A refreshing change on sea level policy – use historical data rather than model projections

An update to what we reported here yesterday  – Science vs AGW Advocacy in North Carolina, from HamptonRoads.com:

N.C. Senate approves sea level calculation bill

The North Carolina Senate has approved a bill that ignores scientists’ warnings of rising sea levels.

Senators approved the bill on a 34-to-11 35 to 12 vote Tuesday. The measure received little fanfare and no senators spoke in opposition to the measure.

The bill now goes back to the House for a vote.

HB 819 says that only the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission can calculate how fast the sea is rising for state governmental purposes and those calculations must be based on historic trends, which are much lower than the science panel’s projections.

Full story here

UPDATE: John Droz reports that the story had the vote count wrong, I’ve corrected the text. He writes:

On 6/12/12 the NC Senate voted FOR this bill 35 to 12. The NC House will vote in the next day or so.

About these ads

88 thoughts on “A refreshing change on sea level policy – use historical data rather than model projections

  1. Oh Noes!!!! they must be Anti-Science, they insist on using actual data instead of computer model projections!!!! Don’t all Real Scientists know that if the data is different than the models, you have to “adjust” the data???

    (do i have to say /sarc?)

  2. Since one side of this debate has now become a full religion complete with priests, sacrifices, and tithes, it seems appropriate to mention that history is replete with examples of the consequences of choices. In those times several hundred years B. C. E. the wrong choice of God or king could lead to thousands of guys coming in and killing everybody with swords and spears, butchering the animals and burning the city. Now the wrong choice can lead to everybody starving to death in the dark without heat without medical care or protection from armed thugs by any kind of government. In fact, most of the thugs would be from the government.

    Little choices in many places can have big consequences. I think these people made a good choice.

  3. Will someone please ask the 11 who voted against this bill and the other critics how the requirement to use actual measurements is anti-science.

    Jay Davis

  4. Too bad Colbert and Stewart are neck deep infatuated with the AGW nonsense; there’s little that scam could suffer less than having their withering glance fall upon it unfavorably, especially considering their young audiences.

  5. I believe that this may be another indication that the CAGW scheme has been exposed and has been widely acknowledged. The scam was too big to succeed. There is hope in some regions where informed voters choose their representatives. Let’s hope it can be done on a wider national level. And soon.

  6. I went to the coast again today ( a daily walk with the dog) and could discern no sea level rise. I checked with my pal Geraint who works for the Holyhead Coastguard and he reported that there had been no SLR and none expected. I double-checked with Mike who is the Captain of the superfast ferry to Dublin and he said there were no SLR concerns either.

    Is that scientific enough ? Or would you rather wait for a “peer-reviewed” paper from some baldie in Pennsylvania before taking drastic action.

    The whole thing is laughable.

  7. Reading the comments at pilotonline, one notices that many educated people believe that model output IS scientific data. Contrary to logic, actual observational historical data is regarded as non scientific and misleading.

    How is it that the public has been led down this erroneous perception path? Only a massive disinformation campaign could steer so many, from what most know as “common sense”. Oh wait, that is exactly what the “climate science” industry of rent seekers has been doing for decades.

    It is good to see some decision makers say “enough!” GK

  8. Well done, John Droz, and here’s hoping your victory over irrational thought and action inspires others.

  9. Imagine, if you will, that every state in the land along with the federal gov’t had swallowed the dire predictions of the looming ice age and passed laws and taxes based on that in 1972? Imagine how much that would have cost our economy.

    Scientists were warning us. An ice age is coming. We have the calculations. We even have the historical data………. Every 30 or 40 years we should be passing laws and imposing taxes to thwart the next “scientists predict” end of the world?

    Governments have a hard enough time dealing successfully with the simple things that ARE happening, and a proven track record of failing miserably with things that could.

  10. Peter Crawford says:
    June 13, 2012 at 6:42 am

    I enjoyed your comments Peter, particularly the ‘some baldie in Pennsylvania’ quip. In a previous life I used to work with Holyhead CG very closely and would trust their word over SBiP any day.

