North Carolina to scientists: No you can't use exponential models

[Greenman]

You can NOT defend this, this is beyond stupid. What may or may not be the best way doesn't matter, they are just saying oh I like the results we get here so you can't use a different way. We don't care if it's realistic or not, reality doesn't matter to us we just care that the results are what we want to see.

If these are the people we have trying to run this country, it will be destroyed in the 20 or 50 years.

Read my post above please.
Also, please note that these people aren't running the country, they're running a state, and it may very well make sense for them to do this. I don't know if that's the case, but I like to know at least most of a story before I jump on the band wagon. The article in question is so one sided as to be ludicrous, so of course there has to be a great deal that wasn't mentioned.

I may very well be foaming at the mouth myself when all of the story comes out, but until then I'll restrain myself and see what other information comes to light.

 

[cybrsage]

Politicians should not dictate Science.

This is what happens when scientists turn political...politicians start to take over the science. When the Church of the AGW started to push government to legislate their views, you can expect some government to push back and tell them to ah heck off.

 

[cybrsage]

Does anyone have the actual bill the OP failed to post? Without it, we are all simply discussing the slanted opinion piece he did post.

 

[BigBarney]

Does anyone have the actual bill the OP failed to post? Without it, we are all simply discussing the slanted opinion piece he did post.

http://www.nccoast.org/uploads/documents/CRO/2012-5/SLR-bill.pdf

 

[cybrsage]

Thanks! So this is the part people are complaining about?

(e) The Division of Coastal Management shall be the only State agency authorized to develop rates of sea-level rise and shall do so only at the request of the Commission. These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise. Rates of sea-level rise shall not be one rate for the entire coast but, rather, the Division shall consider separately oceanfront and estuarine shorelines.

http://www.nccoast.org/uploads/documents/CRO/2012-5/SLR-bill.pdf

Given this info:

And that the measurements since then are linear as well. Also, you have this:

Sea level has been rising for the past 100+ years, as has been demonstrated by numerous real-world measurements. An important open question, however, is whether the rate-of-rise has accelerated in recent decades, since an acceleration is implied by greenhouse theory.

Normally, the approach to answering such a question would be to turn to measurements of the phenomenon; but in the case of sea level rise, there is a major problem in that tide gauge stations rise or fall as the land they sit upon rises or falls, thereby confounding the data. In addition, newer satellite measurements do not extend very far back in time. Thus, the method adopted in this study attempts to overcome these two issues.
Wenzel and Schroter use neural nets for infilling of missing data at individual stations and for estimating weights for individual gauges. They found 56 stations with at least 50 years of data; and they adjusted them before use by correcting for land movement (up or down). The training data for the neural net were three sets of altimetry data for recent decades, and all three results were shown. By basin, they indicated no net trend for the South Atlantic and tropical Indian Oceans, and a net decline in sea level for the Southern Indian Ocean. The Pacific Ocean showed an approximate 70-year oscillation in sea level that correlates (with lag) with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), while the Atlantic showed cycles of 23 and 65 years. Overall, ocean basin changes showed correlations with the PDO and Southern Annular Mode indices, with lags; and Wenzel and Schroter say this shows -- along with the clear annual cycles in sea level -- that their final result correctly reflects the effects of water temperature on sea level.
For the globe as a whole, the two researchers found a linear upward sea level trend of 1.56 mm/year, with no sign of acceleration in recent decades. This result is about one-half of the value used by the IPCC; and if continued, it would produce one-half foot of sea level rise over the next 100 years. These results thus agree with those of Hagedoorn et al. (2007) of 1.46 mm/year and Woppelmann et al. (2009) of 1.61 mm/year, as well as several other recent studies that give only slightly higher values around 1.7-1.8 mm/year.
In summation, it would thus appear that careful analyses of tide gauge records by multiple teams does not show the rapid sea level rise proposed by the IPCC; and they also do not show any acceleration of sea level rise.

http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/sep/03sep2010a7.html

I would say the law is simply being written to prevent the Church of the AGW from forcing bad science onto the people again. Basically, it is like passing a law saying they cannot teach Creationism in Science Class. This law will keep bad science from being used to lie to people.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along, move along.

