Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Anthony has pointed out the further inanities of that well-known vanity press, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This time it is Michael Mann (of Hockeystick fame) and company claiming an increase in the rate of sea level rise (complete paper here, by Kemp et al., hereinafter Kemp 2011). A number of commenters have pointed out significant shortcomings in the paper. AMac has noted at ClimateAudit that Mann’s oft-noted mistake of the upside-down Tiljander series lives on in Kemp 2011, thus presumably saving the CO2 required to generate new and unique errors. Steve McIntyre has pointed out that, as is all too common with the mainstream AGW folks and particularly true of anything touched by Michael Mann, the information provided is far, far, far from enough to reproduce their results. Judith Curry is also hosting a discussion of the issues.
I was interested in a couple of problems that haven’t been touched on by other researchers. The first is that you can put together your whiz-bang model that uses a transfer function to relate the “formaminiferal assemblages” to “paleomarsh elevation” (PME) and then subtract the PME from measured sample altitudes to estimate sea levels, as they say they have done. But how do you then verify whether your magic math is any good? The paper claims that
Agreement of geological records with trends in regional and global tide-gauge data (Figs. 2B and 3) validates the salt-marsh proxy approach and justifies its application to older sediments. Despite differences in accumulation history and being more than 100 km apart, Sand Point and Tump Point recorded near identical RSL variations.
Hmmm, sez I … so I digitized the recent data in their Figure 2B. This was hard to do, because the authors have hidden part of the data in their graph through their use of solid blocks to indicate errors, rather than whiskers as are commonly used. This makes it hard to see what they actually found. However, their results can be determined by careful measurement and digitization. Figure 1 shows those results, along with observations from the two nearest long-term tidal gauges and the TOPEX satellite record for the area.
Figure 1. The sea-level results from Kemp 2011, along with the nearest long-term tide gauge records (Wilmington and Hampton Roads) and the TOPEX satellite sea level records for that area. Blue and orange transparent bands indicate the uncertainties in the Kemp 2011 results. Their uncertainties are shown for both the sea level and the year. SOURCES: Wilmington, Hampton Roads, TOPEX
My conclusions from this are a bit different from theirs.
The first conclusion is that as is not uncommon with sea level records, nearby tide gauges give very different changes in sea level. In this case, the Wilmington rise is 2.0 mm per year, while the Hampton Roads rise is more than twice that, 4.5 mm per year. In addition, the much shorter satellite records show only half a mm per year average rise for the last twenty years.
As a result, the claim that the “agreement” of the two Kemp 2011 reconstructions are “validated” by the tidal records is meaningless, because we don’t have observations accurate enough to validate anything. We don’t have good observations to compare with their results, so virtually any reconstruction could be claimed to be “validated” by the nearby tidal gauges. In addition, since the Tump Point sea level rise is nearly 50% larger than the Sand Point rise, how can the two be described as “near identical”?
As I mentioned above, there is a second issue with the paper that has received little attention. This is the nature of the area where the study was done. It is all flatland river delta, with rivers that have created low-lying sedimentary islands and constantly changing border islands, and swirling currents and variable conditions. Figure 2 shows what the turf looks like from the seaward side:
Figure 2. Location of the study areas (Tump Point and Sand Point, purple) for the Kemp 2011 sea level study. Location of the nearest long-term tidal gauges (Wilmington and Hampton Roads) are shown by yellow pushpins.
Why is this important? It is critical because these kinds of river mouth areas are never stable. Islands change, rivers cut new channels, currents shift their locations, sand bars are created and eaten away. Figure 3 shows the currents near Tump Point:
Figure 3. Eddying currents around Tump Point. Note how they are currently eroding the island, leading to channels eaten back into the land.
Now, given the obviously sedimentary nature of the Tump Point area, and the changing, swirling nature of the currents … what are the odds that the ocean conditions (average temperature, salinity, sedimentation rate, turbidity, etc.) are the same now at Tump Point as they were a thousand years ago?
And since the temperature and salinity and turbidity and mineral content a thousand years ago may very well have been significantly different from their current values, wouldn’t the “formaminiferal assemblages” have also been different then regardless of any changes in sea level?
Because for the foraminifera proxy to be valid over time, we have to be able to say that the only change that might affect the “foraminiferal assemblages” is the sea level … and given the geology of the study area, we can almost guarantee that is not true.
