North Carolina Scientists Cull the Chaff from the Data, Keep the Chaff and Find that the Sea Levels Rise......

polifrog



What if North Carolina scientists produced a scientific study that winnowed 12,000 years of data down to roughly 35 years of data within  eight charts, then proceeded winnow those eight charts of data down to one? And what if the data retained in each of the cullings was the most extreme? Would you say that they kept the chaff and threw out the grain?

Would the result be an abuse of science?

Since the last Ice Age or glaciation sea levels have been rising and  for planning and development reasons the state of North Carolina needs to know the likelihood and magnitude of sea level change as it applies to the North Carolina coast.  To that end a report on the magnitude of sea level change  along the North Carolina coast was prepared in 2010 by the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission’s Science Panel on Coastal Hazards.

Here is that North Carolina Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report.

Colbert recently did an entertaining, if uneducated, report referencing the findings of the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission’s Science Panel on Coastal Hazards:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Let's take a closer look at the report that predicts a 39" rise in sea level over the next 100 years along the coast of North Carolina.

Fortunately the report's 19 contributors belies its brevity, a brief  eight pages including charts, thus very little patience is required for the following background.

The objective according to the report:

The intent of this report is to provide North Carolina’s planners and policy makers with a scientific assessment of the amount of SLR likely to occur in this century.

The report references but does not use all the  data from four studies covering different periods of time:

• 12000 years ago to the present - Horton et al. (2009) which found that the (RSL)  relative sea level rose roughly 19"/century from 12000 years ago to 3500 years ago then dropped to 4"/century from 3500 years ago until today.
• 2000 years ago to the present - Kemp (2009 thesis) which found that  (RSL) relative sea level rise was 4"/century except during the Medieval Warm Period during which the sea level rose at a rate of 6.7"/century  and except for the 20th century during which time the relative sea level rose at 12.6"/century.
• 500 years ago to the present - Kemp et al. (2009) which found a 20th century rise in (RSL) relative sea level  of 13"/century.
• 35-75 years ago to the present - Zervas (2004) which found a variety of rates of change in MSL ranging from 8"/century to 16.8"/century through data charts 

As can be seen above the Science Panel had at its disposal 12000 years of data.  The first culling of that data occured when the Science Panel chose the Zarvas (2004) data while excluding the other data sets.  According to the Science Panel:

The Science Panel has chosen to use the tide gauge data for projections because the tide gauge data represent a more direct indicator of sea level. 

That choice allowed the Science Panel to effectively ignore 11,965 years of the 12,000 years of data or 99.7% of their data and focus on the most extreme rates of change in sea level.  Also note that the choice to focus exclusively on tide gauge data resulted in measuring MSL rather than relative sea level (RSL). Or stated another way, the data the Science Panel chose represents changes in sea level without regard to geographical or  geological changes that may have resulted in the appearance of a changing sea level.   MSL as defined by the Science Panel "is simply a measure of the increase in the volume of water in the oceans, expressed as a change in the height of the oceans."  

Below is the data that remains after the Science Panel completed its first culling of their data:

Note that the rate of sea level  change  in some locations along the North Carolina coast is much greater than in other areas.  That may seem odd but  such variation could be explained local geology and by geological processes if not for the fact that such processes were not taken into account in this data.   

The second culling of the data occurred when the Science Panel chose to ignore 7 of 8 tide table charts or nearly 90% of the data that remained from the first culling.  One would think the Science Panel may have chosen the median, Beaufort or Atlantic Beach, for example. Or, perhaps, one would have thought that if the Science Panel were truly interested in producing a chart from which the whole of  the North Carolina coast may derive utility it would have taken an average of all the available tide table data.  But, no.  The Science Panel chose the fringe readings within the tide gauge charts produced by the Duck NC tide gauge.  

So, to recap.  The Science Panel first reduced their data by 99.7% .  Then of the .3% of data that remained  another 90% was simply ignored.  Not only did the Science Panel dispense with most of their data, but in each culling event the most extreme data was retained from which to project the amount of sea level rise (SLR) that was likely to occur during the next 100 years off the coast of North Carolina.

Below are the results from the above abuse of science and data  -- what is laughably called a "minimum trend line" (in green) derived from the most extreme data that the Science Panel had available and  from which the same panel could project  a  rate of sea level rise of 39"/century via highly questionable IPCC modeling.  

It is no wonder the NC legislature may consider a bill to guard NC from such fantasy science being produced by the state itself. It's a waste and a distraction.

out

No More Miller...

polifrog




Brad Miller's immoral vote in favor ObamaCare was the impetus behind my "getting involved". Now he is gone.


You're welcome.

Miller has represented the 13th Congressional District which stretches across the northern counties from the Triangle to the Triad since 2002. The district includes all of Caswell and parts of Guilford and Rockingham Counties.

out

GK Butterfield (NC-1) -- Supporting Small Businesses With a Deluge of Paper and Regulation...

polifrog


Remember the ObamaCare tax break on small businesses? It was the sort of tax break GK Butterfield could get behind.

Here is that tax break in simplified flowchart form...

GK Butterfield's belief that this constitutes support for small business is delusional.

Delusional politicians are Bad for America, Bad for North Carolina, Bad for small business, Bad for jobs, Bad for growth.




out

David Price (NC-4) Supporting Small Businesses With a Deluge of Paper and Regulation...

polifrog


Remember the ObamaCare tax break on small businesses? It was the sort of tax break David Price could get behind.

Here is that tax break in simplified flowchart form...

David Price's belief that this constitutes support for small business is delusional.

Delusional politicians are Bad for America, Bad for North Carolina, Bad for small business, Bad for jobs, Bad for growth.




out

Bob Etheridge (NC-2) -- Supporting Small Businesses With a Deluge of Paper and Regulation...

polifrog


Remember the ObamaCare tax break on small businesses? It was the sort of tax break Bob Etheridge could get behind.

Here is that tax break in simplified flowchart form...

Bob Etheridge's belief that this constitutes support for small business is delusional.

Delusional politicians are Bad for America, Bad for North Carolina, Bad for small business, Bad for jobs, Bad for growth.




out

Rep. Brad Miller (NC-13) -- Supporting Small Businesses With a Deluge of Paper and Regulation...

polifrog


Remember the ObamaCare tax break on small businesses? It was the sort of tax break Brad Miller could get behind.

Here is that tax break in simplified flowchart form...

Brad Miller's belief that this constitutes support for small business is delusional.

Delusional politicians are Bad for America, Bad for North Carolina, Bad for small business, Bad for jobs, Bad for growth.




out

Rep. Brad Miller, the Silent Incumbent Candidate...A Polifrog Call to Bloggers to Stand Athwart Brad Miller's Silence and Rattle the Cage

polifrog


Congressman Brad Miller's silence as an incumbent candidate is stunning.

Polifrog was directed to this piece at Carolina Journal via Google-Alerts, as it has been one of the few alerts over the past month that has mentioned Brad Miller the congressman and not Brad Miller the basketball player. In questioning multiple NC candidates on the expiring "Bush tax cuts" Carolina Journal tuck this response from Brad Miller at the end its article.

"Rep. Brad Miller, a Democrat who was elected in 2002, did not respond."

It seems all those candidates -- all democrats -- who chose not to respond should have had their response printed at forefront of the article. Shameful.

Brad Miller's silence is epic and promoted by a lazy local press. Google-news captures Brad Miller's name only 25 times for the past month under congressman "Brad Miller", four hits of which are of the athlete Brad Miller who it seems is now playing for the Rockets and a single reference to another Brad Miller who plays base ball. That leaves 20 hits referencing Congressman Brad Miller of NC. Of those 20, two simply mention Brad Miller in a list. What does this say of our press? Will they print nothing that isn't first passed on to them from Brad Miller? Do they do no research with their often vaunted research tools of there own? It certainly seems they are little more than Brad Miller's megaphone to the people.

What of the blogs? The same search for Congressman "Brad Miller" under a Google-blog search for the past month yielded 529 hits. This was narrowed down to 72 results by searching "Rep Brad Miller". Although these numbers seem high compared with the "news" category of hits, these numbers are shamefully low. Polifrog has unfortunately played a roll in this silence on Brad Miller. Polifrog has found it easy to wait for Brad Miller to speak and only then to reply. For this Polifrog apologizes.

