Report Warns Of Climate Change Impacts To National Seashores Along Eastern Seaboard

A report out this week highlights the threats climate change poses to seven national seashores along the Eastern Seaboard.

When it grows grey and ugly, its sea foam whipped by and carried on the winds, the Atlantic Ocean chews into the Eastern Seaboard, at times tearing islands in half, at others rearranging beaches by pushing sand around.

Cape Hatteras National Seashore witnessed that in August 2011, when Hurricane Irene dredged through the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge just north of the national seashore and ripped out sections of Highway 12. Tropical Storm Ida in 2009 inflicted much damage to Assateague Island National Seashore, leaving in its wake beach erosion, overwash, and damage to infrastructure.

Similar scenarios, and worse, are likely to happen in the years ahead if nothing is done to blunt climate change, according to a report from the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization.

Sea Level Rise

Lying at sea level as they do, the seashores -- Cape Cod, Fire Island, Assateague Island, Cape Hatteras, Cape Lookout, Cumberland Island, and Cape Canaveral -- are helpless when the Atlantic is churned up by storms, and to sea levels that rise as the polar caps melt.

Much of the land in those seashores is barely 1 meter above the current sea level, Stephen Saunders, president of the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, said Wednesday during a conference call with reporters. That low-lying landscape makes them highly susceptible to overwash and higher sea levels, he said.

"In five of these seashores, five out of the seven, over half of the lands, in all cases I think well over half of the lands, are low-lying enough to be below that 1-meter threshhold, meaning they are vulnerable to being submerged by the ocean during this century," said Mr. Saunders.

According to the report, Atlantic National Seashores In Peril, the Cape Cod, Fire Island, Assateague, and Cape Hatteras seashores already are "experiencing above-average rates" of sea-level rise.

And while Cape Cod is somewhat invulnerable to barrier-island-busting storms, when compared to the other seashores, because geologically it is "a relatively stable peninsula," the report stated that the other seashores are much more vulnerable to more powerful hurricanes, which climate change is predicted to spawn.

Such potential was demonstrated last August, when Hurricane Irene tore into Cape Hatteras. The hurricane sliced through North Carolina Highway 12 in several places just north of Rodanthe, outside of the national seashore. The largest breach went through the national wildlife refuge.

At Cape Lookout National Seashore to the south of Hatteras, the wake of Hurricane Irene left the seashore's dock at Harker's Island needing to be rebuilt, damaged all cabins on Great Island to varying degrees, inflicted "heavy damage" to Cape Lookout Village, and washed away the dump station at Cape Point. Overwash from the hurricane also covered most of the national seashore with 2 feet of sand.

Assateague Island National Seashore hasn't been cut in half, but storms in years past have done substantial damage, so much so that seashore officials are keeping climate change in mind as they work on updating their General Management Plan for managing the seashore. Though the GMP is still in draft stage, one scenario seashore officials are keeping in mind is the possibility that a storm could knock out the Verrazano Bridge that ties Maryland's mainland to the seashore.

"The bridge on the Maryland end is a state bridge, it's not owned by the National Park Service. So the decision on whether or not the bridge would be put back would be up to the state of Maryland," Superintendent Trish Kicklighter said Wednesday. "However, there's no guarantee that there would be an island for the bridge to connect to. So what we would propose in a couple of the alternatives is to develop a ferry shuttle, a pedestrian ferry shuttle to the island."

With the prospect of more potent storms breaching barrier islands and knocking out roads and bridges, the sheer cost of repairing or replacing this infrastructure will become considerable, Mr. Saunders said.

"One of the first major impacts that we'll experience, before we have actual inundation by the ocean, is that we will have loss of visitor access through the bridges and roads that provide that access now. We have already had much more expensive repair work that has to be done on bridges and roads that go out to these seashores," he said.

Hotter Summers and Fleeting Political Will

Beyond sea-level rise and island-dredging storms, the report said climate change threatens to boost the average summertime temperatures at these seashores anywhere from 3 degrees Fahrenheit at Cape Hatteras and 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit at Fire Island by mid-century under "medium-high" greenhouse gas emission levels, to as much as 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit at Fire Island by century's end. Already, the report notes, high seashore temperatures recorded from 2000-2011 were as much as 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 1961-1990 readings.

"How much these seashores are affected by climate change depends on how much climate change we humans produce. It is not set how much the climate will change. A whole lot depends on our level of emissions, of heat-trapping gases. Must of the worst impacts can at least be reduced, if not avoided entirely, if we get serious now about reducing the carbon pollution," said Mr. Saunders.

But the federal government has demonstrated little will to address climate change head on. While it once was a major item for the Obama administration, the administration seemingly has decided not to spend any of its scant political capital on the issue, and Congress has largely avoided it as well.

