Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Proxies | Main | Monbiot on academic publishers »
Wednesday
Aug312011

Reasons to be a sceptic

Charlie Martin explains what a global warming sceptic is and why he is one. I liked this bit:

The predictions of further warming are necessarily based on models.  Now, it happens I did my PhD work on Federally funded modeling, from which I developed the NBSR Law (named after the group for which I worked): All modeling efforts will inevitably converge on the result most likely to lead to further funding.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (46)

Models have a lot in common with Ouija boards.

Aug 31, 2011 at 7:33 AM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

I like that bit too. It's very familiar to me from experience with government-funded scientists - they would never actually complete any model, but find more work that needed doing.

Aug 31, 2011 at 7:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Penn State;

"This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Mann among the most respected scientists in his field"

Aug 31, 2011 at 8:07 AM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

Comment on the Charlie Martin article gives you a favourable mention, Your Grace.

“The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science” by Andrew Montford is a very readable history of the CAGW movement up to the release of the Climategate emails.

Aug 31, 2011 at 8:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Charlie martin has produced the best descriptions of what i feel a true sceptic is in the field of climatescience. My thanks to him for so doing.

As a small aside - I watched BBC Breakfast this morning with a wry smile as they covered the "success" of the whisky jaunt row to the magnetic Pole and gave air time to those intrepid explorers who stated that never had the ice not been there before and Climate change was still going to kill us all. They then ran the story about how this August in the UK is the coldest for 20 odd (?) years and that we have had 4 really bad summers in a row (exactly when does weather become climate?) - the presenters realising that this was not really towing the BBC party line then confirmed with their tame weather man that it was all due to a changing climate.

Hilarious.

Aug 31, 2011 at 8:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterDoug UK

Hi BH

As someone who works in the field, I can say that unfortunately that view of funding for atmospheric modelling is rather superficial!

It's the same kind of models that are used for weather forecasting as for climate projections - and indeed here at the Met Office it is the same model. Most of the people working on model development here don't even work in the climate area, and aren't funded by the climate programme - they are funded by the public weather service.

Moreover, the main emphasis in climate model development these days is on improving performance at regional scales for forecasting on seasonal to interannual (timescales irrelevant to GHG emissions cuts). Forecasts over these timescales are of course testable, so we'll be found out if we are fiddling results in any particular direction!

On century-scale projections relevant to mitigation advice, we've been saying for years that our sea level rise projections are less extreme than those of others, and that CO2 effects on plants may offset drought to some extent - both "good news" stories, neither of which have led to those areas of research being shut down! (Quite the contrary in fact!)

So I strongly contest the idea that there are vested interests in making the models support a particular political viewpoint in order to gain funding. The interest is in making the models better, for all purposes not just one narrow one.

PS Glad you enjoyed the info on farmers, I thought you would! :-)

PPS Philip Bratby: you could argue that it's actually the sceptics who keep climate modellers in a job by continually pointing out how badly we are doing, and hence have more work to do.... (thank you!)

Aug 31, 2011 at 8:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Betts

Hmm interesting point Richard but as sceptics don't allocate modellers funding and we only indirectly
pay for the wage bill and laptops ,we don't really keep anyone in a job and if yer theory is proved right and the sceptics cannot pick holes in it then you will just start research on another! I doubt you would just walk away and become a mountain guide !

Aug 31, 2011 at 9:29 AM | Unregistered Commenterzx

My favourite bit is

... the selected points used to compute GAST and regional temps are, to a *very* high probability, the points from the raw data set that lead to the most warming. ... the descriptions of the analysis even say that’s a selection criterion: they’re selecting data points that fit the models well — but then testing the models by how well they fit the data.
'Er Indoors was a bit worried when she came in and found me banging my head on the table!

Aug 31, 2011 at 9:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

@ Richard Betts

This is probably a bit cheeky but since the MO has one model for both the near and far futures, could you possibly have a peek at July 25th 2012? It's my daughter's wedding near Bath and I am wondering if we will need a marquee on the lawn for the reception, should it rain. It will be between 2:00pm & 6:00pm if that helps.

Aug 31, 2011 at 10:17 AM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

Richard:

Your comment doesn't seem to agree with government policy. If you've been saying those things for years, why have successive governments ignored your advice such that we in the UK have the world's most severe climate change policy (the Climate Change Act 2008) and we are continually warned about the disastrous effects of sea level rise in the near future?

Are you agreeing that your climate models are doing badly? If so, I think you should warn the government about that and the uncertainty in the projected 2degC temperature rise they are so concerned about.

Roll on 2degC warming. I think most people in this country would love at least 2degC warming - maybe 5degC would be better.

Aug 31, 2011 at 10:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

There is an important corollary to that law about models and funding and that is that all official reports will recommend more controls be imposed on the public. An example is the report mentioned in yesterday's Daily Telegraph recommending that people should be discouraged from flying abroad on holiday.

Families should skip foreign holidays to cut carbon emissions, says Government adviser
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8729320/Families-should-skip-foreign-holidays-to-cut-carbon-emissions-says-Government-adviser.html

The report was by consultants hired by the Department for Transport.

Of course MPs would still be allowed their overseas "fact finding missions" and their consultants would have important conferences to attend in exotic locations - all the more reason for cracking down on travel by us plebs!

Aug 31, 2011 at 10:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoy

simpleseeker:

Try Piers Corbyn.

Aug 31, 2011 at 10:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

"Roll on 2degC warming. I think most people in this country would love at least 2degC warming - maybe 5degC would be better.
Aug 31, 2011 at 10:18 AM | Phillip Bratby"

I most certainly would love a 2 deg C warming! The summer would have been nicer, for example (15 deg C av.Temp instead of 17 deg C av. Temp, as per Met Office/BBC), and as for the last three winters ....

Aug 31, 2011 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterViv Evans

Simpleseeker:

Drier 30%
Near Average 35%
Wetter 35%

Just to save you some time!

Aug 31, 2011 at 11:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

The shortcoming in the linked article is that it is limited to a discussion of the questionablity of the science.

For me the issue is that even if one accepted lock stock and barrel that what climate psyentists do actually constitutes science, and even if one accepted their consensus in its entirety, one should still be a sceptic.

This is because the proposed mitigations of AGW entail managing the sky, which will not work.

Even if it did, there are better ways to spend the money. Providing everyone on the planet with clean drinking water, for example, will cost less than AGW mitigation and save more lives, and there are no doubts as to whether it is practicable. So if the aim really were to save life this would make more sense.

It's thus hard not to conclude that saving lives is not the goal. As a commenter on the linked article said, no matter what the problem is, the likes of Hansen always want the same solution.

Aug 31, 2011 at 11:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

Richard Betts you could argue that it's actually the sceptics who keep climate modellers in a job by continually pointing out how badly we are doing, and hence have more work to do.... (thank you!)


Well, I have to say that, when I heard wotsername (govt minister) say "The science is settled", I wondered why, if they believed that to be true, why the govt was still lavishly funding the "science".

Aug 31, 2011 at 11:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Bish - I beg to differ. Rather than being a reason to be a sceptic, it seems like a good reason to be a 'warmist'..!
'More funding - Yippee...!'

Aug 31, 2011 at 12:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid

I think Charles Martin puts the case well. However, I'd quibble with the line that is highlighted in the main post: "All modeling efforts will inevitably converge on the result most likely to lead to further funding."

I think the case is more that all interesting models* are flawed and are constantly in need of improvement. The modelers are aware of the weaker portions of the model and point them out. Naturally, with the magic phrase "more study is required." [Is there any academic paper which doesn't end with this phrase or an equivalent?] The observed consequence is similar, but it doesn't invoke the venality implied by the highlighted statement.

*By "interesting" models I mean to exclude those describing rather precisely-known phenomena -- the gravitational attraction of objects in our solar system, say, or the sun's position at a given time. Weather is among the more interesting, by this criterion.

Aug 31, 2011 at 1:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterHaroldW

Phillip Bratby

We still think that anthropogenic climate change could have major consequences in the long term, we are just less convinced than others appear to be about whether "catastrophe" is imminent.

