More Sharks Found in N.C. Sound

Bulls sharks: some of the world's most dangerous

Bulls sharks: some of the world’s most dangerous

By Peter Galuszka

The Pamlico Sound in North Carolina has long been a bellwether of environmental changes. Different temperatures and salinity levels can affect everything from marsh grass to shrimp catches to fish kills.

Now scientists are finding that more potentially deadly sharks are in this shallow, broad estuary that separates the mainland from the Outer Banks. The reason: rising water temperatures.

More bull sharks are being found in the Pamlico Sound, according to Charles Bangley, a doctoral candidate at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C.

He found 36 juvenile bull sharks in the sound since 2012. Another study found 113 bull sharks from 1965 to 2011. “It’s possible the Pamlico Sound represents a new nursing area for bull sharks,” he told The Virginian-Pilot.

Why so? Warmer water means that female bull sharks are swimming into the sound through narrow ocean inlets to take advantage of more plentiful food. They tend to have their young in the sound.

That’s not all. Two great white sharks, potential man eaters, have been seen in the Outer Banks area. One 14-feet-long female was pinged by satellite on the far west side of the Pamlico Sound in January.

Shark fatalities are rare events on the tourist-heavy Outer Banks. The last fatality was in Corolla in 2009. About eight years before that, a man was killed in the surf near Avon.

I’ve seen plenty of sharks diving 20 miles off Cape Hatteras which is a good place to find them since the cold Labrador Current and the warm Gulf Stream meet there, bringing in different species.

And, many years ago, when I was working one college summer as a newspaper reporter in Beaufort County, a gill net fisherman came up with a 10-foot dusky shark in the brackish waters of the Pamlico River where sharks are almost never found. Unusually warm and dry weather that summer meant that less fresh water was flowing into the sound from the Pamlico River and the shark had been swimming into the saltier areas.

The weird thing about bull sharks is that their birthing areas are usually in Florida, scientists believe.

Is this more evidence of (dare I say it) climate change? Could be. A few years ago there was news revealing that breeding populations of alligators had moved farther north. They had been in East Lake, N.C. near Nags Head but now were up near the Virginia border.

I’ll let you know when they reach the Potomac.

There are currently no comments highlighted.

39 responses to “More Sharks Found in N.C. Sound

  1. There’s a very handsome commenter here who has pointed out rising ocean temperatures in the past. If only we’d listened to that dashing masked man!

  2. Yes, the spread of sharks into the Pamlico Sound could well be a sign of climate change. But is it a sign of catastrophic climate change? That’s a very different question.

    The temperature record shows that the past 15 to 18 years (depending on how you measure it) have hit a temperature plateau at a higher level than at any time since humans have been systematically tracking temperatures — the past 120 years or so. That higher temperature plateau is bringing changes to local ecosystems in its wake. No one should be surprised to see changes in the range of large animals like sharks.

    Do those changes support the theory of catastrophic global warming? No, not at all. The warming alarmists say that temperatures will increase on average an additional three to four degrees by the end of the century. They base that long-range prediction on the projections of climate models — climate models that failed to predict the short-range reality of the 15-years-and-growing temperature plateau. The alarmists are now revising their story, suggesting that the plateau is the result of the confluence of short-term climate cycles that the climate models aren’t calibrated to take into account, and they insist that as we move out of those cycles, temperatures will shoot higher. Maybe they’re right, maybe they’re wrong. There won’t be any way of knowing until enough time goes by that we can measure reality against their predictions.

    The movement of bull sharks into the Pamlico Sound reflects past temperature increases that no one denies has occurred. It doesn’t tell us anything about future temperature increases.

    • I think this is a fair assessment. But a couple of points:

      A.) There are quite a few who deny that there is warming at all. That is disturbing to me. You don’t have to be an ideologue to acknowledge that the Earth has warmed and that at least part of the cause is due to human activity.

      B.) I agree that the data (from what I can interpret through various entities) does indicate a “plateau”…but….even though there’s a “plateau”, some evidence suggests that there are still some tiny increases in this 15 year window.

      C.) While I don’t believe that an ecosystem as large as the Earth is going to suddenly dive into a catastrophe…I do believe that the federal gov’t and private entities should fund research to try and establish causation between certain human activities and the warming, IF they exist. Obviously, if man is truly doing something that could alter the globe’s ecosystem, we should find out what those activities are and try to curb them.

