Southern California Coastal Response to the 2015–2016 El Niño
Widespread erosion associated with energetic waves of the strong 2015–2016 El Niño on the U.S. West Coast has been reported widely. However, Southern California was often sheltered from the northerly approach direction of the offshore waves. The few large swells that reached Southern California were...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of geophysical research. Earth surface 2018-11, Vol.123 (11), p.3069-3083 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 3083 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 3069 |
container_title | Journal of geophysical research. Earth surface |
container_volume | 123 |
creator | Young, Adam P. Flick, Reinhard E. Gallien, Timu W. Giddings, Sarah N. Guza, R. T. Harvey, M. Lenain, Luc Ludka, B. C. Melville, W. Kendall O'Reilly, W. C. |
description | Widespread erosion associated with energetic waves of the strong 2015–2016 El Niño on the U.S. West Coast has been reported widely. However, Southern California was often sheltered from the northerly approach direction of the offshore waves. The few large swells that reached Southern California were not synchronous with the highest tides. Although west coast‐wide tidal anomalies were relatively large in 2015–2016, in Southern California, total water levels (sum of tides, anomalies, and wave superelevation) were lower than during the 1997–1998 Niño, and comparable to the 2009–2010 Niño. Airborne lidar surveys spanning 300 km of Southern California coast show the beach response varied from considerable erosion to accretion. On average, the shoreline moved landward 10 m, similar to the 2009–2010 El Niño. Some San Diego county beaches were narrower in the 1997–1998 El Niño than in 2015–2016, consistent with the higher erosion potential in 1997–1998. Beach retreat exceeded 80 m at a few locations. However, 27% of the shoreline accreted, often in pocket beaches, or near jetties. While adjacent beaches eroded, estuary mouths accreted slightly, and several estuaries remained or became closed during the study period. Only 12% of cliffs eroded (mostly at the base), and the average cliff face retreat was markedly less than historical values. Only two cliff‐top areas retreated significantly. Although some areas experienced significant change, the potential for coastal erosion and damage in Southern California was reduced compared to the 1997–1998 El Niño, because of low rainfall, a northerly swell approach, and relatively limited total high‐water levels.
Key Points
Southern California beach response to the 2015–2016 El Niño varied widely, from considerable erosion to accretion
Some coastal erosion and damage were limited by the timing of high tides and large waves, northerly swell direction, and low rainfall
Estuary mouths on average accreted, while their adjacent beaches eroded. Many estuaries remained or became closed during the study |
doi_str_mv | 10.1029/2018JF004771 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2155242341</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2155242341</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3685-3df8eea2b4793864c10476c44f32922779901d8289461bdf4f7740ac074cb8a23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFKAzEUhoMoWGp3HiDg1tHkJTNJdsrQVktRqLoO6TTBKeOkJjNId97Bk3gGb-JJjFTElW_zPx4f7__5ETqm5IwSUOdAqJxNCOFC0D00AFqoTBFK9393wg7RKMY1SSPTicIAXdz5vnu0ocWlaWrnQ1sbXHoTO9PghY0b30aLO48ThJNF_vn6lqTA4wbf1B_v_ggdONNEO_rRIXqYjO_Lq2x-O70uL-eZYYXMM7Zy0loDSy4UkwWvaApaVJw7BgpACJWyriRIxQu6XDnuhODEVETwaikNsCE62f3dBP_c29jpte9Dmyw10DwHDozTRJ3uqCr4GIN1ehPqJxO2mhL9XZP-W1PC2Q5_qRu7_ZfVs-liAkTxnH0BsAdltA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2155242341</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Southern California Coastal Response to the 2015–2016 El Niño</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Free Content</source><source>Wiley Online Library AGU Free Content</source><creator>Young, Adam P. ; Flick, Reinhard E. ; Gallien, Timu W. ; Giddings, Sarah N. ; Guza, R. T. ; Harvey, M. ; Lenain, Luc ; Ludka, B. C. ; Melville, W. Kendall ; O'Reilly, W. C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Young, Adam P. ; Flick, Reinhard E. ; Gallien, Timu W. ; Giddings, Sarah N. ; Guza, R. T. ; Harvey, M. ; Lenain, Luc ; Ludka, B. C. ; Melville, W. Kendall ; O'Reilly, W. C.</creatorcontrib><description>Widespread erosion associated with energetic waves of the strong 2015–2016 El Niño on the U.S. West Coast has been reported widely. However, Southern California was often sheltered from the northerly approach direction of the offshore waves. The few large swells that reached Southern California were not synchronous with the highest tides. Although west coast‐wide tidal anomalies were relatively large in 2015–2016, in Southern California, total water levels (sum of tides, anomalies, and wave superelevation) were lower than during the 1997–1998 Niño, and comparable to the 2009–2010 Niño. Airborne lidar surveys spanning 300 km of Southern California coast show the beach response varied from considerable erosion to accretion. On average, the shoreline moved landward 10 m, similar to the 2009–2010 El