Coalition hoping for sea change as ocean levels rise
Photo Gallery
Rising Water
Sea levels have been rising by about 1 foot per century, but scientists expect a much greater increase in this century due to global warming. A series of simulations created for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy show what a 5-foot to 5.5-foot rise in sea levels would do to several parts of the greater Charleston area.
Previous stories
Clemson students devise rising sea level responses, published 05/07/07
Mayor Riley wants city to get greener, published 04/17/07
Global fever: Climate report paints grim picture for Lowcountry, published 02/03/07
Warming a threat to coastal states: On Earth Day, rise in sea levels noted, published 04/23/06
Concerns rise with the seas:Protecting coast, while facing realities, published 12/07/06
Additional links
NOAA: sea level rise in Charleston
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
National Flood Insurance Program (flood zone maps, risk assessment)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's web site on climate change. (Also a link to EPA's kid-friendly site.)
There's no doubt that sea levels have been rising, and most scientists expect the trend to accelerate due to climate change.
On Thursday, a coalition of environmental groups sought to focus attention on the threat, and to promote alternative energy, by illustrating the potentially disastrous consequences of rising sea levels in Charleston and other coastal communities in the Lowcountry.
The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy released a video and a series of images illustrating that, if sea levels were to rise by 5 feet, about half the Charleston peninsula, most property near the marsh in Mount Pleasant, much of Sullivan's Island and nearly all of Folly Beach would be under water.
And that's on a clear day with no rain.
An international group of climate scientists predicted last fall that sea levels will rise by 23 inches this century as the oceans warm, which would be roughly double the rise documented during the last century.
That prediction from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not account for the record-setting pace of melting polar ice, however.
"The potential is so astounding, if it continues," Duke University Professor Orrin Pilkey said at a panel discussion in Charleston addressing the issue. "I think that 3 to 5 feet is a conservative estimate for coastal management here."
Pilkey and others assembled by the environmental groups discussed climate change and rising sea levels for more than two hours before a crowd of about 100 people at the downtown branch of Charleston County Public Library. The thrust of the message was that individuals and governments must act, and act quickly, to reduce the emissions that are causing climate change. Those emissions are particularly produced by burning fossil fuels for power and transportation.
Downtown resident Richard Saunders attended the presentation but said he had trouble accepting what was said because politics are so tied up in the issue of climate change.
"I'm suspicious of political zealotry," he said.
Diane Anderson of Mount Pleasant was also in the audience. She didn't perceive any political motives behind the presentation, and said the images of local communities being swamped by rising seas was about what she expected.
"I'm glad to see that someone is addressing this," Anderson said.
Even with current sea levels, Charleston is facing hugely expensive projects to address flooding and drainage problems.
The price tag for the largest drainage improvement project, on the West Side of the peninsula, is estimated to cost $130 million, and the city doesn't know where it will get the money.
The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy hopes the rising seas issue will bring more public urgency to energy conservation and the development of alternative energy sources.
The Alliance is a consortium of groups including the Charleston-based Coastal Conservation League.
The group's "Rising Seas" video was produced by Architecture 2030, a group that advocates a moratorium on coal-fired power plants. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy opposes an expansion of nuclear power as well, saying that conservation and alternative energy sources such as offshore wind farms make more sense.
"Don't let anybody back you into a corner, that it's a nuclear plant or nothing, because it's simply not true," said Steve Smith, executive director of the Alliance.
Rising Seas: Challenges and Opportunities for the Lowcountry
Rising Seas: Challenges and Opportunities for the Lowcountry from Open Dome Studios on Vimeo.
Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@post andcourier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 79 comment(s)
Posted by lillycollette on August 29, 2008 at 6:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
*
Posted by cwmcpa on August 29, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"theres no doubt that sea levels have been rising" If there is no doubt then where is the evidence to support this at best theory. Typical P&C journalism Man = Guilty, Female = innocent, minority = victim, Republican = mean spirited racist, Democrat = God's gift to politics, global warming = fact. Mr Slade do you have any experience or do you always regurgitate talking points as fact.
Posted by feb251939 on August 29, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
These global warming alarmist rely heavily on the people's attention span, they have been repeating this same terror message for decades.
