Guest essay by Bjørn Lomborg
Justin Gillis tells NPR how much sea levels will rise:
“experts believe sea levels will rise at least 3 feet in the next century, and that number could be as much as 6 feet.”
(91cm to 183cm, http://n.pr/ZOxRKF.)
The leaked upcoming UN Climate Panel report will likely increase its sea level rise estimates (leaked here: http://bit.ly/12ybRHI, the numbers are very similar to the new June leak of the summary for policy makers).
It estimates the average sea level rise over 95 years at 40-62cm (1.31-2.04ft, it is the average 1986-2005 till 2081-2100) Looking at the entirety of the likely ranges, the range could be as wide as 29-82cm (0.95-2.69ft).
So, Gillis tells us the one end of the spectrum is 3 feet and the highest 6 feet, while the the UN says 1 foot to 2.7 feet. His *lowest* estimate is higher than the *highest* of the UN Climate Panel’s new, higher estimate.
Yet, he justifies his numbers with “experts.” Justin Gillis seems to listen to an extremely skewed set of experts.
In an interview with Columbia Journalism Review, Justin Gillis has clearly indicated that he writes about climate because he wants to push for action:
“the more I learned [about climate], the more I thought to myself, “This is the biggest problem we have—bigger than global poverty. Why am I not working on it?” From there, the question was, how do I get myself into a position to work on the problem?”
As Roger Pielke Jr. has demonstrated going through this interview and many of Gillis’ other articles: “The notion of “working on the problem” is a fine ambition, but is clearly much more aligned with advocacy for action rather than reporting a beat. Rather than informing his readers Gillis is in the business of making an argument.” (http://bit.ly/1dcslMJ)
Justin Gillis last year wrote what Roger Pielke called “worst piece of reporting I’ve ever seen in the Times on climate change.”
It is worth reading Pielke’s takedown here: http://bit.ly/14s4jrq.
**************
Just to be clear, there are many good environmental journalists on New York Times. But this clear example of severely skewed information is not worthy of the Newspaper of Record.
‘Temperature Rising’: Will Climate Change Bring More Extreme Weather? : NPR
Maybe Justin means the NEXT century, as in from 2101-2200. Curious writing, in any case!
Kurt in Switzerland
I saw this in a Bloomberg article this morning:
“Temperatures already have climbed about 0.8 degree Celsius and seas have risen about 17 centimeters (7 inches) since the industrial revolution, according to the UN. When temperature gains reach 1 degree, the world will be committed to sea levels about 2.3 meters higher over two millennia, according to the study in the journal of the Washington-based National Academy of Sciences.”
Over two millennia – that means the rising will be half the rate it now is. No worries on that score.
It is very sad how many people who call themselves journalists say they got into the business because they wanted to go something about some issue, and not because they wanted to report on issues.
oh good grief…go on and say it’s a 1000 ft and get it over with
…f’in nut jobs
Tom Trevor said “It is very sad how many people who call themselves journalists say they got into the business because they wanted to go something about some issue”
I have just taken a decision to abandon Scientific American after nearly 60 years of subscription. The latest issue is on food, and every article was by a ‘science writer’. Scientists used to be proud to write for them. Then came the Lomborg Affair. Since then it has been downhill.
Justin Gillis is wrong…?
Isn’t that in the “Dog Bites Man” Category of headlines?
There is simply no NOAA tide gauge sea level rise data at coastal locations around the world that supports any notion that global sea level rise is accelerating. The rate of sea level rise has remained linear for more than 100 years at a rate of about 1 foot per century according to this empirical data. Likewise satellite sea level rise measurements which are not applicable to any coastal locations but instead represent measures of global ocean volume show no acceleration of sea level rise since these measurements started in 1992 again with the rate of sea level increase remaining linear at about 1 foot per century.
Alarmists claims of sea level rise accelerating have no support in empirical data and are based on unvalidated models which provide unproven information clearly not appropriate for policy making actions.
This situation in sea level rise claims is quite similar to the situation in global temperature rise where empirical global temperature data has undermined climate model results of ever increasing global temperatures which the empirical data shows is wrong.
So “journalists” interviewing “journalsts” is what passes a news today.
Again you people are getting hung up on science and numbers. Climate is about feelings and a desire for an ever so better world. Why should a stubbornly empirical minority get to trample the positive energy of The Consensus?
If hypothetical visions of drowned polar bears being washed up on doorsteps in Kansas during weekly Cat 6 hurricanes is a necessary part of the world-creating process, why should we let denialists drag us down with grubby demands for proof? It just drains the buzz from the narrative.
Sea levels fell in 2010, falling instead of rising then, and the few percent change in GCRs then was little compared to the tens of percent which will occur once the Modern Maximum of solar activity gets followed in coming decades by levels more like the LIA. The past, as in the synchronized change in rates in http://s24.postimg.org/rbbws9o85/overview.gif over prior decades (and centuries), is informative for how to really predict the future.
So Justin Gillis is not any different than his “boss”, Al “misleading hyperbole” Gore?
If Algore can get away with Force 6 hurricanes, surely his sycophants can get away with tweaking stuff for his benefit, no?
Not only is he dead wrong about the problem, he’s also bad at advocating it? That’s gotta sting.
“the more I learned [about climate], the more I thought to myself, “This is the biggest problem we have—bigger than global poverty. Why am I not working on it?” From there, the question was, how do I get myself into a position to work on the problem?”
Really? Justin needs to get out more. There is no groundswell of complaint about warming. In fact, warming polls as barely significant. Recently, a groundswell of complaint from victims caused the CDC to increase its estimate of the rate of infection from Lyme Disease by a factor of ten. Justin might want to wait for such a groundswell on warming.
I heard that sea levels fell in 2020-2011, and it was because Australia absorbed in all.
http://iceagenow.info/2013/08/sea-levels-fell-2011-australia-soaked-water-sponge-scientist/
I had no idea that Australia would act as one great big sponge. Is Australia the savior of rising sea levels caused by climate change?
Make that 2010-2011.
I recently sent the following to an Oz, publicly-funded radio station:
[ABC is Australian Broadcast company, right? Mod]
Talking to experts is one thing, providing the evidence of worsening trends is quite another. Sometimes a worsening trend is caused by natural climate factors. Here are the experts in action:
Expect warmer winters due to global warming.
Expect an ice free Arctic in 2008, errrr 2009, errr 2013, errr 1015, errr 2016, errr 2020, errr 2040, errr2050, err 2100, errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Dr. Richard Feynman, renowned physicist.
@John Trigge
Good luck with that John.
I emailed a complaint a while ago about a newspaper article which was not even remotely concerned with the facts.
I asked the ‘journalist’ how he could get it so wrong and gave him links from reputable sources to the data.
He wrote back (verbatim):
“Thanks for your feedback. You may be right, but I wrote it as I saw it (and still see it).”
They aren’t journalists, they are activists with an agenda.
Lying is apparently correlated with shaving your face with a chainsaw.
[? Mod]
According to the World Health Organization, hunger is the single gravest threat to the world’s public health. The WHO also states that malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases. Undernutrition is a contributory factor in the death of 3.1 million children under five every year. Figures on actual starvation are difficult to come by, but according to the FAO, the less severe condition of undernourishment currently affects about 925 million people, or about 13.5% of the world population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation
How many children die of global warming every year?
Well, there’s a calculation I’ve done numerous times that says you could just take the power output of three years worth of China’s new coal plant installation, and use that power to run centrifugal water pumps at 85 percent efficiency, perhaps using the waste heat to distill and heat seawater, then pump the warm water against about a thousand feet of head pressure to dump it either in Antarctica, Greenland, or Northern Canada or Siberia, where it won’t be seen again for a thousand years.
You can easily do it at a rate that exceeds the alarmists’ projections of sea-level rise, and do so for about $20 billion a year in coal costs. You could go nuclear, but the up-front costs are greater and the likelihood that the whole scheme will be abandoned as unnecessary is quite high, and if you use coal or natural-gas fired pumps you can just quit buying fuel.
So yes, we can easily control the sea level if we really want to, the project is easy to cost and schedule, and it doesn’t require a single new invention or new idea, or even a really new piece of equipment that isn’t already commercially available.
But nobody will ever seriously suggest we do it, because the alarmists would much rather have the silly threat, aren’t people in hard hats who would make any money off the project, and non-alarmists aren’t really worried anyway.
But it might be fun to seriously push the idea and budget money set aside for “studies” to apply to this new, actual solution to sea-level rise, and then listen to the shrill screaming that ensues.
I emailed the UK times this week re an article saying that some London hotel with a planted wall absorbed 10000 litres of rainwater which would reduce the chance of nearby Buckingham palace being flooded. That’s about the volume of 3 compact cars! Journalists have a very poor sense of scale.
Journalists should stick to journalism by reporting the news rather than creating the news with false information and nonsense.
Ever notice these alarmists talk about sea level rise the same way guys in the locker room talk about their thangs?
Truly clueless.
Justin Gillis is to Journalism what Al Gore is to Climate Expert.
Walter Duranty would be proud of him.