Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
You’ve heard of “Post Normal Science”? I investigate “Para Normal Science”. That’s the kind of science that is based on the willing suspension of belief in the physical laws of nature. Continuing my investigation of para normal science, I find a group that takes the long view of sea level rise. They don’t mess about with decadal scenarios. They disdain looking a mere century into the future. The press release is here, the paper’s paywalled, abstract here. The press release is titled:
Sea levels will continue to rise for 500 years
Figure from the press release issued by the Niels Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen. Estimates prepared for the purposes of alarmism only, not warranteed for any other application. © 2011 by BeVeRyScArEd Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Neal’s Boring Institute.
My favorite part of the press release about the paywalled paper was this:
Actual measurements. Not fake, counterfeit, false, ersatz, phony, bogus, pseudo, or imitation measurements. Actual measurements.
Whenever they say something like “based on actual measurements”, I can’t help but be reminded of Hollywood’s “Based on a true story”, and how far the Hollywood version always is from the actual story warts and all …
In any case, no matter how they designed their climate supermodel, scenarios five centuries long? I’m sorry, but that’s a complete wank. No one will be alive to see even the 200 year mark. It will make no difference to our current choices. Indeed, it will likely be forgotten before the year is out. It is probably produced specifically with the aspiration of receiving the honor of being entombed in the fifth IPCC assessment report, a fitting burial place for such work. It may be based on a true story, but the facts have been changed to protect the innocent, so much so that any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental.
But most of all, it is an exercise in projecting a simple curve into the future, which is a newbie error I was warned against in high school. You can’t just extend a curve out for 500 years, that’s a pathetic joke even if you do call it a “IPCC scenario”. Oh, wait, that terminology is so yesterday. The new IPCC bureaucratic scientese term is “Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) radiative forcing scenarios” … I kid you not.
But even if you call it a Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) radiative forcing scenario, still, five hundred years? Five centuries? Get real!
Para Normal Science at its finest.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is a hoot……
Another A, B, and C scenario……where have we seen that before
and they are complaining they are mocked on WUWT !!
Max Hugoson says:
October 20, 2011 at 6:42 am
….
The sea level as been rising. In a miniscule manner by the satellites. And I’m NOT GOING TO TRUST THAT NUMBER until we have say, 2 or 3 systems running at the same time. Why? Because there are DRIFTS that occur in that instrumentation. The plots I see have a signal tendancy which, alas, as an engineer “older than dirt”…I’ve seen far too many times in long term A/D data gathering systems…to put total confidence in the measurement. (And I HAVE worked with some sophisticated stuff, starting with 8 bit A/D and going to 32.)
=================
Your conclusions re sea level rise are reasonable although the details are not entirely right. There are about two centuries worth of tidal gauge data and the last hundred years or so probably aren’t too sparse to work with. There are also about 20 years worth of Radar Altimeter data from a number of satellites — with a fair amount of overlap. I won’t go into the details about the problems with both kinds of data. We are working near or beyond the limits of reliable resolution for both the tidal gauges and the RAs. Anyway, the numbers for sea level rise are all over the place from zero (Morner) to lots and we’re all gonna die (Hansen,Gore, et al) with those the look roughly like science in a range between 15 and 35 cm a century. Local uplift/subsidence is often greater than sea level rise. Climate “Scientists” adds in a lot of what might well be science fantasy to jack the future numbers up a bit. Some of that might be justified.
There are claims that sea level rise has accelerated due to human activity. The claims look bogus to me, but you’ll have to do your own research on that.
Last time I looked, the Wikipedia article on seal level rise didn’t seem too awful.
Oh, wait, that terminology is so yesterday. The new IPCC bureaucratic scientese term is
Here locally, I prefer to call it language perversion.
We’re being inundated with environmental speak by the “facilitating”, “engineering” firm H.W. Lochner, Inc., hired by our astute city council, who wants us all to submit to Gaia, the bitch from hell.
Their favorite word seems to be “sustainable”, which used to mean “able to be supported, held up, or borne up from below; able to be kept up or going”, but now means Earth worship and Marxism.
Please send help.
