IPCC: sea level blunder angers Dutch environment minister

5 February, 2010 by

Only the purple is below sea level

Clog-gate? Windmill-gate? Edam-gate? Yet another error in IPCC AR4, this time relating to sea levels in Holland:

A United Nations report wrongly claimed that more than half of the Netherlands is currently below sea level.

In fact, just 20 percent of the country consists of polders that are pumped dry, and which are at risk of flooding if global warming causes rising sea levels. Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer has ordered a thorough investigation into the quality of the climate reports which she uses to base her policies on.

Climate-sceptic MPs were quick to react. Conservative MP Helma Neppérus and Richard de Mos from the right-wing Freedom Party want the minister to explain to parliament how these figures were used to decide on national climate policy. “This may invalidate all claims that the last decades were the hottest ever,” Mr De Mos said.

The incorrect figures which date back to 2007 were revealed on Wednesday by the weekly Vrij Nederland. The Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency told reporters that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) added together two figures supplied by the agency: the area of the Netherlands which is below sea-level and the area which is susceptible to flooding. In fact, these areas overlap, so the figures should not have been combined to produce the 55 percent quoted by the IPCC.

The discovery comes just a week after a prediction about glaciers in the Himalayas proved wrong. Rather than disappearing by 2035, as IPCC reports claim, the original research underlying the report predicted the mountain ice would last until 2350. (source)

The Dutch environment minister isn’t impressed:

Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer says she will no longer tolerate errors by climate researchers. She expressed her anger to Dutch researchers who presented their annual report on the state of the climate on Wednesday. (source)

Can you imagine Penny Wong having the guts to say the same? No, me neither, because she, like Rudd and Co, is blinded by dogma.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Antarctic sea water shows "no sign" of warming

12 January, 2010 by

More "no warming"

From The Science is Settled Department. But, but, but, everyone knows the sea is warming – it must be, our models say so:

SEA water under an East Antarctic ice shelf showed no sign of higher temperatures despite fears of a thaw linked to global warming that could bring higher world ocean levels, first tests showed yesterday.

Sensors lowered through three holes drilled in the Fimbul Ice Shelf showed the sea water is still around freezing and not at higher temperatures widely blamed for the break-up of 10 shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula, the most northerly part of the frozen continent in West Antarctica. [Gee, maybe the break up of the ice shelves was caused by something else, perhaps? Surely the scientists didn’t rush to blame global warming, did they? – Ed]

“The water under the ice shelf is very close to the freezing point,” Ole Anders Noest of the Norwegian Polar Institute wrote after drilling through the Fimbul, which is between 250m and 400m thick.

“This situation seems to be stable, suggesting that the melting under the ice shelf does not increase,” he wrote of the first drilling cores.

The findings, a rare bit of good news after worrying signs in recent years of polar warming, adds a small bit to a puzzle about how Antarctica is responding to climate change, blamed largely on human use of fossil fuels [by the media and alarmist scientists, that is – Ed].

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Copenhagen – Day 4: China vs US

11 December, 2009 by

Day 4

Day 4

As was to be expected, the climate talks are boiling down to a China vs US punch-up. Yesterday, the US negotiator was blunt about the need for China to play ball, and today China has hit back, calling for more emissions cuts from the US (and more money, naturally):

China’s top climate envoy called on President Barack Obama to increase a U.S. offer to cut greenhouse gases, and said it would discuss a 2050 emissions goal only if rich nations offered more cash and carbon cuts.

Xie Zhenhua said developed nations must commit to cuts of “at least 40 percent” by 2020 from 1990 levels. He said Beijing was aiming for a legally binding treaty from the December 7-18 talks, although hosts Denmark have said that will be impossible.

A successful outcome from the summit largely depends on agreement between the United States and China, which together generate 40 percent of global carbon emissions.

But negotiations have been bogged down for months by rifts between developed and developing nations over who should cut emissions, by how much, and who should pay.

“I do hope that President Obama can bring a concrete contribution to Copenhagen,” Xie said in a rare interview.

Asked if he meant something more than Obama has proposed so far, a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels by 2020, Xie said: “Yes.”

“The whole world is watching the United States, and as long as they take on a good leadership role, then I think that we can make a large step forward in combating climate change.” (source)

40% by 2020 on 1990 levels equates to economic suicide, just sayin’. Meanwhile, in Faifax fantasy land, the Sydney Morning Herald prints the story of a 17-year-old living in the Solomon Islands, who pleads that her home is being flooded “by climate change”:

I am 17 years old. For my entire life, countries have been negotiating a climate agreement. My future is in front of me. In the year that I was born, amid an atmosphere of hope, the world formed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to solve the climate crisis.

This week I told negotiators at the main plenary session of the UN Climate Change Conference that time is running out and my generation needs them to work together to come up with the agreement that we deserve.

…

Sea-level rise and unprecedented storm surges caused by climate change are already affecting communities across the Pacific and are expected to get significantly worse if climate change is not immediately and adequately tackled.

Consequently, small island governments, like my own, are asking the global community to prevent global warming above 1.5 degrees. This means a global emission stabilisation target of below 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent in the atmosphere.

Maybe she hasn’t seen this graph, which shows sea levels rising at a constant rate, which they have done since the end of the last Ice Age, and which are actually slowing down:

Can't hide the decline

Can't hide the decline

Sarah Palin speaks the truth about the whole Copenhagen gab-fest:

SARAH Palin all but declared global warming a hoax yesterday when the former US vice-presidential candidate urged Barack Obama to boycott the Copenhagen climate change conference and stand up to the “radical environment movement”.

The former Alaska governor and possible 2012 presidential contender seized upon leaked emails from climate change scientists at the University of East Anglia. The scientists have been accused by sceptics of falsifying data to make the case that the phenomenon is real and man-made, something they deny.

The scandal has become a cause celebre among climate change deniers and sceptics. A group of Republican politicians has vowed to fly to Copenhagen next week to argue that the threat from global warming is overblown and too costly to act on.

Writing in The Washington Post, which was criticised from the Left for allowing her to argue her case [gee, that sounds like an attempt at censorship. Why would that be? The Left are always in favour of full and open debate, aren’t they? – Ed], Mrs Palin said: “The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.” (source)

Well said.

And in other news, an wholly undeserving person receives a totally discredited prize somewhere and makes long speech. Yawn.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Penny Wong: alarmism and empty threats

14 November, 2009 by

The Wong-bot

The Wong-bot

Curious, isn’t it, that CSIRO choose to release dire warnings about the effects of sea level rises of 1.1m by 2100 just before the Senate is due to debate the ETS, giving the Wong-bot the perfect opportunity to threaten the Coalition with apocalyptic consequences if the ETS isn’t passed. The Wong-bot denies that it’s a scare campaign (well, she would, wouldn’t she) but I think the evidence speaks for itself:

As a result, the report says, more than $60 billion worth of residential property faces flooding.

In addition 120 ports, 1,800 bridges, power stations, water treatment plants and airports close to the coastline are also under threat.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong says the findings can’t be ignored.

“The science tells us our climate is changing faster than first projected and the impacts are likely to be more severe,” she told reporters in Sydney.

Australia must immediately reduce its carbon emissions, she said.

“Which is why we are determined to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.”

OK then, Penny. Let’s work this through the twisted logic of this, shall we?

Question 1: Assuming the two-errors-in-four-words Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (ETS) is passed and Australia cripples its economy and reduces its emissions by, say, 20% by 2020, what effect will that have on sea level rises around Australia?

Answer: Nothing, because Australia produces less than 1.5% of global emissions.

Question 2: Assuming that at Copenhagen, the rest of the developed world is so impressed with Australia’s brand new, shiny ETS that they all fall over themselves to cripple their economies too, and sign a treaty reducing emissions significantly by 2020, what effect will that have on sea level rises around Australia?

Answer: Nothing, because increased emissions from China (who are building a new coal fired power station every week) and India (who have more important things to worry about, like tackling poverty and disease – you know, stuff that really does kill people) will more than make up for any cuts by developed countries. Plus, the developed countries will begin to realise that running a developed economy on sunbeams and fart-power ain’t as easy as they thought, so targets will simply not be met.

Question 3: Assuming that China and India miraculously reduce their emissions as well, what effect will that have on sea level rises around Australia?

Answer: Almost certainly nothing, for the same reasons as above, and also since CO2 is unlikely to be revealed as the main driver (or even one of the main drivers) of “global warming”.

Question 4: Assuming that CO2 is the main driver (or one of the main drivers) of “global warming”, what effect will the ETS and/or the Copenhagen treaty have on sea level rises around Australia?

Answer: Nothing, because just like the Kyoto Treaty, which even if fully implemented would have reduced global temperatures by about three and a half gazillionths of a degree, the Copenhagen treaty will have no discernible effect on the climate whatsoever.

Scare campaign? You decide. Why on earth the Coalition are even bothering to negotiate is quite frankly beyond my comprehension.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,

Sea levels "threaten 250,000 homes"

14 November, 2009 by

Rising faster than ever?