Niño. Some San Diego county beaches were narrower in the 1997–1998 El Niño than in 2015–2016, consistent with the higher erosion potential in 1997–1998. Beach retreat exceeded 80 m at a few locations. However, 27% of the shoreline accreted, often in pocket beaches, or near jetties. While adjacent beaches eroded, estuary mouths accreted slightly, and several estuaries remained or became closed during the study period. Only 12% of cliffs eroded (mostly at the base), and the average cliff face retreat was markedly less than historical values. Only two cliff‐top areas retreated significantly. Although some areas experienced significant change, the potential for coastal erosion and damage in Southern California was reduced compared to the 1997–1998 El Niño, because of low rainfall, a northerly swell approach, and relatively limited total high‐water levels.
Key Points
Southern California beach response to the 2015–2016 El Niño varied widely, from considerable erosion to accretion
Some coastal erosion and damage were limited by the timing of high tides and large waves, northerly swell direction, and low rainfall
Estuary mouths on average accreted, while their adjacent beaches eroded. Many estuaries remained or became closed during the study</description><identifier>ISSN: 2169-9003</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-9011</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2018JF004771</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Accretion ; Anomalies ; beach ; Beach erosion ; Beaches ; Breakwaters ; cliff ; Cliffs ; coastal ; Coastal erosion ; Coastal zone management ; Coasts ; Deposition ; El Nino ; El Nino phenomena ; ENSO ; erosion ; Estuaries ; Estuarine dynamics ; estuary ; Jetties ; Lidar ; Offshore ; Pocket beaches ; Rain ; Rainfall ; Shorelines ; Surveys ; Tides ; Water levels</subject><ispartof>Journal of geophysical research. Earth surface, 2018-11, Vol.123 (11), p.3069-3083</ispartof><rights>2018. The Authors.</rights><rights>2018. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3685-3df8eea2b4793864c10476c44f32922779901d8289461bdf4f7740ac074cb8a23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a3685-3df8eea2b4793864c10476c44f32922779901d8289461bdf4f7740ac074cb8a23</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3851-9727 ; 0000-0003-0726-4781 ; 0000-0001-9808-1563 ; 0000-0001-8834-5465 ; 0000-0001-6257-2918 ; 0000-0002-3844-2280 ; 0000-0001-7985-9528</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2018JF004771$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2018JF004771$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,1427,11493,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46443,46808,46867</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Young, Adam P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Flick, Reinhard E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gallien, Timu W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giddings, Sarah N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guza, R. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harvey, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lenain, Luc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludka, B. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melville, W. Kendall</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Reilly, W. C.</creatorcontrib><title>Southern California Coastal Response to the 2015–2016 El Niño</title><title>Journal of geophysical research. Earth surface</title><description>Widespread erosion associated with energetic waves of the strong 2015–2016 El Niño on the U.S. West Coast has been reported widely. However, Southern California was often sheltered from the northerly approach direction of the offshore waves. The few large swells that reached Southern California were not synchronous with the highest tides. Although west coast‐wide tidal anomalies were relatively large in 2015–2016, in Southern California, total water levels (sum of tides, anomalies, and wave superelevation) were lower than during the 1997–1998 Niño, and comparable to the 2009–2010 Niño. Airborne lidar surveys spanning 300 km of Southern California coast show the beach response varied from considerable erosion to accretion. On average, the shoreline moved landward 10 m, similar to the 2009–2010 El Niño. Some San Diego county beaches were narrower in the 1997–1998 El Niño than in 2015–2016, consistent with the higher erosion potential in 1997–1998. Beach retreat exceeded 80 m at a few locations. However, 27% of the shoreline accreted, often in pocket beaches, or near jetties. While adjacent beaches eroded, estuary mouths accreted slightly, and several estuaries remained or became closed during the study period. Only 12% of cliffs eroded (mostly at the base), and the average cliff face retreat was markedly less than historical values. Only two cliff‐top areas retreated significantly. Although some areas experienced significant change, the potential for coastal erosion and damage in Southern California was reduced compared to the 1997–1998 El Niño, because of low rainfall, a northerly swell approach, and relatively limited total high‐water levels.
