Peter Gleick speaks with forked tongue

Peter Gleick (who he?) has a piece on Science Blogs (h/t Tom Nelson) - (Mis)Understanding Sea-Level Rise (SLR) and Climate Impacts which is a neat summary of what follows that title. I won't use his first name again - it implies some degree of respect on my part, and I have no respect for this excuse for a scientist. He starts

One of the most important and threatening risks of climate change is sea-level rise (SLR). The mechanisms are well understood, and the direction of changes in sea-level is highly certain – it is rising and the rate of rise will accelerate. There remain plenty of uncertainties (i.e., a range of possible outcomes) about the timing and rate of rise that have to do with how fast we continue to put greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the responses of (especially) ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, and the sensitivity of the climate.

Gleick is a self-confessed liar and thief, and here he's lying while stealing the truth. If it's certain that the direction (he feels he has to explain to his dummy readers that sea-level rise means that the level's going up - doh!) and rate of rise will accelerate. then how is it that there are simultaneous uncertainties about the timing and scale of that rise? He's saying here that the rate of rise depends on all the big climate uncertainties. He's right of course, but they're the big climate uncertainties, which means no-one actually knows what will happen, and over what precise timescale, least of all Gleick.

How soon before he mentions "superstorm Sandy"? All bets are off - straight away. The only thing that's predictable in this world today is the storyline of so-called climate "experts".

Even little changes can have big consequences. As we saw with Superstorm Sandy, where extremely severe weather was combined with a very high tide, on top of sea levels that have risen six to nine inches over the past century, even a little bit of sea-level rise around the world has the potential to cause hundreds of billions of dollars of damages and the displacement of millions of people.

The "little bit of sea-level rise" didn't cause "hundreds of billions of dollars of damages and the displacement of millions of people" - the storm surge did. Does anyone (including Gleick) really think that it was the "six to nine inches" that caused all the damage? There are a few things that he needs to get his head around, and it's a big head, so in theory he should have no difficulty. Sandy hit the shore at the time of a spring tide. These higher-than-normal tides occur twice a month, when the Earth, Sun and Moon are aligned, with the higher tide when there's a new Moon - the Sun and Moon are close together in the sky, and their combined pull on the oceans is maximised. luckily Sandy didn't strike at high tide, so the coast was spared the worst. When the surge and the tidal factors are taken into account, the "six to nine inches" matters hardly at all. He knows that, and if he doesn't know it, he's as confused mentally as when he created his fake email accounts. He drones on

The Pacific Institute, among many other organizations, has been working to understand and evaluate the nature of the threat of sea-level rise and the risks posed to coastal populations, property, and ecosystems. In 1990, a colleague and I published the first detailed mapping and economic assessment of the risks of sea-level rise to the San Francisco Bay Area, looking at populations at risk, the value of property in new flood zones, and the costs of building some kinds of coastal protection (“adaptation”) to protect higher valued assets. That early report can be found here.

Sea-level along the Pacific coast isn't rising, it hasn't risen appreciably anywhere in the last thirty years, and it's generally falling at the moment. See my posts here, here, here, here, and more recently (2 days ago)  here. Gleick isn't a sea-level expert, he's a hydrologist, and neither was or is his colleague and co-author Edwin P. Maurer, who's an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, and who says of his work

My research is directed at a variety of topics, related to large scale modeling of land surface processes. This includes investigations into forecasting and predictability, and effects of changes in land use and climate on the hydrologic response of regions.

Land surface processes - nuff said? Then follows a lot of waffle about misunderstanding simple terms and trends and risks. I like the first one however, which shows that sometimes there's a disconnect between his brain and his fingers (or vice-versa)

Misunderstanding #1: Predication versus Scenario. There is a big difference between a prediction and a scenario. Scenarios are tools for examining how changes in some kind of conditions (such as greenhouse gas concentrations) might affect something else (such as climatic conditions or sea-level). They are stories of possible futures based on a range of assumptions. Almost all studies of climate impacts evaluate scenarios to examine possible future conditions, risks, and threats.

