Tracking Sea-Level Rise on Virginia’s Coast

by James A. Bacon

Dead trees on a hummock in the York River. (Photo credit: Times-Dispatch.)

Scientists Scott Hardaway and Bryan Watts, both affiliated with the College of William and Mary, have made a specialty of studying hummocks along the Chesapeake Bay coastline. Hummocks, which are stands of trees growing in patches of dry land surrounded by marsh, are a visible gauge of rising sea levels. As the water level creeps higher every year, the hummocks get more water-logged and the trees die, leaving stands of ghostly white spires. “We can show tide-gauge data until we’re blue in the face, and sometimes that doesn’t work” to convince the skeptics, Hardaway told Rex Springston in the Times-Dispatch.

Rising sea levels — or sinking land, take your pick — is a reality along Virginia’s Atlantic Coast. The sea level in the Chesapeake Bay rose about 1 1/2 feet over the past century. About half of that came from a natural subsidence of the land in southeastern Virginia. The other half came from rising sea levels globally. Larry P. Atkinson, an Old Dominion University oceanographer, suggests that half of the sea level rise can be attributed to natural warming underway for thousands of years and the other half from human causes.

You can dispute Atkinson’s estimate for the extent to which human activity is to blame, along with even more dire prognostications that human-caused global warming will accelerate, triggering a massive melt-off of glaciers and icecaps and pushing sea levels two to seven feet higher by 2010. What you can’t dispute is that sea levels along Virginia’s coastline have risen at a rate averaging one tenth of an inch per year over the past century and that there is considerable evidence that they continue to rise.

According to Springston, a sea-level increase of only one foot could damage or destroy $187 million to $249 million in houses, roads and wetlands in the Middle Peninsula alone. Local government officials in flood-prone areas are giving more thought to how to cope with the rising tide, whether by dikes and levees, flood-proofing houses or restricting development in low-lying areas.

As I have made abundantly clear in previous posts, I am skeptical of many of the claims made about Global Warming. I am open to propositions that are based on science (of which I am respectful) and contemptuous of assertions based on economics and public policy (much of which I regard as social engineering run amuck). While I acknowledge that scientists are as vulnerable to group think as anyone else and might be wrong about accelerating rates of sea level rise, I would suggest that anyone who dismisses their fears out of hand is just as guilty of pre-judging the science as those they criticize. Prudent people will keep an open mind and endeavor to gather the facts…. if only we could determine them with a high degree of assurance.

Which brings me to the North Carolina Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report, which aimed to measure sea-level rise in the Tarheel state, Virginia’s next-door-neighbor. The 2010 report forecast that sea levels could rise between 15 and 55 inches by 2100. One can characterize those projections as exaggerrated, as the American Tradition Institute has done, on the grounds that local tide-gauge measures are too crude to be reliable, satellite measurements have been available for only 10 years, and so on. But even skeptics like ATI concede that sea levels may be rising in the long run.

Lawmakers, very few of whom are climate scientists, have no way to authoritatively judge which side is right. In our ideologically polarized society, Democratic politicians will likely side with the Warmists no matter what, and Republicans will side with the skeptics. As an empiricist, I personally prefer to side with the evidence. It would take a modest investment to design and maintain a system of tide-measuring stations on the Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay that can measure the rate at which Virginia’s coastline is disappearing under the waves. My friend Steve Nash, who is researching a book about Global Warming and sea-level rise in Virginia, suggests that air-borne laser-based LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) technology can map the entire coastline for several million dollars. That sounds like cheap insurance. For a small investment we can ascertain definitively what is happening and provide our coastal communities solid data upon which to inform their actions.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. two to seven feet higher by 2010?

    Wow, that really is fast.

  2. As the sea level rises, some wetlands will be destroyed as they are submerged. But the linear coastal area of a given estuary will increase as the water level rises. Won’t we wind up with new and larger wetlands as a result?

  3. too crude to be reliable,

    Nonsense. When you have thousands of measurements, the statistical results can be surprisingly accurate, even when there is a large margin of error on any individual measurement, or even all of the individual measurments. The issue is not whether the measurements are crude, but whether they are somehow systematically biased.