Key Points
Southern California beach response to the 2015–2016 El Niño varied widely, from considerable erosion to accretion
Some coastal erosion and damage were limited by the timing of high tides and large waves, northerly swell direction, and low rainfall
Estuary mouths on average accreted, while their adjacent beaches eroded. Many estuaries remained or became closed during the study</description><subject>Accretion</subject><subject>Anomalies</subject><subject>beach</subject><subject>Beach erosion</subject><subject>Beaches</subject><subject>Breakwaters</subject><subject>cliff</subject><subject>Cliffs</subject><subject>coastal</subject><subject>Coastal erosion</subject><subject>Coastal zone management</subject><subject>Coasts</subject><subject>Deposition</subject><subject>El Nino</subject><subject>El Nino phenomena</subject><subject>ENSO</subject><subject>erosion</subject><subject>Estuaries</subject><subject>Estuarine dynamics</subject><subject>estuary</subject><subject>Jetties</subject><subject>Lidar</subject><subject>Offshore</subject><subject>Pocket beaches</subject><subject>Rain</subject><subject>Rainfall</subject><subject>Shorelines</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Tides</subject><subject>Water levels</subject><issn>2169-9003</issn><issn>2169-9011</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEFKAzEUhoMoWGp3HiDg1tHkJTNJdsrQVktRqLoO6TTBKeOkJjNId97Bk3gGb-JJjFTElW_zPx4f7__5ETqm5IwSUOdAqJxNCOFC0D00AFqoTBFK9393wg7RKMY1SSPTicIAXdz5vnu0ocWlaWrnQ1sbXHoTO9PghY0b30aLO48ThJNF_vn6lqTA4wbf1B_v_ggdONNEO_rRIXqYjO_Lq2x-O70uL-eZYYXMM7Zy0loDSy4UkwWvaApaVJw7BgpACJWyriRIxQu6XDnuhODEVETwaikNsCE62f3dBP_c29jpte9Dmyw10DwHDozTRJ3uqCr4GIN1ehPqJxO2mhL9XZP-W1PC2Q5_qRu7_ZfVs-liAkTxnH0BsAdltA</recordid><startdate>201811</startdate><enddate>201811</enddate><creator>Young, Adam P.</creator><creator>Flick, Reinhard E.</creator><creator>Gallien, Timu W.</creator><creator>Giddings, Sarah N.</creator><creator>Guza, R. T.</creator><creator>Harvey, M.</creator><creator>Lenain, Luc</creator><creator>Ludka, B. C.</creator><creator>Melville, W. Kendall</creator><creator>O'Reilly, W. C.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>SOI</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3851-9727</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0726-4781</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9808-1563</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8834-5465</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6257-2918</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3844-2280</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7985-9528</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201811</creationdate><title>Southern California Coastal Response to the 2015–2016 El Niño</title><author>Young, Adam P. ; Flick, Reinhard E. ; Gallien, Timu W. ; Giddings, Sarah N. ; Guza, R. T. ; Harvey, M. ; Lenain, Luc ; Ludka, B. C. ; Melville, W. Kendall ; O'Reilly, W. C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a3685-3df8eea2b4793864c10476c44f32922779901d8289461bdf4f7740ac074cb8a23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Accretion</topic><topic>Anomalies</topic><topic>beach</topic><topic>Beach erosion</topic><topic>Beaches</topic><topic>Breakwaters</topic><topic>cliff</topic><topic>Cliffs</topic><topic>coastal</topic><topic>Coastal erosion</topic><topic>Coastal zone management</topic><topic>Coasts</topic><topic>Deposition</topic><topic>El Nino</topic><topic>El Nino phenomena</topic><topic>ENSO</topic><topic>erosion</topic><topic>Estuaries</topic><topic>Estuarine dynamics</topic><topic>estuary</topic><topic>Jetties</topic><topic>Lidar</topic><topic>Offshore</topic><topic>Pocket beaches</topic><topic>Rain</topic><topic>Rainfall</topic><topic>Shorelines</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Tides</topic><topic>Water levels</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Young, Adam P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Flick, Reinhard E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gallien, Timu W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giddings, Sarah N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Guza, R. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harvey, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lenain, Luc</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ludka, B. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Melville, W. Kendall</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Reilly, W. C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Journal of geophysical research. Earth surface</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Young, Adam P.</au><au>Flick, Reinhard E.