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.
They say trouble comes in threes. Well, here is number two (literally and figuratively).
See AP article by Seth Boringstein.
http://news.yahoo.com/sea-rise-faster-east-coast-rest-globe-172002416.html
People – the original article has nothing to do with changing sea level as measured by satellites and everything to do with vertically shifting land masses. It is a scam, and a very transparent one. Sea level is not so variable by region as this article suggests. Parts of the Golden state are sinking, others are rising, and yet others are doing nothing. I’m reminded of the “Palmdale Bulge” and the Mammoth Mountain caldera pumping up many years ago. When this happens at the beach things get dried out that haven’t been dry in centuries. But it ain’t the sea level that is changing. Shorelines are fickle, sea level is not.
There is an alternative significance of this nonsense. Anyone who can observe the mainstream plot of sea levels can observe that sea levels are rising a foot (30cm) a century, with no sign of acceleration.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
The alternative is that the scientists – or anyone who can read a graph – has been beaten into submission by those who believe science is but a weapon of political argument. They have control of the research money, and are quite capable of destroying the careers of any dissenters. One is the “denier” label. A sure sign in the past where unquestioned dogma has gained the upper hand is that silly statements in support gain a hearing. Another is that the barriers to agreement are much lower than the barriers to disagreement. Hence the “97% of climate scientists agree” survey is really “97% of climate scientists claim they are not deniers” .
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/06/18/97-of-climate-scientists-claim-they-are-not-climate-deniers-survey/
A sea rise range of 4 cm to 30 cm by 2030 doesn’t seem that unreasonable all things considered, although it will likely be down at the lower end. I find it difficult to believe that a committee of 13 different professionals from 13 different universities, i.e. University of California (Los Angeles), University of California (Santa Cruz), University of California (San Diego), University of Hawaii, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, Ohio State University, University of New Orleans, University of Colorado, Oregon State University, Portland State University, University of Pennsylvania, University of Colorado and Johns Hopkins University, can be as either corrupt or as stupid as many of the posts suggest and that they basically made this stuff up. At least this is one prediction with a time span that I should still be around to actually witness as to who has been naughty or nice.
Phil Clarke says:
June 24, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Gosh, Phil, you are right. I did miss that detail. So here is the revised graph:
Not really, the caption still refers to ‘one foot’. And the land around San Francisco is descending by about 1mm / year,or 3 cm over the time interval which should also surely be noted, and you’ve only plotted the high end of the 4-30cm range, not the range itself, hardly scientific. The maximum figure just means that they rule out a rise above that value, not that they predict that 30cm will definitely occur …..
======================
Phil Clarke, thank you for responding. I’m sure your comments are always noted. It reveals the great wisdom of those like you. Did you take note that my research as noted in an earlier post gave an upper limit of only a nine foot rise in sea level by 2030. This was no guarantee, just an upper limit. Confidence level of the research was 95%. Would you please cite my earlier post eyesonu says: June 24, 2012 at 9:50 am in all your future comments as I am promoting my research and will need funding. A possible nine foot water level rise is nothing to shrug off as bullshit. Think of the children for God’s sake.
Forget about California. It’s the east coast that’s in trouble.
http://news.yahoo.com/sea-rise-faster-east-coast-rest-globe-172002416.html
Seth Borenstein wrote this Isigh).
When I read stories like this I am always reminded of Harlan Ellison’s review of an A.E. van Vogt book [World of Null-A] saying ‘He is a pygmy writing with a giant typewriter’. The tidal wave of free money for CAGW has meant that many intellectual pygmies have gained prominence. In their heads they must think of themselves as Einstein reincarnated spouting Great Truths. It is sad that it is only a few sceptics in their spare time who show that these Great Truths are garbage.
Unfortunately these people have influence with politicians. Here in Europe the response of the EU to CAGW is a large part of why we are on the brink of economic and social collapse, which will most likely take the rest of the world with it.
I suppose this is what believers of CAGW want, so game to them. However I suspect the 50,000 people in Rio are prepared to accept that other people must suffer to save the world, but mentally exclude themselves. In the world they are creating this is really not guaranteed and planting a few trees won’t save them.
Mick says: “I find it difficult to believe that a committee of 13 different professionals from 13 different universities…can be as either corrupt or as stupid as many of the posts suggest….”
You’re arguing from incredulity, Mick, a logical fallacy. Having not just fallen off the turnip truck in the area of AGW, I have no impediment to such a belief. Your assumption that corruption and stupidity are the only alternatives to explain the behaviour of these academics is also false. Other explanations include insanity, hubris, tribalism, political motivation, and grant-seeking.
timg56 says:
June 24, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Thanks, timg56. For those interested in ocean neutralization, I’ve written about it here and here.
w.
steve fitzpatrick says:
June 24, 2012 at 1:23 pm
The report is a typical climate ‘hit piece” designed to give plenty of CYA when the low end comes out true, while generating fodder for frightening headlines with the crazy high end numbers. 4 cm to 20 cm by 2030?
