North Carolina's Friendly Mountain Breezes, Sandy Beaches and Sea-Level Rise

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:08 AM GMT on June 30, 2014

Share this Blog
14
+

North Carolina's Friendly Mountain Breezes, Sandy Beaches and Sea-Level Rise

In the last entry, I promised to write more about sea-level rise on the East Coast of the U.S. My motivation is, partially, the North Carolina General Assembly putting a moratorium on rules, plans and policies that were based on the projections of greater sea-level rise. The NC Coastal Resources Commission was directed to provide a sea-level projection to be used by planners. Time marches forward and that commission needs to make a report in 2016.

Another motivation for wanting to revisit North Carolina’s position on sea-level rise is a recent article in the Washington Post on Norfolk, Virginia. Norfolk is just north of the North Carolina border. Norfolk is the home of the Naval Shipyard. The Navy has long recognized the vulnerability of their facility to rising sea levels, and this concern reaches throughout the community and the region. (Also NPR story on Norfolk)

Let’s start with North Carolina. There are a growing number of news stories about the state’s approach to sea-level rise. At this point, many of the stories are about whom to place on the NC Coastal Resources Commission. Frank Gorman III has been appointed chairman of the commission. Gorman has so far been credited with bringing order to chaos. He works in the fossil fuel industry, lives on the coast and is widely viewed as taking knowledge-based positions. Of note, he has focused the mission of the commission on the next 30 years. With a focus on 30 years, he removes the arguments about the rate of climate change because it takes 30 years or more for the different projections to diverge. (2014 update of the North Carolina story)

Much of the controversy in North Carolina started when it defined a planning number of 39 inches (1 meter). Such a high number is in the middle of the range of projections in reports such as the technical report on sea-level rise for the National Climate Assessment, yet few if any other states had chosen such a high figure for planning. By limiting the time span for consideration to the next 30 years, the 8-inch projections fall into a credible range. At 30 years, current knowledge suggests that sea-level rise will be accelerating. Thirty years is a short planning horizon for towns and counties and states. Is it responsible or legal to put blinders on our knowledge? What about the precedent of legislatively prescribing that which is outside of the control of legislation? Thirty years is politically expedient, and perhaps the limited guideline allows discussion that is otherwise not possible, but if planning follows it limits strictly, decisions will be made in denial of likely reality.

Turning to Norfolk. In late 2012, a team led by Adam Parris published a report Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios or the United State National Climate Assessment. Citing the Parris et al. report as the most appropriate for planning, the Virginia Institute for Marine Sciences submitted the Recurrent Flooding Study for Tidewater Virginia to the Virginia General Assembly in January 2013. This report is full of maps investigating the impact of sea-level rise on communities on the Virginia coasts. The report concludes “Recurrent flooding is a significant issue in Virginia coastal localities and one that is predicted to become worse over reasonable planning horizons (20-50 years).” Further, “Review of global flood and sea level rise management strategies suggests that it is possible for Virginia to have an effective response to increasing flood issues BUT it takes time (20-30 years) to effectively plan and implement many of the adaptation strategies.”

Here is a figure from the report, which shows the increase in the number of hours per year that there is flooding at The Hague, a neighborhood on an inlet off of the Elizabeth River in Norfolk. There has been a steady increase since about 1980. Examination of the details of flooding reveals that there are factors other than sea-level rise at play, notably there is also some sinking of the land (subsidence). However, when the budget of all the factors that play into the level of water at the coastline are taken into account, there is little doubt that the rising sea is at the core of the changes. (Link to Sea Level Rise and Flooding Risk in Virginia, Sea Grant Law and Policy Journal, 2013)





Figure 1: Hours per year of flooding in Norfolk’s Hague neighborhood. From Recurrent Flooding Study for Tidewater Virginia

Returning to the article in the Washington Post on Norfolk, Virginia and sea-level rise, there are a number of adaptation decisions that have been made. Currently, as houses are being rebuilt after storms the foundations are being raised. The city requires foundations on new construction to be 3 feet above flood level (a number implicitly the 1 meter of the original North Carolina plan). There is increasing discussion of buying people out and moving roads. There are plans for floodgates to protect The Hague neighborhood. A plan from a Dutch consulting firm suggests a cost of one billion dollars to provide protection from a foot of sea-level rise. And, for this to be effective, there needs to be planning along the whole coast. Otherwise, the patchwork of planned and unplanned, protected and unprotected, places along the coast will make a policy and management nightmare.