    Regards,

    JS

  11. @Peter Crawford
    I put in the tide gauge in Dublin Port. You’re right, there is no SLR in Dublin either.

  12. I have tried some years ago to find out from the Met Office how is it possible to tell the difference on a sea level guage whether the sea is rising or if the land is falling? Does Anthony or anyone know?

  13. If scientists do not do the job within ethical standards they deserve to be ignored and that is what this bill is doing.

  14. John Moore says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:36 am
    I have tried some years ago to find out from the Met Office how is it possible to tell the difference on a sea level guage whether the sea is rising or if the land is falling? Does Anthony or anyone know?
    You model it of course! :-)

  15. Here is the link to John Droz’s letter in today’s (06/13/12) News and Observer:

    http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/06/13/2132052/john-droz-jr-our-views-on-sea.html

    Remember how AGW supporters refuse to debate skeptics? NC-20 ran into the same wall accorcing to Droz:

    “It was NC-20’s expectation that following their [NC20’s] published critique, that CRC would set up a venue to have a professional scientific dialogue about the sea-level rise report – which would be followed by a corrected version.

    “Unfortunately, nothing like that happened. Instead, the panel members circled the wagons and defended their report.

  16. John Moore says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:36 am

    I have tried some years ago to find out from the Met Office how is it possible to tell the difference on a sea level guage whether the sea is rising or if the land is falling? Does Anthony or anyone know?
    ==========
    John, so far as I can determine you mostly can’t easily distinguish between sea level changing and tidal gauges moving up or down. For some high latitude locations, there is a component of elevation change that is due to isostatic rebound from the removal of the weight of glacial ice. Tables exist for calculating Glacial Isostatic Adjustment. Of course, the values in the tables could be more or less complete nonsense and only about six people on the planet would know it. And GIA is over and above any local tectonic changes.

    In a few cases, elevation changes have been determined relative to satellites (GPS … or similar). As it turns out, such measurements are a lot more complex than simply driving your rental car out to the target location. Planting your Garmin. And retiring to the hotel bar until the time comes to recover your instrument (assuming it hasn’t been stolen). It can be done. But it’s not easy, and the accuracy using today’s tools may be a bit less than we’d wish.

    I expect that precise determination of gauge elevation changes will become more common in the next decade or two. Maybe by 2030, we’ll have a better picture of tidal gauge tectonics. May or may not help with historic data. There’s no law that says that local tectonics have to be linear or predictable.

  17. I have tried some years ago to find out from the Met Office how is it possible to tell the difference on a sea level guage whether the sea is rising or if the land is falling? Does Anthony or anyone know?

    It’s easy – if the land is falling you get that funny feeling in your tummy(belly), like in a lift(elevator). Otherwise it must be the sea rising.

  18. fhhaynie says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:14 am

    This morning the Raleigh News and Observer did print John Droz, Jr’s reply in the “Peoples Forum”.
    ======================

    That is interesting that the Raleigh News and Observer printed John Droz’s reply. I will view their publication as I’m not that far away fron the Raleigh area and would like a source of ‘real news’ from that region. Have they covered the National Park Service actions with regards to the issues at the Outer Banks? Seems that the NPS is running amuck. In my circles there are several (10 – 15) people I know that no longer go there to fish. That does not include those that no longer go there with families for vacation. It was once a very nice place. The economic impact caused by the NPS must be enormous.

  19. FYI, re the Raleigh and Charlotte papers:

    1) I had over a dozen correspondences with them to get them to print this.
    2) they restricted me to 450 words, while the AGW proponents had op-eds of over 900 words.
    3) they edited what I wrote.

    So far the Charlotte paper has yet to publish what I sent them.

    Draw your own conclusions.

  20. John Moore: …how is it possible to tell the difference on a sea level guage whether the sea is rising or if the land is falling?

    I’ve puzzled about that myself. One tip-off: Look for a second station nearby and see how much they differ. Good example: San Francisco, and Alameda, right across the bay. If the difference is significant, you know the land is moving. Of course, you don’t know which location….

  21. Good one. From now on I will use last weeks astronomical data and predict a transit of Venus next Tuesday! (Btw why do people on this site say /sarc? … everyone else on the interwebs usually work that out for themselves).

    [REPLY: Maybe everyone else is brighter than we are. On the other hand, what is considered by one person as over-the-top satire turns out to be dead-serious reality to another. -REP]

  22. John Droz said:
    “3) they edited what I wrote.”

    Would it be possible to see the letter as you submitted it to them?

    Thanks.

  23. @Mat L
    How do you think they predicted the transit last week? Using a model based on bristlecone proxies?

  24. Matt L doesn’t think historical trend data is reliable. Numbers generated inside computers from whole cloth, now that’s reliability. {SARC}

  25. Mat L: We include the sarc tags so that our posts poking fun at the CAGW researchers don’t get confused with the actual positions of the CAGW researchers since the researchers are self parodies when looked at through the prism of the scientific method. We don’t want to be confused with some of the trolls.

  26. RE the Indiana Pi Bill

    I note the following from the Wiki article.
    Edwin J. Goodwin proposed a bill to Indiana Representative Taylor I. Record

    The text of the bill consists of a series of mathematical claims (detailed below), followed by a recitation of Goodwin’s previous accomplishments:
    “… his solutions of the trisection of the angle, doubling the cube and quadrature of the circle having been already accepted as contributions to science by the American Mathematical Monthly …

    Oh, published in a peer reviewed journal! How could he possibly be wrong?

    the Speaker accepted another member’s recommendation to refer the bill to the Committee on Swamplands, where the bill could “find a deserved grave”.

    It was transferred to the Committee on Education, which reported favorably;

    You can’t make this stuff up!
    The Senate didn’t pass it.

  27. The over-reliance on theoretical models by climate scientists has only succeeded in proving that Yogi was right:

    “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”
    — Yogi Berra

  28. All coastal building permits should be predicated on the presumption that a comet will mash into the Earth in the next 40 days and raise the sea-levels by 400ft (121.920m if you’re a Real Peer-Reviewed Climate Scientist). Otherwise, you’re just a science denier.

  29. Of course Like a stock or other investment, past performance is not a predictor of future events.

  30. “””””…..juanslayton says:

    June 13, 2012 at 10:19 am

    John Moore: …how is it possible to tell the difference on a sea level guage whether the sea is rising or if the land is falling?

    I’ve puzzled about that myself. One tip-off: Look for a second station nearby and see how much they differ. Good example: San Francisco, and Alameda, right across the bay. If the difference is significant, you know the land is moving. Of course, you don’t know which location….”””””

    What if the land that moves is thousands of miles away, but it creates a hole into which more sea water flows, so it lowers the sea level elsewhere; or raises it for that matter. The whole thing is in some sort of gravitational oozing all the time; but if icy comets keep crashing into earth all the time, then perhaps the sea levels will rise eventually.

  31. Stark: We could let them go with that and when the prices collapse we could all go in and buy up all the “wasted” land to protect them from it. It would be our great altruism (also known as very cheap beachside property! – shrimp on the barbie anyone?)

  32. Mat L says:
    June 13, 2012 at 10:20 am

    Good one. From now on I will use last weeks astronomical data and predict a transit of Venus next Tuesday! (Btw why do people on this site say /sarc? … everyone else on the interwebs usually work that out for themselves).

    =====================

    Mat, please look up Poe’s Law. The claims made by proponents of the “Cause” with regards to CAGW are so outrageous that it is necessary to add the /sarc tag at the end when making an outrageous parody. Their serious claims are that far removed from reality. Sad.

  33. Re:
    I have tried some years ago to find out from the Met Office how is it possible to tell the difference on a sea level gauge whether the sea is rising or if the land is falling? Does Anthony or anyone know?

    Don K gave some good advice at .

    To those interested in some more detail, go to an excellent British Oceanographic Service website . There you can find Tide gauges by location, worldwide, and you can compare contiguous areas.

    Here’s one way to go about it: Look up: Cape Cod MA, Boston MA, Portsmouth NH, and Rockland ME. The Cape (south of Boston) and NH and ME (both to Boston’s north) are basically in a diminutively rising flatline, while Boston shows a 30 year slowly rising increase, coinciding almost precisely with its downtown building boom with new skyscrapers cropping up like weeds, and constructed on not too solid partial bedrock mixed with land fill. So Boston actually shows land slowly sinking vs steadier regional land movement in both directions away from the city.

    To see the Glacial Isostatic (GI) effect, check out the negative Norwegian and Finland numbers, indicating land rise at as opposed to positive numbers which indicate either rising seas or if the numbers are positive on the larger side, sinking landmass: e.g Lusi China, Legaspi, Philippines, or the winner, Kushiro, Japan. Unlike the “fictional” GIA, which University of Colorado “adjusts” and attributes to the entire globe (contributing not one whit to actual Sea-Level rise), the local effects are real and measurable.

  34. John Moore: “…how is it possible to tell the difference on a sea level guage whether the sea is rising or if the land is falling?”

    The whole issue in NC is whether sea level is rising or falling relative to the land — the sea could go up 10m in the next century and it wouldn’t matter a bit to NC coastal communities if glacial rebound raised the coastline by the same amount (well, it might make some differences to rivers inland). Tide gauges are the perfect instrument for tracking the relative change.

  35. I went and read the responses to Mr. Droz’s letter in the paper and noticed that not one of them mentioned the scientific data in question. Each of them was either an ad hominem attack on his “true agenda” or an attempt at discrediting him by association. Truly amazing and dispiriting. The intellectual equivalent of “Yer mother wears Army boots!”

  36. @Snowsnake

    Since one side of this debate has now become a full religion complete with priests, sacrifices, and tithes, it seems appropriate to mention that history is replete with examples of the consequences of choices. In those times several hundred years B. C. E.

    There is no such thing as B.C.E. The period you are referring to already has a name and it is B.C.
    If you identify a period in history that does not already have a name you can coin one and hope that it will catch on. Similarly if you invent something new you can give it any name you like. The calendar using BC/AD was invented by the Venerable Bede who lived from 672/673 – 26 May 735. Therefore politically correct types such as yourself are well over a thousand years too late in coining the terms BCE/CE.

  37. This shows that reason starts to have the upper hand and trust in modelled truth evaporates.
    Also per the reactions and the pressure that comes it shows this will not be an easy win to the end.
    It is amazing how much garbage is the mass media producing and pouring down the throats of those who still have the bad habit to listen to them and how many people still believe in this …

  38. How much would you be willing to pay for a computer game? Just make it clear to the voters how much the CAGW computer game will cost them and they’ll start to pay attention.

  39. Wonderful! A few more level heads out there. North Carolina can stand proud. This will spread. Everywhere people are waking up. It might seem small so far, pollicy makers and others still blinking their eyes and getting the sleep out, but waking up they are. It is going to be a glorious day.

  40. They can always bring in a new law when the sea level rise increases to 4 times what it is now.

    • Bill Illis says:
      They can always bring in a new law when the sea level rise increases to 4 times what it is now.

      Why would they need to? If SLR rate INCREASED, then the historical data would SHOW the rate increase and support the conclusion that the rate WILL increase. A law that says to look at empirical data wouldn’t negate that.

  41. @Peter Crawford “Is that scientific enough ? ”
    Eh, no. Is that clear enough?
    Don’t get me wrong, observations are good. But it’s not science. One way of being scientific would be to see how your observations compare to other observations. It’s called looking at the big picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NOAA_sea_level_trend_1993_2010.png
    So yeah, there’s no sea level rise between Holyhead and Dublin, but that observation gives you no insight in to how sea levels are changing elsewhere.

  42. Bill, that would be pointless. But don’t worry because sea levels are not rising. I will let you know if they do. At the inner harbour here in Holyhead they have callibrated oceanometric gauges, otherwise known as “sticks”. The one near the end of the Holyhead breakwater (built in 1840) shows no sign of being deluged. I will keep an eye out.