 

[Hacp]

Most of these exponential models are horribly flawed. One thing I learned is that if you don't have data, extrapolating is pointless. Interpolation is useful, extrapolation is dangerous.

 

[SagaLore]

I think both the proposed law and the article author is an idiot.

 

[Greenman]

So it appears that there is indeed some reason behind a very limited restriction in how sea level measurements will be made for the government of one state.

Article was nothing more than a headline grabber. All the following gnashing of teeth, foaming at the mouth, and hand wringing was for not. Like I said, it's always best to get most of the story before over reacting.

 

[rchiu]

I think both the proposed law and the article author is an idiot.

Yeah the author made it looked worse than it is. It's NC law governing what NC commissioned study should use and shouldn't use, nothing to do with what anyone else or academic, scientific field should or shouldn't use. NC government certainly has their right to manage their study the way they wanted.

But having government official telling how scientist should do their work is always dumb, although that happens almost all the time in government sanctioned studies.

 

[SagaLore]

Thanks! So this is the part people are complaining about?

(e) The Division of Coastal Management shall be the only State agency authorized to develop rates of sea-level rise and shall do so only at the request of the Commission. These rates shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise. Rates of sea-level rise shall not be one rate for the entire coast but, rather, the Division shall consider separately oceanfront and estuarine shorelines.

I think this would have been more appropriate:

(e) The Division of Coastal Management shall be the only State agency authorized to develop rates of sea-level rise for the Commission. These rates shall only be determined using historical data. Rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated from historical data to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of unsubstantiated projections. Rates of sea-level rise shall not be one rate for the entire coast but, rather, the Division shall consider separately oceanfront and estuarine shorelines.

But even that is too specific. They could have just stopped after the first sentence and let the division decide how they were going to perform their work.

 

[QuantumPion]

So the whole debate is about whether there will be 8 inches vs 3 feet of sea level rise by the year 2100? Who the hell cares?

 

[RightIsWrong]

So the whole debate is about whether there will be 8 inches vs 3 feet of sea level rise by the year 2100? Who the hell cares?

I would think that the residents (or those interested in becoming residents) along with the rest of the state's taxpayers would have some concerns about the future of the coast and the potential money that they are investing in an area that may or may not even be around.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Politicians should not dictate Science.

Why not?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Why not?

Because most are woefully short of being able to understand simple math (just look at the budgets/bills that they propose) and having them tell people with actual pedigree in fields where they were most likely lucky to even get out of HS with a passing grade is just a little above their skill sets.

Now they can dictate what types of studies they are willing to fund, but they have no right to dictate how that study should be conducted.

 

[AeroEngy]

I think the author of this article is reaching a bit. However, legislating how to perform science is silly. Maybe linear models fit better maybe they don't but you don't limit yourself to a particular method, model, or approach to a problem ... that is just silly.

I think the following quote from Feynman is pretty appropriate here:

“No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”

 

[Lemon law]

So the whole debate is about whether there will be 8 inches vs 3 feet of sea level rise by the year 2100? Who the hell cares?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I nominate QuantumPion for the least incitement post on this thread. (a) An 8" rise in sea level may not be too serious by 2100, but a 3 foot rise in sea level by 2100 would be an internal disaster. (b) We are not talking just North Carolina here, a large rise in sea level will effect every low lying region on earth. (C) Point granted, our existing climate models are badly flawed, as they predict the greatest rise in global temperatures should be at the equator, and be almost zero at the South and North poles. But when, in the real world, we get exactly the opposite results, it tells us we understand very little about how the earth climate system distributes heat. And worse yet, when the greatest increase in global temperatures concentrate at both poles, its where the greatest concentration of land based ice is. If we melt the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps, we are talking sea level increases of 30 of meters or more. See geological history where better than 50 meters can be documented. (d) The biggest failed assumption is that climate and heat is a linear variable. When our main worry is that we will hit a tipping point where existing ocean current will change directions. If we alter the gulf steam current, all of Europe and Russia mat freeze while the USA may become a desert.

