Climate change in Pine Barrens

[Jon Holcombe]

Good article with photos from the Weather Channel. Interview with Rutgers Dr. Kenneth Able and research by Dr. Matthew Kirwan at Virginia Institure of Marine Science.

Ghosts of the Pine Barrens - United States of Climate Change

"The landscape is changing." A remarkable wilderness in New Jersey is already feeling the effects of climate change.

features.weather.com

"Potential Impacts of Climate Change On The NJ Pinelands" from "Rutgers Coastal Climate Risk and Resiliance Graduate Program".

https://www.state.nj.us/pinelands/home/presentations/05.23.2019%20%20For%20Rutgers%20C2R2%20program.pdf

Sincerely,

Chicken Little

 

[HankG]

"One such scene is that of an unearthed Corduroy Road (pictured above on the strip of land jutting out into the creek), a bumpy colonial thoroughfare made out of timbers. In normal circumstances, it would be buried under 300 to 400 years of sediment, but rising tides have unearthed it."

except for the pesky fact that the road in question was built by the CCC in the late 1930s....

I wonder what else the article gets wrong....

 

[Teegate]

Interesting info.

 

[Jon Holcombe]

I wonder what else the article gets wrong....

I don't know "Hank". Assuming that your statement regarding the corduroy road is correct ( and I don't know the answer to that), why don't you tell me how you would dispute the actual science in the article? I'm sure that you have data that backs-up your obvious implication that climate change is a hoax. Can you show me the evidence that the corduroy road the article refers to was built in the late 1930's?

Funny that your first post on this forum is a smug refutation of a scientific article. Or maybe you also post under another alias as well?

 

[HankG]

well, "Jon"....funny that your first post to me is so combative...

funny that you think I'm implying that climate change is a hoax. i do not dispute any real science that is presented in the article. but this whole chick little nonsense is just that...nonsense.

as for the age of the road, i can ask around for details...but aerial photos throughout the decades tell the story....give it a look...

 

[Teegate]

Lets not fight over this. Lets discuss.

Hank, not everyone knows the location to look. Since you apparently do, can you post a link to the location? Just drag this pointer to the site, drop it, and copy the URL.

NJPineBarrens Maps

maps.njpinebarrens.com

 

[HankG]

sure, teegate.

it is here....

NJPineBarrens Maps

maps.njpinebarrens.com

 

[Teegate]

Well, with a quick look and not checking other aerials I would tend to agree with you. I myself will check more tomorrow.

 

[Jon Holcombe]

this whole chick little nonsense is just that...nonsense.

Not sure what you mean "Hank".

 

[HankG]

Not sure what you mean "Hank".

I'd be happy to elaborate...but...some manners are in order here....perhaps a "thank you" for the information i shared would be fitting....and you don't have to put my name in quotes.

 

[Jon Holcombe]

I'd be happy to elaborate...but...some manners are in order here....perhaps a "thank you" for the information i shared would be fitting....and you don't have to put my name in quotes.

Please, elaborate, you are already called it nonsense "Hank". I'd really like to know what you meant.

 

[HankG]

OK...maybe I could have been more clear.... I'll elaborate once you stop putting quotes around my name and once you acknowledge that what I said about the "road" is true....

 

[Jon Holcombe]

once you acknowledge that what I said about the "road" is true....

Here is Google and 1930's aerial. I see the diagonal "road" jutting into the lake in the Google Satellite map, just as the article states and shows the photo of the road. You said the road was built in the "late 1930's". If the 1930 aerial photo was taken in 1930, then how does the presence or absence of the road in the 1930 aerial prove anything? If the road is present in the 1930 aerial then you are wrong. If the road is NOT present in the 1930 aerial, then confirms nothing because it was still under water, or mud.

None of which has anything to do with Climate Change in The Pine Barrens, which is the title of the thread.

was taken in

 

[Jon Holcombe]

I contacted Dr. Kenneth W. Able of the Rutgers University Marine Field Station to see if he would be interested in commenting on this discussion.

Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences | Rutgers University - Kenneth Able

Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences | Rutgers University

marine.rutgers.edu

 

[imkms]

Interesting article, but please note the wordings. The article is named POTENTIAL impacts and then on one of the beginning slides it states what follows is based on ASSUMPTIONS. So, while science may be used to interpolate what could happen, there is nothing in this article to indicate that it will happen. This is an educated guess, and should be treated as such.

 

[Jon Holcombe]

This is an educated guess, and should be treated as such.

A definition of assumption is: "A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn"

...there is nothing in this article to indicate that it will happen".

When a cardiac surgeon tells a patient "we have to crack your chest and put you on a heart lung machine or you may die", he is interpolating test results and leveraging his experience as a surgeon. 200,00 bypass surgeries are performed every year.

You think a Professor Emeritus and full Professor at Rutgers are just spitballing because they don't know how to interpolate the data?

"Nah Doc, no heart surgery for me. Your post-graduate education and years of experience and those pesky test results don't mean anything. You're just making an educated guess."