  43. George E Smith:
    Case 1: What if the land that moves is thousands of miles away, but it creates a hole into which more sea water flows, so it lowers the sea level elsewhere;
    Case 2: or raises it for that matter.

    I bet Archimedes could address Case 2 for you.
    : > )

  44. This is a repeat attempt (to embed the appropriate links)

    tomwys said at:June 13, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    Re: John Moore June 13, 2012 at 7:36am
    
I have tried some years ago to find out from the Met Office how is it possible to tell the difference on a sea level gauge whether the sea is rising or if the land is falling? Does Anthony or anyone know?

    Don K gave some good advice at June 13th, 8:27AM.

    To those interested in some more detail, go to an excellent British Oceanographic Service website:

    http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/

    There you can find Tide gauges by location, worldwide, and you can compare contiguous areas.
    Here’s one way to go about it: Look up: Cape Cod MA (775), Boston MA (235), Portsmouth NH (Seavey Island)(288), and Rockland ME (1279). The Cape (south of Boston) and NH and ME (both to Boston’s north) are basically in a diminutively rising flatline, while Boston shows a 30 year slowly rising increase, coinciding almost precisely with its downtown building boom with new skyscrapers cropping up like weeds, and constructed on not too solid partial bedrock mixed with land fill. So Boston actually shows land slowly sinking vs steadier regional land movement in both directions away from the city.

    To see the Glacial Isostatic (GI) effect, check out:

    http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html

    The negative Norwegian and Finland numbers, indicate land rise, as opposed to positive numbers which indicate either rising seas or if the numbers are positive on the larger side, sinking landmass: e.g Lusi China, Legaspi, Philippines, or the winner, Kushiro, Japan. Unlike the “fictional” GIA, which University of Colorado “adjusts” and attributes to the entire globe (contributing not one whit to actual Sea-Level rise), the local effects are real and measurable.

  45. Roy,
    “There is no such thing as B.C.E. The period you are referring to already has a name and it is B.C.
    If you identify a period in history that does not already have a name you can coin one and hope that it will catch on. Similarly if you invent something new you can give it any name you like. The calendar using BC/AD was invented by the Venerable Bede who lived from 672/673 – 26 May 735. Therefore politically correct types such as yourself are well over a thousand years too late in coining the terms BCE/CE.”

    I actually agree with you. Every time I use BC/AD I get nasty comments. I decided to alternate. Give everybody a shot. I guess one should just go with the years ago phrase and say 2612 years ago for 600 years BC or about. (By the way, calling me politically correct is pretty comical–I am many things but not politically correct!) I just decided to try to communicate–you did understand me–and not sweat the jargon, argot, and code. Historians, religious people, chemists, biologists,
    hairdressers, and people who castrate sheep all have their special terms that they use in their field. If we want to communicate with each other we need to give each other a little slack.

  46. The NC CRC’s  Science Panel & scientists:
    – Used the Least Reliable Tide Gauge Data in NC.
    – Used Obsolete Reports
    – Used only One-sided Sea Level Rise  reports
    – Used only  One-sided Global Warming reports,
    – Admitted they did no science, only a “Literature Search”.
    – No 4 miles inundation of NC Tidelands over 150 years is visible .
    –  Ignored  US Coast Survey , and US Fish Services Tide Gauge Data 1850 1950.
    – Said, ‘What’s the Big Deal, Let’s wait 5 Years and see what happens.’ 
    – Confuse Erosion due to dredging, winds, waves and currents with inundation. 
    – Have not answered  questions about the above concerns.
    Thankfully, it looks like NC Legislators want verifiable Science
    upon which to base multi billion dollar public policy decisions that
    could harm tens of thousands of local, taxpaying property owners.
    This is serious business, and it’s good NC doesn’t base decisions on
    a comedy skit.
    Bill Price    Pine Knoll Shores
    PS: It might be helpful to urge the Science Panel to participate in an 
    Open Public Forum to answer above and other questions about their science.
    So far they have declined.

  47. This is old, but evidently still relevant. From The News Hour, May 19, 2009:
    HEIDI CULLEN: …Laura Devendorf lives on the coast, some 40 miles south of Savannah. She’s starting to see change, too.

    LAURA DEVENDORF, Sunbury, Georgia: We’re worried about sea level rise, indeed. I think everyone on the coast is. You can just sit there and see the tides getting bigger.

    NOAA reports the following from the Ft Pulaski gauging station:
    The mean sea level trend is 2.98 mm/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.33 mm/year based on monthly mean sea level data from 1935 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.98 feet in 100 years.

    Laura has remarkable eyesight.

  48. Can we outlaw models for making a weather forecast too? Using recent historical trends will surely make a better forecast.

  49. It has often been said to me by anonymous online commenters (never by pro mariners in person) that isostatic shift is to blame for “hiding” the rise in sea levels.

    This seems unlikely. The Island I live on is Anglesey, off the coast of Wales, UK. It has a very unusual geology for such a small island being composed of at least four plates : The Gwna group, skerries group, new harbour group, Holy Island group. Llanddwyn Island is another plate.

    The idea that all these different plates act in concert to mask sea level rise does not pass muster. It is a big Occam’s Razor fail. Sea levels off the coast of Wales are NOT rising

  50. Let’s not get all excited about what the NC “legislature” has done. In fact only the Senate has passed a very moderate bill which will certainly be dismantled and reconstructed before (if) it is ever passed by the House and signed by the lame-duck governor. The leading light of the 11 who voted against this bill in the Senate was one Martin Nesbitt, Democrat, Buncombe County, Majority Leader of the Senate. He represents Asheville, home of NOAA and Trenberth and he seemed, according to some of his reported remarks, to be more concerned that Colbert might make the state a laughing-stock, than he was about the effect the bill might have on the state’s economy. No doubt the science is a bit tedious for him as he is a Juris Doctor and a hereditary legislator.

  51. This is somewhat alarming. Can you seriously be expected to extrapolate from historical data when the consensus of the real experts have been saying for years that the multi-billion dollar computer models have being proclaiming for two decades that the sea level rise is on the verge of accelerating? Hope you live in a two story house, because one morning you are going to wake up and the 1st floor (ground floor in the UK) will be flooded 6ft deep.

    I have proof of this. In 2005, some of the worlds best experts on various potential tipping points got together and agreed that science was being too stringent in the potential threats that global warming could cause. After suitable humming and medication (or was that meditation), aided by a few glasses of Dom Perignon ’64 at the British Embassy in Berlin, it was realised that that collective the expertise on the possibility of tipping points, was much more alarming than the sum of the individual parts – the such as collapse of the Amazon rain forest, or the sudden melting of the Arctic Ice sheets. The result was a widely-acclaimed peer reviewed paper, which was widely

    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.full.pdf

    PS, I would be able to better it. You can save the flight, but a case of quality champers or claret would certainly improve the result.
    http://www.manicbeancounter.com

  52. About time someone used common sense. Chao, Yu, and Li reported in the 11th April Science of 2008 that the sea level rise had been linear for more than 80 years and that the slope of sea level rise curve for that entire period was 2.46 mm per year. For a century that works out 24.6 cm, just under 10 inches. This was real science available at a time when Al Gore imagining a twenty foot sea level rise and Florida under water. Their sea level figure used extensive published sea level measurements and also corrected for water held in storage by all dams built since the year 1900. They found this correction to be essential for without it a linear sea level curve could not be obtained. Nowadays we have satellite measurements that show short-term changes that are not well explained. I would stay with Chao, Yu and Li and North Carolina would be smart to do. Anything that has been linear as long as they observed it is not likely to change anytime soon.