So those are my issues with the paper, that there are no accurate observations to compare with their reconstruction, and that important local marine variables undoubtedly have changed in the last thousand years. Of course, those are in addition to the problems discussed by others, involving the irreproducibility due to the lack of data and code … and the use of the Tiljander upside-down datasets … and the claim that we can tell the global sea level rise from a reconstruction in one solitary location … and the shabby pal-review by PNAS … and the use of the Mann 2008 temperature reconstruction … and …
In short, I fear all we have is another pathetic attempt by Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, and others to shore up their pathetic claims, even to the point of repeating their exact same previous pathetic mistakes … and folks wonder why we don’t trust mainstream AGW scientists?
Because they keep trying, over and over, to pass off this kind of high-school-level investigation as though it were real science.
My advice to the authors? Same advice my high school science teacher drilled into our heads, to show our work. PUBLISH YOUR CODE AND DATA, FOOLS! Have you been asleep for the last couple years? These days nobody will believe you unless your work is replicable, and you just look stupid for trying this same ‘I won’t mention the code and data, maybe nobody will notice’ trick again and again. You can do all the hand-waving you want about your “extended semiempirical modeling approach”, but until you publish the data and the code for that approach and for the other parts of your method, along with the observational data used to validate your approach, your credibility will be zero and folks will just point and laugh.
w.
acquatic moonbeams “all of this carbon swapping going on is wiped out by every new volcano.”
Not to worry, Terry Gerlach from the USGS published a paper in the June 14, 2011 issue of EOS that claims that manmade carbon dioxide emissions far outweigh those from volcanic activity. You can find the paper here: http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
Of course, he (she?) is not showing either data or code (as usual). But the folks at the Eruptions blog are having a grand old time going after skeptics this morning. This seems to be yet another talking point from the Glo-Warmers, which worries me, as I am not convinced that they have counted everything properly (not unlike the game played with deliberate undercounting of endangered species – spotted owl in the Pacific NW for example). I think there is a lot of work yet to be done on this, but that is just me. Cheers –
Rather than posting your paper on a b log site, where it will be read by a select few, comparatively speaking, I suggest you submit it to a reputable journal for review and publication. In this way you may actually participate in the accepted scientific process, and contribute to the accumulation of knowledge.This is how the quality of our knowledge advances. You could do this and still contribute to the blogs.
the Gerlach paper must hold the world record for being mostly based on old articles of decades ago. how’s it possible nobody’s interested in updating the global volcano budget ?
Hugh Pepper says:
June 23, 2011 at 10:49 am
“Rather than posting your paper on a b log site, where it will be read by a select few, comparatively speaking, I suggest you submit it to a reputable journal for review and publication. In this way you may actually participate in the accepted scientific process, and contribute to the accumulation of knowledge.”
Sadly, the accepted scientific process has become hopelessly corrupted. If you need additional evidence, you do not need to look further than the case of James Hansen who morphed from scientist (well, scientist-bureaucrat) to advocate for energy taxes and government administration of energy investments.
It’s curious. High Seriousness is how the Art World continues to abuse kids, by putting upside-down piss buckets right next to a Van Gogh or two. But this long-winded syrupy diatribe makes me cringe as being too raw rather than refined and wined and dined. There is also no challenge contained within it, just a bunch of kavetch. Preaching to the choir will never impress the queen, for there is no battle in that.
thingadonta says: “Sea level proxy reconstruction in a river delta? Are you kidding? Obviously these guys aren’t earth scientists. Probsably just mathematicians who never saw the outside of an estuarine inlet, a ria, or a prograding coastline.”
The heartbreak of proctocraniosis.
@Dave Springer
Whoa, settle down. More facts, plz. I doubt that land irrigation has anything to do with Mann’s findings on this coast line. See this:www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/cropuse.html on use of irrigation in NC. 45 to 60 inches of rain and 270 growing days make the expense of irrigating unnecessary for most crops. Still not that many people between Beaufort and the Ocracoke ferry landing or on the nearby mainland to sip the aquifer.
Volcanoes aren’t as bad as you think (http://bit.ly/planevolcano):
Eyjafjallajokull 2010 CO2 emissions – 150,000 tons of CO2 estimated
Airplane emissions curtailed because of ash risks – 344,109 tons estimated
CO2 reduction due to Eyjafjallajokull – ~200,000 tons
Perhaps we need more ash-spewing volcanoes to reduce our CO2 levels?
Hugh Pepper says:
June 23, 2011 at 10:49 am
Hugh, in fact, sea level and its effect on Tuvalu was the subject of my first paper published in a journal, although it was an opinion piece and not peer-reviewed.
