Masthead graphic based on a painting by Gudrun Thriemer.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Mario Osava, "Sustainable development in a doomed city," InterPress Service, November 24, 2008.

CARTAGENA, Colombia, Nov 24 (IPS) - The sea encroaching on the streets of this Caribbean resort city in northern Colombia dramatically underlines the challenges that 60 journalists, winners of awards from the Latin American Avina foundation, discussed over the weekend.

The award money is to be used for reporting or making documentaries on sustainable development.

In spite of the lack of rain or other exceptional circumstances, some 50 metres of the street were under water in front of the Almirante Estelar Hotel, where the 2nd Meeting of Investigative Journalism for Sustainable Development, sponsored by Avina, was being held.

Two participants at the meeting were unable to visit the historic centre of the city on the morning of Nov. 21. The avenue they had to take from the hotel's Bocagrande neighbourhood was flooded with water and impassable for cars.

Cartagena appears doomed to be one of the first victims of the rise in ocean levels due to global warming.

Read the rest here =>
Recommend this Post



Sphere: Related Content

10 comments:

codehead said...

The sea is not rising--Cartagena is sinking (tectonic subsidence). It's a known problem. Amazing these journalists don't look for that before blaming global warming.

Jim Terral said...

According to the University of Georgia Stratigraphy Lab, "...without outside information, the rates of eustatic sea-level change and tectonic subsidence cannot be isolated, nor can their effects be distinguished from one another for a single outcrop. In other words, there is no unique solution to this equation because it has two unknowns."

Nice try, but no cigar. Hasty generalizations by semi-scientists can hardly be accepted as superior to hasty generalizations by journalists. Keep that information coming.

codehead said...

"...without outside information, the rates of eustatic sea-level change and tectonic subsidence cannot be isolated"

OK, I don't mean to imply with certainty all factors that might be at play. However, the average sea level rise, especially over the past 30 years (satellite tracking) is well known (and available on the web). Unless Cartagena exists in some cosmic vortex that causes the sea to well up on that section of the planet far above the rest of the world (an effect somehow caused by global warming, I presume?), there is more involved than rising sea level.

To put it more plainly: There is little doubt that Cartagena is subsiding, for one reason or another.

The blog post conclude, "Cartagena appears doomed to be one of the first victims of the rise in ocean levels due to global warming." I will leave it up to you, or the author, to explain how it is being done with rising ocean levels (due to global warming or otherwise. Good luck.

Jim Terral said...

More evidence required"There is little doubt that Cartagena is subsiding, for one reason or another."No amount of posturing will turn "one reason or another" into actual reasons. So this crucial sentence is pure speculation.

The fact is that neither you nor anyone else knows all the factors that might be in play--for openers.

Your assessment that there is a little doubt rather than a lot, or some rather than none--still says more about you than about either Cartagena or the evidence.

The Stratigraphy Lab identifies a necessary direction, i.e., "outside information."

codehead said...

"The fact is that neither you nor anyone else knows all the factors that might be in play--for openers."

Jim--I'm acknowledging this, but my point is not to identify all the factors that might be in play. This blog article identifies only one: "the rise in ocean levels due to global warming."

My point is that there has not been enough sea level rise. We know the global average very well--particularly the past 30 years, but we have a very good idea over the past 100 and more years (seafaring nations, harbors, have kept accurate information on this for a long time).

You just can't supply a plausible reason, due to these records, of how sea level rise can possible be largely responsible for Cartagena. If you can, please do so. Thus far, you aren't addressing this most fundamental issue at all.

Then, secondarily, is the part about "due to global warming". Certainly, not all sea level rise is due to global warming (certainly anthropomorphic). The seas have been rising for 20k year, since the peak of the last ice age. But this is a moot point, since we don't have enough sea level rise in modern times to account for Cartagena's modern problems.

Again, sea level is the central factor here--instead of telling me how I can't know various other factors (I agree), please address how sea level is doing it, if you indeed agree with the premise of the blog post.

Jim Terral said...

Dear codehead,

The "most fundamental issue" is evidence.

I see Cartagena as what, in another context, police investigators would call "a person of interest." Not a person, it is a situation of interest. It is not decisive about issues such as whether or not climate change is occurring, whether or not it is anthropogenic, a plot to raise taxes, etc.

I am comfortable with the impossibility of isolating rates of sea-level change and tectonic subsidence. Data on sea-level rise is available from CSIRO, the Australian national science organization. Satellite data has helped.

I have never visited Cartagena; nor have I seen a photograph or map of the areas the article refers to. You seem to have an idea, without making any particular observations that you mention, of how much sea rise would be required to account for the Cartagena phenomenon. If so, spit it out. Don't be shy, codehead.

To support the idea that the Cartagena townsite is subsiding, I would expect, at a minimum, some geological information--core samples, tectonic movement etc. Possibly some satellite info to check whether or not measurable landmarks are moving.

codehead said...

>To support the idea that the Cartagena townsite is subsiding, I would expect, at a minimum, some geological information...

Hi Jim,

The interesting thing here is that you don't require the same "proof" that flooding is due to global warming. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that if the seas rise to significant levels due to global warming, it will affect Cartagena (because of the low elevation). The article says, "Cartagena appears doomed to be one of the first victims of the rise in ocean levels due to global warming." There doesn't appear to be anything that backs this up. Ocean rise over the past 100 years is measured in centimeters. Even if every centimeter was attributable to global warming (not possible), it's not enough.

If you don't believe this, please supply something to back it up. Otherwise, you're just saying "guilty until proven innocent."

For example, you can find articles on the web stating that global warming is affecting Venice Italy. However, it's well known that they've been battling subsidence for the past 1,500 years (it's built on a sandbar).

It's easy to blame global warming for flooding in these non-scientific articles, but it's pretty difficult to back them up. I encourage you to try, if that's what you believe.

Jim Terral said...

You've either lost the thread or missed the point entirely. Let's go back to the beginning.

You began by saying, "The sea is not rising--Cartagena is sinking (tectonic subsidence)." No ifs ands or buts. No question about it. This is very categorical, absolute, unqualified. 2+2=4. Period.

The methodological observation by the U of GA Statigraphy Lab strongly implies that caution and humility are appropriate when discussing the relative importance of sea-level rise and tectonic subsidence in a specific case.

Of course, at the early stage of a dialogue with someone hiding behind a techie sounding nom de plume, I don't know but what you might be the winner of last year's Nobel Prize for climate change denial.

However, after my call for "more information"--and nearly six months--the best you are able to come up with is "the average sea level rise, especially over the past 30 years (satellite tracking) is well known (and available on the web)." You can't even be bothered to supply a web link.

In the first place, this isn't information. It's a conclusion (yours) and vague allusion to to where some information might be found. Sloppy work.

In the second place, you display no humility in the face of the complexity of the issue. Your arrogance is completely unwarranted.

If you are the winner of last years Nobel Prize for climate change denial, I think it is safe to say that your contribution is overrated. Simple algebra and a few hours of frustration should be enough to instil some respect on your part for an equation with two unknowns (see Stratigraphy Lab above). But you already know the conclusion you have in mind, so you try to get away with the purely deductive exercise of reasoning with as little actual data as possible. Sorta reminds me of Thomas Aquinas if you know what I mean. That was good enough for the Middle Ages, but not any more.

Today, it's a technique of barstool politics. When you're at the pub, it's ok that you don't exactly have the exact facts because you left all your copious notes at home. But this is the internet. Information is just a mouse-click or two away. Common courtesy is to supply links. Even better is to make first-hand observations, or at least to show some respect for those who have made first-hand observations. (See http://worldreport.cjly.net/2009/05/peter-shukman-gruelling-arctic-mission.html).

Note from this thread that I am the one supplying the internet links, and they are links to sources of quality information which you seem happy to use for your own purposes. Be my guest.

However, you have yet to provide any actual information or links of your own. I think you may be too lazy to look for evidence. Or maybe you don't know evidence when you see it. When you go on to talk about Venice, it seems clear that you don't understand the implications of that quote from the Stratigraphy Lab either.

It is a general, methodological observation. The effects of tectonic subsidence and changes in eustatic sea-level cannot be separated without additional information. Doesn't matter whether it's Cartagena, Venice, Tuvalu, or Vanuatu. Same same. In this conversation, the Stratigraphy Lab holds the Ace of trump.

Attack the methodology if you think you have the intellectual gear, but let's dispense with the snap judgements and cavalier indifference towards evidence.

If you should decide to reply to this comment, bring information, or else be satisfied to have the last word.

Your remarks so far make you sound like the sort of person who skims the last page of the book and then pretends to have read all of it. At least Osava, whom you condemn along with the rest of "these journalists," says "Cartagena appears doomed to be one of the first victims of the rise in ocean levels due to global warming."

Note "appears." Sensationalistic though it may be, it is a sentence that acknowledges the possibility of being wrong. You would do well to learn a lesson--not just as a verbal trick, but as a sincere recognition that you are not God.

Contrast Osava's sentence with your own absolutely certain statement at the beginning. Then after a short-lived entanglement with humility, you carry on with "little doubt," meaning in actual practice, nothing but scorn for any position but your own. You don't do nuance. You only respect the information that supports your own conclusions. And you are too lazy to find your own information.

I have tried to be respectful to you out of courtesy. However, no matter how often I repeat that more information is necessary and that this is a matter of evidence, you continue to treat that requirement as if it applied to everyone but you. If you expect any further reply from me, you are going to have to get off your butt and do some real intellectual work. Otherwise, this is the last reply you will get from me on this subject.

codehead said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
codehead said...

So what you're saying, Jim, in effect, is that you are utterly unable to support the claim, "Cartagena appears doomed to be one of the first victims of the rise in ocean levels due to global warming."

Of course you can't --there hasn't been enough sea level rise. You try to divert the argument by making me explain Cartagena's problems--I have no interest in doing so.

Jim, either Cartagena's problems are due to sea level rising (in turn due to global warning--if we have anything to do with it), or something else.

Forget about the global warming component--you can't even quantify it, and attribute it to global warming, in an amount that could possibly cause Cartagena's problems.

Once again, if you can, PLEASE DO. You CAN'T. How wide do you expect me to open my wallet for the world government to pay for Cartegena's problems if you are unable to attribute it to what you are blaming it on? Please quit asking me to prove it's not global warming by proving that it's something else. That is not my problem.

It's either global warming or it's not. If it not, it's another problem that doesn't concern me. If it is due to global warming, give some scientific evidence to back that up. I assert that you cannot even show sufficient sea level rise from ANY cause, much less man's output of co2.

Unless you do, end of story. It's another big lie--like "the polar bears are dying, or Lake Chad, or Mt. Kilimanjaro...