• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Carolina has a solution to sea level rise: assume it wont happen

D

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
110,497
Reaction score
64,455
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
http://www.nccoast.org/uploads/documents/CRO/2012-5/SLR-bill.pdf

§ 113A-107.1. Sea-level policy restrictions; calculation of rate of sea-level rise. 29
(a) No State agency, board, commission, institution, or other public entity thereof shall 30 adopt any rule, policy, or planning guideline addressing sea-level rise, unless authorized to do 31 so under this Article.

(b) No county, municipality, or other local public body 1 shall adopt any rule, ordinance,
policy, or planning guideline addressing sea-level rise, unless it is a coastal-area county or is
located within a coastal-area county.
(c) No rule, ordinance, policy, or planning guideline that defines the rate of sea-level rise
shall be adopted except as provided by this section.
(d) The General Assembly does not intend to mandate the development of sea-level rise
policy or rates of sea-level rise. If, however, the Coastal Resources Commission decides to
develop rates of sea-level rise, the Commission may do so, but only by instructing the Division
of Coastal Management to calculate the rates.

Coastal Management to calculate the rates.
(e) The Division of Coastal Management shall be the only State agency authorized to
develop rates of sea-level rise and shall do so only at the request of the Commission. These
rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time
period following the year 1900. Rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate
future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise. Rates of
sea-level rise shall not be one rate for the entire coast but, rather, the Division shall consider
separately oceanfront and estuarine shorelines. For oceanfront shorelines, the Division shall use
no fewer than the four regions defined in the April 2011 report entitled "North Carolina Beach
and Inlet Management Plan" published by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. The oceanfront regions are: Region 1 (Brunswick County), Region 2 (New
Hanover, Pender, and Onslow Counties and a portion of Carteret County), Region 3 (a portion
of Carteret County and Hyde County), and Region 4 (Dare and Currituck Counties). For
estuarine shorelines, the Division shall consider no fewer than two separate regions defined as
those north of Cape Lookout and those south of Cape Lookout.
(f) Any State agency, board, commission, institution, or other public entity thereof and
any county, municipality, or other local public body that develops a policy addressing sea-level
rise that includes a rate of sea-level rise shall use only the rates of sea-level rise developed by
the Division of Coastal Management as approved by the Commission. If the Commission has
not approved a sea-level rise rate, then the sea-level rise policy shall not use a rate of sea-level
rise.
(g) If the Commission chooses to adopt rates of sea-level rise for the coastal area as
developed by the Division, all rates shall be adopted as rules that are subject to Chapter 150B
of the General Statutes."
Click to expand...

In short, North Carolina is attempting to legislate methodology for calculating sea level rise, for the purpose of planning, and they aren't going to let any "unapproved" calculations be used in any planning. If their commission does not direct the Division of Coastal Management to make a calculation, no calculation can be made. If no calculation is made and approved, planning is legally barred from using a rate of sea-level increase.

Acceleration of sea level rise would not be considered, by law. An odd position to take, seeing as how sea level rise may have accelerated lately. (newer satellite altimetry points to that, but it's a bit early to be sure as those systems have only been running since 1993) With increasing global temperatures, it would be expected that sea level rise accelerates, so to legislatively assume that it definitely wont accelerate seems outright foolish. Under this bill, only linear extrapolation could be used, starting no sooner than 1900. Arbitrary and foolish.

Coincidentally, this legislation is being pushed by NC-20, a developers lobby group. Hmm, I wonder why a group of developers would want to artificially cap the planned rate of sea level rise.

NC-20 - "Twenty Counties...One Voice" - Coastal Counties of North Carolina
 
Well, for one thing, the big sea level rise happened 12,000 years ago when the ice age came to an end. For another thing, not to worry, if your house floods and you have the cheap federal flood insurance, Uncle Sugar will see that the taxpayers replace it for you.
 
The following figure shows global cumulative sea level change for 1900 to 2002 [http://www.wamis.org/agm/meetings/rsama08/S304-Shum_Global_Sea_Level_Rise.pdf]. Since according to the IPCC, CO2-based warming has apparently only shown up since the 1970s, all of this sea level rise since prior to 1970 cannot be caused by anthropogenic CO2, and yet the trend has not increased.


Sea Level


YAAAAAWN







The sea level rate in the 1990s was similar to the 1930s. “Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records” (Jevrejeva, S., A. Grinsted, J. C. Moore, and S. Holgate (2006), Journal of Geophysical Research) [http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005JC003229.shtml] “global sea level trend estimate of 2.4 ± 1.0 mm/yr for the period from 1993 to 2000 …over the last 100 years the rate of 2.5 ± 1.0 mm/yr occurred between 1920 and 1945, is likely to be as large as the 1990s”



Although Al Gore and other alarmists make statements about scary unrealistic increases in sea level, the IPCC AR4 (2007) report predicts that sea level rise will be 0.6 – 1.9 feet by the year 2100. The larger value is reduced from the IPCC TAR (2001) report which predicted 0.3 to 2.9 feet by 2100. The historic rate of 1.6 mm/yr over the last 100 years translates into a sea level rise of about 6 inches by the year 2100.



Alarmists say everything is accelerating and it’s worse than expected. But they carefully select start and end dates to create exaggeration. The following figure shows sea level from 1993 through 2009 [http://sealevel.colorado.edu/]. This figure shows a rate of 3.1 mm/year since it starts at a low point in the fluctuating data (the 1993 start indicated by the arrow in the above figure).

For some reason all the links don't work but the first one, sea level brings the whole thing up, enjoy.
 
Last edited:
You hate polar bears. And children who like polar bears.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Although Al Gore and other alarmists make statements about scary unrealistic increases in sea level, the IPCC AR4 (2007) report predicts that sea level rise will be 0.6 – 1.9 feet by the year 2100. The larger value is reduced from the IPCC TAR (2001) report which predicted 0.3 to 2.9 feet by 2100. The historic rate of 1.6 mm/yr over the last 100 years translates into a sea level rise of about 6 inches by the year 2100.
Click to expand...

Funny, you should mention that...

Just the night before IPCC Tar was officially published, another study was produced revealing that the rates of rising temperature and sea levels were rising at the maximum, or even higher rates than the IPCC.

In fact, their quoted as saying, "applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that in 2100 sea levels would be 0.5–1.4 m [50–140 cm] above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9–88 cm as projected by the IPCC itself in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001."
 
jredbaron96 said:
funny, you should mention that...

Just the night before ipcc tar was officially published, another study was produced revealing that the rates of rising temperature and sea levels were rising at the maximum, or even higher rates than the ipcc.

In fact, their quoted as saying, "applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the intergovernmental panel on climate change (ipcc), the researchers found that in 2100 sea levels would be 0.5–1.4 m [50–140 cm] above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9–88 cm as projected by the ipcc itself in its third assessment report, published in 2001."
Click to expand...

omg, scary prediction! Lmao
 
sawyerloggingon said:
The site I provided is my reply, try looking at it and you won't say stupid things that deserve no response other than LMAO.
Click to expand...

The only thing I saw on your link that related to what I replied with was this :

Although Al Gore and other alarmists make statements about scary unrealistic increases in sea level, the IPCC AR4 (2007) report predicts that sea level rise will be 0.6 – 1.9 feet by the year 2100. The larger value is reduced from the IPCC TAR (2001) report which predicted 0.3 to 2.9 feet by 2100. The historic rate of 1.6 mm/yr over the last 100 years translates into a sea level rise of about 6 inches by the year 2100.
Click to expand...

And then I pointed out that the IPCC's report was cited as understating the actual sea level's rise.

Your blogger ignored the fact that the IPCC's estimates were conflicting with available data at the time, most likely due to our expanding knowledge of GW at the time.

So, basically, you nor your site rebbutted what I said.

*writes down another line*

Sweet, another victory.
 
I was in a marine biology class in Myrtle Beach, SC my senior year. I loved the class and absolutely remember the teacher telling us that the hotels on the beach there would likely be underwater within 50 years, if not for extensive dredging of the sandbars off the coast to constantly replenish them.

If NC doesn't have issues with the water rising up the beaches, then why do many of those coastal cities have dredging and beach replenishment projects?

Project FAQs - Town of Nags Head*
Beach Re-Nourishment Committee - Beach Nourishment - Town of Surf City, North Carolina*
 
roguenuke said:
I was in a marine biology class in Myrtle Beach, SC my senior year. I loved the class and absolutely remember the teacher telling us that the hotels on the beach there would likely be underwater within 50 years, if not for extensive dredging of the sandbars off the coast to constantly replenish them.

If NC doesn't have issues with the water rising up the beaches, then why do many of those coastal cities have dredging and beach replenishment projects?

Project FAQs - Town of Nags Head*
Beach Re-Nourishment Committee - Beach Nourishment - Town of Surf City, North Carolina*
Click to expand...

Beaches erode, it's the nature of waves crashing on sand then sucking out to sea. Dredging and rebuilding beaches is just an attempt to stop the natural order of things.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Beaches erode, it's the nature of waves crashing on sand then sucking out to sea. Dredging and rebuilding beaches is just an attempt to stop the natural order of things.
Click to expand...

The beaches aren't just "eroding". The water is coming up to them. The world is slowly moving, including the oceans and the continents. It is natural. But some people are overreacting to this because they believe that they have to fight something that may be related to a theory they don't agree with.
 
roguenuke said:
The beaches aren't just "eroding". The water is coming up to them. The world is slowly moving, including the oceans and the continents. It is natural. But some people are overreacting to this because they believe that they have to fight something that may be related to a theory they don't agree with.
Click to expand...

I resent paying for dredging and beach reclamation for people who are stupid enough to build on a sand on the edge of an ocean.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I resent paying for dredging and beach reclamation for people who are stupid enough to build on a sand on the edge of an ocean.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying its right to do so. But it is certainly wrong to tell people that they can't suggest that something is occurring just because the state doesn't agree with it.
 
roguenuke said:
I'm not saying its right to do so. But it is certainly wrong to tell people that they can't suggest that something is occurring just because the state doesn't agree with it.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking slightly conservative in San Diego Calif is like extreme left winger in Idaho, LOL.
 
So, if sea levels rise more than SC thinks that they should, what are they going to do about it? Arrest Neptune?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I'm thinking slightly conservative in San Diego Calif is like extreme left winger in Idaho, LOL.
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed the fact that I reside in San Diego because my husband is stationed here? I was raised in NC. There are plenty "conservative" things about me, but other things that aren't.
 
roguenuke said:
Maybe you missed the fact that I reside in San Diego because my husband is stationed here? I was raised in NC. There are plenty "conservative" things about me, but other things that aren't.
Click to expand...

If you spend to much time in So Cal, your mind turns to liberal mush.I should know, I was raised there.
 
roguenuke said:
So then you are saying you're more liberal than me then, huh?
Click to expand...

I left Calif when I was 19, when I got home from Nam. I was a different person and my friends didn't know me and I didn't know them. My lib days are behind me but damn, I sure did like surfing, I miss that.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I left Calif when I was 19, when I got home from Nam. I was a different person and my friends didn't know me and I didn't know them. My lib days are behind me but damn, I sure did like surfing, I miss that.
Click to expand...

I don't surf and never will. Definitely not my thing. Give me some mountain trails and somewhere to set up my tent and build a campfire, and I'm happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom