Guest essay by Bjørn Lomborg
Justin Gillis tells NPR how much sea levels will rise:
“experts believe sea levels will rise at least 3 feet in the next century, and that number could be as much as 6 feet.”
(91cm to 183cm, http://n.pr/ZOxRKF.)
The leaked upcoming UN Climate Panel report will likely increase its sea level rise estimates (leaked here: http://bit.ly/12ybRHI, the numbers are very similar to the new June leak of the summary for policy makers).
It estimates the average sea level rise over 95 years at 40-62cm (1.31-2.04ft, it is the average 1986-2005 till 2081-2100) Looking at the entirety of the likely ranges, the range could be as wide as 29-82cm (0.95-2.69ft).
So, Gillis tells us the one end of the spectrum is 3 feet and the highest 6 feet, while the the UN says 1 foot to 2.7 feet. His *lowest* estimate is higher than the *highest* of the UN Climate Panel’s new, higher estimate.
Yet, he justifies his numbers with “experts.” Justin Gillis seems to listen to an extremely skewed set of experts.
In an interview with Columbia Journalism Review, Justin Gillis has clearly indicated that he writes about climate because he wants to push for action:
“the more I learned [about climate], the more I thought to myself, “This is the biggest problem we have—bigger than global poverty. Why am I not working on it?” From there, the question was, how do I get myself into a position to work on the problem?”
As Roger Pielke Jr. has demonstrated going through this interview and many of Gillis’ other articles: “The notion of “working on the problem” is a fine ambition, but is clearly much more aligned with advocacy for action rather than reporting a beat. Rather than informing his readers Gillis is in the business of making an argument.” (http://bit.ly/1dcslMJ)
Justin Gillis last year wrote what Roger Pielke called “worst piece of reporting I’ve ever seen in the Times on climate change.”
It is worth reading Pielke’s takedown here: http://bit.ly/14s4jrq.
**************
Just to be clear, there are many good environmental journalists on New York Times. But this clear example of severely skewed information is not worthy of the Newspaper of Record.
‘Temperature Rising’: Will Climate Change Bring More Extreme Weather? : NPR
Speed says:
August 24, 2013 at 2:38 pm
The subject of this post is sea level, not starvation. What a bonehead!
David Riser says:
August 24, 2013 at 6:09 pm
Thanks for the link to the interview. Very good reading.
The people claiming the sea levels are rising remind me of an episode of Gilligan’s Island where the Professor had a stick (aka tidal gauge) to observe the tide patterns. Gilligan, unwittingly saw the stick and decided to use it as a device to anchor his fishing efforts. So of course wanting more fish he moved it further and further into the lagoon. The Professor not know of this used the ever increasing measurement of tides to declare the island was sinking.
I suspect that the IPCC learned it’s sea level measuring techniques by watching Gilligan’s Island.
Here’s a link to the episode. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1288877/
@ur momisugly Philip Bradley
Using the BBC’s ‘search’ facility has, for a long time, been a regular go-to source for all things ‘atmospheric catastrophic’. Near billions of fun-packed hours can be spent there, just clicking thro’ such luminary links as:
The British Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, has held talks in Washington with the US Vice-President, Al Gore, about curbing emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming.
Mr Prescott emerged from his meeting with Al Gore with no indication that he had succeeded in persuading Americans to adopt tougher goals.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1997/sci/tech/global_warming/32961.stm.
@jim and Philip
My numbers (For Antarctica and Greenland) come from the Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie.
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/kommunikation/fragen-zu-klima/wie-stark-steigt-der-meeresspiegel-an.html
JimS says: August 24, 2013 at 3:31 pm
According to Jim Hansen, the oceans are going to all boil away like they did on Venus…
There is no evidence Venus ever had an ocean, judging from the radar mapping. By my back of the envelope figgerin’, even without the 90 bar atmospheric pressure, Earth temp would be right about boiling if we were as close to the sun as Venus is.
Swedish geophysicist Niels Axel Mörner demonstrated that the sea level by the year 2100 most may increase by five to twenty centimeters.
http://youtu.be/8EMoU8OOsBs
Divide all IPCC estimates by 3, or 7. Those are the min. and max. fudge factors they always sneak, bury, and embed in all their calcs.
Oh no, it’s worse than we thought: The major Danish dailys and news sites are reporting a sea level rise of 2 cm a year, mainly due to Greenland ice melt:
“De grønlandske gletsjere er lige nu den største grund til, at verdenshavene stiger med omkring et par centimeter om året”…translates to…..”The Greenland glaciers are right now the main reason why sea levels are rising by 2cm a year”
http://politiken.dk/klima/ECE2057354/6-kilometer-gletsjer-er-forsvundet/
I wonder how long it takes before it gets corrected…?
