Sea Level Rise in the SF Bay Area Just Got a Lot More Dire (wired.com)

An anonymous reader writes: San Francisco Bay Area residents have long been aware of the threat that sea level rise poses to their coastal existence -- but things suddenly look a lot more serious. A new study examines the simultaneous phenomena of rising sea levels and subsiding coastal land, and as Wired reports, the situation is pretty dire. Models that factor in just sea level rise predict that at least 20 square miles could be underwater by 2100. Once you add in subsiding land, that jumps to nearly 50 square miles, and could get as bad as 165 square miles. Or, put another way, by the end of the century, half of the runways and taxiways at San Francisco Airport could be submerged.

The study found that most of the Bay's coastline is sinking at a rate of less than 2 millimeters a year -- and while that may not sound like a lot, the millimeters can add up fast. "You talk to someone about, 'Oh the land is going down a millimeter a year,' and that can be kind of unimpressive," says William Hammond, a researcher at the University of Nevada Reno who studies subsidence (but was not involved in this particular project). "But we know as scientists that these motions, especially if they come from plate tectonics, that they are relentless and they will never stop, at least as long as we're alive on this planet."

Comments

For most of SF, it's not really relevant.

[XXongo]

I'm just not sure that this is really news. I guess it's mildly interesting to combine both tectonic subsidence and sea level rise, but, frankly, most of San Francisco is hilly. There won't be much impact. A small amount of the waterfront may get more wet, but most of SF will remain high and dry.

SFO airport is indeed at sea level-- it's right on the bay. But you can build runways up if you need to; it's not hard.

Re:Stay sane

[OrangeTide]

SF is about dressing in layers. At night it's cold and windy, in the morning it is cool and foggy, and in the afternoon it can be mild and pleasant.
I prefer the weather in San Jose-Santa Clara, and the massively lower crime rate. (well, I suppose the white collar crime rate is high in Silicon Valley)

P.S. SFO isn't even in SF. It's like 3 cities away.

Re:Climate Change is real.

[HiThere]

Claiming that land plant life will benefit from rising CO2 levels isn't exactly substantiated by experiments. It's also not exactly refuted.

The plants grow more vigorously, but have a harder time producing proteins, and experience some additional trouble reproducing. This, of course, varies by species, but it's "generally true" among the particular species tested (generally important agricultural plants). And this is when other conditions (temperature, humidity, etc.) are held constant...which, of course won't happen. So the results don't exactly reflect what should be expected, because they only investigated variation in one variable.

Now among sea life there will be problems among those with enzymes that depend on, e.g., calcium ions reacting in a particular way. In general, any enzyme that is sensitive to a change in pH will experience a change in activity, and this is almost always to the detriment of the organism that has evolved to use it. So far it looks like jellyfish will do well, and some fish will do well, but others will experience problems. And, of course, any animal that depends on precipitating Calcium will experience problems, including all shell-fish. I haven't heard of many detailed studies, but the basis of the problem generally is at the molecular level, so expect generalized difficulties in survival, with occasional species benefiting. (All animals evolved to fit the circumstances experienced by their ancestors...plants too.) The basic problem can be expressed as "it's going to take more energy to drive the reactions in the way the bodies expect them to go...or, occasionally, the current reaction will overdrive in the changed environment.)

P.S.: About plants on land: The grow faster, but they are weaker, and more likely to break under environmental stresses, say rain or a heavy wind. And, as I said, they are lower in protein. So every herbivore is going to be switching to a diet high in carbohydrates. So they'll need to eat more to get sufficient protein. People have already demonstrated that this is survivable is you can get enough food, but they've also demonstrated that it's rather unhealthy.

Follow links much?

[SuperKendall]

My "base data" is from the study the article is based upon, brainiac.

Maybe you should try following the links and reading the actual study/data instead of thinking with your fingers?

Subsidence is a comparatively minor factor and in no way warrants the screaming doom headlines. The study is saying because of subsidence, somewhat more land may be at risk than previously thought, and tries to lay out what that might be... the data I point to and the points I make refer to the areas affected AFTER subsidence is factored in by the study. It still affects almost none of SF, South Bay mostly.

Solar is cheapest in the end

[SuperKendall]

That will come down to what works cheapest in the shockingly poor rural areas of India and China.

I've been to really poor rural villages (like village uses a single well for water poor) in China and already see a lot of solar panels, also electric scooters. Because what ends up being really cheap is something you never have to travel to fuel.. a poor village is willing to wait a long time for chargers to charge up whatever.

In the end solar is by far the cheapest path for rural areas and electric motors are way easier to manufacture than combustion engines.