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.
“Not only is it a joke, it’s a joke that doesn’t pass the laugh test.”
NIce piece, but it would be more effective if it were better written. You could use an editor,
What the hell has happened to the NAS?
[Lunatic ravings should be posted at RealClimate or at Tamina’s blog, not here. Thanx, ~dbs, mod.]
The temperature in London tomorrow will be between 4 and 30c. Remember to wrap up warm and only wear a T-shirt. Worthless gripe.
Pacific and Water! Has PG gone and put his foot in it again?
Re my previous posting on June 24, 2012 at 5:40 am: – I was not trying to place the Maldives in the Pacific Ocean. I was merely trying to liken their situation in the Indian Ocean to other volcanic islands in the Pacific. – Clumsily done, I must admit. – Should have “Proof-read” more slowly before posting.
To my chagrin, I must have lost my sense of humor. I find nothing funny or amusing about deliberate manipulation, propaganda and disinformation. Who does the National Academy of Sciences really think they are serving? Perhaps if they would just change their name to the National Academy of Social Engineering and Agendas… I would be amused. GK
Uh oh. A Mann and his hockey stick.
Hah! But they have their hockey stick. Box 2.1 on page 26 unprecedented sea-evel rise.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13389&page=26
Well, the closest PSMSL tide gauge along The California coast line south of Cape Mendocino is Arena Cove.
Station ID: 2125
Latitude: 38.913333
Longitude: -123.706667
Coastline code: 823
Station code: 26
Country: UNITED STATES
Time span of data: 1978 – 2011
Completeness (%): 76
Frequency Code: Not Specified
Date of last update: 07 Mar 2012
The dataset for this station is complete between November 1990 and December 2011 (that’s 21 years and 2 months).
In the last 21 full years (between January 1991 and December 2011) average rate of sea level change is -1.56 mm/year there, that is, sea level is dropping (by 32.8 mm in 21 years).
Since January 2000 it is rising indeed, at an astounding rate of 0.82 mm/year (which is 9.83 mm in 12 years).
So. Even for their lower bound (40 mm rise from 2000 to 2030) to come true, in the next 18 years it should rise by 30 mm there, and that’s double the current rate.
Willis – I just took another look at your sea level curve in San Francisco and realized that it shows a distinct trace of the ENSO oscillation. Those zigzags are spaced about five years apart and correspond to El Nino peaks. They are not totally regularly spaced but the approximately five year spacing recurs after irregularities. The amplitude is mostly two to three inches except for the 1983 El Nino that goes to six inches. That one was unusual in other ways too because it slammed into South America with enough momentum to change the LOD.
Thanks: interesting article. Just to confirm: which way did NAS deal with GIA adjustment in their alarmist projection – is it actually worse than we thought… 🙂
You know, I really believe Dwight Eisenhower was ahead of his time. A few of his quotes:
“public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite”;
“whatever America hopes to bring to pass in this world must first come to pass in the heart of America”;
but thankfully (as concerns the UN eyeing up world government and agenda 21)
“No treaty or international agreement can contravene the Constitution”.
Lanks anger is rising too says:
June 23, 2012 at 6:51 pm
No Willis it is not a joke. The authors of this alarmist pseudoscience garbage should be held to account.
Absolutely. We need folks with PhDs to start writing letters to the Universities where this garbage is created. Name the individuals which in this case appear to be:
Robert Dalrymple, committee chair and Willard and Lillian Hackerman Professor of Civil Engineering at Johns Hopkins University
We need to make them feel ridiculous. We need them to look like idiots. Only then will this nonsense stop. We need something like the surface station project where these kind of activities can be reported and a team of skeptical scientists can demonstrate to the Dean’s of the various schools just how silly their department looks.
Willis: probably a stupid question, allow me to ask it anyway: does the recorded rise in sea level at San Francisco since 1850 have anything to do with the enormous amount of infilling of the Bay over that period of time?
“For the California coast south of Cape Mendocino, the committee projected that sea level will rise 4 to 30 centimeters by 2030, 12 to 61 centimeters by 2050, and 42 to 167 centimeters by 2100.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=13389
It looks like Mr. Eschenbach only reads titles of newspapers and draws conclusions from that. Has he actually read the full report?
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13389&page=1
“It is also worth noting that during the last couple of decades it has hardly risen at all.”
Are you serious!
Have you also noticed that between 1960 and 1980 sea level has hardly risen at all or between 1910 and 1930? While the 1930s were also very warm in the US. Record warm even.
Your remark about the last decades mean nothing.
Do you see any trend at Huntinton Beach for example? http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.plots/766_high.png
nevket240 says:
June 23, 2012 at 10:01 pm
http://www.thedailybell.com/4014/Leading-Global-Warming-Advocate-Recants-Models-Fail-Dramatically-
The ‘plot’ is not the only thing they are losing. Another one has jumped ship.
==============
It appears that Gavin has also jumped ship and now has apparently announced on RC that regional climate is “strongly stochastic” (random) on time scales of 21 years or less.
This all seems very confusing to me. If regional climate is a coin toss (random) then why spend billions in taxpayer money on regional climate models? A simple coin will do just as well, for a whole lot less money. I’ll happily donate the coin for 1/2 the savings to the taxpayer.
Also, if regional climate is a coin toss (random) then why use gridding to fill in missing temperatures in regions like the Arctic? A random value cannot be predicted by surrounding values, so it follows that regional temperatures cannot be predicted by surrounding temperatures.
