OBX Connection Home > OBX Connection Forum > King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions
King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions

King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




I came across this today and thought it interesting for a variety of reasons.

nckingtides.web.unc.edu


OBX Connection Sponsored Links




RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




Indeed. Surely are earning their grant money through others efforts and photos. Whistle


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




I guess it's OK to scare people in the name of science, but heaven forbid Alex Lex OBX injecting some satire on water levels.


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




Thanks for the link hoi toide. It's good information to collect (and cheaper than sending people out to take the picture), regardless of what they want to call it. I'm not a fan of the "king tide" name though. Super Supreme++++ Tide would be a better name. Maybe a tie in with Taco Bell?

John


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




I guess it's OK to scare people in the name of science, but heaven forbid Alex Lex OBX injecting some satire on water levels.

ultrahog99


And then some poor young lady leans on the lighthouse and knocks it over........




RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




I guess it's OK to scare people in the name of science, but heaven forbid Alex Lex OBX injecting some satire on water levels.

ultrahog99


And then some poor young lady leans on the lighthouse and knocks it over........

Squid Pro Quo


smiley


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




I guess it's OK to scare people in the name of science, but heaven forbid Alex Lex OBX injecting some satire on water levels.

ultrahog99


And then some poor young lady leans on the lighthouse and knocks it over........

Squid Pro Quo


smiley


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




Well, I posted it over here for a reason. Anyway, tonight is the Perseids meteor shower and i think the sky is clear here! Moon


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




I like that cover photo of the jeep in the water. About 2 years from now when the body rusts through they will wonder why.


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




I will expect all sorts of photos submitted of high water claiming to be due to king tides, but in realty due to winds. I.e., purported 'evidence', but taken all out of context and perspective.


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




I will expect all sorts of photos submitted of high water claiming to be due to king tides, but in realty due to winds. I.e., purported 'evidence', but taken all out of context and perspective.

Beachmark


Exactly. This isn't science, it is a social media endeavor.


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions






Exactly. This isn't science, it is a social media endeavor.

hatterasnc



What he said!


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions





Exactly. This isn't science, it is a social media endeavor.

hatterasnc

Is there something wrong with that? You guys crack me up.

The scientific value of these photos is not very high, but it does get people involved and it does document flooding. I understand that you're worried that the cause of the flooding will be incorrectly attributed to "king tides", but it's very easy to debunk if not true. Wind is a big piece of the puzzle and is mentioned on the site as a contributor.

Don't worry, you won't be seeing these photos referenced as data in a peer reviewed science journal. Laughing smiley

John


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




Nice catch.



thumbs.gfycat.com/RealKindheartedDove-size_restricted.gif


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions





Exactly. This isn't science, it is a social media endeavor.

hatterasnc

Is there something wrong with that? You guys crack me up.

The scientific value of these photos is not very high, but it does get people involved and it does document flooding. I understand that you're worried that the cause of the flooding will be incorrectly attributed to "king tides", but it's very easy to debunk if not true. Wind is a big piece of the puzzle and is mentioned on the site as a contributor .

Don't worry, you won't be seeing these photos referenced as data in a peer reviewed science journal. Laughing smiley

John

J4yDubs


Quite the opposite concern, John. These unscientific, anecdotal "observations" will be used to forward the "new normal" mantra of "rising sea level" and, mark my words, WILL be postulated as peer-reviewed by the professors and grad students at UNC who have a $grant with an $agenda. This will affect society (real people) through governmental decisions made on unreliable "data."

Science used to be about investigating and proving or disproving a theory based on objective data. This is not one of those cases. It is a paid fun run, nothing more.


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions





Quite the opposite concern, John. These unscientific, anecdotal "observations" will be used to forward the "new normal" mantra of "rising sea level" and, mark my words, WILL be postulated as peer-reviewed by the professors and grad students at UNC who have a $grant with an $agenda. This will affect society (real people) through governmental decisions made on unreliable "data."

hatterasnc

When this happens, please show it to me. Until then, it's unsubstantiated opinion and doesn't seem to be based on any facts. And if you think people are getting rich on the grants that drive this project, I'd love to see that proof as well.


