Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by phrelin, Jun 2, 2012.
Hello, from 1,740'.
This evening national news reported that this past Spring was the warmest on record. That it was a full 5 degree higher then the average.
And that is the problem with living in, and at the same time, hating, an artificial environment.
Coast lines change.
The "natural" state of a coast is either a rocky cliff, or dense vegitation. With swamps, malarial swamps if you are far enough south, inland. Pick a beach. It is manmade. Now it needs upkeep.
But, unlike previous, better, generations, the sky-is-falling crowd wants to use the normal and natural need for upkeep of these man made products as proof of this silly new religion.
Oh, and you do understand, right, that San Francisco Bay is not a natural harbor for Panamax ships, right? Dredged. Feel free not to use anything they bring in.
Want to go all natural? I can suguest Zimbabwee.
I think I may have missed your point in this thread.
I first thought it was about our coastline, which I tried to inform you about and that most of it isn't reclaimed or maintained.
This seems to not have been what you wanted to express, but instead vent some dislike for Californian claiming to live some "natural life".
I don't live in a commune and only wear natural fibers, or eat only organic and free range food.
Hello, back atcha from 8.5' lol
I was wondering how your islands would fare from rising sea levels. We've been thinking about buying a second home in Ocean City, MD, but I grew up on the Jersey Shore (or I should say "down" the Jersey Shore) and I know what it's like to live in a tidal community. It's great until the ocean decides to reclaim some land. And with my luck...
Actually, SF Bay is a natural harbor for the largest ships in the world.
Now, if you want to modern-day load and unload them, you're going to construct docks and behemoth cranes, plus channels to get them to those places.
As to there being no natural sand beaches?. Florida has hundreds of miles of those. The Bahamas is nothing but.
When man builds next to them, and natural sand migration or erosion occurs, artificial means are often used to "stem the tide"- generally they fail over time. Is that what so riles you?
Or do you, as VOS suggests, just hate CA? That's o.k., just fine, if you do. Oh, yes, for full disclosure, some sand beaches are maintained, and dredging is done to maintain access to certain parts of certain harbors. Not unlike major ports anywhere in the world.
Some parts of CA's coastline are as natural as Joan Rivers' face.
But much more attractive! And will last longer if properly maintained.
Yes, we have some ugly spots in our state, but tons of natural—and unnatural—beauty (think the Berkeley Campanile, for example, or the GG Bridge, etc., not to mention Hollywood, if that's your fancy*.)
* Not yours though, right, Nick?
Somehow thinking of that face 840 miles long....:eek2:
Actually, no its not. Its "unnatural".
You mean CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!! But, but, but, the SKY is FALLING!!!
You do understand, right that Florida was a vast swampland until Henry Flagler came through, right?
[QUOTE Is that what so riles you? [/QUOTE]
No. Nothing "riles" me. Just uninformened people who will accept anything people tell them, such as the silly theory of "global warming" formerly "global cooling"
I love California. It is a great state. A product of nature, improved by better generations though 1000s of environment projects. Just don't try to pull the ladder up behind you.
I'm not debating global warming here.
SF Bay is a natural harbor, capable of sheltering hundreds of deep water vessels.
Florida has vast stretches of sand beaches; natural sand beaches exist in many parts of the world. Some are managed, most are not.
Everywhere throughout the civilized world man has dredged harbors, created levees and drained swamp land.
These are statements I stand by, and no amount of links or sarcasm diminishes them.
"The Bay" is really an estuary as 90% is less than 12' in depth. The Gold Rush added 12' of sediment before hydraulic mining was outlawed in the mid 1880s.
Alameda island was created in the early 1900s by digging a channel to reduce the sediment buildup for the port of Oakland.
San Francisco wharfs are all land fill.
Point Richmond shipyards are the same.
"The channel" is deep enough for freighters to travel to Sacramento & Stockton.
I agree with you. Sand beaches are natural. Harbors existed before there was any need for them. I've seen many paintings of NY Harbor dating back to when the first Europeans anchored their ships there. It's always been there (well, since the glaciers receded) and it does get dredged from time to time. You can't have a monstrous river such as the Hudson flowing into a harbor without dredging.
Well, yes, all that's true, including my favorite statistic that the South Bay has an average depth of 9'.
Alameda was an isthmus and a cut was made to let the water through for several reasons, of which cleanliness was one, sediment another, though the need for dredging will always be there.
But my statement stands: SF Bay was, and is, a natural harbor capable of sheltering hundreds of vessels. Much more comfortably now with channels to the South Bay, North Bay and up the Sacto. River. The main road bed generally reflects the Pacific swell that rolls though the Golden Gate, so it's not an anchorage of choice.
On reflection, maybe I should have said that SF Bay was a natural harbor capable of sheltering hundreds of large vessels, and today its natural features can still do so.
The PBS show Saving the Bay was very interesting [to me] on the history of the bay.
The main channel seems to come more from the rivers and runs all the way to the Farallones Islands, as that was where the sea level was during the ice ages.
It still is as was shown during a dock worker's strike, when dozens of ships were anchored south of the Bay Bridge.
I think I should watch that one again! Yes, very interesting.
Agree on the channel's origin, and it provides a handy way for the rollers to march right in past Alcatraz to the Emeryville, Berkeley and Alameda shores, but are pretty diminished when the get there.
The ideal natural anchoring place is Richardson Bay, but its natural entrance probably was blocked partially by massive silting due to hydraulic mining.
Other places not needing enhancement till after the silting would be near the SF end of the Bay Bridge, and of course, Richmond and San Pablo Bay.
I have to disagree with San Pablo Bay, since it's too shallow.