And yes the UK may benefit in many respects from a warmer climate! But also there could be downsides for us directly, and moreover we are not alone the in world, and not isolated from goes on elsewhere.

Maybe (and this is just speculation) the UK govt is one of the most pro-active in its policies precisely because it has a responsible, objective scientific advisory body who are willing to say when things are more certain and when they are less so, and can talk about the positive as well as the negative sides of CO2 rise and warming....? ie: our scientific advice is believable to the policymakers not because it says what some people want to hear, but because it's genuinely the best advice available (within a highly uncertain field of study).

I think you may be confusing advice on the impacts of climate change with opinions on the best way to minimise the negative impacts. These are different things.

BTW Who in UK govt has talked about "disastrous effects of sea level rise in the near future" and what have they said? I'd be interested to hear of any inconsistency, given that the govt is not rushing into commissioning a new Thames Barrier just yet, based on advice from the Met Office and the Environment Agency.

You are right in your response to simpleseekeraftertruth that we would of course not claim to make forecasts for a particular afternoon a year in advance, whereas certain others might make such claims. It's a shame that the claims and scientific methods of WeatherAction have never been made available to scrutiny (I'm still waiting for the papers Piers Corbyn indicated that he'd send me when I offered to assess them in IPCC AR4).

Aug 31, 2011 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Betts

And you aren't in the least bit skeptical of this unsupported claim? Some skeptic!

Aug 31, 2011 at 1:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterFred

I have to suggest from the evidence above Charlie Martin is not adopting a falsifiable position. Knock modelling because it is the method to make a prediction or a forecast . His experience is fair enough reason to be a modelling skeptic and to thus be skeptical of predictions or forecasts but AGW is more than that.

Aug 31, 2011 at 1:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterHengist McStone

"Maybe (and this is just speculation) the UK govt is one of the most pro-active in its policies precisely because it has a responsible, objective scientific advisory body who are willing to say when things are more certain and when they are less so, and can talk about the positive as well as the negative sides of CO2 rise and warming....?"

Or maybe, Richard, it is because the City of London and its hangers on in Government can spot a new profitable bubble in the making faster than you can say sub-prime mortgage?

Aug 31, 2011 at 1:39 PM | Unregistered Commentermarchesarosa

Hengist
Try reading what the man actually wrote, eh, instead of glossing over the bits you don't like.
You and Zed really are two sides of the same brain cell.

Aug 31, 2011 at 2:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

In summary, our H++ scenario range for time-mean sea level rise around the UK is 93 cm to approximately 1.9 m. Beyond our qualitative statement that the top of this range is very unlikely to occur in the 21st century we make no attempt here to assign a precise probability to this event. Improvements in models and continued monitoring may, in the future, help us to estimate the likelihood of this type of event or rule it out completely.
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/1849/500/

For a C100 year period that gives 9.3mm -19mm range per annum compared to:

Global average sea level rose at an average rate of around 1.8 mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 mm per year from 1993 to 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

'Some of the proxy data suggests the possibility that future sea level rise might be greater than the maximum given in Section 3.5 (based on regionalisation of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Projections). Such inferences made from proxy data, together with known limitations in the physics of ice sheet models used in the projections, have led us to provide here a low probability, high impact range for sea level rise around the UK, which we call the High-plus-plus (H++) scenario. This might be used for contingency planning and to help users thinking about the limits to adaptation. We think it very unlikely* that the upper limit of this scenario will occur during the 21st century but cannot yet rule it out completely given past climate proxy observations and current model limitations.

* The use of the terms likely or unlikely and other such terms used here are not considered in the strictly defined ways used by the IPCC Fourth Assessment.


Really, and if SST cools over the next decade?

Aug 31, 2011 at 2:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Lord Beaverbrook

I don't think SST (sea surface temperature) is anywhere near the whole story for sea level rise - ocean heat content (throughout the whole depth of the ocean) is also important, and that has a much longer response time. (I believe Roger Pielke Snr is prominant in making the argument for ocean heating being a better measure of the Earth's energy imbalance than surface temperature change).