The areas I have talked about here, the North Carolina and Virginia coasts, are areas where I have spent time. Much of my childhood was building and rebuilding home-contrived ways to protect our cabin on the Neuse River in North Carolina. One lesson you learn in this little world is that if you don’t have a plan up and down the shore, what you do is vulnerable to what your neighbors don’t do. They are vulnerable to what you do. One can’t adapt alone to 39 inches of sea-level rise. The scope of planning required, neighbors, cities, counties and states is daunting. Decisions will not be uniform. And to add to the challenge, if we plan for 30, 50 or 100 years, all of those plans have to anticipate that sea level will still be rising. Thinking of that meter of salty water in places I have lived and worked makes it crystal clear that we need to work for the best future rather than preservation of the past.

r

Presentation on Planning in Virginia Thanks to bappit.

Land Subsidence and Relative Sea-Level Rise in the Southern Chesapeake Bay Region Thanks to nymore

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 403 - 353

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

402. Xyrus2000
10:55 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 398. DonnieBwkGA:

I found it difficult to believe those Kentucky politicians said such ignorant things. But it's really true!


There's no educational requirement to get into congress and no educational requirement for voting. It's inevitable that there will be places where low/uneducated people will be in sufficient numbers to elect low/uneducated politicians. It just so happens the Kentucky is lucky enough that this overlap happens there. A lot.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
401. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
10:49 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
RickyRood has created a new entry.
400. Xyrus2000
10:44 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 395. FLwolverine:

Speaking of Force X, here is a comment that was posted at Hotwhopper - Sou herself hasn't critiqued the"model" yet. Would one of you knowledgeable science types on here explain what the commenter means by "it's not a physical model"? TIA....


If you've ever seen "Try our awesome new stock indicator X! Historically produces 3000% profit" ads, that's basically what this so-called "model" is. It's a set of curve fitting and filtering algorithms applied to historical data and tweaked until it gets the desired result. It has absolutely no validity, has nothing to do with physics, and has about as much predictive power as one of those scam stock indicators.

It's not even a model. I just call it JoNova's Joke. People have to be a special kind of stupid to even consider this to be anything other than a joke.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
399. Patrap
9:33 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Why We Need a Carbon Tax
Posted: 07/09/2014 1:55 pm EDT Updated: 30 minutes ago


Senator Bernie Sanders

July 9th, 2014


The scientific community is clear: Global warming is real and it is caused by human activity. In terms of droughts, heat waves, floods, forest fires, disease, rising sea levels and extreme weather disturbances, global warming is already causing devastating problems. The simple truth is that if we do not act boldly and quickly these problems will only get much worse in the years to come. Global warming is the greatest environmental threat facing the planet and averting a planetary disaster will require a major reduction in the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry for too long has shifted these enormous costs of carbon pollution onto the public, walking away with billions in profits while their emissions help destroy the planet. The top five oil and gas companies alone made over $1 trillion in the past decade. That's over $250 million per day. The fossil fuel industry is destroying the planet with impunity and getting rich while doing it.

That must end.

A carbon tax must be a central part of our strategy for dramatically reducing carbon pollution, a view shared by economists on both ends of the political spectrum, from Arthur Laffer and Gregory Mankiw on the right to Robert Reich and Paul Krugman on the left. In fact, a wide array of unexpected voices support a carbon tax, including former Republican Congressman Bob Inglis, former Treasury Secretaries George Schultz and Robert Rubin, and the four former EPA Administrators, all of whom served under Republican administrations, who testified here in the U.S. Congress just last month.

Why does a carbon tax enjoy this type of support? Why does a carbon tax make so much sense?

For one thing, a carbon tax is the most straight-forward and efficient strategy for quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As the Congressional Budget Office explained in a 2008 report, "A tax on emissions would be the most efficient incentive-based option for reducing emissions and could be relatively easy to implement."

Taxing carbon will also mean that the price of fossil fuels will reflect their real costs to our communities. The dirtier the fuel, the more expensive it will be.

