An Open Invitation to Ira Flatow

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I had to go to town yesterday, and so I was glad it was Friday, because it’s Science Friday on the local Public Broadcasting System station and I can listen on my truck radio. In general I enjoy Science Friday, because the host, Ira Flatow, has interesting people on the show and he usually asks interesting questions … except when it’s about climate change. In that case his scientific training goes out the window, and he merely parrots the alarmist line.

In any case I was listening to Science Friday yesterday, and Ira referred to some recent pictures of flooding in Miami, Florida, as evidence that climate change is real and is already affecting Florida. It was the radio so no pictures, but he was referring to photos like this that have been in the news …

miami floodingHe was talking with a young woman, a Chicana climate activist. He and the activist agreed that this was clear evidence of anthropogenic climate change. In response to his question, she said that she was definitely using the Miami flooding to drive home the message that people should be very afraid of human-caused climate change, and that we’re already seeing the effects. I was depressed thinking of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that such false claims would cause.

I fear that both of them have been taken in by what I call a “scientific urban legend”. It’s easy enough to do. It happened to me a lot a while back … not so much lately, my urban legend detector works pretty well these days.

In this case, the urban legend is the false claim that warming over the last century has accelerated the rate of sea level rise. There is no sign of this claimed acceleration.

From the beginning of the climate alarmism in the 1980s, the long-predicted acceleration in the rate of sea level rise has been … well … the kindest description might be “late to the party”, because the predicted acceleration still hasn’t arrived. James Hansen famously predicted back in 1988 that in forty years the West Side Highway in New York City would be underwater. From the 1988 levels, to swamp the West Side Highway would require about a 3 metre (10 foot) sea level rise.

We’re now 27 years into his prediction, two-thirds of the way there, and instead of two-thirds of three metres of sea level rise, the sea level rise in NYC since his prediction has been … wait for it …

Three inches. 7.5 cm.

And from this point to make his prediction come true, we’d need ~ 9.9 feet of sea level rise in 13 years … that’s three quarters of a foot (225 mm) each and every year for the next thirteen years. Never happen. His prediction, like the overwhelming majority of climate alarmist predictions, is total nonsense. Here’s the data, from the PSMSL.

tides new york battery psmslNote the lack of any evidence of acceleration in the New York record … but we were talking Florida, not New York. Unfortunately, the Miami record is short, truncated, and intermittent. There are records from the thirties to the fifties, then a five-year gap, then the record stops abruptly in the eighties, with the last few years missing data. As a result, it’s useless for looking at acceleration of sea level rise. However, there are a couple of long-term stations in the vicinity. Here are the two longest continuous tide station records in Florida:

mean sea level trend key west flKey West  Note the lack of any acceleration. Here are the 50-year trends for Key West, with the trend values located at the center of the 50-year interval.

variation 50 yr sea level trend key west flNow, look at the error bars (vertical “whiskers” with horizontal lines top/bottom). If the error bars of two trends overlap, the difference between them is NOT statistically significant. And in this record, every single error bar overlaps every other single error bar … meaning there is NOT any acceleration of sea level rise over the period 1915-2015.

Next, the corresponding graphs for Pensacola, Florida, only slightly shorter:

mean sea level trend pensacola flPensacola

variation 50 yr sea level trend pensacola flAgain we see the same thing. All of the error bars overlap. No acceleration.

Now, in case you mistakenly think this lack of acceleration of sea level rise is unique to Florida or New York, let me point you to and quote from an article in the Journal of Coastal Research. The authors sum up their study as follows (emphasis mine):

Conclusion:

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.

Note that the “sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010)” are the standard alarmist predictions of sea level rise. The study says that not only is there no acceleration in the record, sea level rise has possibly slowed very slightly over the last eighty years … go figure.

So like I said, this is an opportunity for Dr. Flatow (he has a couple of honorary PhDs …) to abjure his mistaken ways. I’m posting this here, and I’m also sending a copy to him, as well as to other PBS addresses … we’ll see how it plays out. I’d be most happy if he were to post a reply here stating something like ‘If the data changes I change my mind … what do you do?’, but that may be too much to hope for.

All the best,

w.

AS USUAL: If you disagree with someone, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU OBJECT TO. This lets everyone know both who and what you find incorrect.

TIDAL DATA: PSMSL

FLORIDA DATA: NOAA Tides and Currents

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
337 Comments
davideisenstadt
October 6, 2015 2:31 pm

Name calling isnt an ad hominem attack when the name fits.
Also, calling someone a “uber-troll”, or “despicable” aren’t ad hominem attacks unless the personal shortcomings attributed to, for example, you, also happen to be the reasons why one concludes that you are wrong.

October 6, 2015 10:05 pm

To sum up about mercury so far:
The surface layer in the oceans contains three times more mercury per litre than the deep water.
This is very strong evidence showing that most of the mercury emissions come from human activity.
To those who object to this, I will ask them produce a calculation of a mass flow diagram of mercury between:
A = Atmosphere
SW = Surface Water
DW = Deep ocean Watet
OB = Ocean bottom sediments
Where there is a constant natural mercury flow from the atmosphere to the surface and the steady state result is three times more mercury content in the surface water than the deep ocean.
This evidence from the oceans is confirmed by sediments in inland lakes.
New Zealand and Canada here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001GB001847/full
The UK here (paywalled):
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2014/EM/c4em00334a#!divAbstract
The conclusion is crystal clear: most of the mercury pollution has human origin.
/Jan

Reply to  Jan Kjetil Andersen
October 7, 2015 6:20 pm

Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
To those who object to this, I will ask them produce…&etc.
And I will ask you to produce the names of those killed by 0.3 ppm Hg in the environment. You may use the back of the screen if you run out of space.

Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 9:35 pm

You may try to trail off this conclusion dbstealey.
However, we have used much of this post to discuss whether humans or natural sources contribute most to the mercury pollution, and we can see the answer from the content in the sea water.
It is not possible to make any workable mass flow calculation where you have an unchanged flow of mercury from the atmosphere to the ocean and end up in a steady state with more mercury concentration in the
upper layer than the lower.
The steady state situation of unchanged input is the same concentration in all layers.
The higher concentration in the upper 100 meter layer is strong evidence for increased flow from the atmosphere in the last century.
/Jan

Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 10:48 pm

Dbstealey, it seems like you want to trail off the discussion because you do not like the conclusion.
I think you should be glad for this clear conclusion, because we have learnt something important.
Several articles here have claimed that mercury pollution is something we cannot do much about because most of it allegedly comes from natural sources.
These arguments seemed to be plausible, but now we have falsified it. We have gained insight. Be happy.
/Jan

Reply to  dbstealey
October 7, 2015 10:57 pm

Jan Kjetil Andersen,
I am happy. But I think you missed my point.
Mercury is worthy of discussion specifically because of the claimed health effects.
So, prove it. Or at least provide solid evidence (names of the deceased?) showing that mercury in tiny trace amounts is the problem as claimed.
Suppose mercury concentration is exactly as you say. Is it a health risk at those concentrations? Or is this yet another scare? I note that people are living longer, healthier lives now. Are you arguing that mercury is causing premature deaths? If not, then how is this different from arguing the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead?

Reply to  dbstealey
October 8, 2015 9:24 am

I see your point dbstealey. We now know that mercury for the most part comes from human emissions, but that will only matter if we know that the elevated mercury level actually is damaging.
The effects of high mercury doses have been known a long time. The most known effect is probably the Minamata disease (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease ) which is a neurological syndrome caused by severe mercury poisoning. This disease was discovered in 1956 in Minamata city, Japan.
More recently has the negative health effects of smaller mercury doses been documented. Even small doses can permanently damage the brain, and small and unborn children are the most vulnerable.
Mahaffey et. Al. (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/11674/ )show that Between 5–10% of US women of childbearing age already have blood mercury levels that increase the risk of neurodevelopmental problems in their children.
Bellanger et al (http://www.ehjournal.net/content/12/1/3 )show that an estimated 1.5 million–2 million children are born in the European Union each year with mercury exposure levels associated with IQ deficits.
EPA has been criticized for not calculating the monetary costs of those damages, and that was the reason the Supreme Court decided to overrule the MATS regulation.
EPA had chosen to concentrate the cost savings on other aspects of the regulation. When scrubbers are installed to reduce the mercury emissions, a reduction in particulates and Sulfur comes as a co-benefit. What EPA did quantify, was the co-benefits of reducing particulates and Sulfur from the emissions.
EPA showed that the co-benefits alone would pay for the costs.
http://www3.epa.gov/mats/health.html
I think EPA had justified the MATS and that the Supreme Court decision was very unfortunate.
/Jan