Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Nolan Eoghan (not a robot)'s avatar

“I came across a figure of a hundred feet of shift for every foot of sea level rise in a book discussing the situation on the U.S”

I said before this sounds remarkably flat. And it can only be true at high tide, and spring tide at that. The difference between spring and normal high tide is often greater than a foot. It’s a metre where I live - yes that’s mixing imperial and metric but about 3 feet.

Anyway even a road that skirts a beach is a few feet above the beach proper, and houses abetting the beach aren’t at sea level either but a few feet above it.

Expand full comment
Radford Neal's avatar

"The amount of land lost equals the length of coastline times the amount by which it shifts in."

Not necessarily, if you are computing the amount it shifts just from current elevations. Quite a bit of coastal land is in the form of river deltas, which are quite flat, and would appear to be lost by this criterion. But since silt from the river is deposited in the delta region, land that would apparently be lost may just come back (or never really go away) from this silt deposition.

Expand full comment
25 more comments...

No posts