And of course regional temperature & precip change over land ice is also important for SLR.

Aug 31, 2011 at 2:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Betts

"This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Mann among the most respected scientists in his field"

I am sure of that simpleseekeraftertruth. Although it was nearly 40 years since I was at university, federally funded research grants to academics, particularly in the sciences, where big money makers for the university. The collected a 30% overhead to "administer" the grant at the university. This was in addition to any capital costs and space rentals. Roughly 50% of the grant money ended up in the university's pocket. This does not include salaries for the researcher and assistants, who were paid from the grant.

So it is no wonder Penn State loves Dr. Mann. He is money in the bank. That clouds a lot of issues.

Aug 31, 2011 at 2:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Pablo de la Sierra

Richard,

So why is the government publishing unrealistic figures for it's risk assessments?
These data then being used by local government, businessses, media, insurance agencies etc.
Are you adamant, in your role as advisor, that projected increasing rate of sea levels are the only plausable outcome, barring potholes?

As far as Ocean heat content, my own thoughts are that we will realise a lot has been released and will not be replaced over the next decade or two.

Dr Pielke Snr also advocates not using land surface temperatures but that raises a completely new topic.

Aug 31, 2011 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

Sceptics have more fun. Sceptics may also see obvious contradictions. Someone called "A physicist" seemingly does not:

(3) hard-nosed military and business leaders now are betting that AGW is real and accelerating.

For me (3) tips-the-balance. Because admirals and CEOs are tough to fool.

Not the normal appeal to authority, pretty easy to falsify and for both question motivation. So extra funding or profits. But then a couple of posts on:

Say, when’s PJM/Tatler going to do some followup stories … on lessons-learned for American conservatism from Japan’s radiation disaster, regarding corporate accountability?

I mean, does anyone still trust anyone these big corporations say?

With people like "A physicist", Al and Bill Nye I'm going to need more popcorn. Actually, have we had scare stories about AGW affecting popcorn or beer production yet? If not, that could be a worthwhile research project. I volunteer to help test beer under as wide a variety of conditions as funding will support.

Aug 31, 2011 at 5:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterAtomic Hairdryer

@Richard Betts,

"...we would of course not claim to make forecasts for a particular afternoon a year in advance..."

How about a particular day a week in advance, a particular year a decade in advance or a particular decade a century in advance? Just what can you currently predict? I don't mean the infamous 33%/33%/34% split as Lord Beaverbrook reminds us of but something you could bet the (subsidy) farm on. I am of course assuming that the same evaluation criteria would be used as those you would have applied to Piers Corbyn.

Aug 31, 2011 at 5:39 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

@Don Pablo,

My point exactly. It is a strange metric to use the ability to attract funding by a scientist while ignoring the central issue of academic rigour. Universities should ignore Charlie Martin's NBSR law at their peril. Or do coffers trump reputation as you perhaps suggest?

Aug 31, 2011 at 5:52 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

"I doubt you would just walk away and become a mountain guide !" --zx

Richard: For that most unlikely possibility:

http://www.musicridge.com/yodeling.htm

Aug 31, 2011 at 6:04 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

Richard simple question given that could push a magic button and make claimed AGW go away , would that mean less or more funded going the MET's way ?
NO AGW no IPCC, no AGW lot less justification for climate science and so less funded and less people involved in the area, but what about the MET office ?

Aug 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

KnR

Thank you for an excellent question!

If you'd asked that a few years ago then I'd have said less funding for the Met Office, but now I actually think it would not make a huge difference (maybe a small reduction relative to our overall science budget).

The reason for this is that the greatest need for General Circulation Modelling is to inform decisions and planning in the context of climate variability - however, ironically, people have been alerted to the fact that they need to know about climate variability because they have now heard about AGW. So, they think they want to know about (anthropogenic) climate change, but really they (mostly) want to know about climate variability. (This includes an increasing number of customers in the private sector who are interested in the forecasts or risk advice from seasonal timescales onwards - the re-insurance sector, energy companies, mining companies, development banks... anyone who makes decisions on operations or infrastructure which are weather-sensitive).

