From a post by Arnout Jaspers at clintel.org.
In 2016, a headline grabbing study said that the Antarctic ice sheet is much more unstable than [previously] estimated. As a consequence, projected sea level rise in 2100 would double. Computer modelers from Deltares and KNMI scrambled back to their drawing boards to upgrade their prognoses for the Dutch coastline. Have these prognoses survived the climate news cycle?
Rarely has a scientific publication, whose authors said that the results ‘should not be considered actual predictions’, had such a profound impact outside science.
The model was unrealistic and made little sense but was none-the-less splattered across the media in The Netherlands and elsewhere and the Dutch were told their children would not even have a country when they grew up due to sea level rise.
It was refuted by a 2018 paper in Science, that showed the base of the Antarctic ice sheet was much more durable than assumed in the earlier paper. Even in the unrealistic RCP8.5 IPCC scenario, the sea level rise due to melting Antarctic ice, was modest. Of course, this later paper was ignored in most of the media. As noted in the clintel.org post:
Nevertheless, the extreme two to three metres of sea level rise in 2100 from the Deltares report is still reigning free in the public debate. This is a recurrent phenomenon in climate reporting: the most extreme prediction is readily accepted and promoted as the new normal, which can no longer be falsified by later research. And then, it is a matter of waiting for the next level extreme prediction that the media will promote to being the new normal.
As usual, the media makes wild extremes seem real and ignores reality. The full post can be seen here.
The obsession of climate science with the collapse of the WAIS and several meters of sea level rise derives from what had happened in the Eemian interglacial but is irrelevant in the context of the realities in the Holocene interglacial.
This is a classic example of data creep over time. It happens when an average value rises higher and higher with time because new estimates with higher values are accepted and added into the average, while lower values are ignored or weighted down or dismissed.
This is common in climate work, where most parameters have to be high and getting higher because that suits alarmism. But, the creep can also be downwards, like a tonnage of land ice.
The cause of this data creep is often ideological. There are other mechanisms, like homage to Authority as in estimates of Michelson’ s work on the velocity of light. You can see data creep at work in global temperature estimates, frequency of heat waves, numbers of cyclones and more.
It is sad that the reputation of science is diminished by cowboys who fail to understand ethical responsibility to report what is measured, with proper uncertainty estimates. Geoff S
Ah yes the old data creep. Kinda like Michael Mann!
I see what you did there.
MM, the data creep. 🤣
The old, data-molesting creep
(In case I need to beat the dead horse and make sure nobody missed the joke)
Ah, but he has made his money now, so for him it was worth the sacrifice of his reputation & credibility!!!
Religion says otherwise.
Ethics (i.e. morality’s relativistic sibling), faith (e.g. twilight or conflation of logical domains), political congruence or consensus, with secular motives.
I can no longer have rational conversations about the science because people are SO convinced of the most outrageous estimates of future warming or sea level rise, without any care for how much exaggeration they are assuming – if I point out how ridiculous RCP8.5 is, I am immediately dismissed – I just can’t stomach the Kool-Aid they traffic in – Extreme Exaggeration is their drug of choice so I am like a teetotaler talking to proud addicts…
Sadly, that is a natural and utterly predictable result of sixty-odd years of training people that absolutely nothing is more important than their feewinggzzz. Not everyone drinks the koolaid, but a lot of the things that used to force people to get closer to reality, like buying a house or starting a family, just don’t happen very much any more …
It seems rather strange anyway that this 2016 study was flogged as a means of scaring Dutchmen and their kiddies. After all, about half the nation was reclaimed from the sea centuries ago, being naturally below sea level for these last few centuries. If sea level were to rise even 2-3 meters (it won’t, of course), it just means that the existing dikes have to be built that much higher, with no catastrophic results, just some public tax dollars spent on dikes that might otherwise get wasted on social welfare programs or windmills.
I don’t know if you saw this well written study? Whilst it is primarily about fraud in medical papers there are obvious references to ‘data creep.’ How prevalent is all this in climate papers?
How Big a Problem is Scientific Fraud? – The Daily Sceptic
Rightly or wrongly, I lump it in with the so-called reproducibility crisis in science & medicine.
It is interesting that the British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee today announced an inquiry into reproducibility (after I wrote the WUWT comment earlier today). Here is a quote from it –
“With every £1 spent on research and development estimated to deliver £7 in economic value, the role of research and innovation will prove invaluable in aiding the UK’s economic recovery. However, the integrity of research, especially medical and social science research, is at risk from what is known as the ‘reproducibility crisis’ (i.e. it being very difficult or impossible to replicate a scientific study). Today, the Science and Technology Committee launch a new inquiry, scrutinising the causes of the phenomenon, and investigating solutions for reliable research practice.”
