Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is Long Island blue, and half of upstate has more of a chance? We're extremely vulnerable to a flood. Sometimes maps completely forget to include us, lol.
I think it was an earthquake map, not a flood map.
Also, as far as Earthquakes go, they can and are felt in the Valley. The 1857 Fort Tejon Earthquake, a 7.9 magnitude earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, was felt as far north as Marysville, and as far east as Las Vegas. The San Andreas Fault passes very near the western edge of the Valley, and indeed offshoots of it do pass underneath the Valley in several places.
Here is an earthquake risk map, courtesy of the USGS, showing the entire United States. As you can see, the Central Valley varies between "moderate" and "very high." The southern portion of the valley, the San Joaquin, is actually more at risk than norther portion (the Sacramento Valley).
wow, thats some serious homework, good to know, Sacramento has always been more green than Modesto, Merced, Fresno.. no wonder, But growing up in Atwater, CA.. I never felt an earthquake, ever.
The Merced, Stanislause and Tuolumni Rivers are all flowing very low, have been for years, maybe they should build an eastern valley aquaduct to relieve that pressure off folsom?
I dont understand why the Southern San Joaquin valley is prone to flooding? the SJ river is a slow running river that can get very deep, but actually can get pretty dirty due to low current. (it runs down the center of the valley feeding into the stockton port)
If this river has so much extra water why is San Luis Reservoir so drained?
Why is Long Island blue, and half of upstate has more of a chance? We're extremely vulnerable to a flood. Sometimes maps completely forget to include us, lol.
That's an earthquake hazard map, not a flood hazard map. I don't know enough about the geology of New York state to make an educated comment, but I'd field a guess and say that you guys are vulnerable to isostatic rebound earthquakes.
wow, thats some serious homework, good to know, Sacramento has always been more green than Modesto, Merced, Fresno.. no wonder, But growing up in Atwater, CA.. I never felt an earthquake, ever.
The Merced, Stanislause and Tuolumni Rivers are all flowing very low, have been for years, maybe they should build an eastern valley aquaduct to relieve that pressure off folsom?
I dont understand why the Southern San Joaquin valley is prone to flooding? the SJ river is a slow running river that can get very deep, but actually can get pretty dirty due to low current. (it runs down the center of the valley feeding into the stockton port)
If this river has so much extra water why is San Luis Reservoir so drained?
good to know, thanks.
Add 1.4 meters of water and see what happens to the central valley
SJ valley will be gone soon...
Back to a lake...
The Pacific Institute found that by 2100, an estimated 480,000
Californians will be at risk of increased flooding — almost double the
number currently living in disaster-prone areas of the state
"The vulnerability is concentrated along the coastline of the Bay
Area, where large parts of both San Francisco and Oakland could be
threatened with extreme flooding by the end of the century." Could Rising Seas Swallow California's Coast? - TIME
wow, thats some serious homework, good to know, Sacramento has always been more green than Modesto, Merced, Fresno.. no wonder, But growing up in Atwater, CA.. I never felt an earthquake, ever.
The Merced, Stanislause and Tuolumni Rivers are all flowing very low, have been for years, maybe they should build an eastern valley aquaduct to relieve that pressure off folsom?
I dont understand why the Southern San Joaquin valley is prone to flooding? the SJ river is a slow running river that can get very deep, but actually can get pretty dirty due to low current. (it runs down the center of the valley feeding into the stockton port)
If this river has so much extra water why is San Luis Reservoir so drained?
good to know, thanks.
To be honest, I don't if the Southern San Joaquin valley is susceptible to flooding or not. If I had to guess, I'd say that they are, simply because the San Joaquin has to deal with the same problems as the rest of valley. Lately we've been in a drought (which explains low lake levels and stream flows), but that doesn't mean that an extreme storm (maybe a pineapple express) couldn't come through and dramatically increase river levels very quickly.
Also, to the poster that said that SF and the California coast is vulnerable to rising sea levels: you're absolutely right, but we're not nearly as vulnerable as comparable East Coast cities, simply because our coast is so mountainous. If the sea level rises (which is a topic that is seriously in question), those cities that are positioned on a flood plain near the coast, often times only a few meters above sea level, are by far the most vulnerable. Sacramento fairs very poorly in this scenario, but it's one of the few West Coast cities that does. Most of the places out here only have a few blocks that are at sea level. Most rise above it very rapidly (hence the hillyness of places like SF and Seattle), and thus would suffer comparatively little. It's the East Coast and Gulf Coast cities that really have to worry (specifically, Florida and Louisiana).
Here's a great link that graphically illustrates the effects of sea level rise: Flood Maps
Location: Concrete jungle where dreams are made of.
8,900 posts, read 15,942,478 times
Reputation: 1819
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroBTR
I think it was an earthquake map, not a flood map.
Oh, oops. But I know downstate has a good chance for an earthquake. There's a certain area of Manhattan that has a plate. My fiance is a science teacher and says Manhattan is really prone to an earthquake. he teaches about it.
Oh, oops. But I know downstate has a good chance for an earthquake. There's a certain area of Manhattan that has a plate. My fiance is a science teacher and says Manhattan is really prone to an earthquake. he teaches about it.
We've had mild earthquakes before, so it's not unfathomable.
Oh, oops. But I know downstate has a good chance for an earthquake. There's a certain area of Manhattan that has a plate. My fiance is a science teacher and says Manhattan is really prone to an earthquake. he teaches about it.
Yeah, there is a risk of a moderate earthquake impacting NYC. The biggest problem with that is, unlike out here on the West Coast, you're buildings aren't constructed to the same strict earthquake standards, meaning that a moderate earthquake in NYC could potentially be much worse than a 'strong' earthquake out here. Even in a moderate earthquake, any unreinforced masonry buildings are in serious danger of partial or full collapse. I have to wonder, and perhaps your fiance would know, what is the geologic mechanism responsible for the earthquakes in the region? Out here in California, most earthquake danger is related to the Pacific Plate sliding northwards past the North American plate, rifting in Eastern California (Owens Valley area), and subduction of the Gorda (Juan De Fuca) in extreme Northern California (north of Mendocino). New York, however, isn't near any plate boundaries or rift zones. Even the New Madrid fault system is a failed rift zone (and continuing zone of weakness).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.