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).
If Jerry Walker follows the plans that are in the prospectus, then sure, he'll be in the timber business. He'll be cutting 5000 acres of trees a year, in fact.
But all of that land will then be bulldozed flat to make way for corn fields and golf resorts.
It remains to be discovered who came up with the 9000 acre development plan that was in the prospectus. Walker Group says it was NCSU, NCSU says they only provided a 4000 acre plan. Might be that they are both lying.
But either way, the Sale Agreement signed between NCSU and Walker Group/Hofmann LLC explicitly leaves out 9000 acres from potential "protection" with a farming easement. Only a fool would believe that its a coincidence that that those two documents match so well.
Tom Percival can say they have no plans for development all he wants, but the truth is that once this deal has closed, Walker will go right back to the prospectus plans to start making a significant profit off of his investment.
If people want to help stop this:
1. sign our petition - Google Hofmann Forest ipetition
2. like us on Facebook (Save Hofmann Forest)
3. write to as many NCSU officials as you can and tell them to immediately stop the sale.
4. show up for protests as they are announced
I did finally see the exhibit, and I think the review is just plain wrong.
There's a reason why the Mint Julep Jazz Band was voted Best Musical Artist/Band by Durham Magazine. They even draw those of us up here in Virginia down to hear them play! This should be an amazing time.
We will either find our way forward to single-payer ... or find our way back to the middle ages.
The atmosphere created by both district and CHHS Admin is one of deceit, hostility and fear. Jeff Nash is doing a poor job of PR by blaming the teachers for reporting the behavior instead of addressing Principal Jackson's actions. So, when Mr. Nash refers to CHHS staff as "disgruntled folks over there who don't like change," is he implying that "change" means accepting wrongdoing such as plagiarism? An interesting PR choice. Teachers would address these things at the school or district levels if they weren't afraid of the very real retaliation that happens in CHCCS. Until enough parents get angry about the illegal and unethical things (grade fraud, misappropriation of funds, harassment, etc.) that Admin are doing, I worry that little will improve. It's a shame because CHHS has great teachers and staff. This story is but one piece of a bigger story. CHCCS has so far had a knack for denying wrongdoing; maybe they will eventually get sloppy and become the next Rob Ford.
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
What did John Hurt say to Canfield besides owning up that he was in military intel during WWI?
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?
That's why he's billed as an "entertainer" and not an artist. I got free tickets to his show last week and thought what the hell, so I went. I knew two of his songs, both of which are off the 20/20 album. The show was absolutely amazing...no shit! One of the best shows I've ever seen in my life, but not because of the music, because there were lazers and hot chicks and smoke and elevated platforms and a 16 piece backing band who were super talented. I'd never go again though.
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."
He has the "it" factor; charisma, charm, personality; charitable efforts; add that to dancing, singing and acting, and his down to earth personality; he is the whole package and his fans, which I am one of, love him. We have no interest in criticizing him as we just enjoy him as a person. You are wasting your time picking him apart because you lose his sole in the process. Why don't you just sit back and enjoy the show??
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.
Oh my gosh people are ridiculous. I know all of the guys who work at Ultimate Comics and they are wonderful, loving people. All of this negative press only serves to hurt the comic community, and furthermore it's pointless. These guys run a fantastic convention and anyone who says otherwise is just wrong.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation