BPSDBThis one has been going around for a while now, so it isn’t new.
Apologies if you’re already aware of it, but if you haven’t come across it before, read on.
A reader recently pointed us towards a poster at http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holgate/sealevel_change_poster_holgate.pdf as evidence that rising sea levels are no threat to humanity. In his view the key sentence appears to be
The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).
Conclusive proof, apparently, that the residents of Tuvalu and Bangladesh have nothing to fear and that sea level rise is the greatest lie ever told.
As I said it’s been doing the rounds for a while now. It was picked up (among others) by climateaudit, jennifermarohasy and wattsupwiththat. Amusingly, all three had a go at twisting it into “It’s the Sun!” by assuming correlation equals causation.
The link points to a pdf document boasting logos from both the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (POL) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), so at first glance it seems to be genuine.
The odd thing is the url: it doesn’t point to either POL or the NERC, as you might expect. Instead, it points to a (horribly garish) denialist wesite in Luxembourg, with links to WUWT & Climateaudit and quotes from Lindzen and Crichton on the home page.
I’ve tried searching for “the poster” on both the POL and the NERC websites without success. That doesn’t man that it didn’t originate from POL, it just means that I can’t find it.
Leaving that aside, what does the poster actually tell us?
Actually not a lot, apart from the quote above. Although it doesn’t cite it, the poster mostly consists of snippets from “On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century” (S. J. Holgate, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602).
There are some small differences between the paper and the poster (and a typo in the poster that isn’t in the paper), so it’s possible that the poster predates the paper.
The paper itself is rather interesting. Holgate explores the idea that you can examine decadal changes in sea level by using a small number of high quality records. He finds that
the two highest decadal rates of change were recorded in the decades centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) and 1939 (4.68 mm/yr) with the most negative decadal rates of change over the past 100 years during the decades centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr) and 1987 (−1.33 mm/yr).
He finds a global increase of 174 mm over the 100 year period, and does indeed state that the rate in the first half of the 100 year period was greater than that in the second, but notes that “the difference in rates was not found to be significant”.
So does this paper dramatically contradict the IPCC and bring the whole climate change conspiracy edifice crashing down around us?
No.
Neither of the IPCC’s TAR and AR4 reports claimed that there was any significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century. The TAR suggested a central value of 1.5 mm/yr for the century, whilst the AR4 suggests 0.17 metres for the century. Both mention that there are strong regional and temporal fluctuations in sea level.
Holgate’s paper is entirely consistent with the IPCC view – and in fact the AR4 cites a 2004 paper that Holgate co-authored.
There are a growing number of scientists who think that the IPCC estimates for sea level rise during the 21st Centrury are too low. Perhaps Holgate disagrees with them?
Again, it would appear not.
Holgate and Stefan Rahmstorf (of RealClimate fame) did have a bit of a dispute in Science, but this was about analysis techniques. Such discussions are normal and natural, and part of the way that science evolves.
But, as Martha notes, Holgate does not dispute that the threat is real. As quoted by the BBC:
However, a rise of even a metre could have major implications for low-lying countries – especially, noted Dr Holgate, those whose economies are not geared up to build sophisticated sea defence systems.
“Eighty to 90% of Bangladesh is within a metre or so of sea level,” he said, “so if you live in the Ganges delta you’re in a lot of trouble; and that’s an awful lot of people.”
IMAGE CREDITS:
All images are from The Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory.
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Mike,
The poster can be found on the website of a 2006 workshop on sea level rise which Holgate attended : http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/SeaLevel/index.html
and the poster-pdf itself :
Click to access 2_3_Holgate.pdf
my guess is that Luxemburg high-school teacher just copied the poster from this site, and that he has no relevance to the story.
The Sea Level Workshop Report, Summary Statement (October 06, 2006) can be found here : http://wcrp.ipsl.jussieu.fr/Workshops/SeaLevel/Reports/Summary_Statement_2006_1004.pdf
cheers,
J.
I followed one of the first links you gave above, the greatest lie ever told, and didn’t find any references to this poster. [1] The article leans almost exclusively on the opinions of one Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.
So, I have to call you out a bit, that you implied that the article relies on this poster (“Conclusive proof, apparently, …”). Please be more careful. [2]
But I also want to ask some questions — who is this guy, Mörner? I wikipedia’ed him and he seems like a quack (a proponent of dowsing, for example). But I don’t know what kind of reputation he has, generally. [3]
Also, another thing in the article raised my eyebrows: this paragraph that concludes, “… as the IPCC scientists admitted, they ‘needed to show a trend’. ” I tried to find any credible references to the IPCC scientists actually admitting this, but all I got were hits to denialist sites repeating this same line. Do you know where this meme originated? [4]
—-
> did you perhaps think that I was a denialist?
Haha, no way! I’ve been reading your blog for a couple of weeks, and love it! Thanks, keep up the good work!
Southampton University, Hampshire, UK has been looking at local sea level data covering the last 100 years or so and found local yearly increases between 1.2mm and 2.2mm per yr.
http://www.soton.ac.uk/mediacentre/news/2009/oct/09_136.shtml
—-
(I believe the IPCC calls the report ‘AR4’ and not ‘FAR’ to avoid confusion with the “first” assessment report…) [1]
Does anybody know of a risk analysis done at least at regional level, that includes estimates of rises in sea level due to global warming but also local effects, as the ones mentioned by S2, in order to clarify which parts of the world are actually at high risk?
—-
S2,
Thank you for such a careful examination and analysis of the facts.
It shows the time and knowledge that can be required to thoroughly debunk just one piece of b.s. from one denier’s output for one day.
It’s impossible to address it all: who has the time?
However, any time examples are debunked – especially these kinds, where the lies claim to be supported by reference to the science – it helps everyone see how deniers purposefully manufacture falsehoods.