Aslak Grinsted says:
October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am
“I am a coauthor on the study. I take no offense at your mockery, because that is pretty much the level of debate that I expect from WUWT (sorry, if that offends you).”
Right. And we expect you to want to beat the crap out of Willis like Ben Santer wanted to beat the crap out of Pat Michaels. That’s what we expect from you alarmist boffins.
“Lets try to find some common ground for discussion.”
The first bit of common of ground should be to agree to agree that each side of the debate has its share of clowns and other assorted dimwits who couldn’t find their ass with two hands.
” I assume you agree about the following observations (concerning on average over the 20th century):
* Sea level has been rising”
Sure. But I’d like to hear how you account for it not rising in the warmest decade (2000-2010) on record. Averages are nice and all but the devil is in the details and the devil for you is in this bit of detail.
“* Earth has warmed (Global Mean SATs)”
Sure it has. Like it has many times in the past. They’re still finding human artifacts underneath retreating glaciers. In and of itself a warming planet means nothing other than good times because living things suffer when it cools.
“* Ocean heat content is increasing (since observations has been available= 1955)”
This is speculation and doesn’t belong in a reasonable discussion. Unlike troposphere temperatures with close to global coverage 24/7 for the past 30 years we have no comparable information about the average temperature of the global ocean which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3.9C. What we do know with some small degree of confidence is the mixed layer isn’t as warm as the vaunted GCMs predict hence Trenberth’s infamous “missing heat”. Y’all let me know when you find it, eh?
“* CO2 is increasing.”
Thank God. The indisputable testimony of the geologic column is that pre-industrial level of CO2 is ice age level. Plants don’t grow well in ice and wherego the primary producers in the food chain go us. You might think it’s romantic to live in caves and hunt wooly mammoths for a living but I’d rather not thank you very much.
“Here is a causal chain of events as i see them, and I would appreciate if you man up, and acknowledge exactly what it is you dispute:”
Correlation is not causation. That’s what I dispute. Write that down!
“1) Increased CO2 -> Increased radiative forcing”
Very small effect confined to land surfaces. When the ocean is largely liquid it and water vapor control the climate not non-condensing greenhouse gases. However the increased CO2 is beneficial to plant growth and it also reduces the fresh water requirements per unit of growth. Moreover the optimum temperature for plant growth rises when CO2 increases. I realize all these good things are mere correlation with the fact that terrestrial plants evolved over hundreds of millions of years when CO2 levels were many times higher than today and evolution tends to optimize living things around the environment. You do believe in evolution, right? Sorry but I have to ask because the climate boffins never seem willing to acknowledge (in denial of) the earth’s long history of much warmer times with much higher level of CO2.
“2) stronger radiative forcing -> increased heat / warming”
Lost in the noise of other events. The global ocean’s average temperature is 3.9C which can only be explained by the average surface temperature being 3.9C over a period of time long enough for complete mixing to occur like, oh say, one completer glacial/interglacial period of 100,000 years which is long enough for conduction alone to equilized the ocean temperature from top to bottom.
You want me to worry about the air, which has less than a thousandth the heat capacity of the ocean, getting a couple of degrees warmer when the whole damn biosphere today is a thin layer of warmth floating on a bucket of ice water? Get real. Cold is the enemy not warmth.
“3) Heat/warming -> shrinks land-based ice, and expands the world oceans”
Yeah, except that in the most recent decade which is, according to your camp, the “warmest on record”, the ocean drastically slowed its rate of rise. You need to explain that in terms of your theory that a warmer climate causes the ocean to rise. Something doesn’t add up.
“Perhaps you do not dispute any of these points and agree with our projections. From your mockery it sounds as if your only question the value of multi century projections in general.”
Sometimes mockery is the only response left when people are in denial of the facts. I’m sure you understand.
“Please clarify.”
Yes. Please clarify how the ocean rate of rise is the slowest on record during the warmest decade on record. I’m all ears.
“Lukewarmers” usually agree with all of the points above but only question whether the “climate sensitivity” in step 2 of the chain is really as large as climate models imply. In our study we avoid any uncertainty in climate sensitivity, by simply looking at the relationship between radiative forcing and sea level rise directly.
