I am really going to miss kat. I'm probably going to buy her band's albums.
KAT is no more than a average Bar singer wanna be...In Hollywood they know who are the Stars and she is NOT one...The voters are right..KAT is a mere Marilyn Manson look alike wanna be singer...stay in the Bar KAT...remember people do remember the Loozers...and KAT Lost...
I don't care what anyone says. I loved Kat and was so sad to see her go.
Dear Dave Burton (aka sealevelinfo ):
No, you are wrong. I was not comparing apples and oranges. The numbers, 1.7 mm/year for sea level rise before 1993 and 3.2 mm/year for sea level rise after 1993 are supported by the following study (see link below), which used ocean gauges for both time periods. The ocean gauges post 1990 in this case, agreed with the satellite measurements.
You might disclose that you are a member of NC-20, a group well-known for its interest in avoiding any restrictions on coastal development. I would trust the scientists who grew up professionally learning to objectively learn how the oceans work, rather than a computer software engineer like Mr. Burton who clearly has an interest in the debate turning out one way rather than the other (that would not be considered being objective).
P.S. - Benjamin, regarding the links that you suggested for the www.sealevel.info site:
1. There's long been a link to the U. Colorado material on the "Resources" page of the sealevel.info web site, along with a link to an article & discussion that will help you understand it.
2. You accidentally omitted the link to this paper, but I googled the title and found it:
It's paywalled (if you have a copy please send it to me). But the abstract indicates that the article provides more evidence that anthropogenic GHGs have NOT caused increased sea level rise increase. (Based on NC salt-marsh "proxies," the authors conclude that the rate of sea level rise in NC last increased prior to 1915.)
Benjamin, you say I "[refuse] to acknowledge the validity of sea level rise data from the past twenty years [which] clearly demonstrates your agenda." But I'm not the one who's ignoring the data. That's you.
For instance, you link to a graph just Topex/Poseidon, Jason-2, and just half of the Jason-1 satellite data. Why do you suppose that graph omits ERS2, Envisat, and the rest of the Jason-1 data?
The answer to that question is pretty obvious when you look at what it shows. We have 20 years of satellite altimetry data for sea-level in the open ocean. It is of dubious quality, but, for what it is worth, it shows a clear decrease in the rate of sea-level rise over that period. Here's a graph, with all six satellites shown:
Note that Aviso graphs the Envisat data in light yellow, and starts it way above the baseline, to obfuscate the fact that it measured much lower SLR than the earlier Tpoex/Poseidon & ERS2 satellites did. Even so, the deceleration is obvious.
We also have over a century of tide-gauge data, from many reliable gauges, measuring coastal sea-levels. They also show that there's been no increase in the rate of sea-level rise in the last 80 years. In fact, the most careful and thorough studies of tide gauge data show a slight DECREASE in the rate of sea-level rise (though that slight decrease might be due to cyclical factors).
Only by conflating measurements from different locations is it possible to create the ILLUSION of accelerated sea-level rise.
Why is this hard for some people to understand?
Contrary to what you wrote, I do not deny that retreating glaciers, and probably Greenland, are contributing meltwater that is raising the oceans. (Studies of ICESat and GRACE measurements differ in whether Antarctica is contributing meltwater.) But the rate of that rise is not increasing.
Globally averaged coastal sea-levels are rising more than 1 mm/year, despite a calculated post-glacial sinking of the ocean floor that Peltier estimates should cause about 0.3 mm/yr decline in sea-level. If Peltier's estimate is right, and actual average coastal sea-level change plus the Peltier adjustment come to about 1.5 mm/yr, that's equivalent to over 140 cubic miles(!!!) of melted ice! Even if some of the water is coming from groundwater depletion, or other factors, it is still a LOT of melted ice, probably more than 100 cubic miles of it.
But that's not the issue. The question is what effect have humanity's CO2 (and CH4) emissions had? And the answer is "none that we can detect."
That rate of ice melt clearly has not increased in more than 80 years. The oceans are rising no faster now than they were 80+ years ago. Yet the great preponderance of anthropogenic GHG emissions have occurred since the 1940s. That means there's no evidence in the sea-level measurements that anthropogenic GHG emissions have increased the rate of sea-level rise at all.
Do you deny that fact, Benjamin?
I also ask that you not make up "straw men" that I've never said. You referred to, "the 'mysterious' stop in sea level rise you like to talk about." But I never mentioned any "stop" in sea level rise. You just made that up.
As for the www.sealevel.info site, to see the spreadsheets with NOAA's tide gauge analyses, click on the "data" link at the top of the main page, then view any of the spreadsheets.