Finally, a carbon tax will help give energy efficiency and renewable energy the level playing field they deserve, making these technologies even more affordable. In fact, as clean energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal become even more accessible their cost will drop even more. And renewable energy isn't subject to the wild price swings of gasoline, fuel oil, propane and other fossil fuels that are so harmful to American families and American businesses.

I am proud to have joined with Sen. Barbara Boxer, the chair of the environment committee in the Senate, in introducing the Climate Protection Act last year. Our legislation, which creates a straightforward carbon and methane fee, is the boldest carbon bill ever introduced. Now is the time to rally the American people in support of this bill.

The carbon fee would apply to only 2,869 of the largest fossil fuel polluters, covering about 85 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the approach used in our bill will reduce greenhouse gas emissions levels by about 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2025 and will generate $1.2 trillion in revenue over 10 years. Our bill returns 60 percent of that revenue directly to American taxpayers to offset any efforts by the fossil fuel corporations to jack up their prices. The rest of the revenue would support large investments in renewable energy, weatherize a million homes a year (which itself would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and save each household hundreds of dollars a year on their energy bills), fund $1 billion a year in worker training, and put hundreds of billions of dollars into reducing the national debt.

Some of my colleagues here in the Congress are concerned about the cost of transitioning from a dirty, unsustainable, 20th-century energy system to a clean, renewable, 21st-century energy system. But they seem willing to overlook the enormous costs of not making this transition as quickly as possible. Climate change is already imposing enormous costs on consumers and our economy, and those costs will continue to escalate as the impacts of global warming worsen.

It is time for Congress to catch up with the scientific community and with the rest of the country, acknowledge the severity of the climate change crisis, and take bold action to reduce carbon emissions and leave a habitable planet for our grandchildren.

Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SenSanders
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 424 Comments: 128284
398. DonnieBwkGA
9:22 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
I found it difficult to believe those Kentucky politicians said such ignorant things. But it's really true!
Member Since: June 29, 2013 Posts: 29 Comments: 2084
397. FLwolverine
9:10 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Re 395 - i should have said the comment was by "dave".

I would have edited the comment but the site is acting strangely - crashing before I can finish a comment.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2369
396. bappit
8:46 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
The first real rednecks I met were entomology professors who spent a lot of time in soybean fields studying the bugs there. Talk about melanoma risk.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6025
395. FLwolverine
8:26 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Speaking of Force X, here is a comment that was posted at Hotwhopper - Sou herself hasn't critiqued the"model" yet. Would one of you knowledgeable science types on here explain what the commenter means by "it's not a physical model"? TIA.

Link

Has anyone downloaded the 'climate model' from Jo Nova. I have, and it's not a physical climate model at all. (The fact that it doesn't contain a single physics formula is a hint) It's just ideology on steroids. A compilation of misinformation and misrepresentation.

For instance, on the tab for ocean temperature, it contains a chart of ocean temps vs model projections. (This is just a copy from this post http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-temperature s-is-that-warming-statistically-significant/)

It references this paper http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_et al_1.pdf

But if we look at 'Fig. 2. Ocean heat content change between 1993 and 2003 in the top 750 m of world ocean. Observations are from (20). Five model runs are shown for the GISS coupled dynamical ocean-atmosphere model (8, 9).' and compare that with the chart in the model, (and the third chart in the post), from the Hansen paper, which contains the 'models' that Jo has 'referenced', they are COMPLETELY different. (This is just one of many examples. Sou, you should write a post about this)

On the tab for sea level rise it contains NOTHING. Just this blatant propaganda

"Sea level measurements by satellites are potentialy rubbish, because while the satellites can measure distance to sea surface accurately they cannot accurately measure the distance of the satellite from the center of the earth over the longer term:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl -intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and- ice-measurements/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/03/why-ice-los s-and-sea-level-measurements-via-satellite-and-the -new-shepard-et-al-paper-are-highly-uncertain-at-t he-moment/

Nils-Axel Mörner, a (the?) foremost expert in sea-level concludes that satellite rises of (around 3mm/yr for the last two decades) are almost entirely due to adjustments of interpretation, and that the raw data (with only technical adjustments applied) says there is basically no rise in sea level:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/ papers/reprint/sea_level_not_rising.pdf
"

WTF????

What is it with Nova, Evans, Watt, Monckton wilfully and grossly misrepresenting the science. This totally reprehensible. But I guess it's the cowardly and disgusting tactics they have to resort to.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2369
394. FLwolverine
8:18 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 393. Xyrus2000:



Yep. Basically his argument is that the temperature increase we've seen over the past 150 years is based on random weather events, not climate change.

Things that make you go "WTF?".
What? You aren't convinced by Force X?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2369
393. Xyrus2000
7:34 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 386. Xulonn:

Am I correct in assuming that the word "stochastic" in this context is simply a fancy word for "random" meant to impress the ignorati?


Yep. Basically his argument is that the temperature increase we've seen over the past 150 years is based on random weather events, not climate change.

Things that make you go "WTF?".
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
392. cyclonebuster
6:29 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
9 of my ideas are in this Link to lower Fossil Fuel GHG's lets hear some of yours..

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
390. JohnLonergan
4:20 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Pope Francis says, ‘This is our sin: we exploit the earth’

In Southern Italy over the weekend, Pope Francis reiterated his view that environmental destruction constituted a sin. Visiting the largely agricultural region of Molise, the pope responded to an address by a local farmer attending university.

"I fully agree what has been said about 'safeguarding' the earth, to bear fruit without 'exploitation'. This is one of the greatest challenges of our time: conversion to a development that respects Creation," he said off-the-cuff. "In [South America], my homeland, I see many forests, which have been stripped … that becomes land that cannot be cultivated, that cannot give life."

The pope added, "This is our sin: we exploit the earth and do not let it give us what it harbors within, with the help of our cultivation."

Read more
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3284
389. JohnLonergan
3:41 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 386. Xulonn:

Am I correct in assuming that the word "stochastic" in this context is simply a fancy word for "random" meant to impress the ignorati?


At the 3 Sigma level, yes.



Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3284
388. Xulonn
3:39 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
No Michael Mann, Ricky Rood, Steve Jobs or Elon Musk casual dress at the Heartland gig - all suits and neckties - hard-core corporate fashion de rigueur.



And they are all "handcuffed" to their ideology!
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1450
386. Xulonn
3:12 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 384. JohnLonergan:
LIVE FROM LAS VEGAS !

...and tossing out this sucker bet of a trifecta:


Am I correct in assuming that the word "stochastic" in this context is simply a fancy word for "random" meant to impress the ignorati?
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1450
385. Naga5000
3:08 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 384. JohnLonergan:

LIVE FROM LAS VEGAS !

It took Chicago carnival barker and think tank proprietor Joe Bast barely ten minutes to segue from:

“ Now that we’ve won the climate debate…”

to
“ There’s a leftist conspiracy to silence me.”



and introduce Joe Bastardi, a blowhard on steroids who declared:

“Elvis Alive has More Validity than many AGW ideas”




...and tossing out this sucker bet of a trifecta:




More Gotterdumerrung here


Oh boy, more evidence pointing to Watts' site being a parody or performance art.

Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3380
384. JohnLonergan
2:50 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
LIVE FROM LAS VEGAS !

It took Chicago carnival barker and think tank proprietor Joe Bast barely ten minutes to segue from:

“ Now that we’ve won the climate debate…”

to
“ There’s a leftist conspiracy to silence me.”



and introduce Joe Bastardi, a blowhard on steroids who declared:

“Elvis Alive has More Validity than many AGW ideas”




...and tossing out this sucker bet of a trifecta:




More Gotterdumerrung here
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3284
383. FLwolverine
2:03 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 382. Xyrus2000:
..........

But to be fair here, it was not just Republicans who were being idiots. While Smith arguably was the biggest idiot, he had some close competition from a fellow Sinette (a Democrat):

Sinette said climate change didn’t kill the dinosaurs, so human beings should be just fine. “The dinosaurs died, and we don’t know why, but the world adjusted

*facepalm*
Really thoughtless of all those people who lived with the dinosaurs not to analyze the cause of death and leave the explanation for us. They could at least have drawn a picture of the meteor!

