The world’s most influential climate scientist Rajendra Pachauri speaks

Did I really write that headline above? I'm quoting Crikey "IPCC chief calls for ‘sane voices’ in local climate debate". Can I take it that other climate scientists are less influential, perhaps even less qualified than Rajendra "in 35 years" Pachauri? I should point out here that no climate scientist is less qualified than R35P, I'm certainly not less qualified than R35P, even Barack Obama isn't less qualified on climate than R35P. The latter (I prefer to call him that), is, or rather was, a railway engineer, and he's been active in derailing climate science since he sold his tools on eBay. He might have a view on climate, or sea-level, or why NY subway managers decided to park most of their trains on low-lying land close to the wet stuff just before Sandy did what storms do best. BUT he's not the one to consult on climate, or sea-level, and most certainly not on glaciers. I was going to include Crikey's charming pic of the "world’s most influential climate scientist" but just couldn't force myself to upload it to Picasa. Crikey says

As The Australian claims sea level rise is not linked to global warming, the world’s most influential climate scientist has called on “sane and rational voices” to speak out and correct the record.

More than 250 scientists have gathered in Hobart today for a summit of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s climate science body. The Oz marked the summit’s opening with a front-page “exclusive” story which claimed there was “no link” between sea level rises and global warming.

I used to have a (relatively) high opinion of John Church, despite his employment by Australia's CSIRO but now he's gone full denial on his co-authored paper I quoted from recently.

The Australian has long run a sceptical line on climate change, particularly in its opinion pages. Today’s story, written by environment editor Graham Lloyd, relied on a paper co-authored by Australian scientist Dr John Church. The paper apparently “said it could not link climate change and the rate of sea level rises in the 20th century”.

But Church, a sea level expert with the CSIRO, told a media conference today that was not an accurate description of the paper.

“So sea level clearly is linked to climate change, it is clearly linked to increases in greenhouse gases, and that’s actually in the paper which was quoted by The Australian. So the quote is, I’m sorry, inaccurate,” said Church, a co-ordinating lead author with the IPCC.

(Sigh) I just have to quote the last sentence from the paper's abstract again. This is getting tedious.

Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century.

There's more -

While The Australian claimed the paper had found no increase in the rate of sea level rise, Church said the paper showed the rate of sea level rise had increased between the 18th and 19th centuries, and research showed a further acceleration of the rate during the 20th century.

OTOH, the abstract plainly states

The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing.

So we now have "further acceleration" meaning "greater than that in the 18th and 19th centuries", and "small or no acceleration" to reconcile also.

If Church is to be believed, he is therefore co-author of a paper, the abstract of which is at odds with the content on two key findings. Perhaps the abstract (summary) was written well before the paper (IPCC-style). Perhaps the author of the abstract wasn't present at team meetings (IPCC-style). Perhaps the journal editor is a closet sceptic, altered the abstract, and is now gleefully rubbing his hands as he plans his next derailment. Perhaps someone is being economical with the truth.

FAR out - have "climate change projections come true"?

Have they? Is what The Conversation claims that "20 years on, climate change projections have come true" correct?

Climate change predictions made 20 years ago have so far proved accurate, suggesting that the world is indeed on track to a radical climate shift, according to a new paper published today.

In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — a group of the world’s top climate scientists — released its First Assessment Report, predicting global warming of about 1.1 degrees celsius between 1990 and 2030.

In today’s edition of Nature Climate Change, climate scientists David Frame and Dáithí A. Stone argue that, halfway through that projection period, the predictions made in 1990 are proving mostly accurate.

The 1990 report’s “best estimate” was that the world would warm by about 1.1 degrees celsius between 1990 and 2030, meaning that the halfway prediction would be about 0.55 degrees celsius by 2010.

In fact, the world has now warmed by about 0.39 degrees celsius, coming very close to the prediction despite several unforeseen historical events, such as the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Mt Pinatubo volcanic eruption and the rise of China.

If I wanted to quibble (and of course I do) then firstly 1990 isn't quite "20 years ago", unless this article has been in the pending tray for a couple of years. I can do big sums like 2012-1990 = 22. Secondly, and more importantly, I've read the relevant bits of the iPCC First Assessment Report (FAR - in the post title, it's a pun - see?) and the figure 1.1 and the year 2030 don't ring a bell. The Overview for the FAR states

1.0.3 Based on current model results, we predict:

An average rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2—0.5°C per decade) assuming the IPCC Scenario A (Business-as-Usual) emissions of greenhouse gases; this is a more rapid increase than seen over the past 10,000 years.

This will result in a likely increase in the global mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value by 2025 (about 2°C above that in the pre-industrial period), and 3°C above today's value before the end of the next century (about 4°C above pre-industrial). The rise will not be steady because of other factors.

The Policymakers Summary for WGIII states in the Executive Summary

Based on current model results, we predict under the IPCC "Business-as-Usual" emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade), greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years; under the same scenario, we also predict an average rate of global mean sea level rise of about 6 cm per decade over the next century (with an uncertainty range of 3-10 cm per decade).

So the FAR actually effectively predicted 0.6°C by 2010, not 0.55°C, yet even if it was as claimed 0.55°C then an actual rise of 0.39°C is just 70% of the prediction, which is therefore 41% above actual. That result is called "accurate"?

“As is always the case in science, we cannot know for certain that the 1990 prediction was accurate for the right reasons but, given the apparent absence of any credible alternative theories and the robustness of the prediction, this evaluation strongly supports the contention that the climate is responding to enhanced levels of GHGs (greenhouse gases) in accordance with historical expectations,” the authors wrote.

Low marks for accuracy, but an "A" in chutzpah, I'd say.

Penny Whetton, Senior Principal Research Scientist at the CSIRO and a lead author for the Third Assessment Report of the (IPCC), said the paper confirmed that “projections that climate scientists have been making have been accurate.”

“There are implications for the wider community for how they accept the IPCC conclusions. This is good evidence to show that what the IPCC has been saying for a while is coming true,” she said, adding that the discrepancy between the 0.55 degree projected rise and the 0.39 actual rise was explained by variability in estimates due to natural fluctuations.

“Once you allow for that, this paper demonstrates that the warming we are seeing is consistent with the projections made by the IPCC,” said Dr Whetton.

Err no, dear (I can be very condescending when the moment arrives) - estimates aren't subject to "natural fluctuations", it's reality that's subject to that. Once estimates are made, they're set in stone, see? Those who made them are stuck with them for ever more, except one Paul Ehrlich, of course - he just forgets he made 'em and carries on as if nothing different had happened. Oh - and Tim Flannery, of course who just claims he never said what he's recorded as saying on TV, radio and in newspapers, magazines, internet articles, blogs and St. Peter's great book of everything, for all I know. Then there's James Hansen who still stands by his prediction that the "Big Apple" would be 80 feet underwater by now (or next year, or something). He must have had his fingers crossed when Sandy's storm surge swept through Manhattan.

But I digress (cut me some slack, it's one of my few sources of amusement during these dark days of Armageddon predictions) - if a 30% error, on their own figures is considered accurate and "consistent with projections", where does that leave "Post-normal science"? If I'm given 39p change when I'm expecting 55p, am I justified in complaining, or do i have to accept it's "consistent with projections"?

Steve Sherwood, Co-Director, Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales said the paper showed “that if you take natural year-to-year variability into account in any reasonable way, the predictions are as close as one could reasonably expect.”

“Those who have been claiming ad nauseum that the climate models have been proved wrong, should read this paper, even though for most of us it is not very surprising,” said Dr Sherwood, who was not involved in the Nature Climate Change paper.

“Though there is no contrarian analogue to the IPCC, individual contrarians have made predictions over a similar time frame that the warming would stop or reverse. The data since then have probably falsified many of those predictions (which the deniers continue to make today).”

I don't need to "read this paper", I just need to read a global temperature dataset - any dataset, GISS included. Obviously, people like Sherwood don't need to do that, they just announce that the Emperor's New Clothes are a remarkable fit, despite the fact that the proles are giggling and pointing at his projections.

Shoot an arrow in the air, and where it lands call that the target, and announce it's "accurate" - it'll do for the proles and politicians.

Extending the record - Newcastle, NSW sea level

Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia has had a record number of tide gauges - five in total, but the latest (Newcastle V) had a shaky start. Installed in 1957, the NTC record shows just 5 months of data for 1957/8, with many gaps, and a very large data-free gap until 1966. Luckily Newcastle III was still in operation (until end 1988), so there's a long overlap.

Also lucky is that there's little significant difference between the two, with an average difference of just 0.6 mm over the last three years 1986-88, small enough to be ignored, and allowing a simple "join" at the end of 1988.

The trend line is pulled down by the large dips on the left; a better picture of the later trend is shown from 1949 onwards:

... where the 3-year (37 month centred) moving average straddles the trend line convincingly, and significantly shows an almost identical trend to the reliable part (1966-onwards) of the plot for gauge V, which is shown in my reference page for Australia:

The plot for Sydney in my previous post shows a slight dip over the decade from about 1938, but not as large as the double-dip for Newcastle, over two decades. That it wasn't due to simple disturbances of the gauge is shown by a plot of gauges I and III:

For now, that anomaly must remain a mystery. Perhaps it was due to disturbances caused by mining activity. However, from these long-term reconstructions, it should be clear that there's been no acceleration in sea level change during the latter half of the 20th century, nor in this century, despite what's claimed by the CSIRO and others.

Australia's CSIRO - manufacturing sea level hockeysticks?

The CSIRO's "State of the Climate" report was published today (14th March 2010). Missing a link to the report in the newspaper article summarising the dire consequences of climate change in store for Diggers Down Under, I did a Google News search, and came up with a rather interesting ABC page on the release of the report, titled "Sea Levels are Rising", which is not exactly news, but never mind that. Below the obligatory (and of course irrelevant) statement

It notes that the long-term warming trend has not changed, with each decade having been warmer than the previous decade since the 1950s.

... is an "interactive data visualisation" which "explores sea level rise patterns across Australia using data sets provided to the ABC by CSIRO". What struck me immediately was the uptick in sea level at three of the 62 tide gauge stations on the superimposed charts below the interactive map. I've selected Wyndham (WA) on the map - which shows the largest 2010 uptick. I've almost completed an interactive map for Australia myself (similar to the "South Pacific Seal Level 2011" in the reference pages, top-right sidebar), so I'm familiar with the chart for Wyndham. That uptick is definitely not kosher, not kosher at all. here it is:

Source: ABC

... and the RHS embiggened:

Source: ABC

By reading the data points from the ABC chart, I've established that all the preceding annual data points are correct, but 2010 stands out like a sore thumb Here's the corresponding chart for Wyndham, over the same time period, 1993-2010, with the last two points from the ABC chart added in red:

Data Source: NTC

The lower pair of points are Darwin (346) and Carnarvon (322). If the offsets from the real data for all three stations are added, they total 526, which averaged over all 62 stations comes to 526/62 = 8 mm rounded down. If that's deducted from the all-station average for 2010 (dark green line), it brings it down from 120 mm to 112, which means that the three outliers have increased that 112 figure by almost 11%.

I considered whether this might not be deliberate fiddling (generous and understanding to a fault!), but possibly a result of using incomplete data for 2010, for example January-June, but that doesn't explain it - any average with January as a start point is much lower than the ABC/CSIRO figures. Not only that, but 2009/10 were El Niño years, and there's usually a drop in sea level during one of these events; it shows up (though much less pronounced than 1997/8) at most stations except some in the far south. One such rogue plot might be a genuine error, but three? Here are my plots for Darwin and Carnarvon:

Data Source: NTC

Data Source: NTC

I've checked a random sample of the other stations on that rather clever (I'm green with envy - don't take that as weakness) interactive page, and can detect no further excursions from NTC data whatsoever, even for Hobart, home of the CSIRO. Currently, this is a mystery within an enigma, to paraphrase Churchill's description of Russia at the beginning of WW2.

UPDATE 15th March 2012

I've tracked down the source of two of the "adjustments". The CSIRO (funded by the Australian taxpayer) doesn't obtain its sea level data from the National Tidal Centre (funded by the Australian taxpayer, and where you'd expect them to get it as I do), but from an independent archiver, the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, based in Liverpool, UK. It's one which I use regularly for data unobtainable elsewhere, but I'm surprised that the CSIRO uses it. The PSMSL relies on data submission from national or other bodies which collect it, and it's rarely up-to-date, often months or even years of the latest data are missing. This explains why CSIRO web pages and publications quote sea level statistics up to Dec. 2010 for the NTC SEAFRAME stations, even though the NTC publish the data monthly.

Anyway, PSMSL has, apparently arbitrarily, adjusted 2010 monthly data for Carnarvon and Wyndham upwards by 140 mm and 260 mm respectively, with no acknowledgement (as is customary) on the station pages. here's a chart for Wyndham for 2009-10 illustrating what's been done:

Data Sources: PSMSL & NTC

That 260 mm is larger by 63 mm than the change in sea level at Wyndham since the gauge was installed in 1966, and larger than estimates of global sea level rise since 1900, so it's no small matter. What are they playing at? The Darwin data (to 2010) at PSMSL appears to be identical to the NTC data (except measured from a different baseline, which is irrelevant), so where did that 128 mm adjustment come from? Sherlock is on the case, with his (t)rusty magnifying glass at the ready. No violin though. On second thoughts, perhaps I'll just ask them. Watch this space for exciting developments.

South Pacific Sea Level 2011 - updated

The South Pacific Sea Level  reference page (top of sidebar) is now updated to the end of 2011. I've given the charts a new look, with a 13-month moving average added where appropriate to give a clearer view with the "spikiness" filtered out. Here's a sample for Nauru, where the red line shows a clear downward trend since 2001/2

Seal Level at Nauru, 1993-2011

If you've any comments, leave them here, as comments aren't active on fixed Blogger pages. I'm working on a similar page for Australia, which will include rather more stations than Australia's CSIRO seem to recognise exist (see here below), and will definitely include Hobart, Tasmania. You'll know why if you've read that post.

Australia's CSIRO - The Truth, (but not) The Whole Truth, and nothing but Cherry Picking

Bruce Mapstone, chief, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Tasmania (note Hobart, there's more) wrote to The Australian "Sea-level observations". February 9th, 2012

BOB Carter's references to sea level ("Scientific research drowning in a sea of alarmism", 7/2) require clarification.

Sea level observations come from measurement by satellites and, as Carter notes, a network of tide gauges around the Australian coastline operated by the Bureau of Meteorology and similar gauges internationally.

These observations show that rates of sea-level rise around Australia range from 2.6mm a year to 9.5mm a year since the early 1990s, compared with the global average rate over a similar period of about 3.2mm a year.

Variation in sea levels from region to region is to be expected, as Carter also notes, but continuing analysis indicates the dominant trend around Australia for the past 20 years is upward and above the global average.

The global average of observations is near the high end of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change model projections over the same period, indicating that the range of model projections encompass changes that have occurred, and indeed that the models may be underestimating observed changes.

Lets' jump right in and have a look at the Hobart tide gauge data - right on Bruce's doorstep at CSIRO Mansions on Castray Esplanade, overlooking the harbour, and probably within sight of the gauge -


View Larger Map

(click charts to enlarge)

Hobart, Tasmania - Sea Level 1987-2010

Oh dear, things are not looking too good for Bruce's "clarification", the rate from 1987 is -0.438 mm/year (0.67 from 1962). The odd 1987 start date is due to the fact that there are large gaps and anomalous readings prior to then. The gauge was displaced several times by ship's masters who couldn't park neatly, and had to be replaced (the gauge, not the masters, but who knows?).

He was referring to an opinion piece by Bob Carter two days previously, in which he attacked a "a science-fiction prediction of a 91cm rise in sea level in the district by 2100". Carter ridiculed Lake Macquarie City Council's new coastal planning regulations, which control new developments around the lake, mandating higher floor levels to "account for sea level rise and wave action". Yet the NSW Department of Planning has said there's "uncertainty surrounding the manner in which sea level will rise", which means whatever floor levels they enforce are likely to be either inadequate or excessive. The "91" figure (notice it's not a round 90 or "almost a metre") implies an estimate accuracy of +/- 1cm. The range is given as LOW: 18 cm. MEDIUM: 55 cm. HIGH: 91 cm. So the overall spread is 1:5, yet the figures are quoted to a single cm accuracy? Over a period of 90 years? That really is "science fiction". I could stick my neck out and say 50 +/-50 centimetres, which should cover most eventualities. Of course, I could be wrong. In fact I know I'll be wrong, which is why my neck will stay in.

The regulations are based on that 91cm maximum predicted rise by 2100, and Carter says

This prediction comes from the NSW government, which in turn sourced it from a UN political body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As with its unnecessarily alarmist projections of global warming, the IPCC's estimate of future sea-level rise derives from speculative computer models.

He also lists what he terms "four facts"

First, that rates of sea-level change vary around the Australian coast. This means any new coastal planning regulations (if and where they are needed) should be based on the appropriate local sea-level measurements rather than a hypothetical global average.

Second, the longest east coast tide-gauge record, from Fort Denison (Sydney), records an average rate of rise over the past 100 years of about 1mm a year (10cm a century).

Third, that other tide gauges, scattered around Australia as part of the national tidal network, mostly record rates of long-term rise between about 0.5mm and 2.5mm a year with no change in behaviour in the late 20th century that might reflect a human (global warming) influence.

And, fourth, that the Sydney tide gauge, as well as other long tidal records from nearby (Fremantle, Auckland) and overseas, exhibits a slowing rate of sea-level rise over the past 40 years.

How do Carter's "facts" stack up? His first is common sense. A health service bases its policies on local , not world, nor even regional demographic statistics and forecasts. It's logical to expect local and state authorities to do the equivalent as regards local planning.

His second is indisputable (except by Bruce Mapstone and others, who just ignore it. "Post-normal" science doesn't need facts).