      • three points –

        1. – if you read this: ” Understanding characterization of uncertainty”
        http://mashable.com/2015/01/20/climate-skeptics-warmest-year/
        you’ll see the problem is that the critics do not understand math and statistics. They are illustrating their ignorance of science.

        2. – re: suddenly dive in catastrophe”. it’s called a tipping point… how much are you willing to gamble that there is no tipping point at all?

        sorta like trying to figure out if you smoke cigarettes – at what point does cancer start… many folks decided it was not worth the gamble for themselves but how about the earth?

        3. – re- deny… the skeptics and deniers have to have the whole package in opposition in order for their positions to be consistent.

        if you say the whole thing is a hoax and a scam perpetrated by a global conspiracy – you also can’t accept any of the aspects that are part of that bigger issue.

        Notice that even the ones who admit the oceans are rising – won’t admit why… they just say there could be a lot of reasons when there are really only two – temperature and temperature. Hot melts ice and HOT expands water volume.

        there are no other logical explanations.. yet the deniers won’t even admit that. oceans are just rising ….. _somehow_ . even then – producing maps that show the impact – are verboten.

  3. Huh?
    Want to run that by me again, Bubba, this time with some real data?

  4. I’m much puzzled by Jim’s assertion that changes such as higher temperatures, ecosystem modification and the shark habitat migration northward don’t support the theory of catastrophic global warming. They sure don’t refute the theory. They just add more weight, accumulating virtually every month, that global warming is happening, and it’s simply dogmatic and irresponsible not to take sensible actions to reduce the rate of temperature increase.

    Interestingly, we’re now in northern Panama — a marvelous place — and visited a coffee plantation whose owners cite major concerns about climate change they’ve noticed in the past ten years that’s brought in new and destructive insects and coffee rust that threaten the entire industry. Just an anecdote. Back home we experience these new intrusions from southern bugs and fungi in our vineyard. But, just another anecdote, and not to worry.

  5. Let me know when the fire ants get up to NoVA. I had to go to the hospital once, I try to live north of them.

  6. One other little factoid: keep your eye on shipping changes beginning to be possible from Arctic ice melting. It’s already begun and it’s going to increase. The northwest passage opening will allow the bypass of both the Suez (from Europe to China) and the Panama Canal (from Asia to Europe). The shorter route is a game changer, saving millions.
    See Investingdaily.com. and buy Canadian oil/pipeline stocks. But don’t buy into global warming, surely!

    • Malcolm, you’re confusing the fact that the earth *has warmed* and shrunk the size of the Arctic ice pack with the forecast that it will *continue to warm* at an accelerating rate. Past warming is not proof of future warming. Past warming could reflect cyclical trends in the climate. The 1930s, for instance, were significantly warmer than the previous decades, but temperatures reversed course, leading to the widespread conviction in the 1970s that earth was heading to another Ice Age, before reversing course again and hitting a new, higher plateau in the late 1990s, where it has stayed since.

      Predictions of future warming are not based upon past warming — they are based upon the hypothesis that the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will warm temperatures slightly and then, combined with amplifying feedback effects, will warm a lot.

      The past 15 years of steady temperatures have conclusively disproven that temperatures move in lockstep with rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Climate scientists have modified their earlier hypothesis to recognize natural variability may be playing a role. They are now theorizing that natural variability has temporarily masked the inevitable upward progression of temperatures. But that has not been proven. We will not have confirmation that their conjecture is true until temperatures start rising again, if indeed they do.

      • Jim – are you a trained scientists that knows and understands all the variables that would go into analyzing the data?

        why do you assume you know as much or m ore than PHDs with decades of experience?

        I swear – it’s like you’re telling an auto mechanic how to fix your car or a doctor how to diagnose.

        • I’m neither a scientist nor an expert, Larry, but I do pay attention to the debate…. which is a lot more than I can say about those who invoke the authority of the “consensus” about “settled science” without even knowing what the scientists they so fervently believe in are saying.

          • I tend to believe in ALL science Jim.. I do not think that some parts of science are corrupt and conspiratorial while others are not.

            It’s this dichotomy that I do not understand.

            but I also realize that when I read something about a particular field of science that I really have no adequate scientific background to truth test it and it’s no help if someone else, also with no real background, is offering their view especially when credentialed scientists seem to be in agreement.

            that’s my problem with you. You seem to think you can selectively determine which science is valid and which is not .. and I just don’t see how you have the background to do it – for any science.

            you’d certainly (I hope) – yield to scientists who talk about ocean currents, or cancer, or volcanoes.. the genome.. DNA.. etc..

            what other science besides Climate do you doubt?

            scientists fight tooth and nail over evolving science – then they start to reach a consensus about parts they can agree on –

            they do that for cancer, for DNA, for gamma rays, for ocean acidfication, for just about any field of science you can name.

            why is climate science the ONLY science you deny?

  7. I’m amused by the effort to expect precise predictions or it means you’re wrong.

    look at this image and tell me:

    1. – all of the scientists were dead wrong because they failed to predict accurately

    2. -most of the scientist were right within a certain range

    are the folks that say 1. is true – “deniers”?

    what’s also amusing – when scientists predict the sea level rise but don’t attribute it to global warming but just sea level rise – two things happen:

    1. – the deniers talk about “resilience”
    2. – the deniers are opposed to flood maps showing what will be flooded.

    we have some seriously misguided folks .. it appears.

  8. the other thing – ” Do those changes support the theory of catastrophic global warming? No, not at all. ”

    that’s not the real question. If you believe there will be SOME changes but perhaps not on the scale some are saying – do you still believe that NOTHING should be done at all?

    we have this ying and yang about how accurate or inaccurate the scientists are but apparently no advocacy for doing anything at all…

    others, more brazen, just call the whole thing a scam and indeed nothing should be done.

    then we have this curious concept of “resilience” which seems to accept the scientific predictions of ocean rise – rather than call it a scam also.

    further- we talk about what we actually need to do – not in specific terms but in very non-specific terms.

    so my question is – is sea level rise – an unfunded liability?

    serious question.. we talk about deficits and debts and unfunded liabilities and how it’s important that we confront these known future costs.

    so how do we approach “resilience” in terms for planning future costs?

    do we even have a number? Having a number would be helpful I think because such a number would cause some serious thinking (or ought to) on the part of the skeptics who say we need to do nothing.

  9. All I know is that Sen. Inhofe took a snowball into the Senate. Obviously there is no problem.

    • yes, he is a U.S. Senator – and joined by some others who think the earth is 6000 years old.

      American has turned into the land of the ignorant.. obviously a product of our inferior union-infested education system.

      the country is literally being held hostage by these fools.

  10. “Widespread conviction” of a new ice age in the 1970s? Huh. I started reporting on the environment then and it does not ring a bell. Details, please.

    • ” The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.
      The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
      In an independent analysis of the raw data, also released Friday, NOAA scientists also found 2014 to be the warmest on record.
      “NASA is at the forefront of the scientific investigation of the dynamics of the Earth’s climate on a global scale,” said John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “The observed long-term warming trend and the ranking of 2014 as the warmest year on record reinforces the importance for NASA to study Earth as a complete system, and particularly to understand the role and impacts of human activity.”

      now – I ask JIm – is the above analysis from NASA and NOAA wrong and if so why – and on whose alternative analysis are you relying on?

      • I’m relying on NOAA’s analysis.

        It’s quicker to quote Jeff Jacoby with the Boston Globe than to reconstruct the logic myself:

        “What NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center actually reported was rather less categorical than what the news accounts — or the White House — might lead you to believe. As both government agencies made clear in their briefing materials, the likelihood that 2014 was the planet’s warmest year is far from a slam-dunk. Indeed, the probability that 2014 set a record is not 99 percent or 95 percent, but less than 50 percent. NOAA’s number-crunchers put the probability at 48 percent; NASA’s analysis came in at 38 percent. The agencies rationalize their attention-getting headline on the grounds that the probabilities were even lower for other candidates for the label of “hottest year in history.”

        “But other compilers of the standard global temperature datasets have been more circumspect. The report from the UK Met Office noted only that “2014 was one of the warmest years in a record dating back to 1850.” Given the size of the margin of error, it acknowledged, “It’s not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest.” Similarly, the Berkeley Earth summary of its 2014 calculations explained that last year’s bottom line was statistically identical to other recent years. “Therefore,” it noted candidly, “it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.”

        Go here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf#page=5

        Gee, you didn’t read that in any of the accounts you read? You mean that information was buried deep in the NOAA website, not touted in its press materials and not reported by the mainstream media? What a surprise!!! I’m not impugning the scientists — I’m impugning the politicians and PR flacks who spin the message.

        Bottom line: Temperatures have been on a plateau for 15 years. If 2014 was the “warmest” by a few hundredths of a degree, it’s still far short of the forecasts offered by the computer models.

        Gotta try harder, Larry. You’re spinning your wheels!

        • re: ” I’m relying on NOAA’s analysis.

          It’s quicker to quote Jeff Jacoby with the Boston Globe than to reconstruct the logic myself:”

          question is are you relying on ALL of NOAA’s analysis or just parts?

          “What NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center actually reported was rather less categorical than what the news accounts — or the White House — might lead you to believe. As both government agencies made clear in their briefing materials, the likelihood that 2014 was the planet’s warmest year is far from a slam-dunk. Indeed, the probability that 2014 set a record is not 99 percent or 95 percent, but less than 50 percent. NOAA’s number-crunchers put the probability at 48 percent; NASA’s analysis came in at 38 percent. The agencies rationalize their attention-getting headline on the grounds that the probabilities were even lower for other candidates for the label of “hottest year in history.”

          can you show me WHERE NOAA says this? How do we know this guy is really quoting NOAA? does he reference NOAA where he is extracting info?

          “But other compilers of the standard global temperature datasets have been more circumspect. …….. “Therefore,” it noted candidly, “it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.”

          Go here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf#page=5

          Gee, you didn’t read that in any of the accounts you read?

          are you reading the REST of those slides Jim?

          and HOW does that slide contradict the other info on NOAA’s website:

          like here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/2014/12

          “You mean that information was buried deep in the NOAA website, not touted in its press materials and not reported by the mainstream media? What a surprise!!! I’m not impugning the scientists — I’m impugning the politicians and PR flacks who spin the message.”

          and you’re ignoring the other abundant data that NOAA is providing – do you not believe that data like this:

          For extended analysis of global climate patterns, please see our full Annual report

          During 2014, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 135 years in the 1880–2014 record, surpassing the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C).

          Record warmth was spread around the world, including Far East Russia into western Alaska, the western United States, parts of interior South America, most of Europe stretching into northern Africa, parts of eastern and western coastal Australia, much of the northeastern Pacific around the Gulf of Alaska, the central to western equatorial Pacific, large swaths of northwestern and southeastern Atlantic, most of the Norwegian Sea, and parts of the central to southern Indian Ocean.

          2014 Temperature Outcome Scenarios
          Global temperature time series: land and ocean components. From 2014 Global Report Supplemental Information.
          During 2014, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was 1.80°F (1.00°C) above the 20th century average. This was the fourth highest among all years in the 1880–2014 record.
          During 2014, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all years in the 1880–2014 record, surpassing the previous records of 1998 and 2003 by 0.09°F (0.05°C).

          “Bottom line: Temperatures have been on a plateau for 15 years. If 2014 was the “warmest” by a few hundredths of a degree, it’s still far short of the forecasts offered by the computer models.”

          that’s not at all what is said above…

          Gotta try harder, Larry. You’re spinning your wheels!

          I’m agog with the way you’re interpreting information! truly!

          the preponderance of the information that NOAA is providing is undeniable

          ” The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.
          The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.”

          do you not believe this?

          what other science do you look at this way .. with serious doubts about it? why is this the only one?

  11. The silence is deafening

  12. Just to follow up on Peter’s point, as a staff member of the Council on Environmental Quality in the early 1970s I too was aware of some speculation that more CO2 meant more cloud cover and some cooling, but it never, with any credible entity I was aware of, gained credence. I also was aware in the late 1960s of environmental doomsday predictions by 2000, but those too had only fringe support. The situation today amongst scientists, which I am not, is clearly overwhelmingly different. Yet some choose not to heed.

    That warming trend of the 10th century fostering settlements in Greenland and Iceland, and maybe in North America, and the little ice age of the 13th/14th centuries had nothing to do with CO2/GHG rise. That’s the new, revolutionary change not, if reason prevails, to be denied.

  13. (Panamanian Wi-Fi interruption). The agreement today amongst scientists, which I am not, is clearly overwhelmingly different from the 1970s. Yet some choose not to heed, with reasoning that does remind me of those in the 16th/17th centuries who created more and more complex epicycles to explain why the Sun really revolved around the Earth.

    And this just in: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/?hpid=z1

    • I think the deniers have wrapped themselves around the axle.

      they confuse what individual scientists say verses a consensus on the body of knowledge.

      today -consensus – is conspiracy and from that point out it’s about what individual scientist one chooses to believe or disbelieve including a whole bunch who don’t even have degrees in science.

      yes, Malcolm – there was indeed a good reason why they called it the Dark Ages – and it’s returned with a ironic vengeance in the age of knowledge.

      • Blah, blah, woof, woof. Another mindless invocation of authority — anything to avoid engaging in a debate over the science itself.

        The sum total of your argument, Larry: Label your opponent and invoke authority. I’ll give you credit for one thing: At least you haven’t joined the ranks of those who believe the “deniers” should be silenced.

        • consensus is not authority guy …. it’s consensus…

          I’m not labeling you. I’m characterizing the behaviors.. and attitudes about science and reminding you that NOAA says all the things you don’t agree with – also as well as some of the things you do but you choose to not believe their major conclusions… why?

          when you say appeal to authority – are you also including the things that NOAA says that you agree with?

          I just think your position is convoluted and self-contradictory… it’s not consistent… you’re cherry picking select stuff and ignoring what you don’t believe.

          and where is your background to be able to do that? this is like someone who reads – deciding they can be a surgeon.. or professional engineer.. it’s like the knowledge and skill associated with a particular occupation – means nothing because we can all read up on it and be just like the experts.

          that’s not an appeal to authority – that’s acknowledging the years of knowledge they have acquired along with the years of work they have done in the field.

          When a doctor tells you – you have a disease – do you disbelieve him? when an engineer tells you a bridge is unsafe – do you disbelieve them? when a scientist tells you that there is too much nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay – do you disbelieve him/her? how do you decide what you will believe?

        • Jim – have you seen this:

          Sorry, skeptics: NASA and NOAA were right about the 2014 temperature record

          Last week, in an announcement that not only drew massive media attention but was seized upon by President Obama in his State of the Union address, NASA and NOAA jointly declared that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded, based on temperature records that go back to the year 1880.

          The news came out on Friday morning. It was announced through press releases by the agencies, but also through more thorough discussions for the public and media, including this PowerPoint presentation and a media briefing discussing it.

          Why revisit all of this? Because since the announcement there has been a strong reaction, and a lot of climate “skeptics” have suggested that really, 2014 might not have been the hottest year after all. Consider, for instance, this article in the UK’s Daily Mail, whose first sentence reads, “The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.”

          Given the stakes here — this is the biggest news story about climate change in quite some time — I think it is important to examine this charge. For further discussion of the matter, by the way, you should also see this post by Andrew Revkin at the New York Times and this one by Andrew Freedman at Mashable.

          So what’s up with this 38 percent figure, and does it really undermine the idea that 2014 was the hottest year on record?”

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/01/23/sorry-skeptics-nasa-and-noaa-were-right-about-the-2014-temperature-record/

          and another:

          http://mashable.com/2015/01/20/climate-skeptics-warmest-year/

  14. Jacoby a once suspended conservative columnist. Expert source?

    • the problem is when Jim and others read him – and believe how he characterizes something instead of going to NOAA and reading not just what the journalist extracted but he major conclusions that NOAA has drawn.

      what he extracted is ancillary to their larger collected data and conclusions yet both Jacoby and Jim – CHOOSE to only pay attention to one thing as if it was the only thing NOAA was saying and it’s not.

      you can’t function in reality like this.. it’s a self-constructed world that caters to one’s own biases… not the reality .. not what NOAA is actually saying.

  15. This is what NOAA is saying : (extracts) :

    http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/#.VQdis45QNws

    I hate to put most of this here – but this demonstrates how Jim has grabbed hold on one selected thing and then represents it as a NOAA conclusion which
    is simply not what they are saying – :

    “In an independent analysis of the raw data, also released Friday, NOAA scientists also found 2014 to be the warmest on record.

    Since 1880, Earth’s average surface temperature has warmed by about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius), a trend that is largely driven by the increase in carbon dioxide and other human emissions into the planet’s atmosphere. The majority of that warming has occurred in the past three decades.
    ..
    “This is the latest in a series of warm years, in a series of warm decades. While the ranking of individual years can be affected by chaotic weather patterns, the long-term trends are attributable to drivers of climate change that right now are dominated by human emissions of greenhouse gases,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt.

    While 2014 temperatures continue the planet’s long-term warming trend, scientists still expect to see year-to-year fluctuations in average global temperature caused by phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña. These phenomena warm or cool the tropical Pacific and are thought to have played a role in the flattening of the long-term warming trend over the past 15 years.
    ..
    Regional differences in temperature are more strongly affected by weather dynamics than the global mean. For example, in the U.S. in 2014, parts of the Midwest and East Coast were unusually cool, while Alaska and three western states – California, Arizona and Nevada – experienced their warmest year on record, according to NOAA.
    ..
    The GISS analysis incorporates surface temperature measurements from 6,300 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations. This raw data is analyzed using an algorithm that takes into account the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heating effects that could skew the calculation. The result is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

    NOAA scientists used much of the same raw temperature data, but a different baseline period. They also employ their own methods to estimate global temperatures.

    GISS is a NASA laboratory managed by the Earth Sciences Division of the agency’s Goddard Space Flight Center, in Greenbelt, Maryland. The laboratory is affiliated with Columbia University’s Earth Institute and School of Engineering and Applied Science in New York.

    NASA monitors Earth’s vital signs from land, air and space with a fleet of satellites, as well as airborne and ground-based observation campaigns. NASA develops new ways to observe and study Earth’s interconnected natural systems with long-term data records and computer analysis tools to better see how our planet is changing. The agency shares this unique knowledge with the global community and works with institutions in the United States and around the world that contribute to understanding and protecting our home planet.”

    anyone who reads the WHOLE THING – in my view – could not possibly end up with the interpretation that Jacoby and Jim end up with.

    it’s appears to be a willful ignoring of the data.. which is rampant among
    the deniers these days – and for me – just hard to explain why someone would do that …

    I take the preponderance of their analysis.. which I think is unambiguous.

  16. re: ” NASA monitors Earth’s vital signs from land, air and space with a fleet of satellites, as well as airborne and ground-based observation campaigns. ”

    so the deniers have no data of their own – and they go look at the data that NOAA and NASA have willingly provided – and the disagree with the scientists interpretations… accuse them of bad science, incorrect methodology, even cooking the books and lying… and these accusations are coming from people who have no scientific background – at all…

    it’s like telling your doctor you know more than he does because you can “read”.

  17. re: appeal to authority

    NOAA and NASA and the rest of the worlds scientists have no authority.

    they cannot set policy. they cannot dictate change. their role is purely advisory and they are not the sole players providing advice.

    it’s not an “appeal to authority”.. it’s an “appeal to scientific knowledge”

    so we don’t like the word consensus and conspiracy – related so we change it to appeal to authority – which is just as wrong.

    We have a clear majority of the world’s scientists including our own NOAA and NASA pretty much agreeing on the major points about global warming and that’s undeniable.

    so the folks who disagree, most of whom are not scientists to start with , accuse real credential scientists of improperly collecting wrong data, wrongly interpreting the data, doctoring and lying about the data – and colluding about the it .. in a worldwide conspiracy…that includes NOAA and NASA.

    what other science on the planet is accused of this?

    are the folks who study volcanoes, or the oceans, or ozone holes, or cancer, or DNA – accused of this?

    how does this come down to one particular science that apparently on a worldwide basis has turned corrupt?

  18. FLORIDA AND THE SCIENCE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED

    THE OCEANS ARE slowly overtaking Florida. Ancient reefs of mollusk and coral off the present-day coasts are dying. Annual extremes in hot and cold, wet and dry, are becoming more pronounced. Women and men of science have investigated, and a great majority agree upon a culprit. In the outside world, this culprit has a name, but within the borders of Florida, it does not. According to a Miami Herald investigation, the state Department of Environmental Protection has since 2010 had an unwritten policy prohibiting the use of some well-understood phrases for the meteorological phenomena slowly drowning America’s weirdest-shaped state

    http://www.wired.com/2015/03/florida-science-must-not-named/

  19. Interesting article. Something of stretch but interesting.

    First … there are a lot more sharks out there then people realize. You can see large schools of sharks just offshore the outer banks from a small airplane. You can catch 5′ sharks off Sea Island GA all day and night long. Literally until your arms hurt from catching them. If you dive the Florida keys you’ll see sharks. So, finding bull sharks in Pamlico Sound doesn’t seem all that odd to me.