They are calling for submissions. They are open to submissions from other countries, IIRC. I would highly recommend a few bloggers here at WUWT putting pen to paper. Geoff S
“With every £1 spent on research and development estimated to deliver £7 in economic value …”
I doubt that they will see that kind of return on the 30 million quid they earmarked for studies towards “stabilising the climate”.
The return on programs funded by public tax dollars is the cllimate modeling of the economic world. And you’ll note that their models never include the opportunity costs of taking the tax dollars away from the private sector.
And the opportunity cost needs to be factored into all the subsidies being used to prop up unreliables. If we had spent that money on nuclear, we would be a lot further ahead in that direction. Sadly, we will continue to pi$$ away money on non-solutions to a non-problem.
“With every £1 spent on research and development estimated to deliver £7 in economic value”
That depends very strongly on what is being researched.
If you are researching better materials for making buildings, it’s possible.
Any research in social studies or political science will have a negative impact on the economy. As well as a negative impact on the sanity of anyone forced to read the studies.
There is no replication crisis in the private sector R&D process of developing new and better products. Putting a product on the market that has not been thoroughly tested and retested to establish a high degree of confidence in reliability, safety and fitness for purpose is inviting bankruptcy. Irreproducible studies are the primary product of academic and government “science”.
i suspect that reproducing evidence that £1 r and d produces £7 economic value would be a valuable case in point.
… the most extreme prediction is readily accepted and promoted as the new normal, which can no longer be falsified by later research. And then, it is a matter of waiting for the next level extreme prediction…
This is known as a ‘Purity Spiral’ in sociology. Groups in a social structure which is bound by a set of beliefs tend to give higher social status to those holding the strongest ‘purest’ beliefs. So, if you want to advance your position, you adopt the most extreme belief position. And then your competitors take one step further.
In no time a struggle develops as competing groups try to outdo each other in extremity of belief. It’s a well-known feature of social behaviour, and rapidly moves towards witch-burning and other such activities. No doubt the Mayan human sacrifice cult was driven this way – as, of course, are all cults, including Wokeness, BLM, Anti-Trumpism, Covid Countermeasure Syndrome and Climate Change…..
Thanks, I had not heard that phrase before, but it does seem to fit rather well with what we are seeing generally at the level of governments, XR, and everything between.
The level of cognitive dissonance exhibited by greens is simply breathtaking. Unfortunately, this has now spread to governments. The “zero carbon by 2050” targets which have been adopted by multiple governments are utterly impossible to attain but that has not stopped politicians. I presume that politicians think that words are cheap and they will be dead or retired by 2050. The problem is that the mass media are not calling out politicians for their nonsense. Journalists are actually egging politicians on to make ever more extreme promises which cannot be met. Eventually reality will intrude on their fantasies but it might take a few years before everybody can see that the emperor has no clothes.
The new NHL (National Hockey League) franchise is in Seattle WA, named the Seattle Kraken.
They have a new arena to play in, named The Climate Pledge Arena.
They claim it will be a zero emissions arena.
From the website: https://climatepledgearena.com/sustainability/
“· No fossil fuel consumption in the arena for daily use: mechanical systems, gas combustion engines, heating, dehumidification, and cooking – all converted to electric.
· Solar Panels on the Alaska Airlines Atrium and 1st Ave Garage combined with off-site supplementary renewable energy for 100% renewable energy power.”
Did they miss this statistic?
Seattle, Washington: 226 days per year of heavy clouds (62% of the year)
Looks like they are going to to need an awful lot of “supplementary renewable energy”.
It’s Seattle, what do you expect?
They can claim such a thing in Washington state ONLY because much of the “renewable energy” is hydroelectric, which is not interrupted by the cloudy weather or lack of wind blowing at the “right” speeds.
Of course, during a drought bad enough to cause hydroelectric power to be insufficient, I guess they can play hockey in the dark – or just “make believe” coal and gas isn’t providing the lights, etc.
Or they can just turn off the refrigeration units that keep the ice cold.
That should save a lot of energy.
Turn off the refrigeration?
No problem. A lot of people like water polo, too.
If they just removed all the CO2 from the air in the rink, the ice would stay frozen indefinitely.
Just what I was looking for, a story about Antarctica. Temps on the continent had risen slightly from the deep cold for several weeks, but they have fallen back into the low -90sF once again. What is notable though is that the cold wave has pushed out into the surrounding waters. As a result look at the current trend of the sea ice.
You have misunderstood that chart. That steeply upwards red line is actually the latest Blood pressure reading of the Director of Antarctica ice studies at Nasa.
Strange as the climate change debate also gets my blood pressure up at times.
The continental icecap of Antarctica is the planet’s preeminent sea-ice manufacturing plant.
