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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

What a good idea. Why didn’t someone think of that earlier.

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?)

Geo

They did John, but that idea hadn’t been peer-reviewed! /sarc

Mike

Nice to see intolerance to the AGW bs trickle down to policy makers

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. 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.

jayhd

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

Kaboom

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.

eyesonu

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.

Peter Crawford

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.

Congratulations to John Droz, Jr. for all of his efforts.

Andrew Greenfield
G. Karst

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

johanna

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

DJ

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.

Patrick Davis

Well f@&k my old sea boot…

Jonathan Smith

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

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

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

Nippy

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

John Moore

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?

Olen

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

tokyoboy
Ray

Woah… did pigs start to fly already?

Steve Richards

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! 🙂

AJ

Kaboom says:
June 13, 2012 at 6:35 am
“Too bad Colbert and Stewart are neck deep infatuated with the AGW nonsense;”
It’s my impression that Stewart hasn’t drank the Kool-Aid yet:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-winston/jon-stewarts-oddly-uneduc_b_347131.html
As for Colbert’s TV persona, he mocks everything. I haven’t watched the latest video though.

Bob W in NC

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.

Don K

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.

steveta_uk

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.

eyesonu

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.

gopal panicker

the politicians got one right…good for them

On the Eve of Rio+20 meetings the NC Senate says, “You can’t scare us any more. We are on to you.” A step in the right direction.

johndroz

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.

juanslayton

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….

Mat L

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]

John Droz said:
“3) they edited what I wrote.”
Would it be possible to see the letter as you submitted it to them?
Thanks.

Bob W in NC

John Droz notes that his letter was edited. Is it possible to get an unedited version?

Kaboom

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

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

toto

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

Owen in GA

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.

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.

Louis

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

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.

George E. Smith;

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

George E. Smith;

“””””…..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.

Owen in GA

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?)

Andrew

Ot but get onto Bernard Lane and let him know the truth re link to CA
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-paper-flawed/story-e6frgcjx-1226393519781

eyesonu

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.

TonyG

The whole thing is turning into “Republicans are anti-science” in the news. See this previous report http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccapitol/blogpost/11179532/ (names John Droz as a “climate change D*****”)
Nobody seems concerned about the fact that the 39″ rise is all speculation.