Salt water rising

In a report that anyone who's not brain-dead could have predicted, it appears that large swaths of the North Carolina coastline would be underwater if the sea-level rises by as little as two feet over the next century.

The report says if the sea level rises 3 feet during this century, some barrier islands will break apart. The report says the Outer Banks are especially vulnerable. Carteret County shore protection officer Greg Rudolph says people accept that the sea level is rising. But Rudolph says planning for something over decades is hard. He says people tend to focus on issues over the typical four-year election cycle.

That would be especially true if North Carolina's leader of the current four-year cycle had been Duke Energy apologist, Pat McCrory. I hope Governor Perdue takes this challenge seriously and leads the charge on efforts to mitigate the impacts of global warming. As the free-market extremists point out, no single state can make the difference that needs to be made. But instead of adopting their alternative (invest in real estate in northern Canada or Siberia), I'd rather see a full-court press to engage a broad coalition of governments at all levels. Obama put this issue on the table with his first speech as president. Governor Perdue should let him know she's prepared to be one of his field generals at the state level.






Comments

northern canada? siberia?

...that shows you what a lack of imagination i have--i was thinking opening a surf shop on that nice cove just north of englehard (that one with the excellent shore break)...which could soon be oceanfront property...might be a perfect solution.

oh, me of little faith...

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

Fast turnaround.

 (why my image no work?)

I remember in Al Gore's movie the dramatic effects the entire Greenland ice mass or half the Antarctic shelf sliding into the water would have. But, I wonder what it would take to raise sea-level by 2 feet in say one month.I wonder if this happening a few hundred times would be enough?

A report in today's Science describes how researchers recorded the drainage of one such lake in Greenland. The lake was roughly 5.6 km2, but drained completely in less than an hour and a half. The lake's contents rapidly made their way down to the bottom of the ice sheet, 980 m below the surface. During this period, the average drainage rate was 8700 m3/s. For reference, the average flow rate for Niagara Falls is only 5700 m3/s.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Can I get funding?

Your federal government at work. What's braindead is someone funding a study like that. Can I get funding for a study that shows that precipitation at temperatures below 32 F produces snow?

Speaking of brain dead

You're too dim to understand, here's the assumed fact that forms the basis of the study

" ... if the sea-level rises by as little as two feet..."

if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if if 

That's the central point.

If wishes were horses beggars would ride.

If a meteor hits earth the outcome will be really really bad. Duh.

The global warming cult is funny. Weren't we all supposed to be underwater already? Tell me again about the discredited hockey  stick.

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf

Feed in any data, get a warming trend.

Green is the new red.

Done.

For others reading, I have reached the limit of my willingness to tolerate people calling other people stupid, dim, dense, whatever. Having myself been party to that for far too long, I am a born-again nice guy. 

Locomotive Breath has been around here a long time and I regret this action.  I'm certainly open to reconsidering if anyone can make a compelling case.

Thank you.

I am really, really tired of the name calling that passes for debate in some circles.

A temporary block is OK

I don't think LB reached a level of behavior I consider intolerably obnoxious.  Plus, this place can be boring when there isn't some give and take. 

The fact is there is a very simple response to his obnoxious post that in turn makes him look silly.  

My response to LB:  Once the water rises by two feet it is too late to plan.  We plan during the "if" phase of the situation.  It's the same reason we buy many types of insurance coverage.  There's no guarantee we will become disabled, see our home flooded or destroyed by fire or have our belongings stolen by a thief.  We insure against these possibilities anyway.  We do it to be safe.

Now that he's blocked he won't be around to see my brilliant answer and feel oh so silly.

heh



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Entirely acceptable

I differentiate between participants like "Locomotive Breath" and those like "Smitty".  LB is simply deliberately offensive and taunting, adding nothing to an intelligent exchange.  Those like Smitty are usually on the other side of policy but take the trouble to construct courteous and substantive debate.

For my part, you're welcome to ban anyone suffiently rude and boorish about it, regardless of their policy positions.

Dan Besse

I think you make a good point.

Smitty and others like Nathan Tabor show up and try to have a constructive dialogue. Even knowing that we will disagree on about 80-90% of the issues.

Folks like LB just want to piss in the pool.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Precisely, Robert.

God only knows how much that raises the water level. :-x

:D



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Sea levels are already rising,

  and have been for some time. The question of whether that process is accelerating might be debatable, but the fact of rising levels is not.

www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/golden_gate.pdf

This law review article goes into great detail about the effectiveness and legal aspects of attempts by land owners (government and private) to ameliorate the impacts of rising sea levels. Which is really what we need to be focusing on, as opposed to sticking our heads in the (eroding) sand.

Not necessarily

Sometimes it is sleet, freezing rain, or just rain.

Snow way?

Great comment.  One of my all-time favorites!

And the typical government study

 Typical of the global warming cultists they would insist on just a single outcome and ignore alternates.

Unfortunately for us,

Republicans have made "gut feeling" their basis for decisions. So, without lock-down, scientific, undeniable proof a Republican won't believe that water is wet, let alone that it could produce something puffy and white and dry like SNOW!!!

Remember the Al Gore movie when they searched for scientific articles that doubted global climate change? Remember how Republicans and the mainstream media always said it was being debated? Remember how many papers that the ratio was something like 10:000 to 1?

So, don't put down studies that people like yourself have made necessary. The day is done when we can just look at a  Republican and say "Well, of course cutting taxes during a war will cause our country to go into greater debt, that's obvious." Now, we have to have a bazillion studies PROVING every nuance and shooting down every possible faith-based alternative.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Just doing a Google-search

I just did a Google-search.

First, I did it putting in "pro-global warming websites".  I got 5,740 hits.

Next, I did it putting in "anti-global warming websites".  I got 24,800 websites.

Of course, each time I changed even one word on Google..the numbers changed and even with the SAME words, the numbers changed.  Not sure about that, y'all.

Now, that, in itself, means squat....grantid.  My point here is....there's a GREAT DEAL of legitimate scientific banter pro and con about this issue.  Guess ya believe what ya want to believe. 

I'm neither way....but I do know how I feel about Al Gore getting a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts with regard to global warming....What in the heck does this have to do with "peace"?????  I see it as internationally political. 

Yep...I expect bashing/trashing on this...but, know this...I truly wonder about this.

The best thinking is independent thinking.

I can see how it relates to peace, Smitty

Something as drastic as global warming will affect the economy.  Anytime something affects the economy, the chance for civil unrest and armed conflict becomes greater.

If global warming is happening and nothing is done about it, many crops will fail, many homes will be lost, and many lives will be drastically changed, if not lost themselves.  Those are prime conditions for war.

That's right

A few feet of sea level rise and roughly half a billion people could find their homes underwater. 

We're already at risk for global class warfare.  It is America's abuse of the environment and energy that has made all the sh*t flow downstream to affect developing countries.  It's not surprising at all to me that Gore's work on climate change was immediately linked to the illusive search for peace.

I see your and James feeling on this

I don't know....guess what you guys are saying is a consideration.  But, it just seems like it had to be a slow year on peace initiatives...know what I mean?

Guess it's my republican/anti-Al Gore side coming out in me.  I just don't see this global warming "crisis" as being something that relates to Peace, per se.  Seemed more political than real...just an opinion.  I'm sure Gore loved it.  He's now able to gather up a ton of speeches at "green" events and he's getting paid interviews by just a ton of media sources...so, well, he's a happy camper. 

Do I sound a bit cantankerous on this one?  Yeah...you read me right.

I'm not gonna get all radical on it.  It's a done deal, what difference does it make now?

The best thinking is independent thinking.

No, there is not.

My point here is....there's a GREAT DEAL of legitimate scientific banter pro and con about this issue.

There just isn't any legitimate scientific banter about whether or not climate change is happening. There is debate about how quickly it is happening, that is all.For instance, there was a lot written lately about the "lube" theory of ice shelves disappearing quickly versus the added tension caused by rapid melting. But, both groups agree that....IT'S MELTING!

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Guess this is what I'm alluding to

Robert...there is a lot being said about how the earth's temperature is cyclical.  I don't argue that we're in a warming period...hey, you are dead on about this.  My belief is that there is a lot of argument/discussion/scientific evidence that both favors and rejects that it's "man made". 

I guess both of us could put a gazillion sites on here that says this or that on the issue. 

If you and I can't agree on it, whatcha think more involved people are doing?

The best thinking is independent thinking.

That's my point.

Where in the world do you get the idea that a website is somehow legitimate? Just because Michael Crichton inspired a million crackpots to put up websites doesn't make it legitimate. The Scientific Method has worked for centuries, why stop using it now?