NC has only one GLOSS Long Term Tide gauge. It's the Wilmington gauge. Over it's 78.5 year history, sea-level rise averaged 2.0 mm/year (of which Peltier estimates that 0.88 mm/year is due to local subsidence), with no sign of acceleration. (In fact, sea level hasn't risen at all at Wilmington in the last 20 years, presumably due to cyclical factors.) Click on the station name ("Wilmington, NC, USA") to view the graph.
Over the last 78.5 years, the rate of sea-level rise at Wilmington has averaged only 2 mm/yr, with no sign of acceleration. Extrapolating that for the next 87 years adds up to less than 7 inches by 2100. That's hardly "rising precipitously."
So Dave Burton where's the water going? We know that the earth's temperature is warming and that water expands as it warms. Secondly we know that vast quantities of water are pouring into the oceans from melting glaciers and the ice sheets found in Antarctica and Greenland, that water simply hasn't disappeared.
Your refusal to acknowledge the validity of sea level rise data from the past twenty years clearly demonstrates your agenda. Will you also deny the data concerning the melting of the glaciers or the warming of the oceans having increased during the past twenty years?
Here's three more articles/ webpages to add your website sealevel,info
What Goes Down Must Come Back Up - Explaining the "mysterious" stop in sea level rise you like to talk about can be attributed to a very strong La Nina weather event. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/earth20121119.html#.UowZcSfKe-A
Global Mean Sea Level Time Series (seasonal signals removed) - Shows the global sea level has increased to levels higher than previously mentioned. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Timing and magnitude of recent accelerated sea-level rise (North Carolina, United States) - Demonstrates that the increasing rate of sea level rise can be shown in changes to the peat in North Carolina's Salt Marsh show the same unprecedented sea level rise as shown by the GRACE Satellites and tidal gauges.
Your presentation before the John Locke foundation was correct on several points however. Some environmentalist have taken the opportunity to advance other environmental agendas which would benefit from aggressive sea level policy.
Secondly that a straight line 39 inch measurement would greatly impact coastal development. I'm sure we can both agree however that private individuals and groups should not be expecting the taxpayers to bail them out of ill conceived coastal developments and that an end to subsidized flood insurance would alleviate this problem.
As for others comments regarding the appropriateness of the facility from a viewing stand point, I agree that it would of been less than ideal. Lydia's suggestion of the Carolina Theater in Durham is a much better suggestion and the large stage would easily allow for a panel discussion afterwards.
On sealevel.info it fails to give a link (at least I didn't find one) to the NOAA tidal gauges for NC. Here's the site. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.shtml?region=nc Anyone will easily notice that sea level is rising precipitously in many parts of the North Carolina Coast.
Wisdom would dictate that the sale of property and timber should not occur at the bottom of the financial cycle. With inflation set to occur dramatically in the forseeable future, would it not be best to hold on to Hofmann Forest for a few years and generate perhaps double the revenue available now? Was the Hofmann Forest not given as a benefit to students in Forestry and should not they have some say inn regard to this sale? Was it not placed in trust with the University for the benefit of these students? Please think again about your decision to sell this treasure. Thank you for you consideration.
Surry P. Roberts M.D
And in response, Terry Stoops, John Locke Foundation Education Director, tweeted this: "Headed back home after shopping for guns+ammo @GanderMtn in #Morrisville @JackieHolcombe #2ndAmendment"
Denis, you're comparing apples with oranges. (It is a common mistake.)
The pre-1993 sea level rise number that you quote is averaged tide gauge measurements of coastal sea levels (adjusted by very rough model-derived PGR calculations). The post-1993 number that you quote is for sea level rise in the open ocean measured by satellite altimetry. (Note that satellites cannot measure sea level at the coasts.)
Sea level change varies widely from one location to another, for a variety of reasons. At about 3/4 of the GLOSS-LTT tide gauges, sea level is rising, and at about 1/4 of those gauges it is falling. On average, sea level is rising very slowly, but few locations are "average."
So if you measure sea level at two different locations, you'll generally get two different numbers, even if you use the same measurement techniques. I've found that if long-term tide gauges are not closer than 500 miles apart, their sea-level measurements are no better correlated than are measurements taken halfway around the world.
The 1.7 mm/yr and 3.2 mm/yr numbers that you quoted are different quantities, measured by different methods, at different locations. It would be quite a coincidence if the numbers were the same.
Sea level rise measured by coastal tide gauges has shown no increase (acceleration) in over 80 years. Here are some relevant papers:
Sea level rise in the open ocean measured by satellite altimetry also has shown no increase (acceleration) over the 20 year measurement record. (It's actually shown noticeable deceleration, but in my opinion twenty years is too short of a record to draw definite conclusions from that.)
