The National Academy of Sciences Loses The Plot

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

A man who has a daughter is a pretty pathetic specimen, ruled by the vicissitudes of hormones and hairspray. So when my daughter told me this morning “Hey, Dad, I put the newspaper on your desk, you’re gonna like it a lot!”, I knew my blood pressure was in deep trouble.

When I finished my shower and got to my desk I saw that the very first story, above the fold, had the headline:

In 20 years, sea level off state to rise up to 1 foot

I figured that it was some rogue alarmist making the usual warnings of impending doom … but no, it was a report from the National Academy of Sciences.

Now, I’ve spent a good chunk of my life at sea, and living in California the sea level rise is of great interest to me, so I knew immediately that the report was unmitigated nonsense. To see why, first let me show you the actual sea level record from San Francisco:

Figure 1. 160 years of sea level observations in San Francisco, California. Source: PSMSL

San Francisco has one of the longest continuous sea level records in the US. As you can see, there’s nothing too remarkable about the record. It is worth noting, however, that over the last 160 years the sea level in San Francisco has gone up by about 8 inches (20 cm) … and there are 12 inches in a foot (30 cm). It is also worth noting that during the last couple of decades it has hardly risen at all.

So what does the National Academy of Sciences projection of a one foot rise by 2030 look like?

Well … it looks like this:

Figure 2. High end projection of the National Academy of Sciences for the 2030 sea level in San Francisco.

Now, people are always saying to me things like “Willis, why don’t you believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? After all, the National Academy of Sciences says it is real and about to happen.”

And indeed, there is a whole cottage industry these days dedicated to figuring out why the American public doesn’t believe what the climate scientists and people like the NAS folks are saying. Some people studying the question say it’s because the scientists aren’t getting the message across. Others say it’s because the public doesn’t understand science. Another group ascribes it to political affiliation. And there’s even a group that says it is a psychological pathology.

I hold a different view. I say that both I and a large sample of the American public doesn’t believe what the folks in the white lab coats at the National Academy of Science are saying because far too often it is a joke. Not only is it a joke, it’s a joke that doesn’t pass the laugh test. It is risible, unbelievable, way outside the boundaries of the historical record, beyond anything that common sense would say is possible, ludicrous, out of this world. I mean seriously, folks … is there anyone out there who actually believes that the sea level rise shown in Figure 2 will actually happen by 2030? Well, they believe it over at the National Academy of Sciences.

So the next time someone trots out the pathetic claim that catastrophic AGW must be real because the most prestigious and highly respected National Academy of Sciences says so … point them to this post.

The NAS press release, with a link to the actual paper, is here.

w.

PS—While this is a comedy, it is also a tragedy. It is a measure of how blinded and blinkered the climate science establishment has become. It is a tragedy because in an uncertain time, science should be our pole star, the one fixed thing in a spinning sky … but instead, it has become a joke, and that is a tragedy indeed.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
206 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 23, 2012 6:43 pm

The University Colorado at Boulder satellite derived global sea level data shows that since measurements began in 1993 there has been no acceleration in the rate of global sea level increase, that since 2002 the of rate of sea level increase has declined and that the total sea level increase to the year 2100 lies in the range of 7 to 16 inches. This empirical data is what should be relied upon by society not the pure conjecture provided by climate alarmists models.

michaeljmcfadden
June 23, 2012 6:45 pm

The Netherlands has a long history of concern about the sea level. One of the things I noticed while visiting there several years ago were markers on canals and walls and such things showing high-water marks at various times stretching back hundreds of years. Some of those marks were a fair number of feet above where the waters ranged in recent decades.
– MJM

Richard Sharpe
June 23, 2012 6:50 pm

Hockey Stick on viagra!

Lanks anger is rising too
June 23, 2012 6:51 pm

No Willis it is not a joke. The authors of this alarmist pseudoscience garbage should be held to account. They must be outed as the ‘camera grabbers’ that they are and shunned by all academic organisations that claim to be scientific.
General public who falsely claim they have committed a serious crime are punished and often go to prison for wasting law inforcement time…. these pseudoscience criminals should also be punished.

timetochooseagain
June 23, 2012 6:52 pm

The San Francisco tide gauge is probably reflecting, in part, subsidence or other factors, not climatic sea level changes. Nearby:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/437.php
Alameda doesn’t show nearly as much change over their common period, as far as I can tell.

Matt
June 23, 2012 6:54 pm

I can tell you right now that in 2030 the sea rise will be about 4 cm. However, CO2 levels will increase faster than expected. The warmists will take the rising CO2 as evidence of climate change and ignore that the ocean rise is smaller than what they predicted such a “devastating” rise in CO2 would do.
Hey, the same thing happened with Hansen and his paper.

June 23, 2012 6:56 pm

algore better sell his $4M waterfront condo in San Francisco.
Reply: I wish this false factoid would die. Gore’s condo is not on the waterfront. It’s in SOMA, (South of Market), near The Financial District in a high rise building, the base of which is about 75 feet above sea level. ~ctm

Neil Jordan
June 23, 2012 7:01 pm

Willis: To further confuse the issue, relative sea level is falling at Crescent City, CA:
http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9419750
Minus 0.65 +/- 0.36 mm/year (minus 0.03 inch/year).
On the other hand, the California Ocean Protection Council at http://www.opc.ca.gov/
adopted by resolution on March 11, 2011
http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/OPC_SeaLevelRise_Resolution_Adopted031111.pdf
a table of future sea levels based on Vermeer & Rahmstorf*:
Year Average of models
2030 18 cm 7 inch
2050 36 cm 14 inch
2070 Low 59 cm 23 inch
2070 Medium 62 cm 24 inch
2070 High 69 cm 27 inch
2100 Low 101 cm 40 inch
2100 Medium 121 cm 47 inch
2100 High 140 cm 55 inch
If you dig deeper, you will find even more “projections” and inconsistencies. The ensemble of projections added to your figure would look like a bicycle handlebar tassel.
(*) Martin Vermeer and Stefan Rahmstorf, “Global sea level linked to global temperature”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online before print December 7, 2009; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907765106.