Not that I disagree, but what if the sea level falls rather than rises? Where is the CYA then? The committee are apparently confident that that won’t happen. I see no basis for their confidence.
Phil Clarke says:
June 24, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Indeed it does, because a) the predicted rise is 30 cm and b) it is a quote from the newspaper. The report says the sea level around San Franciso will rise up to 30 cm. What do you call “up to 30 cm” if not “up to one foot”? Should I have said “up to 0.984251969 feet”?
And why should that “surely be noted”? It is ALREADY INCLUDED in the San Francisco observational data, and it is ALREADY INCLUDED in their prediction. So it makes no difference at all.
What do you think “up to 1 foot” means if not the high end? Yes, Phil, I did only plot the high end, because I wanted to show that the high end was ludicrous. I didn’t think the low end was ludicrous so I didn’t show it. I’m crushed that you disapprove.
This is supposed to be news? You sure you know what “up to a foot” means?
Dang, but you are a sore loser, aren’t you?
w.
Michael Daly says:
June 24, 2012 at 2:07 pm
(emphasis mine)
There’s something so endearing, and at the same time so quintessentially human, about a grammar Nazi who can’t spell …
w.
… are “lungs” a pleural subject? …
The report indicates (Table 5.3, page 117) that for San Fancisco, the expected sea level rise in 2030 is 14.4 +/-5 cm, with the error range being the 1 sigma confidence interval. That means, according to this report, there is a better than 68% chance of a 9.4-19.4 cm (3.7-7.6 inch) rise in sea level at San Francisco. How then does Willis report a prediction of 30 cm (12 inch) sea level rise? Well, the 2 sigma confidence interval for the Californian coast is 4-30 cm (1.6-11.8 inch). Another way of expressing that is that the report claims that there is a less than 1/40 chance that sea level will rise by less than 1.6 inches, and a less than 1 in 40 chance that it will rise by more than 11.8 inches. Quite frankly, reporting the upper 2 sigma confidence bound of the report as being the reports prediction represents propaganda, not analysis. This is compounded by graphing the upper confidence bound as being the actual prediction, with neither mean nor lower confidence bound being shown.
Willis (let’s be generous) error is the sort of “error” that should be immediately picked up by any cursory fact check on his article, and should be grounds to immediately reject the article for publication. There is not a single person reading this site (“warmists” included) who would not consider reporting solely the upper confidence bound of observations as being the observations themselves as scientific fraud. That being the case, when you do that for predictions, you have left behind the area of scientific analysis. Truth has ceased to matter as a guide to your writing or in your choice of article to publish. You show beyond any shadow of doubt that your purpose in writing and publishing is to convince people of opinions held in disregard of the truth.
Of course, Willis, and Watts, may also consider predictions of 14.4 cm sea level rise absurd. But clearly they did not find the absurdity of the actual predictions from the report clear enough, for if they had, they would have felt no need to exaggerate them.
“For the California coast south of Cape Mendocino, the committee projects that sea level will rise 4–30 cm by 2030 relative to 2000”
Seems to me you ought to show both extreme. the 4cm from 2000 and the 30cm.
Its a pity that when scientists take the time to include the uncertainty ( its quite large )
that people try to bash them by only plotting the extremes.
That chart, a chart that showed the entire envelope, rather than showing how bad the science is, actually would show the truth: how little we know. Why bash a team of scientists who do exactly what we have been ask. Show us the uncertainty!
Mick says:
June 24, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Mick, it’s like saying that I estimate your height is between four inches and ten feet (10 cm and 3 m). It’s correct, to be sure, but it’s also useless for the purpose of planning say door heights …
While the NAS sea level rise estimate is likely to be right since it goes floor to ceiling, the problem is that coastal communities need to plan, not for the average case, but for the worst case. So the top end of the estimate is very, very important. When it is ludicrously exaggerated, as in this case, it will lead to unnecessary fear, exaggerated responses, and needless costs. For that reason, it is entirely unreasonable.
All that shows is that you are new to climate science. But it’s neither corruption nor stupidity. These folks have drunk the koolaid of climate models. They mistake the models for representations of reality, when in reality they represent nothing but the prejudices and misunderstandings of the programmers.
This problem is aggravated greatly by what is called “noble cause corruption”, where you believe that your cause is so noble that you are willing to overlook any contrary evidence, neglect to look at the historical record, and ignore your responsibility to do due diligence.
