in a whole new way.
It's annoying for coastal areas, and a problem for beach houses, but California isn't really that vulnerable to rising sea levels. The Pacific Coast is mountainous and the ground slopes upward in short distances.
Here's the US topo map.[1] Look at vulnerable spots, such as Malibu and Oceanside. Three blocks inland you're 20 feet above sea level. Almost all problems are on the ocean side of the Pacific Coast Highway, which was a marginal place to build anyway.
Cliff edge erosion is an ongoing problem. That's why CALTRANS gave up on Devil's Slide as a road route and built the Tom Lantos Tunnels further inland. Small changes in sea level don't affect hundred-foot cliffs that much, though.
The places that really suffer from rising sea level are river deltas, sitting on deposited sand just barely above sea level. In the US, New Orleans has the worst problem. New York City has problems, and they're building coast defenses against storms. China's coastal cities are mostly on river deltas with really flat terrain. That's why China has to build ports way off shore, reached by miles of bridges, to get to deep water.
The Bay Bridge channel is so shallow it has to be dredged. There was a 1946 plan to fill it in.[1] There were Corps of Engineers plans for a lot of filling, but they didn't go that far. I have a copy of their 1960-2020 plan for the Bay Area.[2] Their vision was to make the SF bay area a major industrial city, building on the facilities built for WWII. Aluminum smelter in Sausalito. Steel mills at Tiberon. Five freeways up the Peninsula (101, 280, 35, 1, and one on stilts in the bay.) Another Bay Bridge. Maybe a SF-Alcatraz-Angel Island-Tiberon link. It would have been like Pittsburgh.
The topographic map says, the Bay Area is just around the first bay, there's a whole second bay opening up behind it (Sacramento area valley) which could flood with enough sea level rise.
CA already floods at high tide so I think another 10 ft is really gonna mess stuff up. There are so many rivers that empty at sea level and a lot of roads that cross over low points that will need reworking.
The Bay Area is one big river delta, going inland to Sacramento.
It's not the Pacific coast communities you have to worry about like Half Moon Bay or Santa Cruz. They have a beach, and then cliffs, and then the actual city is like 50-100 feet above sea level.
It's the bayside communities. Foster City. Redwood Shore. The Embarcadero. SFO. Port of Oakland. Highway 101.
All of these are pretty critical parts of Bay Area infrastructure, and gone with as little as a 1.6' sea level rise + 20yr storm.
The city of Santa Barbara painted a line through the town 25 years ago saying if we don’t stop global warming, the town will be under water to that line in 25 years…
If they had drawn the proposed line, it would still be the same distance from the coast today. So its presence would be a detriment to global warming proponents.
Shorelines and sea levels never changed before the industrial revolution, the only thing that causes change in climate is man's reliance on CO2-based fuels.
PS - Look at Bangladesh's ship breaking industry to see how much they care about the environment.
I would think the dominating factors in Oregon and California are their uplifted soft geologies. The orogenies that lifted the West have resulted in an elevated, cliff-bounded sandy coastline along the Pacific that has been aggressively eroding for a lot longer than humans have been there.
right, except that humans have fixed the high tide lines over whole geolographical areas and done massive work to redirect almost all of the rivers and streams to agriculture, industry and domestic uses, and stopping most of the sand from reaching the ocean, plus sand mining for building is so extensive that there now shortages, meaning that the main surface sources are gone. those fixed high tide lines are also the collateral for trillions of dollars in loans and investments, and given the tripple wammy described in the article, things could get out of hand in a whole new way.
[Insert HbomberguyShoutingAtBenShapiro.gif here]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-w-pdqwiBw
It's annoying for coastal areas, and a problem for beach houses, but California isn't really that vulnerable to rising sea levels. The Pacific Coast is mountainous and the ground slopes upward in short distances.
Here's the US topo map.[1] Look at vulnerable spots, such as Malibu and Oceanside. Three blocks inland you're 20 feet above sea level. Almost all problems are on the ocean side of the Pacific Coast Highway, which was a marginal place to build anyway.
Cliff edge erosion is an ongoing problem. That's why CALTRANS gave up on Devil's Slide as a road route and built the Tom Lantos Tunnels further inland. Small changes in sea level don't affect hundred-foot cliffs that much, though.
The places that really suffer from rising sea level are river deltas, sitting on deposited sand just barely above sea level. In the US, New Orleans has the worst problem. New York City has problems, and they're building coast defenses against storms. China's coastal cities are mostly on river deltas with really flat terrain. That's why China has to build ports way off shore, reached by miles of bridges, to get to deep water.
[1] https://en-us.topographic-map.com/map-9t5k57/Venice-Beach/?c...
Isn’t the Bay Area quite vulnerable? I’m thinking they’re going to have to build a dam with locks in front of the golden gate
The problem with that is that there are rivers and streams emptying into the bay. All of that water has to make it to the sea somehow.
The Netherlands has solved that problem
No way. The Golden Gate is really deep.
The Bay Bridge channel is so shallow it has to be dredged. There was a 1946 plan to fill it in.[1] There were Corps of Engineers plans for a lot of filling, but they didn't go that far. I have a copy of their 1960-2020 plan for the Bay Area.[2] Their vision was to make the SF bay area a major industrial city, building on the facilities built for WWII. Aluminum smelter in Sausalito. Steel mills at Tiberon. Five freeways up the Peninsula (101, 280, 35, 1, and one on stilts in the bay.) Another Bay Bridge. Maybe a SF-Alcatraz-Angel Island-Tiberon link. It would have been like Pittsburgh.
[1] https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/second-bay-bridge-plans...
[2] https://archive.org/details/futuredevelopmen00unit
The topographic map says, the Bay Area is just around the first bay, there's a whole second bay opening up behind it (Sacramento area valley) which could flood with enough sea level rise.
I'm used to people assuming California = LA + Bay area, but it's the first time I see someone arguing that they don't count…
CA already floods at high tide so I think another 10 ft is really gonna mess stuff up. There are so many rivers that empty at sea level and a lot of roads that cross over low points that will need reworking.
The Bay Area is one big river delta, going inland to Sacramento.
It's not the Pacific coast communities you have to worry about like Half Moon Bay or Santa Cruz. They have a beach, and then cliffs, and then the actual city is like 50-100 feet above sea level.
It's the bayside communities. Foster City. Redwood Shore. The Embarcadero. SFO. Port of Oakland. Highway 101.
All of these are pretty critical parts of Bay Area infrastructure, and gone with as little as a 1.6' sea level rise + 20yr storm.
https://www.kqed.org/science/1973624/maps-see-which-bay-area...
The city of Santa Barbara painted a line through the town 25 years ago saying if we don’t stop global warming, the town will be under water to that line in 25 years…
No they didn't, that was merely a proposal.
If they had drawn the proposed line, it would still be the same distance from the coast today. So its presence would be a detriment to global warming proponents.
tbh maybe it's good and changes something quicker and on the long term that rich people experience it firsthand before the Maldives or Bangladesh
(probably nothing just me being optimistic but the rich always have a get out of jail card, like X more properties)
Shorelines and sea levels never changed before the industrial revolution, the only thing that causes change in climate is man's reliance on CO2-based fuels.
PS - Look at Bangladesh's ship breaking industry to see how much they care about the environment.
Gonna be interesting when that Kelvin wave overlaps with king tide…
Coastal erosion =/= sea level rise.
This is textbook expected behavior on a high energy deep water coast (eg cliffs, not mangroves)
The Seattle Times ran an article maybe last year that measurements of sea level at Seattle had increased 8 inches over the last century.
The flaw in that is what is the reference frame? The tectonic plate Seattle is sitting on is going down under the cascade mountains.
And beaches have been eroding for millions of years.