John F. Hultquist
June 23, 2012 7:04 pm

michaeljmcfadden says:
June 23, 2012 at 6:45 pm Re: The Netherlands

And your point was what?

michaeljmcfadden
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
June 23, 2012 7:33 pm

John, the point about the Netherlands was that there didn’t seem to be any truly significant rise in sea level over the last several hundred years or there wouldn’t have been a long history of higher “high water marks.” HOWEVER… after making the comment I realized I was falling into the trap of confusing trends with aberrations. The high water marks probably involved flooding due to local weather conditions and could easily have been orders of magnitude above any gradual rise of a hundred or two centimeters. My fault!
– MJM

Rob L
June 23, 2012 7:16 pm

Sea level graph from 19th to 21st century:
http://www.climatedata.info/Impacts/Impacts/sealevels.html
Can see recent rise is little different from 1930 to 1960 during previous heating phase of the 60 year period PDO cycle. Sea rise unsurprisingly appears to be about 15 years (90° phase) lagged to PDO driven heating cycle. I’m actually surprised recent rises weren’t greater given massive rate of agricultural ground water abstraction since 1950′s, that apparently added about 0.8mm sea level rise per year, abstract:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044571.shtml
If that 0.8mm/year groundwater contribution is correct then it suggests satellite era underlying glacial melt + thermosteric sea level rise might actually be lower than 1930-1960 which would be a bit inconvenient for the CO2 driven AGW story.

Frederick Michael
June 23, 2012 7:21 pm

Time out — 4 to 30 centimeters? That’s not much more useful than “predicting” that the rise will be between 0 and 100 centimeters. How is that even a prediction? It’s like “predicting” that Obama will get between 20% and 80% of the popular vote in November. Gee, thanks for filling that in for us.
Does anyone want to bet that the rise WON’T be between 4 and 30 centimeters over the next 18 years? That’s a rate of rise ranging from a low of 2.22 millimeters per year to a high of 16.67 millimeters per year. That pretty much covers it, eh?
After having been wrong on so many “predictions,” maybe they want to just be sure to get one right.

Curiousgeorge
June 23, 2012 7:31 pm

“But Major Earthquake Could Cause Sudden Rise”
*************************************************************
As in a very minor tsunami. Big deal.

Rob MW
June 23, 2012 7:31 pm

Willis,
Are you sure that NAS didn’t just mix up their allotted column space with their review of the adjusted positive feedback pointers in the regular consumption of Government subsidised Viagra ?/sarc
Thus they would be proud of the accuracy of your chart./sarc

June 23, 2012 7:41 pm

The NAS was paid $500,000 by the state of California for that study, so of course they will report whatever the customer wants to hear.

Paul Carter
June 23, 2012 7:42 pm

The San Francisco Chronicle has published an incorrect graph on http://www.sfgate.com about the projected rises – see http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/Global-sea-level-rise-could-hit-California-hard-3657131.php
Their top graph misrepresents the report’s high end global sea level rise as only 10cm by 2030, not 23 cm. A correct graph would look more like Willis’s graph above, and the ridiculousness of the top end projections that are grabbing headlines would be clear.
The NRC place a significant reliance on Climate Model projections for their estimates, see details in the report at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13389&page=107

Luther Wu
June 23, 2012 7:43 pm

Willis,
I’m surprised that they claim an entire foot. Sure, after the flood subsides, there will be measurable rise- on the new coastline formerly known as the east bank of the San Andreas.
/s

BarryW
June 23, 2012 7:45 pm

If you take the the high value for the global rate of sea level rise (3mm/yr), in 18 yrs you get 54 mm or a little more than 2 inches. I’m scared.

accordionsrule
June 23, 2012 7:54 pm

Boyd How on earth is the sea level supposed to rise off the California coast exclusively? Has water decided to congregate there to the exclusion of the rest of the planet? 
It’s all plate tectonics. You know it, I with a high school education know it, and even the NAS knows it. Might as well abandon the coast now rather than later.

Jon
June 23, 2012 7:56 pm

It’s really “National Academy of Social Politics”?

Jon
June 23, 2012 8:03 pm

Maybee someone wants to destroy the value of property along the coast and buy or confescate it up dirt cheap and later sell it with max profit?

Chuck Nolan
June 23, 2012 8:13 pm

Willis:
“It is also worth nothing that during the last couple of decades it has hardly risen at all.”
—–
Should be noting?
[Thanks, fixed. w.]

Max Entropy
June 23, 2012 8:14 pm

To translate the NAS release.: “The crisis must be studied, send grant money NOW!”

Rob Dawg
June 23, 2012 8:18 pm

Seems everybody, even the water, wants to hang out on the California coast.

Democrat Voter Siting Next to the San Francsco Bay
June 23, 2012 8:19 pm

OMG! Look right now, the sea level is rising!
No, wait. It’s dropping.
There it goes again, it rising even higher than before… RUN!
Oh, that was close, it’s going back down now.
There! It’s rising again!
Whew, back down.

DocMartyn
June 23, 2012 8:30 pm

Last time I was in San Francisco was in early 1990. They had just managed to get the city functioning after large parts of it moved, and moved more than a foot, and in more than one direction. The Oakland side of the San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge shifted half a foot.
I was a little worried about another earthquake, but now I find that I should have been more worried about a sudden surge in the sea level, silly me.