SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Exxon Free Environmental Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (3926)6/29/2009 10:43:23 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 49106
 
Rising sea level to submerge Louisiana coastline by 2100, study warnsScientists say between 10,000 and 13,500 square kilometres of coastal land around New Orleans will go underwater due to rising sea levels and subsidence

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Monday 29 June 2009 12.33 BST
Hurricane Katrina exposed the vulnerability of New Orleans and other low-lying areas of Louisiana.

A vast swath of the coastal lands around New Orleans will be underwater by the dawn of the next century because the rate of sediment deposit in the Mississippi delta can not keep up with rising sea levels, according to a study published today.

Between 10,000 and 13,500 square kilometres of coastal lands will drown due to rising sea levels and subsidence by 2100, a far greater loss than previous estimates.

For New Orleans, and other low-lying areas of Louisiana whose vulnerability was exposed by hurricane Katrina, the findings could bring some hard choices about how to defend the coast against the future sea level rises that will be produced by climate change.

They also revive the debate about the long-term sustainability of New Orleans and other low-lying areas.

Scientists say New Orleans and the barrier islands to the south will be severely affected by climate change by the end of this century, with sea level rise and growing intensity of hurricanes. Much of the land mass of the barrier island chain sheltering New Orleans was lost in the 2005 storm.

But the extent of the land that will be lost is far greater than earlier forecasts suggest, said Dr Michael Blum and Prof Harry Roberts, the authors of the study. "When you look at the numbers you come to the conclusion that the resources are just not there to restore all the coast, and that is one of the major points of this paper," said Roberts, a professor emeritus of marine geology at Louisiana State University.

Blum, who was formerly at Louisiana State University, now works at Exxon. "I think every geologist that has worked on this problem realises the future does not look very bright unless we can come up with some innovative ways to get that sediment in the right spot," said Roberts. "For managers and people who are squarely in the restoration business, this is going to force them to make some very hard decisions about which areas to save and which areas you can't save."

Efforts to keep pace with the accelerated rate of sea level rise due to global warming are compromised by the Mississippi's declining ability to bear sediments downstream into the delta.

The authors used sediment data from the Mississippi flood plain to estimate the amount of sediment deposited on the river delta during the past 12,000 years. They then compared this with sediment deposition today.

In paper published in Nature Geoscience they calculate that due to dam and levee building on the Mississippi the sediment carried by the river has been reduced significantly. There are now about 8,000 dams on the Mississippi river system. Roberts said such constructions and the system of levees in Louisiana had cut in half the sediment carried down to the delta, inhibiting the river's ability to compensate for the land lost to rising seas.

Sustaining the existing delta size would require 18 to 24bn tonnes of sediment, which the authors say is significantly more than can be drawn from the river in its current state. "We conclude that significant drowning is inevitable," the authors wrote. "In the absence of sediment input, land surfaces that are now below 1m in elevation will be converted to open water or marsh."

guardian.co.uk



To: Wharf Rat who wrote (3926)7/1/2009 10:25:12 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 49106
 
Climate Skeptic: "I Was Hoping People At EPA Would Pay Attention" To My Work
By Zachary Roth - July 1, 2009, 8:43AM

Conservatives are jumping up and down over a report by an EPA analyst expressing skepticism about climate change, which, they claim, was suppressed by agency brass because it didn't conform to Obama administration orthodoxy on global warming. The story has sparked explosive claims, on Fox News and other right-wing outlets, that the EPA censored scientific data for political reasons. And Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) called for an outright criminal investigation into the matter.

But it's hard to blame EPA for not paying much attention to the study. And it's more than a little ironic that DC Republicans have chosen its author as their new standard-bearer in the defense of pure science against politics. Because the author, EPA veteran Al Carlin, is an economist, not a climate scientist. EPA says no one at the agency solicited the report. And Carlin appears to have taken up the global warming topic largely as a hobby on his own time. In fact, a NASA climatologist has called the report -- whose existence was first publicized last week by the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) -- "a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at."

Still, the report's author, veteran agency economist Al Carlin, doesn't sound happy with the way things played out. In an interview with TPMmuckraker, Carlin talked of the extraordinary effort he put into the study, and lamented the fact that, over the years, a series of skeptical climate-change reports he has produced -- on his own initiative, he said -- have consistently been overlooked by higher-ups at the agency. "I was hoping that people at EPA would pay attention" to the studies, he said. "I haven't seen too much evidence of that."

Carlin, who said he joined the EPA three months after its founding in 1971, explained that, despite working as an economist for EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), he'd been doing research on issues of climate-change science for the last five or six years on his own initiative. He said that much of this work -- which can be found on his personal website -- advocates an approach to addressing global warming which he calls "stratospheric geo-engineering." "It would actually work, and it would cost three to five orders of magnitude less" than regulating carbon dioxide, he said.

True, the studies he's produced were "not specifically commissioned by the EPA," Carlin conceded. But he said his boss at the agency was aware of them, and added that they've been published, though "not all in academic journals."

The recent controversy first emerged last week, when CEI released emails exchanged between Carlin and his bosses, concerning a report Carlin had authored in response to an EPA document on global warming. Carlin explained to TPMmuckraker that EPA had circulated a draft of an "endangerment finding" on the issue. The finding concluded that global warming is indeed a danger to mankind and should be regulated, and, in keeping with standard procedure, requested feedback from agency staff.

It's unclear whether Carlin was supposed to be a member of the working group of staffers whose input on the document was actively solicited. He says he thought he was, since he was included on emails about the document, and invited to meetings on the issue. But the EPA subsequently said he wasn't.

The topic at hand also may have strayed a bit from his core expertise. Carlin described the report he ultimately produced as "85-90 percent science and 5-10 percent economics." Carlin is an economics PhD, but he described himself as "somewhat unique, in that I have a background in both economics and also in physical sciences," citing an undergraduate degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology. "I've always sort of been on the boundary between science and economics," he said.

Asked whether it was common for EPA staffers to prepare reports on subjects outside the area for which they're officially responsible, Carlin allowed that "it's not normal." But, he said it is done. And he added: "The important thing is from a federal bureaucratic viewpoint, I'm equally well-qualified in both fields."

In any case, Carlin felt strongly when he saw the draft document that it was on weak scientific footing. But he said he only had four days until the deadline to submit comments. "This is not what I normally do," Carlin explained. "I normally write research papers and reports, which take six months to a year. So I was faced with the problem of how to prepare thorough comments within a few days." Ultimately, Carlin -- who declined to give his exact age, but suggested he's around 71 -- pulled out all the stops to produce his study questioning the finding. "I worked very hard," he added.

But Carlin was soon told by a colleague coordinating responses to the draft that there were "reservations" about including Carlin's comments in the finding. Soon afterward, NCEE director Al McGartland informed Carlin that his comments would not be included. McFarland then told Carlin via email not to have any further contact with other EPA staff on the issue of climate change, and not to do any more work on the issue. Those emails and several others were leaked to CEI.

Carlin indicated that the incident was in keeping with his prior experience at the agency, suggesting that his labors of love on global warming have never received the attention they deserve. That was the case, said Carlin, even before the Obama administration took over. "To the best of my knowledge, the Bush administration never followed up on my ideas," he said.

Carlin stressed that he wasn't CEI's source for the emails, saying the first he heard about the story becoming public was when a reporter called him last week asking him to verify the emails. In fact, he said, he was chagrined that a hastily produced draft of his work was being circulated before he had had a chance to polish it up. "I was concerned that, heaven knows, I didn't have time to fix all the problems -- and they still aren't fixed," he said, adding that an updated version of his report had subsequently been put out.

In fact, he said, he'd only been speaking to reporters at all out of a basic belief in openness and transparency. "I could find lots of other things I would rather do," he said. But as a government employee, he added, "I don't think it's appropriate -- for reporters or taxpayers -- to [tell reporters], 'go away.'" Soon after speaking to TPMmuckraker, he appeared on Glenn Beck's show on Fox News, armed with a chart to demonstrate his view that warming isn't happening.

Before hanging up, Carlin made sure to caution that during our interview, he hadn't been speaking for his employer. "The views I expressed are my own, not the EPA's," he said

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com.