Only by conflating measurements taken at different locations is it possible to create the illusion of accelerated sea level rise in the last 80 years. This google search will find some relevant discussions:
Additionally, the tide gauge (coastal) measurements are (mostly) quite reliable and precise, and the satellite measurements are not. You may learn about the technical problems which make sea level measurement by satellite altimetry unreliable here (starting at 17:37):
Hmmmm... I see that some of the comments here have clickable links, but I can't seem to make that work. Do you know how to make the links work?
Just watched the trailer for Shored Up. Could not find your five falsehoods. The claim that sea levels are rising faster today than in the past is supported by researchers who report that before 1993 the average rate of sea level rise was 1.7 mm per year, but since 1993 that rate has averaged 3.2 mm per year. Hard to argue with data like that.
The theatrical trailer of "Shored Up" is just 2.5 minutes long, but I counted five (5) blatant falsehoods, plus a couple of more subtle deceptions. I doubt that the whole film keeps up with that impressive rate of one lie every 30 seconds, but it certainly is not by any stretch of the imagination "objective and well-rounded."
Any suggestions on how to find out about screenings like the one at NCSU of Chasing Ice, or future screenings of Shored Up if we are fortunate enough that they happen here? I think there are better venues at NCMNS for showing a movie than their Thursday night Science Cafe. The Daily Planet is a cafe with several big display screens (but not huge) spread high up around the seating area, which has room for maybe 150 if you include the bar. The museum has a wonderful auditorium in their main building that would be a great place to show Shored Up and Chasing Ice. As to the museum's reluctance to host such showings, it sure does appear to be out of fear of political retribution, a very sad state of affairs in a democratic country.
Nate, We did not have access to the film last week, so we quoted the NC Coastal Federation and others who had seen it for our description. The film makers have contacted us, and they are working on getting us a screener before our Tuesday print deadline so that we can update this story.
As to the size of the room, I spoke to someone at the museum this weekend who said that for previous popular events (E.O.Wilson, for example), people were put in overflow areas and the presentation was Livestreamed. So apparently it is possible to accommodate large crowds for the Science Cafés.
I previewed the film in entirety on November 15th and can say with full certainty that Shored Up is objective and well-rounded. This article is flatly uninformed regarding the content of the film. Climate science and sea level rise isn't the subject of the film -- it's the underlying antagonist, but the story is about social, economic and local impacts to barrier islands from beach erosion and hurricanes. SLR is attributed to climate change, but the point of the film is about what is happening right now.
Shored Up provides a full range of perspectives and in fact, only discusses climate change and sea level peripherally. The theme of the film is impact from powerful hurricanes. Topics include beach nourishment, construction of groins, protection of high value vs. middle class homes, the struggle between local economies and localized vulnerabilities, insurance and the new National Flood Insurance Program law.
The film also provides interviews with individuals on several sides of this complex issue including:
...(a) The director of NC-20
...(b) Mayors of coastal communities
...(c) Beach nourishment experts from the Army Corps of Engineers
...(d) Business owners in coastal communities
...(d) Victims of Hurricane Sandy primarily in New York and New Jersey.
...(e) Climate scientists and coastal experts in North Carolina and New York
I suspect the Natural History Museum is concerned that it may suffer budget cuts if it shows this film. Perhaps the Science Cafe may not be the appropriate place, but Musuem Director Koster's comments appear to indicate he has either not seen the film or perhaps is concerned about the politics of coastal development and potential retribution from the Assembly.
FYI on Chasing Ice: This film was recently screened at NC State. While very beautiful it's also can be described as a simple narrative about a photographer's effort to document retreating glaciers. Wonderful but limited. Shored Up is superior in that it addresses the social, economic and political dynamics resulting from increasing storm damage to barrier islands.
Regarding the original story about the documentary film, having been to many Science Cafe presentations and discussions at the museum's Daily Planet cafe over the past year, it is too small a venue for showing a movie, and not an appropriate venue for a movie at all. There was a Science Cafe presentation and discussion about the sea level rise issue at the time the legislature was considering the bill, and Stan Riggs gave an excellent in-person summary of the state of the science of sea level rise and answered audience questions. That is the strength of the Science Cafe format, in-person presentations by qualified scientists that address the science and allow for audience participation. A documentary film could be shown on their large television screens, but it would be a much-less-than-ideal venue for such a viewing. I know nothing about the film in question, but will admit that issue advocacy may not be the most fruitful kind of presentation for a science museum. That said, I'd sorely like to see someone air the documentary "Chasing Ice" in Raleigh. It was shown last week in Durham and I missed it. I believe it would fall more in the category of science than of issue advocacy.
I read said bill. Interesting that it stipulates that that the CRC "...shall not define rates of sea level rise for regulatory purposes until July 1, 2016." So coastal development gets to go to town for another three years without giving any consideration to likely future rises in sea level that could threaten new or even existing development? Is that true?