As to whether peer-reviewed science is “how the quality of our knowledge advances”, consider that the study under discussion was peer-reviewed and is absolute garbage … how has that advanced our knowledge in the slightest? My own conclusion, after considering the matter carefully over the last years, is that I can make much more difference to the progress of science as a blogger than I can by writing journal articles. (Having said that, I do have an article currently in peer-review).
I say my work has more effect published here for several reasons. The first is that a huge number of people read my work here. My analyses have garnered over 800,000 page views in the last year, a figure that is way above what would occur with the journals. So I do not agree that my work here is “read by a select few” as you claim.
The second is that I am able to respond to garbage in real-time. I’m as interested in countering bad science as I am in doing good science. To do that, I can’t afford to wait six months for the journal to get around to publishing a response to things like the latest Mann debacle above.
Third, the public view of the issue is critical, because the field is heavily politicized. I can reach much more of the thinking public here than I can in some specialized journal. I can also reach politicians and other opinion-makers who never read scientific journals.
Fourth, I reach more of the scientists by writing here. Specialist journals have specialized readership, while people from all branches of science read WUWT. And from various comments here and on other blogs, I suspect that reading my work is the guilty pleasure of even hardened AGW advocates.
Fifth, here I get instant feedback on my work, enabling me to answer objections and correct my own errors based on the responses of (often very knowledgeable) readers.
Sixth, I’m not very good at writing in the obscure (and obsolescent) language called “Scientific Journalese”. I tend to write too clearly, and not in the approved intricate journalese fashion. Plus I’m far too passionate to be a good journal author.
Seventh, journals are generally reluctant to publish anything showing that previous work was wrong. They are much more interested in new, original work. Additionally, many of them have a huge pro-AGW bias … see e.g. the difference between a world-renowned scientist like Dick Lindzen publishing in PNAS, and some unknown graduate student like Kemp publishing in PNAS. As a result, correcting the errors of published journal articles is much more difficult to do in the journals themselves. I have discovered a remarkable proof that the odds of PNAS ever publishing a rebuttal to the Kemp paper are approximately zero, but the margins of this email are too small to contain it …
For all of those reasons, although I continue submitting to journals, I feel that my work here is more important than getting another journal article published only to see it sink into obscurity …
w.
For an update on sea level rise deceleration and an extrapolation of Holgate’s graph.:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/04/07/sea-level-rise-still-slowing-down/
agimarc says:
June 23, 2011 at 10:42 am
omnologos says:
June 23, 2011 at 11:02 am
The data for the Gerlach paper is here in the Supplemental Material. It contains analysis and discussion of studies of volcanic CO2 emissions done in the following years:
1979, 1982, 1984, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2001, 2002, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2009
So it is not clear why you guys are claiming that the Gerlach data is neither available nor updated …
w.
KR,
There are millions of volcanoes on the ocean floor. It is unknown why there are so many more submarine volcanoes than terrestrial volcanoes, and total undersea volcanic emissions have never been qantified. The fact is that no one really knows the total volcanic emissions of the planet.
I shall be undertaking a lengthy (2 weeks) study of the Sea Level Rise in the Maldives in January. Earlier this year I went there because I thought that the situation was so dire that I might never get the chance to go there in the future.
This years trip was quite expensive, so I had a brilliant idea….
During one of my walks round the island, I stuck some sticks in the water. At high and low tide ( estimated by how long the bar had been open) I marked the sticks. For $1 per email, upon request, I will check my (semi) empirical data on the next trip and furnish any recognised Climate Department in any University (except UEA – I have standards) with my garnered information.
These “field trips” don’t come cheap, so I’m hoping to recoup some of my costs. Unlike MM, I don’t get BIG government funding and if the island is still above water (I checked with the holiday company last week and so far, all is OK) I hope to go there again in 2013.
P***ing about in N. Carolina just shows how little funding is around these days. Next year MM will be in a bathtub on his lawn with only his speedos and a rubber duck for company – I however will be “All Inclusive” in the middle of the Indian Ocean (hopefully, fully sponsored). Come on, “throw a buck my way” – you know it makes sense!!!
Smokey
I would encourage you to read http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf where this is discussed:
In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio.
Perhaps you can point out studies showing 100x volcanoes as the USGS estimates on the sea floor?