  4. overdrafting of groundwater is a significant factor driving land subsidence rates. Within the Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area, large industrial and domestic use groundwater withdrawals from the Potomac aquifer series occur in the areas of Franklin, Suffolk and West Point, VA. Elevated subsidence rates, which integrate both regional and local causes, were first observed near the centers of large groundwater withdrawals through repetitive high-precision relevelings and analysis of tide records, and later through studies that directly measured aquifer system compaction. Land subsidence rates within the Middle Peninsula, based on releveling analysis, vary between 0.09-0.15 in/yr (2.4-3.8 mm/yr) with maximum values being observed at West Point (Holdahl and Morrison 1974; Davis 1987). Pope and Burbey (2004) reported average aquifer system compaction rates of 0.06 in/yr (1.5 mm/yr; 1979-1995) and 0.15 in/yr (3.7 mm/yr; 1982-1995) near the Franklin and Suffolk pumping centers, respectively, and that compaction appeared to correlate with groundwater withdrawal;

    http://www.vims.edu/cbnerr/_docs/ctp_docs/MPPDC%20Sea%20Level%20Rise%20Fact%20Sheet%20FINAL%202011.pdf

    During the last glacial period (maximum extent approximately 20,000 yr BP), the southern East Coast limit of the Laurentide ice sheet coincided with northern portions of Pennsylvania (Mickelson and Colgan 2003). As a consequence, land subsided under the ice load and, in turn, created a fore-bulge or upward displacement of lands south of the ice load. Upon retreat of the glacier, the land continued to redistribute, rebounding in previously glaciated areas and subsiding in the more southern forebulge region. Land subsidence rates on the order of 0.05-0.06 in/yr (1.2-1.4 mm/yr) are attributed to the postglacial forebulge collapse within the Bay region (Douglas 1991). It can take many thousands of years for impacted regions to reach isostatic equilibrium.

    By then, the politicians may decide what must be done,

  5. Areas described as marsh in colonial times have given way to shallow creeks. Dead trees farther up tributary creeks characterize areas only recently submerged to become marsh. Tree stumps of former forests can be found beneath the sediments of tributary creeks.

    How much evidence does anyone need?

    1. Sure, local sea levels are rising. But how much is due to subsidence, how much to “natural” global warming, and how much to anthropogenic global warming? That’s the burning question.

  6. Tide gauges for the Chesapeake Bay and the Mid-Atlantic coast show rates of sea-level rise twice that of the worldwide average.

    Even if you think tide guages are “crude” measurements, there is no way to account for such a large diference in measurements here compared with elsewhere, except to say that what is measured is changing faster here.

  7. Richard Avatar

    I’m not sure why this is a political issue. Climate change is happening, sea levels are rising.
    The dispute is whether environmental restrictions are necessary. The developers and the anti-government folk say environmental restrictions, at least the ones they don’t like, are part of some plot to social engineer away our freedoms. That’s ridiculous and self-serving. The environment (air, water, land and biodiversity) belongs to all of us, and we can’t allow it be used up for short-term economic advantage.

    1. The GW debate becomes political in determining what to do about the warming. There are a number of questions. What is the net social and economic cost of GW (after accounting for benefits)? What options do we have for reversing GW? Is targeting CO2 emissions the best way? What’s the cost of mitigating GW? Can the money being spent to mitigate CO2 emissions benefit mankind more by investing the resources elsewhere (by wiping out malaria, say)? To what extent can government be trusted to execute policy without it being corrupted by rent-seekers and ideologues? Even if you accept the GW science as “settled,” there are still lots of questions and they are political.

      1. Richard Avatar

        Unfortunately there is no free market alternative (your favorite) to government regulation of common environmental resources. We can argue about what the best approach is, and what degree of regulation is required, but there is no argument that regulation is not necessary. What’s wrong is a denial of the truth that the government must have a role. We can’t allow unlimited pollution of our water and air. We can’t let species be destroyed. I trust government more than I trust the “free market” because an unregulated free market encourage polluters, or those who would develop land in such a way that permanently harms biodiversity, wetlands or our means of feeding ourselves.

        Your implication is that environmentalists are “rent seekers” at the same level as polluters. I don’t think so – environmentalists wish to preserve what we have for the future; the polluters want to use it up for short-term gain. Perhaps environmentalists have their own interests beyond protection of the environment (seeking “rents”), but obviously those who use environmental resources will always be self-interested. (Pity the poor menhaden!) The difference is that if the polluters have their way, there’s no going back.

        Carbon is a good example. Why do we think we have a right to throw up into the atmosphere as much carbon as we can burn? What is the difference between that and polluting a river or bay? Maybe some carbon is ok, or maybe even a lot, but can the atmosphere absorb an unlimited amount? Regulation would make a political decision – based on science – that a certain amount is acceptable. Carbon trading would be a good free market approach to allocating the use of the carbon in the most efficient way. This is what we need: a recognition that regulation is required; a political decision (based on science) on what is acceptable; and free market mechanisms to make it efficient. Instead we have many (ie Republicans) denying that there is even an issue. [My gosh, you have Rick Santorum saying his religion tells him to pollute!]

        Now you may think it ok to allow unlimited carbon emissions. And I may think otherwise. But it’s my atmosphere too. Don’t I get a say about what is done with my atmosphere? Does the fact that an individual who has the means to pollute (cars, electricity, factories, etc.), give that individual the right to do so just because he can? Unfortunately, the short term is immediate and seems more important than the long-term (the attitude of “we can fix it tomorrow.”) Some resources when lost can’t be regained – it’s true for species of animals and plants, and it’s probably true about our upper atmosphere.

        Anyway, aren’t we all ideologues of some sort? I’d rather be an ideologue who is conservative in protecting long-term resources rather than one who is liberal in using them up.

  8. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    The Chesapeake Bay seems like a very poor place to take measurements. There is considerable seismic activity under the Bay and many odd things happen very quickly. Sharp’s Island is a case in point. Once a 700 acre island at the mouth of the Choptank River, the island had a hotel served by steamboat from Baltimore in 1900. Today, the island lies under 10 feet of water.

    However, there is ample evidence of rising water and warming temperatures. The North Carolina study is noteworthy as is the glacial evidence from Norway to Alaska.

    The big challenge is the shrill nature of the discourse on the matter. Rather than a discussion of relatively increasing measures which cold be taken to combat global warming caused by humans, the dialog has degenerated into a global wealth redistribution scheme vs a claim of massive fraud by the scientists involved.

    Basic facts and figures seem to be missing. For example, people talk of $10 per gallon gas prices as a way of dissuading people from creating carbon by making driving unaffordable. Yet I have never heard what carbon savings would accrue from a vegetarian diet. Movie stars drive hybrids to the airport and then take private jets across the country. Technology is heralded as the savior but the carbon cost of searching the internet for “Sharp’s Island” is rarely considered as a possible waste of carbon.

    The country needs an informed discussion free of hockey stick graphs, centa-millionaire carbon credit traders, global socialists and people who deny that anything is happening.

  9. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Go vegan and reduce your carbon footprint by three tons per year:

    http://www.carbonfeet.com/reduce-your-carbon-footprint-go-vegan/

  10. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Burning a gallon of gas creates 20 pounds of carbon.

    http://jg2090.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09/02/3216613-burning-1-gallon-of-gasoline-produces-20-pounds-of-co2

    So, if going vegan saves three tons per year, that’s 6,000 pounds. Or 6,000 / 20 = 300 gallons of gas.

    Assuming that I get 30 miles per gallon, I can drive 9,000 miles per year, go vegan and be “carbon neutral” with respect to food and driving.

    I prefer mobility to meat. Shouldn’t I be able to save the planet by going vegan rather than not driving?

    Why does everybody want to tax gasoline but not beef?

    I don’t have a dog. Yipee! I get to drive another 12,000 miles per year:

    http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=482728

    God only knows how much carbon is produced by the hundreds of horses that roam in the fields of Great Falls, VA as their “nature conscious” owners tool around in hybrids with “Save the Bay” bumper stickers.

    1. One gallon of gasoline weighs about six pounds. If you combust it, how do you get 20 pounds of carbon? Just asking. (I never took high school chemistry.)

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Well, it’s because the “carbon” is actually carbon dioxide. Gasoline is basically carbon and hydrogen. When gas burns the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen combines with oxygen in the air and becomes water. The carbon combined with oxygen in the air and becomes carbon dioxide. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12. Oxygen has an atomic weight of 16. So, one carbon atom (12) combines with two oxygen atoms (32) forming a carbon dioxide molecule (44).

        Now, the CO2 molecule weighs 3.7X more than the carbon atom in the gas. However, gas is only 87% carbon (the rest is hydrogen). So, a 6 pound gallon of gas has 0.87*6 = 5.5 pounds of carbon. And those 5.5 pounds of carbon generate 3.7X their weight in CO2. So, 5.5 * 3.7 = 20.35 pounds of carbon dioxide.

        And you thought my Fairfax County public high school education didn’t teach me anything! Although … LarryG would be shocked. I took the second year (advanced) Chemistry without paying extra for it!

  11. ” The GW debate becomes political in determining what to do about the warming. ”

    indeed. So he skeptics response is what? to deny it? Where is the skeptics advocacy to start looking at the costs if nothing is done and the costs if something is done (and including those costs)?

    Why do we say “political” when half the opposition just flat denies it at all and the other half are convinced that the costs of it won’t be higher than doing something… without any analysis?

    Why did the Gov of Va seek to dismantle a group that was to look at the costs to Va of increasing sea levels?

    does this sound like a rational approach or is it the monkey see no evil approach?

    Obama says Flat Earth society. I say Planet of the Apes.

    what is the GOP substantially infested with the global conspiracy “deniers”?

  12. re: the “shrill” nature. I would posit that most of the world scientists have not been “shrill” at all but actually matter of fact.

    Then there are those who not only do not believe them but they believe that a large majority of the worlds scientists – AND their governments are engaging in a massive worldwide conspiracy to doctor data.

    Now you said “shrill”. I say unbelievable.

    When is the last time you heard an entire political party or the larger part of it – attribute scientific consensus to a worldwide conspiracy of 95% of the worlds scientists and their governments?

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      I believe that Michael Mann doctored the data on his hockey stick graph. Whether he did it intentionally or not is a good question. However, I believe he doctored the data.

      I believe Al Gore is both shrill and a shill for Big Finance. I believe he has vastly enriched himself by playing a non-sensical carbon credit game. If that approach stands, the banks and global traders will make a fortune and the Earth will be none the better off.

      I believe that the United Nations and many of the world’s governments would like to use global warming policy as a way to “level the economic playing field” between poor and rich nations. They want to see a wealth transfer that would make even Obama blush.

      Sorry, LarryG but many of the warmers have motives that are far from being as pure as the driven snow. Pun intended.

  13. DWSchnare Avatar
    DWSchnare

    The American Tradition Institute has not argued that there is no sea rise over the long term (nor has it argued that there has been no global warming over the long term either). We have argued that the human influence in these cyclical phenomena have been over-estimated.

    The science shows that the global rate of sea level rise has not changed in 20 years. See: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2012rel1-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed

    The rate of subsidence on the Virginia coast, however, has increased and I agree with “Hydra”, we should look to the causes of subsidence, especially with respect to water withdrawals, as this is the only cogent basis for arguing that humans are involved in this matter.

    As to the investment on LiDAR, this was recommended by the (last) Governor’s Climate Change Commission. They did not, however, recommend what had to be cut to pay for this expensive work. Nor is such analysis needed. Existing maps and mapping systems are sufficient to identify the high value at risk places that might need protection. The wetlands are not at risk. They are simply on the move.

    David Schnare, Esq. Ph.D.
    Director, Environmental Law Center
    American Tradition Institute

    1. I did not mean to imply that ATI argued that there had been no increase in the sea level, although I can see how my phraseology could be construed that way. I will edit the original post to make it clearer. Thanks for weighing in.

      Regarding the aerial LiDAR, I heard (as I recall, but I have a faulty memory) that the survey would cost $5 million. That sounds like a small sum to improve our state of knowledge on phenomenon that could impact billions of dollars of coastal development.

    2. Richard Avatar

      You have no credibility. You are a tool of the oil industry and reactionaries. Your idea of environmental regulation is none. Why don’t you operate under a name that is more honest about who you really are – say the “Lair Petroleum Company” or “Koch Petroleum Company”? Be honest about who you are and what you represent.

  14. ” Nor is such analysis needed. Existing maps and mapping systems are sufficient to identify the high value at risk places that might need protection. ”

    the study was to classify and categorize WHAT built environment is IN those areas and it’s COST and the COST and timeframe to move them.

    We have a denial approach to this. We deny ourselves the opportunity to study it to see the costs – in part – because if we do that – then we admit there is a problem that just cannot be “denied” away.

    5 million is chump change but the real objection is calculating the costs.

    that put a “real” patina on the issue .. and makes it harder to say ..it’s just normal stuff going on and humans have nothing to do with it.

    in terms of sea level rise:

    ” Sea level is rising at an increasing rate”
    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

    ….. ” This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years. ”

    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

    the idea that we are not responsible for ANY of this.. is pretty questionable IMHO.

    It seems to me that we really don’t want to know if we are and we don’t actually want to know the costs of it

    we’re deep into Luddite territory here IMHO.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      LarryG:
      I have performed repeated and detailed water level measurements at Sharp’s Island in the mouth of the Choptank River. These assesments were done in conjunction with the spot survey I was conducting at the same time. I have irrefutable proof that the water over Sharp’s Island has risen 11 feet in the last 110 years. I have used this one foot per decade rise in water depth (known as Sharp’s Constant) as the basis for remapping the Chesapeake with new, accurate depth charts I have created myself.

      My new charts prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that your house is presently under approximately seven feet of water. While I find it odd that you have somehow developed gills and are able to operate a computer while underwater, facts are facts. The only real question left in my mind is whether the spot I catch at Sharp’s Island can be effectively used as bait for the rockfish living in your garage. Rock season starts April 21. Please send me your thoughts on fishing your house and yard by that date.

  15. JeeSUS H. Keeeee RIST!

    where did the idea come from that if I include a URL in my post..that it needs to be moderated!

    my post that was shunted off to moderation:
    ” Nor is such analysis needed. Existing maps and mapping systems are sufficient to identify the high value at risk places that might need protection. ”

    the study was to classify and categorize WHAT built environment is IN those areas and it’s COST and the COST and timeframe to move them.

    We have a denial approach to this. We deny ourselves the opportunity to study it to see the costs – in part – because if we do that – then we admit there is a problem that just cannot be “denied” away.

    5 million is chump change but the real objection is calculating the costs.

    that put a “real” patina on the issue .. and makes it harder to say ..it’s just normal stuff going on and humans have nothing to do with it.

    in terms of sea level rise:

    ” Sea level is rising at an increasing rate”
    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

    ….. ” This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years. ”

    DOT.oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

    the idea that we are not responsible for ANY of this.. is pretty questionable IMHO.

    It seems to me that we really don’t want to know if we are and we don’t actually want to know the costs of it

    we’re deep into Luddite territory here IMHO.

  16. Richard hit on an excellent point.

    Notice how the GOP cries and cries about what the deficit and debt are doing to our kids and grand kids but they seem to have no such qualms on global warming.

    re: “Mann “doctored” the data”. He may have. Scientists in general have been found to have human foibles and the argument among scientists who disagree are fierce.

    but the deniers are talking not about a few scientists being bad boys – they are, instead, talking about a worldwide Global conspiracy among hundreds of scientists and dozens of governments.

    so I ask anyone who thinks Mann “doctored” – the rest of the question. Do you think there is a worldwide Agenda 21 type conspiracy?

    with the deniers – scientific consensus = worldwide conspiracy.

  17. Scientific consensus = conspiracy.

    Yup, I made a similar observaton on another blog. Since when does hundreds of people reaching fact based decisions becme a conspiracy? Is there group-think among scientists, sure, but the Republicans of all people ought to understand group think.

    On the other hand, I don’t really see the issue here. Sea level has already been rising for hundreds of years. We have dealt with it an we will deal with it the same way: when the water is lapping ot our feet, we will step back a little.