Second, the statement in the bill, "...compare the determination of sea level based on historical calculations versus predictive models" in effect implies that CO2 increases and warming oceans either do not exist or of course will have no effect on sea level in the future. Historical calculations alone, by definition, ignore future changes to past conditions. Increasing atmospheric CO2 and warming oceans (evidence for both of which is unequivocal), strongly suggest that the future will not be like the past, and sea level rise predictions based solely on historical calculations would hardly be considered as sound science by any trained scientist.
Most of the energy imbalance created by increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is being absorbed by the oceans. As a result they are warming and expanding in volume. As surface waters and the atmosphere continue to warm, it is only reasonable to expect that more and more currently frozen water resting on land surfaces (think Greenland and Antarctica) will melt, contributing even more to the ocean's total volume. As that volume increases, sea levels will rise inevitably. The local exceptions will be in places where the land surface is rising as fast as or faster than sea level due to other geological forces at work (eg., rebound near areas where ice melt reduces the mass of water holding a land surface down, not a particularly likely circumstance in NC, but not out of the question).
It's pretty clear that the NC legislature and NC-20 were most interested in protecting development interests in coastal counties and skeptical of the work of climate scientists that could threaten the pace of such development. Very much like what was done to the Jordan Lake Rules, the legislature put off any considerations that might slow development due to environmental considerations. Heaven forbid we consider long-term consequences that might threaten short-term gains. The problem with that idealogy is that the long-term consequences might far outweigh the short-term gains, but we'll never know if we don't ask reasonable people (i.e., trained scientists) to examine the issue objectively. That is not what the legislature did this past session when they delayed the consideration of reasonable scientific judgement arrived at after extensive and objective research.
The buyer signed a contract whose strictest standard states that he will keep the Hofman Forest as a legacy forest, and use it for forestry and AGRICULTURE purposes. Of course we all know that means nothing; he does not say it will be a WORKING FOREST with a conservation easement, which NC State could have required by putting in the DEED, not the contract.
The contract lasts only for one buyer, who can roll it over tomorrow, and legacy is only a connotation, not a stipulation. It is interesting that the contract and NCSU spinners use LEGACY, not working forest, which what the rest of the world uses for a permanently managed and legally protected forest.
My 1970 legacy Webster's dictionary defines legacy as: "1: a gift by will esp. of money or other personal property: BEQUEST: 2; something received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past."
So, the buyer is getting a legacy - a gift of property (at a bargain price); given to him in contrary to the wishes of those who toiled in the past. And of course he does not promise to keep it in a working forest.
In fact I have heard from another very informed source that the buyer has a pending agreement with the DoD that will let him convert any or all of the land to crops, except the 9000 acres for outright development rights, which is not covered at all.
Also, NCSU says this is the first time they have heard of or seen these development plans; the BUYER'S representative says they are plans and renderings that they received from NC State, which they developed 4 years ago. Who is lying here? NCSU or the buyer? It has to be one or the other.
Thank goodness these schemers do not and cannot coordinate all their phony PR. They have indeed spun a wicked web, which becomes even more tangled every day.
Meanwhile, NCSU's legacy will be one of greed, deceit, hypocrisy, betrayal, infamy, and ignominy.
Come on, NCSU leaders. Stop this sale.
Leslie Gura, here are the two most important facts that you need to know:
1. Over the last 3/4 century average outdoor atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 ppm, from ~300 ppm to ~400 ppm. (That period accounts for nearly all of the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 in human history.)
2. We have excellent, reliable, long-term sea-level measurements from hundreds of locations, many of them with continuous or near-continuous readings extending back more than a century. The best of those sea-level measurements and the most comprehensive studies of those measurements show that there has been no measurable acceleration in the globally averaged rate of sea level rise in over 80 years.
In other words, that 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 levels has not, thus far, resulted in ANY detectable increase in the rate of coastal sea level rise.
Albert Einstein supposedly defined insanity as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. We've done the experiment once, and we know the result. Adding 100 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere has not caused any detectable increase in the rate of sea level rise. It would be very surprising if repeating the experiment were to result in a substantially different outcome.
Predictions that elevated atmospheric CO2 levels will result in wildly accelerated sea-level rise are unscientific nonsense, driven by political and pecuniary interests, rather than sound science. But some activists wanted such predictions to guide coastal planning and regulations.
Contrary to what this article claims, the purpose of HB-819 was to ensure that coastal policies are guided by sound geophysical science, rather than political science. Most NC legislators agreed with that goal. In the Senate, there was only one "no" vote, and Democratic Governor Perdue did not veto it.
What do you think is "ridiculous" about that? Please quote the specific provision(s) of the bill that you think are ridiculous.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation