Norfolk exists because of the sea. Ships have been built in its harbors since the Revolutionary War. It is home to the largest naval base on the globe. Bounded by the Chesapeake Bay and two rivers, sliced by coastal creeks, Norfolk has always been vulnerable to flooding. But over the past decade, people began noticing alarming trends.
Hurricanes and nor’easters became more frequent and more damaging. Even ordinary rainstorms swamped intersections, washed away parked cars and marooned the region’s major medical center. Before 1980, the inlet near the Chrysler Museum, known as the Hague, had never flooded for more than 100 hours in a year. By 2009, it was routinely flooded for 200 and even 300 hours a year.
The city hired a Dutch consulting firm to develop an action plan, finalized in 2012, that called for new flood gates, higher roads and a retooled storm water system. Implementing the plan would cost more than $1 billion — the size of the city’s entire annual budget — and protect Norfolk from about a foot of additional water.
As the city was contemplating that enormous price tag, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) last year delivered more bad news: If current trends hold, VIMS scientists said, by the end of this century, the sea in Norfolk would rise by 51 / 2 feet or more.
“Clearly, we’ve got more work to do,” said Ron Williams Jr., Norfolk’s assistant city manager for planning.
Options for dealing with the water are limited, and expensive. The city could protect itself with more barriers. Williams lamented, for instance, that a new $318 million light-rail system — paid for primarily with federal funds — was built at sea level. With a little foresight, he said, the tracks could have been elevated to create a bulwark against the tides.
As it stands, the new rail system could itself be swept away, the money wasted. “Nowhere do we have resiliency built in,” he said.
A second option calls for people to abandon the most vulnerable parts of town, to “retreat somewhat from the sea,” as Mayor Paul D. Fraim put it in a 2011 interview, when he became the first sitting politician in the nation to raise the prospect.
For now, Williams said, retreat is not on the table “on a large scale,” though “you may look at localized hot spots.” The Dutch consultants, Fugro Atlantic, recommended buying out properties in Spartan Village, a bowl-shaped neighborhood that flooded during a rainstorm in 2009.
That leaves the third option: adaptation. Raising buildings, roads and other critical infrastructure. Last fall, the city council required all new structures to be built three feet above flood level, one of the strictest standards in the state.
“People right now are having trouble getting their arms around what needs to be done. And no one can fathom what it’s going to cost,” said City Councilwoman Theresa Whibley, who represents many pricey waterfront neighborhoods, including the Hague, where the plan calls for floodgates to block the surging tide.
What on earth could be the cause of this problem and how do the citizens of Norfolk, Virginia, and the United States fix the problem?
At least two things are at play-global warming causing ice melt=rising seas. The other is tectonic plate shift. The North American Plate is being over ridden or subducted by the Eurasian Plate and perhaps the Arabian Plate. This causes the East coast to be pushed down submerging the land. Meanwhile the western edge of the North American Plate is perhaps rising, thus all the volcanic activity around the “Ring of Fire.” All of this is based on the Tectonic Plate Theory. My explanation is a over simplification of a dynamic process that has been going on since the formation of our planet.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Quake_epicenters_1963-98.png
The sea is NOT rising any faster than it was…..3mm per year. That has been ongoing for thousands of years.
What is happening in Norfolk is subsidence. The ground is sinking.
The Chesapeake is a crater and the edges are sinking. Also, what part of Norfolk is landfill? Is that sinking?
Let’s see, who shall I listen to? The Virginia Institute of Maritime Science and the US Geological Survey or …Cargo?
Washington Post:
Cargo, why is it so important to you to make us believe that climate change either doesn’t exist or that nothing man does has any bearing on the situation? I am curious.
@Moon-howler
If you do the math….. then you would have to have a sea level rise rate that is almost 10x’s the rate that it is rising. And it would have to be happening now.