It all seems very strange to me. If regional climate is random, then why are we spending so much money trying to predict it? If regional climate is random, why are we pretending that we can predict missing values from known values?
Gavin writes
“The basic issue is that for short time scales (in this case 1979-2000), grid point temperature trends are not a strong function of the forcings – rather they are a function of the (unique realisation of) internal variability and are thus strongly stochastic”
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
NAS ‘climate scientist’ 1:
“Golly! Look at this graph I’ve just made, the projected sea level rise is going to be taller than the Golden Gate bridge towers!”
NAS ‘climate scientist’ 2:
“Wow! You’re right! We’d better get the word out to the general public. I’ll speak to our media/alarm/hype department…”
NAS ‘climate scientist’ 1:
“Good idea. Wait, its worth than we thought! Following my greater in-depth investigation of this graph, including a quick model I’ve just vaguely programmed, and given my far greater knowledge than the average ‘oik’ in the street, I conclude that the bridge tower at the far end is smaller than the tower at the near end. Which means it is sinking, which means the sea level rise is going to get much worse much sooner!”
NAS ‘climate scientist’ 2:
“OMG! You is well clever innit. I’ll make sure the media/alarm/hype department make due emphasis according to our scientific authority!”
Willis, having spent a good part of my life wearing a white coat, I am more than a little confident that these authors don’t use them.
It is probably more accurate to say they “should be wearing white coats”. The sort of white coats that have straps, not regular sleeves.
“We need folks with PhDs to start writing letters to the Universities where this garbage is created.”
That probably won’t happen. Few in the cradle of academia want to rock the boat. In the current environment in many disciplines the objective it to be published; the content is secondary. In my discipline, economics, the Council of Economic Advisors has consistently embarassed itself in the past three years or more, yet they still have their jobs in academia when their stint in the real world proves too difficult.
In another context, I can recall about twenty years ago when there was a call for the elimination of the Ed.D. degree on the grounds that there was little content in whatever research it produced. That didn’t happen either.
Willis,
What does your daughter think will happen to sea level rise? Does she believe in CAGW?
In the UK, the Royal Society has become almost exclusively funded by the govt in recent years. At the same time senior management salaries have rocketed.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/royal-society-funding/
Is the NAS funded in the same way?
I feel very confident in the following forecast.
Recent research has revealed a much more accurate range to report the sea level change by year 2030. Converted to inches the range would be from minus 3 feet to a positive 9 feet. The probability of this forecast being correct is 95%.
Standard post modern scientific principles were followed. I used the shadow of cloth ribbon attached to a clothesline and marked end of shadow at random times while wind was blowing at various speeds from various directions at various times of the day. This spanned three solar cycles. It was peer reviewed by some of my neighbors who determined the method and results were as good as any others. They are members of a non-profit group and were unanimous in their decision. The results were presented at the meeting of BEER (Believing Every Environmental Report) at the Igloo where the ice was showing obvious signs of rapid melt. As the ice melted the water level rose to the extent that no more beer was placed in the Igloo cooler.
This rapid ice loss is also being observed in Rio at this very moment. It has influenced the decisions and views of the participants there and proves the theory of rapid ice loss and rising water levels.
Some skepics are saying that other factors may be involved and this is all a bunch of bullshit. More research is needed.
California is soooo special.
Actually, I don’t know whether anyone else has noticed, but there has been a similar propaganda attempt on all the States, individually. It is a change in tactics by the Warmists. They have lost the national battle so they are attempting to attempt to relate the same on a local basis, usually with ridiculous claims. This harkens back to the flooded Manhattan gambit, but now is localized. Here in Honolulu for example, up to a 6.2 foot rise is predicted by the end of the century. Yup. The Warmists can boundary the rise within 3″. In reality, Hawaii like California, is in a constant state of geologic flux, the influence of which is way more forceful than the current pitiful sea level variations. Over the last 10 thousand years the islands have been in a constant state of rising or falling, and that time period is just the observable and accurately measurable period.
These people are frauds.
The press release says that the report is from the National Research Council, which I hope is not the same thing. However, the organizations do have the same “media relations” organization, which is ominous.
It looks like Mr. Eschenbach only reads titles of newspapers and draws conclusions from that. Has he actually read the full report?
Good question. Another point apparently missed is that the predictions are relative to 2000 not today’s date. According to the PSML source Willis used for his graph, sea levels have risen by 3.6cm at San Francisco since 2000. So the NAS are actually projecting a further rise of between 1 and 26cm, some of which is due to the vertical movement of the land, rather than pure SLR.
The projections for California, Oregon, and Washington are illustrated in Figure S.1. The
steep change in projected sea-level rise at Cape Mendocino reflects the transition from land
subsidence in California, which effectively increases sea-level rise, to land uplift in Oregon and Washington, which effectively decreases sea-level rise. The slight slope in the projection curves from north to south reflects the sea-level fingerprints, which lower relative sea level, especially along the Washington coast. For the California coast south of Cape Mendocino, the committee projects that sea level will rise 4–30 cm by 2030 relative to 2000
REPLY: Mr. Clarke, being his usual CAGW apologist self, totally misses the fact that the issue is ALL ABOUT the headline…which most people with a newspaper read, but don’t read the full article. Hence, his embodiment of concern is worthless in this case. This story is an AP story, carried by hundreds of newspapers, and the headline is the issue whether he likes it or not. As for the rest of his assertions, see Willis reply below.
I still think Mr. Clarke is in the employ on an NGO as a paid blog monitor – Anthony