Rising faster than ever?

Garbage In Garbage Out Alert: This is the sort of nonsense one gets when one treats as gospel the projections of hopelessly incomplete models. Even the IPCC thinks that sea level rises will only reach 79cm, but Australia’s own alarmist CSIRO goes one better. It has chosen the figure of 1.1m (how?) as the figure to base yet further modelling on the effects to our coastal fringes, and (phew!) comes up with suitably alarmist results which will get printed in every paper in the country. Why not choose 1.5m or 2m? Surely they can find a model that predicts that?

Almost 250,000 homes, now worth up to $63 billion, will be “at risk of inundation” by the end of the century, under “worst-case but plausible” predictions of rising sea levels.

The study — released ahead of the crucial Senate vote on Labor’s emissions trading scheme — modelled the effect of a 1.1m sea-level rise on cities and towns around Australia.

This is a higher level than the 79cm end-of-century rise predicted by the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but in the mid-range of some subsequently published research.

It found between 157,000 and 247,000 homes “at risk of inundation” — meaning they would be permanently flooded or frequently flooded by storm surges or king tides — with hospitals, water-treatment plants and other public buildings also found to be at risk.

Even Sydney airport would be at “increased risk” of inundation, according to the study, written by the Department of Climate Change with input from CSIRO, Geosciences Australia and scores of academics.

…

Andrew Ash, director of the CSIRO climate-change adaption flagship, said the 1.1m sea-level rise was “certainly plausible”.

“As things stand, the only variation will be exactly when we reach that level,” Dr Ash said.

So that could be in 2100, 2500, 3000, then? Climate nonsense.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

UPDATED: NZ Antarctic research "debunks sceptics", claims 1.5m sea level rise

12 November, 2009 by

It will be interesting to see what the sceptic community makes of this:

New Zealand scientists say massive ice shelves are protecting Antarctica from experiencing the same rapid decline in sea ice as the Arctic.

The research team says the discovery further debunks the claims of sceptics who have pointed to the continent’s growth as evidence against global warming.

The team was led by Otago University physics researcher Andrew Mahoney, who said the eight-month study focused on a topic scientists understood little about.

Dr Mahoney said findings would help climate scientists make predictions about the future.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research oceanographer Mike Williams said the research explained why Antarctic sea ice was not decreasing at a similar rate to that of the Arctic.

Figures from America’s National Snow and Ice Data Center show that Arctic sea ice shrank by about 4 per cent of 500,000 square kilometres each decade during the past 30 years. By contrast, Antarctic sea ice was not believed to have changed much in size and may have increased slightly.

However, Antarctic Research Centre director Tim Naish, who was not part of the research team, said the latest data issued in a report by Nasa indicated that the amount of Antarctic sea ice lost since 2003 could have doubled.

…

WHAT THE SCIENTISTS FOUND

  • Massive ice shelves make up half the Antarctic coastline
  • Cold water melts from these ice shelves
  • The melted water protects the ice sheets from the warming effects of climate change
  • This causes ice sheets to grow in winter, although they still melt in summer
  • This is why Antarctic sea ice has not declined as quickly as Arctic sea ice in response to global warming

Read it here.

UPDATE: Tim Naish is also in the news for predicting dramatic sea level rises:

Sea levels may rise an average of as much as 1.5m by 2100, the latest figures show.

The range indicated by several new studies is between 50cm and 150cm, said Dr Tim Naish, director of the Antarctic Research Centre at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand.

A glaciologist who was chief scientist on a major Antarctic drill-core project, Naish said the latest “range of plausible sea level rise” was based on observations to calculate how much water would come from polar ice sheets.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , ,

WA sea level rising "at double the global average"

7 November, 2009 by

Bad hair day for Alannah MacTiernan

Bad hair day for Alannah MacTiernan

A crazy day for sea level climate madness. Only this morning, we read that sea levels on the Eastern seaboard were rising much more slowly than predicted, and then, not to be outdone, the ABC trumpets that Western Australia’s sea levels are rising faster than the global average:

Figures from the National Tidal Centre show sea levels along Western Australia’s coast are rising at a rate double that of the world average.

Global sea levels rise at an average of just more than 3 millimetres a year.

Latest figures show sea levels have risen an average 8.6 millimetres a year off Perth and 8.1 millimetres in the Kimberley.

The Opposition’s spokeswoman for regional development, Alannah MacTiernan says future planning needs to consider rising sea levels.

“Our planning policies have been actually based on the global averages and now that we see from these figures the sea level rise in WA is more than twice that,” she said.

“I think we’ve got to take some urgent action.

I agree – get your tide gauges checked, and pronto.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Shock: Sea level rises far less than forecast

7 November, 2009 by

On Thursday we reported that the NSW government was basing planning decisions on a 40cm rise in sea level by 2050. Today in The Australian we see that the actual sea level rises around Australia are far less than expected [Really? There’s a surprise – Ed].

SEA levels on Australia’s eastern seaboard are rising at less than a third of the rate that the NSW government is predicting as it overhauls the state’s planning laws and bans thousands of landowners from developing coastal sites.

The Rees government this week warned that coastal waters would rise 40cm on 1990 levels by 2050, with potentially disastrous effects.

Even yesterday Kevin Rudd warned in a speech to the Lowy Institute that 700,000 homes and businesses, valued at up to $150 billion, were at risk from the surging tide.

However, if current sea-level rises continue, it would not be until about 2200 – another 191 years – before the east coast experienced the kind of increases that have been flagged.

According to the most recent report by the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Tidal Centre, issued in June, there has been an average yearly increase of 1.9mm in the combined net rate of relative sea level at Port Kembla, south of Sydney, since the station was installed in 1991.

But, but, but… our models, our models!! They can’t be wrong, can they? So the CSIRO goes into full damage control mode with a list of excuses for why it really is rising in accordance with the models, namely:

  • Effect of barometric pressure [can’t quite understand that one, since pressure varies between roughly the same extremes]
  • Australia was rising slightly, counteracting the effect of sea-level rises [well that’s OK then, isn’t it?]
  • “Extreme” sea level rises were happening “more often” [dodgy]
  • Wind stress patterns in the Pacific [scraping the barrel now]
  • Polar ice caps will cause sea levels to rise faster [really desperate…]

And my favourite of all:

“There is a clear acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise,” Dr Church said.

Where? Here’s the graph. Point out the clear acceleration:

Rapid acceleration of sea level rise… no, wait…

Rapid acceleration of sea level rise… no, wait…

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

NSW government's fantasy sea level rises

5 November, 2009 by

Manly in the year 2100 according to the models…

Manly in the year 2100 (according to the models…)

Like the rest of the country, New South Wales is now gearing up to base its planning decisions on sea level models that have very little to do with reality. We’ll let the Manly Daily take up the story:

The government yesterday announced the next step in its plan to respond to the future challenges of sea level rise.

The guidelines outline an approach to assist councils, state agencies, planners and developers when addressing sea level rise in land-use and development assessment.

According to the government, best available research indicates sea levels along the NSW coastline will rise 40cm by the year 2050, and 90cm by 2100.

This will have a significant impact on areas such as Collaroy Beach which suffer severe erosion.

40cm by the year 2050? That’s 1cm per year, which is fully three times the current rate of increase, which is about 3mm per year, and which for the last couple of years is actually slowing down! But hey, who cares? The models tell us 40cm by 2050, and the models can’t be wrong, so we will enact laws that will inconvenience thousands of people and lose huge amounts in property values for thousands more.

Climate madness.

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: ,

Ban Ki-moon: no deal in Copenhagen

5 November, 2009 by

Even the UN is conceding that there is not a hope of a binding agreement in Copenhagen:

A LEGALLY binding agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions is no longer a realistic goal for next month’s Copenhagen summit on climate change, the UN Secretary-General says.

According to Ban Ki-moon, an agreement will not be signed next month, and the most likely outcome is voluntary reduction targets, which countries could announce but then ignore.

Several key countries were not ready to sign up to binding targets [including the US – Ed] and the best the world could hope for from the summit would be “political commitments“, Mr Ban said yesterday.

If political commitments is all that can be expected, please tell me again why Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong are pushing for binding emissions reductions when the rest of the world will be waiting to see what happens? But Mr Moon(bat) at least uses the opportunity to talk yet more nonsense about the climate:

Mr Ban suggested the target for limiting the global temperature increase to 2C above pre-industrial levels might have to be adjusted because it could still result in sea-level rises inundating many small islands.

“These small-island developing countries say it should be a maximum of 1.5C. For them, it’s a matter of life and death.”

Uh oh, here we go. Should have seen this coming. 2C isn’t enough anymore, we’re down to 1.5C. Next week it’ll be 1C, then zero … well you see where we’re going here. In any case, tell me again why reducing the target to 1.5C will stop islands sinking because of tectonic influences?

Read it here.

Filed Under: Climate Tagged With: , , ,
«Previous Page