Current rate of 3mm: 258 mm or 10 inches by 2100
18 inches equals 457 mm
7 1/2 feet equals 2286 mm
But if you want to use a higher rate, one found in Portsmouth:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/01/making-sense-of-senseless-sea-level-scares-in-norfolk-virginia-60-of-the-rise-is-from-subsidence/
quote:
____________
Their claim is for the “business as usual” scenario: “by the end of this century, the sea in Norfolk would rise by 5½feet or more.”
At the year 2014, there are 86 years left in this century.
86 years x 4.44 mm/year = 381.84 mm
381.84 mm = 15.03 inches
_______________
Why is it so important to make us believe that man has anything to do with this in the face of evidence to the contrary? There has been no warming for over 17 years even thought CO2 has gone up. Why is is so important for the press to present disaster scenarios without telling us that they are based on models and not observations? Previous VIMS information using sattelite altimetry show NO rate of increase in sea level rise. NONE. VIMS talks about subsidence….not green house emissions caused acceleration of sea level rise.
Why are they trying to scare you?
The science writers routinely spout theoretical nonsense as fact. The scientists are using models to predict these things based on assumptions they put into the model….and then are presented as fact. All the while, real world observations are NOT backing up the models. Not ONE model has predicted current conditions.
If you have an open mind, you will read the information at the link.
That really doesn’t tell me why it is so important for you to disprove climate change or why you want to convince everyone else.
I simply do not agree with you.
This is a very good example of why we need a carbon tax. The funds should be used for research and development into solving these types of problems. Even if it turns out that Norfolk’s problems are unrelated to climate change, those funds can still be out to good use. Even cargo admits that this is a serious problem and needs to be dealt with.
@Moon-howler
I am merely not agreeing with a theory. When I see BS, I call it out.
When politicians want to make huge decisions based upon faulty science, such as cutting 30% of CO2 production from our energy plants, necessarily making our energy rates skyrocket, as planned by Obama, I want that science to be accurate and proven. So far, their models have been GIGO.
@Starry flights
Subsidence is a serious problem. Having lived in New Orleans, I’m quite familiar with it.
A carbon tax, however, is merely an opportunity for graft.
He does? The other trouble spot is New Orleans. I can see his interest there.
You work awfully hard to turn theory into BS. I suppose all science is a theory, including the fact that the earth revolves around the sun.
Not TURNING theory into BS. Pointing out where stated claims and theory ARE BS.
On a long term trend, the earth has warmed. The current theory seems to be wrong and no one can explain current conditions. However, we get these scary predictions based upon models and then get demands that the government DO SOMETHING. The problem is that the “something” won’t do anything to fix the “problem” and will cause more harm than good.
Then I gotta call BS on you because I don’t think you have the credentials to be telling us the there is no climate change. You can give your opinion but stating it as fact…nah. BS.
I didn’t state anything as fact nor did I deny CLIMATE CHANGE.
I stated that the current claims presented by the WashPo were BS and presented evidence.
I stated that the current theories do not explain the current climate.
I stated that the current theory of MAN MADE global warming has holes in it yet they want to make public policy on it.
I even stated that the earth HAS warmed over the long term…..ever since the cooling of the 70s.
Also, while I don’t have credentials…..neither does that “science writer.” Yet you took her word for her article. Also, credentials don’t mean what you think. Many of the credentialed scientists are wrong. Just look at the credentialed climate scientists that went to the Antarctic to document disappearing ice and got stuck in the expanding ice…..during a summer…that blocked TWO ice breakers.
Look at the predictions by credentialed scientists that predicted the end of snow and an ice free Arctic by 2013.
Also, does one need credentials to point out what type of sea level rise rate would be needed to match the Wash Post’s predictions of disaster? Its simple math.
etc…etc….
Also, I find evidence to back up my statements. I’m not just stating an uninformed opinion.
She was a reporter for the Washington Post. She was simply reporting. Big difference. She is reporting on something that has been attracting national attention for almost a decade. We don’t think the WaPo is necessarily agreeing or disagreeing. It’s reporting.
I am curious why you think the majority of scientists from around the world want to dupe people.
Again, its not the WaPo’s predictions. Its the agencies stated.
My, my children, it sounds like it is time for a time out. So Norfolk is flooding–BFD. Have you got water in your back yard? I don’t think so. Will the cost of protecting Norfolk’s shoreline affect you? Probably not. So why are the two of you in this chicken shit throwing contest? Relax, put your feet up, have a cool one or a nice glass of wine or smoke ’em if you got ’em.
Yea, I do get standing water in my backyard.
I expect the cost of protecting Norfolk’s shoreline will affect me in the long run.
Climate change will disproportionately affect the poor, so George is right that American middle class folks of a certain age likely don’t have much to worry about in our lifetimes.
The question is, do we care about those who come after us. The cost of CO2 reduction is being highly exaggerated, as was SO2 reduction in the 80’s, the Clean Air Act in the 70’s, even seat belt laws in the 60’s. We’ve seen this movie before!
My guess is that people have various reasons for denying that human activity is causing the climate to change at an ever-increasing rate, going against peer-reviewed science. Some reasons are obvious, like with Exxon-Mobil or the Koch brothers, who are heavily invested in the current way of doing things. The more intriguing question is why regular folks with no real dog in the fight are so engaged in trying to deny the science AND the actual physical manifestations of the phenomenon. Sea level rise, coral reef die-off, glacier melt, species migration, tree-ring and ice-core data are all explained away or refuted with carefully-parsed data.
My best guess for the driver for these folks is the basic fear of the unknown, which we are all subject to to one degree or another. We live very well in this country, better than 98% of the rest of the world. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t thank God for our country and our people and our way of life, and I understand that we all have a real fear that this could all go away. What we can’t do is let those who would prey on our fears prevent us from doing what’s right for us right now, for the world as the leader of the free world, and for the future of the planet. The fear-mongers will do their best to protect their interests, but we need the wisdom to ignore them and protect OUR interests. CO2 reduction is in OUR best interests.
@middleman
CO2 reduction is in our best interest?
Please…prove it.
So far, those advocating that have been wrong on every single prediction.
CO2 is plant food.
Furthermore, the drastic attempts to do so will damage our economy. If the world had actually implemented the Kyoto Treaty that was considered necessary or the Arctic would melt…..we would have had to reduce energy output to that of 1990. And that would be what we had to support 1 billion additional people. And the AGW proponents admitted that if all of Kyoto were implemented, if all went 100%, and their models were right…….. global temperature in 2100 was supposed to be an entire, massive 1 degree C cooler. And for that, we were supposed to destroy our economies.
Sea level rise….has been happening since the last ice age.
Glacier melt claims have been in the news since the early 20th century.
Tree ring data is controversial and is NOT considered evidence of global warming or cooling.
Ice core data shows an 1100 natural cycle where CO2 rise happens AFTER warming.
Face it. The man made global warming activists have NOT made their case. Until they do, I want them to stay away from making policy.
AGW is a trigger word.
Man Made global has made their case and most of the world who accepts science has accepted it.
Do you want to bet the future of your progeny on it? I don’t.
We already know about smog, haze, and the fact that the growing season is at least a month longer than it used to be. what does it take?
Tree ring data is considered evidence by many scientists. Hell you can even tell the weather from tree rings.
Glacier melt isn’t just a claim. Its very real. Carbon crap was around in the early 20th century. How long has coal been a source of fuel?
@Moon-howler
No they haven’t as shown by the fact that many scientists oppose the theory, including ones that support the idea that the world is warming.
Here’s one: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/29/scientist-dr-daniel-botkin-tells-congress-why-he-reversed-his-belief-in-global-warming-to-become-a-skeptic-there-are-several-lines-of-evidence-suggesting-that-it-agw-is-a-weaker-case-today-not/
The fact that the earth has warmed is not proof that increased CO2 is the cause. The fact that it has not warmed for 17 years and 9 months during which CO2 has risen drastically is evidence that something is wrong with the theory.
Tree ring data measures rainfall, primarily. It is not being considered as a very good proxy for global warming.
The claim that all the glaciers were melting was around in the 20’s. Before the supposed CO2 warming effects based upon current global warming theory. I had a link, but cannot find it now. Fascinating site with copies of old journal and newspaper weather and climate reports and predictions from the early 1900’s.
Its obvious that those claims were wrong. The glaciers did not melt.
In some areas, glaciers and ice fields are growing. Also, other causes for glacier retreat are coming to light, such as drought.
Cargo, you could review the actual scientific papers that formulated and reinforced the existing climate science. Here are some papers from 2013- there are many, many more: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/12/hockey-sticks-to-huge-methane-burps-five-papers-that-shaped-climate-science-in-2013/
Here’s a site that explains why your points above aren’t pertinent (go to the tabs on the left): http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
A few scientists differ with the vast majority, which changes nothing- you never have 100% agreement on anything. I’m pretty sure nothing will change your mind, though.
@middleman
You do realize that most of the “corrections’ that they use are merely changes in models and not actual observations, right?
And Skeptical Science is infamous for getting it wrong. They use the debunked Cook study to support the “consensus.” So, yes, my points are very pertinent. 76 out of 79 papers arbitrarily chosen, agreed that man had influence on climate….out of 3000+ responses to the poll.
As for the carbonbrief.org info using Marcott’s information, you might want to study a little deeper.
Marcott himself drops the temperature results for the 20th century. Apparently he fudged the data. Data collected by someone else.
“[The] 20th-century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.”
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/
Marcott attempts to defend the graph by grafting modern temperature studies onto a smoothed proxy chart.
“What made their original conclusion about the exceptional nature of 20th-century warming plausible was precisely the fact that it appeared to be picked up both by modern thermometers and by their proxy data. But that was an illusion. It was introduced into their proxy reconstruction as an artifact of arbitrarily redating the end points of a few proxy records.
“In recent years there have been a number of cases in which high-profile papers from climate scientists turned out, on close inspection, to rely on unseemly tricks, fudges and/or misleading analyses. After they get uncovered in the blogosphere, the academic community rushes to circle the wagons and denounce any criticism as “denialism.” “
@middleman
Just thought that you would like to know that other studies disagree with the “97%” statistic.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
Note, I’m not stating that I know the value of this survey, just its existence. I’ll let you decide for yourself.
That survey is so heavily laden with politics it isn’t funny. I can go in and count the words with +- connotation.
All I am asking is that people keep an open mind, free of politics and political persuasion.
@Moon-howler
Which survey? the actual SAGE survey?
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
Having looked at it, it looks pretty fair with a HUGE number of definitions and clarifications on how things are defined, studied, etc.
The other two at the Forbes article were weak. Both were about the same survey. And the problem with the survey is the sample size. Only 1/4 of the surveyed members responded.
So, a professor of economics (your Financial Post link) found the fatal flaw with Marcott’s study, huh, Cargo? Amazing. Your own quotes show why McKitrick’s issue doesn’t affect the results of Marcott’s paper.
This addresses your points on the “97%” issue: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-contrarians-accidentally-confirm-97-percent-consensus.html
We could do this all day, but only time will convince you. And that will be way too late. Addressing the problem doesn’t have to mean financial doom- quite the opposite, but the fear-mongers have done a great job poisoning the well on this issue.
The deniers can’t expect the rest of us to just ignore the problem for their political purposes.
@middleman
The link goes to the argument that one person is wrong on how he debunked the consensus.
Of course, Cook uses the entire data base, again, to falsely bolster his numbers.
The point is that over 10,000 surveys were sent out. 3000+ answered.
76 out of 79 “accepted” returns showed agreement with the question of man influencing climate.
The question didn’t even ask if man was responsible for specific climate changes.
I love the quotes…. “Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role.”
and
“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans.”
when it is known that it is almost impossible to get skeptical papers peer reviewed and published.
Hit submit too soon.
Funny how Cook is withholding data. Almost as if he’s hiding something.
Also, Tol is a pro-waming guy. He’s not trying to debunk, but to “fix” the math.
And people are blowing holes in his formulation.
That doesn’t mean that Cook is right. Lets get him to release all of his data so that others can reproduce his work. Funny how so many pro warming guys hide their work.
No….addressing problems don’t have to mean financial doom. But the “solutions” being presented all lead that way. Please….. tell us how you feed, house, and supply enough energy to an extra billion or so people using energy supply levels from 1990. How do you raise a billion people from poverty without increasing energy usage or by keeping it so expensive that they cannot afford it.
The only non-green house gas feasible energy source is nuclear power and that is off limits too.
More from Tol
http://www.realsceptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/consensus5.pdf?22283a
let’s just cut to the chase. Cargo, do you truly believe that carbon based fuels have no impact on the environment when they are released into the atmosphere?
@Cargosquid No….addressing problems don’t have to mean financial doom. But the “solutions” being presented all lead that way. Please….. tell us how you feed, house, and supply enough energy to an extra billion or so people using energy supply levels from 1990. How do you raise a billion people from poverty without increasing energy usage or by keeping it so expensive that they cannot afford it.
You do it in part with increased efficiency and conservation. That’s what happens naturally as any technology matures, and it’s been happening with energy since the dawn of man. Just think about it- homes were heated mostly with fireplaces until the 20th century, a technology that only returns about 20% efficiency. The wood stove increased that efficiency, and central heating increased the efficiency again. Early homes were uninsulated, resulting in huge energy loss, and as insulation has gotten better, heat loss has dramatically decreased. We used less total energy in 2012 than in 1999 despite an economy that’s 25 percent bigger in real terms: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/17/2801231/world-energy-efficiency/
It all mostly comes down to slowly replacing coal as a fuel, or mitigating the CO2 output. In fact, the solutions don’t all lead to financial doom. Cargo, we heard the same cries of financial disaster when the ozone hole was being dealt with, when car emissions were first addressed, when the Clean Water Act was proposed- none of the wild claims came true. These are all efforts to use fear to protect certain moneyed interests. The boogeyman is a harsh taskmaster…
@middleman
The problem with your idea is that the solutions are not concerned with “increased efficiency and conservation.” The Kyoto and other plans are about REDUCING CO2 output at the generation point.
Now, I will say that we’ve put out lets CO2 than we did due to increased use of natural gas….but now the greens want to stop fracking. And they are using Middle East oil money to promote their agenda. Go figure.
Just read your link.
Really? One quote: “hammer of rising demand and the rock of dwindling supplies.”
There is no “dwindling supplies.” The US supplies and Canadian supplies have VASTLY increased the amount of recoverable oil.
Another: “Indeed, we’ve had weather disruptions materially impacting agricultural output for a couple of years now. And the Arctic has been losing ice decades ahead of what the climate models had predicted.”
According to the pro global warming scientists, one CANNOT use WEATHER to prove CLIMATE CHANGE. The weather we’ve been having is explained by NATURAL cycles. Just like the El Nino cycle that seems to be starting now. Furthermore, the Arctic has NOT been losing ice “decades ahead” since the predictions were for an ICE FREE arctic by now. And Arctic Ice is returning to norms.
The NRDC is a propaganda site that promotes their agenda.
Of course, the link is to a very left wing site that is using a green activist report. The info is questionable. Nowhere in either site can I find any links to HOW they determined their statements.
What I love is the circular reasoning. They link to a Goldman Sach report stating that coal isn’t profitable anymore……..so we should invest in other energy sources like gas and renewables, without stating that coal isn’t “profitable” anymore due to government regulations. And now the gov’t wants to restrict fracking. I guess when the EPA makes it too expensive to use…we get “energy efficiency.”
Regardless…that’s all well and good for US. Now…again….how do you feed and supply energy to the rest of the world that don’t have our advantages. The poor countries get to stay poor if you restrict their energy development.
