My current campaign is set in Los Angeles, and the last two sessions involved dealing with the Earthquake and subsequent floodwaters. My intent is not to rehash the old arguments (the impossibility of Los Angeles becoming an island), but instead to try and create a more realistic, usable scenario. To that end, I've found a fairly useful website to model a 6-meter rise in the sea level's effect on Los Angeles, the results of which are as follows.
http://rpg-sandiego.org/images/LAflood.jpg
I'm curious if anyone else has done any work on this sort of thing, or would be interested in collaborating.
Full Version: The sinking of Los Angeles
That's a pretty neat tool
That is indeed pretty neat. I just wish that it could model LA's susceptibility to flooding rather than just sea level rise. A temporary 6 meter storm surge was enough to devastate large amounts of Louisiana and Mississippi, but it was the rivers and lakes overflowing their banks that put New Orleans under water for days at a time.
There are a bunch of areas farther north that will be under water, not because the Pacific is flowing up, but because the rivers are flowing down. But it's a great start.
-Frank
There are a bunch of areas farther north that will be under water, not because the Pacific is flowing up, but because the rivers are flowing down. But it's a great start.
-Frank
That's a great point Frank. The rivers will shorten and consquently their flow rates will change, new deltas will form, lakes may raise their banks. Is enough known about how those mechanisms work to model it though?
A 6-m surge is about equal to a 6m permanent rise. Go hit the 6m botton on New Orleans; it's a massive event.
A surge will be more severe than a rise because it has inertia, which will carry water farther inland than a gradual change in sea level. Think "small tsunami" as the wave forces water farther inland. The distance the wave will travel up the channel varies with a number of factors but probably adds between 0.5 and 3 miles to the distance flood waters reach into the mainland. Given that the 6m appears to reach many miles inland already the effect is really just adding insult to injury.
A surge will be more severe than a rise because it has inertia, which will carry water farther inland than a gradual change in sea level. Think "small tsunami" as the wave forces water farther inland. The distance the wave will travel up the channel varies with a number of factors but probably adds between 0.5 and 3 miles to the distance flood waters reach into the mainland. Given that the 6m appears to reach many miles inland already the effect is really just adding insult to injury.
Being a Southern California resident, I just have to ask... what's a river? 
Seriously though, I have to wonder if Los Angeles really has enough rivers/lakes/etc to make much of a difference? It'd be interesting to see how the tsunami surge might travel up the various storm canals (think the chase scene from Terminator 2), and also what effect the sea water might have on the already unstable underground aquifers.
Seriously though, I have to wonder if Los Angeles really has enough rivers/lakes/etc to make much of a difference? It'd be interesting to see how the tsunami surge might travel up the various storm canals (think the chase scene from Terminator 2), and also what effect the sea water might have on the already unstable underground aquifers.
i think the basic problem with the LA "atlantis" is that basicly all water flow down hill at some point. therefor tsunami water should flow back out (at some time).
for it to "permanently" stay the way it have in SR4, it would require the entire area to drop below sea level somhow...
but hell, in SR the weather patterns are no longer "stable", so last list it as magic and be done with it
for it to "permanently" stay the way it have in SR4, it would require the entire area to drop below sea level somhow...
but hell, in SR the weather patterns are no longer "stable", so last list it as magic and be done with it
Somewhere out in the ocean there's a big giant divet in the water level where all the water is being funneled out by a Horror that accidentally possessed a TOOL concert for a while a developed a pathological need to make them all learn to swim.
Also IIRC the San Andreas Fault is a Strike Slip fault where plates move past each other laterally. Los Angeles is mostly on the Pacific Plate, so shouldn't it have moved north a couple of inches, not down?
I think Lucy Lawless said it best... "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it."
| QUOTE (James McMurray) |
| Somewhere out in the ocean there's a big giant divet in the water level where all the water is being funneled out by a Horror that accidentally possessed a TOOL concert for a while a developed a pathological need to make them all learn to swim. |
now there's a suggestion to keep them all occupied.
| QUOTE (Mute) |
| Being a Southern California resident, I just have to ask... what's a river? Seriously though, I have to wonder if Los Angeles really has enough rivers/lakes/etc to make much of a difference? It'd be interesting to see how the tsunami surge might travel up the various storm canals (think the chase scene from Terminator 2), and also what effect the sea water might have on the already unstable underground aquifers. |
LA does indeed flood from time to time. The whole place is shaped like a big bowl and the desert soil doesn't absorb water well - leaving it highly susceptible to flash flooding.
http://americahurrah.com/Flood55/LosAngeles.htm
If there was a constant source of water, like say a climate change that caused LA to get the rainfall of Florida, it would pretty much start flooding and stay "flooded" indefinitely. The water levels would be redefined in such a manner as large tracts of Los Angeles would be under water full time.
-Frank
bad tool puns. 
Anyway the sinking of Southern California is the most random part of SR4 that I dont really like. I might be biased cause I grew up in LA though, but I never really liked the write up that the central valley got in all of SR3 cause it just seemed so dumbed down.
Anyway the sinking of Southern California is the most random part of SR4 that I dont really like. I might be biased cause I grew up in LA though, but I never really liked the write up that the central valley got in all of SR3 cause it just seemed so dumbed down.
| QUOTE (Casper @ Apr 12 2006, 04:46 AM) |
| bad tool puns. Anyway the sinking of Southern California is the most random part of SR4 that I dont really like. I might be biased cause I grew up in LA though, but I never really liked the write up that the central valley got in all of SR3 cause it just seemed so dumbed down. |
I know how you feel: Chicago's got it bad in SR. . . .
Ah, Chicago gets it bad in every game.
| QUOTE (FanGirl) | ||
I know how you feel: Chicago's got it bad in SR. . . . |
yeah but at least FASA bombed their own HQ with the bug city stuff
I always thought the sinking of SoCal was a random shot at Night City. That might just be me, tho
Thank gosh for magic and the wierd world of SR, cause if a big chunk of california fell into the pacific, that'd basically wipe out Hawaii.
| QUOTE (FanGirl) |
| I know how you feel: Chicago's got it bad in SR.... |
Are you kidding? It's the only place free of megacorps!
Texas gets it bad in damn near every game set in the future. Apparently we all lose our minds at some point and say "Hey, even though we don't grow enough food to support half our population, let's try to be independent!" Then after that goes over like a lead zeppelin we rejoin some other group (the Coalition States, CSA, whatever).
Don't forget our disprportionate number of racist assholes running around.
Oh wait. We actually have that nowadays? Nevermind then.
Oh wait. We actually have that nowadays? Nevermind then.
| QUOTE (sandchigger) |
| Texas gets it bad in damn near every game set in the future. Apparently we all lose our minds at some point and say "Hey, even though we don't grow enough food to support half our population, let's try to be independent!" Then after that goes over like a lead zeppelin we rejoin some other group (the Coalition States, CSA, whatever). |
Yes, that's because it's easy and plausible. As you've noticed, Texas can't support itself without assistance the way California could. And at the same time, there's plenty of Texas independence movements that are variously popular. Since the goal of a cyberpunk future history is to explain why the future is fragmented and shitty, that's a great place to start.
All you have to do is announce that one of these guys wins - just for a while - sometime in the near future:
http://www.texasrepublic.com/
It's not feasible economically or socially, and a lot of people would get pretty upset:
http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-10...019-279,00.html
...but there really are people trying to do that. Makes for cyberpunk future-history gold. Secessionists succeed in their goal of detaching Texas from the Union - and the economy of both countries promptly falls apart because that's a really terrible idea.
-Frank
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.