Sheesh!
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2369
382. Xyrus2000
1:41 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 378. tramp96:

I finally found something we can agree on
This guy is a baffoon
OMG

Link


So there is a limit eh? I was beginning to think there wasn't one. Though honestly there isn't much of a difference between what you guys call "science" and what that senator calls "science" (i.e. made up fantasy). Actually, it wasn't all that long ago when one of the denier talking points was "other planets are heating up too, so humans aren't causing it" which has about the same validity as "Mars is the same temperature as Earth".

But to be fair here, it was not just Republicans who were being idiots. While Smith arguably was the biggest idiot, he had some close competition from a fellow Sinette (a Democrat):

Sinette said climate change didn’t kill the dinosaurs, so human beings should be just fine. “The dinosaurs died, and we don’t know why, but the world adjusted

*facepalm*
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
381. Naga5000
12:55 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
The actual op-ed from post #380 Link

"I used to be something of a skeptic about climate change. I have a Ph.D in meteorology. I know how complicated the weather system is and how difficult it is to predict accurately the weather even a few days in advance.

But climate is not about predictions of a specific day’s weather months or years in the future. It’s understanding the trends: hotter or colder, wetter or drier, trends in sea level rise and in severe storms.

Over the years, scientific findings on climate change have built to the point where we simply cannot afford to ignore them. And this is true no matter what your politics might be. The climate doesn’t care about politics."

Right on, Admiral.

Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3380
380. Naga5000
12:52 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
"Writing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in a recent Op-Ed, Rear Adm. David Titley (Ret.) — who was initially a climate skeptic — worked on a Navy task force to study the issue, which he calls "an accelerating threat to national security."

He writes:

So we’d look at, for example, rising sea levels. This century, global sea levels are projected to rise several feet. Naval bases and installations around the world — along with the communities that support them — will be affected, and we need to plan for that.

Climate change affects military readiness, strains base resilience, creates missions in new regions of the world and increases the likelihood that our armed forces will be deployed for humanitarian missions. In many cases it also threatens our infrastructure and affects our economy. And our continued reliance on the fossil fuels whose consumption leads to climate change ties our nation’s hands on the world stage and tethers us to nations that do not always have our best interests at heart."

Read more: Link
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3380
379. FLwolverine
12:33 PM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 377. tramp96:
I'm simple aghast that you choose to use such an inflamitory
word.
Why, Mr Tramp, suh, are you makin' fun of me? (Flutters eyelashes demurely). Ah'm simply crushed!

Scarlett
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2369
376. Xyrus2000
5:15 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 365. FLwolverine:

From andthentheresphysics:

We Need a Better Class of Climate Skeptic

The problem, I think, is that there is actually no sensible middle ground. If you have sufficient knowledge to understand the science and how science works, and have a sufficiently open mind, you end up largely agreeing with the mainstream position. The alternative is to simply look like a crackpot; sometimes with enough knowledge to make a fool of yourself, but not enough to know that you’re doing it. Clearly not everyone who agrees with the mainstream position agrees about everything or about all the details, but they agree about the basics and broadly agree with the IPCC projections. There are some who are seen as being on the more skeptical side of the spectrum, but most of this is healthy skepticism, rather than yes, but conspiracy theory.


I agree, and I've mentioned this on several occasion. The scientific consensus is that the globe is warming and humans are primarily the cause. That in no way means scientists agree on everything or are even friendly with each other. The climate field has, if anything, grown more hostile. The funding for science in general has been rather meager, which means scientists are competing over a smaller pot of funding. Competing scientists are looking for any edge they can get, so have thus been a bit more vicious than usual when trying to shred each other's research.

Any denier that characterizes climate scientists as one big friendly group of like minded individuals has never read the review comments on a submitted research paper. Comments like "idiotic" and "asinine" are almost complimentary compared to some of the comments I've seen.

There is agreement on the generalities, but plenty of disagreement on the specifics.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
375. ColoradoBob1
5:08 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
372. Astrometeor

Asian carp are like right wing thinking , they destroy everything they meet , and leave everything poorer. Except for Asian carp.
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2435
374. ColoradoBob1
4:55 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 370. Xyrus2000:



Joe Bastardi is an authority on climate sort of like how Ron Jeremy is an authority on chastity.

He equates the Arctic and Antarctic as the same thing, driven by the same factors, and having the same global impact. That right there pretty much destroys and credibility he has on the subject.


YES , an ocean surrounded by land is exactly like a land mass larger that of the US surrounded by the most powerful ocean current on the planet.

Makes perfect sense to me. One is "A" , one is "B".

What could go wrong , with this idea ?
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2435
373. Xyrus2000
4:46 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 359. iceagecoming:

000
SXUS74 KBMX 060937
RERBHM

RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BIRMINGHAM, AL
0434 AM CDT SUN JUL 06 2014

...RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE SET AT BIRMINGHAM...

A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF 58 DEGREES WAS SET AT BIRMINGHAM YESTERDAY.
THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 59 SET IN 1972.



Thanks for the weather report. I'm not really sure what your point is though. From the same source, I could quote any one of 55 record highs (vs. 15 record lows). But that's not really relevant to a discussion about climate.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
372. Astrometeor
4:45 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 363. ColoradoBob1:

361. FLwolverine
2:46 AM GMT on July 09, 2014


Nasty: Another Chicago River Reversal


Along with the other woes, the Asia carp into the Great lakes


According to my Redneck friends, the Asian carp has now infiltrated the Cumberland River as far upstream as Old Hickory Lake (which is where my summer camp is) as of a few months ago.

Fishermen are infuriated because the fish is so aggressive, and there's no good use for it around here.

:/
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 100 Comments: 10277
371. ColoradoBob1
4:41 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
Here's a tip , your on the world wide web , there's a lot of people much smarter than you. Learn something ,

I'm in the bottom 10 percent who post here. That'a why I read these threads , to learn more , not to fuss and fight. Great information comes over these threads.
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2435
370. Xyrus2000
4:37 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 357. iceagecoming:

High -50 F (Jul 8, 12:00 PM) N/A N/A
Low -98 F (Jul 5, 6:00 AM) N/A N/A
Average -75 F N/A N/A
* Reported Jun 24 12:00 Noon %u2014 Jul 9 12:00 Noon, South Pole, Weather by CustomWeather, 2014

Weatherbell Analytics presents its latest Saturday Summary featuring the one and only Joe Bastardi.

There used to be a time when meteorologists truly admired and trusted the work and data put out by national weather services. After all if you couldn%u2019t trust them, who could you trust!

Joe's focus of attention to global sea ice, showing that right now, globally, it%u2019s about 1 million square kilometers above average%u2026in a world that is supposedly in the midst of runaway global warming.

(With that kind of logic one could hypothesize that the snowball earth episodes occurred when the earth was a hot house). Bastardi:




Joe Bastardi is an authority on climate sort of like how Ron Jeremy is an authority on chastity.

He equates the Arctic and Antarctic as the same thing, driven by the same factors, and having the same global impact. That right there pretty much destroys any credibility he has on the subject.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
367. ColoradoBob1
4:05 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
This censorship on the part of the mainstream media and Weather Underground reminds me of the Catholic church in the Middle Ages accusing real scientists of heresy and executing them for opposing the geocentric universe theory. Galileo lost everything because of the Church and its censorship. He died a broken man. Eventually, he and many other scientists were vindicated, just as the so-called "deniers" will be.

Let's look at this statement again .

No , scientists were ever executed by the Church , Jews and witches , that's another matter.

The Church, never killed people over science , they killed people over dogma.

Which is what AM Talk Radio spews everyday , ........... dogma.

Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2435
366. ColoradoBob1
3:51 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
This censorship on the part of the mainstream media and Weather Underground reminds me of the Catholic church in the Middle Ages accusing real scientists of heresy and executing them for opposing the geocentric universe theory. Galileo lost everything because of the Church and its censorship. He died a broken man. Eventually, he and many other scientists were vindicated, just as the so-called "deniers" will be.

I love when the denier mind thinks they are in same league with Galileo . That's a real knee slapper. Then , in the next posting they will invoke their "common sense" reasoning.

"Common sense" tells me the sun orbits the Earth . I'm not moving at all . Yet the sun will come up tomorrow in the East , and arc across the sky , and I'm not moving at all. And, if I have the education of a potato , in works .

Galileo ground his own lenses , to make his telescope . The deniers are largely a group who dodged 8th grade biology with a vengeance.
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2435
365. FLwolverine
3:29 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
From andthentheresphysics:

We Need a Better Class of Climate Skeptic

The problem, I think, is that there is actually no sensible middle ground. If you have sufficient knowledge to understand the science and how science works, and have a sufficiently open mind, you end up largely agreeing with the mainstream position. The alternative is to simply look like a crackpot; sometimes with enough knowledge to make a fool of yourself, but not enough to know that you’re doing it. Clearly not everyone who agrees with the mainstream position agrees about everything or about all the details, but they agree about the basics and broadly agree with the IPCC projections. There are some who are seen as being on the more skeptical side of the spectrum, but most of this is healthy skepticism, rather than yes, but conspiracy theory.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2369
364. ColoradoBob1
3:20 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 355. pcola57:

Climate science denier group must pay damages for frivolous lawsuit against UVA, scientist Michael Mann


Excerpt:

Virginia's highest court has ruled that the American Tradition Institute (ATI), a free-market think tank that promotes climate science denial, must pay damages to the University of Virginia and former professor Michael Mann for filing a frivolous lawsuit against them. The decision comes in a case that has sparked controversy about the abuse of public records laws to harass climate scientists.



Something for the Heartland Inst. confab to chew on in Vegas , besides rubber shrimp. And the fact that Lake Meade has reached a new low.
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2435
363. ColoradoBob1
3:14 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
361. FLwolverine
2:46 AM GMT on July 09, 2014


Nasty: Another Chicago River Reversal


Along with the other woes, the Asia carp into the Great lakes
Member Since: August 13, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 2435
362. bappit
3:06 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting Cochise111: [er, um]
#28

"This trick is chiefly practicable in a dispute if there is an audience who is not an expert on the subject. You make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience. This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes the opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs. If the opponent must make a long, complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen."
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 6025
361. FLwolverine
2:46 AM GMT on July 09, 2014

Nasty: Another Chicago River Reversal

Henry Henderson
Natural Resources Defense Council Midwest Program Director


Last night (July 1) massive violent storms rumbled through Chicago dumping billions of gallons of stormwater on the region. That water overwhelmed stormwater systems, which dumped the slurry of runoff, contaminated rainwater and sewage into the Chicago River and its associated waterways.

And, as has been the case more and more frequently in recent years, the river couldn%u2019t handle the influx. Water levels in the River swelled and the locks that separate the waterways from Lake Michigan were opened to relieve the pressure. For seven hours, the Chicago River flowed into the Great Lakes bringing millions of gallons of tainted water to Lake Michigan. In the city%u2019s glittering downtown, the water on the river%u2019s main stem rose high enough to overtop the wall protecting the new river walk construction site.

Unsurprisingly, all of Chicago%u2019s lake beaches are closed today. And the storm will likely keep Lake Michigan%u2019s cooling waters off limits for the 4th of July holiday. You should never swim the day after a rain, when bacteria levels at beaches skyrocket. And it%u2019s a good rule of thumb to avoid the waters for three days after a big storm. Last night was a really big storm%u2026

Closed beaches in Chicago are a very clear, visible result of climate change. As we have noted repeatedly, the sorts of violent storms we saw last night are increasing in frequency, and so are these river re-reversals. .........

This is no small thing. NRDC%u2019s beachwater contamination report, %u201CTesting the Waters%u201D coincidentally released last week, notes significant economic impacts. A University of Chicago study that puts the tab for closed beaches on the City at $2 million a year. Another puts the tab at $37,000/day lost to our economy every day a beach closes on Lake Michigan. The price is assumedly significantly higher during the summer%u2019s banner holiday when tourists are flocking to town. But that is a pittance compared to the bigger costs of flooded basements and exposure of the public to the rogue%u2019s gallery of waterborne diseases present in the Chicago River.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2369
360. FLwolverine
2:34 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
Yep, and it's cold and windy in northern Michgan this week so I guess that proves AGW is a hoax.

Not.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2369
359. iceagecoming
2:09 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
000
SXUS74 KBMX 060937
RERBHM

RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BIRMINGHAM, AL
0434 AM CDT SUN JUL 06 2014

...RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE SET AT BIRMINGHAM...

A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF 58 DEGREES WAS SET AT BIRMINGHAM YESTERDAY.
THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 59 SET IN 1972.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
358. Naga5000
2:08 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 345. bappit:

I knew who you were quoting after the "numerous and manifold" though I've never read the original. You probably already know that the book he thereby wrote has been condensed down into a list for internet consumption though Schopenhauer never published one. Here is a link to one copy of the list minus advertising and schlock. I've referenced this list from time to time.

Aggressive personalities have tried No. 14 on occasion.

"Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed."

Some smart but clueless contenders have used Nos. 4 and 17 in the past--mostly before Rood's blog existed.

"Hide your conclusion from your opponent till the end. Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitious route you conceal your game until you have obtained all the admissions that are necessary to reach your goal."

"If your opponent presses you with a counter proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction. Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent's idea."

No. 16 should be quite familiar.

"When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions, or lack of action."

No. 3 is perhaps the all time favorite.

"Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted."

Fortunately we do not see No. 21 very often on here because you guys are just too smart.

"When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial, refute it by setting forth its superficial character. But it is better to meet the opponent with a counter argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him or her. For it is with victory that your are concerned, and not with truth."

It is likely that the people who have to clean out the bed pans on this blog from time to time have to deal with No. 23.

"Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating his or her statements. By contradicting your opponent you may drive him or her into extending the statement beyond its natural limit. When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the original statement your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than you intended, redefine your statement's limits."

And there are many more.

Brownie points if you match the strategem with a handle.


I really hope you plan on only replying to people with "No. 23" and nothing else. That would be amazing. :)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3380
357. iceagecoming
2:07 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
High -50 °F (Jul 8, 12:00 PM) N/A N/A
Low -98 °F (Jul 5, 6:00 AM) N/A N/A
Average -75 °F N/A N/A
* Reported Jun 24 12:00 Noon — Jul 9 12:00 Noon, South Pole, Weather by CustomWeather, © 2014

Weatherbell Analytics presents its latest Saturday Summary featuring the one and only Joe Bastardi.

There used to be a time when meteorologists truly admired and trusted the work and data put out by national weather services. After all if you couldn’t trust them, who could you trust!

Joe's focus of attention to global sea ice, showing that right now, globally, it’s about 1 million square kilometers above average…in a world that is supposedly in the midst of runaway global warming.

(With that kind of logic one could hypothesize that the snowball earth episodes occurred when the earth was a hot house). Bastardi:

Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
356. Xyrus2000
1:56 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
Quoting 352. Cochise111:



Climate "science" is the only field that doesn't follow the scientific method. Nothing they have predicted has come to pass. The models have been proven wrong. Nothing they claim can be replicated. Now that isn't science.


Really? Would you care to cite of few cases where this is the case? I have yet to come across any reviewed research stating any such thing. Observations have either been within climate projections or have ended up worse than projected (the loss of ice being a primary example where reality is worse than the projections).

The links you post and your past statements demonstrate that you have absolutely no education or experience in the field of climate (or math for that matter), and therefore do not even posses the most rudimentary basis of judging what is and is not valid science. Your last link to that ridiculous "stock market" climate "model" was a particularly good example of that.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1479
355. pcola57
12:25 AM GMT on July 09, 2014
Climate science denier group must pay damages for frivolous lawsuit against UVA, scientist Michael Mann


Excerpt:

Virginia's highest court has ruled that the American Tradition Institute (ATI), a free-market think tank that promotes climate science denial, must pay damages to the University of Virginia and former professor Michael Mann for filing a frivolous lawsuit against them. The decision comes in a case that has sparked controversy about the abuse of public records laws to harass climate scientists.
Member Since: August 13, 2009 Posts: 13 Comments: 6821
353. Astrometeor
11:23 PM GMT on July 08, 2014
Quoting 352. Cochise111:



Climate "science" is the only field that doesn't follow the scientific method. Nothing they have predicted has come to pass. The models have been proven wrong. Nothing they claim can be replicated. Now that isn't science.


???







Source
Member Since: July 2, 2012 Posts: 100 Comments: 10277

Viewing: 403 - 353

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.