@Moon-howler
I don’t believe that CO2 is a pollutant. I don’t agree with the idea that a this trace gas is the catastrophe that the man made warming crowd believes it to be.
And I believe that attempts to “control” it are doomed to fail while doing nothing to help the climate while damaging the economy of not only the US, but the world.
Well, I simply don’t know what to say. If it does mankind harm and serves no purpose, that it must be a pollutant.
And in the end, I am glad you will be teaching rather than working on environmental issues. You do know that you cannot Teach neutral push your political beliefs on kids? Science neutrality is a must.
Coal has messed up the environment for centuries. It’s dirty and it takes its coal on human, animal and plant life.
Cargo, you asked me how we supply energy to an extra billion folks with 1990’s energy levels and I told you. I have no idea what the rest of your last post is about…
@middleman
And you tried….but conservation will not supply energy.
The rest of the post is pointing out that the link used is merely a green activist site.
@Moon-howler
Then CO2 is not a pollutant as it does mankind good.
It is plant food.
OR, if you do want to believe that CO2 is causing global warming, remember, mankind flourished during the warm periods.
We aren’t plants. Try breathing pure CO2 for a while. You will cease to exist.
@Moon-howler
Try living on a world with to little CO2….. you starve. And freeze.
Balance. Obviously people have to exhale.
Cargo, conservation has the effect of requiring less energy, which is the same as supplying more energy, because you don’t need it in the first place. I thought this was obvious. We have made great strides in conservation, but there’s still lots of low-hanging fruit- better insulation, geothermal heating, smart design taking advantage of passive solar, etc.
You appear to be locked into this mind-set that we HAVE to burn coal or energy costs will soar, but that just isn’t true. It’s just big-coal propaganda. I come from a long line of coal miners- from my ancestors in Europe to my grandfather and uncles. My mother grew up in a town in Pa. owned by a coal baron. Coal is an 18th century technology, and there ain’t nothing good about it- from mountaintop removal to stream filling to sludge pond leaching to CO2 emissions- it’s got to go.
There’s many other ways to meet our energy needs. We haven’t yet even scratched the surface with solar, for example. The price per watt has plummeted and there’s lots of energy potential there. Don’t believe the propaganda by those who are heavily invested in the current paradigm. Solar roofs, solar glass, solar farms with cells that follow the sun- we need to do it all. There’s enough wind energy in the jetstream, for example, to supply our energy needs 100 times over.
You’re a smart guy, Cargo- don’t limit yourself in your thinking. We can do this and be a model for the world (and with China building a coal power plant per day we need to be!). I believe in American technology and know-how and inventiveness- if we could put a man on the moon in 1969, we can do this today- coal companies be damned!
“Cargo, conservation has the effect of requiring less energy, which is the same as supplying more energy,”
Please explain how conservation provides energy to an area that has no energy source.
Closing coal power plants or increasing the costs of operation WILL raise our costs.
Solar….etc. Please tell me how we store industrial size amounts of energy. Please tell me how you harvest the jet stream.
I’m not limiting my thinking. I want the market to have it all. Without arbitrary restrictions on existing energy sources due to an imaginary crisis.
Conservation lessens the need for energy in the high-use areas like cities, which use the most energy by far. An area with no energy source now would ramp-up very slowly.
Closing coal plants immediately would raise costs. No one is proposing that. The switch is made over time while the other sources supplant coal. Listen, coal is going away on it’s own- it’s not competitive with natural gas right now. If the true cost of coal production and use to the taxpayer were included, coal would die much sooner.
As to your solar question, they’re already doing it with batteries and other storage devices.
Ahh, harvesting the jet stream…I threw that in there as a “moon shot” opportunity. I’ve seen some futuristic proposals for generator balloons in the jetstream, but I wouldn’t invest quite yet!
@middleman
No…they are not using batteries for large scale solar output. Every single “renewable” is backed up by a traditional energy source.
Oh, yes they are: http://www.solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.13782
The larger point is that the technology is there, and with continued development will be more generally deployed.