Finally, if you believe that someone should be trusted because they come from a university, I fear you are facing a lifetime of disillusionment. Nor is it important that they come from different universities. It’s not a conspiracy of any kind. Folks find like-minded folks, and folks that have put their trust in Tinkertoy™ models will find each other, that’s what the internet is for …
w.
steven mosher says:
June 24, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Steven, first let me say that in general your point is 100% correct.
But in this particular kind of case, the problem is that there is only one number that is of interest to coastal planners and folks in coastal communities—the maximum predicted rise. Nobody plans for the minimum predicted rise, nobody cares about the minimum predicted rise. They are planning, as they should be, for the worst-case scenario, not some rosy future. That one number, the 30 cm or whatever the maximum predicted rise might be, is what you have to plan for. That maximum predicted rise is what you need to be concerned about, everything else is meaningless for planning purposes.
So if you want to concentrate on some other number, say the minimum predicted rise, that’s fine, you can throw up a post on your blog extolling the accuracy of the NAS low estimate.
But nobody cares in the slightest how low a flood might be … what is of interest is one thing and one thing only—how high a flood might be.
And that is why it is totally irresponsible for the NAS to be promoting this kind of alarmist dreck, and why I’m not paying any attention to their low-ball estimate … it’s meaningless for planning purposes, and their results are provided for no other reason than for planning purposes.
w.
Nice bit of irony here. The words “hoist” and “petard” come to mind.
Willis Eschenbach says:
“But in this particular kind of case, the problem is that there is only one number that is of interest to coastal planners and folks in coastal communities—the maximum predicted rise.”
There is indeed a particular number of interest to developers, but it is not upper confidence bound of predicted sea level rise. Sea levels vary substantially in the short term due to tide and winds. As a result coastal buildings and infrastructure are not built just one foot above sea level, and just one foot of sea level rise would be almost irrelevant if it where not for storm surges and high tides that raise the sea far above mean sea level. Consequently, if you are going to reduce a report to just one number, the number of interest is the projected number of hours of extremely high sea, in this case defined as sea level exceeding the 99.99 th percentage of historical sea level records. For San Francisco that is 1.4 meters, and the relevant information is found in figure 5.13 (page 128). As the report says:
“According to the model, the incidence of extreme water heights that exceed the 99.99th percentile level (1.41 m above historical mean sea level) increases from the historical rate of approximately 9 hours per decade to more than 250 hours per decade by mid-century, and to more than 12,000 hours per decade by the end of the century. The model also shows that the duration of these extremes would lengthen from a maximum of 1 or 2 hours for the recent historical period to 6 or more hours by 2100, increasing the exposure of the coast to waves.”
Again, Eschenbach is quite welcome to discuss and dispute these figures. Hiding them behind the upper bound of the 2 sigma confidence level for mean sea level rise, however, does not represent an analysis of the relevant facts. On the contrary, it is a deceptive avoidance of that discussion.
I also note that Eschenbach has not discuss preparedness of coastal communities for future sea level rise. His attack was on the credibility of NAS scientists, and for that there can be no excuse for focusing solely on the upper 2 sigma confidence bound and calling it the NAS reports “projection”.
Tom Curtis says:
June 24, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Tom, clearly you have never done any risk analysis. In risk analysis, neither the minimum nor the mean predictions are important. What counts is how bad things might get, not how wonderful they might be.
For example, if you were tasked with preparing a coastal community for possible sea level rise, it is only and solely the “upper 2 sigma confidence bound of the report” that you would be looking at. And their report was commissioned specifically for risk analysis.
As a result, the upper bound of the risk is what the newspaper rightly focused on, it is what the coastal communities will pay attention to, it is what the engineers are required to consider, and it is also what I am concerned with.
So if you want to write a long blog post about how reasonable the NAS lower confidence bound is, go right ahead. Me, I tend to focus on what is important, but you are welcome to discuss and dissect trivialities if you wish.
w.
PS— Contrary to your claim, I didn’t “report the upper 2 sigma confidence bound of the report as being the reports prediction” … what do you think “up to 1 foot” means?
“Up to 167 cm. by 2100” – 5½ ft.! Since the rates are different up and down the coast, and across the region, etc., they are talking mainly about plate subsidence. An honest headline might have said “the land will subside by up to a foot by 2030”. With some explanation of why it might so suddenly accelerate. Sounds like a Big One, to me.
Tom Curtis says:
June 24, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Oh, please. Before, you wanted to bust me for not considering the minimum predicted rise, claiming that that number was somehow critically important.
Now you’ve abandoned that foolish line of reasoning, but without admitting you were wrong about it, and you want to bust me by saying the important number is not the maximum predicted rise but the 99.99% exceedance rate … as though that exceedance number were not just a mathematical variant of the maximum predicted rise.
Please make up your mind and think your claims all the way through before you look even more foolish. Here’s a clue. If your 95% upper confidence interval is a joke, as is the case here, then so is your 99.99% exceedance rate.
w.
The beat goes on . . .
Rising sea level a threat in East, study says
“Boston could feel especially strong impact”
“By David Abe | Globe Staff June 25, 2012”
“As temperatures are projected to climb, polar ice to melt, and oceans to swell over the coming decades, Boston is likely to bear a disproportionate impact of rising sea levels, government scientists report in a new study.”
http://bostonglobe.com/2012/06/24/searise/0uZldJdVL9BxKrwI1wN7FJ/story.html
Of course, the film industry knows that horror sells.
Sarc on:
The Governor of California is jogging along a nature trail with his dog when a coyote jumps out and attacks the dog. The Governor starts to intervene, but stops when he realizes the coyote is only doing what’s natural. However, after killing the dog, the coyote attacks and bites the Governor before running off. The Governor calls Animal Control to capture the coyote, test it for diseases ($200), and relocate it ($500). He then calls a veterinarian who collects the dead dog and tests it for diseases ($200). The Governor then goes to hospital and spends $3,500 getting his bite wound bandaged and getting checked for rabies and other coyote borne diseases. The Fish & Game service shuts down the running trail 6 months to conduct a $100,000 survey to ensure the area is free of dangerous animals. The Governor spends $50,000 in state funds implementing a “coyote awareness program” for local residents, and the State Legislature spends $2 million to study how to permanently eradicate rabies and other coyote borne disease throughout the world. After the Governor’s security agent is blamed for failing to stop the attack (and subsequently fired), the State spends another $150,000 to hire and train a new agent with additional specialty training on the personality and behavior of coyotes. And of course, PETA files a $5 million suit against the State protesting the cruel and inhumane capture and relocation of the coyote.
Meanwhile in Texas, the Governor is jogging along a nature trail with his dog one day, when a coyote jumps out and attacks. The Governor shoots the coyote with his State-issued pistol and keeps on jogging. The cost to the state is $0.50 (for a .45 ACP hollow point cartridge), and the buzzards clean up the dead coyote for free.
Sarc off:
This illustrates why California is broke (and Texas is not), and why N.C. legislators were wise to pass a law requiring planners to use empirical data, and not climate model projections.
I’m sorry, all I got is “NAS is wrong. Why? Because PFFFFFFT stupid NAS.” Is that really what you’ve got? That’s your actual evidence?
Willis Eschenbach writes:
“PS— Contrary to your claim, I didn’t “report the upper 2 sigma confidence bound of the report as being the reports prediction” … what do you think “up to 1 foot” means?”
To keep Willis honest, he did not write anything about ” up to one foot”. Rather he quoted a headline saying “up to one foot”. What Willis wrote was, “… the National Academy of Sciences projection of a one foot rise by 2030 …”, and the “Alarmist Projection” so there is no question that he is portraying the upper bound as being the (singular) projection from the report. His only concession to accuracy is in the caption of fig 2, which lists the “High end projection”, but does not provide any context by showing the low end projection or the median projection, minimum requirements for honest reporting.
Embarrassingly for Eschenbach and Watts, Anthony Watts intervened in this debate earlier indicating that in Eschenbach’s post the ” issue is ALL ABOUT the headline” which was apparently too alarmist. This is embarrassing for Watts who shows he has not understood the post, but doubly so for Eschenbach who is defending his claim to have not misrepresented on the basis that he quoted a headline that Watts (quite sensibly) thinks is a clear misrepresentation.
Eschenbach also adroitly misrepresents my argument by saying:
“Oh, please. Before, you wanted to bust me for not considering the minimum predicted rise, claiming that that number was somehow critically important.”
For the hard at understanding, my argument is very simple. If you cite “the projection” of a study, the only honest thing to do is to cite the best estimate; or if their are multiple projections, to cite the multiple projections while giving a clear indication of the relative probability assigned to each. That is not hard to understand. It is not that Eschenbach did not cite the lower bound, it is that he exclusively cited the upper bound with no mention of the central estimate that makes his treatment of the subject dishonest.
As a follow up point, and in no way abandoning that central point, I also established that the upper confidence bound is not the important number for “coastal planners and folks in coastal communities”. What is important for them is how frequently their lives and property will be threatened by high sea levels, statistics for which are given by the report, AND IGNORED BY ESCHENBACH. That shows his belated excuse for his dishonest treatment does not hold up to scrutiny. It does not hold up, in any event, because this apparently crucial issue receives no mention in his post. It is an ad hoc, after the event justification for plainly dishonest misrepresentation of the study.
Naturally Eschenbach misrepresents the follow up discussion as a tacit concession by me of the first point I raised. It was no such thing, and he only so misrepresents it because his treatment of the subject is simply unjustifiable.