We studied Pacifia’s cliff side/coastline degradation in hydrology class. What’s happening is that waves erode the bottom of the cliff and the rest sloughs off, like pulling Jenga blocks from the bottom of the pile. A massive sea wall could slow the rate of cliffside erosion on the time scale of a generation, But the risk/hazard will remain. I don’t see the the benefit to society for not retreating development here.
There's a part of the east coast of England that's being eroded at a rate of a couple of metres per year due to the sea cliffs being made up of soft glacial deposits.
It's an interesting example because people can observe the effect of the sea eating the land in a very short time. Some losing homes that were once miles from the coast.
Of course this phenomenon occurs on every coastline, but it takes generations.
We created almost all of this - the increase in global sea level due to melting ice caps and glaciers is entirely on us. Similarly the increase in energy in the global weather systems is driven by the same source, and causes the increases in "extreme" weather, which further drives accelerated erosion of coastal regions, flooding, and droughts.
We can try to slow down the damage caused by the symptoms, and as you say, that's all we can do, but it's super important to acknowledge that humans do override "macro" trends in nature. The problem is how we undo changes we caused. Short of magically coming up with a way to dramatically remove heat from the oceans and atmosphere we are at best stuck where we are. Given we haven't made any meaningful changes in the industries causing the climate change we can't expect anything more than further acceleration of the extremes.
This isn’t just about global warming. It’s about the power of the ocean, possibly with increased power from the effects of global warming, tearing down a town built on a cliff.
The discussion in the article is about people building on pretty real estate that’s dangerous to inhabit, and asking the government to preserve it.
Ocean Beach will be history soon enough, though...
The fire problem in California is basically anywhere there is any wilderness. The state inevitably gets dry and becomes a tinderbox.
If building too close to the shore was a bad idea, and it was known at the time, the zoning should have forbid it to start with.
These people are not personally responsible for the raise of the sea level, it makes sense to have the risk taken away from them.
"Over the period January 1993 to December 2018, the average rate of rise was 3.15 ± 0.3 mm yr-1, while the estimated acceleration was 0.1 mm yr-2. "
https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=5789
There are of course debates relating to the well-known discrepancy between land-based and satellite observations of sea level rise.
Go watch the compelling video from Tony Heller regarding this article.
I thought my friends on Hacker News were smarter than this
For the bay area...Why not just drain the bay. There was a proposal previously and cost wise it'd easily pay off given the land gains. Heck could easily solve our housing and transit issues
Admittedly it's a bit of a puzzle how in practice either their former seaward neighbors, or the public, could lay claim to a share of that increase in value.
That being said, I really wonder at the thinking of what I would call "climate alarmists". I mean the Pacifica cliffs are a story about erosion. Ok, sure.
But some like to push this narrative that unless we drastically do something the Earth will turn into Venus, basically.
Thing is, these "boy who cried wolf" type narratives don't really help change perceptions or habits around climate change. What's more, they don't really pass the smell test.
The Earth has been around for billions of years. It's also been much hotter than it is now (eg [1]). The smell test is basically this: a lot can happen in 5B years and if the Earth has been much hotter than it is now and it hasn't turned into Venus yet, why is now different?
There's actually a pretty natural limit to how much carbon we can add to the atmosphere. Eventually we'll just run out of fossil fuels, at which point, we'll just start making them out of thin air and that, by definition, will be carbon neutral.
Honestly I just don't believe we'll fundamentally change human nature here. While that might be fatalistic, even pessimistic, personally I'm optimistic. And I'm optimistic because with not much more automation than we already have the Earth can grow enough food for 10 times as many people as we have now and possibly much more than that and that everything changes once we get sufficiently cheap energy (and obviously I'm optimistic about that happening in the not too distant future). Some here will write that off as naive futurism. Whatever.
With regards to sea level rise, let me add some more context. Over the span of ~5000 years 9000 to 14000 thousand years ago the sea levels rose SIXTY METERS [2]. And we're still here. That's also a blip on the timeline of Earth's geological history.
Whose to say the sea levels won't recede with the next Ice Age? Or are we now arguing the Earth is done with those too?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Therm...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Holocene_sea_level_rise
I recall John Oliver having a segment on it at some point - basically a bunch of areas in Florida and the South get wiped out repeatedly but the federal support means they're not moving, and some of the same houses have been wiped out multiple times, and are still getting federal support to be rebuilt in the same place.
We need to consider controlled withdrawal in due course,' says polar meteorologist Michiel van den Broeke of the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research (IMAU) at Utrecht University. He emphasises that there are great uncertainties when it comes to the loss of ice in Antarctica, for example. This is even smaller now than in Greenland, but the ice loss has tripled in the past ten years. Will this acceleration continue?
Van den Broeke received the support of his Utrecht colleague Roderik van de Wal: 'The enormous long-term effects are usually neglected. There is a strong attitude in the Netherlands that we will solve the problems with adaptation. That's a misconception.
Glaciologist and climate change teacher Michiel Helsen also calls for a social discussion: 'Is living below sea level still responsible? In the long run, it is possible that we will not be able to preserve the western part of the Netherlands. I think it would be useful for society to discuss which parts of the Netherlands we want to defend at what price.'.
Van de Wal: 'If we continue like this, a large part of the Netherlands will have to be abandoned. Moving to Germany should be a topic of discussion. At some point there will be no turning back. And within ten or twenty years, we will be able to conclude that this point has been passed'.
Also see: Heleen Ekker. Kustlijn opgeven en het hogerop zoeken, dat is een plan B bij zeespiegelstijging. 9 februari. https://nos.nl/artikel/2271163-kustlijn-opgeven-en-het-hoger...
And 'Als Nederland onderloopt..' https://www.vn.nl/als-nederland-onderloopt-andere-problemen/
Either way global warming is going to change the landscape. Might as well attempt something that limits damage
San Francisco exists at all because there is a bay there.
If anything it seems like SF would grow its boundaries if this happened.
This is totally different because it's gradual. Humans aren't good at thinking long-term, so it's more difficult to gather the support for projects that benefit us in the long run. The glaciers are melting, the seas are rising, but a congressman brought a snowball to congress so we don't have to do shit that inconveniences us now for something that benefits us in the long run.
It's also worth acknowledging that Earth has had very different climates in the past. Sure, we can celebrate the fact that our sparse nomadic ancestors survived and adapted through gradual environmental change. That tells us almost nothing about the ability of our globe spanning, voraciously energy hungry, WMD-wielding civiliation's ability to do the same of much, much shorter time frames.
I don't quite understand the "well Earth will be fine" form of denialism. Sure, Earth would survive a total nuclear war over geological timeframes too. That doesn't really mean anything to humans as an advanced society that plans to stick around for more than a few hundred years.
And why do you even care what some Swedish teenager I'd never heard of until right now is protesting climate change? Why does that matter?
[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-re...
Could it be because they're exactly the ones who will suffer from this?
There was an absurd plan to place a dam between Richmond and San Rafael[1]. When it was finally studied, there were two fatal problems with the plan. (1) There is not enough water in Summer, to keep the bay behind the dam full. (2) There is too much water from snowmelt in early spring and the San Joaquin valley would turn into a lake.
Now to the environmental side: the bay is amazingly productive. It also acts as a nursery for the ocean. The damage done to the Pacific Ocean ecosystem would be all out of proportion to the gains of a little bit of land.
Not everyone agrees with you. Personally, I don’t think it’s up to the government to tell you where you can / can’t live on land you purchase. However, inspections should and do occur informing you of risks.
Zoning has to do with a variety of factors, but I doubt for most of U.S. history it had to do with “will this coast erode in 100 years” From my limited understanding it has more to do with what CAN be built, not what SHOULD. Basically, “this can be commercial real estate because we need revenue/jobs” vs “this can be residential because we need people”
I respect your opinion, but isn’t it the very purpose of zoning to define what can and cannot be done on that purchased land ?
And it’s already used for protection of habitations, for instance not allowing houses in industrial areas. For high risk areas, this all issue could have been avoided by refusing building permits as well, but blanket deciding a whole area can’t be used for living is the easiest course of action IMO.
Is there something inherently better about seafaring ships? Wouldn't the ports just move?
But I don't know much about the Sunset or the Richmond so I guess you could speak better to that. I live near Twin Peaks.
Edit: elsewhere in the thread there’s a nice link to a map from the US coast survey, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/1858_U.S...
I'm no civil engineer so this is totally out of my realm of knowledge.
Also, I guess I'm lucky to live on one of the highest points in the city.
