Guest post by David Middleton
From Five Thirty Eight Science…
THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 7:00 AM AUG 19, 2015
Science Isn’t Broken
It’s just a hell of a lot harder than we give it credit for.
If you follow the headlines, your confidence in science may have taken a hit lately.
Peer review? More like self-review. An investigation in November uncovered a scam in which researchers were rubber-stamping their own work, circumventing peer review at five high-profile publishers.
Scientific journals? Not exactly a badge of legitimacy, given that the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology recently accepted for publication a paper titled “Get Me Off Your (Fracking) Mailing List,” whose text was nothing more than those seven words, repeated over and over for 10 pages. Two other journals allowed an engineer posing as Maggie Simpson and Edna Krabappel to publish a paper, “Fuzzy, Homogeneous Configurations.”
Revolutionary findings? Possibly fabricated. In May, a couple of University of California, Berkeley, grad students discovered irregularities in Michael LaCour’s influential paper suggesting that an in-person conversation with a gay person could change how people felt about same-sex marriage. The journal Science retracted the paper shortly after, when LaCour’s co-author could find no record of the data.
Taken together, headlines like these might suggest that science is a shady enterprise that spits out a bunch of dressed-up nonsense…
[…]
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/
While there are a lot of problems with the peer-review process and a population explosion of journals which will readily publish abject bullschist, I think the bigger, more serious scientific breakdown, as it pertains to the public, is in the science journalism and press releases. Most people never read the abstracts of the papers, much less the actual papers.
Here’s an example…
Green Business | Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:10pm EDT Related: ENVIRONMENT
Global sea levels climbed 3 inches since 1992, NASA research shows
CAPE CANAVERAL, FL. | BY IRENE KLOTZ
Sea levels worldwide rose an average of nearly 3 inches (8 cm) since 1992, the result of warming waters and melting ice, a panel of NASA scientists said on Wednesday.
In 2013, a United Nations panel predicted sea levels would rise from 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to 0.9 meters) by the end of the century. The new research shows that sea level rise most likely will be at the high end of that range, said University of Colorado geophysicist Steve Nerem.
Sea levels are rising faster than they did 50 years ago and “it’s very likely to get worse in the future,” Nerem said.
[…]
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/26/us-environment-sealevel-nasa-idUSKCN0QV2B020150826
And, here is the original press release from NASA, and the dramatic graphic that went with it:
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-science-zeros-in-on-ocean-rise-how-much-how-soon
And the quote from that press release that the media is latching onto, and spinning:
“Given what we know now about how the ocean expands as it warms and how ice sheets and glaciers are adding water to the seas, it’s pretty certain we are locked into at least 3 feet of sea level rise, and probably more,” said Steve Nerem of the University of Colorado, Boulder, and lead of the Sea Level Change Team. “But we don’t know whether it will happen within a century or somewhat longer.”
First, the unbroken science…
Nerem, R. S., D. Chambers, C. Choe, and G. T. Mitchum. “Estimating Mean Sea Level Change from the TOPEX and Jason Altimeter Missions.” Marine Geodesy 33, no. 1 supp 1 (2010): 435.
Dr. Nerem’s science does support 3 inches of sea level rise since 1992.
Now for the broken science…
In 2013, a United Nations panel predicted sea levels would rise from 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to 0.9 meters) by the end of the century. The new research shows that sea level rise most likely will be at the high end of that range, said University of Colorado geophysicist Steve Nerem.
Sea levels are rising faster than they did 50 years ago and “it’s very likely to get worse in the future,” Nerem said.
Sea level has been rising at a rate of about 3 mm per year since the Jason/Topex missions started flying.
