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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of geophysical research. Earth surface 2018-11, Vol.123 (11), p.3069-3083
Hauptverfasser: 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.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; 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