The View from a Far Country

Here's a view of Australia from “across the water” – lots of water, and not rising much, by my analysis. What I see is a microcosm of what's wrong with the world, and politics today. I see the government of a country which was built on coal, whose prosperity resulted from coal, which currently depends on coal, turning its back on it. This degree of economic and political suicide is arguably unmatched anywhere else.

I see a government which has abandoned policies which work for policies which demonstrably don't work, and can't work. I see a government pandering to a tiny minority in order to retain power. Expensive desalination plants have been, and are being built instead of much cheaper dams which serve not one but two purposes, water storage and flood control. Dams apparently “destroy the environment”, whereas clearly it's uncontrolled flooding which does that very efficiently, as well as destroying property, livelihoods and lives.

I see local authorities banning coastal development, or allowing it only if houses are built on piles, because of a projected rise in sea-level which, even if it occurs, will post-date the likely (or useful) lifespan of the buildings.

I see a government which appears to be considering “controlling” the media, presumably because they don't like contrary opinions being expressed. Shades of 1984 indeed. That same government is under pressure from Luddites who want to see a large coal-fired power station closed down, with no alternative sources of energy in place. That same government is introducing a "carbon tax" in order to reduce Australian CO2 emissions by a small fraction of a whole which itself is a tiny 1.5% of worldwide emissions. The economic damage will be tangible, the effect on world climate (even if "worst case scenarios" become reality) will be immeasurably minuscule.

I see state-funded organisations distributing exaggeration and propaganda, some would say lies (I would), about future climate and sea-level rise, in an obvious attempt to scare the population into submission. This in a country whose people's instinctive common-sense and aversion to bullshit is (or at least was) legendary worldwide.

God help Australia.

Tuvalu - "The Economist" makes up sea-level statistics

Tuvalu, that icon of alarmists everywhere, is suffering a severe drought. The Economist explains why

Observers blame the shortage on the changing weather patterns and rising sea levels associated with climate change—and warn they could be a sign of things to come for the whole region. 

Freshwater supplies had already been running dangerously low for the 11,000 people who live on Tuvalu. The drought caused by nearly a year of sparse rainfall has been made worse [by] rising sea levels, which have contaminated the low-lying country’s underground aquifers with salt water.

As an archipelago whose highest elevation is a meagre 4.5 metres, Tuvalu feels it when the sea level climbs by an average of 5.77 mm annually. The whole country, a cluster of white sandy beaches as far as can be from the rest of the planet, is expected to disappear entirely within the next 50 years. That fate portends ominously not just for Tuvalu, but also for every other low-lying coastal area, from the Maldives to Manhattan. 

Let's see what Tuvalu is "feeling". If sea-level is rising at a rate of 5.77 mm/year, that should be readily detectable at the capital, Funafuti. Data is available to August this year (click to enlarge).

Sea-level at Funafuti, Tuvalu; Jan 1999-Aug 2011, trend -0.33 mm/year

So much for that "5.77 mm/year rise" - the trend is slightly negative. See the end of this post for details of data source. Newspapers and journals should be required to quote a source for data they include in articles and blogs. Tuvalu's "white sandy beaches" seem to be free of any immediate threat, and it would appear that the country's underground aquifers have become contaminated with sea-water due to over-extraction, not "rising sea levels".

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Education or Muddled Disinformation and Propoganda?

From Cardiff University, where I spent some time in the 1960s:

A new bilingual educational resource developed by academics from the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences to help Welsh secondary schools deliver stimulating lessons about climate change has been launched by the Chair of Climate Change Commission for Wales.

The "pack" entitled Adapting to Climate Change in Wales is intended both for teachers, and for children at "key stage 4", that is between the ages of 14 and 16. The CU "Learning about climate change" news page continues

The Climate Change Educational Resource Pack for Key Stage 4 explains the scientific basis of climate change and explores how changes in climate could impact citizens of Wales. In particular it looks at how citizens could adapt to living in a different climate.

Aimed at pupils and teachers, the multidisciplinary pack is tailored to meet the requirements of the Welsh national curriculum. It will be distributed to at least 100 secondary schools in Wales to help teachers deliver high quality, balanced information and inspire young people to adapt their behaviour to ensure their future sustainability. Although the focus is on Wales, this packs draws on examples from all over the world and covers everyday issues such as how food supply, settlement, transport and health may be affected.

In the second paragraph, note "high quality, balanced information". How does the "pack" meet that description? Not too well, it seems. Right at the beginning of "Theme 1: The Global Climate Perspective" we find

Key learning outcomes

1. To understand key components of the greenhouse effect

2. To understand the influence of humans on climate

3. To understand predicted global climate changes

... and on the following page (page 7) is this, relating to item 1 of the "Key learning outcomes"

Principle of the “Greenhouse Effect”

The sun shines down on the surface of the earth. About half the heat naturally reflects back out into space. When greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are released into our atmosphere, they trap heat and stop it reflecting back out into space. This causes additional warming of the earth surface, ocean and atmosphere… just like a greenhouse!

That would seem to encompass and explain precisely none of the "key components of the greenhouse effect", in my opinion. A greenhouse doesn't trap reflected heat. The glass transmits incoming solar radiation and traps the warmed air. Greenhouse gases don't trap reflected heat. The phrasing implies that they do that only when "released into our atmosphere" and not otherwise. It isn't difficult to briefly describe the essential components of the "greenhouse effect" for all 14-16 year-olds in a similarly short paragraph, though since this is intended as the scientific basis for the entire "pack", surely it deserves a longer (and accurate) description?

Sea Level in Australia - the Inexorable Rise in Alarmism

Is the sea-level around the Australian coast rising at an alarming rate? The Australian Climate Commission would have citizens and policy-makers in Australia and elsewhere believe that it is. In their 2011 report "The Critical Decade - Climate science, risks and responses" the following map is shown (mm per year)

Figure 8. Local sea-level rise (mm/year) around Australia from the early 1990s to 2008

Looks scary, doesn't it? In the southwest, somewhere near Perth, 8.1 mm/year, implying a rise of 81 cm in a century. In the north, somewhere near Darwin, a slightly lower value. Are these figures correct? As quoted "from the early 1990s to 2008" they are, but they are also very misleading - at most of the (as yet) unidentified monitoring stations shown on that map, there has been no significant sea-level rise after 1998. I can also show that most, if not all of the rise around Australia in the second half of the 20th century occurred during 1997 and 1998. during what's been called "one of the most severe ENSO events in history". ENSO is short for "El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation"  for those not familiar with the mnemonic.This is not what the Climate Commission, the CSIRO, nor the Australian government want known.

Here's my version, based on the same data, but starting from 1999, at the end of the late 90s ENSO "ramp" which grossly distorts the "early 1990s to 2008" rates shown above.

Local sea-level rise (mm/year) around Australia from 1999 to 2010

Looks rather less scary, doesn't it? Let's see where the CC got their data, and why there's such a massive difference between those two maps.

Kiribati, "where rising sea levels are a very real threat"

From the Sydney Morning Herald - Ban Ki-moon challenges climate sceptics:

Speaking at the University of Sydney, he talked of the need for world leaders to address global challenges including climate change, pandemics, and issues involving food, energy and waste.

Regarding climate change, he urged sceptics to visit the Pacific island nation of Kiribati, where rising sea levels are a very real threat.

The impoverished nation was facing a bill of $947 million just to protect infrastructure from the effects of climate change, and had yet to come up with viable ways to relocate some of the population.

Mr Ban added the country was running out of time and hoped Australia would lead the way "for your own good as well as well as that of the planet".

I for one don't need to visit Kiribati to see "rising sea levels" there. Latest data from the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project run at the BOM (to end of July 2011) which I've just graphed -

Betio, Kiribati – trend from Jan 2002 to July 2011 -5.48 mm/year

An ounce of data is worth a ton of hot air.