There's a big difference between predication and prediction too. He's right about one thing - scenarios are stories in that they're science fiction. To frame a scenario, reasonably likely outcomes are needed, but he said himself, that
"There remain plenty of uncertainties (i.e., a range of possible outcomes)" and that scenarios are based on not just a set, but a range of assumptions. Some climate models predict project a cooling future. All models produce different results on each run, and so the individual runs have to be averaged for each. The various models also vary widely in those averaged results.

The final depiction of the results is a chart which looks like a spreading bunch of twigs. Then assumptions have to be made about the results, and a range of further assumptions made to produce a whole range of scenarios. Which of those scenarios are then chosen? You already knew the answer, as I do. It's a classic example of confirmation bias, choosing the results wanted while ignoring everything else.

There's only one valid prediction, and that's whatever happens won't have been predicted by models. Some runs by a few models may get close, but those runs will be lost in the averaging process, and the resulting averages rejected if they don't match the confirmation bias. Then, some time in the future, when the models are seen to have been wildly wrong, the Gleicks and the Manns and the Trenberths and the Schmidts will pop out of the woodwork, and assure us that we misunderstood what they'd been saying, that the models really got it right all along, and produce some smoothed-out piece of discarded printout from their waste-baskets to prove it. Wait a minute - they've been busy doing that to explain why the "warmer winters" turned into colder winters, and exactly why there's been a stasis in global temperature while they were busy telling us "warming is accelerating". They knew it might happen all along, but just didn't mention it.

“Peter Gleick’s great personal sacrifice”

From Junkscience - Susan C. Strong: “Peter Gleick’s great personal sacrifice”

Reframing Climate Change Now

Two big things have happened recently on the climate change front. The first, of course, is Peter Gleick’s great personal sacrifice–his desperate gamble taken to expose the Heartland Institute’s planned assault on climate science in our schools, funded by the Kochs and other fossil fuel interests.

I replied as follows:

Am I a lone voice in hoping that many more of Gleick's co-conspirators make such "great personal sacrifices"? In the mid-19th century, the British army organised bands of volunteers to storm the defences of besieged cities and towns. They were almost assured of death, but would achieve fame and reward if successful. They were known as the "forlorn hope", and carried weapons of choice.

The problem Mann, Trenberth, Hansen and others face is that there's no "city wall" to breach. They'll disappear into a jungle wilderness teeming with sceptic guerilla fighters, each armed with a brain and an internet connection. Let's not discourage them, but send them all invitations to "fair and open debate". Their heads will explode and they'll rush off brandishing their weapons of choice, be-it a hockey stick, a dubious correlation or even a scanner. Theirs is indeed "a forlorn hope", and time, like global temperature, is most definitely not on their side

"Once more unto the breach dear friends, once more, or close the wall up with our junk science!". (apologies to the Bard)

Satire in the service of truth.

The Sceptic's Dictionary: Gleick

Gleick
verb intransitive
1. To commit an act of unbelievable stupidity (see also Darwin Awards)
2. To lose your head when all about you are holding theirs.
2. To impersonate another, for financial or other gain.
4. To impersonate a climate scientist.
5. To perpetrate a transparent fraud.
6. To inflate one's own importance, esp. in writing (see also blogs, troll).
7. To speak from a position of false authority
8. To admit to holding the gun, but not to pulling the trigger.
9 To commit professional suicide in writing (see also Twitter, blogs).
10. To lose the approbation of one's peers (see also Monckton).
11. To become a hermit (see also Herman's Hermits song titles, esp. "The End Of The World". "What Is Wrong, What Is Right", "If I Fell", "Moonshine Man", "I'll Never Dance Again", "Don't Go Out Into The Rain", "The Story Of My Life", "I Understand (Just How You Feel)", "It's Nice To Be Out In The Morning", "My Reservation's Been Confirmed", "Where Were You When I Needed You" and others)
12. To come to an end; terminate

[from Old German gleick, a narcissistic egotist, from Middle German gleck, an act of self-immolation]

Vancouver, Canada - are "planners" trying to frighten residents?