Smokey says:
June 23, 2011 at 11:43 am
KR,
There are millions of volcanoes on the ocean floor. It is unknown why there are so many more submarine volcanoes than terrestrial volcanoes, and total undersea volcanic emissions have never been quantified. The fact is that no one really knows the total volcanic emissions of the planet.
===================================================================================
Smokey, this is for you….cause I know you love this stuff
Here’s the sea level trend map..notice the 20mm standing wave in Indonesia (dark red)
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Map_J1_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
Here’s the Underwater Ring of Fire, notice it’s centered on the dark red, right in the middle of all those volcanic islands..
http://standeyo.com/NEWS/09_Earth_Changes/090420.undersea.volcano.html
Here’s how you look for underwater volcanoes, by the height of sea level…..
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12218
Thousand of new volcanoes revealed beneath the waves
“”Satellites can detect volcanoes that are more than 1500 m high because the mass of the submerged mountains causes gravity to pull the water in around them. This creates domes on the ocean’s surface that can be several metres high and can be detected from space.””
Now go back to the sea level trend map and explain sea level rise……………..
Cause I can’t get a straight answer out of any of those guys, not even how they know to adjust for it…………….
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2011 at 1:48 am
“It’s like the climate Cirque de Soleil, where you can get amazed by their contortions to avoid actually describing and documenting what they are doing. – w.”
I must admit, I love reading your disembowelling of them though Willis 🙂
“Don, the choice to compare with Wilmington and Hampton Roads was mine. I looked at the two nearer gauges (Duck Pier and Morehead City) and both of them had quite short records, one of which (from memory) didn’t go to the present.” w
Yes, you’re correct. I confused and was thinking they had taken their GIA from Wilmington, but in fact, they have taken it from “… a US Atlantic coast database of late Holocene (last 2000 y) sea-level index points (13, 15).” Since the values (1.0 and 0.9 mm/yr) seem reasonable in terms of Duck Pier and Morehead City, I think this is OK.
KR,
To the best of my knowledge there are no such studies. That was my point.
I’m not sure that bad ‘science’ does get corrected. We live in a world of ‘soundbytes’ and once released into the public domain that ‘soundbyte’ quickly becomes ‘fact’ for those that want to believe. ‘Lew’ makes a fair point, tomorrow, who will care? As one might say in the UK – today’s news is tomorrows chip wrappings. Sea level rise is now a hockey stick shape, morons can point to peer reviewed Mann and Mann has his next half million grant rubber stamped. meanwhile we argue the toss about the telling 0.some rise in something or other.
Don’t get me wrong Willis, I always read your posts and am really glad that someone takes the time and effort to point out the flaws in yet another ‘scientific’ piece . You should, however, after all this time, have realised that you are fighting a guerilla war against fully funded ‘troops’. For every bullet you get to fire they get 1000 taxpayer funded bullets. Willis – you might as well move to Afghanistan.
Mann will get his next half mill grant in 20011 while we still obsess over his 08 paper on upside down ‘who cares what now’ sediments. The MSM get their “Earth to end in 2020 – it’s official” front page and Gore shares go up by 50%. These people are liars and thieves – the more they lie the more they get to steal. We are in the situation of arguing the toss over the get away car parking ticket incurred during the 100 billion bank robbery.
Regarding undersea volcanoes: http://www.volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?faq=03 lists active surface volcanoes:
How many active volcanoes known?
Erupting now: perhaps 20
Each year: 50-70
Each decade: about 160
Historical eruptions: about 550
Known Holocene eruptions (last 10,000 years): about 1300
Known (and possible) Holocene eruptions: about 1500
Note that these figures do not include the large number of eruptions (and undescribed volcanoes) on the deep sea floor. Estimates of global magma budgets suggest that roughly 3/4 of the lava reaching Earth’s surface does so unnoticed at submarine midocean ridges. (emphasis added)
Since CO2 emissions are going to be directly tied to the amount of magma released, your 100x increase in CO2 release requires 100x release of the estimated amount of magma. I would enjoy seeing the studies that support that…
If the sea level has gone up so much, why is it still so easy to see the outlines of the bay and barrier islands in these maps? And yes Willis, they do show large changes in the bays, rivers, lakes and islands.