I appreciate the response of the few of you who has clarified your positions to my discussion points above. I could only make sense of crispin’s position. I am still looking forwards to a clarification from Willis though.
I am impressed by how successfully the crowd has been driven to a frenzy. Your audience loves you, Willis. I am sure they also would like to know what you think.
Aslak Grinsted says:
October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am
not very much for a coauthor.
Aslak:
Let’s say that all your points are valid. A sea-level rise that varies between 1.8 – 3.0 mm/yr should produce 0.90-1.50 meters of natural increase over a 500 year period without invoking global warming scenarios.
Your paper indicates up to 5.5 meters over this period.
Questions:
1. How much of this do you attribute to Greenland and Antarctica land ice melt?
2. Can you comment on the Arctic sea ice – roughly when it will disappear entirely?
3. What temperature increase is required to lead to the 5.5 m scenario?
4. Why the sea-level rise is so small at only three times the natural level?
Thanks,
Steve
Bad case of fumble fingers this morning. “add” not “adds”
“Seal level rise”, Probably that has to do with the arctic ice cap. Don’t do ice cap stuff. Make that “Sea Level Rise”
Aslak Grinsted says:
October 20, 2011 at 3:21 am
Here is a causal chain of events as i see them,
—
I believe Grinsted is confusing causal with correlation. He failed to show causation and made giant leaps on assumptions instead.
Grinsted might also want to take a look at the behavior of the Pleistocene Interglacials, particularly the Eemian. The feared sea level rise postulated by the IPCC for the past 20 years falls well within the normal fluctuations without getting anywhere near the maximums. But the telling thing is that the Late Holocene is behaving much like the Eemian and is in the down trend from the max. Everything points to that, including the recent decadal cooling. Unfortunately for Grinsted and colleagues, the observed evidence does not support their models.
Don K says:
October 20, 2011 at 6:54 am
“They have backfit the model to “real data” (how much? whose? over what timespan?).”
Can any of them explicate the word ‘backfit’ or whatever word they want to use here?
In scientific method, the relationship between a set of hypotheses (a theory) and the phenomena that they are used to predict and explain is clear as the finest crystal. When combined with statements of initial conditions, the hypotheses imply the phenomena to be explained. No Warmista, no computer modeler has provided an explication of the relationship between a model and the actual phenomena. None. Nada. Zip. That relationship, if it exists at all, is as muddy as the Yellow River. Now, let us all ask ourselves a most important question. Why have the Warmista and the modelers failed to clearly describe that relationship? Everything that they claim depends on that relationship, at least until they create some reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses.
aslak grinsted says:
October 20, 2011 at 8:11 am
“I could only make sense of crispin’s position.”
Good. Recognizing that you have a problem is the first step to a cure. Read some basic works on scientific method. An excellent starting point is Carl G. Hempel’s “Aspects of Scientific Explanation.” If you like to be really challenged, get Isaac Levi’s books. The starting point for Levi is “The Enterprise of Knowledge.”
Steve from rockwood says:
October 20, 2011 at 6:45 am
A model walks into an error bar….
===================================
Now that is funny.
Steve from rockwood says:
October 20, 2011 at 6:45 am
“A model walks into an error bar….”
The bartender says: You may sit wherever you like, including my station.
The model says: I just love climate science error bars.
Tokyoboy, ask yourself the same question when the nuclear plants are shut down, as in Japan and Germany and its -10 C. We are insulated from the real questions of survival – you know food production, advanced medicine, transportation of the same and heat only because of fossil fuels. The “inconvenient truth” for the greenies is that there is no energy dense, portable substitute for fossil fuels that will be available in 1,2 or probably 500 years. Your question is mute if you want to survive. There are 6 billion of us now so what’s your alternative? the laughable wind turbines and solar panels? Did you see that the thermometer broke -20 C in the UK last winter and not a single wind turbine, that wasn’t frozen solid, was spining. It froze in Brazil for the first time in 60 years over the last Southern Hemisphere winter. Are you absolutely, consensually, IPCC-type, confident that “snow will be a rare and exciting event”. England had way too much excitement last winter. Thanks to coal and natural gas the lights stayed on. Heaven help Japan and Germany.
