I was encouraged to see Gov. O’Malley host the Maryland Climate Change Summit and to hear the discussions on the effects of climate change, but many questions still need to be answered if we want a more resilient and prepared region.
Here on the Eastern Shore, we are seeing the effects of climate change faster than nearly any other area in the country. According to the Governor, Maryland currently is losing 1.6 acres of land every day to sea-level rise. 584 acres a year may not seem significant, but what’s happening on that land is significant. Holland Island, just one of the 13 major Chesapeake islands to forever be sunk into the Bay, was within the past 100 years a significant place that included a thriving community of 70 homes, over 350 residents, a main street, stores, a school, a church, a baseball team and more. It’s all gone.
Lost land doesn’t immediately affect those that live inland, but what about the effects of rising temperatures on farming and human health? Will fungi or other pests prosper, or will longer growing seasons significantly increase farm outputs? Are our roads and bridges planned to serve us through rising sea levels and more powerful storms?
The Eastern Shore and its people have been resilient throughout history, but in order for us to adapt to a warmer and wetter climate, we need to prepare. The land and life here are precious and as the Governor said, “It’s not just about what we stand for; it’s about what we stand on.”
Rob Etgen
Executive Director
Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
joel brandes says
NASA reports global warming is causing the release of methane gas under the Arctic tundra. Here is a thought. Is it possible that the release of the methane gas is causing warming other than the other way around? I sure hope the conference will consider things like ocean currents on warming and erosion. I wonder if anyone recalls 1973, when we were warned of global cooling. Is it possible that we are witnessing natural cycles?
An open mind is a good thing to bring to the conference.
Stephan Sonn says
Not to worry about the edge of the flat earth…. there are levies for the oceans
and fences and guardrails to keep us all safe and herded, except for people we don’t like.
These fences, levies and guard rails occur naturally.
Stephan Sonn says
Defending gas again I see.
Mike Hunt says
Global warming, however one feels about the various and conflicting theories and models, is something of a red herring. Sea levels have risen and the lands of the Eastern Shore have been eroding for aeons before man lit the first fire in a cave. I believe the historical average is 3 feet every 1,000 years, which includes periods of cooling. Colonial maps, published well before the 19th Industrial Revolution, show an alarming level of erosion as the maps progress over just a two-hundred some-odd year period. If all emissions across the globe were halted tomorrow, the truth is the Eastern Shore will one day sink beneath the waves anyway. It would be nice if self-professed environmentalists and scientists would mention that too.
Stephan Sonn says
Different causes same effect that is a given…man bites dog effect.
Pete Buxtun says
“It would be nice if self-professed environmentalists and scientists would mention that too.”
They do, and have. They call it “subduction”, or “subsidence”. This is all well and good but if “the historical average is 3 feet every 1,000 years” (which I’m pretty skeptical of) and it is FACT that over the last 100 years we have had 1 ft of increase (goodbye Poplar and Holland Islands!) in regional sea levels and it is projected that by 2099 there will be an increase of 2 – 3 feet in the tidewater area (see ya Tangier, Smith, most of Dorchester, lots of Kent Island, and enjoy the sand bar that is Eastern Neck!), maybe we should work on doing something?
Even IF the methane is causing the warming and the warming is not causing the release of methane (which I find it hard to believe you believe), shouldn’t we try to do something? Methane bound within the earth or under oceans is forced by pressure and TEMPERATURE into solid form. A change of a few degrees can release methane from it’s solid form into its gaseous form. Guess what happens when huge quantities of methane get released into the atmosphere? You got it, global warming. Maybe not a huge amount but some. What happens when the methane raises the global temp a few degrees? MORE METHANE! Hooray!
But sure, I see your point, that the earth is such an amazingly complicated equation that it’s difficult to be SURE what caused what. What I don’t understand is how ANYONE can advocate doing NOTHING. Or saying that “Whoops, we’ve gone this far, no going back!”. That thinking from us humans who stood on the moon (you believe that right?), harnessed the wind, sun, earth, and the very atom to power our lives, built a system to speak to anyone instantly anywhere on the planet, frankly makes me sad. We are pretty smart when our feet are to the fire, we can do this, we can do anything.
Mike Hunt says
I believe in studying this from a variety of angles, including erosion control measures, shoreline protection, “barrier reefs” (although I would want to know more about the potential adverse environmental impact of which I am doubtful, but not certain). I also think we–across the globe–should take steps to curb wasteful consumption and pollution, whether or not these might lead to weather changes. What I object to is the simplistic (and I believe political) argument that curbing emissions will somehow save the Eastern Shore. I believe the argument is made to rally a political base; True scientific argumentation is dispassionate. The 3 feet every 1,000 years statistic came from a well-respected scientist affiliated with the Chesapeake Bay Institute at Johns Hopkins, although I am not a geologist and so cannot evaluate the methodology directly. I would recommend “The Disappearing Islands of the Chesapeake” to those interested in the topic more broadly.
Rebecca Flora says
The conversation has been shifting to climate change rather than just referring to the issue as global warming. Ultimately there are limits to growth that are determined by the rate of our extraction of natural resources and subsequent dumping of waste materials within our closed loop system of planet earth. Once the ecosystem balance begins to shift everything starts wobbling out of sync like a child’s top. I have been thrilled to see the conversation starting to include community resiliency and preparedness. Even if everyone globally could agree of the source of these climate shifts to prioritize GHG reduction actions, there would still be a need to adapt. Climate zones are clearly shifting and with them impacts on entire crops, industries, pests, levels of energy use, disease, etc., the list goes on. I am doing resiliency and sustainability planning for communities in New York State where communities are taking action to prepare for change while also planning a more sustainable future. I believe Maryland could undertake similar programs using Regional Greenhouse Gas Funds (RGGI) . The Eastern Shore communities should pay close attention to these issues and plan for the changes that will be required to remain economically and ecologically viable.
Stephan Sonn says
Good to know there are people like you who are facing and planning
for trending realities rather than denying the existence of them.
It is no longer the if of cause but the when of reality whatever the cause.
The new if is, whether the ecosystem will survive and evolve
or be displaced by unnatural influences that defy adaption.
The science that may be killing us will have to save us.
joel brandes says
I believe the lands we are seeking to protect are the result of the end of the ice age. The runoff from the melting ice deposited soil into the hostile environment of the bay and the ocean. Regardless of whether or not the seas are rising, the actions of waves and tides were sure to erode the unprotected shoreline. Can we learn from the Dutch? When they reclaimed land from the sea, they built protections that are constantly maintained.
It seems, to me, with rare exception, we depend on grasses to hold off the sea. If the power of water in motion could have carved out the Grand Canyon, what chance does roots have? Beware of people with financial or political motivation perpetuating the myth that we can triumph over mother nature. Take a hard look at New Orleans after Katrina. Levees of concrete, steel and soil were unable prevent natures wrath from overcoming the folly of man.
Stephan Sonn says
The Delmarva is part of the Geologic region known as the Mid Atlantic Plane, created by the erosion of the Appellations thought to be once as tall as the Alps. But that does not matter to science deniers when they make up home made geology. Glaciers gouge holes and lakes that are different in shape and dynamics than the Chesapeake. ie The Great Lakes
The Bay itself is thought to be the result of a seismic event or comet both quite traumatic and fast acting as opposed to millions of years that otherwise dominated geologic progression. Delmarva is hardly a sandbar having shoreline high points rivaling the Western shore of the bay in some choice places. Bedrock is present on both sides of the Chesapeake.
Tick-tock tick-tock, New York, Boston and most of Holland are over before the end of this century.
joel brandes says
The concern voiced, by Mr. Etgen, is for shoreline erosion and flooding flow lying areas. The height of the sand in the cliffs lining part of the bay does not prevent them from slipping into the waters. The fact that bedrock exists, far below the earths surface, likewise does not prevent erosion of the soil above the bedrock. The question is, whatever the cause, what can we do about it.
I contend that we need to look to areas, such as the Mississippi for guidance. The Corps of Army Engineers fights a continual battle against flooding and erosion. I can’t even venture to guess what the cost is and Katrina taught us, it does not always work. If the powers that be, determine that to be our course of action, lets go into it with eyes wide open. Mr. Etgen clearly stated what the result of no action would be.
Pete Buxtun says
My rebuttal would be to ask “and why does the Mississippi spill its banks”? Rivers meander, move, and erode. The Mississippi is not a natural river. It sleeps in its bed of concrete until the next rain event, when it runs rampant and free, much to our chagrin. Let’s try not to take lessons from the worlds largest culvert. Seriously, you should actually READ some of the reports from the Army Corps. Harrowing stuff certainly!
joel brandes says
Pete:
Having lived in New Orleans, specifically adjacent to the 17th street canal, I do have some insights. The New Orleans Levee board was charged with the maintenance of the levees. They spent the funds on casinos and an airport. The old levee on the 17th street canal was replaced with a wall, that failed, to increase the size of a restaurant parking lt.
