Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: In Norfolk, evidence of climate change is in the streets at high tide [View all]Uncle Joe
(65,146 posts)61. Because another effect of global warming is the slowing down of the Gulf Stream
which normally sends ocean water north and eastwards and is now sloshing toward the west which is where the eastern coast is located.
The ocean's circulation pattern is changing and not for the better.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-norfolk-evidence-of-climate-change-is-in-the-streets-at-high-tide/2014/05/31/fe3ae860-e71f-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html
The problem is particularly urgent in Norfolk and the rest of Tidewater Virginia which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has ranked second only to New Orleans in terms of population threatened by sea-level rise due to a fateful convergence of lousy luck. First, the seas are generally rising as the planet warms. Second, the Gulf Stream is circulating more slowly, causing more water to slosh toward the North Atlantic coast. In 2012, the U.S. Geological Survey declared a 600-mile stretch of coastline, from North Carolinas Cape Hatteras to Boston, a sea-level rise hotspot, with rates increasing at three to four times the global average.
Third, the land around Norfolk is sinking, a phenomenon called subsidence, due in part to continuing adjustments in the earths crust to the melting of glaciers from the last ice age. Plus, the city is slowly sinking into the crater of a meteor that slammed into the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay 35 million years ago.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
66 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
In addition, controlling just one foot would cost $1 billion, which is more than the city budget
hatrack
Jun 2014
#47
Oh, don't worry. North Carolina has a really really good law to deal with this ---
progree
Jun 2014
#7
She probably let it become law because the Know-Nothings had enough votes to override. n/t
SwankyXomb
Jun 2014
#28
Why not veto it anyway? For the record. Dems should stand up for what they believe n/t
progree
Jun 2014
#30
If allowed to stand this law will guarantee that some public investment in infrastructure
KurtNYC
Jun 2014
#55
Apparently Helen Borg could not be bothered to read the rest of the article. nt
ChisolmTrailDem
Jun 2014
#27
Because another effect of global warming is the slowing down of the Gulf Stream
Uncle Joe
Jun 2014
#61