Australia’s tabloid e-news site Crikey has been suggesting that there are only a few misguided global warming skeptics. On Line Opinion’s editor, Graham Young, has written to Crikey suggesting they, rather than the skeptics, are misguided. Anyway, they haven’t published this note which he sent them a few days ago:
Hey Guys,
If you’re going to put Christopher Pearson on your global warming skeptics list because he pointed out that claims that Tuvalu and Kiribati are sinking due to global warming are fraudulent, then you’d better put me on your list too. Check out http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000593.html and http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000185.html.
I know Al Gore claims that the islands have already sunk and the inhabitants immigrated to New Zealand, but all that proves is that his documentary is faction, not fact. Maybe you should put your skeptics list in your religion section, if you had one, because it seems to be operating on the same scientific basis as intelligent design. Oh, and for the record, while I believe that carbon dioxide contributes to warming of the globe, I have little faith in the accuracy of climate models. Funnily enough, according to John Quiggin at the BrisScience Forum last night, neither does he, so perhaps you should put him on the list as well.
What’s Crikey trying to do – muscle in on Green Left Weekly’s patch?
By the way, as a declaration of pecuniary interest and potential bias I’ve never knowingly received funding from petroleum companies, but if Shell, Exxon or Mobil want to put a banner, tower or island advertisement on the site, and pay for it, then they’re welcome.
The commonsense view on global warming is that there are a range of scenarios, and one should take precautions for the more likely ones, whilst maintaining an economy robust enough to deal with as many as possible. One should never take at face values the assertion of lobbyists or scientists in the pay of big oil, or global warming driven research grants, or any other scientists or lobbyists for that matter. And limiting carbon dioxide output in the 25% of the world that is industrialised while excluding the other 75% which is racing as quickly as possible to increase its carbon dioxide emissions, was always an absurd way to tackle the problem.
I feel much better now that I have come out of the closet and am looking forward to being on your list of people robust enough to ask the hard questions – the sort of thing that I thought Crikey was all about.
Regards,
Graham Young
Chief Editor, On Line Opinion“
I can’t work out why Gore would make the claims that he does in the movie about the Pacific Islands. He actually says that the citizens of Pacific Islands have had to be evacuated to New Zealand because of rising sea-levels.
I’m happy to be corrected, but this is what I understand the situation to be with respect to Pacific Islands and sea-level:
1. Since the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago, global-averaged sea level has risen by more than 100 metres as large ice sheets have melted.
2. There is still a general trend of rising global sea level at the rate of 1.8mm per year over the period 1950-2000 with no evidence of an increase in the rate of sea level rise over this period.*
3. The great majority of oceanic islands, including in the Pacific, were formed by volcanic activity. While the volcanoes are active, the islands rise relative to the global averaged sea-level. When volcanic activity stops, the islands will cool and eventually start to sink. So there are islands rising and sinking all the time.
4. According to Marlo Lewis in ‘A Skeptic’s Guide to the Inconvenient Truth’ ** tide gauge records show that sea levels at Tuvalu actually fell during the latter half of the 20th Century. This is an island often quoted as being lost to rising sea levels including in Al Gore’s book also called ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ where there is a two-page photograph and reference to the islands of Funafuti and Tuvalu and residents having to evacuate their homes because of rising seas.
In summary some Pacific islands are sinking, while some Pacific Islands are rising and it was incorrect of Al Gore to suggest that the issue is “rising seas”.
It is also wrong for Crikey’s journalist Sophie Black to suggest there is something wrong with Christopher Pearson for publicly exposing this inconvenient truth.
—————-
* Church et al. 2004, Estimates of the Regional Distribution of Sea Level Rise over the 1950-2000 Period. American Meteorological Society, pgs 2609-2625.
** I understand this assessment was published by the CEI and that they are funded by Big Oil, and as Graham Young states at a recent blog post: Isn’t it a pity that we have to rely on oil companies to finance the devil’s advocate position on global warming? And if you’re inclined to that style of rebuttal, just bear in mind that Al Gore’s political career was financed in part by the tobacco industry.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Maybe – maybe not.
The National Tidal Facility Reports at http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/spslcmp/reports.shtml are rather interesting.. .. These show a mean rate of rise of Tuvalu sea level of +6.6mm/year – http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDO60101/IDO60101.200604.pdf . These data are corrected for tectonic movements using GPS.
http://www.tuvalu.tv/tiki/tiki-browse_gallery.php?galleryId=1
shows that king tides already make Tuvalu a tad damp. I can see how one might wish to leave this enviroment due to the current situation.
I met the man who made the sbs documentary about tuvalu. I googled his name and came up with a travelogue he had written about the very same place! It’s a CRUEL SEA (The honeymoon is over baby)
When Graham Young says “The commonsense view on global warming is that there are a range of scenarios, and one should take precautions for the more likely ones, whilst maintaining an economy robust enough to deal with as many as possible” he is just having two bob each way like many others, hardly a true skeptic Jen.
On the whole it’s a good letter though considering most of us come here for entertainment. Science and technology is elsewhere. That leaves us with your problem Jen, finding where any truth in the matter lies.
Jens follow up points add to our problems here, which ever way you look at it we are still minding the oscillations of a yoyo, sea level, sea bed, CO2 and temperature.
One day I must finish my stuff on how we get a grip, measuring and controlling oscillations in anything is quite a new science around engineering.
At the rate we are going on here, it will be a long time before our politicians have anything to act on.
Meantime; hang on to your hats when going out and about
Although Graham Young is pretty much a business as usual character in all his blog outputs others have to deal with some of the vagaries, our climate and living in an even dryer place.
Front page headline “Harbinger of a fire season”. Fire authorities have declared a total fire ban across the ACT today ahead of the official fire season.
We have a long way to go. Last year the SES had 1250 storm related activities. Yesterday I cleaned up anything light that could become fuel in the expected high winds after giving up early on wholesale garden composting.
In 2003 everything left at ground level became part of the fire storm that crossed the suburbs. Any one remaining glib is taking chances for themselves and every one else.
I also heard that tide measurement at Cairns was disappointing; levels were falling not rising – its a rising tide that lifts all ships.
Jen,
your quote quote about sea level rise acceleration is out of date. Suggest you update your references to include the new paper by Church and While (2006).
Regards
David
A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise (2006), Church, John A; White, Neil J, Geophysical Research Letters [Geophys. Res. Lett.]. Vol. 33, no. 1
Find:
“Multi-century sea-level records and climate models indicate an acceleration of sea-level rise, but no 20th century acceleration has previously been detected. A reconstruction of global sea level using tide- gauge data from 1950 to 2000 indicates a larger rate of rise after 1993 and other periods of rapid sea-level rise but no significant acceleration over this period. Here, we extend the reconstruction of global mean sea level back to 1870 and find a sea-level rise from January 1870 to December 2004 of 195 mm, a 20th century rate of sea-level rise of 1.7 +/- 0.3 mm yr super(-1) and a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 +/- 0.006 mm yr super(-2). This acceleration is an important confirmation of climate change simulations which show an acceleration not previously observed. If this acceleration remained constant then the 1990 to 2100 rise would range from 280 to 340 mm, consistent with projections in the IPCC TAR.”
A friend of mine who married a Tuvaluan remarked to me 20 years ago that no part of the island was more than ten feet (3 metres) above sea level. I don’t think that global warming policy should be driven by concern about the impact on the tiny population of this island of potential sea level change.
Faustino – but there may be a few other places around the globe other than Tuvalu should it come to inundation.
Jennifer Marohasy says: “In summary some Pacific islands are sinking, while some Pacific Islands are rising and it was incorrect of Al Gore to suggest that the issue is “rising seas”. ”
Sorry, but this is a misrepresentation of the evidence. According to a June 2005 Bureau of Meteorology report in respect of Tuvalu:
“The sea level trend to date is +5.0 mm/year but the magnitude of the trend continues to vary widely from month to month as the data set grows. Accounting for the precise levelling results and inverted barometric pressure effect, the trend is +4.3 mm/year.” http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDO60033/IDO60033.2005.pdf
El Nino and La Nina events are a major influence on sea level at Tuvalu. According to monitoring there, the sea level fell a couple of months after the onset of 1997-98 El Nino. They remained depressed until after the El Nino was replaced by La Nina conditions at which time the sea level rose to above the long-term average. Anyone arguing for a rising trend in sea level at Tuvalu is only saying that El Nino events (or near El Nino) have been stronger in the last 20 years and the subsequent decline (and with any luck, a switch to La Nina conditions) has meant a greater surge in sea level.
As ought to be obvious, given my previous involvement in this debate, I did not say that I have little faith in models, and the views I stated were exactly consistent with the summary given by the IPCC.
Factual accuracy is not a strong point here, unfortunately.
So do we assume by your statement, John, that you wish to reclaim your previous status as an ecobimbo?
The suggestion that sea level rise is responsible for movements of pacific populations is also at variance with the evidence from other islands that have no such problem.
The 1985 edition of the pacific islands year book advises that the population of Niue (27-65m ahd)in 1981 was 3298 while three times this number had migrated to New Zealand for reasons that clearly did not include sea level rising.
The population of Tuvallu in 1979 was 8700 including 722 living in Nauru which, by 2003 had actually grown by 30% to 11,300.
So not only has Al Gore got it wrong on the reasons for population movements in the Pacific, he has also got it wrong on the facts of population movement in Tuvallu.
Great story though, pity about the facts.
This is a good a place as any for me to repeat my view said previously directly to Jen Marohasy that it’s highly important to be clear about semantic distinction between scepticism and being a sceptic on AGW. (The later implying you reject well established findings).
I consider that it is part of scientific ethics to always be upfront about the limitation to current data and theories. That is, to know and freely state where certainty and range of precision lie, and to never have to apologise for expecting that, bcause to fail in doing this do so is professionally unethical.
To demand clearer statements from IPCC about the validity and uncertainty range of their claims is not necessarily to be in disagreement with the validity of parts of their model, but normal ethical practice in science. For expample IPCC clearly failed ethically in the hockey stick episode. The computer model has numerous complex assumtions that are empirically unproven.
I note also there is substantial empirical evidence for solar forcing processes whose mechanisms are uncertain. That does not mean I am a AGW sceptic: I want to see those aspects of the IPCC mosel tested against this recent interesting solar driving hypothesis as it could mean all the CO2 efforts being advocated (Kyoto etc) are completely unnecessary or indeed counter productive.
Emperirical evidence to refute my postulate is as yet unavailable (see below) .
So before we commit trillions $ for no proven gain, lets find out more about these as yet ill underestood solar couplings.
In the link to
Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed
Northern Hemisphere temperature record
N. Scafetta1 and B. J. West1,2
alreadty linked there is mention of solar mechanisms as yet unknkown which the empirical study suggest s may exist.
How can you believe that the environment is not a moral issue? If we do not clean up our act now then the world will not be safe to live in for much longer! Face the facts, I do not see you presenting any of your own, you only criticise those which other people present. You seem to have a grudge against Al Gore, because you have criticised him and his movie before you have even seen it!
I don’t think you understand the way in which society relies on fossil fuels. In your ‘monologue’ here http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2006/1751872.htm, you say that we will simply ‘switch over from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources’. This cannot be done ‘simply’ at all. Almost EVERYTHING in the entire world is made with reliance upon fossil fuels, and so far alternative sources cannot produce enough electricty for us to switch. Yes, soon advances will be made that will allow us to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. But it will be by no means simple, and will not just happen.
Coral reefs are some of the best natural indicators, along with frogs in a natural ecosystem. The temperature of the water greatly affects their health. Just because the warmer is getting warmer does not mean that the reefs will grow, that is similar to saying that the more rain a plant receives, the healthier it will be. They are both false, it is well known that plants can be over-watered and die, and reefs are the same, if it gets just a little bit too warm they will die. Simply look at the Great Barrier Reef, it is already dying.
It is not simply the cyclones which endanger us either, a far greater threat is the icecaps melting. And if you think it is good that the oceans are getting warmer, think again. Didn’t you hear Gore say, if an amount of ice the size of half of Greenland melts, (a realistic amount in the next 20 years) then the sea-level will rise around 18 feet. 6 metres! A significant portion of populated land will be under water! How can you dismiss something as seriious as that? Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced, why do you fail to mention those facts in your attack upon the movie? Shame on you!
I cannot beleive that you are playing down the seriousness of our situation. At the moment it is the single-greatest threat we have ever faced, and there needs to be as much awareness about it as possible. I find it disgusting that in your position of influence you are spreading this false word. I don’t know what else to say… I feel betrayed.
Tristan O’Brien 17
Adelaide