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.
Science grew out of religion, and every now and again it reverts back to its roots, usually when it doesn’t use the one thing that religion didn’t: the experimental method and empirical data.
Science arrived because it rejected the philosophy: blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed. If totally rejects the idea of faith without evidence. Religions of the old world prospered because they relied on faith and as such couldn’t be disproved, and so whatever those in power wanted to pass as true, remained true, without possibility of falsification.
In science if you want to believe something, you have to have observational evidence for it, and it must be reproducable. All else is noise. Projections into the future are not observational evidence, so such is liable to be captured by faith and political agendas, and we are back to square one-belief by faith, which erects around it a remarkable display of defences to keep the faith going, despite all other evidence.
Mr. Eschenbach:
The “assembled masses” are still waiting for your reply to my comments.
Page 16 of the report: “The low atmospheric pressures and west-southwest winds induced by an El Niño further elevate sea levels, which can reach 30 cm above normal levels for several months (Komar et al., 2011). Sea level is lower along the U.S. west coast during cooler La Niña conditions.”
And on page 17: “Large storms raise coastal sea level for the duration of the storm, usually several hours. The path and propagation speed of storms dictate wind direction and changes in barometric pressure,
which in turn influence wind waves and high water.”
And if you take a look at Table 5.3 (page 117) you can clearly see that they use a range and that all projections are made relative to the sea level in the year 2000. They do not project the rise on the average sea level rise like you did in your blog. That’s misleading.
The report is fairly solid in its arguments. Has a reference list of at least 30 pages. It is written by people who have an education in climate science, Earth Sciences or otherwise and know what they are talking about.
Now maybe you can point to me and the “assembled masses” why the report is false in its projections and maybe you can give us a reference list of at least four or five pages why they have it all wrong.
Robbie says:
June 29, 2012 at 5:35 am
Thanks, Robbie. I’ve replied to all of them that seem important, so you’ll have to be more specific.
Whoa, news flash, wind and barometric pressure affect the sea levels, stop the presses …
Yes, I know that, Robbie, that’s all very basic stuff, sea level 101. Or as I put it in my 2004 paper (PDF) about sea levels in Tuvalu that was published in Energy and Environment …
As evidenced by the fact that I wrote that nearly a decade ago, your trying to school me about it just shows you haven’t done your homework. Read the paper, you might find it interesting.
Pointed out above by Phil, and corrected above by me, with a new graph. You should follow the thread more carefully.
As Richard Feynmann once famously remarked, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”. Or you might prefer to take a look at the book “Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us–and how to know when not to trust them”. Robbie, I’ve been playing the climate science game long enough to know that six men who all have five PhDs after each name can be just as wrong as I can.
You ask if I can point to why the report is false. I can only do so inferentially. For people with common sense, to know the report’s forecast is false, all it takes is a look at the graph. If you can look at that graph and claim there is a chance in Hades of that rise happening, you need a common sense transplant.
As to why it is false, I infer that it is from their dependence on climate models. These are the same models that for decades have been forecasting an acceleration in the sea level rise … but guess what, Robbie, that acceleration hasn’t appeared either … and gosh, just look at the number of references in the studies predicting that mysterious elusive acceleration.
However, you think that the sea level will reach the height forecast by 2030, well, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and wager whether it will get that high? Because I’ll put money that it won’t. Are you as strong in your claims as I am? I have a hundred bucks says it won’t get that high …
Finally, when it comes to projections of the future, or to science of any kind, whether there are 30 pages of references or not is no guarantee of success. You can be right with no references, and you can also be wrong with all of the references in the encyclopedia. Look at all of the failed projections, with dozens and dozens of references propping up every pathetic one of them, from climate scientists and doomsayers like Paul Ehrlich. His book The Population Bomb, which famously predicted imminent food riots and global mass starvation, has pages and pages and pages of footnotes and references … and guess what, Robbie?
It was 100% wrong.
So I’d advise you to pay more attention to what your common sense tells you, and not be so impressed by stacks of references and guys with PhDs … they can be as wrong as anyone else, references or not. Read everything you can lay your hands on, all sides of the discussion, and then make up your own mind.
w.
Eschenbach says: June 29, 2012 at 10:32
“your trying to school me about it just shows you haven’t done your homework”
Your Tuvalu paper is rebutted with good and solid arguments in this paper: http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/p925.pdf
And here is another article written by you and rebutted by the original authors:
http://independent.academia.edu/WillisEschenbach/Papers/1153453/Ecology_Climate-change_effect_on_Lake_Tanganyika
I don’t need to school you. You are being schooled by the experts themselves everytime you try to write in the scientific literature. Maybe that’s the reason why you turned to blogging.
“Wrong: Why experts* keep failing us–and how to know when not to trust them”.
What about this one:
http://www.amazon.com/On-Being-Certain-Believing-Right/dp/0312359209/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0
You see I can play that game too: For every book you try to come up with I can present a book to counter it.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”.
It’s funny why you picked an expert’s quote to try to say something that has nothing to do with the subject at all.
Paul Ehrlich – The Population Bomb:
What has this to do with the subject? And no I am not going to discuss population growth and its fatal consequences here.
I think it is only fair to give Mr. Ehrlich time to respond to your criticism about the book:
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHc7-275h0Y ]
You speak of acceleration: Have you seen Figure 1.5 in the report (Page 15)? Does that look acceleration to you on a longer timescale then what you are talking about? You should stop thinking short-term. Climate Change is a long-term process. It needs centuries to really unfold and equilibrate.
I don’t know what your obsession is with that 30 cm figure. The report claims a rise between 4-30 cm and it never speaks of a rise of just 30 cm. I have written that several times now in this thread.
As you can see for yourself Mr. Eschenbach I do read a lot and yes let’s make that bet that sea level for San Francisco will rise between 4-30 cm by 2030.
Let’s bet 100 dollars as you say. If you lose the bet you will donate 100 dollars to http://www.villagetortues.com
And if I lose it you choose a non-profit organisation where I can donate my 100 dollars to. I won’t donate to Heartland.
Is that a deal?
Finally: “Robbie, I’ve been playing the climate science game long enough to know that six men who all have five PhDs after each name can be just as wrong as I can.”
Welll in the case of Tuvalu you got it all wrong: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818111001445
And in the case of Tanganyika you got it wrong again:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/abs/ngeo865.html
Tell me Mr. Eschenbach: Whom should I trust more: The scientists, who present facts and data, or someone who got it wrong again and again?