Is the East Coast getting battered to the quick every season of the year getting to be status quo?
Asked by
msh (
4270)
October 8th, 2015
from iPhone
I always wondered about the San Andreas Faultline as being a sure-thing for happening and wreaking havoc along the West Coast. It’s future is a given. Lately, it seems as though the Eastern Seaboard is slowly getting battered down every single season of the year. And getting slower at getting back up again. No wonder, it’s been non-stop. There is also a tenuous faultline going up some of the Eastern coastline. It is nowhere near as large as in the Pacific, but there, none the less.
Which coast is going to have the biggest trouble with it’s environment in the next ten years, considering the recent problems and why do you think it will happen that way?
No, politicians being sent to Hades as ‘just dues’ doesn’t count! Although badly needed….
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
8 Answers
As one who lived in New England for a few decades, I don’t see it as any worse there than it was back in the late-70s. Well, aside from those places that couldn’t be rebuilt, like half of Alstead NH after Katrina washed it into the river… a few miles away. After a while, you build and plan around the worst Mother Nature has to offer.
I’d say that the West Coast will suffer worse since one thing I’ve noticed that, at least in San Diego and Seattle, it doesn’t take much for the people on the West Coast to lose their shit. After The Ice Storm of 2008, I had spent the last week in a cabin in the woods with no heat, running water, or power driving a car with four bald tires on roads that hadn’t been fully cleared after 2–3 inches of ice covered the entire region and knocked out power to about half a million people in four states. Everyone was all just going along like it was a mild inconvenience.
I fly into Seattle after that and they are all freaking the fuck out about SNOWPOCALYPSE!!! and driving off the roads and all because they got 4 inches of fluff and slush. And in San Doego, a light sprinkle that wouldn’t even be worth turning the wipers on was enough to cause pile-ups every time it rained (about three times in 4½ years), the biggest being 150 cars.
So regardless of which coast gets hit worse by nature, the West Coast will be the one that gets devastated.
You made me laugh. Good descriptions! I was just thinking, wouldn’t it be ironic for the volcano under Old Faithful to blow, thus rendering my question moot? That made me laugh also. Oh well…. :)
I don’t agree with the question.
Since the time that white folks recorded weather info for the east coast, there have been hurricanes that socked the east – not just in the 2000+ decades, but back in the 1800s and 1900s.
And I am sure that before the Colonies were created, there were lots of hurricanes slapping the east coast as well.
This is not a new phenomenon at all. The only thing different is that we have TV and radio and internet to report the issue.
Climate change studies from MIT and other places show storms are worsening and weather patterns of the past are changing in previously unforeseen ways.
The San Andreas fault has no bearing on the weather, just earthquakes.
What the Climate Change study says is that the Earth will become unliveable in 100 years. Scary.
Can you provide a link to that study, @jca?
@jca I’ve seen numbers between 15 and 250 depending on the source, but they all seem to agree on the general tone.
@elbanditoroso True, but what was once “once every millennia” is now closer to “about twice a decade”. During my time in New England, I got used to hurricanes doing some damage, but am used them being weak enough that they usually were mere rainstorms by the time they hit the Connecticut River valley. This whole thing with flooding that washed away whole towns is something I didn’t see until recent years, but I can think of twice that it happened just since 2000.
Answer this question