SciBlogs

Posts Tagged AR4

House by the sea (not a good idea) Gareth Renowden Sep 21

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

The Royal Society of New Zealand has just published an interesting paper on sea level rise [pdf], the latest in a series on “emerging issues” of public concern. It’s a very good overview of the current state of our understanding of the risk of future sea level rises, reviewing the evidence that’s accumulated since the IPCC’s Fourth Report (AR4), and puts that information into the NZ context.

The paper suggests that as we’re learning more about the behaviour of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica it’s becoming clear that there’s a risk of sea level rise this century much greater than the upper limits given in AR4 (which ignored increasing ice sheet melt). On the other hand, the extreme rates of sea level rise seen during the last deglaciation (4-5 metres per century at times) look less likely, with data from the last interglacial (LIG, aka the Eemian) suggesting 1.5 metres/century is more plausible.

The RS paper also includes a useful summary of various SLR planning guidelines issued around the world. New Zealand’s guidelines (Bryan’s take here), based on AR4, look to be on the low side, but speaking at the press conference to launch the paper, Prof Martin Manning, director of Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University , suggested that in his recent experience Environment Court judges were taking care to stay abreast of current scientific knowledge. That’s important, because as NIWA’s Doug Ramsay pointed out at the conference, 12 of the 15 largest towns and cities in NZ are on low-lying coastal and estuarine margins, there’s been enormous pressure to develop on prime beachfront locations and large chunks of our road and rail infrastructure are within 5 metres of current sea level.

[Iron & Wine]

Monckton, ’high priest of climate sceptics’, tells lies on TV NZ Gareth Renowden Jan 29

Join the conversation at Hot Topic

Christopher, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (a nice little village in Kent with good pubs, at least when I was growing up nearby) has arrived safely in Australia and embarked on the hectic round of talks and media opportunities that is his birthright and expectation wherever he goes. On Monday morning, my spies tell me he popped up on TV One’s Breakfast show, and managed to get away with an egregious falsehood.

One of his themes for this tour seems to be that the “UN’s climate panel” has exaggerated the warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 by “six or seven times”. Asked about this on Breakfast, he said (my transcription – starts about 1 minute into the interview):

The scientists have indeed got their sums wrong, because there are only perhaps 40 or 50 scientists involved in calculating that one central quality, which is known as climate sensitivity, how much warming will you get. It’s a very narrow, very specialist field in which I have actually published work in the [slight pause] reviewed literature, and there’s not many people who have done that. Very few people people have actually done work in this field, and unfortunately what they have done is they have preferred at the UN’s climate panel to rely on computer models which are in effect a form of guesswork.

You could describe this whole statement as a big lie, because it contains so many constituent falsehoods. For instance, the assertion that the IPCC has preferred to “rely on computer models” for estimates of climate sensitivity is simply not true, as a quick glance at AR4 WG1 Chapter Nine, section 9.6 Observational Constraints on Climate Sensitivity shows. But the really outrageous falsehood is his claim to have published a paper in the “reviewed literature”. He has done no such thing. He wrote a “paper” which appeared in the July 2008 American Physical Society Physics & Society newsletter (here). Monckton’s employers at the Science and Public Policy Institute (an organisation with close ties to the Scaife funded Frontiers for Freedom Institute) sent out a press release claiming it to be “peer-reviewed”, prompting the APS to add this to the start of the article:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters.

The only peer who reviewed Monckton’s piece appears to have been himself. That may go some way to explain why it contains so many mistakes. Arthur Smith catalogued 125 errors, and Tim Lambert at Deltoid provided a nice (and much shorter) overview of Monckton’s sleight of hand with the numbers here. Bottom line? Monckton is quite wrong.

However, this is old news. Monckton’s “paper” was published in July 2008 (there’s a full time line at Rabett Run), and it was comprehensively debunked within weeks. Monckton appears to be relying on the general media not knowing the deep background to the things he says. He doesn’t expect a breakfast TV presenter to be able to call him out on his embellishments of the truth, and perhaps he thinks that after a year and a half he can say what he likes and get away with it.

In one respect, however, he seems to have misjudged the credulity of the TV One interviewer, and even more so that of Sean Plunket, who had the pleasure of interviewing him for RNZ National’s Morning Report on Wednesday morning. Neither were buying his hyperbole about left wing scams. You can hear Plunket’s incredulous tone, after Monckton talks about the “wall to wall lefties” at the ABC, and how all left wingers are “instinctively totalitarian” (podcast here at 8:27). The TV One host even felt moved to challenge him on the “extremity of your rhetoric”, and got a shirty response. One has to hope the Aussie media are being at least as challenging, but glancing at Miranda Devine’s breathless little hagiography in the Sydney Morning Herald today doesn’t fill me with hope.

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer