Thursday, 17 April 2008

Climate Change Part 26 - Sea levels (again).

Iain Dale is not too happy about the BBC's article which tells us that sea levels could rise by up to one-and-a-half meters by the end of the century. I can't blame him. I was starting to think that the tide was starting to turn (excuse the pun) on all this Global Warming nonsense. Surface temperatures have not risen since 1998, sea temperatures have actually decreased and we are being told that this year will be particularly cold. I think the Man made global warming gig could be up very soon and we will see a desperate increase in outlandish claims of doom from those who make a living from it. As Iain points out, the BBC article is reporting on data that has not been published in any scientific journal. There's more to that than meets the eye - the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007, was published without any real peer review.

On the sea level front, here is the opinion of a real scientist, using real science not fudged climate models:

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR.

This is what Dr Mörner had to say about the IPPC method for measuring sea levels:

Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.

And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modelling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!

4 comments:

lettersfromatory said...

Good spot, Steve. I suspected that the BBC blew it out of all proportion.

Cassilis said...

Quick question Steve.

As a general statement it's fair to say the scientific community are split on climate change and human influence on it - many scientists believe the evidence is stark and we should act now, others think it's overstated and little or no action is needed.

If we accept that dispute at face value (i.e. agree we can't resolve it so look at what actions we take in light of it) then why on earth wouldn't we err on the side of caution and, broadly speaking, align ourselves with those urging action?

If they turn out to have been wrong (and you and other critics right) then little is lost - lifestyles may have changed some, economic growth slowed some and all for no reason. Not ideal but not the end of the world.

If, on the other hand, it pans out the other way then real human suffering is the result. Perhaps not quite the end of the world as some uber-greenies proclaim but serious planetary issues and human tragedies.

Remember, the argument here isn't "but that science is wrong, I have another report that blah, blah" - it's 'the science is in dispute so which course of action do we now take?'

Failing to answer that question and just aligning yourself with the anti-mob actually risks making you as every bit as fundamentalist and narrow-minded as the green lobby often are.

Daily Referendum said...

Liam,

It has been argued time and again that the cost of fighting climate change will cause more damage than not. I align myself with the sceptics because I do not want to be taxed for something that many scientist believe may not be happening.

For ten years we have had this crap shoved down our throats without any rise in global temperatures. We are still way behind the 1930's, and it's funny but we are all still here. The medieval warm period was seen has a time of great wealth and plenty. I'm sorry Liam but I don't think we should put an hold on this planet's development for something that might just happen.

Anonymous said...

It's all bollocks. I'm with those who believe that the burning of fossil fuels etc has actually prevented a return of the ice age. The danger is that if we turn the heat off my house will be under 100 metres of glacier. There are too many vested interests out there distorting the truth for their own ends