[snip – over the top – Anthony]
@Aslak
If you don’t like the extremism don’t respond to them. I see tehre is quite a range. I think we have the basis of a discussion. I don’t think the AGW supporters have had anything meaningful to say (just blog and run).
I see that David Springer has made a fairly detailed response too. I am sure you are aware that the extraordinarily offensive (and consistently so) reactions skeptics have received at the hands of warmists drives their emotional responses. It is quite a reasonable or shall I say expectable reaction following the thousands of silly rebuffs of their sincere attempts to hold what used to be considered normal scientific exchange.
I hope you will consider closely my main point which is that calculating a theoretical forcing is not the same as the system’s response to that forcing. The other main point was well covered by others too: that the sea level and temperature is not presently ‘cooperating’ with the CO2 rise, a suggested link that underpins the basis of your premises.
A model tries to incorporate a number of theoretical calculations to produce an encapsulated picture of reality. They are useful and I use them all the time. Some, like beam deflection are really accurate. Others, like climate, are most inadequate for two reasons: poor characterisation (failure to include important factors) and low accuracy (large error bars). They are getting better but all in all, they are terrible. No one would invest in the stock market based on them, I hope (I guess one could over-estimate people).
Surely you are aware of the ludicrous numbers that have been made about sea levels which are based on simple guessing, sort of hunches dressed up with numbers. Greenland melting in 50 years and alla that. It really is like shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. It is execrable to try to scare people into spending trillions of Dollars on absolutely unproven hare-brained schemes to control the climate. People are literally dying as funds are switched from much-needed upliftment to CO2 offsets that accomplish exactly nothing. Even as an exercise in ‘creating a common vision of a better society’ it is doomed to fail because the science is so bad and that will come back to haunt the (perhaps) well-intended authors. You will note how many bloggers think it is a commie conspiracy, but that’s just because any good commie knows a bandwagon when he sees one. Ditto rent-seekers and hangers-on who have no real job or academic prospects.
I would be happy with your paper if you included the reality of the sea level and temperature changes that have occurred recently and indicate the huge range of futures that might be encountered when they are. Noting wrong with speculation based on observations. That, after all, is what skeptics do when observing the failure of temperatures to rise (significantly, in the technical sense) since 1995. At the least proper error bars might bring some sanity to the GW discussion. I find Flannery’s works absolutely unreadable bilge. It is evident by now he has nothing to contribute. I feel that with your evident skills, you do.
And to all the noise makers and arm-chair experts populating this popular list: In spite of not posting it here, the Author has shown up to discuss the Paper and its implications and interpretations. Do him the courtesy of having the conversation.
Aslak, if they do not offer substance and courtesy, go to Judith Curry’s site and discuss it there. We can redirect people from here. I would like to remain here for lack of time to survey everything. I have raised some points to which you could respond.
Sincerely
Crispin
Sea level was between 4 to 6 metres higher during the last Eemian interglacial, 125,000 years ago.
Temperatures were about 2.25C to 3.0C higher than today in the Eemian, about what is projected from global warming (this wasn’t caused by a CO2 increase however). So, one could surmise that sea level could rise 5.0 metres if temperatures were 2.25C to 3.0C higher.
The high resolution ice core data, however, indicates that the warmest period in the Eemian (the time period when it was 2.5C to 3.0C higher than today) lasted for about 5,000 years. So, one could also surmise it took 5,000 years to melt enough ice and for ocean thermal expansion to reach sea level rise of +5.0 metres.
500 years is 10% of 5,000 years. 10% of 5.0 metres is 50 cms.
There you go. Another estimate (this time based on a real Earth example).
Dear Aslak Grinsted,
Can you please explain why the most accurate sea level measurements (the EVISAT satellite) have shown no sea level rise since it began operation back in 2003? If the answer is that natural variations have overwhelmed CO2’s heating effects than please show how these natural variations influenced sea level rise since the little ice age AND THEN CEASED and man-made factors replaced them. Use numbers and show your work! It is these unexplained gaps in reasoning that subject you to mockery. If you do not wish to be mocked then please explain such basic logical problems with observations, and measurements otherwise the shifting causation reeks of a childish “I can make myself invisible, just not right now.”
Willis, I don’t always agree with you (where would the fun in that be?) but I like your style, this is the cruelest critique that I have read in sometime. Ouch!!
aslak grinsted says:
October 20, 2011 at 8:11 am
I am impressed by how successfully the crowd has been driven to a frenzy. Your audience loves you, Willis. I am sure they also would like to know what you think.
…………………………………………………..
That is funny. Your paper would attempt to drive the worlds population into a frenzy based on speculation and assumption.
The recorded trends of Air Temperature and Ocean Temperature as well as Sea Level have not followed CO2 rise as expected from those promoting global warming. If you haven’t followed this blog very close you might be surprised that terms such as // if, assume // do not get much traction here.
The one thing I can promise is if you bring your data here for all to see it will be dissected better than any peer review. What better way to prove your theory than under the intense light of skepticism or would you just rather the world followed you like sheep?
Please complete your assertion, by explaining how any of these observations are unusual over the last 10,000 years.
Next, please provide some evidence, that these observations are accelerating and if so – are caused by Anthropogenic in origin.
While I do agree CO2 is increasing (probably anthropologically), why should that fact be regarded with fear. Do you hate plants or just plant food, or just life in general? You are negative about that which enables all higher forms of life. The atmosphere has been dangerously low on CO2 for a very long time and only recently begun to return to more optimal conditions.
Lastly, Why do you assume that present conditions, just so happen, to be the ideal and optimal conditions for this planet?! Why do you believe that climate will EVER be static? GK
We’re clever specializers
In the art of climatology,
We’re very highly specialized
In modelling futurology,
We’re really rather good at,
Yes, we’re good at hindcastology,
And upside down’Tiljender,’
Such a tricky methodology.
Now you skeptics think our measurements
Perverse and upside -downery,
And some among you skeptics say
We’re clueless and we’re clownery,
But we’re very, very good at
Yes,we’re very, very good at,
Oh we’re really very good at
Getting money from the guvernment!
Willis,
Not to worry, I am sure they have taken into account all of the potential variables: continental shelf deposition and erosion, ice melt and freeze rate changes, ocean temperature, future meteor impacts, tectonic plate drift and potenial regional plate upwelling and collapse, volcanism, ocean current changes, precipitation changes, solar radiation changes, etc., etc., etc. over the next 500 years. Simple stuff for the enlightened.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
October 20, 2011 at 9:13 am
“And to all the noise makers and arm-chair experts populating this popular list: In spite of not posting it here, the Author has shown up to discuss the Paper and its implications and interpretations. Do him the courtesy of having the conversation.”
Did you not see that the author showed up and said he understands only you among the replies he received here. Is it inaccurate to say that he is not doing the courtesy of having the conversation? Or maybe he is simply honest and is not capable of engaging someone else.
When I look at the basic graph and I accept it on face value. It breaks down into nice little 100 year increments. In the first 100 year block of time, society needs only to resolve an estimated 1 meter of sea level rise. Certainly that is reasonable. I can only imagine what sort of technological development will transistion during that time concurrent with that need. so really not much of a chalenge.
The second 100 year period will face a slightly more challenging 2 meters of sea level rise and have 100 years of experience in dealing with such a problem while having up to 100 years to resolve it. So again not much of a challenge.
The following 100 years will face 1.5 meters of rise and have 200 years of experience in dealing with such a problem. Plus sufficient time to resolve it. A no sweat effort for sure.
The next 100 years will face only 75% of a meter of rise and the last 100 period wil face only a half meter of sea level rise. These last two iterations should have no issue at all and may be bored with such trivial problems.
Then again, this seems like some tired speculation and my basic assumption of accepting on face value seems to be a bit naive.
At what point in the curve do we actually run out of water to add in? That is, there’s only a certain amount of water on Earth at the current time, and even if you melted the Icecaps….or does this scenario envision AGW getting to the point where it causes a rift in the fabric of space time, opening a gateway to a parallel dimension of water?