Although I work in a different industry, I happened to meet someone recently who works for the Dutch national body responsible for water supply/management. I asked him “so what about sea level rise?”. Answer: not more than 3 mm/year – did not look like a worried man. I’ll take that on trust…
To even suggest that global warming is a greater threat to human beings than poverty shows how anti human this ecofascist clown is. Smug looking grubby man.
OMG
Have I just complied with Godwin’s law by using the word ecofacist. If so I apologise but really can’t think of an alternative. Sorry.
In an interview with Columbia Journalism Review, Justin Gillis has clearly indicated that he writes about climate because he wants to push for action:
“the more I learned [about climate], the more I thought to myself, “This is the biggest problem we have—bigger than global poverty. Why am I not working on it?” From there, the question was, how do I get myself into a position to work on the problem?”
————————————
Gawd I’m sick of this kind of person. “This is the biggest problem we have—bigger than global poverty. Why am I not working on it?” What hubris!
“…how do I get myself into a position to work on the problem?” Bend over for the warmunists.
Looks like he did just that.
Another day, another shill for eco-fraudulance is exposed.
Robert Austin wrote, “The subject of this post is sea level, not starvation. What a bonehead!”
Justin Gillis was quoted in the post saying,
The subject of this post is Gillis and his inability to place “climate” in perspective.
@max Hugoson: The major component of spark ignited (automobile) engine exhaust is N2 (~71%) because it is the major component in air. H2O is ~12.5% and CO2 is ~13.5%. O2 is ~0.5%
http://www.ecocatalysis.com/en/articles/Automotive-exhaust.html
I’m not sure where the 99.7% number comes from unless it is a catalytic conversion value.
Death by car exhaust in cars produced before catalytic converters could likely be from CO, but now it would be from simple oxygen depletion. If you breathed the auto exhaust, my guess is you would be unconscious from lack of oxygen very quickly. However, if you were in the garage, you would die from oxygen loss from combustion and the volume of low oxygen exhaust.
@Other_Andy
You wrote: “My numbers (For Antarctica and Greenland) come from the Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie.”
JimS writes: Yes, I looked at your source. Your source is wrong. The source neglected to add the word “million.” Instead of reading 24.7 cubic kilometres, it should have read 24.7 MILLION cubic kilometres. That word “million” makes the difference between the Antarctic ice sheet, which it pertained to, and an alpine glacier. Your source simply neglected to manage its publishing well. It is quite common for webpages to have gross errors like this. Such errors are not intended, but sometimes people are careless and they happen.
David Ritson, this sounds the same as a reporter, upon hearing of a car crash in which a famous person died, rushed to the front page news with the report. Later, upon learning that the celebrity was, in fact, alive, the editor replies “Yeah, he knew the guy lived, but there wasn’t time to change the story”.
Bob Greene, good catch on the car emissions… I often tend to forget the N2 as well, since I always say an ideal car emits nothing but harmless CO2 and H2O. In fact, a three-way catalytic converter has three simultaneous functions:
1. Reduction of nitrogen oxides into elemental nitrogen and oxygen. (NOx → Nx + Ox)
2. Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide. (CO + O2 → CO2)
3.Oxidation of hydrocarbons into carbon dioxide and water. (CxH4x + 2xO2 → xCO2 + 2xH2O)
A lean engine is a higher temperature combustion which tends to create more NOx, a rich engine tends to be cooler but dumps more unburned hydrocarbons out the back. It is undesirable to have an engine always running at stoichiometric (14.7 to 1, or richer for ethanol blends), but the electronic control system toggles between richer and leaner. The lean cycles keep the cat hot, too many lean cycles overheat it. The rich cycles cool it, but too many rich cycles clog it up.
In fact, I believe that the catalytic converter was a GREAT invention, unlike some of my racer-type friends. It’s an almost painless way to eliminate unwanted emissions (although at first they were insanely expensive and did rob power). Now that virtually all car engines are operated by computer it’s possible to get great power AND lower emissions… but the timing of performance and mileage robbing EPA mandates plus the 70s “energy crisis” and embargo really made a lot of people hate emission controls.
For point of interest, my own modified engine controller for my last car was able to tune emissions low enough to pass most state inspections with NO cat… so IMO catalytic converters are a band-aid, a crutch, a way to clean up a bit of extra slop in the control systems and manage bad gas or mechanical problems.
Justin Gilles is doing your job. We can not forget that “environmental journalist” is a profession specially created to serve the global warming hoax. Just to beat the drums on every report from official science. There are thousand of Justin Gilles around the world. They will make your day with the next IPCC’s report divulgation strategy. By 14 months this guys will beat the drums all days. Oh God.
Another Useful Idiot with a pen and a pulpit.
He sleeps so well. His intention are so pure.
The hook, the line and the sinker have reached his colon.
