When Conservatives talk about media bias, we note that one of the methods is to simply leave relevant information out of articles. They attempt to create a narrative, and since people will often only read that article, they may fail to know about said relevant information. Here’s WRAL
Sea level report shows increasing pace of change along coast
A report released on Dec. 31 shows the climate is changing along the North Carolina coast, and the sea level is rising faster in some areas than in others. (snip)
If sea levels continue to rise at their current rate, scientists predict the ocean could be nearly 5 1/2 inches higher on the northern Outer Banks in 30 years, and 2 1/2 inches around Wilmington.
But the report endorses the theory that climate change will hasten the rates of rising sea levels. It predicts a boost of just over a foot at Duck, on the northern coast, and four inches at Southport, near Wilmington, by 2045.
So, there you have it, “climate change” is too blame, right? And will make it worse. Something seems to be missing. Here’s the Raleigh News and Observer
30-year sea-level rise will vary along NC coast, scientists say
A new scientific report warns that the sea is rising at widely varying rates along the North Carolina shore – ranging by 2045 from a possible low of 4 inches at Southport to as much as 12.1 inches on the northern Outer Banks. (snip)
North Carolina becomes the first state with a comprehensive forecast that shows the sea rising at different rates along its coast. Scientists have known for years about big differences – shaped by forces in the ocean and deep in the earth – between the northern Outer Banks and North Carolina’s southern shoreline.
Tide gauges show that the ocean has risen faster in recent decades at Duck, north of Nags Head (about 4.5 millimeters per year) than farther south at Wilmington and Southport (about 2 mm per year – close to the average annual global rate of 1.7 mm).
The northern Outer Banks are sinking slowly. This corner of the state lies in a part of the North American continent that is subsiding in response to geological forces dating from the last Ice Age, about 200 centuries ago.
In addition, oceanographers have spotted a link between fluctuations in the Gulf Stream – its strength and position offshore – and different rates of flooding and sea-level rise along the U.S. coast. This great ocean current is weakening and slowing down, and scientists say the change is pushing the seas higher along the mid-Atlantic coast north of Cape Hatteras.
The article itself, further down, still pushes the “climate change” narrative a bit, but at least it mentions natural geological forces, a major component of the report, which is completely missing from the WRAL article. Back to WRAL
“We have a history of change,†(Dr. Stan) Riggs said. “We better realize those piles of sand are moving.â€
Why are the Outer Banks moving? That’s not mentioned, either. Barrier islands will always see lots of change from natural forces. The Outer Banks have gone through great changes. Inlets are created, moved, and destroyed by nature. Vegetation can do wild things to the land, particularly in limiting erosion and shifting (yes, some of the vegetation can be pointed at mankind’s intervention).
I won’t get into the whole debate about mostly/solely natural vs. mostly/solely anthropogenic causation, that’s a debate that we’ve had and will continue to have (though Warmists refuse to modify their own behavior to match their beliefs). What we have above is media bias and an attempt to create a narrative friendly to Leftist beliefs.
It should be noted that this is the draft report, so, lots more money will be spent putting it through peer review, revision, and public comment over the next year and a half, all to tell us that changes occur along the coastline.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
I thought a 3mm rise per year was normal since the 1700s at least. When did it become 1.7mm?
Your average rise rates vary depending on whether they are using tide guages or satellite measurements. Tide guage measurements have a lot of external factors besides water height.
28 years ago, the NY Times said that one foot of sea level rise “seems certain” by 2016. And shoreline moved by up to a 1000 feet inward. Hasn’t happened. I’ve been going to the Outer Banks since the 1960’s and the shoreline is the same (albeit with a little help from man as needed to protect towns and roads). You could fill a library with the alarmist predictions that were wrong. You could fill a business card with the ones that were right.
SIGNIFIGANT RISE IN SEA LEVEL NOW SEEMS CERTAIN
By ERIK ECKHOLM
Published: February 18, 1986
MANY scientists are so sure that the sea level will rise visibly in the coming decades that they are advising planners to adopt new strategies now. A predicted rise in sea level of one foot within the next 30 to 40 years will drive much of the Atlantic and Gulf shoreline inward by a hundred feet and some of it by more than a thousand feet…
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/02/18/science/signifigant-rise-in-sea-level-now-seems-certain.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar
So the sea level rise is wildly different from one spot in North Carolina to another? I think the researchers involved here need some remedial grade-school-level courses in basic science. I don’t think water level acts like that.
The study uses tide guages, so it is a misnomer to call it “sea level”. It’s the relative level of the land to the sea. They should call it “local relative sea level”, or something like that. Which of course varies a lot over a hundred thirty miles of multiple barrier islands and mainland coast with changes in ground water, erosion, earth settlement, human development, plate shifting, coastal currents, temperature, large ocean currents, wind, earth’s precession, moon, planets…
I’ve always been confused why anyone thinks that the mass media really knows anything about complex topics like science, politics, or religion. Isn’t it obvious that at the best, journalists are woefully ignorant?
Take a trip to Naples. Go to Pompeii. It was a coastal town 2000 years ago. Now is it several hundred feet above the bay and about one mile from the water. Some of the change in the bay was secondary to volcano activity, but not all. So the ocean must have been higher at that time.
Yes, most climate scientists could use schooling from commenters on right-wing blogs. You do realize the Earth spins on its axis, right. And tides? How weird are they? With the same amount of water in the oceans the sea level at the shore goes up and down sometimes twice a day! We know that tides are generated by the gravitational pulls of the Moon and the Sun, as well as the effects of the Earth’s rotation. The prevailing winds in an area can influence the sea level too.
So do you really find it so unusual that the sea level measurements in different areas can be different? Do you really have so little respect for the scientists?
The average over the last 7000 years is about 1.52 to 2mm per year. So, it is interesting that the report is stating that the average global rise is exactly average, when it should be in the mid to high teens to offset the low to negative ruse during the much longer cool periods
40 years from 1986 is 2026. The article took great lengths to emphasize the role subsidence plays in the boundary between land and ocean.
Grandfather of climate change denial Roy Spenser nows saqys 50% of the warming is caused by man
Many climate change deniers do not even believe in “natural forces” they are more likely to believe in SUPERNATURAL forces like from the Magic Man in the Sky
John- Maybe quit smoking that Magic Stuff before posting.
John sure is the master of the logical fallacy. Workin’ right through the list.
5000 mm / 7000 yrs = 0.7 mm/yr, not 1.5 to 2 mm/ yr
Currently, the rate of rise is 3 mm/yr.
Saturday morning links
Toon via the WSJ Related: A political system is often at its best when it does nothing. Doctor: "death from cancer is the best" “Those that get up at 5 a.m. rule the world.†I’m a 4:30 guy myself, and I rule nothing Hot Sauce Make
Yeah, sorry Jeffery, but tides are not supposed to matter when it comes to measuring sea level for purposes of climate mongering. The fact that you think they do matter does explain one thing: the reason why these Global Warmists can get away with their nonsense.
Barrier islands move landward in response to rising ocean by a process of barrier rollover (storm waves pushing sand from oceanside to bay side.)
J.P.,
Not exactly. The relative sea level at a particular area depends on many factors. Do you expect the relative sea level to change exactly the same everywhere? That makes no sense.
Satellite measurements make it clear that the absolute sea level is rising. Why? Because of global warming. Do you know how thermometers work – a temperature dependent expansion of the volume of liquid. The upper layer of the ocean works the same way. As it warms, it expands. Additionally, ice sheet melt (Greenland, Antarctica) adds to the ocean volume.
Sorry, J, dead wrong again. The seas have risen before “global warming”, and they’ll fall and rise again. There’s no proof that sea level rise, if any, is the result of man’s actions.
j,
Of course the seas have risen and fallen before man-made global warming. But not by magic. The ocean responds to the climate. During glacial periods as ice forms and the water cools the ocean levels drop. This usually occurs over thousands of years, not hundreds. During warm periods ice melts and the seas warm, causing the sea level to increase. That’s what we see now.
So where am I “dead wrong”? Do you Deny that water expands as it warms? Do you Deny that melting ice turns into water? Do you Deny that the Earth is warming? That the oceans are warming?
Starting about 20,000 years ago, as the Earth started to warm (you know why it warmed then) and the major northern glaciers began melting the sea level began to rise and over the next 12,000 years it had increased some 130 meters (~ 11 mm/year) to close to where we are now. In the past 8000 years the sea level has increased some 5 meters (~ 0.6 mm/year).
In the past 100 years the rate of rise increased to 2 mm/year, consistent with the increase in temperature.
Yes, Jeffery, “the relative sea level at a particular area depends on many factors.” That’s why you can’t use relative sea level to make a case for cataclysmic sea level rise due to man-caused Global Warming. Duh. The whole point here is that these researchers are attempting to use relative sea level as a proxy for actual sea level, and those of us with a modicum of common sense are resisting. If a coastline subsides through erosion or other factors, you cannot use that like a canary in the coal mine warning us of melting glaciers in Greenland. The very notion is ridiculous.
As for your contention that satellites are measuring an increasing sea level rise, I’m not so sure. Our problem right now is that many of the people involved in climatology are involved in a coordinated fraud that makes any statistics they generate suspect. I will even use the term “sea-level-gate” to describe what some people think is happening. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/blog_watch/sea_level_is_not_rising.html)
That the sea level rise differs at different areas does not disprove sea level rise and global warming. The Earth is warming and the sea level is rising.
This is the general Get Out of Jail Free card for Deniers. If the data are against you, smear the scientists.
The fraud committed is by the likes of Teach, Monckton and the Science and Public Policy Institute you’ve linked.
It’s always projection
Jeffery: “That the sea level rise differs at different areas does not disprove sea level rise and global warming.”
Nobody said it did. Nobody. I guess we have reached that inevitable point in every discussion about Global Warming when the warmist must produce a straw man. That’s where I exit. Peace out.
JP,
And this is the point where Deniers run and hide.
You typed early on:
The whole point of Teach’s post and your cheerleading was to cast doubt on climate science.
Do you at least understand now that the oceans are not like a giant bathtub? If so, the interaction has not been in vain.