The IPCC says that sea level will rise by 300 to 900 mm by the end of this century. Dr. Nerem says that his work indicates that the sea level rise will be at the high end of that range. Since we are 15 years into this century with about 45 mm of sea level rise “in the bank,” sea level would have to rise by 855 mm over the next 85 years to hit the high end. That is 10 mm per year. This caused sea level to rise by ~10 mm/yr for about 10,000 years…
The animation above is of the end-Pleistocene deglaciation (AKA Holocene Transgression)…
All of the sea level rise since 1700 AD is circled at the right hand side of the graph.
The only way sea level rise could approach the high end of the IPCC range is if it exponentially accelerates…
The rate from 2081-2100 would have to average 20 mm per year, twice that of the Holocene Transgression. This is only possible in bad science fiction movies.
Broken science, part deux…
Sea levels are rising faster than they did 50 years ago…
They are rising faster than they were 50 years ago. However, they are rising at the same rate that they were 80, 70 and 60 years ago…
There is nothing abnormal about sea level rising by 3 inches over a 23-yr period. Nor is a 3 mm/yr sea level rise over a multi-decade period unusual. There is simply no anomaly requiring an explanation. The claim that the 3 inches if sea level rise from 1992-2015 is inline with 3 feet of sea level rise in the 21st century is patently false and demonstrably disprovable. The accurate statement that sea level is rising faster now than it was 50 years ago is cherry-picking of the highest order. Warning that “it’s very likely to get worse in the future,” is the scientific equivalent of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater because you constructed a model which predicts that the projection system will burst into flames if it malfunctions at some point in the future.
UPDATE: Somehow, comments were turned off on this post, even though they are enabled by default. The problem has since been corrected. – Apologies – Anthony Watts
NOAA report of 2012 says 1mm per year
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/12/noaa-2012-report-finds-sea-levels.html
Excellent summary. The following is more support.
There are two fundamental problems with ocean level ‘rise’.
1. Ocean level ‘rise’ is a fundamental pillar that is being used to push the cult of CAGW’s madness in the climate wars. When the Envisat satellite data showed the ocean level was falling, the solution was to just change the data without explanation.
2. The ocean level rise prior to the recent fall cannot be explained based on mass balance and/or thermal expansion. Something caused the oceans to expand tidal gauges do not support any increase in ocean volume .
The something that caused the mid ocean to expand is now reversing. This is a real paradox. The warmists do not include a breakdown of the estimated physical reasons for the 3.2 mm/year sea level ‘rise’ as that would force them to acknowledge a ocean level rise of 3.2 mm/year is physically impossible based on:
1) There has been almost no change in the rotation of the earth. Due to conservation of angular momentum – fundamental physics, not a theory – an increased in ocean mass will cause the earth to rotate at a slower speed. The earth’s rotational speed has not changed. There is therefore almost no increase in ocean mass.
2) Supporting fact 1, is fact 2, mass balance – the maximum possible estimated (fudged on the high side) melting of the Greenland Ice sheet (there has been almost no change in the Antarctic ice sheet) and the maximum possible melting of mountain glaciers gives a maximum rate of increase of 0.5 mm/yr.
3) Tidal gauges give a maximum increase of 0.5mm/yr not 1.5 mm/yr to 2.0 mm/yr.
4) The ocean rise occurred too early and is too smooth. i.e. There is no correlation in temperature rise and rate of change of ocean level.
5) Peer reviewed papers support the above assertions.
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/10/6550.full.pdf
Envisat’s satellite failure
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Envisat/ESA_declares_end_of_mission_for_Envisat
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/12/envisats-satellite-failure-launches-mysteries/
Note, the Greenland Ice sheet mass increased this year by 200Gt. The planet has started to cool.
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
Current Surface Mass Budget of the Greenland Ice Sheet
ftp://falcon.grdl.noaa.gov/pub/bob/2004nature.pdf
Of all the people who read this blog, and those that live in a harbor, which harbor is in real danger crisis, emergency, jeopardy, menace, peril, pitfall, risk, or threat of sea level rise? Keep in mind some areas of coast line is sinking while others are rising.
NASA prediction:
“Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 “looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,” says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.”