From – A New Mapp of Carolina ‘1698’ – http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/ncmaps&CISOPTR=115&CISOBOX=1&REC=5
And – An Accurate Map of North and South Carolina With Their Indian Frontiers, Shewing in a distinct manner all the Mountains, Rivers, Swamps, Marshes, Bays, Creeks, Harbours, Sandbanks and Soundings on the Coasts, ‘1775’ – http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/ncmaps&CISOPTR=125&CISOBOX=1&REC=15
Both from NC Maps – Plus there are a lot more.
http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm4/results.php?CISORESTMP=results.php&CISOVIEWTMP=item_viewer.php&CISOMODE=thumb&CISOGRID=thumbnail,A,1;mapid,A,1;collec,A,0;title,200,0;none,A,0;20;mapid,none,none,none,none&CISOBIB=mapid,A,1,N;collec,A,0,N;title,200,0,N;none,A,0,N;none,A,0,N;20;mapid,none,none,none,none&CISOTHUMB=20%20(4×5);date,title,none,none,none&CISOTITLE=20;mapid,none,none,none,none&CISOHIERA=20;collec,mapid,none,none,none&CISOSUPPRESS=1&CISOTYPE=link&CISOOP1=exact&CISOFIELD1=digitb&CISOBOX1=North+Carolina+Maps&CISOOP2=exact&CISOFIELD2=collec&CISOBOX2=North+Carolina+State+Archives&CISOOP3=exact&CISOFIELD3=title&CISOBOX3=&CISOOP4=exact&CISOFIELD4=CISOSEARCHALL&CISOBOX4=&c=exact&CISOROOT=%2Fncmaps
What has sea level got to do with sediment accumulation – probably a little? The levels of sediment in the sea coming from the nearby rivers will vary first, these will be affected by factors such as frosts, snowfall, wind, rainfall all of which vary over time, and also land cover and land use, something which in more recent years will have been skewed by us lovely humans, and would most likely lead to an increase in sediment discharge (and create a sediment hockey stick!), the other factors are ocean currents which will be affected by changing coastal geomorphology etc…and sea level!
It all seems very iffy to me, but than I am just a lowly environmental engineer. It seems as odd as assuming tree ring width = average annual temperature! But at least the recent (last few hundred years) deforestation of the catchment will have caused a recent upturn in sediment accumulation rates, so Mann can have his hockey stick – its another divergence issue I suspect, which has than be used to calibrate that older data and create a misleading results.
As usual its a report based on a iffy assumption of correlation that cannot be proved either right or wrong – they call it Paleology in some circles
Smokey
Well, then, in the absence of information to the contrary, volcanoes should then be emitting about 1% as much CO2 as people do? Going with the best estimates available?
Willis & Hector Pascal (@June 23, 3:58 am above).
There’s an easy to read Bourger Garvity Anomalies map for the US at:
http://www.zonu.com/detail-en/2009-09-18-8375/Bourger-Gravity-Anomalies-in-the-United-States-1970.html
You can lift this .jpg, drop it into a file, then use your photo editor to clip it
down to just the eastern seaboard… the use your +/- viewer to get the details
of the Virginia, Maryland, North & South Carolina coasts.
You’ll find some expandable North Carolina geology maps at:
http://gis.enr,state.nc.us/sid/bin/index.plx?client=zGeologic Maps&site=9AM
The separate Litho-Tectonic map for North Carolina makes you wonder where
the supposed land subsidence is coming from dynamically , or even a physical
reality for all the NC shore, and hence the entire US Atlantic coast.
[if this link doesn’t work, insert a single underline _ between the Geologic and
the Maps&site in the address] Sorry, I still can’t use a regular “paste” here
although I still have that ability on Climate Audit… both using wordpress.com.
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 23, 2011 at 9:20 am
rbateman says:
June 23, 2011 at 6:47 am
I still say that the best guage of Sea Level Rise/Fall is old photographs compared with recent photos.
Not true at all. We’re looking for a difference over time of inches, in a context where tides are often six feet and a single wave can easily be that or more. In that context, we can tell absolutely nothing from old photographs. A minor difference in the tides or a single wave can make a huge difference in the photos, and we’re looking for tiny difference in long-term-average sea levels.
w.
I agree with rbateman as long as you can take the picture from the same point at the same time. Also not all places exhibit tides of any significant. For instance the northern baltic sea is way below the 1920/30 levels, which can be clearly seen in old pictures when the sea levels were more ‘an a foot or two higher. 20 years ago the sea levels were higher than today which is proven by the fact that people run a ground on places today that used to be well below the surface 20 years ago. Apparently it is somewhat the same for the black sea, the mediterranean, the red sea, and the north sea. So where did all the european ocean water go? To the eastern sea board of US? If so it’s still no global sea rise though. :p