    Second … bull sharks are particularly capable of living in low salinity water. There are plenty of bull sharks living in fresh-water Lake Nicaragua. Bull sharks routinely go up the Ganges River when bodies are released into that river as part of a funeral rite. And, for Peter’s edification, there are certainly bull sharks in the Potomac. Here’s a link -http://bit.ly/1BVG2dx.

    Third … if you want a man eater you don’t have to look past the bull shark. While a single great white is more dangerous than a single bull shark there are a lot of bull sharks in the world and they may well be the most dangerous shark for people on a total basis.

    Fourth … global warming is chasing the bull sharks into Pamlico Sound. Dear lord, what a leap! Bull sharks migrate to find food and, as I’ve mentioned, they are quite capable of chasing the food supply into fresh water. There is a tidal river in New Jersey called Mattawan Creek. In the summer of 1916 a series of shark attacks rocked the people living along Mattawan Creek. Sharks were never known to swim as far inland as Mattawan Creek but in 1916 they did – killing two people over a two week period that saw four people killed by sharks in New Jersey. The attacks were the inspiration for the movie Jaws. While it was unclear which type of shark attacked the people in Mattawan Creek the two leading candidates were Great White and Bull. Of these, most people suspect bull sharks. Was global warming the cause of the Mattawan Creek attacks in 1916? While global warming might play a role in this matter, assuming that unusual bull shark activity is the result of global warming is a stretch. Look at the food supply before jumping to conclusions.

    Fifth … the world would be a better place if the movie Jaws had never been made. While it was great entertainment it sparked a fascination with fishing for sharks which has depleted the shark population. Some people still manage to justify the wonton killing of sharks under the misbegotten assumption that they are making the beaches safe for people. Vending machines kill more people every year than sharks. People get food stuck in the vending machine, attempt to rock it and it falls on them and kills them. There is no justification for randomly and wantonly killing sharks.

  20. Don the Ripper
    I have no doubt the Potomac has bull sharks, but please let me know when you have to share your evening gin and tonic with an alligator at the dock on your sprawling, waterfront Eastern Shore estate. Be sure to take a Smart Phone photo and send it James A. Bacon Jr. I have his phone number.

  21. I have black snakes and nutria (an invasive species of river rat) in the water by my soybean farm. I treasure the snakes and shoot the nutria. The big news last year was the presence of porpoises in the Miles River near St Michaels. In another bit of Chesapeake marine news the red drum (also known as redfish) have become much more prevalent in the bay while the bluefish have been rare. Meanwhile, about 10 years ago, a mako shark was caught near the Bay Bridge (Kent Island).

    Speaking of sharks, the over-fishing of sharks in Virginia waters has led to an epidemic of bullnose rays in Maryland waters. These rays are oyster eaters and the last thing the bay needs is further depletion of its oyster population.

    Anyway, I prefer my gin administered in martinis and only see alligators when I visit my sprawling estate in Marco Island, FL.

  22. As an aside, I would invite the regular bloggers on Bacons Rebellion over to my farm but turkey season starts on April 18 and I’d be afraid that mistakes might be made. Who could blame a hunter for shooting a liberal when he mistakes the liberal for its intellectual counterpart in the animal kingdom?

  23. Groveton,
    Come on now, you have to admit that in reality, turkeys are very hard to kill because they are very smart, have great eyesight and wonderful situational awareness.They can spot BS a mile away.

    • I hope Groveton is watching the GOP budgeting clown show in Congress.

      Those liberals never claimed to be fiscal conservatives …. UNLIKE the GOP who claim it is a religion but dang near all of them are big time sinners.

      so they want to spend more money – but they want to put it on overseas contingency because it’s “off” budget Boomergeddon?

      so the GOP could not wait to take both houses of Congress to show those Libs how to properly budget and now look at them… they’re pathetic – they’re actually worse than the clown show in Richmond!

Leave a Reply