  18. “….this is the only cogent basis for arguing that humans are involved in this matter. ”

    But that is just silly. It does not matter what the CAUSE is. What matters is what the result will be. If you know that you will loose $100 billion if you do nothing, and if you know that that you can reduce that loss to $50 billion by spending $5 billion, then yuo are preety much going to have to spend that $5 billion.

    You can make that decision without the slightest knowledge of what it is you will spend the $5 billion on. you might spend it moving structures back from the water, you might spend it building canals which turn ocean front cities into modern Venices, or you might spend it preventing global warming.

    Whatever you decide to do, it makes no difference what the cause was.

  19. DJ Rippert:

    Well done, and a good explanation.

  20. I prefer mobility to meat. Shouldn’t I be able to save the planet by going vegan rather than not driving?

    Why does everybody want to tax gasoline but not beef?

    ==============================================

    You spound like someone who has studied chemistry AND environmental economics.

    Your point is well taken. If this was only about protecting the environment, environmentalist would not care how it is done.

    But this is really about power and telling [other] people how they should live.

  21. [My gosh, you have Rick Santorum saying his religion tells him to pollute!]

    One does not need religion for that. Everyone pollutes to some degree in everything they do. It is impossible to stop, but, the earth has a certain amount of assimilative capacity, and it is that self cleaning ability that sets the limit on sustainability.

    Liberals seem to think that 100 billion people living on $1000 a year is sustainable, while Republicans and conservatives consider that 100 million people living on a million a year is equally sustainable and far preferable.

  22. But how much is due to subsidence, how much to “natural” global warming, and how much to anthropogenic global warming? That’s the burning question.

    ============================================

    Again, I don’t know why the source makes any difference in the solution chosen.

    I think the the Norfolk area the answer is considered to be one third, one third, and one third. If you are wrong on one of those answers by 50 % then it is it is still 1/6, 5/12, 5/12., or reasonably close to thirds.

  23. re: “sea levels rising for a long time”…

    then why do we shut down an group to look into the scope, extent and cost as a prophylactic measure?

    It’s almost like we’ve adopted the “see no evil” policy towards it..

    we don’t want to know any more about it…

  24. Once a 700 acre island at the mouth of the Choptank River, the island had a hotel served by steamboat from Baltimore in 1900. Today, the island lies under 10 feet of water.

    =============================================

    I have made the argument, largely ignored, that (within the estuary) erosions such as the disappearance of sharps island has a fourth cause.

    Over the years the bottom of the bay has silted in, and as a result the bottom (of the bay) has risen even as the land aroud it is sinking.

    Now, you still have more or less the same amount of water entering from the Susquhanna and the Potomac and other rivers. It has to go “downhill” to get out of the bay. If the bottom of the bay is not as sloped as it once was, and if the actual volume of the bay has decreased by an amount equal to the silt deposited then the water will “pile up” until it has enough “slope” to flow down to sea level (whatever that is).

    This is the same phenomena that causes surf to stand up in steep waves when a gentle swell encounters shallow water.

    In other words, if you have raised the bottom of the bay, you are going to have to raise the top (water surface) as well.

    One way this manifests itself is what looks like erosion. It appears that the water motion is eating away the land which gets carried away, which is partly true, but the main reason the land disappears is that it is now underwater (like those submerged forests).

    Once it is underwater, like Sharps island, a second phenomenon occurs.
    here you have a bump in the bottom, and an area where the water is shallow. Water that used to go around the island (and eat away at the edges), now goes over the top of the island (and eats away the top). In that case it is no longer that sharps islnd is “sinking”, it is rather that it has been excavated and moved.

    Well, moved to where? It will move down the bay until the water velocity is insufficint to move it, where it will fall to the bottom. over time, this creats a submerged dam, or bar, at the mouth which impedes water above it from getting out. In turn, this cause the water upstream to “pile up” more until gravity provides enough energy to get it out.

    In a place like Sharps island or any place there is shallow water or a bar extending out from a point of land, two competing things happen. The water speeds up like any venturi, so that the same amount of water coming down stream can pass the bar. This does not happen for free of course, and the water “piles up” in front of the bar or shallow spot until gravity provides the potenetial energy to move the water faster over the bar. Sometimes on a calm day you can actually see this, and there will be a bump in the water.

    The second thing that happens is that water dragging along the bottom slows down, so the water velocity is different at the bottom and there is a velocity gradient going up. There is also a horizontal gradient: water wil flow slowlyt at the point, flow faster as you move out over the bar, and flow more slowly again as you reach deeper water. I have won sailboat races by understanding how this works.

    In a place like Sharps island this means the water moves very fast when the island is fist submerged, and the island is excavated and moved downstream pretty quickly. As the water gets deeper, it flows more slowly, and less excavation takes place.

  25. we don’t want to know any more about it…

    =========================================

    Some people will argue, pragmatically, why should we want to know?
    It is happening slowly, and there is nothing we can do anyway. When the water gets to the living room, we will move.

  26. Some will argue that my siltataion theory is bogus, but remember that the water in the Potomac was 200 feet deep, all the way to Georgetown. The Tobacco river entertained large ships, and today there isn’t enough water to canoe there: we have raise the bottom almost up to the surface, with the result that the water that might be there has run off “downhill” where it appears as “higher than it used to be”.

  27. ” When the water gets to the living room, we will move.”

    utilities? water/sewer lines? bridges, basements…. higher and higher storm surges from hurricanes and storms?

    where will the money come from to replace these things and do we have an idea of what order the need to replace will occur?

    In other words, do we want to plan?

  28. Well, gee.
    When you move out of the living room, you wont need the bathroom, either.

    If you hang out that long, you are going to lose your shirt on that house. All that new stuff you talk about is going to be paid for by the developer who sells him a new house. And ultimately by the new buyer.

    This is what you (and the other side) don’t seem to get. It matters almost nothing, not at all, whose ideology wins.

    The problems we have are going to be paid for. The cost WILL trickle down to all of us. There will be a least expensive solution. Ideology won’t help find it.

  29. it’s not about ideology at all. It’s about simple things like when the sewer system fails… and what do you do with everything commercial and residential that relies on it.

    or like in the Outer Banks case… each new storm is now cutting new channels
    in the island.

    Do you start building more bridges or what?

    there’s no ideology here.. it’s simple planning..looking ahead..figuring out what is going to be involved (or not) and what the likely order failure will be and what the consequences of those failures are…do you try to fix or abandon…. etc…

    You can bet the insurance companies are doing this…. 🙂

  30. Maybe that’s the answer eh? When the insurance companies tell you they will no longer insure your “stuff” – you get to either abandon or double down on your own risk and liabilities.

    North Carolina is already at the point of trying to decide:

    http://outerbanksvoice.com/2012/03/04/n-c-12-uncertain-future-in-an-era-of-rising-seas/

  31. it’s not about ideology at all. It’s about simple things like when the sewer system fails… and what do you do with everything commercial and residential that relies on it.

    ================================================

    It is about the ideology, when the ideology (either) denies there there is a problem or else claims the problem will “cost almost nothing to fix”.

    There is no doubt that when the water rises, we will move back. Period, end of story. We have been doing that for centuries, in various places. The only question is what is the least expensive or most efficient way to go about it.

    The ideology on one side says, “Fugedaboutit, it ain’t happening.” and on the other side the ideology says, “Hey, its only a couple pennies on the dollar.” All the while ignoring the fact that there a thousand projects in line for those pennies. If you pay for all of them, then the whole dollar is long gone.

  32. From your NC link:

    “A follow-up draft was watered down significantly after intense lobbying by development interests.”

    How does ideology “water down” the truth? It doesn’t. The truth will be whatever it is, and the development interests cannot do a thing about it.

    They THINK they are looking out for their own best interests, when their real best interest are served by understanding what is actually going to happen.

    PS. In graduate school I took a course in coastal geology and I think one of the textbooks was by Riggs. None of this is news. The Holiday Inn in Wilmington is referred to by locals as the Holiday Inlet because it is built on a strip of sand where the entrance to the harbor used to be.

Leave a Reply