It always involves an unusual interpretative process that typically includes motivation other than presentation of the facts, or a weak knowledge of the science, or poor reasoning and analytic skills – or as you nicely demonstrate, all of the above.
More, please. 🙂
Omnotroll,
Just read the posts and discussion and click on the links on this site, or any other competent science site, for current and projected global impacts and quantitative comparisons of the most vulnerable regions e.g. delta, coastal. Or Northern melt and impacts on coastal communities or northeastern North America. It can’t all be repeated here, just for you.
You use the term ‘risk assessment’, which is a concept linked to mitigation, adaptation, planning and policy in response the effects of climate change on population health, access to food and fresh water, agriculture, infrastructure, bio-diversity, etc.
There are current climate refugees and they have no international protection or support.
There are some posts and discussion on this site, in addition to all the links to the scientific evidence of possible to likely future impacts based on observational records and models. There are links to the IPCC synthesis reports that discuss comparative impacts. Or follow WCRP or UNEP.
Read these, or google any region of interest plus ‘sea level rise’, or type ‘sea level rise risk assessment’, or something similar, for regional action plans based on local assessments of the science.
Too lazy? Try the references on a link that was just provided in the post:
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaLevelRise.asp
or look at a picture and use your imagination:
http://www.desmogblog.com/new-nasa-satellite-map-pinpoints-worldwide-sea-level-rise
You can click the links on the sidebar if you want the NASA site.
Martha – you are not able to discuss such a simple point as identifying which areas are most at risk? And what is the point of replying to a “troll”, if you believe I am indeed one?
The trends measured by NASA so far are just part of the picture (isn’t it a bit bluish near the Maldives). Places that have seen an increase in dry land for a series of reasons for example, are obviously less at risk for rising sea levels that areas that haven’t
As reminded by S2, East Anglia is “sinking” on its own, and even a few centimeters will make a difference, whilst it’s pointless to build coastal defences in Scotland [1]. Likewise, some deltas are increasing in size, others are not, and it’s the latter type that needs priority. And so I repeat my question: is there any analysis on this problem conducted at regional level? If there is (I am sure there is), please provide a link to it.
In any case, any further mention of my personal character, something I believe goes against the published policy for this site, will automatically disqualify your comment from being read by Yours Truly. Enjoy.
—-
@Martha:
I have to agree that there was no cause to use the epithet “omnotroll”.
omnothing said:
“in order to clarify which parts of the world are actually at high risk?”
Why?
Are expecting sea levels to magically stop rising in a century or so?
Most of civilian Portsmouth (Portsea Island), UK is between 1m and 5m above sea level. Some parts are probably below sea level. Dolphin island (i think it is called that) where the Naval offices are, greater than 5m.
Portsmouth is at risk, full stop. Thats 200,000 people.
Why? Because dry land is not a static object. Its movements can exacerbate or compensate variations in sea levels. Also, those variations are not uniform, so if the NASA 1993-2008 data linked above are taken as reference, problems in North-eastern America are much worse than in North-western America.
Portsmouth is “at risk”. The question is if it is more or less at risk than the Maldives, or Bangladesh.
Omnologos:
> Does anybody know of a risk analysis done at least at regional level,
> that includes estimates of rises in sea level due to global warming but
> also local effects, as the ones mentioned by S2, in order to clarify which
> parts of the world are actually at high risk?
Example: http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/Delta-english.sept2.pdf
This is however local for the Netherlands, but contains a lot of more general validity. Over the 21st Century the dominant local deviation from global mean sea level is going to be the so-called “ice sheet melt fingerprint” as studied in Mitrovica et al. 2001:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6823/abs/4091026a0.html
All other effects, like glacial isostatic rebound as rightly mentioned by S2, other crustal (tectonic) movements and changes in sea surface topography, are real, but will remain small by comparison.
Here’s a “fingerprint” picture outside the paywall:
http://www.global-warming.net/slcmap.htm
There is no legend; in fact dark blue is sea level going down, the Netherlands experiences 20% of global mean SLR due to Greenland, and orange is 100% of GMSL. As you see,
1) these effects are quite significant, and
2) on the Southern hemisphere, the melting of Greenland contributes over 100% (something like 110-120%), while on the Northern hemisphere, Antarctica does.
The effect is mostly due to the gravitational attraction of the ice sheet mass disappearing and being spread around the global ocean; a smaller part is due to elastic deformation of the solid Earth in reponse to the loading change. A tiny-ish effect is due to the Earth’s rotation axis shifting due to the mass redistribution.
Somewhat related:
Click to access Mitrovica-2009-Science.pdf
—-
“is there any analysis on this problem conducted at regional level?”
“Portsmouth is “at risk”. The question is if it is more or less at risk than the Maldives, or Bangladesh.”
“Martha – you are not able to discuss such a simple point”
It is you who are not able to discuss a simple point.
As I tried to explain, you mix up two different points: you ask both what is the risk analysis for a region (without specifiying a region, so it seems you are not using the term ‘risk analysis’ correctly, see above); and you are also apparently asking about comparative analyses of (global) risk, but have confused the two types of information.
You have been provided with many links to relevant research that you clearly do not read. 😦
Looking at the 4 graphs – they show sea level rises of 1-2m in the past 80-100 years; and it is a fairly consistent rise.
Wiki states that sea level has risen 20cm over the past century in the Maldives.
What causes this large difference?
How much has the sea level risen in Bangladesh over the past century?
JCP, no, the vertical scale is in mm, and what we see is all roughly 20 cm over the last century, in line with what has been found for the global mean, e.g. Church and White 2006.
BTW a metre over the last century would have attracted media attention, wouldn’t you think? 😉
I guess it was too early with no coffee.