 

[HankG]

Here is Google and 1930's aerial. I see the diagonal "road" jutting into the lake in the Google Satellite map, just as the article states and shows the photo of the road. You said the road was built in the "late 1930's". If the 1930 aerial photo was taken in 1930, then how does the presence or absence of the road in the 1930 aerial prove anything? If the road is present in the 1930 aerial then you are wrong. If the road is NOT present in the 1930 aerial, then confirms nothing because it was still under water, or mud.

I never said the 1930 aerial proves anything by itself.... Later aerials prove without a doubt that the "road" was constructed after the 1930 aerial was taken....

look at the 1951 aerial here: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer

None of which has anything to do with Climate Change in The Pine Barrens, which is the title of the thread.

If the "road" in question is not relevant to climate change (and I agree that it is not), then the authors should not have used it as an example of climate change..... Thanks for making my point....

Once you are ready to admit the pesky fact that this "road" was made sometime after 1930, we can move on to discuss your chicken little hysteria...cheers!

 

[Jon Holcombe]

Your aerial proves nothing. I see something, just as I see something in current Google Satellite. I do not see logs and if you have evidence that it is a corduroy road I'd like to see it. Other than a arguing over historic aerials that may or not be what is referenced in the article, you're simply throwing up red herrings to discredit the overall climate change study. Which is what climate deniers do.

How do you know the CCC built that? How do you know it's a corduroy road? How do you know they didn't just bring in topfill to fill in over what was already there? How do you know that is the corduroy road referenced in the article?

My inclination is to trust the work of a Rutgers Professor Emeritus, than consider an ad hominem attack on his scientific study, by an anonymous first time poster with an agenda who conveniently crawls out of the woodwork.

Cheers!

 

[HankG]

Your aerial proves nothing.

A rather comical thing for you to say...I understand that you are not familiar with the location in question.... I am familiar with it, and I'm more than happy to help you understand what you are looking at... The strip of land that appears in the 1951 is indeed the "corduroy road" pictured in the article... If you took the time to understand this easily verifiable fact, then you wouldn't have bothered to write your comical post...

I see something, just as I see something in current Google Satellite. I do not see logs and if you have evidence that it is a corduroy road I'd like to see it.

Yes, you see something in the 1951 aerial, and you see something in the google satellite image.... You are, in fact, seeing the same thing....And of course you can't see the logs...

Like I said... it is the same strip of land that appears in the 1951 picture and the satellite picture....hopefully, I won't have to take you by the hand and explain that to you....so if you are questioning the claim that is it a corduroy road, then your challenge is better directed at the authors of the article you posted....they are the ones that made that particular claim...Please try to keep up...

Other than a arguing over historic aerials that may or not be what is referenced in the article, you're simply throwing up red herrings to discredit the overall climate change study. Which is what climate deniers do.

Nice attempt to paint me as a "climate denier" (whatever you think that means)....rather than address anything I've actually said, you knock down a straw man...which is what people who don't know how to have a reasonable discussion do....What do you even mean by "discredit the overall study"? Please, since you seem to think you know my position so well.....tell me what my position on climate change is....let's see just how presumptuous you might be...

How do you know the CCC built that? How do you know it's a corduroy road? How do you know they didn't just bring in topfill to fill in over what was already there? How do you know that is the corduroy road referenced in the article?

Now it's becoming more and more clear that your objections to what I've said stem from sheer ignorance..... That's ok...keep asking questions and you will learn something....I know the CCC built that because my grandfather (and others I've known) was there to witness it and he told me about it a number of times.... The CCC camp was here:

NJPineBarrens Maps

maps.njpinebarrens.com

If you go to the 1951 aerial picture again...you will see that the camp appears along with the work the CCC had done on Nacote Creek.....

My inclination is to trust the work of a Rutgers Professor Emeritus, than consider an ad hominem attack on his scientific study, by an anonymous first time poster with an agenda who conveniently crawls out of the woodwork..

I see you are good at making logical fallacies...but you're not very good of knowing what logical fallacies actually are....not once did I make an ad hominem argument about the authors of the article...good think you don't need to know me in order to verify that what I've said is true.......

 

[imkms]

A definition of assumption is: "A statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn"

...there is nothing in this article to indicate that it will happen".

When a cardiac surgeon tells a patient "we have to crack your chest and put you on a heart lung machine or you may die", he is interpolating test results and leveraging his experience as a surgeon. 200,00 bypass surgeries are performed every year.

You think a Professor Emeritus and full Professor at Rutgers are just spitballing because they don't know how to interpolate the data?

"Nah Doc, no heart surgery for me. Your post-graduate education and years of experience and those pesky test results don't mean anything. You're just making an educated guess."

I don’t normally respond to responses like this, but your apparent attitude causes me to do so. Your comparison to a cardiac surgeon is very poor and by no means an accurate comparison (by the way I worked for the largest Cardiology practice in SJ for over 10 years). A Cardiac Surgeon has 10s of thousands of actual patient histories to draw a proper analysis, and he can base expected outcomes on that same real life, actual history that shows measured results.
You may choose to believe this professor, but there are thousands of other professors and scientists who will disagree.