As an incumbent Congressman Brad Miller's silence will propel him to an easy victory against Bill Randall this November. There is little that Brad Miller can point to in the past two years as proof of his positive stewardship of North Carolina. Instead, Brad Miller's record of voting in the Senate stands in contrast to North Carolina morals and in particular, the morals of district 13. Polifrog believes our liberal press knows this and is clearly standing with Brad Miller's chosen course of silence.

Polifrog calls to all bloggers with such an interest to not rest on their laurels as Polifrog has done in recent weeks -- waiting for Google Alerts -- and, instead, look for those stories our local press refuses to cover in their bid to give Brad Miller the silence he desires. It is up to the bloggers of NC to do the job of the press, to raise the questions they refuse to raise, to bring up Brad Miller's past voting record, to expose him as the extreme liberal with no respect for founding principles that he is, and attempt to inform our public that Brad Miller is not their parent's Democrat.

Brad Miller, not your parent's Democrat.





out

(NC-13) Runoff Prediction - Bill Randall , Bernie Reeves

polifrog


Bill Randall and Bernie Reeves have been pitted against one another due to NC election rules that trigger a runoff between the top two vote receivers if no candidate clears the required 40% minimum.

There have been two debates. One attended by the public and one televised. Both were reviewed by Polifrog here and here. The first was quite cordial while the second was significantly more contentious due to Reeves' series of attacks, a tactic the Reeves Campaign began to employ after the first debate. As a result the past month has seen a series of fair criticisms punctuated by character attacks on Bill Randall by Bernie Reeves. In both debates Reeves showed either flashes of anger (to guffaws in the crowd) or moments of clear frustration.

By contrast, there have been no attacks on Reeves by Randall and no anger or frustration expressed by Randall. Polifrog, though, has become concerned with Randall's over reliance on pat, seemingly memorized answers to questions, while at the same time often stumbling through answers to questions that are outside the normal pap candidates endure. A perfect example of this was Randall's recent flap over what the press characterized as an accusation of collusion between BP and the Government to cause the Gulf oil spill. Of course, Randall made no such accusation. His fumbling through his answer, though, allowed for an easy twisting of his words into something he did not intend.

Reeves has many traditional strengths. Money (as compared to Randall), old establishment experience in Carter Wrenn, and what Polifrog believes is an often overlooked support in the local press due to Reeves' long history as a part of the journalism business in Raleigh. This strength was best employed by Biesecker in his spin on the Randall BP/Government collusion statements as pointed out by Polifrog here.

Randall's strengths are fewer but perhaps more influential. He seems to have the excitement of the people at his back. Polifrog has watched this excitement daily through google alerts which admittedly became biased after Randall's BP statements, but prior to which Randall dominated in terms of hits. Not only does he have the excitement of the people, but he has history at his back as well. It seems a new type of republican is sweeping into office due to the disappointment that was the republican congress during the Bush years and the shock of the Obama agenda. Reeves seems, fairly or unfairly, tied to that disappointing congress under Bush while Randall has successfully tied himself to the energized Tea Party movement.

For these reasons Polifrog calls it, and not without reservation, for Bill Randall.


Related posts by Polifrog

• Debate 1 -- NC-13 -- Impressions
• Video of Runoff Debate Between Bill Randall and Bernie Reeves
• Bill Randall -- Plagiarism?
• A Response to Carter Wrenn's Fair Tax Attack on Bill Randall
• Debate 2 - Bernie Reeves vs. Bill Randall Impressions 1
  
• Debate 2 - Bernie Reeves vs. Bill Randall Impressions 2
  
• NC-13 - Bernie Reeves' Friends in the Press Have His Back - Dump on Randall
  
• Bernie Reeves and His Fickle Friends in the Press
• ***Carter Wrenn and Bernie Reeves Skirting Privacy Law on Randall's MBA***
  
• Randall's MBA Confirmed -- Reeves' Sullied Campaign Confirmed
• Bernie Reeves and the Press -- The Only Conclusion is Collusion
• Bill Randall, Bernie Reeves and the Gulf Oil Spill
• Bill Randall Responds to the Biesecker Spin on his BP Comments
• Gulf Oil, Bill Randall, Bernie Reeves, BP, and a Quickly Nearing Election

out

Brad Miller NC-13 -- Supporting Small Businesses With a Deluge of Paper and Regulation

polifrog


Remember the ObamaCare tax break on small businesses?  It was the sort of tax break Brad Miller could get behind.

Here  is that tax break in simplified flowchart form...

Brad Miller's belief that this constitutes support for small business is delusional.

Delusional politicians are Bad for America, Bad for North Carolina, Bad for small business, Bad for jobs, Bad for growth.




out

Oklahoma House Overrides Governor's Veto of Opt out of ObamaCare Bill:

polifrog


Oklahoma's Governor Henry vetoed a bill that would have allowed Oklahoma to opt out of ObamaCare. Like Bev Purdue, he believes weakening the state he represents is good for his state.

Unlike NC, though, Oklahoma has a house that represents the people of the state and Oklahoma's house has voted to override their Governor's veto. Good. Unfortunately, in the Oklahoma senate the result may not be so positive.

The fact that Oklahoma has representatives enough to put their pro ObamaCare representatives on record as being pro ObamaCare is a wonderful thing, as many will likely loose their seats as a result.

NC does not have this advantage.






out

Randall / Reeves Debate -- NC-13 -- Impressions

polifrog


Tonight I met both Bernie Reeves and Bill Randall. They are competing for the seat (NC-13) currently held by Brad Miller.The photos were taken by my son Trey.

Some quick impressions.

Bernie Reeves has both a depth and mastery of the issues that I was previously unaware of. Add to that his smooth delivery and comfort in the public eye while on stage and what we have in Bernie Reeves is the makings of an excellent candidate. In only one instance did Reeves make a misstep outside his normal polish. He allowed a flash of what I, at first, deemed anger, but later feel was frustration, slip past him.

Unfortunately I feel I should speak to that issue. Reeves had a quibble with the time Bill Randall had taken to answer a question and also that Bill Randell had delivered closing statements in addition to his answer to the original question. The moment of frustration revealed itself when a Randall supporter called Reeves a cry baby or something to that effect. The person was across the room from me so the comment was indistinct. Reeves observed aloud that he must be in a room full of Randall supporters. True or not, that was the moment his frustration flared. I heard, at least one case of hushed shock. Unfortunate. It occurred to me that at that moment Reeves may have been considering a possible loss to Randall. Perhaps he simply forgot he was on camera. (Skip to the 2:00 mark through the 4:50mark in the video below.)



Bill Randall was the third person my son and I met at the event. He was greeting people at the door and he even gave my son a fist bump. Cool. My son will remember that. Bill Randall, like Reeves, is an excellent speaker. This is true, though, only when he feels he fully understands the material he is speaking to. There were, unfortunately, many times when Randall was outclassed in comparison to Reeves if one measured the differences between the two solely in terms of depth of knowledge. Randall, though, showed in each answer that he understood the fundamental principles upon which to reach the right conclusion. I saw no apparent missteps by Randall with the exception of some moderate distraction between questions.

In the end the two candidates agreed far more than they disagreed. Not a surprise. And on points scored Reeves came away with a victory.

Reeves is the more polished more establishment candidate with established supporters and is a formidable and impressive debater with knowledge on tap. Unfortunately it is that plethora of knowledge that frightens me with Reeves. He reminds me of long time representatives with a wealth of experience that, invariably, tends to lead those representatives astray. Knowledge and its mastery is not an anchor from which leadership is reliably sourced and those who choose to lead from it get lost in the greys of that knowledge and too often drift from their core beliefs.


This expressed itself in a question on oil drilling and the impact the BP oil spill has on the two candidates position on drilling. Reeves answered that he had changed his opinion and could no longer support drilling. To me he seemed to loose his anchor, and instead gave a politically expedient answer.

By comparison, Randall held strong to his conviction and expressed that we should learn from the accident and avoid repeating it in the future with the understanding that there is currently no future without oil. An answer based on conviction and deft.

In the past I would have supported Reeves without a second thought, but I feel burned by establishment conservatives. Unfortunately Reeves feels very establishment and perhaps too easily set drifting between compelling arguments.

I want conviction, a Plymouth Rock.

News 14 report here.





out