Of course, that's all the fault of we eee-villl Americans -
If I lived in San Francisco or Los Angeles I would be more worried about earthquakes than submerged land.
Everyone knows "the Big One is going to hit within 25 years."
There is no "mother nature."
As seen throughout history, God creates these "retributions” to punish mankind for immorality and steer them towards repentance.
Even lowly serfs of the earth recognized this in the past.
Attila the Hun, who devastated Europe in the 1430s by killing 14 million people, was known by all humanity at the time as “Flagellum Dei,” or “Scourge of God."
New Orleans got flooded twice but continues on in their celebration of immorality.
After the Katrina flood that cost deaths and billions of dollars New Orleans rebuilt and still c(arried on the brazen Southern Decadence week (they made $100 million every year catering to LGBT and Qs).
They got hit again.
Do they want to get hit again and again for their ignoring of these warning of further devastation to come?
What cataclysmic event will bring humanity back to sanity of morality?
Heaven help us!
The area labeled "Santa Clara" on the map is Milpitas and North San Jose aka Alviso. Yes, its part of Santa Clara County, but its not Santa Clara City, and the rest of the labels are cities or specific places.
1
That is why overpopulated places, high buildings, and over built land, all contribute to this, besides climate issues!
3
Finally a NYT's article on coastal flooding in which the lead sentence blames subsidence. Several places on the west coast and throughout much of the east coast, subsidence of land is an order of magnitude greater than sea level rise, feet vs inches. But the NYT almost always blames rising seas for increased risk of flooding in New Orleans and the bayou, tide water Virginia and elsewhere along the eastern seaboard.
Rather than global warming, the NYT should be pointing the blame for higher flood risk to subsidence caused by developers, not nature. Subsidence is caused by pumping out too much fresh water, digging canals to create farmland from swamps, expanding cities by landfill and building heavy structures, and by building flood control walls and dams thereby losing land renewal from silt. Subsidence is a price we pay for 'taming' the land.
3
Duh!
Scientists are usually conservative in their estimates because of uncertainty.
Isn't "the big one" earthquake going to eliminate the Bay Area by 2100 anyway?
1
I'd be more worried about the earthquake.
1
The problems can be counteracted by another flood.
A flood of Democrats to the polls in November.
2
This situation has a real up side. Looking at the map, it would appear that Facebook, Apple, and Google might all get drowned out, thus making San Francisco, the Peninsula, and the South Bay actually affordable places for ordinary folks to live once again. Now, if we can just root for subsidence without having to root for global warming to melt the polar ice, it'll be a win-win situation.
3
Trump and Pruitt are no doubt happy about this. Vindictive pay-back, etc...
Meanwhile, our nation is at risk from their follies, actions, and inaction where it counts!
2
First penguins population crash because of climate change then 1.5 million appear in another place with a different survival strategy and it's because of climate change. Are the scientists in possession of all the facts?
There's no telling where San Fransico Bay area residents will go if the housing prices continue to rise unabated. Antarctica perhaps? Good idea as long as they don't scare the penguins like French film makers did. They are running out of places to hide. I hear it's very peaceful there. Wherever they do find themselves the climate scientist will know the reason.
OK, but so what? Not much red to see here and plenty of time to adjust. Worst-case scenario, replace the airport(s), the submerged neighborhoods and just keep on going. There's plenty of money in the Bay Area to make that happen. Frankly, from here in flyover country, I'm not panicking.
Wish I could still be around in 2100 AD, to read/hear news (from a vantage point above water) about the status of land subsidence in the Bay Area. As of now, today's troubles are sufficient cause for worry.
Whenever I hear of things supposedly occurring with projected dates for which I know I'll be dead, I just kind of shrug.
When I drove 101 in Silicon Valley in the early 90s, “environmental activists” had posted signs right off the freeway and a bit uphill, “SEA LEVEL IN 2020.”
They got the attention they wanted, but later admitted they had lied to dramatize the “danger.” In so many words they said, “We have a right to lie!”
If you want to get grant money and approval for a study, words like “rising sea levels” attract funding. A bit like physics jobs a while back going to people who studied string theory.
This story has a fair amount of genuine science about subsistence. My home is on that map. But the fear-uncertainty-doubt about rising sea levels has become religious.
1
A big part of the reason I'm not having children is the thought of leaving them to the mercy of the world we have knowingly created for them. Unpopular opinion perhaps but it is the height of selfishness knowing what the future likely holds,to still create new humans and condemn to this torturous hellworld, simply to satisfy a biological urge
Most of those lands were reclaimed from the bay over the last 150 years anyway. Aren't the environmentalists all about returning things to their "natural" state?
2
It looks like this can be be fairly easily fixed by a sea wall. They are bigger things to worry about.
2
Knowing which current U.S. Congressional districts and Silicon Valley headquarters would be impacted by this predicted sea-level rise would be interesting.
1
It's very surprising to see an article here that attributes flooding to anything other than the supposed climate crisis. The usual M.O. is to treat all floods as the result of climate change. For example, Corpus Christie has flooding problems, most of which have been there for years, but are getting worse because the ground is sinking. More than a few times I have seen the problem attributed to climate change. There is a ton of misrepresentation here and people would do well to believe only 1/2 of what they read, even here.
3
Very easy to raise land levels and by dumping trash. This was done at the end of Marsh Road in Menlo Park near the Facebook headquarters. The former dump is now a beautiful 100 foot high series of grassy rolling hills covering perhaps 1/2 square mile. It's probably the most beautiful spot on the bay south of SF and Oakland. Extending this bock around the Bay might actually save money because ever since that dump closed we now have to cart our trash to distant locations.
2
The list of major international US airports facing submersion : BOS, JFK, LGA, EWR, MIA, SFO, OAK... Any others?
Much more concerning to the Bay Area should be increased seismic stress from massive shifts in water and land, accompanied by gravitational effects. Likely the cause of recent quakes in Mexico - oil drilling leading to subsidence.
Perhaps a few well-placed nukes could preemptively release tension? Smaller quakes always better than bigger ones?
1
Thank goodness we have educated, well meaning elites in power who are willing to ponder the evidence and come up with well thought out responses to the challenges that face us.
Never fails --- all predictions having to do with catastrophic effects of climate are in the distant future.
In this case 82 years.
None of these 'scientists' will be around to be shown wrong.
Junk Science!
2
Wait, you mean wealthy people might be negatively affected by climate change, too? Okay, *now* it's time to do something about it.
Aren't these areas trivial in size compared to what will happen to Florida?
1
By the time 2100 rolls around all the predictors will have passed on. Hence we cannot blame them.
Nice going. Stand on the street corners shouting the world is ending. Just make sure not to give the date or give a date far into the future so the predictor will be nowhere to be found.
1
Those coastal folk wading in their yard should consider Buffalo, NY.,
600'+ above sea-level. Property prices are low, for the moment.
A fascinating and of course ominous geology report, but of course we are not doing infrastructure for at least the time being no matter what this administration has been pretending.
1
I was told in the early 2000's not to buy property anywhere near sea level. Drought is a different but similar problem. The military has been saying for years critical infrastructure near port towns is a national security risk. Sticking a 2100 timestamp on the issue seems a bit nonsensical. An environmental astrophysicist once told me "buy in Vermont now if you want to retire in today's North Carolina." Why is anyone shocked by this news?
3
.
The worst things a person can do for the environment are: 1) have children, 2) fly on airplanes, and 3) eat animal products. Airports submerging can be one part of the solution.
27
"The worst things a person can do for the environment are: 1) have children"
Good idea. Unless you think the "environment" is only worth saving for its own sake, whether human beings exist in it or not, then by all means let's save humankind by ensuring its extinction by......refraining from reproducing. Brilliant.
1
4) vote for a Republican
you forgot stop burning fossil fuels....then the other three are OK as long as a couple limits the child count to 2....for ZPG
It's well known that much of the Bay shoreline was extended or raised by landfill onto open water and tidal wetlands, including Downtown San Francisco (Yerba Buena Cove) which was raised high enough in the 19th Century to be above flooding in this map. So that part of subsiding is just human-era compaction of dumping and bulldozing since the Gold Rush.
The Delta upstream is more interesting, because the levees have cut off deposits of sediment flowing toward the Bay from protected farmland, and the fresh water channels are subject to saltwater intrusion.
Local chuckle for this map is the orange blob adjacent to Downtown Oakland, which is in fact tidal, but has been designated "Lake Merritt" for a long time and should be shown in blue; for generations it has featured rental sailboats.
20
Paving over the wetland areas for roads, shopping centers, office buildings and houses is part of the problem. Plugging up the natural drainage system for the bay will create even more flooding. Larkspur Landing in Corte Madera (Marin County) is a good example of this big mistake.
11
Yet another Times story where land subsidence is the primary cause of flooding, but deliberately fuzzy language is used to make "rising sea levels" more of the cause.
11
Old Net, look at the study this article summarizes (link right in 2nd sentence), particularly figure 4. Areas that submerge due to sea level rise are not exactly the areas that will flood from subsidence. There's overlap, but sea level rise will be damaging broader areas. More of the city will be submerged by the combination.
Read this from the study - note the 3 nations at risk of greatest losses, and note future droughts will add to subsidence:
"Heberger et al. estimate that, in California by 2100, more than 480,000 people and $100 billion worth of property will be exposed to flood risk caused by SLR. Worldwide in 2005, more than 40 million people lived in coastal areas prone to 100-year flood risk; this number will grow more than threefold by 2070, and the value of property exposed to flooding will increase to ~9% of the projected global gross domestic product, with the United States, Japan, and Netherlands being the countries with most exposure. As we demonstrate, coastal subsidence can significantly increase this exposure. The framework presented here to account for coastal land subsidence is transferable to other coastal cities and can be used to inform policy decisions affecting coastal activities. Global climate change is affecting the future inundation risks both through accelerating ice sheet melting (increasing the rate of SLR) and through more intense droughts, leading to unprecedented groundwater overdraft and associated localized coastal land subsidence."
3
Popular news stories that talk about the risks of sea level rise typically already *include* local subsidence as part of the "sea level rise" they warn about. This thus seems to be double-counting the subsidence.
2
How about a dam across the bay? We can mitigate the impact of sea level rise, as well as generating (clean) hydroelectric energy. You wouldn't want to cut off access to the port in oakland, so we'd have to be careful about where we placed it. It's probably cheaper than waiting until all these homes flood and paying out national flood insurance every few years (like TX, LA, FL).
10
So you want to dam the Gate with the San Andreas Fault looming just three miles offshore? It hasn't budged since 1906 and geologists think it's got a solid 7.9 worth of pent-up energy. What possibly could go wrong?
Seriously, reality dictates retreating from low-lying areas like Alviso and the Delta ASAP. Palo Alto won't be too far behind.
That's only 80 years down the road! Palo Alto? SF Airport? Wow. Do you think 'mercans can be motivated enough to figure out a solution starting now? Don't hold your breath. My grandkids will be living with this not me. Oh, wait, my son has informed me he won't be having children-too many people in the world already. I'm kind of relieved....
16
If, by 2100, climate change has caused sea level problems of this magnitude, there are most likely going to be many other problems that are of greater concern. Increased water levels provide an indicator of some of the greater dangers - crop failures, massive tree deaths, violent weather, acidified oceans and the change in ocean ecosystem that comes with it, and varieties of problems we can't even imagine.
17
Drought and overpopulation come to mind as well, in the very soon foreseeable future of California.
1
Is this before or after the earthquake?
23
#1 earthquake= liquefaction, fires; #2 global warming. Last yr when it w as s 117 4 a week I took out my roses. I live is Scottsdale, not Scotland.
Along with.
Why wouldn't it?
The reduction of flow in the Sacramento river has already caused massive subsidence all around the North bay.
8
Another reason not to live there, land sinking sort of like LA. but at least they have another reason, producing oil and gas.
6