The relatively small reduction would come about because there still is something of a need for information on the consequences of different possible mitigation actions - impacts of different levels of emissions cuts, the consequences of avoided deforestation (including effects of surface albedo and evaporation change), the effects of different forcing agents (CO2 vs non-CO2 GHGs, which differ because CO2 has other effects such as fertilizing photosynthesis etc) - all things that need Earth System Models with carbon cycle feedbacks, interactive vegetation and chemistry etc - but this is not the majority of our programme.

I'd like pose myself a second, more subtle question which may be even closer to what you really want to know, and which may be controversial:

What would be the impact on Met Office funding if there was no policy requirement for mitigation? ie: if everybody agreed that the world would just live with the consequences of AGW and adapt?

In this case I suggest that funding for the Met Office would actually increase as there would be an increased demand for advice on the inevitable climate change, in order to inform the adaptation (I think a lot of people are currently under the impression that somehow emissions reductions will save us from the need to adapt, so are not bothering to think about that).

So this logically suggests that, if funding were the only consideration, the Met Office might actually have more of a vested interest in there not being any push for global emissions reductions!!!!

(NB Please don't think I am actually saying "burn more fossil fuels to keep me in a job"... I don't think that....!)

Aug 31, 2011 at 9:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Betts

simpleseekeraftertruth

For anything more than a day or two away it is, unfortunately, all about probabilities.

Aug 31, 2011 at 9:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Betts

Lord Beaverbrook

Rising global mean sea level is probably the impact of climate change that I would be most confident in.

Not so sure about increasing rate of sea level rise, but I'm not sure whether you really meant to say "rate" or not. Recent sea level rise appears to have been faster, but it's not clear whether this really is the sign of an acceleration as some people like to claim - it could go back to rising more slowly again (but we're confident it will keep rising for some time).

Aug 31, 2011 at 9:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Betts

Richard Betts the trouble is your ignoring the political element when the MET goes looking for cash only part of the story is the science the rest of it is the politics that is to say do the politicians feel there is benefit in handing over the cash . While AGW is the 'big man' that is relatively easy case to make or used to be , but as the public turn away that case becomes much harder . The MET's record in failing to produce accurate mid to long term forecast lead them to drop given them out to the public , that decision was not based on the science but on the political blow back from the public reaction to the MET failings .

Climate science is so politicized that everything around gets caught with the same brush, indeed its one reason some defend it to the death their aware that in house of cards situation if one falls all could fall . Should AGW magical disappear its hard to see anything but financial reductions at the MET for political reasons, as while as big cuts in the area of climate science which has grow massively off the back of AGW, from a minor subject little know even in the university sector to a monster with a big public profile

Aug 31, 2011 at 10:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Richard Betts,

Last question for now, I promise, as many are vying for your attention and I am sure that you have exceeded your public relations remit.
How long a period of non rising sea levels would it take to shake your confidence in AGW theory, a couple of years, five years, ten years?
Or is that not possible.

Aug 31, 2011 at 10:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterLord Beaverbrook

IMHO Some modelling is tantamount to voodoo, in the wrong hands it is dangerous. It makes me laugh when I see complex models trying to make something of nothing, if you can't see something and a model tells you it's happening then all you have done is fit an inappropriate model.

Let me do some fancy analysis for you. I'll use these data and my magic ruler. Here's the data, I think they are fairly familiar to all.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

If I put my magic ruler on the bit from 1910 to 1940 ish I get a +ive slope of about +0.16C per decade. If I repeat I get a similar trend from 1970 to 2000 ish and a similar slope. From 1940 to 1970 I get a sort of drunk to the right M shape, I also note that this is the case 1880 to 1910. I used my magic eye for that observation. Now I don't need no computer to help me predict what might happen in the next 20 years, it will probably involve intoxicated characters lurching to the right.

Prof P Jones also predicts we might not see inexorable temp increases over the next period of 20 years or so, despite what ‘all scientists agree’ upon. I understand why one might wish to explain why these trends are happening but when they do not predict what is clearly happening then one should suspect that something akin to voodoo is occurring again. This is part of scientific research, if what you predict does not come to fruition then one must adapt ones ideas accordingly, chuck them away and rethink maybe. Get a part time job to supplement ones income until you get closer to the truth and the money starts rolling in again.

You may have noticed the flaw in my analysis, my ruler is straight and the data are questionable. They have been tampered with in ways that are not understood. Yes I did a GIGO analysis, like so many of my contempories.

I’d like to wonder what influenced the M trends pre 1910 and pre 1970, without looking at the CO2 trends I’m guessing CO2 also went down right? When we were like in a non-aggressive revolution right?

Sep 1, 2011 at 10:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterCamp David

Richard Betts

Rising global mean sea level is probably the impact of climate change that I would be most confident in.
Fair enough. The IPCC seems to have some difficulty with listening to those scientists who have spent much of the career studying the subject and don't see a problem but there is room for a range of opinions, no doubt.
But what is the current rate of sea level rise? Is it consistent across the globe? By how much must the sea rise before it starts causing mankind sufficient problems that we need to do something to protect ourselves against it?
I note your use of the phrase "global mean sea level" which implies that there is actually no such thing as "sea level" per se. Which makes my second question even more pertinent. And given the effect and range of various tidal systems and the vagaries of ocean currents and the ENSO, how do we know what the "mean sea level" is, anyway?

Sep 1, 2011 at 12:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

I know the guy is seen as a heretic but was once part of the IPCC review process before he disagreed.

http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

Let me quote from it. Page 34 (left panel)

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.

Sep 1, 2011 at 2:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterCamp David

Hi Mike

Can't spend long on this - I'm at work - but for the current rate of rise and how the global figure is estimated see this section in IPCC AR4"

It doesn't answer your question on how much matters - that very much depends where you are (obviously are you in a very low-lying coastal area or not).

You might also be interested in the fact that the total budget of sea level rise cannot yet be closed ie: if you add up all the contributions to SLR (melting land ice, thermal expansion of ocean waters, etc) then you don't actually get the observed SLR exactly, so there are unknown or at least unquantified factors at play. Anthropogenic water storage (trapping water on land behind dams) and extraction of deep groundwater for irrigation which then runs into rivers and the oceans are tricky issues - they are thought to be small terms, but it's hard to be sure!

Sep 1, 2011 at 2:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Betts

Thanks, Richard.
Your link to AR4 doesn't work.
The rest of your reply suggests (to me) that the real answer is "we don't know".
But if Camp David's quote from Morner is accurate then it appears that the IPCC will make it up anyway because there a sea-level rise or the whole shooting match falls apart!

It was of course Morner I was referring to.

Sep 1, 2011 at 4:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Sorry about that:
"... make it up anyway because there has to be a sea-level rise or the whole shooting match falls apart!
It was of course Morner I was referring to.

I wasn't shouting. Honest.

Sep 1, 2011 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Sorry Mike, the AR4 link is here. Rushing again...

I think it is not so much "we don't know" as "we know sea level is rising, and we can mostly explain why but not completely".

I honestly do not think the IPCC lead authors will "make it up" - I don't know all the authors of that chapter, but I know that John Church (CLA) and Jonathan Gregory are very thorough, professional scientists with extremely high integrity. And the evidence will be laid out clearly, including (again) any uncomfortable details on whether the sea level budget can be closed or not.

Sep 1, 2011 at 11:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Betts

I recall reading a previous atricle a few years ago in which Morner detailed his discussions at the time. I paraphrase of course, he saw the data and there was no trend and some time later once the computer programmers had got hold of it there was a trend.

I think this was the time he began to become out of favour with the IPCC.

Here's a later article from the Prof. All I have ever had over the years regarding Morners work is "he's a discredited scientist". All Skeptics are discredited of course, but at least our minds are scientific in the normal sense.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf

Sep 2, 2011 at 8:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterCamp David

Families should skip foreign holidays to cut carbon emissions, says Government adviser

was she calling in from Marbella ?

Sep 3, 2011 at 2:48 PM | Unregistered Commentertutut

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>