You will notice that "beliefs" are not listed in there, nor are gut feelings, conjecture, nor feelings.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Like I said

Look Robert...like I said...there are gazillions of supposed "legitimate" arguments for and against what is being presented here...scientific on both sides.  I'm not gonna get into a "who has the best site or strongest science" argument with ya.

This one is like "religion"...gets people livid in a heartbeat.  Not interested in that.

The best thinking is independent thinking.

But, it's not, that's the point.

There are almost NO legitimate scientists that think man isn't responsible for the massive changes in the climate that we see happening.

So, once again, that is my whole point. Belief versus Science.

I can understand you wanting to be done with this argument, that's fine with me. Thanks for engaging!

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Ya got the last word

I'm fine with that.

The best thinking is independent thinking.

me too......

okay, obviously not!!!

: )))))

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

No he didn't!

You got the last word by saying he got the last word. And I'm denying you the last word by pointing out your last wordedness. :)  Just kidding.

Hearkening back to a discussion we had some time ago, the plethora of global warming denialist websites is (for the most part) the result of an intensive campaign by big oil to protect future profits. This may sound egocentric, but I can (and have) traced nearly every one of these sites back to Exxon- (or other) funded research projects and/or think tanks. It's not just science they've manipulated, they've also succeeded in creating the impression that the left is trying to use climate change to implement more Socialist-style reforms to government. That second thing may have had far more impact on denialism than any pseudo-science could have, because it creates an "evil entity" for conservatives to oppose.

Here's the thing: any attempt to ameliorate the effects of carbon-induced global warming/climate change are going to negatively impact the fossil fuel industry. Most future scenarios envision local, scalable approaches to energy and fuel production. Huge multinational corporations might get some benefits out of this, but their losses far outweigh these, by the tune of tens of billions. Not only can they afford to buy their own science, they can't afford not to.

The next time you're at one of these sites, try a little experiment. Google the names of the folks who run the site. More often than not, you'll find they're also attached to/used to work for some instutute with an impressive-sounding name. Google that institute, and you'll find they're an offshoot of some other impressive-sounding institute that has received substantial funding from Exxon-Mobil and/or some foundation like Koch, which owns tons of oil and abouit a third of the pipelines in America. Even if the folks who run the site are innocent concerned citizens, follow the data they're using in the same way I mentioned.

If you come across a site that (you think) doesn't have oil stains, let me know and I'll show you where you missed the connection. ;)

You might be interested

in this survey of actual earth scientists (as opposed to some of the scientists cited by deniers, whose fields are unrelated to earth science or climatology):

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/01/19/survey.scientists.agree.human.induced.global.warming.real

While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause. A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

Take note, those who think we are saying it is entirely caused by human activity - they say human activity is a significant contributing factor - not that it's the sole cause.  And since it's the only factor we can do anything about, it makes sense to me that we should be doing what we can about our impact on the global climate.

I know, I know..

But, my real point is that there is just SOOOO much dissention scientifically for and against this "manmade" global warming theory.  I mean, I'm not gonna ask ya to go to Google to find out how the earth has warmed and cooled for eons...I'm just of the opinion that this warming trend (which I readily admit is happening..um, like who can argue it?) isn't about man.  It's just a cyclical event.

Look, it's in vogue to blame emissions and we evil humans for this right now...I know that..I accept that.  I have been on soooooo many websites that have soooooo many scientists that just disagree it's human-born, what can I say.  I know Robert P. has his websites and you may too.  Google is so cool, isn't it?  I mean, we could fill up a thousand blogs posting websites for and against this...what's the point.  You guys feel one way, I feel another.

And, If ya want the last word...I promise I won't "respond"......    :<)

The best thinking is independent thinking.

Mr. Smith

I'm not going to burden you with more Googly facts.  I'm perfectly willing to split the baby in half and consider that there is full and equal evidence on both sides.  (There's not, but let's pretend there is.)

The question is:  What should we do given that it's 50-50?  

The principle of strategic flexibility would argue that if you're doing something that could (50% chance) be destroying billions of lives and costing hundreds of trillions of dollars, you should stop doing it.  That's a no-brainer.  Seriously.  The only case I've heard made against aggressive action to stop climate change is that it could hurt the US economically.  Not that it WOULD hurt us, but that it could.  (A more compelling case can be made that it will help us.) 

Are you saying that it's more important to avoid the risk of economic distress than it is to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?  That's crazy.  Not to mention the fact that those emissions have a host of other negative impacts including asthma, acid rain, deforestation, water pollution, and mercury poisoning, just to name a few.

You may be comfortable betting the planet on 50/50 odds, but I'm not.  I assert that an aggressive and full-court press to move away from fossil fuels is the only strategically sound choice. Anything else is folly with no sustainable upside benefit. 

Mr. Smith ????? This must be serious :)

James...I'm an asthmatic...and have serious problems and have a rescue inhaler I must have with me at all times and take "control" treatments as well as need to use my nebulizer more frequently than I want.  I am not against stopping much of what you're talking about here my friend.  I just don't know if humans are the reason for what is dubbed "global warming".  Here is just one more issue that can be argued over and over and over again with really no real emperical evidence for or against that can't be argued against one or the other.  

I want there to be a world that has absolutely NO petroleum-fueled automobiles or generators.  I want to see no smog as I have seen vividly when I have crossed the Grapevine going over the Sierra Nevadas into L.A.  I can't even stand being a room where folks are smoking....like a bar and trust me...I LIKE bars.  

I just am not convinced that we're doomed because of our use of fossil fuels.  

Just my belief.  I guess I can't argue it any better than anyone else, including the scientists that believe as I do.

Mr. Smith 

The best thinking is independent thinking.

What's the worse that could happen?

This video approaches the point that James makes, what are our various lines of attack, what are the potential outcomes.

Here is actually the newest version of this video.


Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Thanks, Robert.

This is excellent ... classic scenario planning, well presented and convincing.  It underscores that the "don't do anything" crowd doesn't t understand risk management at all. They frame everything as short-term economic risks.  We'll hear those arguments again and again as they argue for doing stupid stuff (build more coal plants, relax regulation, etc.).

I didn't say we were doomed

This isn't about what you or I think.  This is about calculated risk.  Or maybe you don't think there's even a 50-50 chance that human activity is causing the rise in sea levels - a rise that everyone agrees is happening.

If you DO think it's 50-50, then action is called for.  It's not about doomed or not doomed, it's about using common sense to manage risk. You wouldn't go anywhere without your inhaler, right?  That would be a dumb risk. Well, continuing on the path we're on is a dumb risk, too.  There's huge economic gain to be achieved by going green right now. Not ten years from now or 20 years from now.  By then, the US will be so far behind in technology ... just like we are in the automotive industry right now.

Come on, Smitty, jump on the green bandwagon.  Become a rah-rah supporter of green energy. Push for it. Argue for it. Invest in it.  Not because we're doomed if we don't.  Who knows, maybe we're not doomed.  But because it's the responsible thing given that we don't know if we're doomed.

You and I are going to be dead and gone before this is a big deal.  But those grandkids of yours?  Their kids are going to trying to manage a mess of untold proportions.  We can make it easier on them.  We can lay the tracks in a new direction so they don't have to dig out from whatever messes we're creating.  

All you need to do is drive to the NC mountains and hike a few high peaks. The devastation of acid rain from burning fossil fuels is stark and undeniable. There is not a single shred of doubt about the cause. 

That should be reason enough to call a halt to this madness.

Shew...James, that's really hard to read

When ya invoke my grandkids...well, ya KNOW I love those guys.

I know what you're saying...but, I just have a problem with believing "global warming" is like this totally human thing.

Just too much evidence that there are other forces involved in it.  Again...I'm with ya on pollution.  I will fight that tooth and nail.

The best thinking is independent thinking.

Of course

Of course there are other factors involved.  Its pretty difficult to find anything in this world with a single cause or effect.
But we know that humans are having a significant impact, and an impact that can actually be reversed.  Why argue over causes when we can affect change?

"Keep the Faith"

Okay

Can't really argue that.

Oh, by the way..I see you're a State fan.  And, you know I'm a fan of the SUPREME enemy...UNC.

What the heck are we gonna do with Wake?

Man...those guys are tough.

Hope we face them in the ACC Tourney.

Payback...know what I mean?

The best thinking is independent thinking.

Hey Smitty

Great Picture! Who is the angel in your arms, there? 

It is a cool pic

And it looks like Smitty's wearing a maternity ward gown. I had no idea he was still of child-bearing age...:)