The tide will not be held back by lawmakers.
Image: K. KASMAUSKI/NATL GEOGRAPHIC SOC./CORBIS
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
From Nature magazine
Could nature be mocking North Carolina's law-makers? Less than two weeks after the state's senate passed a bill banning state agencies from reporting that sea-level rise is accelerating, research has shown that the coast between North Carolina and Massachusetts is experiencing the fastest sea-level rise in the world.
Asbury Sallenger, an oceanographer at the US Geological Survey in St Petersburg, Florida, and his colleagues analysed tide-gauge records from around North America. On 24 June, they reported in Nature Climate Change that since 1980, sea-level rise between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Boston, Massachusetts, has accelerated to between 2 and 3.7 millimetres per year. That is three to four times the global average, and it means the coast could see 20–29 centimetres of sea-level rise on top of the metre predicted for the world as a whole by 2100 ( A. H. Sallenger Jr et al. Nature Clim. Change http://doi.org/hz4; 2012).
“Many people mistakenly think that the rate of sea-level rise is the same everywhere as glaciers and ice caps melt,” says Marcia McNutt, director of the US Geological Survey. But variations in currents and land movements can cause large regional differences. The hotspot is consistent with the slowing measured in Atlantic Ocean circulation, which may be tied to changes in water temperature, salinity and density.
North Carolina's senators, however, have tried to stop state-funded researchers from releasing similar reports. The law approved by the senate on 12 June banned scientists in state agencies from using exponential extrapolation to predict sea-level rise, requiring instead that they stick to linear projections based on historical data.
Following international opprobrium, the state's House of Representatives rejected the bill on 19 June. However, a compromise between the house and the senate forbids state agencies from basing any laws or plans on exponential extrapolations for the next three to four years, while the state conducts a new sea-level study.
According to local media, the bill was the handiwork of industry lobbyists and coastal municipalities who feared that investors and property developers would be scared off by predictions of high sea-level rises. The lobbyists invoked a paper published in the Journal of Coastal Research last year by James Houston, retired director of the US Army Corps of Engineers' research centre in Vicksburg, Mississippi, and Robert Dean, emeritus professor of coastal engineering at the University of Florida in Gainesville. They reported that global sea-level rise has slowed since 1930 ( J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean J. Coastal Res. 27 , 409 – 417 ; 2011) — a contention that climate sceptics around the world have seized on.
Speaking to Nature, Dean accused the oceanographic community of ideological bias. “In the United States, there is an overemphasis on unrealistically high sea-level rise,” he says. “The reason is budgets. I am retired, so I have the freedom to report what I find without any bias or need to chase funding.” But Sallenger says that Houston and Dean's choice of data sets masks acceleration in the sea-level-rise hotspot.
North Carolina is not the only hotspot for efforts to legislate away the reality of sea-level rise. In 2011, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality removed all references to rising sea levels from a scientific study of Galveston Bay on the Gulf of Mexico. And this month, the Virginia General Assembly passed a bill commissioning a study on rising sea levels — but only after references to sea-level rise and climate change had been removed.
This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on June 27, 2012.
See what we're tweeting about
57 Comments
Add CommentThis would be funny if it wasn't so depressing. What is it with certain people actually preferring to go through life with their eyes closed? It must make it easier for them to deal with life, but making that choice often results in dire consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKing Canute 2.0
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, seeing as our politicians always seem to be really old, it doesn't matter that they're going through life blind. They expect to die long before they would have to suffer the consequences of living with their heads in the sand. They don't have to think about the future since most of them are essentially mounted fossils anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, this is just one example of what virtually all democracies have become: government for the insiders at the expense of the ordinary folk. In this case, that means that the developers who make big "campaign contributions" (in quotes because the vast majority of politicians who get this money do not actually spend it on campaigns) get to take advantage of the people who purchase seaside property from them in the belief that it will still be worth something when they try to resell it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExtrapolation, especially using exponential functions which are very sensitive to the inputs, is always a questionable business. Go ahead and poke fun at the senators, but they might be right about the method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnjoy every day people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing can stop what is coming.
IN the end we are no smarter than the bacteria reaching the boundaries of their petri plate world. They can't stop and conserve and neither can humans.
We are the equivalent to the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs and half of life on Earth.
Enjoy every minute of every day that we have left.
@garedawg, "Extrapolation, especially using exponential functions which are very sensitive to the inputs, is always a questionable business." it's even more questionable to use functions that don't match the data. But perhaps we should tell aeronautic engineers to only model turbulence with linear models. Perhaps epidemiologists should plan their inoculations on linear models. Or perhaps, idiots who know nothing about science or mathematics should shut up and listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about. There is a reason the US is at the bottom of the education barrel. That is because the people cannot seem to separate politics and religion from reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@garedawg, "Extrapolation, especially using exponential functions which are very sensitive to the inputs, is always a questionable business." it's even more questionable to use functions that don't match the data. But perhaps we should tell aeronautic engineers to only model turbulence with linear models. Perhaps epidemiologists should plan their inoculations on linear models. Or perhaps, idiots who know nothing about science or mathematics should shut up and listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about. There is a reason the US is at the bottom of the education barrel. That is because the people cannot seem to separate politics and religion from reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmazing... I wonder if the boomers actually think that generation Y is really going to knuckle under and rent and work part time walmart to pay for their failures on their watch. The u.s. government is just as make believe as laws or religion or walker texas ranger... It seems that the oldesters forgot the opening of the Deceleration of Independence. We don't have too suffer so that negligent generation can enjoy it's golden years... legislate all you want. It's not going to help you...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article mention land movement, and indeed the land does move.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUp Norway way the land is rising (rebound from ice age still going on) and in Japan the quake last year caused some of the land to subside about 0.6 metre.
The Earth tends to be rather like a Yo-Yo (You remember them don't you?) and if North Carolina is subsiding , then this talk of accelerating sea level rise is best described as Bullshit.
It is not head-in-sand but money-in-pocket which motivates a lot of people - without regard to the niceties of logic, reason or honesty. Through conscious delay and deceit, these people are getting while the getting is still good. Self-excusing also plays a big part in such lowlife logic: "If I can buy, then sell at a profit before this land is 2 feet under water, so much the better."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember, studies already show that wealth insulates the wealthy from consequences that most people cannot escape.
I think it's more about economics. If sea level is rising then current ocean front property will be perceived as soon to be under water or suffering from eroding beaches, etc. Real estate developers and the beach vacation industry have a tremendous influence (campaign donations) on politicians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's much more of concern that anything to do with global warming.
"...and if North Carolina is subsiding , then this talk of accelerating sea level rise is best described as Bullshit."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs the concept of two complementary processes occurring simultaneously really beyond you?
Once again the warmist Scientific American is spewing propaganda so that their journalists can get more research grants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article says: "Less than two weeks after the state's senate passed a bill banning state agencies from reporting that sea-level rise is accelerating [...]".
This is typical warmist propaganda. The bill did not ban the agencies from after-the-fact reporting an acceleration. It banned them from calculating it. Big difference.
This ban is an important democratic requirement. In a democracy, the agencies must use primary-school math, so that politicians can understand and check the calculations. The agencies were banned from using adult math, since that would prevent the politicians from checking it. It's a very reasonable democratic requirement that the democratically elected politicians must be able to understand and check the math.
If it now turns out that the sea is actually accelerating, this is a severe problem for democracy. Whatever we do, we can't have adult math. We'll have to jail the sea.
Although I agree that banning any type of discussion is wrong, the larger issue here is that their is a typical knee-jerk reaction by the eco-nuts that AGW must be the cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm totally in favor of the eco-nuts being able to shout and scaremonger from the roof tops. Doesn't make their science correct or supportable, but shout away.
People need access to all arguments and facts. And data and research. Now what was that again about "hiding the decline?" (Mann et. al) or not releasing research data? (CRU et. al) Or jailing non-believers? (Hansen) Or stripping away their rights to free speech (Suzuki).
Oh, never mind ... the AGW looneys were stifling discussion so it was OK.
A bunch of scientists who have dedicated their careers to accurately measuring and modeling the forces of nature probably never even read about plate tectonics in their fancy learnin books!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ElderyBloke,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it you lot can not grasp the concept local subsidence of land and sea level rise are NOT mutually exclusive?
In defense of eco-nuts, we are in the midst of a human-caused mass extinction event with or without AGW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Hiding the Decline"... some contradictory tree ring data that didn't make it on to a graph but was openly discussed in the report... not even gonna go in to the rest of that but Climate-gate is a joke.
"The bill did not ban the agencies from after-the-fact reporting an acceleration. It banned them from calculating it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, they are involved in a planning activity for coastal development. Planning in general is more effective when it is done before events happen rather than after. Besides, if you look at the actual rate over time, the history shows an acceleration.
Retarded religious believers they really think they can bend reality to their demented believes. Pathetic how do these fool get voted in. Must be as many retarded voters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo well said. But it does seem that a new generation of retarded devolved individual are voted in every day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight because you have issue with global warming they may be in the right. I so despise ignorance for the sake of been ignorant. The clear reality fool is that in the coming decade its not going to mater whom you pray to or what you believe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly bullshit is your thinking, yes the land moves at a very slow that takes million of years and no a few millimeters per year is not going to change the reality more water and stronger environmental impact. But hey go live and buy there if your so sure of your delusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou owe us trillions of dollars in damages. Pay up or shut up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI simply cannot understand this. "President" Obama promised while running for office that he would "STOP THE SEA LEVELS FROM RISING!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes this mean that he lied to us?
I live on the island of Oahu. A large tract of houses, 12,000, is still under construction on the Ewa plains. I went in to the sales center just to see what it was going to look like. They were digging out the coral substrate to build a boat mooring for the community. I asked what the height above sea level was. I was told 27 feet. My response was, "You do realize that within 100 years, all this will be under water again?" The response back was "Oh NO IT WON"T!!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Pstamp,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease provide the citation where President Obama said that he would stop the sea from rising; original transcripts only please. Let us see WHO is lying.
Oh no! is this yet another piece of evidence that all those highly trained and dedicated scientists may actually know what they are talking about. Where are the climate deniers???We need their boring repetitive comments so we realist can make comments and have some fun at their expense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHave relatives in NC. Can well believe they would support that kind of vote. Despite being "not the sharpest pencil" in the box even they moved inland from a coastal city. How about erecting a plaque at the shore with the names of the senators so they can watch themselves slowly vanish in the tides of history?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow is it possible that the ocean could rise higher any place than another? If you put H2o in cup it fills up the cup evenly, not higher in one spot. If there is more h2o in the oceans then all of them should go up the same amount, or is the ocean between Mass and NC in a diffrent cup than the rest of them? BUSTED!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMutantBuzzard, by your reasoning, rivers should have their surfaces at the same height all along the river. But they don't. They flow downward.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the oceans, there are enormous streams of water, flowing in ways somewhat similar to rivers. One example is the Gulf Stream. These streams are driven by differences in temperature and salinity. Both of these affect the water's density, thereby making the water move upward or downward. This water then pushes and pulls on adjacent water.
There are huge energies involved in these streams.
When water is pulled away from a part of the ocean, this will locally lower the surface a little. When water is pushed into a part of the ocean, this raises the surface a little. With the huge surfaces and huge energies involved, the differences become quite significant.
The surface at the shore will also rise when winds blow from the sea toward the shore, pushing more water to the shore, and subside when winds pull water away from the shore.
The surface will also be a bit higher close to the place where a large river empties into the sea.
There are other factors too.
As you can see, the oceans are not as simple as your cup of water.
G Karst Says: Empirical measurements ARE data and the data shows a slowly increasing seal level since the end of the last glaciation some 10 to 12 thousand years ago. Surely we can outrun a flood creep of thousands of years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: That is simply not true. Here is what the empirically based science says:
Climate related sea-level variations
over the past two millennia:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/13/1015619108.abstract
"We present new sea-level reconstructions for the past 2100 y based on salt-marsh sedimentary sequences from the US Atlantic coast. The data from North Carolina reveal four phases of persistent sea-level change after correction for glacial isostatic adjustment. Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level
then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further
period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average rate of 2.1 mm/y, representing the steepest century-scale increase of the past two millennia."
Got that? Seal level is rising faster than at any time in at least 2,000 years.
Further the physics predicts that the more CO2 you pump into the atmosphere the more you will raise temperatures and melt EVEN MORE ice thus accelerating sea level rise.
"How is it possible that the ocean could rise higher any place than another?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a fair question for any student in the AGW debate. Tidal influences, the Earth's spin, local gravitational differences, thermohaline currents and water temperatures all effect local ocean surface heights.
Your reference to water level in a drinking glass only applies in the minds of those in the Flat Earth Society.
"North Carolina is not the only hotspot for efforts to legislate away the reality of sea-level rise. In 2011, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality removed all references to rising sea levels from a scientific study of Galveston Bay on the Gulf of Mexico. And this month, the Virginia General Assembly passed a bill commissioning a study on rising sea levels — but only after references to sea-level rise and climate change had been removed."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI got a real kick out of the last paragraph.
"...the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality..."
I can imagine a haggle of JR Ewing look-a-likes in 10 gallon hats sitting around an oak colored Formica card table with a spittoon in the center discussing how they will convince the public that all the dirt in Texas was always black and sticky.
Yeah right - run for the hills
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel4/sl_ns_global.png
I hope they build rest homes on high ground. Luckily, model outputs are NOT data. GK
It's interesting how your prejudices seamlessly meld into a racist reality for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBtw: the best analysis of Asbury Sallenger paper and it's results (that I have read) was written by Bob Tisdale and can be found here:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/on-sallenger-et-al-2012-hotspot-of-accelerated-sea-level-rise-on-the-atlantic-coast-of-north-america/
"North Carolina is considering new legislation about the rise is sea level. It would be a shame if the incomplete analysis and data presentation by Sallenger et al (2012) and their use of the word “accelerated” influenced it."
Pay him a visit if you really want data on SLR or sea temps and ENSO analysis. GK
Obviously you aren't interested in the facts. If you were then you wouldn't have brought up the old "hiding the decline" canard as a supposed example of deception by the scientific community regarding climate change. But I'm sure your own feeble attempt at deception will confuse enough people to keep this ridiculous "debate" raging on, so job well done I suppose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere you are. Video, even, on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0tuAJkbUWU
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnjoy.
"It's interesting how your prejudices seamlessly meld into a racist reality for you."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't act stupid just because you can. I am as white as JR.
Oh, and get a sense of humor. Life is too short to run around with a chip on your shoulder all the time.
"Using historical measurements and assuming that for the near future sea level rise would roughly equal the historical average is the most logical course of action..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell if that don't beat all. Just what the hell makes it logical? Because you said so?
The logical conclusion would be that things never stay the same for long so beware. Illogical would be to say the past record can't change so why try and predict the future with scientific analysis.
If it wasn't for scientific analysis you people would still believe the sun revolved around the earth and a nuclear bomb was impossible because the math was not time tested.
@G.Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not think you understand what you are linking too. Your link shows a very steady sea level for the past 8,000 years. The resolution on that graph does not even deal in the one century mark. Perhaps it it time you read what you linked to?
@Old Engineer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI asked for where President Obama said "STOP" sea level from rising. Your link has him saying "SLOW" sea level rising. Are you as sloppy in your engineering as you are in your fact gathering?
"The resolution on that graph does not even deal in the one century mark."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich is why I posted two graphs, one long low rez and a short term high rez. Enjoy GK
And neither one shows what you think it does. The funny thing is that you have completely and utterly ignored the peer reviewed article I posted up that shows a sea level rise like Hockey Stick.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@G. Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo further drive home my point in regards to your incompetence of reading a graph I have taken the liberty of going to the University of Colorado's Sea Level Research Group, the source of your graph to see what they have to say. Here is what I found:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/reconstructing-sea-level-using-cyclostationary-empirical-orthogonal-functions
Reconstructing Sea Level Using Cyclostationary Empirical Orthogonal Functions:
"The regional trends computed from the new reconstruction show good agreement with the trends obtained from the satellite altimetry, but some discrepancies are seen when comparing with previous sea level reconstructions over longer time periods. The computed rate of global mean sea level rise from the reconstructed time series is 1.97 mm/yr from 1950 to 2009 and 3.22mm/yr from 1993 to 2009."
Do you understand now? Your graph shows an ACCELERATION of sea level rise from 1993 on ward. What you do not seem to understand is that is an ENTIRE body of work that empirically demonstrates that the sea is rising and accelerating. I have only shown you just two of those works and yet you can not even bring yourself to address them but with a blog posting and a Wikipedia article. Pitiful.
"The computed rate of global mean sea level rise from the reconstructed time series is 1.97 mm/yr from 1950 to 2009 and 3.22mm/yr from 1993 to 2009."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou forgot to finish your sentence: And MSL decelerated from 2009 to 2012. Look, we can cherry pick start and stop dates till the cow farts come home, but what would be the use in that? Like I said "run for the hills". You first... I'll be along in a few centuries. GK
G. Karst Says: You forgot to finish your sentence: And MSL decelerated from 2009 to 2012.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is an idiots sentence. First, you do determine a trend in a stochastic system over a few years. Second, I quoted an article from 2009. Sort of hard to include data that has not appeared yet.
And further it looks nothing like you represented:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2012rel1-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed
G Karst Says: Look, we can cherry pick start and stop dates...
Trent Says: The implication being here that the cited works cherry picked the data. An unfounded assertion.
G. Karst Says: Like I said "run for the hills". You first... I'll be along in a few centuries.
Trent Says: And here in a nut shell is the fake skeptics mantra. A willful misunderstanding of the science and callous disregard for future consequences.
My final observation includes many perturbations, up and down, but then, I'm not trying to hide either inclines nor declines. Lots to cherry pick!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is hard to discuss something when someone is busy running for the high ground rest homes. GK
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/sl_therm_55-07.png
G. Karst: My final observation includes many perturbations, up and down, but then, I'm not trying to hide either inclines nor declines. Lots to cherry pick!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: Of course you are. That is what this whole conversation has been about. Your inability to figure out what a trend is. And your last link shows and large gain in the ocean heat content. You have got to be one of the most incompetent graph readers on the Internet. Ever.
Sorry, I meant to include this graph:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/figure1.gif
Clearly showing the response in SLR acceleration to the LIA termination. If you want to halt SLR, simples... we merely return to LIA cold conditions. Unfortunately, billions will have difficulty feeding themselves. Easier to outrun the creeping centuries flood.
Have a nice day Y'all. GK
"Trent Says: Of course you are. That is what this whole conversation has been about."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. You have been busy arguing with yourself.
What I have demonstrated, is that sea levels have been increasing at a steady slow rate (century time scales). At the one meter scale one observes small perturbations in the trend line. Zooming in I showed our current perturbation. Then I zoomed out slightly to show the start of the perturbation, which was clearly the "little ice age" LIA, of 400-600 yrs. Glacial ice grew during this period and is now returning to the sea. In addition, oceanic water is thermally expanding.
No one is claiming there is no sea rise. There are submerged ancient cities and shorelines. But just like ancient cities we will have to abandon flood plains. All flood plains are named "flood" plains for a reason. Any infrastructure that can endure centuries, will eventually flood (unless we enter another glaciation period and tie up more water as ice). Hopefully we are smart enough to recycle cities before then.
If you were to turn off your alarm klaxon... You might see SLR from a realistic perspective instead of exclusively virtual.
Humans have been dealing with rising sea level (SLR) since the emergence of modern civil man thousands of years ago. When one panics (like you) they usually run in the wrong direction. GK
@elderlybloke hahahaha funny guy! translation of bloke's critique: "that sea isn't rising, your land is sinking!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article says: "The law approved by the senate on 12 June banned scientists in state agencies from using exponential extrapolation to predict sea-level rise, requiring instead that they stick to linear projections based on historical data."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom an environmental perspective, this is good. Assuming <a href = "http://braddlibby.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/a-sea-change-in-north-carolina/">a linear 8-inch rise actually protects more land from development than assuming an exponential 39-inch rise</a>. This is easy to show.
Imagine how difficult it must have been to measure the level of the ocean at every place on Earth. Then imagine a climate model that would explain why the level at the North Carolina shoreline would be higher than say two hundred miles off the coast of North Carolina. Are there little steps or is it a gradual incline?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease research your articles more carefully. I'm 70 years old. By the 1950s I read an article in the Waco newspaper reporting on homes flooded in the Texas City area due to subsidence caused by pumping groundwater and oil. Subsidence happens because removing fluids from interstices allows compaction thus settling. This also happens on the California coast where efforts at remediation have been going on for well over 50 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it possible for an entire state to receive the Darwin Award, an award normally given to individuals for furthering evolution by removing themselves from the gene pool in the stupidest manner possible?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this