l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 August 7, 2012 Posted by David Robertson
The government of North Carolina is being mocked by believers in
anthropogenic global warming because the state’s Democrat governor
permitted a controversial legislative bill to become law.
North Carolina House Bill 819 prohibits state officials from relying on
current computer models to predict what the sea level along the state’s
coastline will be in the future.
An ABC News report about the controversial law states the following:
Republican State Rep. Pat McElraft, who drafted the law, called the law
a “breather” that allows the state to “step back” and continue studying
sea -level rise for the next several years with the goal of achieving a more
accurate prediction model.
“Most of the environmental side say we’re ignoring science, but the
bill actually asks for more science,” she said. “We’re not ignoring
science, we’re asking for the best science possible, the best extrapolation
possible, looking at the historical data also. We just need to make sure
that we’re getting the proper answers.”
North Carolina’s Science Panel on Coastal Hazards of the state Coastal
Resources Commission reported to the state legislature that the computer
models gave a mean (average) rise in sea level of 39 inches.
The Los Angeles Times reports the following:
Stanley R. Riggs, an East Carolina University geologist and one of 19
scientists who made the 39-inch projection, said the bill represents “a
criminally serious disregard for science.”
The Science Panel on Coastal Hazards of the state Coastal Resources
Commission consists of marine scientists, geologists and engineers who
relied on tide gauges, satellite altimetry, storm records and geologic data.
They cautioned that predicting long-term sea level change is “an inexact
exact science,” saying the report reflects “the likely range” of sea
level rise due to global warming and the melting of ice shelves.
Because sea levels and scientific knowledge are advancing rapidly, Riggs
said in an interview, the panel recommended recalculating sea level
projections every five years.
Wait a minute. If sea level projections need to be recalculated every five
years, then how can civil engineers properly plan public works projects at
or near the coastline?
The Los Angeles Times article also states, “Riggs, the geologist, said the
panel had preferred to report a range of projected sea level rises — from
15 to 18 inches to 55 inches, based on each member’s projections. But
because the commission demanded an absolute number, the panel took the mean
of the range, or 39 inches.”
So, the projection of a 39-inch rise in sea level was not made by any
computer model. Instead, it is a statistic about different projections made
by nineteen scientists.
Why should civil engineers base the planning of an infrastructure project on
such a statistical average when, according to Riggs, sea level projections
need to be recalculated every five years? What if infrastructure is built
according to an assumed 39-inch rise in sea level, and the actual rise in
sea level is 55 inches? Who, then, would have to pay for the damage
resulting from the mistaken assumption?
If sea level projections need to be recalculated every five years, then why
shouldn’t state officials wait until the scientists recalculate their
projections five years from now? If those nineteen scientists cannot
guarantee that their sea level projections will be accurate five years from
now, then why should state officials use those current projections?
I can’t answer the above questions. Perhaps someone else can.
Meanwhile, in another state, computer models pertaining to climate change
are being used in the planning of water conservation.
Here is an excerpt from a document published by a government agency within
that state:
. . . Task 2D.8, Investigate Climate Change “What if” Scenarios, this
portion of the addendum provides a summary of the preliminary demand
forecasts under selected climate change scenarios. Included is a brief
description of the global climate change scenario data developed . . . the
steps taken by CDM to transform the climate data, and how corresponding
demand scenarios were developed for the Municipal and Industrial (M&I) and
Irrigated Agriculture sectors. . .
. . . Definition of future climate change scenarios is derived from
contemporary climate simulation information. Climate simulation models have
been developed and applied to estimate global and/or continental climatic
conditions during the 21th century. These climate simulations must then be
downscaled . . .
. . . According to a recent report by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
review of current downscaled climate projections . . . suggests that _______
_____________ likely to be warmer in the future, although the rate of
warming varies. Projections of precipitation differ from model to model and
range between drier and wetter than historical conditions (Bureau of
Reclamation, 2010).
So, which state is using computer models that predict climate change? Click
here to find out. |
|