Posted by DoaMM on August 29, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I'm suspicious of political zealotry," he said.
Excellent statement. Now, if we could get everyone in America to say that, we might get this country back on track!
Okay, I also want everyone to go to their freezers and pull out all of your ice cubes, put them in dry ice, and mail it to the Arctic. That will solve all our problems!
Nutty Tree Huggers...
Posted by a_set_love on August 29, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Residents of the City of Charleston,
Feel free to dig deep into "YOUR" pockets for this endever. This project should include a 20ft above sea level, protective wall encircleing the City of Charleston. Riseing sea levels you know.
A Friend
Posted by cwmcpa on August 29, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Johnq2
Show me the science, you are entitled to your own opinion but not facts. Over half of the democrats in the Senate voted to authorize force in Iraq. The question of WMDs or UN inspectors being denied access has been thoroughly debated and your assertion is nothing but wrong. Knowing your hatred for republicans/conservative and you inability to accept and understand reality you belief that he sea is rising does not surprise me. I bet you were part of the group saying we are headed into another Ice Age 25 years ago. You are a coward who becomes a cowboy when you get behind your keyboard. I bet you still live with Mommy.
Posted by zekemire on August 29, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How can anyone believe that mere humans can affect the cycles that the Earth has gone through for eons?? The oceans previously, maybe many times were as far inland in South Carolina as Columbia, Florence and maybe further! Where was the human activity that caused that warming and ocean fluctuation? There was none! It is the Earth's cycle! There is nothing that humans can do to change it! The same nuts that now proclaim disasterous global warming were projecting a new global cooling and ice cycle just 30 years ago! They do not know! They cannot even predict the weather tomorrow with any accuracy! This agenda is merely another method to redistribute the wealth of the US around the rest of the world! Al Gore is a pure idiot! The Nobel has become only a socialist political tool with no relevance to real world issues and conditions!! Don't believe that? Yassar Arafat winning the peace prize is one of the biggest farces in human history!!
Posted by geekboy on August 29, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Johnq2 on August 29, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Now who to believe?? Hmmmmm....
<Stupidectomy scar>
------------------------------------------------
Yeah. It must be those eeeeeeevil Republicans.
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F...
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...
Gore's Faith Is Bad Science
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...
Kyoto is pointless, say 60 leading scientists
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jht...
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
The sun moves climate change
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?i...
Limited role for C02
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?i...
They call this a consensus?
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?...
GLOBAL 'SUNSCREEN' HAS LIKELY THINNED, REPORT NASA SCIENTISTS
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroo...
Researchers Question Validity Of A 'Global Temperature'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...
Posted by onevoice on August 29, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems to me that things have been thawing out naturally since the ICE age. Just more political hype to help the Democrates.
Posted by Pols101 on August 29, 2008 at 8:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All of the climate scientist and meteorologist say that man-made global warming is real. It is being taught in all of our universities and grade schools. There is no science though. The professors and teachers are just making the whole thing up. I am glad that you guys are so much smarter that these ivy league egg heads. The school of hard knocks is the best proving ground for folks that are making all of our decisions about the future of the planet. Go The_Mouth_of_the_South, feb251939, DoaMM, zekemirea, and a_set_love. You guys are my hero's. No matter how it looks, you keep posting you opinions. You guys are awesome! Can you answer a few questions for me? Where did oil, coal and natural gas come from? How was oil, coal and natural gas formed? Do you believe that oil, coal and natural gas exist? What is the chemical make-up of coal, oil and natural gas? What happens when you burn the 3? Why do all of those Geologist egg head keep saying that 1/2 of all fossil fuels have been spent? What is CO2 and Methane? What keeps our planet warm, most particularly at night? Why does the sun not fry us in the daytime? What is the day and night temperatures on the planet Mars and why? You should easily be able to answer these question since you know so darn much!
Posted by DoaMM on August 29, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If global warming is real, why isn't anyone stocking up on buckets to bail the water out? Sandbags? Stilts?
We're all gonna die sometime and there's not a chance in hell that you can stop the Earth from doing whatever she's done for eons.
The argument is pathetic at best.
Posted by majorjohnson on August 29, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The best proof that global warming is not man made is that JohnQ believes it is. You don't even need science or existential proof. This is a guy who thinks we can chase all business out of the state and still have jobs, raise taxes without limit, purchase at a state and federal level without limit, and that the government can provide Utopian health care for free. If JohnQ believes it, that's all the proof you need that it's bunk.
Posted by sethook on August 29, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The oceans are rising, the oceans are rising....
Posted by drkralc on August 29, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone just needs to quit breathing! You're all emitting CO2!
Posted by crankyyankee on August 29, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Look I've been through the polio epidemic, nuclear winter, the depletion of the ozone layer, Y2K, avian flu the sars virus and my wife's cooking. I think I'll sit this one out!
Posted by majorjohnson on August 29, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The people who have hitched their wagons to global warming, the environmentalists, the alternative energy crowd, the anti-capitalism crowd, will all find that when global warmin is shown to be a hoax their causes will be declared hoaxes by assocciation regardless of the worthiness of their cause. By using global warming as the engine for their train, when it rides off the cliff it's going to pull them over with it.
Posted by usna04 on August 29, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My opinion is that the earth goes through these natural "cleansing" cycles every few million years. Our earth is headed for another ice age because that is why science and research has told us of the past. I don't think that mankind is necessarily causing the greenhouse effect or the rising of the oceans (I think that would be a little pompous to say that mankind is controlling the earth's climate). However, I do think that we are speeding the process along ever so slightly. Once the ice caps melt, our ocean's sealevel won't necessarily rise dramatically, but the melting will drastically change our ocean currents, therefore affecting our climate in crazy ways (as ocean currents drive climate). Anyhoo, just my opinion. I've done research on this stuff. I'm fascinated!
Posted by drdcrimj on August 29, 2008 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Henny Penny is right. THE SKY IS FALLING, TOO.
Posted by charlestonpride on August 29, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Considering Charleston is already labeled as being below sea level, I thing we will be fine. The only thing sinking is the parking lot at the police station on Lockwood and parking lot at Burger's drive thru on Cherry St.
Posted by number1volsfan1 on August 29, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"These are the same folks that got us into a war in Iraq to get rid of WMD that were never found"
The liberals conveniently fail to acknowledge the 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium that was transferred to Canada by the IAEA immediately following the 2003 invasion.
Posted by number1volsfan1 on August 29, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But, then again, liberals seen to always fail to acknowledge "inconvenient truths".
Posted by guidedbystewart on August 29, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Most of the regulars know how I feel on this subject matter.....busy week, so I really can not say anything that I have not already said before (it not like any of you hard heads are listening anyways), but when buddys coastal house is under water 20 years from now, look back and see that I told you so!
Posted by DoaMM on August 29, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Boy, that speech must've been good last night to get the Dems so fired up today.
Oh yeah, I forgot...They're like cattle. The speech didn't have to be good for everyone to follow it.
Actually, that's more like a group of lemmings, isn't it?
Posted by number1volsfan1 on August 29, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/t...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wire...
Posted by number1volsfan1 on August 29, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Liberals are sooooo gullible. Next year, King Al will be auctioning future ocean front property in Arizona to his groupies
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Taken from a book that I'm working on:
--------------
In June of 1991, after nearly six-hundred years of remaining dormant it erupted in the Philippine islands. In the eruption there were nearly seventeen million tons of sulfur dioxide released into the atmosphere, which was the most ever recorded by modern equipment, and believed to be the highest release of sulfur dioxide since the eruption of Krakatoa in Indonesia back in 1883. Depending on whose figures you look at the decrease in average temperatures for the northern hemisphere were anywhere from 0.9 to 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit, a substantial drop considering the time frame. Indeed, the volcanic ash reached the upper levels of the atmosphere where it lingered for nearly three years while causing considerable damage to the O-Zone layer. Volcanic ash spread over all of the Philippines and as far to the west as Singapore and caused the gross domestic product of the Philippines to decrease by a total of more than six percent for the next two years. The damage done to the health care and educational infrastructure was significant, and damage to agriculture was well into the billions. The eruption I am referring to was that of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippine islands. Despite these catastrophic events, and despite a similar eruption in Chile in 1991 just earlier, and Mount St. Helens in 1980 , the earth did not undergo any major shift in climate as it pertains to our ability to sustain life. Like hurricanes, volcano eruptions have occurred for as long as humans have inhabited this planet and the earth has survived.
By contrast, the eruption of Krakatoa in Indonesia was considerably worse than almost any eruption in recorded human history. Because of the lack of modern equipment we might never be able to pinpoint accurately the exact amount of release from the eruption, but one thing that we are aware of is that it had a profound impact on climate across the globe, in which average temperatures dropped by nearly two degrees Celsius. Consider the following from Wikipedia.com to give you an example of exactly how cataclysmic Krakatoa was:
“The 1883 eruption ejected more than 25 cubic kilometers of rock, ash, and pumice, and generated the loudest sound ever historically reported — the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Australia (approx. 1930 miles or 3100 km), and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius (approx. 3000 miles or 4800 km). Atmospheric shock waves reverberated around the world seven times and were detectable for five days. Near Krakatoa, according to official records, 165 villages and towns were destroyed and 132 seriously damaged, at least 36,417 (official toll) people died, and many thousands were injured by the eruption, mostly in the tsunamis which followed the explosion.”
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The eruption had such an effect on the planet that for many months the sun appeared red, the moon blue, and the sky was reported as turning reddish in color in many parts of the world, even as far away as Norway. The painting known as “The Scream” done by Edvard Much was believed to have been inspired by the events after this eruption upon seeing the sky turn red. It is widely believed that the eruption was as powerful as 13,000 Hiroshima atom bombs, and that tidal waves were recorded as far away as the English Channel. Despite the devastation to the climate of the planet, which in fact was impacted by this, the climate returned back to normal levels just five years later.
As devastating as Krakatoa was on a global scale, there was one eruption that was worse. The eruption of Mount Tambora, also in Indonesia, was registered as a seven on the volcanic explosivity index. With an explosion heard nearly 1,600 miles away and volcanic fallout spreading as far as 800 miles, the height and magnitude of the rise in volcanic ash was nearly twice that of Mount St. Helens. All vegetation on the island of Sumbawa was destroyed and the immediate death toll is believed to be around ninety-thousand. Indeed, the year 1816 was known as the ‘year without summer’. 1816 was also the year of one of the worst famines worldwide in the nineteenth century. As the fallout reached the upper levels of the atmosphere it caused the sky to be red and orange in the horizon as far away as London. So great was the change in climate for the first few years that it is believed this was the cause of the migration westward by farmers across New England when massive crop failures and skyrocketing food prices ensued within months after the eruption.
Keep this in your mind for a moment as you remember that all of this took place before the automobile, before the jet airplane, before coal burning power plants, before nuclear energy, before the foundations of a large scale petrochemical industry and before large-scale manufacturing like we have today. Although this does represent a very large; and rapid release of toxins into the atmosphere, the history of volcano eruptions does in fact demonstrate that there are natural forces at work in this phenomenon.
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My honest assessment of global warming has more to do with the role that is played by mankind rather than whether or not it is occurring. I honestly believe that when you consider the age of the earth, that mankind has not been in existence long enough to make this assumption. When you look through human history at what has been assumed by the scientific community of previous generations; you can come to the conclusion that previous generations felt just as certain in their predictions as people do today. I believe that it is our moral duty though to be good stewards of the planet and that if we wish to survive as a species that we should address issues of pollution on all levels. I also strongly believe that in order for our economy to remain prosperous that we must develop alternative and sustainable methods by which we produce energy. On the issue of global climate change I believe that just as our technology changes, so will our assessment of the situation on global climate change. It is likely that in the future we will have developed better models to predict changes in the climate patterns. Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University is not only considered an expert on the subject of hurricane activity, but is also a skeptic of global warming. As early as 2005 Dr. Gray stated the following:
“Despite the global warming of the sea surface of about 0.3 C that has taken place over the last 3 decades, the global numbers of hurricanes and their intensity have not shown increases in recent years except for the Atlantic.” –Dr. William Gray, November 18th, 2005.
http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/for...
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Also in 2005, when appearing before a Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Dr. Gray questioned our ability to make accurate weather forecasts into the next hundred years, forecasts which cannot be verified within our lifetime. He further went on to state that our ability to predict weather patterns on a much shorter timescale is questionable. Dr. Gray has also stated that we could end up going into a cooling period in the near future. Consider the following statement which appeared in the Denver Post in December of 2006:
"I don't question that, and humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s." –Dr. William Gray, December 26, 2006.
http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_38...
Posted by number1volsfan1 on August 29, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you're using Wikiedia as a primary source of information, you will need to classify your book as fiction!
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
number1vols, I only use wikipedia sources if they have footnotes of their own which lead to an organization. The information on Krakatoa came from wikipedia but only if it was linked to a scientific or historical organization. The Discovery Channel and the Smithsonian had some great infor on the eruption of Krakatoa.
Posted by usna04 on August 29, 2008 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think a lot of people don't understand that global warming, whether it be natural or man made, will eventually cause the next ice age. And again, I don't think we are drastically affecting the earth's climate. The earth is bound for another cleansing cycle, especially with all the mess we've made on earth. My opinion is that we aren't helping the situation and that we need to respect our planet and keep it as clean as possible.
Posted by LutherVanderhorst on August 29, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is the sea rising,
or just the sky falling?
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Next issue: Hurricanes
One thing that should be noted on the above statistics is that during the active cycle which we are currently in, we are living in a time when a much larger percentage of our population is concentrated along the coast. In previous generations we didn’t have near the amount of development or people living in coastal areas as we do today. I believe that it’s largely for this reason that we are seeing the insured losses in hurricanes increase at a much faster rate than the increase in hurricane frequency. Consider the below statistics regarding the populations of hurricane prone regions throughout the Atlantic and Gulf coasts:
Metropolitan Area Pop: 1960 Pop: 2000 Increase
Miami/Ft Lauderdale 1,268,946 - 3,876,380 205%
Naples, Florida 15,753 - 251,377 1,495%
Tampa/St Petersburg 820,443 - 2,395,997 192%
Biloxi/Gulfport metro 189,050 - 363,988 92%
New Orleans metro 987,695 - 1,337,726 35%
Charleston, SC 278,961 - 549,033 97%
Wilmington, NC 92,020 - 233,450 154%
Galveston, Texas 140,364 - 250,158 178%
Pensacola, Florida 203,376 - 412,153 103%
Florida 4,951,560 - 15,982,378 223%
Louisiana 3,257,022 - 4,468,976 37%
South Carolina 2,382,594 - 4,012,012 68%
United States 179,323,175 -281,421,906 57%
Posted by number1volsfan1 on August 29, 2008 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Iceman,
My apologies. I didn't know Wikipedia offered reference links.
Posted by usna04 on August 29, 2008 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Iceman, are you talking property losses or loss of human life?
Posted by Badgersouth on August 29, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children."
Ancient Indian Proverb
Posted by DoaMM on August 29, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is that the "Wooboo" Indians or the "Dot-on-the-Forehead" Indians?
Posted by Pols101 on August 29, 2008 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sadly, the failure of republicans to recognize scientific facts as being real along with other things will lead to a tremendous "blood letting" in November. It will be know as the "Obama" effect for the future generations. It is not just "Obama", it is mostly because of the party's intellectual failures.
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
number1vols, It does at the bottom on some articles. See, anyone can update it but when you do research with Wikipedia you always check the bottom to make sure their info is backed up by another party.
usna04,
There is no better example of the differences made by population growth than to consider the differences between Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Camille. Both storms hit roughly the same area of the Gulf Coast and both were very powerful, very well developed storms. At the time of Camille’s landfall however, both the population, number of homes and businesses as well as the size of new homes built was very different from what it grew to in 2005 when Katrina hit. Below is a brief comparison of the two storms.
Camille - Katrina
Wind Speed - 190 mph - 175 mph
Pressure - 905 mbar - 902 mbar
Casualties - 259 - 1,836+
Damage - $8 billion - $84.0 billion
(damage in 2006 dollars)
This is not to understate the damage done by either storm. Both storms were catastrophic and they left entire towns, and human lives, in ruins. Just as many in Mississippi never fully recovered from the effects of Camille; the same can be said about the Gulf Coast and Katrina. Even today there are huge sections of New Orleans that are uninhabitable. According to most mainstream media sources, New Orleans has lost ½ of its population due to Hurricane Katrina. The devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina are not, in my opinion, proof of the existence of global warming, but rather the consequences of what will always occur when there is exponential growth in a very hurricane prone area of the country. The same can be said of southern Florida which has had growth rates of well over two-hundred percent just within the past generation. In just examining the rate of growth in Southern Florida since 1990 one could conclude that a storm with the size, strength and intensity of Hurricane Andrew would be much more devastating if it were to happen today.
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The greater damage done by Hurricane Katrina however, is more due to our willingness to overdevelop on coastal areas with no consideration as to the preservation on wetlands, which would almost certainly help buffer some of the hurricanes forces, as well as our inability to accept limits on coastal developments. It has been well known for some time by those familiar with the Louisiana bayou region that the wetlands are in trouble and in need of repair and preservation. Tragically, for many years the pleas of those who have, for generations, depended on that unique ecosystem had been falling on deaf ears. As a native of South Carolina I feel the same concern and fear for our coastal areas and Sea Islands which I believe are being overdeveloped. So long as we continue to heavily develop our coastal areas to the extent that we have, we become more vulnerable from the frequency and magnitude of hurricane activity. The cost in human lives from Hurricane Katrina was due to poor evacuation planning, a financial inability of many in the New Orleans area to evacuate, an underestimation of how the levee system would be able to withstand the storm, and a lack of necessary resources or planning to evacuate those in the Superdome after the storm. It is criminal to me that so many were still left in New Orleans as the storm was getting closer.
As early as 1992 when Hurricane Andrew devastated Southern Florida it was known the risk that the city of New Orleans was under. Had Hurricane Andrew made a second landfall just thirty miles east in Louisiana then it’s likely that New Orleans would have sustained heavy damage. Indeed, a scenario called “Hurricane Pam” was conducted just one year before Katrina hit which predicted accurately the level of damage that would be sustained in a direct or near-direct hit on the city. One has to wonder why the evacuation went so poorly when they had already done an exercise to prepare for this. In addition to poorly planned evacuation on the part of State and local officials, the inability of many to leave the city due to financial reasons, the levee system in New Orleans was believed to be capable of withstanding only a Category Three hurricane.
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jane, The levees were never built to withstand anything greater than a category three. After Camille that should have sent a clear message that improvements were needed. If not Camille, then certainly after Andrew.
Posted by DoaMM on August 29, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
iceman, you just made me think of something...If we KNOW that there are stronger storms out there higher than a Cat 3, why do we (as humans) only build to withstand a Cat 3?
Posted by singleroni on August 29, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW IF GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL WE NEED TO GET CHINA TO CUT BACK- DID YOU SEE THE SMOG AT THE OLYMPICS? WE NEED TO FOLLOW THEIR LEAD AND GO GREEN. OH WAIT WE DON'T HAVE THEIR PROBLEM AND THEY ARE PASSING US IN MFG AND CARS WITH NO REGULATIONS. I'M GOING OUTSIDE AND PLANT A TREE THAT WILL HELP.
Posted by geekboy on August 29, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by RW on August 29, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Global Warming is a scam lefties...deal with it! No one is buying it! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
**********************************************
Not quite. It's obvious that global warming is occurring. It's happened before and it will happen again.
The problem is that that those of lesser intelligence believe it's all the doing of man.
Posted by usna04 on August 29, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You know that down in Louisiana and the surrounding areas where the levees failed - they are going to build the levees back the exact same way? Height wise I mean? They think that a hurricane of that force will hit only once every 100 years, so they are not willing to spend the extra money to make the levees any higher. I know the levees failed on all sorts of levels, including not being built on the right kind of stable ground and sorts, but it just makes me mad. Galveston hit the same area back in 1900, and it was near the same strength as Katrina. Once every 100 years may be right, but wonder if they're wrong? This could happen all over again over some freak natural accident.
Posted by usna04 on August 29, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jane, it just makes me so mad! Those dems think everything is Bush's fault. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
And thanks for the info iceman. It's very interesting. I completely agree with your theory. It makes sense, doesn't it? Growing commercial businesses and homes and resorts, etc., bring in more people, so there's more to destroy.
Posted by Tulane75 on August 29, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with many of the points made by the Iceman. One other fact I learned just yesterday is that Katrina was 450 miles across, while Camille was more compact at about half that size.
One factor that is often mentioned is the damage to and loss of wetlands along the Louisiana coast. Two contributing factors of our own making are the levees that inhibit the building up of silt and the digging and dredging of canals through the coastal wetland areas in support of the oil and gas industries.
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Holland is the best example of how to build levees. The Dutch took that and made it into artform. If New Orleans doesn't build for the future then they will go through the same thing all over again.
Posted by usna04 on August 29, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
oh my gosh RW. lol
Posted by usna04 on August 29, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think a lot of it is the ignorance of building your home on the coast and not evacuating when you should.
Posted by cwmcpa on August 29, 2008 at 11:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Johnq2
It is past your nap time
Posted by singleroni on August 29, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I guess Bush passed all the laws himself, and the budget himself. if this is true then why do we need congress. they accept no responsibility and want to blame others but in my high school civic class i think i remember that congress can over ride a veto and all laws have to be voted on by them and passed. Demo have done absolutely nothing in congress. a sham of this change. obama was in congress and what did he do there. Republicans no better only one getting shafted is the citizens and they think we are fools for beleiving them. Guess we are idiots for not voting and letting them do as they please while they line their own pockets.
Posted by usna04 on August 29, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jane, I didn't know that Bush took that much initiative. People really don't know what they are talking about when they blame him for this disaster. Honestly, if I were Bush and I was being blamed for this, I would feel rather honored that I was so important enough to cause a natural disaster to occur!! Ha. People really just need to get the picture. I got so fed up with the folks down there who keep asking and asking for money. I'm all for going down there and helping them out the best way I can, but it really all comes down to - you bought a house on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico and didn't have the proper insurance. People in that area had to have heard about the Galveston Hurricane in 1900. They really should have known better! It blows my mind how people either ignored it or didn't have the common sense to acknowledge it. Don't get me wrong - I feel horribly for the people who are homeless and lost everything. I just feel that if they took some responsibility and prepared for the worst, a lot of the losses could have been prevented. Then again, I'll probably be singing a different tune when a tidal wave hits Charleston....
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
usna04, They were aware of the threat long before Katrina and didn't do what was necessary to strengthen the levees. On top of that they didn't evacuate everyone. I still remember seeing the footage of the school buses that were sitting in the middle of the floodwaters. There must have been over two dozen of them. That could have been 1,000 more evacuated right there.
Posted by usna04 on August 29, 2008 at 12:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
iceman, I really can't believe that the government won't spend the extra money to rebuild the levees right this time. I know that I would not move to that area if that was not at least done. I don't think that area will never recover.
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
usna04, Louisiana is well known to have some of the most corrupt political systems in this country. My main fear is how much of the money appropriated by Congress has ended up lining someones pockets. I don't think they will recover either, at least not in my lifetime. Frankly there are some sections of the city that they shouldn't even bother to rebuild.
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Newt, Yes. "Hurricane Pam"
Posted by guidedbystewart on August 29, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lunchtime...who's ready to play!
Posted by geekboy on August 29, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Studies have shown that men who "self pleasure" have a lower incident rate of prostate cancer.
Oddly enough, having sex with a (presumably female) partner had no therapeutic affect on the prostate. (Insert your own joke here)
And since in my family there is a history of prostate cancer, hell yeah, I'm a self-pleasuring freak and proud of it.
Posted by sailingrum on August 29, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can we still renourish the beach when the sea level rises?
Posted by jeg111 on August 29, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bright Side!!! This is one way to get rid of that ugly building MUSC ruined our skyline with.
Posted by jeff61 on August 29, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Obama......You see that flash of light in the corner of your eye? That's your presidential aspiration dissipation light. It just went into high gear.
Posted by guidedbystewart on August 29, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Global Warming is just another example on how the Republican Party denies that there is a problem. Tries to ignore the problem and hopes it goes away. But once it is obvious there is a problem, they are reactive (costing more money than being reactive all of you fiscal conservative) rather than being proactive and not dealing with the problem when it is more cost effective. Global warming is a prime example of this, along with the levy system in New Orleans (another example), so on and so forth!
Posted by guidedbystewart on August 29, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(costing more money than being proactiveal of you fiscal conservatives)...proofreading mistake.
Posted by guidedbystewart on August 29, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Common conservative spin……or propaganda!
If you are for the working class, want a more fair tax distribution, then you are Marxist or communist.
If you question or are critical of the current government or the Republican Party in general, then you hate America.
If you are concerned about the environment, then you must be a wacko tree hugger.
does any of these sound familiar?
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, I go away for lunch and the namecalling gets worse. *S*
Posted by amicus_non_ego on August 29, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The best part about the ignorant conservative rhetoric surrounding Global Warming theories, is that they miss the f-ing point:
Pollution is real. It has significant effects on the environment. All of this is documented. Squabbling over the dynamics of the effects is erroneous.
We have the technology for renewable energy, environmentally safe infrastructure, and diplomatic proliferation of these technologies.
How can you be so obtuse that you think such progress is detrimental? There is no argument.
The truth is that bi-partisan politics has created a battleground in a forum where we should all agree. We are the caretakers of this planet. Economic and Industrial growth at the expense of our posterity's hope for a clean planet is irresponsible and a beacon of our race's conceit.
Posted by guidedbystewart on August 29, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Newt
It is not Right but Wrong.
It's Reich but Wrong!
Posted by guidedbystewart on August 29, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RW and Jane,
FYI I am very much a heterosexual male.....but I have to say that liberal women are quite good lovers! You know, they do not have allot of the hang ups that many conservative women have, also, they are more willing to please their partner and not as self absorb that they are worried about getting just themselves off!
Posted by iceman1978 on August 29, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by guidedbystewart on August 29, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RW and Jane,
FYI I am very much a heterosexual male.....but I have to say that liberal women are quite good lovers! You know, they do not have allot of the hang ups that many conservative women have, also, they are more willing to please their partner and not as self absorb that they are worried about getting just themselves off!
---
No argument here. It's been a very long time since I've dated but I remember dating both liberal and conservative women.
Posted by I_Love_d_Peninsula on August 29, 2008 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Do any of you have a job, profession, career or a life even? You know, the honorable former Senator, Fritz Hollings once said, and I quote, "South Carolina is too poor and too dumb to be a republican state" ditto.
Posted by scottmcx on August 29, 2008 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Columbia is in the "Sandhills" region of SC. These "Sandhills" used to be the sand dunes of the sea which was so high it lapped the area of the present State Capital. Did dinosaurs cause global warming? Did they get taxed to cure it? Maybe they were taxed to extinction like American business with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Add some more taxes and see the jobs and capital investment go to China. You can buy China companies from your PC with US dollars anytime. My $$$ are going where the environment helps business make a profit...
Posted by I_Love_d_Peninsula on August 29, 2008 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RW: I surely can't tell it from what I see on this website. You are one of the ones that so desperately need a hobby! All day responding to nameless, faceless people. go jogging, read a book,meditate, pray, or better yet,Get a life!
Posted by I_Love_d_Peninsula on August 29, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
btw:
Nothing you or any of your idiot counterparts could ever offend me. I can give a rat azz on what you unintelligent, card touting NRA nut jobs, trailer park trash have to say.
Posted by I_Love_d_Peninsula on August 29, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
According to your number of posts on this site, you are the troll. Again, Get a life! It's a fairly simple concept, even for people like you. well...maybe? Goodnight :)
Posted by charlestonnative1963 on August 29, 2008 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
it amzes me that the people of this state of which my family has lived for over 275 years can be so blind and dumb. THe scientific evidence is THERE. This is not a Republican Democrate issue. This is called science. But these are the sames ones who think God created the world in 6 days and rested. When the waters cover your roof---you might want to listen. gee no wonder we are number 50 in the nation for education
Posted by charlestonnative1963 on August 29, 2008 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RW-I am a Democrat and a proud liberal and I have 4 college degrees...but you know what I think too.
Posted by I_Love_d_Peninsula on August 29, 2008 at 11:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
charlestonnative1963
Honestly, this is why SC remains Stagnant compared to other Southern States. And also ignoramuses like RW and the babble cock ideology they subscribe to.