The Corps, being charged with maintaining the shipping channel by in large does a commendable job. The flooding you refer to occurs primarily up river. Sluice gates divert flooding into the Atshafalaya (spelling ?)basin and Lake Pontchatrain, thus preventing flooding on the lower river.
The Chesapeake also has shipping channels that need to be maintained. We also have flooding, albeit from a different source. What shoreline we choose to protect, by what method and at what cost is the question. Before we leap, it would be wise to learn from others.
joel brandes says
There is no doubt that scientists can accurately read the temperature. Likewise, they are quite capable of measuring the depth of the oceans. What is less clear is the cause of climate change. Two men cause me to have reasonable doubt. The firsts Al Gore, who has prospered greatly from the danger of global warming. Yet he has seen fit to build an ocean front mansion. The other man is Joe Bastardi. Mr. Bastardi has made a life long study of weather and claims the current situation is nothing but cycles that are quite normal.
Before we commit large sums of taxpayer money to fight what could be a losing battle against mother nature, perhaps we should consider what Mr. Bastardi has to say. It is a fact that the Humboldt current in the pacific and the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic meander bring warm water towards the Arctic. We know El Nino and La Nina impact global weather. Maybe Al Gore built his ocean front mansion because he felt Mr. Bastardi knew more than he.
Pete Buxtun says
I really think that the point we should all agree on is that IF we believe that the earth is warming, it doesn’t matter who caused it. A man staring down the barrel of a gun doesn’t care who built the bullet.
Stephan Sonn says
Right!
joel brandes says
What the cause is makes a huge difference. If, as many claim, it is caused by man, there are measures we can take to reverse the cause. On the other hand, if the cause is mother nature, then we build levees and dredge.
Stephan Sonn says
Now let’s see how this goes.
The former All Gore and Tipper by a house on the hilly California coast which they can well afford to buy due to her vast private fortune.
He is accused of making that kind of money by scaring people about the cause of global warming. As if Gore profited by global disaster. Then somebody named Bastadi a supposed expert fights 98% of the scientific community as Tea Party darling trying to to debunk them.
This is the typical basis for Mr Brandes’ much published mini-essays published here . I would certainly be surprised if these words i offer are published since I have debunked tea party types so many times here before only to be not printed.
joel brandes says
Comrade Sonn:
I didn’t know fantasy land, in which you reside, was a part of Chestertown. FYI – Tipper and Al Gore are divorced. He amassed a small ($100 million) part of bios wealth by selling his media holdings to Al-Jezerra. An open mind is something you might attempt to aquire as the one you have is obviously closed to any new thoughts.
Pete Buxtun says
Pot, meet kettle. Sheesh.
Stephan Sonn says
Think again.
James Nick says
So I have some questions for the global warming deniers out there:
Just picking two scientific theories that generally elude the ability of ordinary people to observe in daily life, what’s your understanding of quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity? I’ll go out on a limb here and guess that like most of us, you’re pretty vague on this stuff. But if a scientist who does understand these theories tells you that they are fundamental to how GPSs and computer chips work would you argue with him or her? The same applies to other areas of advanced scientific inquiry no matter the subject.
But what’s up with global warming? Why all of a sudden are people who likely have little to no particular aptitude or training in science going on at length about Arctic tundra, methane gas, vast ocean currents, El Ninos and La Ninas, and otherwise spouting grand geophysical theories of global, if not galactic proportions that they truly don’t understand? What gives one a license to stridently assert the righteousness of his/her position on global warming when in some ways the science of global warming rivals quantum mechanics and relativity in complexity?
Why, in this singular case, are you so certain that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a world-wide conspiracy of doofus, corrupt scientists and statisticians? Is there something about global warming science that only attracts those that finished last in their graduating class? Why, for example, do deniers give more weight to the pronouncements of a crackpot TV weatherman with an undergraduate degree in meteorology who thinks he is in possession of the secret sauce, the missing link, that reveals all but has totally evaded climatologists, worldwide, all these years?
To the extent that there are legitimate scientific questions and controversies surrounding global warming, ideology should not be predictive of who advocates for a particular theory but the fact is that the pro- and anti-global warming camps pretty much cleave cleanly along right/left political lines. Why is that? And why is the anti-global warming status quo almost wholly represented by the petrochemical industry and bankrolled by the Koch brothers who actively finance bogus research just as was done by the tobacco industry years ago in their failed attempt to undermine the dangers of cigarette smoking and nicotine addiction? Do you seriously believe that the Koch’s are spending their millions (billions?) out of pure altruism just to insure science purity? Right!!!!
Stephan Sonn says
Again I am in awe of the quality and depth your presentation.
Lately I have been concerned about pollution
the integrity of the intellectual process generally
as undermined by the Koch tag team of spinners.
Spinner programs need to be exposed
in terms that the average person understands.
While I have my doubts about rank and file
Tea Party basic philosophy,
Koch control of the party machinery,
is cause for concern for all
but the sleepers who help Koch Brothers.
(I understand the pay is good)
Stephan Sonn says
The denier in charge of the Chestertown Spy mission
says scientists can measure but can not extrapolate
from those measurements any theory or game plan
for future climate degeneration.
That is because he cannot think that large
he edits the universe. as a matter od exploitation
and there s no problem he cannot solve
by denial or a fee.
He addresses infinity on a whim and on the fly
and he has the audacity to cull his superstition
and call it realistic in a Bulsl—t bluff
that his and our grandchildren will pay for.
Mike Hunt says
The term “denier” is a reference to Holocaust deniers. It is not just pejorative, but offensive in the highest degree. It is true that it is difficult for lay people to sift through large amounts of data, or for that matter, a geologist to understand the limits of computer programming models. People must instead try and understand what they can and carefully consider the sources and conclusions of professionals in the field. There is nothing wrong with many climate change skeptics. Skepticism is the hallmark of science (remember in the 1970s when imminent scientists feared Global Cooling?). One reason to be skeptical is that we must consider that we are only running this experiment once–with no control group. Further, skepticism can take many forms: a) that there is warming but that it is natural (and indeed the Earth has experienced wild weather fluctuations in its history); b) that there is warming but only a small portion is man-made; c) that there is warming but it is because of the sun, not methane, or vice verse, or that it is CO2, etc.; or d) that there is warming, but the extent of it and any self-correcting mechanisms are not yet proven without great doubt; or e) warming has been in stasis for the last decade and what comes next is as yet unclear. Perhaps instead of us all getting ginned up on measurements and data modeling that even many scientists have difficulty understanding, or on which they sharply disagree, we could focus on what appears to be the underlying policy goal: curbing pollution and respecting the natural environment.
Pete Buxtun says
Not one of your options for the multiple choice was that the almost violent change in climate and greenhouse gas in the last hundred years is the cause of man. What aren’t you denying again?
Mike Hunt says
Skepticism is antithetical to denial. If someone denies that something exists, they are taking an affirmative position. An open mind is a terrible thing to waste, especially in the context of science.
joel brandes says
I am amazed that with all this discussion over global warming related to the burning of fossil fuels we have lost focus on the poisons being emitted. That should be of immediate concern and more important there is no dispute that it occurs. Why is that? Possibly, the fact that life expectancy rose from 49.2 years to 76.5 years over the last 100 years (1900 to 2000) Could it be that no one can profit from that attack?
In the State of Maryland the favored shoreline protection plan consists of groins, filled between with sand and planted with grasses. Ostensibly this is to provide habitat for wildlife. I question the longevity of this method, but it does make money. My point in this, is to question the motivation behind any proposal. I have no problem if it is the citizen (taxpayer) that benefits. If it is primarily to line the pockets of politicians and their contributors, I would fight it.
James Nick says
Re: “The term “denier” is a reference to Holocaust deniers. It is not just pejorative, but offensive in the highest degree.”
From Merriam-Webster: de•ni•er, noun \di-ˈnī(-ə)r, dē-\, Definition of DENIER: : one who denies
Methinks thou doth protest too much Mr Hunt. It is your extrapolation from Merriam-Webster to an offensive pejorative, not mine. But your protest is a tell. I was not aware that “denier” had become a dog whistle in the conservative echo chamber. I guess it must be part of that manufactured outrage for the sake of outrage that bonds conservatives together in their fight against the foreign-born, America-hating, communist (or, sometimes, fascist) occupying the White House and the Godless “Democrat” party. But then again, unlike “denier”, I suppose these characterizations must be Ok since they are the truth of the matter and not meant to be either pejorative or offensive to a high degree are they?
Mike Hunt says
It’s quite amazing that spurious assumptions about my political leanings are made in response to what is supposed to be a scientific discussion, including that I must not believe that man landed on the moon or that I hate Obama. Actually, I worked for him. As someone whose family died either in the Holocaust or fighting to defeat the Nazis, no, the term “denier” and its connotations was not dreamed up in a “conservative echo chamber.” Actually, the term was first coined by Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe who wrote in 2007 (I remember vividly the day the article was published): “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers…” And thanks for quoting Webster. I prefer the OED. One could also look up the difference between “denotation” and “connotation.”
James Nick says
I just stumbled across this today. If there is still anyone following this thread, I suggest you point your browser at this link and play the video… https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20130115/.
The video graphically shows yearly global temperatures variations from 1880 to 2012 relative to a baseline defined as the average temperature from 1951 to 1980. This is not a hypothetical simulation or artist’s conception. The video is based on actual data. As the accompanying text notes, the last time planet Earth experienced worldwide temperatures cooler than the baseline was in 1976.
I’ll leave it to the interested reader to decide for themselves whether or not this is something to be alarmed about.
joel brandes says
Has anyone heard that the ice in the antarctic is thickening? Not unless they googled “JOE BASTARDI GLOBAL WARMING VIDEO” In this video Mr. Bastardi challenges the conventional wisdom on climate change. I certainly have no expertise to make a judgement if he is correct or not. However, That being said, the man has made a life long study of global weather patterns and thus deserves a hearing.
Stephan Sonn says
A number of complete idiots have lifelong projects that are totally without merit.
They are very actively producing infomercials devoted to their various pretend causes
And found on Koch Tea party Media that you quote here to the point of nausia.
One group that says recent earth a axis shifts effected South pole regions
Talk to yourself about that, as usual , then put it out here as it fits.
Stephan Sonn says
Just keep writing.
joel brandes says
Not to worry Comrade Sonn. So long as the editor is willing to publish my observations, opinions and thoughts, I will keep at it. One important observation, not previously voiced, is that a good idea might come from anyone, even you. I only wish our leaders would engage in WIN – WIN negotiation. Are you not sick of I WON, YOU LOST government? I think the country is. We should be speaking against the money it costs to run for election and the contributors who use their money to buy the votes of those elected. Likewise candidates that cater to voting blocks rather than work to do what is best for the entire country.
You dislike, even hate, the Tea party groups. The groups are made up of citizens, just like you and me. Are they not entitled to their opinions and to work for their beliefs? I don’t like much of what you have to say, but I recognize your right to say it. It’s a first amendment thing. Are you against the first amendment?
Pete Buxtun says
I’m pretty sure no one is infringing upon your 1st amendment Mr. Brandes. I think the comment was more of the “keep digging”, or “yes, keep paying out that rope” type.
joel brandes says
Pete:
It’s not my 1st amendment rights that concern me. Frankly, I understand whatever I say is not going to change anything in the minds of those who are set in their beliefs. Thankfully, The editor of the Spy has provided a forum where opposing views can be presented. I do believe that the majority of people will weigh what is presented and form their own opinions. I hope we can maintain civility and not slander such as Mr. Bastardi. It’s his 1st amendment rights that concern me.
The purchase of Alaska was called Sewards folly. Must have been by the ancestor of one posting here.
Stephan Sonn says
Digging is what “they” do best.
And yes they really do exist.
Stephan Sonn says
Keep writing was encouragement for thinking posts here.
You do not own or practice rational thinking as is
your mantra and mission emerging here.
Mike Hunt says
Well, as Tawin said, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The logic of the inference depends on where one puts the “baseline.” NASA also defines half of the 19th Century as belonging to the “Little Ice Age” : “A cold period that lasted from about A.D. 1550 to about A.D. 1850 in Europe, North America, and Asia. This period was marked by rapid expansion of mountain glaciers, especially in the Alps, Norway, Ireland, and Alaska. There were three maxima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.” https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Glossary/?mode=alpha&seg=l&segend=n
Mike Hunt says
Food for thought: Why did the most recent Ice Age end? Technically actually, the Earth is still in an ice age, because an ice age is defined as a period during which the Earth has polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Before the current Quaternary period, the Earth was 5 degrees warmer than today, the seas were a whopping 82 feet higher, and there was no to minimal ice on the Earth. I, for one, would be less skeptical of some of the estimates of the extent to which man causes a larger global warming effect if there were a scientific consensus as to why ice ages begin and end (there have been at least five so far according to geologists and paleontologists). The study of climate over the Earth’s history is actually quite a fascinating, and far from simplistic, field of study.
Stephan Sonn says
I gather that you have heard of a theory that ice ages
are really melting ice triggered by cyclical heat discharges..
There seems to be no who calculation
until the human race did the dirty.
joel brandes says
History is replete with despots that attacked and attempted to silence anyone who differed from their agenda. How sad that that some, in this thread, resort to that despicable behavior. Having a political agenda does not give one the right to slander the opposition views.
Stephan Sonn says
You need a lawyer to tell you the meaning of slander is old timer.
Stephan Sonn says
You do not have views but just boast confabulations at whim.
JOel brandes says
ET TU BRUTE’