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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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….
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.
John Droz notes that his letter was edited. Is it possible to get an unedited version?
@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}
Another glorious episode in the legislation of science, in the spirit of the the Indiana pi bill.
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
Oh, published in a peer reviewed journal! How could he possibly be wrong?
You can’t make this stuff up!
The Senate didn’t pass it.
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.
Of course Like a stock or other investment, past performance is not a predictor of future events.
“””””…..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.
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?)
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
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.
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.
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.