Science used to be about investigating and proving or disproving a theory based on objective data. This is not one of those cases. It is a paid fun run, nothing more.

hatterasnc

I'm not even sure what this means. Science hasn't changed. You can choose to believe it has, but it won't matter. Science will continue moving forward, even if it discovers something you don't want it to.

John


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions





Quite the opposite concern, John. These unscientific, anecdotal "observations" will be used to forward the "new normal" mantra of "rising sea level" and, mark my words, WILL be postulated as peer-reviewed by the professors and grad students at UNC who have a $grant with an $agenda. This will affect society (real people) through governmental decisions made on unreliable "data."

hatterasnc

When this happens, please show it to me. Until then, it's unsubstantiated opinion and doesn't seem to be based on any facts. And if you think people are getting rich on the grants that drive this project, I'd love to see that proof as well.


Science used to be about investigating and proving or disproving a theory based on objective data. This is not one of those cases. It is a paid fun run, nothing more.

hatterasnc

I'm not even sure what this means. Science hasn't changed. You can choose to believe it has, but it won't matter. Science will continue moving forward, even if it discovers something you don't want it to.

John

J4yDubs


John, I like your naïveté'.
I won't have to show or prove anything, it will happen before your eyes. Just watch.
This ain't my first rodeo with these grant-funded folks. It is difficult to disagree with pre-determined outcomes, such as reg-neg in 2007-2008 (albeit with lawyers and a judge who used flawed data). It took 7 years to turn the tide on that failure, based on poor "science," but we did and continue.
Now that i have gone off-topic - I appreciate your response and I think I understand where you are coming from, and simply agreeably disagree.


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions





Quite the opposite concern, John. These unscientific, anecdotal "observations" will be used to forward the "new normal" mantra of "rising sea level" and, mark my words, WILL be postulated as peer-reviewed by the professors and grad students at UNC who have a $grant with an $agenda. This will affect society (real people) through governmental decisions made on unreliable "data."

hatterasnc

When this happens, please show it to me. Until then, it's unsubstantiated opinion and doesn't seem to be based on any facts. And if you think people are getting rich on the grants that drive this project, I'd love to see that proof as well.


Science used to be about investigating and proving or disproving a theory based on objective data. This is not one of those cases. It is a paid fun run, nothing more.

hatterasnc

I'm not even sure what this means. Science hasn't changed. You can choose to believe it has, but it won't matter. Science will continue moving forward, even if it discovers something you don't want it to.

John

J4yDubs


John, I like your naïveté'.
I won't have to show or prove anything, it will happen before your eyes. Just watch.
This ain't my first rodeo with these grant-funded folks. It is difficult to disagree with pre-determined outcomes, such as reg-neg in 2007-2008 (albeit with lawyers and a judge who used flawed data). It took 7 years to turn the tide on that failure, based on poor "science," but we did and continue.
Now that i have gone off-topic - I appreciate your response and I think I understand where you are coming from, and simply agreeably disagree.

hatterasnc


My thoughts exactly with regards to “reg-neg” similarities. I’m so over THAT that I didn’t want to express my feelings on this topic and explain it. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt...


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions





I won't have to show or prove anything, it will happen before your eyes. Just watch.

hatterasnc

Um, thanks, but I think I'm going to go with actual facts and science, not someone telling me to "just watch".


This ain't my first rodeo with these grant-funded folks. It is difficult to disagree with pre-determined outcomes, such as reg-neg in 2007-2008 (albeit with lawyers and a judge who used flawed data). It took 7 years to turn the tide on that failure, based on poor "science," but we did and continue.

hatterasnc

And herein lies the problem. You're lumping everyone into this one narrow bucket. Have there been corrupt people taking advantage of grant money? Absolutely. Is that the norm? Nope, not even close.

I did chuckle at your pre-determined outcomes comment. Pot, meet the kettle. I do enjoy conversing with you though hatterasnc. Nice civil discussions where we can agree to disagree. Anyway, I've got some pictures to go take. Big grin

John


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




John, that's cool. We all have life experiences that teach us and shape our views. Trust me (or not), this is not a narrow bucket.
I believe most of what I see firsthand, less than half of what I hear, and (these days) very little of what I read.
Be well.


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions





I believe most of what I see firsthand, less than half of what I hear, and (these days) very little of what I read.
Be well.

hatterasnc

So basically, you're saying I should not believe you. Laughing smiley I'm just reading your comments on a public message board. No worries and I completely agree with what you said (quoted). We have had different experiences with regards to scientist though. I consider it a shame that yours have been negative. I wish that wasn't the case, but there are bad ones out there (just like pretty much any group).

Be well. Let me know when you're up my way...

John


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




To be clear: I don't necessarily blame the individual "scientist" or researcher. A true scientist ( or engineer Theeth smiley ) will approach things objectively and I think the majority does, or tries to. My observations and opinions are that the data and conclusions are then shaped (sometimes beyond recognition) by those who funded the "study." Not seeking to disparage true research or the population of folks doing so honorably.
Thanks. Next time in your area I'll PM you and bring a few pans of nc barbecue to tide you over for winter.


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




Next time in your area I'll PM you and bring a few pans of nc barbecue to tide you over for winter.

hatterasnc

Now you're talking my language. Thumbs up

John


RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions






John, I like your naïveté'.

I won't have to show or prove anything, it will happen before your eyes. Just watch.
This ain't my first rodeo with these grant-funded folks. It is difficult to disagree with pre-determined outcomes, such as reg-neg in 2007-2008 (albeit with lawyers and a judge who used flawed data). It took 7 years to turn the tide on that failure, based on poor "science," but we did and continue.
Now that i have gone off-topic - I appreciate your response and I think I understand where you are coming from, and simply agreeably disagree.

hatterasnc



Equally poor “science” is partly to blame for the horrible scourge of wildfires the west coast is currently experiencing.

Good read on that subject, and an equally good quote from a prescient President below:


Junk Science and Leftist Folklore Have Set California Ablaze

How left-wing "global warming" policies are torching the West Coast.

August 17, 2018 Bruce Thornton


The Left Coast is burning. Oregon is fighting 13 wildfires encompassing 185,000 acres. California is battling 19 fires, including tornados of fire called "fire whirls," which have gobbled up 577,000 acres and left eight dead. A good progressive who never lets a crisis go to waste, Governor Jerry Brown told Californians, “With climate change, some scientists are saying that Southern California is literally burning up.” He warned that man-made global warming created a “new normal,” and that “more serious predictions of warming and fires to occur later in the century, 2040 or 2050, [are] now occurring in real time.”

A few days later Brown had a tweet-duel with President Trump, who in contrast claimed, “California wildfires are being magnified & made so much worse by the bad environmental laws,” like those against thinning and clearing forests: “Tree clear to stop fire spreading!” Seems like on this issue, the allegedly doltish Trump has the better argument than the Berkeley and Yale-trained Brown.

Indeed, doctor of environmental science and forester Bob Zybach for years has been the Cassandra warning about misguided policies on forest management. According to Zybach, wildfires began to increase in the late 70’s, at the same time policies moved away from active management of forests to a more hands-off “natural” approach. In the past, “Mostly fuels were removed through logging, active management — which they [the Feds] stopped– and grazing,” Zybach said in an interview. “You take away logging, grazing, and maintenance, and you get firebombs.”

In other words, leaving the forests to “nature,” and protecting the endangered Spotted Owl created denser forests––300-400 trees per acre rather than 50-80–– with more fuel from the 129 million diseased and dead trees that create more intense and destructive fires. Yet California spends more than ten times as much money on electric vehicle subsidies ($335 million) than on reducing fuel in a mere 60,000 of 33 million acres of forests ($30 million).

Once again, global warming “science” is a camouflage for political ideology and gratifying myths about nature and human interactions with it. On the one hand, progressives seek “crises” that justify more government regulation and intrusion that limit citizen autonomy and increase government power. On the other, well-nourished moderns protected by technology from nature’s cruel indifference to all life can afford to indulge myths that give them psychic gratification at little cost to their daily lives.

As usual, bad cultural ideas lie behind these policies and attitudes. Most important is the modern fantasy that before civilization human beings lived in harmony and balance with nature. The rise of cities and agriculture began the rupture with the environment, “disenchanting” nature and reducing it to mere resources to be exploited for profit. In the early 19thcentury, the growth of science that led to the industrial revolution inspired the Romantic movement to contrast industrialism’s “Satanic mills” and the “shades of the prison-house,” with a superior natural world and its “beauteous forms.” In an increasingly secular age, nature now became the Garden of Eden, and technology and science the signs of the fall that has banished us from the paradise enjoyed by humanity before civilization.






RE: King Tide August 9-12 2018 pic submissions




Such attitudes soon pervaded Western culture, expressed in pseudo-scientific form by Sigmund Freud, who wrote that “what we call our civilization is largely responsible for our misery, and that we should be happier if we gave it up and returned to primitive conditions.” More recently, Al Gore, the great champion of global warming “science,” remains the high priest of this green cult, recycling old Romantic clichés. He whines in Earth in the Balance about our “technological hubris” and “technological alchemy,” which have driven an “increasingly aggressive encroachment into the natural world” and created the “froth and frenzy of industrial civilization.” Such bromides were stale by 1856, when Gustave Flaubert satirized them in Madame Bovary.

These old ideas lie behind much of what passes itself off as “environmental science.” Salvation from our ancient sin of creating science and technology will come from restoring that ruptured bond with a benevolent nature. Keeping the environment pristine and “natural” by closing it off to development or recreation becomes government policy, one ruthlessly enforced by the aptly named Environmental Protection Agency, rather than the more practical environmental management agency. Bounties of resources like oil and natural gas are left undeveloped to “protect the environment,” and forests are banned from logging or even thinning. Carbon-based energy is proscribed, and billions in pork is distributed to “clean energy” alternatives. Starting in kindergarten, school curricula are crammed with the environmental gospel and its rituals like recycling, and its holy days like Earth Day. And “natural,” “organic,” and “green” have become potent marketing lures for attracting consumers.

Even worse, all this propaganda is passed off as “environmental science.” But at its heart lies the old nature myths founded on an erroneous assumption: that humans are natural creatures whose most fulfilling happiness comes from restoring that lost bond with the simpler, more authentic natural world. In fact, humans are not natural creatures. Our bodies come from nature, but our humanity comes from our minds and free will. Everything in nature is determined by the laws of physics, and has no intrinsic value or worth, no beauty or meaning other than what humans give it. As French philosopher, Luc Ferry writes, man:

Is indetermination par excellence: he is so oblivious to nature that it can cost him his life. Man is free enough to die of freedom . . . His humanity resides in his freedom, in the fact that he is undefined, that his nature is to have no nature but to possess the capacity to distance himself from any code within which one may seek to imprison him.

Human freedom and consciousness make man literally unnatural, his choices and actions often spontaneous and uniquely capable of being creative and destructive.

The untouched nature glorified by romantic environmentalism, then, is not our home. Ever since the cave men, humans have altered nature to make it more conducive to human survival and flourishing. After the retreat of the ice sheets changed the environment and animal species on which people had depended for food, humans in at least four different regions of the world independently invented agriculture to better manage the food supply. Nor did the American Indians, for example, live “lightly on the land” in a pristine “forest primeval.” They used fire to shape their environment for their own benefit. They burned forests to clear land for cultivation, to create pathways to control the migration of bison and other game, and to promote the growth of trees more useful for them.

And today we continue to improve cultivation techniques and foods to make them more reliable, abundant, and nutritious, not to mention more various and safe. We have been so successful at managing our food supply that today one person out of ten provides food that used to require nine out of ten, obesity has become the plague of poverty, and famines result from political dysfunction rather than nature.

That’s why untouched nature, the wild forests filled with predators, has not been our home. The cultivated nature improved by our creative minds has. True environmentalism is not nature love, but nature management: applying skill and technique to make nature more useful for humans, at the same time conserving resources so that those who come after us will be able to survive. Managing resources and exploiting them for our benefit without destroying them is how we should approach the natural world. We should not squander resources or degrade them, not because of nature, but because when we do so, we are endangering the well-being of ourselves and future generations.