Re the info graphic from NASA Kids on sea level rise, I recently got a call from my 12 yr old granddaughter in Miami. She was very troubled about glaciers melting and sea level rise due to global warming, something she had learned in a “science” class in school no doubt. Maybe the teacher used the NASA graphic to scare the kids in soon-to-be-inundated Miami.
If she was older I would send her your post on “landification”, but I’m afraid it’s over her head. What do we tell our kids who are being manipulated by distortions to “the science”. If NASA can spend our tax money to scare kids, how do we fight back?
The following is only observational. Google Earth has a timelapse feature where one can see aerial/satellite photos back to 1984 (40 yrs). I have zoomed in on places like Funafuti in Tuvalu and in Miami and run the playback for the full 40 years. Nothing stands out as a loss or gain. It might be fun to challenge readers to look around the globe and see if landification or oceanification is noticeable using this simplistic scheme and report back. I'd like to see those places where the media's "sky-is-falling" hype is justified after almost 1/2 century. Just a fun exercise, nothing more!
A globally averaged sea level rise measurement is only of modest value since the only important SLR is what ishappening at your location. Take for example the Netherlands. They have managed quite nicely even originally using muscle power,, draft animals, picks & shovels and wagons.
We need to adapt to local conditions. Expecting mitigation of CO2 to affect SLR is a fool's errand.
Question: NOAA/NASA provides SLR results to a tenth of a mm even though the DORIS system on the satellites advertises an uncertainty of 7-8mm. How do they justify that? https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/techniques/doris.html
not to belabor (we have agreed to disagree) but today I happened to run across a New Scientist article on biodiversity
"The findings don’t mean all species or populations worldwide are in decline. In fact, approximately half the populations show a stable or increasing trend, and half show a declining trend.
“Distilling the state of the world’s biodiversity to a single figure – or even a few figures – is incredibly difficult,” says Hannah Ritchie at Our World in Data. “It definitely fails to give us an accurate understanding of what the problem is and how we move forward.”
“I think a more appropriate and useful way to look at it is to focus on specific species or populations,” says Ritchie.
But Wright says the LPI is a useful tool that reflects the findings of other biodiversity metrics, such as the IUCN Red List and the Biodiversity Intactness Index. “All of those indices, they all scream that there is something going really very badly wrong,” says Wright."
As they say, there are lies, damned lies and statistics! The world contains millions of species and statistically you would expect a significant % of them to be declining as this is what evolutionary theory would propose. So the fact that WWF (a political lobby group that manages no land or water and hence no biodiversity) makes alarmist claims about the number of species whose numbers are declining is pretty much unscientific and of little relevance to policy makers.
Excellent point, I never thought about it that way.
The talking point is that 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are gone, so it seems ridiculous that all the species currently on earth should be stable or growing, none declining. That would imply that evolution has stopped, another nonsensical idea.
Excellent post, thank you. The additional literature references (Mao, for example) add science to the common sense notion that sea level rise is far down the list of legitimate concerns. Also, Friedman posted a clear, common sense analysis of SLR in his substack post, https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/a-climate-science-textbook.
"The way science is supposed to work is that individual scientists try to make sure what they publish is true, some make mistakes, a few may commit deliberate frauds, but both mistakes and frauds are controlled by the willingness of others in the field to spot errors and correct them. That does not work if the attitude of people in the field is that there is no need to check claims that support a conclusion they agree with."
I would bet no one takes the time to check them, because they are not paid to do so, and there is no benefit to be had from doing it, and nowhere to publish where other readers might see it. Other than the skeptical with time on their hands, an experiential sense of what is plausible, and some kind of independent blog or Substack outlet.
Who cares about the average, since according to climate hypesters every individual place on Earth is warming at 2x, 3x, or more x than the global average, lol.
And in cases where sea level rise is significantly affecting land area, I wonder how the cost of building up the coastal areas with deep rooted trees & plants, concrete, rock & sand compares to that of reducing fossil emissions. I bet it's a whole lot less expensive.
Note that in Netherlands they farm up to 7m below sea level and are a wealthy country using dikes to expand land area, actually using tech to INCREASE land area. They are now the #2 agricultural exporter in the World while being #69 in population & #131 by area and not even a warm or sunny environment.
Oh dear, I can't believe that Roger believes the IPCC cherry picked data for 'sea level rises' - a good example of the seduction of the intellectuals. Sea level rises are MINIMAL and nothing to do with 'climate change'. Sea level rise is the LEAST of the world's problems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY-G6n2SMQY&ab_channel=CDN
IPCC does not itself assess sea level, but reports the work of others, including that of my colleagues here at University of Colorado: https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Whether or not sea level is a big or small problem, we should probably be able to agree that seas have been rising
But if not, that is OK also - agreeing to disagree is fine by me
Yes, sea levels are rising but it's linear, microscopic and nothing to do with changing climate. Not even worth a tweet. How about a study of all fuels burned worldwide for the past 150 years and how the simple heat generated has added to the world's overall temperature? A quick google 'it's likely that there are anywhere between 7,782 and 8,755 commercial planes in the air on average at any given time' - now how much heat are they generating 365 days a year, decade after decade, and car engine, trucks, ships, homes, offices, factories etc. NO ONE ever asks these simple questions. And how much heat is generated by the US munitions industry and the pointless, disgusting war in Ukraine?
The heat of burning all fossil fuels, biomass & uranium is trivial compared to the solar heating of the Earth. It may have some local effect on "heat islands" i.e. cities. GHG emissions by humans cause far more heating of the Earth, although it is debatable how important that is or even if it is overall for the better.
The hysteria around the 'greenhouse gas' of CO2 is fooling millions. The effect of human generated CO2 is a tiny fraction of earth's main greenhouse gas: water vapour. And man made CO2 is a tiny fraction of naturally occurring CO2. Rises in the earth's temperature from the sun generates is what creates more CO2- and the big lie is that CO2 causes warming, it's the other way around. And if warming from trains/planes/automobiles and industry was so small, why are cities notably warmer...and affecting urban temperature readings that so many climate alarmists fall for? Temperature gauges sited downwind of airports are being used to massage fake increases in world temperatures. The whole thing is a massive hoax benefitting China.
As I stated, the GHG effect of CO2 is debatable, however to the extent it does exist it is still far, far more significant than the heat released by our fossil/nuclear energy supply.
And as I also stated, you will get an urban heat island effect from fossil burning, but that is a trivial portion of the Earth's surface area. Average solar power absorbed by the Earth's surface & atmosphere is 120 petawatts. Average human power consumption is 18 terawatts. Or 6700X less than solar.
So Roger, what is with the globalism that seems to come with climatism (and also biodiversityism) who cares about averages around the world? If the average came out to be 0, that wouldn't help the individual communities whose coastlines were expanding or shrinking... there's no there there with global averages. Another Emperor whose apparel should be questioned. IMHO.
Well, I agree and disagree. Yes, coastal management depends on what is going on at an exact place, and global averages aren't useful at that scale. At the same time, global averages do tell us something important. Consider mortality in childbirth -- global averages have plummeted, but at the same time that fact does not mean anything to a particular woman giving birth in a particular place today.
So to whom exactly is the global average a useful thing to calculate? I'd think if I were a country I'd want to compare my average to other countries and figure out how we could become more successful. The problem would be that there are so many different combinations that could give the same average.. minor deviations or major deviations that still cancel out, when I'd think we'd be interested in the size of the deviations as well as the average.
As a single number, the global average may or may not be of interest. However, if you take a look at Mao et al. 2021 Figure 9 in this post you'll see that the global average is comprised of lots of individual measurements. As a research focus, global average seems fine as an entry point, and for local decision makers local info will always be more valuable. The dissonance between global average landification and media representations is what motivated this post and my dive into the literature. As Donchyts et al. 2016 relying only on local info - whether case study or anecdote - is apt to mislead should one want broader implications.
Yes, I get that the dissonance is a thing.. but even if some researchers think it's fine to calculate "as an entry point" I would still argue that every research dollar spend on things with little or no practical value could be better spent elsewhere. And arguing about things with little or no practical value is a second order wasting of time. We may have to agree to disagree here :)
Dear Sharon F. I'm with Roger on this one. The global averages tell us that atolls around the world are stable or growing. This is an important thing to know as it contradicts the scaremongering about disappearing islands and their inhabitants being displaced. Remember the stunt where the prime minister of the Maldives held a cabinet meeting in scuba gear, underwater, to "raise awareness" of his fear that his islands would soon disappear under the rising sea levels? Knowing that such islands are stable or growing puts paid to such mythology.
Ahh.. so perhaps more of a communication thing? I'd still be more for maps than averages. perhaps showing where land grew or lost more than a certain number of hectares in the last 30 years? Of course many places may not have the data.. which would be equally true for averages I suppose. So many answers are functions of the temporal and spatial scale chosen!
Or more directly, a table of concerns people articulated that haven't actually transpired within the predicted timeframe.
Roger,
Re the info graphic from NASA Kids on sea level rise, I recently got a call from my 12 yr old granddaughter in Miami. She was very troubled about glaciers melting and sea level rise due to global warming, something she had learned in a “science” class in school no doubt. Maybe the teacher used the NASA graphic to scare the kids in soon-to-be-inundated Miami.
If she was older I would send her your post on “landification”, but I’m afraid it’s over her head. What do we tell our kids who are being manipulated by distortions to “the science”. If NASA can spend our tax money to scare kids, how do we fight back?
