The BBC has perfected the use of weasel words to create alarm. They have a lead story today :
The collapse of a major polar ice sheet will not raise global sea levels as much as previous projections suggest, a team of scientists has calculated.
Writing in Science, the researchers said that the demise of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would result in a sea level rise of 3.3m (10 ft).
“It has been hypothesised for more than 30 years now that the WAIS is inherently unstable,” he explained.
And how many other global catastrophes have been forecast over the last 30 years? Seems like a new one nearly every week. The article goes on –
“A sea level rise of just 1.5m would displace 17 million people in Bangladesh alone,”
But the author wants us to worry about 200 years from now.
In other words, if the global average was one metre, then places like New York could expect to see a rise of 1.25m. Responding to Professor Bamber’s paper in Science, British Antarctic Survey science leader Dr David Vaughan described the findings as “quite sound”. “But for me, the most crucial question is not solely about the total amount of ice in West Antarctica, because that might take several centuries to be lost to the ocean,” he told BBC News. “The crucial question is how much ice could be lost in 100-200 years; that’s the sea level rise we have to understand and plan for.”Even with this new assessment the loss of a fraction of WAIS over those timescales would have serious consequences and costs that we’ve only really just begun to understand.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WilkinsIceSheet/images/wilkins_avh_2007.jpg
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This sounds like the ultimate cop-out.
Or he’s just being pragmatic. Given the attititude of his employer towards anything even mildly critical of AGW, and its aversion to newsreaders getting themselves in the news, he may just be balancing a privately-held opinion with keeping his job! I note that Drs Bellamy and Whitehouse are no longer in that position.
It’s easy for us on WUWT to sniff at those who have swallowed the AGW line, but not everyone has seen or heard the contrary view, and I suspect that the even the majority here have had to be converted. I include myself.
dhogaza makes some good points
I’m sure he does, but characterising all of WUWT as ‘endless drivel’ does rather undermine them! Or does he mean everything except what he writes..? 🙂
reminds me of a local expression – ” IF my Auntie had balls she’d be my Uncle !”
Thats the wonderful thing about the word “if “. It allows you to postulate almost anything.
Bruve Cobb said: Paxman clearly is showing both moral and intellectual cowardice on this issue. A scientific background really isn’t necessary to be able to see through the bovine manure.
It helps a bit. Having written quite a few simulation models of various kinds, and learned in the process how sensitive they can be to initial conditions, I’m not inclined to believe the output of Global Climate Models. Particularly when some processes – e.g. cloud formation – are apparently not well understood.
But really it’s when people start saying “the debate is over” that I smell BS. And that’s got nothing to do with science.
James P said: he may just be balancing a privately-held opinion with keeping his job!
I don’t see where the ‘balance’ is. The piece of his writing in question was about how the BBC wasn’t very good at practising the environmentalism it preached. He ended up making five recommendations for steps the BBC could take to be more environmentally responsible. Would he write something like that if he was a closet sceptic?
Scientific Jargon – “Would” “Will” “Could” “Might” “Maybe”
The most dangerous weasel words are “is consistent with”. It sounds scientific to the general public, but it is really weak. “Is consistent with” is not proof.
Interesting that I happened to read a paper today.
K.F. Yu et al 2008 Microatoll record for large century-scale sea-level fluctuations in the mid-Holocene
So basically, around 7050 to 6600 years ago, the world’s oceans were about 2 meters higher than they are today (171 to 219 cm is the range given in the paper). What is interesting were the fairly rapid step changes that occurred. They found “step changes” of 20 to 40 cm on century time scales. Meaning a 40cm sea level rise or drop in a hundred years. One of the most dramatic step changes is the reduction in sea level, say, 6760 years or so ago. Sea level dropped about 35cm over roughly 50 years time and has never recovered to its former height.
So when you hear Al Gore talking about “unprecedented” sea level rise, know that it is pure bunk. Sea levels are lower now than they were at about the time agriculture was spreading through human civilization. There were two significant periods of rise during the time span referenced in the first paragraph above. The first was about a 25cm rise over a little less than 50 years time. Levels dropped back about 10cm over the next 50 years and then rose again about 30cm over the following 50 years and then dropped the 35cm mentioned above. So those were some rather dramatic swings over a 50 year period. At about 6675 ya the sea started “slowly” rising again until the end of the study period when it was about 200cm (2 meters) higher than it is now at around 6550 ya.
The peak was at 219cm higher than current sea level a little more than 6750 ya and according to the coral formations, the highest reached in the Holocene.
The bottom line is that climate has been much warmer in this interglacial than it is now. There is no reason to doubt that it could get just as warm again due to natural causes. There is no reason to doubt that sea level change can not be dramatic and fast due to natural causes. It has happened before … several times … and there is no reason to believe it won’t happen again.
I wonder if Gore’s head would explode if the sea level dropped half a meter over the next 50 years.
He ended up making five recommendations for steps the BBC could take to be more environmentally responsible. Would he write something like that if he was a closet sceptic?
I think he might – he spends his professional life playing devil’s advocate, and I notice that he follows the recommendations with the words: “None of them will save the planet. But they might save the BBC from looking like corporate hypocrites.”
I also like his remark: “The problem is that no one has yet worked out how to generate electricity by hand-wringing.” Sounds pretty detached to me.
Can’t we have more of Anthony? I find Steven’s writings incoherent, full of ignorant statements underwritten by an overriding tone of shrieking. This site used to be much better. Standards must be maintained. You can’t give these alarmists any ammunition.
After all, it would be a PR disaster if the problems with Steven’s post were discovered by the diligent work of the objective auditor.