“Everybody knows about Tuvulu, It is becoming inundated by the rising sea level because of global warming. The New Zealand Government has recognised the plight of the embattled inhabitants by offering special deals for immigration. So have the Australians. It forms a regular topic at meetings of the Pacific Forum and beyond, and there cannot possibly be any disagreement on the matter.”
writes Vincent Grey today.
And he continues:
“A couple of years’ ago I was interviewed by the Dunedin-based Natural History Unit as part of documentary for the National Geographic Channel. I had over an hour to give my views on greenhouse warming, which I expected would appear in an internationally distributed documentary. They sent me a copy of the final doco “to enjoy”. I found that it was all about how Tuvulu is faced with imminent disaster, with a “moaning Minnie” lady persistently bemoaning the loss of her homeland from a comfortable flat in Brisbane. My contribution had been almost eliminated.
But Tuvulu reminds me of a comic song I used to sing of Gracie Fields called “He’s dead but he won’t lie down”. Tuvulu persistently refuses to subside.
A tide gauge to measure sea level has been in existence at Tuvulu since 1977, run by the University of Hawaii It showed a negligible increase of only 0.07 mm per year over two decades It fell three millimeters between 1995 and 1999. The complete record can still be seen on John Daly’s website, www.john-daly.com.
Obviously this could not be tolerated, so the gauge was closed in 1999 and a new, more modern tide gauge was set up by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s National Tidal Center by Flinders University at Adelaide. But Tuvulu refuses to submit to political pressure.The sea level has actually fallen .since then
Tuvulu cannot be allowed to get away with it. So Greenpeace employed Dr John Hunter. a climatologist of the University of Tasmania, who obligingly “adjusted” the Tuvulu readings upwards to comply with changes in ENSO and those found for the island of Hawaii and, miraculously, he found a sea level rise of “around” 1.2 mm a year.which, also miraculously, agrees with the IPCC global figure.
Since all this seems biased, or politically influenced, Dr John Church of the CSIRO at Hobart, Tasmania, a Lead Author of the IPCC Chapter on “Sea Level”, plus his colleague Dr Neil White, have sought to reverse actual measured trends by “combining records from tide gauges from all over the world with satellite altimeter data to assess regional variation”. Unsurprisingly, and equally miraculously, they reach the same conclusion as Greenpeace and the IPCC. All this has to be imposed on poor little Tuvulu to “prove” global warming.and speed emigration.
The IPCC Chapter on Sea Level is one of the more dishonest. It practices two important deceptions. First, it completely fails to mention the fact that many tide gauges are situated close to cities where the land is subsiding because of erection of heavy buildings, or removal of ground water, oil and minerals. . It so happens that the island of Hawaii is one of the more heavily populated Pacific islands where the sea level is “rising” because the land is “falling” Another reason for upwards bias is Port Adelaide, Australia, where they decided to increase the water level in the harbour to allow for larger ships, They dredged and built a bar on the harbour. Unsurprisingly, the level rose on the tide-gauge. Corrections for these upwards biases in tide-gauge measurements have never been permitted to be discussed by the IPCC.
The other deception of the IPCC Sea Level Chapter is in statistics. The sea level averages are so inaccurate that they have to supply only one standard deviation as a measure of inaccuracy, instead of the otherwise universal use of two standard deviations. One standard deviation gives only a one in three chance that the measurement lies outside the limits. Two standard deviations puts it up to one in twenty. If you use the proper figures you find that the accuracy sometimes permits a less than one in twenty chance of a sea level fall. That must never be allowed
This whole melancholy story is told in an article in ‘Science’ 2006 Volume 312, pages 734 to 736, It seems that the Greenpeace organisation is now occupying the role of the late Trofim Lysenko in their ability to reverse the findings of scientific research.
Vincent Gray
Wellington, New Zealand‘It’s not the things you don’t know that fool you. It’s the things you do know that aint so’ Josh Billings”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen – Should have read Deltoid before posting this:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/bad_science_from_christopher_p.php#more
From the posting:
“What’s happening to sea levels in Tuvalu?
There are two tide gauges in Tuvalu. One, operated by the University of Hawaii until 1999, sits on a small concrete wharf behind the three storey Taiwanese-built government building. In 1993, the NTC installed a more modern and accurate gauge a few kilometres north at the country’s only deepwater wharf. One of twelve in the South Pacific, this gauge should in theory provide quantitative confirmation that Tuvalu is being engulfed, as the king tides and the wet cuffs of my trousers suggest.
But in 2000 an NTC analysis reported a negligible increase of 0.07 mm a year over the past two decades from the University of Hawaii gauge, and a drop in sea level from the seven years of NTC data. It was clear that the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which drives down sea level in the western Pacific, affected both of these records. And the international environmental group Greenpeace asked John Hunter, a climatologist at the University of Tasmania, to have another look at the data. When he adjusted for ENSO and the vertical movement of the Hawaii gauge, which is thought to be sinking, Hunter found a sea level rise of around 1.2 mm a year.
Hunter’s figure is consistent with the global estimate of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 1 to 2mm a year for the twentieth century. But the Tuvalu estimates are based on a couple of gauges and a reasonably short record, points out John Church of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Hobart, Tasmania, who was one of the lead authors of the chapter on sea level in the IPCC’s most recent assessment.
Recently, Church and his CSIRO colleague Neil White have moved to a more regional approach. They have combined records from tide gauges around the world, some of which date back as far as 1870, with satellite altimeter data to assess regional variation in sea-level rise. Their results for the South Pacific are in line with the Hunter and IPCC estimates, and they are now looking specifically at Tuvalu and other small island nations.”
Mr Grey seems to be repeating the bad science – you should not be a party to it.
If you take out all the FUD phrases, this Gray arty might be a pleasant read.
It would also have the feature of being half the length of the original, but still.
Best,
D
Ender, of course we could eliminate any research commissioned by Greenpeace on exactly the same basis that many here have suggested that studies by the IPA have to be discounted.
The CSIRO has also been shown to be less than independent in the recent Murray River debate.
I’ve looked up Vincent Gray – he is apparently an “Expert Reviewer” for the IPCC though doesn’t seem to have any climatology qualifications.
Why does posting his opinion here make the host a party to bad science?
With respect that attitude is exactly what’s wrong with this debate.
I’m trying to get hold of the article from Science to see what it says.
Really Ender, your quote “this gauge should in theory provide quantitative confirmation that Tuvalu is being engulfed, as the king tides and the wet cuffs of my trousers suggest”, betrays it’s inherent bias.
If that post was from anything better than a real scientists armpit it would read, “this gauge should provide credible quantitative data on actual tide levels in Tuvalu.[end of story]”
Instead we got vacuous drivel about some turkey’s trousers and king tides. Did trousers not get wet before global warming? Are king tides now a CO2 based phenomena?
Dude walks into water, gets trousers wet, and the bimboscenti go into hypothetical overdrive. So when will you break our the chooks guts? I just can’t wait for the link to http://www.chooksguts.com
Deltoid’s analysis simply says that we have an increase of 1.2mm per year as per the IPCC report.
And with increasing concentrations this may add up to 20-40 cm sea level change.
Why any hysterics? Is it not then as stated?
Jim – “I’ve looked up Vincent Gray – he is apparently an “Expert Reviewer” for the IPCC though doesn’t seem to have any climatology qualifications.”
He lists himself as an expert reviewer.
Ian – sure I said that?
Don’t rely on someone’s interpretation of what might have happened. Go to the data…
The sea-level data for Tuvalu up to the end of 2001 is available via the website of the Proudman Oceanographic Institute, specifically their Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level at http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/datainfo/
Under “Data for individual stations” you will find Funafuti (the location at Tuvalu) as ref no. 732/011.
The RLR (ie. “revised local reference”) data, which the Help facility points out is more reliable than the metric data, is available in text form under the “Rm” link and a plot of this data under “Pm”.
You can decide for yourself whether the sea level has risen or fallen.
The RLR sea level for Honolulu (ref no. 760/031) can be plotted (under its “Pm” link) and you’ll see that there’s been a rather consistent rise in sea level since about 1915. One reasonable interpretation is that the gauge is sinking relative to the sea level.
It does look difficult to reconcile the variations between the two sites. In the absence of any detail about the method of “adjustment” it’s impossible to judge if that method was credible and/or appropriate, so really we are none the wiser about ENSO effects and hence whether in fact Tuvalu is sinking.
Further, what happens if it is due to ENSO events? These are regarded as natural occurences which have been with us for at least 130,000 years.
John
The Proudman link does not work?
Malcolm I think I’ve fixed the link. And John thanks for the link.
If we cannot separate the episodic from the background trend we are not getting too far! There is plenty of evidence that El Ninos affect sea level.
http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/enso97/el_nino_1997.html
Topex/Poseidon since 1992 says 3mm/year in world average
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPEX/Poseidon
Ender…
You say “Mr Grey seems to be repeating the bad science – you should not be a party to it.”
Please explain your definition of “bad science”? It seems to me to be merely something that contradicts someone that you believe. (From my experience, when data is produced that clearly shows them to be wrong you say “take it up with them” but never acknowledge the error.)
Jim…
The title “Expert Reviewer” is assigned by the IPCC. I know that Dr Grey has reviewed earlier reports from the IPCC and has written an extensive review of the draft version of the FAR.
Of course if you feel that you know better than the IPCC about who is qualified to make lengthy and detailed statements on certain matters, please contact them.
John,
Re-read my post.
I made no comment or inference either way about Gray’s credibility. I noted that he is listed as an expert reviewer but that he isn’t a climatologist.
I absolutely accept that his remarks deserve consideration rather than simply being dismissed as bad science.
That in fact was my point…..
Jim,
I accept your explanation and apologise for jumping to conclusions.
cheers
This presentation by Grey is hilarious. I just don’t think anyone saw that it was a joke. By the way, the story that heavy buildings leads to noticable sinking of cities has been around for a while. Remember the threat to civilization due to National Geographic? Here’s the link:
http://www.jir.com/geographic.html
The second response has some data which could be used to estimate the amount of building required each year to sink Tuvalu (or Honalulu) the degree estimated by these gauges. Do the math, and laugh. That Dr. Grey, such a joker….
Stewart has made a good point. The weights of buildings may be significant within a small area but are relatively tiny when compared with the surrounding terrain. Any subsidence should be localised and measurable by a competent surveyor and relevant tide gauges adjusted accordingly. I’ve never been to Hawaii but I thought the islands were all made of volcanic rock – not likely to subside!
Tuvalu have only just started to measure their sea levels, stay posted for more gripping updates.
http://www.bom.gov.au/pacificsealevel/index.shtml
“I’ve never been to Hawaii but I thought the islands were all made of volcanic rock – not likely to subside!”
yes they do, here is my analysis
http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/hawaii.htm
Darwin concludes from his studies of atolls that the pacific is an area of
subsidence.
On Hawaii Big Island the following submerged beaches have been found and
dated
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/activities/e_number8.html
terrace time(y) depth (m)
I 20000 133
II 133000 426
III 253000 693
IV 346000 925
V 440000 1180
(Campbell, J. F., 1986, Subsidence rates for the southeastern Hawaiian Islands
determined from submerged terraces: Geo-Marine Letters, v. 6, no. 3, p. 139-146.)
Sea levels have risen throughout the Holocene – there is no consensus that this rise is accelerating.
As for ‘climatology qualifications’ there are a wide range of disciplines involved in climatology – geologists, statisticians, economists, physicists, etc. Then there are even computer game players known as ‘climate modellers.’
To confound matters further, the Arctic Sea is sinking at a rate of 2mm/year, it was on the BBC so it must be right!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm
Interesting list of disciplines, Paul. Just wondering why economists running computer models to predict financial and economic factors get a higher ranking in your list than climate specialists runnign computer models designed to include climate factors?
rog…
Sea level monitoring at Tuvalu has been happening since 1977 according to the reference I provided above.
It seems like you have two options…
(a) the data I gave you is fictitious (and part of a conspiracy by … let me guess… Exxon-Mobil?)
or
(b) the project to which you refer (“South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project”) is a relatively new co-operative project and is not an accurate indication of the extent of earlier monitoring.
Which is the more plausible ?
John
the Fanafuti gif is
http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/pubi/rlr.monthly.plots/732011.gif
and the Tuvalu data is as follows, maybe BOM want more reliable data or maybe…..you fill in the gaps;
732 TUVALU
011 FUNAFUTI 08 32 S 179 13 E 62/C GLOSS 121
DATA FOR : 1977-2001
RLR FOR : 1977-2001
INCOMPLETE: 1977 1979 1980 1981 1983
012 FUNAFUTI B 08 30 S 179 12 E 62/24 GLOSS 121
DATA FOR : 1993-2003
INCOMPLETE: 1993 1994
I’m not sure of the source of the original comment from Dr. Gray. However the articled referred to is in fact in Nature, volume 440, pages 734-736 (6 April 2006) | doi:10.1038/440734a . Also I’m not sure why Tuvalu gets referred to as Tuvulu in the comment.
The Nature article is more balanced than usual in Nature on climate issues. At one point they discuss the controversey:
“Those sceptical about Tuvalu’s plight, including amateur scientist Willis Eschenbach, seize on local explanations such as mining to assert that fears about sea-level rise are created by hysterical journalists and environmental groups looking for a cause célèbre. Eschenbach, who carried on a spirited debate with Hunter in the journal Energy and Environment, has concluded that sea-level rise in Tuvalu is an illusion. He has used that conclusion to support an argument that there is no clear evidence for climate change”.
I was also amused to find a blog comment by John Hunter in 2003 stating in part:
“I have never stated that sea level is not falling at
Tuvalu — there is a significant likelihood that it is, as indicated by my
quoted uncertainty interval. But just because it MAY be falling does not
mean that we should act as if it IS falling”.
As far as I can see, the uncertainty is still high.
Stewart – Climate models are defeated by clouds and aerosols, to name just two of many flaws, but my list of just a few examples of the many disciplines involved in climate science was not in any particular order.
Excuse me Stewart and Fat Wombat, it is not the weight of the buildings that makes the ground sink but rather, the diversion of water by pavement that dries out the soil strata. And sink it certainly does.
It’s been fun reading all this. However, these comments are deeply unserious. Indications: 1) suggesting that land subsidence is caused by the weight of buildings, rather than by tectonic processes, known for the South Pacific and Indian Oceans since Darwin’s time: 2) the ‘suspicious’ coincidence between the IPCC and Dr. Hunter’s estimates of sea-level rise. In the real world, we expect best estimates to converge. We also expect scientists in a particular field to take the various factors that affect their observations into account, rather than trying to come up with a new single-factor theory that explains everything, almost always a sure mark of pseudo-science or meaningless contrarianism. Clouds and aerosols: what effect do they have in conjunction with everything else? Is the problem insoluble in theory, difficult, or can it be estimated between various parameters and these checked against observation over a period of years? Those are the questions a serious questioner would ask. Oddly enough, climatologists and atmospheric physicists would often know more about these things than geophysicists or economists.
Got to go, I have a pain in my elbow I need to ask my mechanic about, and while I’m in the area, I was going to check with my grocer about a squeal in my brakes, while I ponder how soil drying will lower basalt or limestone bedrock.
Is England also in a tectonic subsidence region? Their coastal railways are being flooded more and more frequently over the last 20 years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1790046,00.html