</au><au>Gallien, Timu W.</au><au>Giddings, Sarah N.</au><au>Guza, R. T.</au><au>Harvey, M.</au><au>Lenain, Luc</au><au>Ludka, B. C.</au><au>Melville, W. Kendall</au><au>O'Reilly, W. C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Southern California Coastal Response to the 2015–2016 El Niño</atitle><jtitle>Journal of geophysical research. Earth surface</jtitle><date>2018-11</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>123</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>3069</spage><epage>3083</epage><pages>3069-3083</pages><issn>2169-9003</issn><eissn>2169-9011</eissn><abstract>Widespread erosion associated with energetic waves of the strong 2015–2016 El Niño on the U.S. West Coast has been reported widely. However, Southern California was often sheltered from the northerly approach direction of the offshore waves. The few large swells that reached Southern California were not synchronous with the highest tides. Although west coast‐wide tidal anomalies were relatively large in 2015–2016, in Southern California, total water levels (sum of tides, anomalies, and wave superelevation) were lower than during the 1997–1998 Niño, and comparable to the 2009–2010 Niño. Airborne lidar surveys spanning 300 km of Southern California coast show the beach response varied from considerable erosion to accretion. On average, the shoreline moved landward 10 m, similar to the 2009–2010 El Niño. Some San Diego county beaches were narrower in the 1997–1998 El Niño than in 2015–2016, consistent with the higher erosion potential in 1997–1998. Beach retreat exceeded 80 m at a few locations. However, 27% of the shoreline accreted, often in pocket beaches, or near jetties. While adjacent beaches eroded, estuary mouths accreted slightly, and several estuaries remained or became closed during the study period. Only 12% of cliffs eroded (mostly at the base), and the average cliff face retreat was markedly less than historical values. Only two cliff‐top areas retreated significantly. Although some areas experienced significant change, the potential for coastal erosion and damage in Southern California was reduced compared to the 1997–1998 El Niño, because of low rainfall, a northerly swell approach, and relatively limited total high‐water levels.
Key Points
Southern California beach response to the 2015–2016 El Niño varied widely, from considerable erosion to accretion
Some coastal erosion and damage were limited by the timing of high tides and large waves, northerly swell direction, and low rainfall
Estuary mouths on average accreted, while their adjacent beaches eroded. Many estuaries remained or became closed during the study</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1029/2018JF004771</doi><tpages>15</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3851-9727</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0726-4781</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9808-1563</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8834-5465</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6257-2918</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3844-2280</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7985-9528</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2169-9003 |
ispartof | Journal of geophysical research. Earth surface, 2018-11, Vol.123 (11), p.3069-3083 |
issn | 2169-9003 2169-9011 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2155242341 |
source | Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; Wiley Online Library Free Content; Wiley Online Library AGU Free Content |
subjects | Accretion Anomalies beach Beach erosion Beaches Breakwaters cliff Cliffs coastal Coastal erosion Coastal zone management Coasts Deposition El Nino El Nino phenomena ENSO erosion Estuaries Estuarine dynamics estuary Jetties Lidar Offshore Pocket beaches Rain Rainfall Shorelines Surveys Tides Water levels |
title | Southern California Coastal Response to the 2015–2016 El Niño |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T22%3A07%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Southern%20California%20Coastal%20Response%20to%20the%202015%E2%80%932016%20El%20Ni%C3%B1o&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20geophysical%20research.%20Earth%20surface&rft.au=Young,%20Adam%20P.&rft.date=2018-11&rft.volume=123&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=3069&rft.epage=3083&rft.pages=3069-3083&rft.issn=2169-9003&rft.eissn=2169-9011&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2018JF004771&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2155242341%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2155242341&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |