Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scientific American)   NC bans sea level rise; King Canute unavailable for comment   (blogs.scientificamerican.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine, NC Constitution, King Canute, North Carolina, sea-level rise, mark knopfler, Thomas More, Charlotte Observer, shut up  
•       •       •

12954 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 May 2012 at 4:55 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-30 09:23:26 PM  
Please vote yes on Prop 3: All attractive women must find pasty overweight computer geeks to be the pinnacle of attractiveness and desirability.
 
2012-05-30 09:35:40 PM  
This reminds me of a few years back when the geniuses on my city council passed a resolution declaring Los Angeles a "racism-free zone".
Some local wag (Al Martinez of The Times, I think) suggested that they should have gone the whole hog and declared it pollution-free, crime-free, and traffic-free while they were at it.
 
2012-05-30 09:37:34 PM  
Idiot author of TFA took forever to reveal WTF he was talking about!
 
2012-05-30 09:50:13 PM  

Isitoveryet: Have they tried praying the waters back yet? i bet they will try that eventually.


Hey, it worked for Texas and that drought they were having. They prayed and boom, no more drought*


*I'm being told now that in fact the drought continued and part of Texas actually caught on fire after the prayer session. Maybe praying the sea away is not such a good idea.
 
2012-05-30 09:51:37 PM  

Strolpol: Do the tides command North Carolina?

[audreymgonzalez.com image 640x488]


I believe we're done here.

Pack it in all. That pretty much covers all the references we can make

/he says, hoping to encourage a new deluge of references
 
2012-05-30 09:51:41 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: It's all here.


Um, no, it's not.

papers.risingsea.net

Posting a graph in which both the relevant time frame and the relevant amount of change are less than a pixel across is what you do when you can't find any real data to support your position.
 
2012-05-30 09:53:32 PM  

jso2897: This reminds me of a few years back when the geniuses on my city council passed a resolution declaring Los Angeles a "racism-free zone".
Some local wag (Al Martinez of The Times, I think) suggested that they should have gone the whole hog and declared it pollution-free, crime-free, and traffic-free while they were at it.


Elmer Teenez rocks.
 
2012-05-30 09:56:52 PM  

Corporate Self: Please vote yes on Prop 3: All attractive women must find pasty overweight computer geeks to be the pinnacle of attractiveness and desirability.


This.
Except I'm not pasty so can we just change that part?
 
2012-05-30 09:59:16 PM  
I'll see your King Canute and raise you a Kunta Kinte.
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-30 10:31:40 PM  
Everyone stay calm! This is not happening!

www.dvdtimes.co.uk
 
2012-05-30 10:34:05 PM  
Dr. Mojo PhD 2012-05-30 05:02:54 PM: Meanwhile, Republicans will look at this, ignore it, and continue to claim Barack Obama saying that voting for him would result in a policy change that would mark "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow" was a) the oceans stopping their rise or more absurdly reversing, and b) a sincere expression of his belief that he had magical powers.

jvl 2012-05-30 05:07:12 PM: That's ridiculous. Everyone knows that sea level rise started to slow because Obama was elected. He said so!
 
2012-05-30 11:05:33 PM  
Make marriage between an ocean and a sandy beach illegal.

Problem solved.
 
2012-05-30 11:41:32 PM  
cyberd.org

Good F'n Luck!
 
2012-05-30 11:57:48 PM  
When asked to comment about the bill, Aquaman had this to say:

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-05-31 12:46:10 AM  
Billy Sherman, in his march through the Carolinas, claimed what he liked most about the North Carolinians was their humility. Apparently they have lots to be humble about.
 
2012-05-31 01:06:01 AM  
I'm actually beginning to see what's going on.

Warren Buffett said that it's when the water goes out you see who's swimming naked. These fools WANT the water to come in so we never have to know they haven't got a stitch between them.
 
2012-05-31 01:09:30 AM  

cynicalbastard: Billy Sherman, in his march through the Carolinas, claimed what he liked most about the North Carolinians was their humility. Apparently they have lots to be humble about.


I think that's a misquote. I believe he was rather fond of the humidity.
snlparty.com
"I prefer the Deep South.. I like the heat.. the humidity.. "
 
2012-05-31 02:18:44 AM  
This is not hard to understand. Three feet of sea level rise will destroy real estate values along coastal North Carolina. In order to prevent this, the NC legislature is considering forbidding mentioning this likelihood in favor of the unlikelihood of the rise being only 8 inches. It isn't science, pseudo- or otherwise, and it isn't a case of trying to legislate physics. It is just plain vanilla fraud. Nothing to see here.

// sorry, too obvious
 
2012-05-31 02:43:39 AM  

This About That: This is not hard to understand. Three feet of sea level rise will destroy real estate values along coastal North Carolina. In order to prevent this, the NC legislature is considering forbidding mentioning this likelihood in favor of the unlikelihood of the rise being only 8 inches. It isn't science, pseudo- or otherwise, and it isn't a case of trying to legislate physics. It is just plain vanilla fraud. Nothing to see here.

// sorry, too obvious


What this means, of course, is that the developers and/or their friends in the legislature expect that sea levels will rise. They may deny anthropogenic climate change publicly, but their actions tell a different story.
 
2012-05-31 02:46:37 AM  
So when the sea levels exceed those allowed by NC law, does that mean North Carolina can then sue the Federal Government for allowing this to happen? Perhaps demand Federal disaster assistance for every inch the ocean levels rise beyond those allowed by NC law? Or perhaps they should demand that the Feds build a pipeline to pump the illegal ocean water to the Gulf of Mexico, or better yet up north to destroy the property values of them damn New England elitists?
 
2012-05-31 03:07:39 AM  
Because everyone knows how well this worked out in Jaws. And Dante's Peak. And Spring Break Shark Attack.
 
2012-05-31 04:15:28 AM  
The only problem is sea level doesn't work that way. Most of Florida has been above water over the last few ice age cycles but you also don't find old reefs far out like you do on the edge of the rocky parts of the great barrier reef. The reason is the Florida sand based soil is sort of floating far more than a very rocky place like Hawaii. Some of the larger numbers quoted in sea level rise is that some geology guys tend to see "sea level" as sort of where the top of the ocean is, and others see it as a mathematical model of where the top of the water would be if everything was just right. Just because the geoid is changing, it doesn't mean the water won't change with it. There are also other processes that will keep sand islands above water and then destroy them when the sea level drops again at the next ice age.
 
2012-05-31 09:20:35 AM  

Masquerader317: The actual Bill in question. (I think in a new window.)

I'll just leave this here in case anyone is interested and wants to read it for themselves and draw (or jump to, whatever the case may be) their own conclusions.


Looking at it and I say that it is unacceptable. It is clearly trying to avoid the data.

The provision saying only linear extrapolations is asinine. You base extrapolation on the data. If a linear curve best fits the data, you extrapolate from it. But in the data fits a non-linear curve, that is what should be used. Furthermore it is not unreasonable to use science. The increase of sea level is not mysterious. We know what is causing it. And that knowledge is legit for use when estimating future trends.

So they outlaw what might be the best estimate and then require all government agencies to use the potentially dubious one. This sounds like a law requiring the ostrich to stick his head in the sand.
 
2012-05-31 09:45:50 AM  
Lucky LaRue: This isn't about religious zealotry. There's a lot of money at stake, here. If the state starts using *science* to determine sea levels, coastal developers may soon find it impossible to sell their beach-front property, and may have trouble convincing banks to lend them millions of dollars to build condos that will be underwater (literally) before the mortgage is paid off.

So Fraud?

How very Republican of them.
 
2012-05-31 09:49:34 AM  
DON.MAC: The only problem is sea level doesn't work that way. Most of Florida has been above water over the last few ice age cycles but you also don't find old reefs far out like you do on the edge of the rocky parts of the great barrier reef. The reason is the Florida sand based soil is sort of floating far more than a very rocky place like Hawaii. Some of the larger numbers quoted in sea level rise is that some geology guys tend to see "sea level" as sort of where the top of the ocean is, and others see it as a mathematical model of where the top of the water would be if everything was just right. Just because the geoid is changing, it doesn't mean the water won't change with it. There are also other processes that will keep sand islands above water and then destroy them when the sea level drops again at the next ice age.

Only problem with that is a little thing called the equatorial bulge.

Many island nations aren't that far from the equator. Likewise Cape Cod would see less of an effect than Florida.
 
2012-05-31 10:15:49 AM  

TommyDeuce: Everyone stay calm! This is not happening!

[www.dvdtimes.co.uk image 600x322]


Came for Erik the Viking reference, leaving berserk.
 
2012-05-31 10:44:45 AM  
The sea level is actually DROPPING in some places.

TyrantII: Many island nations aren't that far from the equator. Likewise Cape Cod would see less of an effect than Florida.


The sea level is actually DROPPING in some places. This is due to the fact that several tens of thousands of years ago, huge glaciers covered the north, literally pressing down on the land masses. As these receded and melted, the land began to return to its normal height. That's why many places in Alaska for example have been seeing the sea level drop over the past 100 years. But the global average is that it is rising. As we are coming off an ice age, this should not be surprising, but it seems like it is for most people.
 
2012-05-31 10:46:19 AM  

JAYoung: Lucky LaRue: This isn't about religious zealotry. There's a lot of money at stake, here. If the state starts using *science* to determine sea levels, coastal developers may soon find it impossible to sell their beach-front property, and may have trouble convincing banks to lend them millions of dollars to build condos that will be underwater (literally) before the mortgage is paid off.

The global warming debate would end fast if we eliminated the Federal Flood Insurance program and allowed the private insurance market bean-counters determine the risk and set their own rates.


No, it's impossible to end at this point. I think part of the problem is the shortness of human lifespan with respect to the climate. We could have winters where it never got below 100F, in Chicago, and the usual suspects would still proclaim "herp derp it's natural variablility! hurr Al Gore makes money on carbon offsets! durr".

Even without that confounding factor, the epistemic closure on the right is so complete that even if we had irrefutable anthropogenic warming, they'd dismiss it by claiming thermometers had a liberal bias.
 
2012-05-31 10:59:12 AM  

theknuckler_33: Well, I guess if you are looking for some solace, the new regulation only applies to 'state' agencies. So, those pesky universities and non-state scientific organizations can still do real science and report their results.


Except the rich wingnuts down there have been systematically cutting education budgets, laying off teachers at all levels, and then privately-funding replacement courses...taught only by "approved" teachers, naturally.

I'm afraid we may have to go the surgical route.

At this point, we may have to remove a couple surrounding states, as well, to check the spread.
 
2012-05-31 11:02:49 AM  

pdee: This sure looks like par for a fark AGW thread.

1. No one acually read TFA or the bill in question.

2. The fark head line is a bold face lie.

3. Fark libs dont care as long as they can bolster their own self esteem by ripping on what they think repubs say.

And they say reality has liberal bias.


1. I did.

2. It's an exaggeration, but not by much. Welcometofark.jpg

3. If you didn't want the shoes to fit, you shouldn't have tried them on, Cinderella.
 
2012-05-31 11:18:48 AM  
Tsu-na-mi: The sea level is actually DROPPING in some places.TyrantII: Many island nations aren't that far from the equator. Likewise Cape Cod would see less of an effect than Florida.

The sea level is actually DROPPING in some places. This is due to the fact that several tens of thousands of years ago, huge glaciers covered the north, literally pressing down on the land masses. As these receded and melted, the land began to return to its normal height. That's why many places in Alaska for example have been seeing the sea level drop over the past 100 years. But the global average is that it is rising. As we are coming off an ice age, this should not be surprising, but it seems like it is for most people.


Either way it's irrelevant, since most coastal cities are only 5 feet or lower above sea level. A 3 foot sea level rise, and the resulting flooding from high tide would inundate lots of areas of Boston Especially fill areas that used to be wetlands and flood plains. The southern and gulf coast would be worse with their low lying sandy beaches.

We saw how much taking out an America city costs (Katrina) and that was only temporary damage and in a not very economically important city.

Imagine a major port city no longer having a port, or large parts of NYC being uninhabitable unless someone Venices' it up.
 
2012-05-31 11:48:18 AM  

Tsu-na-mi: The sea level is actually DROPPING in some places.TyrantII: Many island nations aren't that far from the equator. Likewise Cape Cod would see less of an effect than Florida.

The sea level is actually DROPPING in some places. This is due to the fact that several tens of thousands of years ago, huge glaciers covered the north, literally pressing down on the land masses. As these receded and melted, the land began to return to its normal height. That's why many places in Alaska for example have been seeing the sea level drop over the past 100 years. But the global average is that it is rising. As we are coming off an ice age, this should not be surprising, but it seems like it is for most people.


That's not the sea level dropping, that is the land rising.
 
2012-05-31 11:54:39 AM  
@Tyrantil

I don't mean to imply that sea level change is not a problem, or not happening, because it is. The overall sea level is rising, and in some places it's worse than others due to post-glacial rebound or other tectonic forces acting as either mitigating or exacerbating factors. What I AM saying though, is that sea level change would happen even without human-fueled climate change. The earth may change slowly, but it changes, and New Orleans is a prime example of building somewhere that we really should not have. The situation there will only get worse in the centuries to come, with or without a shift in human carbon creation.

The sheer short-sightedness of people in building in low-lying coastal areas because it looks pretty is the main problem. Worse are the insurance companies that insure them. Beachfront property on the Gulf Coast or from Key West to Virginia Beach should essentially be uninsurable. A hurricane WILL hit them at some point, and WILL cause damage unless your house is a concrete bunker. Yet these beachfront glass houses get insured, and the cost to rebuild them (repeatedly) is borne by other people.

Personally, I think parts of New Orleans should have been written off. Anything below sea level and anything sinking should have been condemned. Rebuild the city on better ground, but don't just patch what was there and move back. 20 years from now everyone will be all surprised when another hurricane hits the city and floods it again. It should be impossible for areas in the low-lying parts of New Orleans to get flood/storm insurance. OK, if you want to build there, fine, but don't expect to get anything when it floods. And I do mean WHEN and not IF.
 
2012-05-31 12:59:04 PM  

Mouldy Squid: Tsu-na-mi: The sea level is actually DROPPING in some places.

That's not the sea level dropping, that is the land rising.


The two really go hand-in hand. Part of the problem in places like New Orleans and Venice, Italy is not just that the water levels rise, but that construction of buildings and streets, combined with pumping water from underground causes the soil to compress and sink. Any city built on a river delta is subject to this kind of problem, and one would think we'd have learned from the several thousand years of history of, say, Egypt but that is apparently not the case.

But even without that, post-glacial rebound affects not only northern cities such as Anchorage, AK, but the ones in the south for the opposite reason. Think of the earth as a soft rubber playground ball. It's not, but it does act like it in this respect. If you put pressure at a single point (a glacier) while maintaining a constant internal pressure, the ball will deform by raising areas away from it, creating a bulge somewhere else. So part of the drop in say, New York City, is attributable to ground sinkage from post-glacial rebound. It's worst in the northeast coast of Canada, but the entire lower 48 US coast is suffering a slow drop.

So both PGR and an increase of water contribute to sea-level rise, as the only real measurement for SLR is by physical observation.
 
2012-05-31 01:14:00 PM  
Tsu-na-mi:

Personally, I think parts of New Orleans should have been written off. Anything below sea level and anything sinking should have been condemned. Rebuild the city on better ground, but don't just patch what was there and move back. 20 years from now everyone will be all surprised when another hurricane hits the city and floods it again. It should be impossible for areas in the low-lying parts of New Orleans to get flood/storm insurance. OK, if you want to build there, fine, but don't expect to get anything when it floods. And I do mean WHEN and not IF.


The evil guvmint and Army Corps of engineers did that in Boston and it's burbs boarding the Charles. Upstream there's levees and 100 year flood plains that no one is allowed to build on because they are there simply to flood in a 100 year storm and protect the major metropolitan areas. Now, doesn't save the city for a 1000's year storm flood, but cost/benefit doesn't make much sense there for something so random and unlikely just as we wouldn't be preparing for an asteroid strike.

NOLA needed cheap land and they wrongly allowed people to build in places that should have been zoned as farmland / flood land at the most. There's a reason the old ward's where the Spanish put the original city were relatively untouched.

He who fails to learn history...
 
Displayed 35 of 135 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report