  53. Bill says:
    June 13, 2012 at 2:54 pm
    Can we outlaw models for making a weather forecast too? Using recent historical trends will surely make a better forecast.
    ===============================================================
    I might be wrong, but the the weather forecasting models DO use recent information to make forecast. And, in case you didn’t notice, the further out they forecast less accurate they are. Only a fool would think a weather forecast can be made out to 100 years for any location let alone every location on the globe.
    Someone’s going to say, “Climate isn’t weather! We’re not talking about the weather in one place! We’re talking about global climate!” You’re talking all all the weather in all the places on the globe for 100 years. That’s supposed to make it easier to believe in the CAGW forecast?

  54. Slightly off this specific topic, but I remember many months ago reading something about the SLR measurements being padded. I think it something to do with about a fingernail’s width being added each year to the actual measurement. The excuse given had something to do with compensating for the land springing back after the ice age. Does anybody else remember that?

  55. Good to see the government increasing regulation. We can all agree increased government regulation is a good thing with never an unintended consequence.

  56. Just another day in the park for the models, until you look a little deeper into their accuracy.,,,,, Just don’t work historically speakin………

  57. toto (June 13, 2012 at 11:12 am)

    “Another glorious episode in the legislation of science, in the spirit of the the Indiana pi bill.”

    And if you note… it was based on someones model rather than actual observation. The N.C. bill points to observations rather than models.

  58. sceptical says:
    Good to see the government increasing regulation. We can all agree increased government regulation is a good thing with never an unintended consequence.

    As I’m reading it, this is increasing regulation ON GOVERNMENT.

  59. Thomas Hale Streets described Kingman reef in the 1870s:

    … It is entirely under water at high tide, and but a few coral heads project here and there above the surface at low water.

    After 140 years of sea level rise:

    There are two small strips of dry land composed of coral rubble and giant clamshells on the eastern rim with areas of 2 acres (8,000 m2) and 1 acre (4,000 m2)[4] having a coastline of 3 kilometres (2 mi).[2] The highest point on the reef is less than 5 feet (1.5 m) above sea level,[4] which is wetted or awash most of the time, making Kingman Reef a maritime hazard.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingman_Reef

  60. Be careful guys, models with small survey samples of household income assessments are used to determine money flow to states and local areas for socail programs. They can just nudge those models and punish you with less Federal largess by saying you are the 1 percent. Anyway, have a great time at the Dem convention in NC this year…..as soon as they shake down another industry to pay for it.

  61. Gunga Din says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:45 pm
    Slightly off this specific topic, but I remember many months ago reading something about the SLR measurements being padded. I think it something to do with about a fingernail’s width being added each year to the actual measurement. The excuse given had something to do with compensating for the land springing back after the ice age. Does anybody else remember that?
    ==================================================================
    I found the story. It’s about a year old.

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

  62. Oh, that’s good. Just pretend it isn’t happening. I thought Canute had that lesson covered a thousand years ago.

    Some will ignore the problem.
    Some will delay and deny.
    Some will panic and despair.
    Some will act selfishly.
    Some will act altruistically.
    Some will argue over differences of approach.
    Some will collaborate effectively.
    Some will show leadership.

    NC is legislating to ignore the problem. They’re ignoring the disclaimer on investment advice — past performance is no indication of future performance.

  63. mildaykerr~ they are pretending What isn’t happening? How can one ignore a problem that doesn’t exist?

  64. As temperatures rise, ice melts faster and the volume of water also increases. With a temperature of 76oF in Greenland in this May, can we really be so sure that the ice won’t melt? All that computer models do is put our best understanding of a process in mathematical form and show the result by projecting into the future. I don’t really see how it will cost taxpayers on the East Coast more money if projections show that they should not build their homes and other structures on land that is likely to be flooded during storms.

    Using a little caution may cost developers and current land owners, but it will save federal and state money in the longer term. Since insurance companies are following the science, perhaps lack of insurance will also help limit building in areas that are facing increasing risk of “recurrent flooding.”

  65. Epilogue: I’d missed this story, until an MSNBC fan and friend of mine announced to me the other day that North Carolina had made it illegal to accept scientific evidence that the sea levels are rising.

    Sigh.

Comments are closed.