North Carolina Taliban try to muzzle climate scientists

[dissident]

http://grist.org/list/north-carolina-tr ... evel-rise/

The state General Assembly’s Replacement House Bill 819 would rule that scientists are not allowed to accurately predict sea-level rise

Wow. What nutjobs. The problem will go away if they pretend it is not happening. What's the collective IQ of these specimens, about 50?

[davep]

Wow, those chaps are scary. I do like the comment below:

Sounds like The Simpson’s Springfield after they narrowly escaped from being destroyed by a comet,
“let’s burn down the observatory so this never happens again.”

[Satori]

yes
another proud moment in North Carolina history
but it is nice to know that the sea level can't rise
because a bunch of asshat NC politicians have basically said so

[dorlomin]

http://grist.org/list/north-carolina-tries-to-outlaw-sea-level-rise/

The state General Assembly’s Replacement House Bill 819 would rule that scientists are not allowed to accurately predict sea-level rise

Wow. What nutjobs. The problem will go away if they pretend it is not happening. What's the collective IQ of these specimens, about 50?

Given the outlook of that legislature, perhaps they could get round this by calling it intelligent coastal redesign.

[dohboi]

It looks like VA is outdoing even the NC nutjobs (or I should say Cnut-jobs)--they won't even allow the words "sea-level rise" to be used--too left wing!

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/10/496982/virginia-lawmaker-says-sea-level-rise-is-a-left-wing-term-excises-it-from-state-report-on-coastal-flooding/

Virginia Lawmaker Says ‘Sea Level Rise’ Is A ‘Left Wing Term,’ Excises It From State Report On Coastal Flooding

It looks like they felt they had to avoid this term to get it past the even-more-insane Tea-Party-ers, who go ballistic if anything with the faintest whiff of climate science gets into legislation.

Meanwhile, it looks like the NC legislature has backed down a bit on banning science from policy:

N. Carolina Senate decides to include science in sea level projections after all

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/n-carolina-senate-decides-to-include-science-in-sea-level-projections-after-all/

[Lore]

Reminds me of a Monty Python movie. Scene from Erik the Viking where Hy-Brazil sinks into the ocean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IBnfkcrsM&feature

[dissident]

Meanwhile, it looks like the NC legislature has backed down a bit on banning science from policy:

N. Carolina Senate decides to include science in sea level projections after all

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/06/n-carolina-senate-decides-to-include-science-in-sea-level-projections-after-all/

Somebody must have told them that their attempt at totalitarianism was against the US constitution.

The whole notion that some NC agency would be the only source allowed to project sea level rise (with Mickey Mouse methods at that) is beyond absurd. The Atlantic Ocean is not some lake in NC.

[Plantagenet]

The North Carolina legislator who wants to legislate against projections of sea level rise was far outdone by Obama in 2008 who promised a nationwide TV audience that, if elected President, he would stop the seas from rising---. Obama seemed to think he was King Canute:

Canute turned towards the ocean—"Back!" he said, "thou foaming brine.

"From the sacred shore I stand on, I command thee to retreat;
Venture not, thou stormy rebel, to approach thy master's seat:
Ocean, be thou still! I bid thee come not nearer to my feet!"

But the sullen ocean answered with a louder, deeper roar,
And the rolling waves drew nearer, falling closer on the shore


Obama, like King Canute before him, pledged to stop the seas from rising

[Lore]

The North Carolina legislator who wants to legislate against projections of sea level rise was far outdone by Obama in 2008 who promised a nationwide TV audience that, if elected President, he would stop the seas from rising---. Obama seemed to think he was King Canute:

Canute turned towards the ocean—"Back!" he said, "thou foaming brine.

"From the sacred shore I stand on, I command thee to retreat;
Venture not, thou stormy rebel, to approach thy master's seat:
Ocean, be thou still! I bid thee come not nearer to my feet!"

But the sullen ocean answered with a louder, deeper roar,
And the rolling waves drew nearer, falling closer on the shore

Umm, analogy already used to describe the NC, GOP legislators here.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... g-science/

[Plantagenet]

Umm...IMHO an appropriate analogy for the NC legislators who won't heed scientific projections of sea level rise would be an ostrich who hides his head to avoid seeing danger coming, or King Priam or any of the other Greek mythological characters who refused to head the warnings of Cassandra or other seers or perhaps one of the Jewish Kings who refuse to believe the warnings of one of the various prophets.

Nope----King Canute matches with Obama---its perfect. King Canute does't symbolize not heeding a warning----King Canute symbolizes a man who is so stupid and egomaniacal he claims he will stop the sea from rising---- just as a stupid and vainglorious Obama did in 2008.

[Lore]

Or perhaps, the truth be known, you're just finally running out of fresh ideas to vilify President Obama even when it makes no sense?

Obama has indeed paid little attention to addressing one of the most crucial problems of our age, but it's not the same as denying it exists.

[dorlomin]

Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.' He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again "to the honour of God the almighty King"

FWIW the old story of Cnut the Great used to be a tale of piety for a man renowned for his Christian piety ruling countries where the old gods still had a lot of sway.

[PeakOiler]

This article is dated (October 17, 2011) but related:

State Agency Objects to Research on Sea Level Rise in Galveston Bay

It's unclear when or if a state-commissioned report on the long-term health of Galveston Bay will be published after researchers balked at requests by environmental agency officials to remove references to sea level rise and human involvement in climate change.

At issue is "State of the Bay: A characterization of the Galveston Bay Ecosystem," by the Houston Advanced Research Center, a nonprofit group that pursues regional sustainability.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality said in a statement that it disagrees with certain parts of the report and said it would be "irresponsible to take whatever is sent to us and publish it."

The deletions are not limited to mentions of human-induced climate change — a theory agency commissioners have questioned in public meetings — but also include long-term sea level rise cited in other peer-reviewed research, Anderson said.

The report's researchers said they would be fine with including in the report an article offering an alternative view on sea level rise or climate change. Gonzalez, who met with commission staff along with Lester, said that idea never took off.

"In the scientific community, it is fine to argue about theories. It is not OK to either create fake facts or to delete valid facts," Lester said. "If (agency administrators) had supplied us with some alternatives, we could have done the typical scientific discussion.
<snip>
John Anderson, a Rice University oceanographer who wrote a chapter on sea level rise on the upper Texas coast, said the state is attempting to censor him and keep the public misinformed.

"To have a state agency come and say, 'That's not keeping up with our philosophy.' That's just absurd," Anderson said. "That's just non-science."

Please see the entire article.

[Lore]

Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.' He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again "to the honour of God the almighty King"

FWIW the old story of Cnut the Great used to be a tale of piety for a man renowned for his Christian piety ruling countries where the old gods still had a lot of sway.

Exactly, the legend was an example and admonishment to power by the king. The fools are those who believe power can overcome all things.

[rockdoc123]

There is some good background information on how this story played out written by the author of the scientific review that caused the government to make this decision.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/11/science-vs-agw-advocacy-in-north-carolina/

The brief version is that this began several years ago when a state agency (Coastal Resource Commission: CRC) selected a 20± member “science panel” to do a scientific assessment of the NC SLR situation through 2100. This could have been a very useful project if there had been balance in the personnel selections, and the panel’s assessment adhered to scientific standards. Regrettably neither happened and the project soon jumped the rails, landing into the political agenda ditch.
In their 2010 report the panel concluded that NC should expect a 39 inch SLR by 2100. Their case was built around a 2007 paper by Stefan Rahmstorf, and was not encumbered by a single reference to a perspective different from Rahmstorf’s. Shortly after the report was released, state agencies started making the rounds of NC coastal communities, putting them on notice that they would need to make BIG changes (elevating roads and bridges, rezoning property, changing flood maps for insurance purposes, etc.).
As an independent scientist, I was solicited by my coastal county to provide a scientific perspective on this report. Even though I wasn’t a SLR expert, I could clearly see that this document was a classic case of Confirmation Bias, as it violated several scientific standards. But to get into the technical specifics I solicited the inputs of about 40 international SLR experts (oceanographers, etc.).

The conclusions of the Critique were:

Among other things, the Critique concluded that the CRC Panel’s Report:
1) was not a scientific assessment of the NC SLR issue,
2) did not do a balanced literature search regarding SLR,
3) did not synthesize the “best available science” on SLR,
4) made several unsupported assumptions in coming to their conclusions,
and
5) ignored their main researcher’s latest data (at the time of the report).
In short, the CRC Report appears to be a classical case of Confirmation Bias.

the critique can be found at:
http://www.macvspc.info/A_Different_Perspective-2.pdf

The gov't took ill-advised action twice...first they mandated actions based on a poorly constructed study and then they reacted in a 180 degree manner and legislated the opposite.

What is stranger yet is that for this part of the US coastline subsidence plays a large part of recognized Relative Sea Level measurements and no attention has been paid to regulating human affects on such subsidence.

[Timo]

I think most of us here can recognize that simple climate change deniers, science deniers, or any other denier who can't grasp that humans can, indeed , change the world we live in, those people have a very simple mind, and for the most part, are ignored. However, if these same people claim to speak for someone else, that they have seen the light and are speaking for God, suddenly, we all pay very close attention and heed their prophecies. Their denials instantly become much more legitimate.

[EnergyUnlimited]

What about introducing ban on sea level rise in form of new amendment to American Constitution?

[dorlomin]

There is some good background information on how this story played out written by the author of the scientific review that caused the government to make this decision. He however claims to have made a fortune as a property developer.

