Help support TMP


"Parts of San Francisco are sinking faster than ..." Topic


17 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please do not use bad language on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Science Plus Board


Areas of Interest

General

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Showcase Article

Cheap Scenery: Giant Mossy Rocks

Well, they're certainly cheap...


Featured Profile Article

Gen Con So Cal 2006 Report

Wyatt the Odd Fezian reports from the final California Gen Con...


Current Poll


Featured Book Review


433 hits since 8 Mar 2018
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango0108 Mar 2018 9:36 p.m. PST

…. the sea is rising

"Rising seas aren't the only problem facing low-lying coastal areas. Many of these areas are also sinking, vastly increasing the risk of flooding.

In the San Francisco Bay area, sea level rise alone could inundate an area of between 50 and 410 square kilometres by 2100, depending both on how much action is taken to limit further global warming and how fast the polar ice sheets melt. But when land subsidence is also taken into account, the area vulnerable to flooding during high tides and storm surges rises to between 130 and 430 square kilometres.

That's the conclusion of Manoochehr Shirzaei at Arizona State University and Roland Bürgmann at the University of California, Berkeley. They used satellite data from 2007 to 2010 to work out how land heights changed in the Bay area at this time…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Cacique Caribe09 Mar 2018 12:56 a.m. PST

I guess it's warmer in some parts of San Francisco than in others?

Dan

Bowman09 Mar 2018 8:58 a.m. PST

More likely differences in the local topography. Also the height of the ocean levels are different depending where you are. The Western Pacific is about 12 feet higher than the Atlantic average. But there is only a 1 ft difference on either side of the Panama canal.

Imagine if it was the other way around. What would your house be like if the Gulf of Mexico was 12 ft higher?

Roderick Robertson Fezian09 Mar 2018 9:34 a.m. PST

A lot of San Francisco is built on landfill (a lot from the 1906 earthquake). Heck, they occasionally find ships from the Gold Rush under buildings – not the most stable of environments!

link

Col Durnford09 Mar 2018 9:57 a.m. PST

So they are not talking about the moral decline?

Tango0109 Mar 2018 11:04 a.m. PST

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP09 Mar 2018 12:20 p.m. PST

VCarter +1 thumbs up

Cacique Caribe09 Mar 2018 1:36 p.m. PST

Bowman: "Imagine if it was the other way around. What would your house be like if the Gulf of Mexico was 12 ft higher?"

So, instead of living 141 feet above sea level, we would be at 129 feet above sea level. It's gotta get a hell of a lot higher if I'm ever going to have beachfront property. :)

Dan

Bowman09 Mar 2018 6:00 p.m. PST

Dan, I thought you were closer to the coast. Padre Island would be gone though, and the coastline would be very different.

Cacique Caribe10 Mar 2018 12:19 a.m. PST

I'm always surprised when I read what our elevation is. And we are only a few short miles west of Houston.

Dan

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP10 Mar 2018 8:52 a.m. PST

Darn! I guess it is going to take a lot of warming for me to live in beachfront property (5397 ft). grin

Dave

zoneofcontrol10 Mar 2018 3:44 p.m. PST

StoneMt-
We started a funding page just for you. Everyone on TMP is signing up to send you one bag of playground sand and a case of bottled water. It is up to you to supply your own speedo and sunscreen.

Cacique Caribe10 Mar 2018 6:47 p.m. PST

Maybe we should all pitch in for a big mechanical digger contraption. That way he can dig down to sea level and, better for us, we won't have to see him in his speedo.

Also, the faster sea levels go up, the less he'll need to dig. :)

Dan
PS. I think I read in a few places that, even if all the ice in the world melted, 100 meters (330 feet) might be all that the sea level would rise. So I don't think Dave ever had a chance of having his house become beachfront property. Sorry Dave!

Bowman11 Mar 2018 6:00 a.m. PST

I think I read in a few places that, even if all the ice in the world melted, 100 meters (330 feet) might be all that the sea level would rise.

That's all? Sheesh, Dan, you are hard to impress.

Just imagine the surface of every point of every ocean on this planet being 100 meters higher. Imagine the volume of water need to raise the oceans that amount. To me that is mind boggling!

Then there is just as much water, trapped in the mantle too. Truly a stunning amount.

Personal logo StoneMtnMinis Supporting Member of TMP11 Mar 2018 7:45 p.m. PST

This is what Bowman is referencing:

link

Cacique Caribe11 Mar 2018 8:45 p.m. PST

Wow, that's fantastic stuff! I remember we used to talk about subsurface ice and lakes back when we were in high school and college. But back then it was just talk.

Bowman, would you say that the polar and glacial ice remaining in Earth is about half of what it was at the height of the last Ice Age? Are there any reliable figures comparing the volume of ice then and now?

Dan

Bowman12 Mar 2018 11:40 a.m. PST

This is what Bowman is referencing:

Actually that is not what I'm referencing, even though that is fascinating too. I'm talking about this:

link

Just like we have surface water cycles of evaporation, atmospheric humidity, rainfall, surface liquid water and ice etc., there are much larger cycles where the water cycles between the surface and the mantle. It is estimated that, bound to hydrated minerals and rocks, there is as much water in the upper mantle as there is on the surface. And there is even more water in the transition zone and deeper mantle.

link

link

Bowman, would you say that the polar and glacial ice remaining in Earth is about half of what it was at the height of the last Ice Age? Are there any reliable figures comparing the volume of ice then and now?

No idea, but this may help:

link

"About 21,000 years ago, during the last glacial maximum (LGM), sea level was about 125 meters (about 410 feet) lower than it is today."

So at the LGM the oceans were 410 feet lower, and if everything melts we would be 330 feet higher then 45% would be a good guess…….I think. wink

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.