The decidedly warmist  Vancouver Sun has the story "South Delta faces rising threat from floods":

South Delta will be vulnerable to disastrous flooding in the coming decades without wholesale adaptation to rising sea levels.

Speakers at a science symposium in Vancouver on Sunday said projections of a one-metre rise in sea level are too conservative – and that continuing international failure to deal with global warming likely means a “multi-metre” rise in ocean height by the end of this century.

For 21,000 residents of Ladner, a low-lying suburban community that fronts onto the south arm of the Fraser River near its confluence with the Strait of Georgia, that means an urgent need to protect the community from flooding.

Waterfront homes, inland suburban developments, roads and farmland are all vulnerable to a sea level rise of 1.2 metres, according to research presented by David Flanders of the University of B.C.

Flanders, along with Simon Fraser University professor of geology John Clague, were featured local speakers at a symposium for the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which continues through today at the Vancouver Convention Centre.

So a "projected" rise, to be expected decades into the future means there's "an urgent need to protect the community from flooding"? Which disaster blockbusters have these "scientists" been watching? And there it is again, a global estimate for sea level rise is applied directly to a single location in Canada. As with "projected" future temperature, no allowance or adjustment is made for local conditions. Just what are the "local conditions" near Vancouver? I know that seal level rise along the Pacific coast of North America decreases with increasing latitude: the further north, the lower the rate of rise. It's due to "isostatic rebound" - land covered by ice sheets during the last ice age is slowly rising, and has been since the ice started to melt and generate much of the sea level rise since then.

What I found surprised even me; as far as I know it's almost unique.

Sea Level at Vancouver, BC 1910-2010   data source: PMSL

The trend over 100 years is just 0.31 mm year. We're repeatedly told that the global rate of rise has accelerated over the later decades of the 20th century; no sign of that here. The last three decades encompasses the "satellite era" towards the end of which satellites have been monitoring an apparently accelerating rise in sea level:

Sea Level at Vancouver, BC 1980-2010   data source: PMSL

That looks pretty flat to me - if I were Peter Gleick I might say that it was a downward trend, but then I doubt he would ever present and discuss a downward trend in anything other than rainfall. Statistically it's a slight fall, but too tiny to draw any conclusions. The 1982/3, 1997/8 and 2010 El Niños are clear on the first chart, less so on this one, but still distinguishable in the broad, tall upward spikes.

It seems that the worthy citizens of South Delta (a southern coastal suburb of Vancouver) are safe in their beds for a while yet. Did David Flanders and John Clague present this information at the AAAS symposium? I can find no record of them having done so, but then this was an American Association for the Advancement of Science event, not the American Association for the Advancement of Truth.

Peter Gleick Fools Himself

Peter Gleick, currently posited to be the author of the "fake" Heartland Institute briefing document, has an article on Forbes -"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data. He attacks one claim in particular, that “The last decade's 'rate of warming' is flat.” by showing this chart

Source: Forbes

He says

What about the last decade, as claimed above? The linear trend (the blue line) over the past decade is relatively flat, but in fact it still exhibited a warming trend, despite the temporary cooling forces that are masking the overall warming. As the British Met Office noted this week, in a reply to a misleading claim that the warming had stopped: “what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.”

The blue line is "relatively flat", but "still exhibited a warming trend" he insists. That line looks pretty flat to me, but then I'm an evil denier with a Mark One eyeball and an aversion to incontrovertible facts, though with a picture editor in my arsenal of analytical tools. The interval (0.05°C) represented by the vertical ticks on the temperature axis is 18 pixels; the increase in height of the blue trend line is 1 pixel, therefore that line represents an increase of 1/18 * 0.05°C over 10 years, or a staggering 0.27°C in - wait for it - I love this - 1,000 years. Is this statistically significant? I hear you ask. It's a "warming trend" allright, just don't rush out and buy an air conditioner or move poleward just yet.