(Coastal Resource Commission: CRC) selected a 20± member “science panel”

Dr. Margery Overton, Chair Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, N.C. State University
Mr. Steven Benton N.C. Division of Coastal Management (retired), Raleigh
Mr. William Birkemeier Field Research Facility, ERDC/CHL, US Army Corps of Engineers
Dr. William Cleary Center for Marine Science, University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Mr. Tom Jarrett, P.E. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Retired), Wilmington
Dr. David John Mallinson Department of Geological Sciences, East Carolina University
Dr. Charles "Pete" Peterson Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Dr. Stanley R. Riggs Department of Geological Sciences, East Carolina University
Dr. Antonio B. Rodriguez Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Mr. Spencer Rogers North Carolina Sea Grant, Wilmington
Dr. Elizabeth Judge Sciaudone, P.E. N.C. State University, Raleigh
Dr. Gregory Williams, P.E. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Dr. Robert S. Young Department of Geosciences, Western Carolina University

Exactly what youd expect to see on a team on coastal sea level rise.
http://www.macvspc.info/A_Different_Perspective-2.pdf
But here is the counter report, the money shot.

“There is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in
the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly
chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And
the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been
using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is
that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.
“Despite fluctuations down as well as up, ‘the sea is not rising,’ he says. "’t
hasn't risen in 50 years.’ If there is any rise this century it will ‘not be more
than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm’. And
quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of
physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured
up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

Every known scienetific method?


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/image ... n_2011.pdf
Yes tilting graphs is a well known scientific method.

Same old tired names, same old tired games.

[rockdoc123]

Same old tired names, same old tired games.

didn't bother to read any of it other than the names did you? Speaking of tired old games.
Nils Morner has some eccentric ideas (dousing) but many scientists more famous have been even more eccentric. What he has done is publish several hundred papers on historical sea level rise, eustacy and isostacy in peer reviewed journals which makes him knowledgeable in the subject, much more so than anyone on that committee. The reference to Morner in this critique is in reference to the fact that the historical sea level rise measured by tidal gauges and corrected for subsidence and uplift does not match with the corrected satellite data and indeed shows historical rise of about 1 mm/yr which is much less than any of the forward predicting models would suggest. If you want to argue with his methodology then I suggest you critique one of his published papers rather than refer to a Monckton paper.

The point being made in the critique is the "esteemed" group you point to only used one reference which has been demonstrated by various reviews to be incorrect (if you wish I can post what those references are). Not only that but that particular reference is based heavily on modeling, not on observations. Please point to the expert in this committee familiar with climate models and/or statistical analysis.

Are you arguing that it is OK for the committee to base their analysis on one paper, a paper that has been demonstrated to be incorrect?

[dorlomin]

Same old tired names, same old tired games.

didn't bother to read any of it other than the names did you?

I did not just read the article you posted but had a quick look through the linked article.

As for Nils Morner, his work is subject to a huge amount of criticism. His criticism of the satellites makes no real sense. It amounts to tilting a graph to make it fit his world view. Studies like GRACE have shown the ice loss from Greenland while there has been a lot of work looking at the mining of aquifers that have also been adding to sea level rise.

As for looking at tide gauges alone.....

Multi-century sea-level records and climate models
indicate an acceleration of sea-level rise, but no 20th
century acceleration has previously been detected. A
reconstruction of global sea level using tide-gauge data
from 1950 to 2000 indicates a larger rate of rise after 1993
and other periods of rapid sea-level rise but no significant
acceleration over this period. Here, we extend the
reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and
find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004
of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 ±
0.3 mm yr 1 and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise
of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm yr 2. This acceleration is an important
confirmation of climate change simulations which show an
acceleration not previously observed. If this acceleration
remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range
from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the
IPCC TAR. Citation: Church, J. A., and N. J. White (2006), A
20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

http://naturescapebroward.com/NaturalRe ... 024826.pdf

500 odd sites. Perhaps it is wrong, but it is very well supported in the literature and with multiple independent lines of evidence that sea level rise is greater than 1mm per year, that the general mainstream view is acceptable and that by increasing the longwave radiation that is returned to the surface by the atmosphere, this will increase the surface warming and there will be more ice melting.

You want to defend that lot, fine by me. I am not averse to calling out the cranks on the global warming side.

For Morner to be right either a global conspiracy of scientists from various different agencies are colluding to fabricate data, while on the ground other scientists are fabricating tide gauges and the like.
Or a long line of unlikely mistakes on various satellite systems just happens to be the same mistakes as various readings form the surface. For example JASON-1 has two different means of calculating its altitude, GPS and surface laser altimeter.

People will jump on GPS and claim it only offers accuracy of a few meters. This is true for a single reading over minutes. But over years it can accumulate a huge number of readings and use the same algorithms make incredibly accurate readings. To be fair as the satellite moves its altitude will vary as the surface of the earth changes shape and the gravity is not consistent but they have a long time and hundreds of millions of readings to take.

So the claim is that different methodologies on different satellites over a decade and a half have coincidently brought the same error that a whole other set of methods and methodological errors have created.

Either that or Morner is a crank. I leave the reader to their opinions on the matter.