Very useful indeed.
DKBRIT says:
August 25, 2013 at 1:13 am
Oh no, it’s worse than we thought: The major Danish dailys and news sites are reporting a sea level rise of 2 cm a year, mainly due to Greenland ice melt:
“De grønlandske gletsjere er lige nu den største grund til, at verdenshavene stiger med omkring et par centimeter om året”…translates to…..”The Greenland glaciers are right now the main reason why sea levels are rising by >2 cm a year”NOT QUITE TRUE The Greenland ice sheet bleed. Warmer weather makes the ice to melt faster than ever before, and it gets ice sheet to retreat. The Greenland glaciers are now the biggest reason that the oceans rising by about three >millimeters per year<.
Most papers I’ve read describe change from preindustrial, not from the current. Subtract the observed change of one foot from the 3′ prediction Gillis claims to have heard, and you see 2′ left to go by 2100. Which is well within the bounds of the IPCC scenarios.
The IPCC summary also mentions: “Larger values cannot be excluded, but current scientific understanding is insufficient for evaluating their probability” — in other words, some experts think it’s going to be a lot more than the IPCC ranges.
Gillis is thus accurately representing what experts seem to believe.
Bob Green: No, typically there is 5 to 8% “excess oxygen” in the output. You are right, it’s “on the edge” of causing you to pass out. But, probably unless continued for a day or two, it would be “survivable”. My point is the exhaust gasses from current automobiles are NOT INHERENTLY lethal, yet most people believe they still are due to CO.
The Swedish scientist Nils-Axel Mörner is one of few specializing in sea conditions, who pesonally has visited the most critical places like Bangladesh, the Maldives, Tuvalu, etc. During the last 50 years no noticeable sea rise has occurred. The claim of flooding is politically motivated with the aim to receive more development aid money. However, in some places topsoil is washed away due to new irreponsible cultivating practises.
The IPCC data does not sufficiently take into consideration that the land, on which the tide guages are situated, moves upp and down. The tektonic plates move up and down. All deltas formed by silt from rivers like the Mississippi, Ganges and Mekong tend to sink. Most of them have large cities with guages. The IPCC makes statistics with figures they do not undrtstand properly.
Mörner has a very good argument for the physical limit of sea level rise. When the last ice age was finishing, in the Stockholm area the ice sheet was advancing at a rate om 500 meters per annum, whilst its front retracted 300 meters. The loss of 800 meters ice caused the sea to rise a mere 10 mm.
Today there are no landice sheets melting. The maximum possible rate of sea level rise ought to be in the order of 1 or 2 mm per annum.
Anything more is fantasy. Or computer modelling.
John Trigge (in Oz) says:
August 24, 2013 at 2:22 pm
… From the CSIRO (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html) the global mean sea level trend for the last 20 years is 3.2mm/year, only around 10% of the claimed current trend.
John, nota bene, it is even worse than that, the satellite trend includes various modelling estimations in it and adjustments and does not intend to reflect a rise of the sea against an averaged real shore.
This is why the 6 cm rise that one finds in the satellite sea level 1992 to present
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
cannot be found in reality when one searches the tide gauges.
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/
In reality the average tide gauges do show about the half or less then half of the satellites adjusted sea level rise. I need to put the “adjusted” word here, as various adjustment make a significant part of the rise.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/7438683/rising-credulity/
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/MSL_global_trendtable1.html
http://www.sealevel.info/MSL_global_trendtable4.html
SØREN BUNDGAARD says:
August 25, 2013 at 9:50 am
Søren:
At the same time as I posted I sent an email to the Danish newspaper of the original article (Politiken) informing them of their error. They replied very quickly and corrected the error from 2cm to 3mm, as I had informed them. Well done on their part. But their sentence :
“The Greenland glaciers are right now the main reason why sea levels are rising by approx. 3mm a year” is still not correct! In 2007 the IPCC said regarding sea level rise contribution:
—————————————————————————-
Contribution [mm/year] 1961-2003 1993-2003
Thermal Expansion 0.42±0.12 1.6±0.5
Glaciers & Ice Caps 0.50±0.18 0.77±0.22
Greenland 0.05±0.12 0.12±0.07
Antarctica 0.14±0.41 0.21±0.35
Sum 1.1±0.5 2.8±0.7
Direct Observations 1.8±0.5 3.1±0.7
Table 1: Individual contributions to global mean sea level rise for the periods 1961-2003, and 1993-2003 (Source: IPCC 2007, Table TS.3.).
—————————————————————————-
http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/kommunikation/fragen-zu-klima/wie-stark-steigt-der-meeresspiegel-an.html
It has not got any colder so the main reason must still be: “Thermal Expansion”. Greenland only accounts for 0.12mm of the 3.2mm !!! It’s an uphill battle….