His third is correct if you accept his qualification of mostly, and I accept it, having analysed data from most of the 95 National Tidal Centre tide gauges (plus two privately owned) around Australia. How does it square with what Bruce Mapstone says? First note that Brucie (I feel I know him well already) doesn't actually refute what Carter wrote. In short, he can't - it's fact. Note also what Mapstone actually said - "from 2.6mm a year to 9.5mm a year since the early 1990s". "Early 1990s" is a bit vague, isn't it? Well no, it isn't, because the CSIRO have chosen to use a subset of 14 of those 97 gauges, installed and monitored by the ABSLMP project at the National Tidal Centre of the Bureau of Meteorology. In other words, they've chosen to use just one seventh of the data available to them. Cherry anyone?

The fourth is indeed fact. Data from most of the long-term records show a slowing rather than an acceleration, and most sites show a flat or declining trend since 1999. I've posted on the CSIRO's data selection bias and more recent, lower rates here.

Back to Bruce's last paragraph

The global average of observations is near the high end of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change model projections over the same period, indicating that the range of model projections encompass changes that have occurred, and indeed that the models may be underestimating observed changes.

Beat that for gobbledygook - if the model "projections" didn't "encompass changes that have occurred" then they can't be much use. If the models may be underestimating "observed changes" it doesn't automatically follow that they are also underestimating future "projections". I don't know, and he doesn't know what assumptions are made in those models.

Then there's a (partial but flawed) rebuttal of Mapstone's "non-rebuttal" the following day. "Levels all at sea" from one William Kininmonth:

THE clarification on Australian sea-level observations by Bruce Mapstone (Letters, 9/2) fails to reveal all of the uncertainties relating to the data.

Australian tide gauges accurately measure the relative movements of sea level with respect to the gauges. However, the vertical movement of individual tide gauges is uncertain.

The vertical movement isn't uncertain, at least not for some of the gauges. A global network of Continuous Global Positioning System (CGPS) stations is already established, designed to monitor land movement and/or gauge movement. There are 12 around Australia, near the ABSLMP stations. Here's the current plot for Sydney - appropriately the station's in Macquarie Park!

Latest ULR GPS position time series for Sydney

A note for those who've heard of the CGPS stations used by the NTC - the stations are remote from the gauges (up to several km inland), they monitor land movement, and do not "automatically adjust" the vertical position of the gauge. That's both impractical (the gauges are of necessity firmly fixed to their supports), and undesirable. It's not only the sea that rises and falls with the pull of the sun and moon, but the Earth's crust too (crustal tide), up to about 10cm range, depending on latitude, greatest near the point nearest to the sun and/or moon. If the gauge position was kept constant relative to the GPS satellites, the gauge would be dropping relative to the land as the tide and land rose, and would register a higher reading than it should, and a lower reading as tide and land fell.

And for the last word, from a body which even Bruce might take note of, The Tasmanian Planning Commission, in its sober but a trifle "consensus science" "State of the Environment (SoE) Tasmania 2009" report is precise and factual (my bold):

Sea-level rise for Australia is only slightly less than the global average (NTC 2007; Church and White 2006) and coastal observations confirm that sea-levels have been rising since at least 1920 by approximately 1.2 mm/yr (Church et al. 2006; IPCC 2001; see also Pittock and Wratt 2001; Lambeck 2002). A common feature in many model projections is a higher than the global average sea-level rise off the southeast coast of Australia and in a band stretching across the Indian and southern Pacific oceans at about 30°–45°S (CSIRO 2009). Sea-level rise is greatest (about 3 mm/yr) in the eastern equatorial Pacific and western equatorial Indian Ocean. Observed rates of rise are smallest (about 1 mm/yr) in the western equatorial Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean, particularly the northwest coast of Australia. Two of the longest continuous Australian tide gauge records are from Fremantle in Western Australia (92 years) and Fort Denison in New South Wales (83 years) indicate that the observed rate of sea-level rise relative to the land has been 1.38 mm/yr and 0.86 mm/yr respectively (DPIWE 2004). Regional variations in the rate of sea-level rise are weaker for much of the rest of the global oceans (AGO 2003). 

They haven't got the last word, though, I have. If the CSIRO chooses to use the state-of-the-art NTC SEAFRAME gauge data for (some of) Australia, why didn't they use data from similar NTC gauges across the Pacific islands for their "Climate Change in the Pacific" reports instead of spatially coarse satellite data? Why did they choose to use (coarse) gridded HADSST2 sea surface temperature data rather than localised in-situ measurements recorded by those same gauges? You answer the question, I already know the answer.