"Want to fight Sea Level Rise? Look to San Francisco's" Topic

…. OCEAN BEACH

"MOST MORNINGS WHEN I step out of my San Francisco apartment, I hear the waves, the seagulls, and occasionally kids yelling out the window across the street. But over the past few weeks, the murmur of Ocean Beach has been cut with a low mechanistic rumble. Walk a few blocks and pop your head over the sand dunes and you'll find the culprits: orange-yellow tractors piling sand into dump trucks, which caravan three miles south and spit out the sand—50,000 cubic yards, or 75,000 tons, of it in total—back on the beach….."

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

And a few weeks ago someone posted a thread here that SF was sinking unevenly.

Dan
PS. I heard that SF is at fault. Get it, at fault? :)

Dan, from the original link that you allude to:

"Some places, including parts of the city itself, plus San Francisco International Airport and Foster City, were sinking by up to 10mm per year. That's because these areas are built on natural mud deposits, or landfill sites that are still compacting."

link

From the link above:

"And much of the San Francisco Bay Area is built on landfill that's sinking as seas are rising, exposing some areas more rapidly than others."

Sounds like these sources agree.

Thing is the sea has always been eating away the land when major storms hit, so nothing new there.

Plus what they claim will happen by 2100 more than likely won't happen.

Their track records on claiming things that will happen is petty horrible.

But I never plan to go to San Francisco due to several reasons.

But maybe sometime over the next million or so years it might be under water, but by then Africa would have split in two and many other things would have happen as well.

link

Bowman: "That's because these areas are built on natural mud deposits, or landfill sites that are still compacting"

I'll remember that next time someone uses New Orleans and other sinking "natural mud deposits or landfill sites" as proof for sea level rise.

And areas in subduction zones too.

Dan

I'll remember that next time someone uses New Orleans and other sinking "natural mud deposits or landfill sites" as proof for sea level rise.

I have never heard that used and no one that ever visited New Orleans or knows any thing about anything would say such a thing. I wouldn't discuss science with them…..a fool's errand.

Anyone who has been to Jackson Square in the French Quarter and walked along Woldenberg Park knows how far below the Mississippi water line New Orleans actually is. So it's not proof for sea level rise, but neither it is proof against it. It simply means that the inevitable sea level rise will be that much worse and destructive in those local areas.

Think how many cities on the coast are built at the confluence of a river and the ocean. Many are built on man made extensions and land fill (think Manhattan Island) or on silt deposits from the river (like New Orleans). That is what these articles are addressing.

Bowman

I just walk away. They are nuts and want to see evidence of it everywhere.

Dan

A lot of real estate, a lot of it prime real estate, is built on landfill. Treasure Island, out in the middle of the bay, is entirely artificial. A big chunk of San Francisco proper was water when the original 49ers got here. A lot of the coastline has been used, um, industrially, and it's a mess. Since California has limitless money, apparently, there is a lot of reclamation going on as they try to repair all this. And generally trying to keep the place from falling apart. Between this and the schools (perpetually under reconstruction), I think if you move to California, open a construction business, and start making political contributions you'll be rich in no time.