Climate science may not know yet, but do we want to play Russian Roulette with our climate?

 

[Howard]

What kind of sample size is that?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because most are woefully short of being able to understand simple math (just look at the budgets/bills that they propose) and having them tell people with actual pedigree in fields where they were most likely lucky to even get out of HS with a passing grade is just a little above their skill sets.

Now they can dictate what types of studies they are willing to fund, but they have no right to dictate how that study should be conducted.

What law are they violating? That they cannot legislate what they feel is the public interest or that they must have an informed opinion commensurate to the topic legislated? Indeed is not illegal and in fact has been effectively promoted by some. There is no legal requirement to have an informed opinion to legislate.

 

[sandorski]

What law are they violating? That they cannot legislate what they feel is the public interest or that they must have an informed opinion commensurate to the topic legislated? Indeed is not illegal and in fact has been effectively promoted by some. There is no legal requirement to have an informed opinion to legislate.

You're going to boil it down to Legality?

 

[lopri]

A dumb law from a dumb .... elected by ....

My only suspicion is whether this law is designed to provoke neighboring states, and inevitably, the federal government. States can and do pass dumb laws. There is nothing wrong with that as long as such laws do not violate the U.S. constitution. (Although I do have sympathy for the innocent )

But if this law provokes favorable/unfavorable reactions from neighboring states and those states pass similar/opposite laws (depending on which party is in power, I suppose), and there may be a point where the states cannot resolve the controversy without the fed's involvement. Then voila, we have another weapon for future in the hands of "state's rights" folks.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You're going to boil it down to Legality?

It's the standard for health care legislation so why not?

 

[fskimospy]

What law are they violating? That they cannot legislate what they feel is the public interest or that they must have an informed opinion commensurate to the topic legislated? Indeed is not illegal and in fact has been effectively promoted by some. There is no legal requirement to have an informed opinion to legislate.

Actually this might fail a rational basis review and would therefore be unconstitutional. It's difficult for me to see why prohibiting certain types of math could ever be considered a rational act.

I also have no idea how you were able to bring this back to health care.

 

[RightIsWrong]

What law are they violating? That they cannot legislate what they feel is the public interest or that they must have an informed opinion commensurate to the topic legislated? Indeed is not illegal and in fact has been effectively promoted by some. There is no legal requirement to have an informed opinion to legislate.

Where/how did you get the impression that I said that they have no legal right to do what they are saying?

What I said was that they shouldn't be trying to jump so far into the realm of science with what amounts to a very biased viewpoint and with such obvious conflicts of interest in the outcome based on the elimination of using one possible scientific method.

While it isn't illegal, it clearly violates the laws of common sense.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Where/how did you get the impression that I said that they have no legal right to do what they are saying?

What I said was that they shouldn't be trying to jump so far into the realm of science with what amounts to a very biased viewpoint and with such obvious conflicts of interest in the outcome based on the elimination of using one possible scientific method.

While it isn't illegal, it clearly violates the laws of common sense.

They have the right contrary to "they have no right". In fact I hold a fairly high standard. When considering legislation regarding complex subjects which involve a great many people they are morally compelled to become familiar with the topic and indeed if time does not permit that they should have the informed opinion of experts related to the subject to be regulated. That has met with mixed reviews. I want to know why ignorance is countenanced for a crucial matter, but then this is to be abhorred. Why is selective ignorance encouraged?

 

[fskimospy]

They have the right contrary to "they have no right". In fact I hold a fairly high standard. When considering legislation regarding complex subjects which involve a great many people they are morally compelled to become familiar with the topic and indeed if time does not permit that they should have the informed opinion of experts related to the subject to be regulated. That has met with mixed reviews. I want to know why ignorance is countenanced for a crucial matter, but then this is to be abhorred. Why is selective ignorance encouraged?

That's why the health care law was written using the work of thousands of experts over decades of intensive study. I'm unaware of such an incredibly large amount of expert work being put into this law, but if you know of some can you link it?