Whether it is mentioned in the presidential campaign remains to be seen. The GOP platform adopted at this week's Republican Convention mentions climate change only in deriding the Obama administration, noting that in the president's National Security Strategy the "word 'climate,' in fact, appears in the current President’s strategy more often than Al Qaeda, nuclear proliferation, radical Islam, or weapons of mass destruction."

Theo Spencer, senior advocate, Climate and Clean Air Program, for the Natural Resources Defense Council, noted the Obama administration's move this week to hike the minimum miles-per-gallon requirements for automobiles between 2012-2025 as a step in the right direction to cut emissions.

"That is the biggest step the federal government has ever taken to cut our oil dependency and our carbon pollution," he said. "Cars, SUVs and light trucks account for 20 percent of America's heat-trapping carbon pollution. Second only to our power plants."

But the NRDC staffer agreed the country has a long way to go to confront climate change.

"For half a century, the federal government has been playing favorites," said Mr. Spencer. "Helping the fossil fuel industry through subsidies and other measures. Now, some in Congress want to stop similar help for clean energy by eliminating the production tax credit that helps provide a level playing field for clean, renewable energy like wind and solar.

"Enough is enough. We need to take serious action to reduce our global-warming pollution 50 percent below 1990 levels by mid-century. Otherwise we have little hope of keeping these special places that we highlight in our report at all, much less the same way they are now."

Comments

And Antarctic Ice caps are at record highs, while the evidence of anthropoenic global warming continues to collapse in the face of scrutiny and the falacy of "fossil fuel" subsidies iw repeated by the "kool aid" gang.

More chicken little speculation of what might happen that has been proven wrong again and again.

Well, anon @7:01 p.m., the Arctic Ice sheet melt this summer is said to be unprecedented, and the American Meteorological Society says the Antarctic Cap has lost "significant amounts of ice" and that "most of the world's glaciers are in retreat."

Perhaps you could share your sources that contradict these findings?


Perhaps you could share your sources that contradict these findings?


Sure - reported today

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

Hopefully sources that are not originating in oil company funding.

Kurt, I have a direct view of a retreating glacier from my living room window. Send some of these oil company apologists up here for a while to watch some reality, instead of reality TV.

Anon @ 7:32 p.m., here's a story that rebuts your two climate-change skeptics by going right to the National Snow and Ice Data Center for an explanation of why the Arctic melt is ahead of the Antarctic melt....

http://www.livescience.com/23333-record-high-antarctic-sea-ice-levels-don-t-disprove-global-warming.html

More excuses and "models" that have proven to be extremely inaccurate. That climate changes, noone disputes. That man causes it or can reverse it is in dispute and the supportive "evidence" is dwindling every day.


More excuses and "models" that have proven to be extremely inaccurate. That climate changes, noone disputes. That man causes it or can reverse it is in dispute and the supportive "evidence" is dwindling every day.


It's amazing how often these conversations devolve into this kind of discourse. In the end, it marks the position of those who are not putting forth scientific arguments, but instead enacting an ideological war on science itself as a legitimate discipline of knowing.

So many times people's careers, including political careers, take priority over the science. That's where the discourse gets messy. A world of it's own, nowadays.

Hmm, Anon at 7:23 am, is the evidence dwindling as fast as the Arctic sea ice?


Hmm, Anon at 7:23 am, is the evidence dwindling as fast as the Arctic sea ice?


Faster

Funny how we can actually see the ice dwindling but not the evidence dwindling.

BTW - Kudos to NPT for allowing these very important discussions to continue even though they may at times stray off the direct topic of the national parks.

One can also look at this article that explains the omissions made by those who claim Antarctica is gaining ice: http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

Not to mention the work on Antarctic ice published this week by the National Academy of Sciences.

And yet the evidence is somehow dwindling everyday? Maybe scientific literacy is dwindling.


Maybe scientific literacy is dwindling.


From the article

"One must also be careful how you interpret trends in Antarctic sea ice. Currently this ice is increasing and has been for years but is this the smoking gun against climate change? Not quite. Antarctic sea ice is gaining because of many different reasons but the most accepted recent explanations are listed below:"

So are "most accepted recent explanations" science? Or more inaccurate predictions and models?

And of course, once again, noone is arguing that climate doesn't change. The question is whether man causes or can alter it. The evidence for that is rapidly dwindling.

There is overwheliming consensus within the scientific community that human activity is indeed driving climate change, specifically atmospheric warming. Here's a timeline that documents when organizations came to that conclusion. It appears to be the exact opposite of "dwindling."

2001 IPCC

2001 Royal Society of New Zealand

2001 National Reserach Council (U.S.)

2004 International Arctic Science Committee

2005 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

2005 National Acadmies of G8 Nations

2005 European Geosciences Union

2006 Geological Society of America

2006 World Meterological Oranization

2006 American Association for the Adavcencement of Science

2006 Network of African Science Academies

2007 Polish Academy of Sciences

2007 InterAcademy Council

2007 European Acadmy of Sciences and Arts

2007 International Council of Acadmies of Engineering and technological Sciences

2007 American Geophysical Union

2007 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

2007 Royal Meterological Society (UK)

2008 European Federation of Geologists

2009 U.S. Global Change Research Program

2009 National Assoication of Geosciecne Teachers

2009 Canadian Meterological and Oceanographic Society

2009 American Institute of Professional Geologists

2010 Royal Society of the United Kingdom

2010 Geological Society of London

2011 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America

2012 American Meterological Society

2012 Australian Meterological and Oceanographic Society

2012 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences


Or more inaccurate predictions and models?


No. If you (or anyone who follows the link to the article) read the explanations, they are clearly based on measurements of temperature, rainwater, glacial run-off, ozone levels. You're making my point about dwindling scientific literacy : )


"The question is whether man causes or can alter it. The evidence for that is rapidly dwindling."

You Are Assuming that Earth's atmosphere without Humans functions the same, that is, there is No

Difference, as an Earth with 7,000,000,000-plus Humans many of whom are burning fossil fuels and

polluting water resources.

Sorry, the C02 atmospheric data from Hawaii's isolated Observatory shows increasing CO2 levels

over the past 140 years (from both measured & proxy data sources)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/index.html

The NPT ANTI-SCIENCE commentary shows the effectiveness of the FOSSIL-FUELED

GOP's Rush Limbaugh (ditto...ditto Rush since I have no brain) & others using the publics' air

radio waves to Dumb-Down Americans and of course, the lack of effective, quality Science Education

in Public Schools also plays its dumbing-down role; Why, Think..It's too hard..let Rush tell Us ...duh..duh

Yes CO2 has increased but is still a miniscule percent of the atomosphere. Evidence that higher CO2 increased temperatures is flaky at best. In fact, evidence has suggested that CO2 increases have trailed temperature rises rather than led them. Also the most recent BEST study showed no increase in temp despite large increases in CO2 places any link in question.


Yes CO2 has increased but is still a miniscule percent of the atomosphere. Evidence that higher CO2 increased temperatures is flaky at best. In fact, evidence has suggested that CO2 increases have trailed temperature rises rather than led them. Also the most recent BEST study showed no increase in temp despite large increases in CO2 places any link in question.


This is a grab bag of uninformed science. A good site for you (or anyone reading this exchange) to check out is http://www.skepticalscience.com/. The site does a nice job of debunking the pop culture myths you've repeated above. It does this by walking folks through the basic science as well as providing links to research published by the National Academy of Sciences and others.

Grab bag ofh uninformed science? Thats why you couldnt actually address any of the issues presented? Instead you point to a website that its self has no science.

Tell me what percent of the atmosphere is CO2

Tell me, if CO2 causes warming, why did the temperatures (according to the BEST study) not go up the last decade when CO2 did rise materially.

Below is a good place to start at that particular site, mainly because on that page it addresses the three or four myths (among others) you've listed above. Next to each myth, the site gives a basic lesson in science (as well as links to scholarship). But again, the myths you've listed are easily and extensively debunked; this site just provides a convenient introduction to the basic science of climate change, which can be especially useful for those who get their science from political/popular discourse.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Once again you won't answer the questions. Instead you send me to a site that is itself full of myths. Like 97% of scientists believe in human casued global warming. Do you know where that number comes from? A graduate student's thesis. He hand selected 75 surveys from several thousand responses to generate that number and his work - at the time - was severely challenged by many that had been asked to participate. Despite this clearly bogus study, your site claims as fact that "97% of scientists" believe in human caused global warming. Unfortunately, it is this kind of "science" that permeates the global warming community.

Well, anon, I can't translate the scientific explanations or read the scientific references for you. Fortunately, anyone following this discussion can access the site and see for him- or herself.

I followed the link to the site, clicked on the consensus link, and then the intermediate tab. Here's what it brings one to: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Plenty of documentation about the consensus percentage.

The spam filter caught another valid comment yesterday. Here it is, from Roger Siglin:

The comments on this issue emphasize the problem with reaching a concensus. If we cannot do it in the U.S. imagine what it will be like when we try to tell the Chinese, Indians, and others that they must reduce their per capita greenhouse gases to protect the atmosphere. Add to that the uproar if Americans are told they must reduce their per capita contribution to match that of the poorer people of the world. And experts say that even if the world lowered it's greenhouse contribution imediately the impacts will go on for several decades. Whatever the ratio between human and naturally caused global warming we might as will get used to it because the world will never cooperate enough to deal with the problem. And that doesn't even address the destruction of the oceans with plastic and other trash.