Thanks,
Grandpa Scott
The following is only observational. Google Earth has a timelapse feature where one can see aerial/satellite photos back to 1984 (40 yrs). I have zoomed in on places like Funafuti in Tuvalu and in Miami and run the playback for the full 40 years. Nothing stands out as a loss or gain. It might be fun to challenge readers to look around the globe and see if landification or oceanification is noticeable using this simplistic scheme and report back. I'd like to see those places where the media's "sky-is-falling" hype is justified after almost 1/2 century. Just a fun exercise, nothing more!
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-08/why-are-hundreds-of-pacific-islands-getting-bigger/13038430
A globally averaged sea level rise measurement is only of modest value since the only important SLR is what ishappening at your location. Take for example the Netherlands. They have managed quite nicely even originally using muscle power,, draft animals, picks & shovels and wagons.
We need to adapt to local conditions. Expecting mitigation of CO2 to affect SLR is a fool's errand.
Question: NOAA/NASA provides SLR results to a tenth of a mm even though the DORIS system on the satellites advertises an uncertainty of 7-8mm. How do they justify that? https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/techniques/doris.html
“How do they justify that?”
Magic
not to belabor (we have agreed to disagree) but today I happened to run across a New Scientist article on biodiversity
"The findings don’t mean all species or populations worldwide are in decline. In fact, approximately half the populations show a stable or increasing trend, and half show a declining trend.
“Distilling the state of the world’s biodiversity to a single figure – or even a few figures – is incredibly difficult,” says Hannah Ritchie at Our World in Data. “It definitely fails to give us an accurate understanding of what the problem is and how we move forward.”
“I think a more appropriate and useful way to look at it is to focus on specific species or populations,” says Ritchie.
But Wright says the LPI is a useful tool that reflects the findings of other biodiversity metrics, such as the IUCN Red List and the Biodiversity Intactness Index. “All of those indices, they all scream that there is something going really very badly wrong,” says Wright."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2342176-wildlife-populations-are-declining-on-a-devastating-scale-says-wwf/
I guess we're not the only people/area of interest to have the same discussion!
As they say, there are lies, damned lies and statistics! The world contains millions of species and statistically you would expect a significant % of them to be declining as this is what evolutionary theory would propose. So the fact that WWF (a political lobby group that manages no land or water and hence no biodiversity) makes alarmist claims about the number of species whose numbers are declining is pretty much unscientific and of little relevance to policy makers.
Excellent point, I never thought about it that way.
The talking point is that 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are gone, so it seems ridiculous that all the species currently on earth should be stable or growing, none declining. That would imply that evolution has stopped, another nonsensical idea.
👍👍👍
Right!!
Excellent post, thank you. The additional literature references (Mao, for example) add science to the common sense notion that sea level rise is far down the list of legitimate concerns. Also, Friedman posted a clear, common sense analysis of SLR in his substack post, https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/a-climate-science-textbook.
Barry, thanks for this link!
"The way science is supposed to work is that individual scientists try to make sure what they publish is true, some make mistakes, a few may commit deliberate frauds, but both mistakes and frauds are controlled by the willingness of others in the field to spot errors and correct them. That does not work if the attitude of people in the field is that there is no need to check claims that support a conclusion they agree with."
I would bet no one takes the time to check them, because they are not paid to do so, and there is no benefit to be had from doing it, and nowhere to publish where other readers might see it. Other than the skeptical with time on their hands, an experiential sense of what is plausible, and some kind of independent blog or Substack outlet.
thanks. Your remarks go back to some of the integrity issues that Dr. Pielke has raised in previous posts.
I enjoy your insights
Who cares about the average, since according to climate hypesters every individual place on Earth is warming at 2x, 3x, or more x than the global average, lol.
And in cases where sea level rise is significantly affecting land area, I wonder how the cost of building up the coastal areas with deep rooted trees & plants, concrete, rock & sand compares to that of reducing fossil emissions. I bet it's a whole lot less expensive.
Note that in Netherlands they farm up to 7m below sea level and are a wealthy country using dikes to expand land area, actually using tech to INCREASE land area. They are now the #2 agricultural exporter in the World while being #69 in population & #131 by area and not even a warm or sunny environment.
Extra good report, and you don't do bad ones.
Very important material that contradicts the impression of the general public.
Nice job Roger! Sorta sticks the pin on the donkey, doesn't it!
Oh dear, I can't believe that Roger believes the IPCC cherry picked data for 'sea level rises' - a good example of the seduction of the intellectuals. Sea level rises are MINIMAL and nothing to do with 'climate change'. Sea level rise is the LEAST of the world's problems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY-G6n2SMQY&ab_channel=CDN
Hi Mrs Bucket!
IPCC does not itself assess sea level, but reports the work of others, including that of my colleagues here at University of Colorado: https://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Whether or not sea level is a big or small problem, we should probably be able to agree that seas have been rising
But if not, that is OK also - agreeing to disagree is fine by me
Yes, sea levels are rising but it's linear, microscopic and nothing to do with changing climate. Not even worth a tweet. How about a study of all fuels burned worldwide for the past 150 years and how the simple heat generated has added to the world's overall temperature? A quick google 'it's likely that there are anywhere between 7,782 and 8,755 commercial planes in the air on average at any given time' - now how much heat are they generating 365 days a year, decade after decade, and car engine, trucks, ships, homes, offices, factories etc. NO ONE ever asks these simple questions. And how much heat is generated by the US munitions industry and the pointless, disgusting war in Ukraine?
The heat of burning all fossil fuels, biomass & uranium is trivial compared to the solar heating of the Earth. It may have some local effect on "heat islands" i.e. cities. GHG emissions by humans cause far more heating of the Earth, although it is debatable how important that is or even if it is overall for the better.
The hysteria around the 'greenhouse gas' of CO2 is fooling millions. The effect of human generated CO2 is a tiny fraction of earth's main greenhouse gas: water vapour. And man made CO2 is a tiny fraction of naturally occurring CO2. Rises in the earth's temperature from the sun generates is what creates more CO2- and the big lie is that CO2 causes warming, it's the other way around. And if warming from trains/planes/automobiles and industry was so small, why are cities notably warmer...and affecting urban temperature readings that so many climate alarmists fall for? Temperature gauges sited downwind of airports are being used to massage fake increases in world temperatures. The whole thing is a massive hoax benefitting China.
As I stated, the GHG effect of CO2 is debatable, however to the extent it does exist it is still far, far more significant than the heat released by our fossil/nuclear energy supply.
And as I also stated, you will get an urban heat island effect from fossil burning, but that is a trivial portion of the Earth's surface area. Average solar power absorbed by the Earth's surface & atmosphere is 120 petawatts. Average human power consumption is 18 terawatts. Or 6700X less than solar.
If you guys would like to discuss carbon dioxide and climate, that’s fine, but I’d ask that you do at this thread https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-carbon-dioxide-emissions-change
And leave this one for landification
Thanks!
So Roger, what is with the globalism that seems to come with climatism (and also biodiversityism) who cares about averages around the world? If the average came out to be 0, that wouldn't help the individual communities whose coastlines were expanding or shrinking... there's no there there with global averages. Another Emperor whose apparel should be questioned. IMHO.
Well, I agree and disagree. Yes, coastal management depends on what is going on at an exact place, and global averages aren't useful at that scale. At the same time, global averages do tell us something important. Consider mortality in childbirth -- global averages have plummeted, but at the same time that fact does not mean anything to a particular woman giving birth in a particular place today.
So to whom exactly is the global average a useful thing to calculate? I'd think if I were a country I'd want to compare my average to other countries and figure out how we could become more successful. The problem would be that there are so many different combinations that could give the same average.. minor deviations or major deviations that still cancel out, when I'd think we'd be interested in the size of the deviations as well as the average.
As a single number, the global average may or may not be of interest. However, if you take a look at Mao et al. 2021 Figure 9 in this post you'll see that the global average is comprised of lots of individual measurements. As a research focus, global average seems fine as an entry point, and for local decision makers local info will always be more valuable. The dissonance between global average landification and media representations is what motivated this post and my dive into the literature. As Donchyts et al. 2016 relying only on local info - whether case study or anecdote - is apt to mislead should one want broader implications.
Yes, I get that the dissonance is a thing.. but even if some researchers think it's fine to calculate "as an entry point" I would still argue that every research dollar spend on things with little or no practical value could be better spent elsewhere. And arguing about things with little or no practical value is a second order wasting of time. We may have to agree to disagree here :)
Yes indeed
Aggregation of data is commonplace, whether at regional, national or global scales, and over various time periods
We can agree to disagree on this one 👍👍
Dear Sharon F. I'm with Roger on this one. The global averages tell us that atolls around the world are stable or growing. This is an important thing to know as it contradicts the scaremongering about disappearing islands and their inhabitants being displaced. Remember the stunt where the prime minister of the Maldives held a cabinet meeting in scuba gear, underwater, to "raise awareness" of his fear that his islands would soon disappear under the rising sea levels? Knowing that such islands are stable or growing puts paid to such mythology.
Ahh.. so perhaps more of a communication thing? I'd still be more for maps than averages. perhaps showing where land grew or lost more than a certain number of hectares in the last 30 years? Of course many places may not have the data.. which would be equally true for averages I suppose. So many answers are functions of the temporal and spatial scale chosen!
Or more directly, a table of concerns people articulated that haven't actually transpired within the predicted timeframe.