…enough said.
I had a correspondence with the UK’s Ordnance Survey just a few years ago on this subject; they avoided an answer to the question of “is the sea rising?” but said that their maps of Great Britain, which are acknowledged to be the most detailed and accurate in the world — take all their spot heights from the mean sea level at Newlyn harbour in the far South West as recorded 1920.
great post! Clear, straight forward, to the point. Excellent job David. Maybe you should do the writing for that attorney who is documenting the green corruption at the EPA!
In my city, the local government is tagging all properties that will be inundated in 100 years.
It appears that this includes about 18,000 properties.
The council is assuming a 1 metre rise in the 100 years.
Its a pity they cant read the IPCC.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf
13.3.3 Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets
“Observations indicate that the Greenland contribution to GMSL (Global mean sea level ) has very likely increased from 0.09 [–0.02 to 0.20] mm yr–1 for 1992–2001 to 0.59 [0.43 to 0.76] mm yr–1 for 2002–2011 (Section 4.4.3, Figure 13.4). The average rate of the Antarctica contribution to sea level rise likely increased from 0.08 [–0.10 to 0.27] mm yr–1 for 1992–2001 to 0.40 [0.20 to 0.61] mm yr–1 for 2002–2011 (Section 4.4.3). For the budget period 1993–2010, the combined contribution of the ice sheets is 0.60 [0.42 to 0.78] mm yr–1. For comparison, the AR4’s assessment for the period 1993–2003 was 0.21 ± 0.07 mm yr–1 for Greenland and 0.21 ± 0.35 mm yr–1 for Antarctica.
Here is a protesters website. http://www.ccru.co.nz/
Good luck to them
Here is the report the Council relies on https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/effectsofsealevelriseforchristchurchcity.pdf
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
When the real issue is, what will happen when sea level starts to drop (which it will)? Imagine all our flooded river valley estuaries and embayments, drained, turned into drying mud flats. Many excellent natural harbors lost. Our seagoing advanced civilization is a direct result of the interglacial moment. Once that moment expires, chaos and death will ensue.
Sea level is probably affected most by Subterranean movement of the sea bed.
The crust of the ‘Earth’ is constantly moving,a fact that the ‘Crimastrologists’ conveniently overlook or ‘duck’.
I live on a swamp tidal esturary. The tides are the same as they were when I was born in 1980. I am fine living here for the rest of my life. I heard enough about sea level and Im not concerned. That is all.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/documents/J2_handbook_v1-8_no_rev.pdf
OSTM/Jason-2 Products Handbook
…2.3.1. Accuracy of Sea-level Measurements
Generally speaking OSTM/Jason-2 has been specified based on the Jason-1 state of the art,
including improvements in payload technology, data processing and algorithms or ancillary data
(e.g: precise orbit determination and meteorological model accuracy). The sea-surface height shall be provided with a globally averaged RMS accuracy of 3.4 cm (1 sigma), or better, assuming 1 second averages.
Neville, tide guage data shows about 18 mm / year sea level rise whereas the graph David Middleton uses has had a “Global isostatic adjustment” made. This added 14 mm / year to the amount that tide guages would suggest.
See eg Houston Dean 2011 J Coastal Res.27: 409-417
(This is not a criticism of the post – just an answer to your comment)
Which graph?
Isostacy is weird. The Himalayas are climbing over the biggest gravity hole on the planet.
The weight of the water in a “transgression” serves both to buoy the continents from the increased weight over the ocean basins and to depress the continents as weight over continental shelves (in the case of ice ages) and weight of inland seas in the normal earth condition. A glacial/interglacial transition really stretches the concept of transgression.
During the last glacial maximum the weight of the ice locally increased the continental subsidence from reduced weight in the ocean basins. You have to think of it like a waterbed.
Just how many BTUs are needed to melt all the ice to make all the flooding? And where does that heat come from if not the Sun?