During the austral winter the high elevation unlit solid ice surface of Antarctica hemorrhages radiant thermal energy to space through the thin dry overlying air and forms a reservoir of cold dense air at the surface. This radiant cooled air then plunges down slope to the coast as brutal katabatic winds (ask the nesting emperor penguins as they huddle to survive), On reaching the coast this storm of wind in effect blast freezes the sea surface generating sea ice and dense cold rejection brines that power the thermohaline circulation of the world ocean.
Standard climate operation in progress.
Wow, talk about a dark and stormy night !
….. and dark and stormy day too.
Check out the Antarctic sea ice extent for yesterday, July 22nd – tied with 1979, the first published year of satellite recording.
….. Griff isn’t going to be happy.
Anything to say Griff?
Oh Griff…are you there? Griff??
griff doesn’t do Antarctica. It makes him break out in hives. Plus, his Arctic sea ice extent prediction/claptrap from 3 or 4 days ago is already in the circular file.
Excellent chart posted by Goldminor. Current sea ice levels seem to be relatively high for the date (near +2 sigma above the 1981-2010 mean).
The minimum during the Antarctic summer of 2016-2017 seemed unusually low, which was when the “headline grabbing study” mentioned above was published, but since then the sea ice seems to be closely following historical seasonal cycles.
The + / – 2 sigma ranges seem to be fairly wide in January to March (Antarctic summer) but much narrower for the rest of the year.
So when there happens to be a slightly milder summer with more open water than usual, the media culprits are there to broadcast the fact and scare people about rising sea levels. They don’t hang around during a dark and brutally cold autumn and winter to watch it re-freeze, but that’s what happens. .
Also of note to this story look at how far out to sea those deep minus temps have pushed. That will certainly have an effect on planetary temps over the next several years as that super cold water mixes with the ocean waters just above the region. … https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=168.56,-92.34,672/loc=50.927,-79.800
Main stream media: “All the Climate Porn thats fit to print and even that that is not.”
It’s Climate Porn 24/7/365.
The media had Trump for 4 years as their foil to attack for clicks. Now it’s back to Climate Porn.
Project Veritas recently caught a CNN bigwig admitting quite candidly that the next big propaganda campaign after Trump would be Climate Change.
“Sea Level Model Fail”, shown with model.
“developed a model that reliably captures the complex behavior of ice cliffs as they deform and fracture. In doing so, they find that marine-terminating parts of Antarctica may be less vulnerable than previously suggested to rapid and irreversible collapse”
See, all model bad, ‘cept some, even not bad ones, they bad too, because model. We wait runaway collapse, only that acceptable proof, because model.
Poor Loydo – regressive brain function.
We need new trolls, the old ones are so worn out they just phone it in.
Gonna have a long wait, Loydo.
Sea Level Loydo Fail
So when is the Antarctic going to collapse Loydo?
Care to give us a prediction we can hold you to?
Very few people have ever claimed that all models are bad.
When your very first statement is an easily disprovable lie, your chances of convincing anyone other than yourself are less than zero.
Intelligent people judge each model on it’s own merits.
Climate models have been failing to match reality for over 30, so it’s hardly surprising that anyone outside the priesthood puts little faith in them.
You deniers always shit your panties when you hear this word. I remember once I was educating you about the mathematical models of Physics and you freaked out. I had to explain to you that these models are not those models.
Remembering things that never happened again.
Bad drugs will do that to you.
That was your Mom’s knitting circle you were educating you silly person.
…. and after you finished “educating” them, they knew less than when you started.
‘Very few people have ever claimed that all models are bad.”
No, just climate models. Post after post after post, literally hundreds of them, disingenuously ridiculing anything to do with modelling and the whole gang shitting their pants with relief. It’s one of the reasons this website exists: doubt-mongering about climate modelling.
This is just the latest installment anti-model denialism. Staggeringly it purports to damn models….using another model, cynically assuming no one will read the linked information or that those who will be too invested to point it out.
OK loydo, to settle all disagreements about the probity of models, why don’t we all agree to dispense with all modeled climate conjectures entirely, and just use observations exclusively.
I’m game if you are mate.
Are ya feelin’ lucky punk?
Well are ya?
There’s no disagreement in the only relevant forum, ie. science.
No disagreement about the fact that they’re crapola. As a scientist, I can get behind that.
Yep, there are bad scientists out there in the wild…
Ah yes, the standard good scientists agree with me, bad scientists don’t, mantra of a good climate scientist.
Proper science has continuous disagreement.
That’s what makes it proper science.
Consensus is not scientific quest, just cowardly camp following.
Bullshit. Science is supposed to discover the “truth” behind observations. Now you can fill libraries with speculations about the nature of “truth” but anyway, in the end, there’s a truth that is discovered (to a certain number of significant digits in natural science), and after that disagreement is science denial, as this forum amply demonstrates.
Of course science discovers truth, and once it has found the truth that you agree with, all further research and questioning must stop.
That is true, the science, as in actual data, has shown conclusively that climate models are crap.
This is simply not true. My guess is that you don’t simply deny science, you’re quite illiterate in these matters so you can’t grasp the relevant literature. You’ve already demonstrated that when you alleged that the proxies Mann used were not even temperature proxies, a laughable demonstration of misunderstanding even basic matters on your part.
That simply is true, it’s just that since the actual truth differs from your revealed truth, actual truth must be rejected.
I don’t deny science. I do deny that models represent science.
I love how the self anointed just declares that anyone who disagrees with it must be incredibly ignorant.
Then again, it’s not like nyolci has ever tried to defend his positions. He feels that simply informing others that they are ignorant should be sufficient.
I love the way you keep shifting from talking about only climate models, to talking about all models.
I don’t know if you really are that stupid, or just hoping that you are slick enough to get away with it. [Hint, you aren’t]
PS: That all climate models are bad is easy to demonstrate. Just look at the so called projections they have made over the years.
“all climate models are bad is easy to demonstrate”
Waves arms around thinking no-one notices.
Allow me. (a) model all forcings, (b) model natural forcing only.
Are you actually going to argue that since the climate models predicted it would warm since 1880, and since it has warmed, this proves that the models must be correct.
As to your second set of graphs, only you find it surprising that models that were written with the assumption that CO2 causes massive warming, don’t find any warming when CO2 levels aren’t increased and nothing else is changed.
What disproves the models, is not these pathetic attempts at hindcasting, but the actual predictions the models have made since they were first run some 40 years ago. All of those predictions have come in warmer, to way warmer than the actual data.
“all climate models are bad is easy to demonstrate”
Waves arms around some more, still thinking no-one notices.
So demonstrate it.
This is as ludicrous as those who keep speaking about the earth being so “fragile.”
“… Deltares now took into account two metres of sea level rise if global warming was limited to 2 degrees Celsius (the Paris agreement), or possibly three metres without measures to curb global warming (IPCC-scenario RCP 8.5) …”.
Climate4you has tide gauge charts of average SL rise at coastal locations in Netherlands:
# Delfzijl +1.75 mm/yr (1860-2020) # Harlingen +1.43 mm/yr (1860-2020) # Den Helder +1.49 mm/yr (1900-2020) # Vlissingen +2.14 mm/yr.
All the trend lines are more or less monotonic showing no acceleration while in the past 160 years the global temperature has supposedly risen ~1C.
At the current rate it would take around 1,800 yrs for the SL to rise three meters.
Incidentally the Antarctic shows next to no net warming in the entire instrumental record.
Quote:”Nevertheless, the extreme two to three metres of sea level rise in 2100 from the Deltares report is still reigning free in the public debate. This is a recurrent phenomenon in climate reporting: the most extreme prediction is readily accepted and promoted as the new normal”
Yup = Classic Chemically Induced Depression
As endured by alcohol users and dope addicts since forever
Not sadness depression, let’s say because your mother-in-law just passed away,
No, not that sort, human brains have been switched off here. En masse.
The same brains that programmed the models, report the news, read/watch the news and, thereafter, drive policy.
Self Contradiction, Junk Science and Paranoia reign as inevitable consequence
Data, data, everywhere,
But all the research did stink;
Research, research, everywhere,
RPC8.5 driving advocates to drink.
Research, research everywhere,
And models’ output did stink;
RCP8.5, RCP8.5, everywhere,
And all the brains did shrink.
In other news, dog chases cat.
Hans Brinker will arise and save all!
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
The first part is clearly true with respect to CAGW. Lets hope the last part is also true and doesn’t take too long.
Regarding the last part of that quote, there is this:
“Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.”
—generally attributed to almost anyone from the AGW/CAGW alarmist community
Yes – wrt your last sentence, I have been thinking that for, oh, about 40 years!
Repeated references in the above quotes to “sea level rise in 2100”.
I do think the correct phrasing would be “sea level rise by 2100″.
Then again, I don’t have access to the Deltares and KNMI computer models and maybe they are indeed predicting 2100 to be a “banner year”.
If a new estimate about Antarctic stability is different from a previous estimate, then it could be that it is the estimates and the estimators that are unstable, not Antarctica.
From Meerisportal ” …and it is likely that in the future we will be reporting on a decline in the Antarctic sea ice.”
Looks like they missed that one by a mile given the current high levels of sea ice down south. … https://www.meereisportal.de/en/archive/2021-kurzmeldungen-gesamttexte/sea-ice-situation-in-the-weddell-sea/