This just in: a CNN headline reads, “Scientists find sea levels are already much higher than we thought. That could spell trouble for the future”. How the Dickens, you might reasonably cry, could they be higher than we thought? [some emphasis, links added]
As in “more than 3 feet in some regions”? How could you be wrong about whether the water was up to your ankles or your chest?
The New York Times likewise insists that “Sea Levels Are Already Higher Than Many Scientists Think, New Study Shows—Researchers found that a majority of studies on coastal sea levels underestimated how high water levels are, and hundreds of millions of people are closer to peril than previously thought.”
So why didn’t they notice? And the answer turns out to be worse than the question. See, the vast majority of studies of sea levels were based not on measurements but on wildly inaccurate models.
Leading to the conclusion, CNN would have us believe, that the science is settled, and worse than we thought, “raising alarms that the world is underestimating the extent of the threat and how quickly coastlines could disappear,” but this time they’ve got it right, for sure.
If you had just discovered that something you had firmly believed to be fact was pretty much just made up, surely the appropriate response would be a pause for reflection on all manner of topics, including, painfully, your own gullibility and dogmatism. But no. Rather, the piece immediately shrills:
“Sea level rise is one of the most visible and alarming impacts of the human-driven climate crisis, threatening hundreds of millions of people who live along global coastlines. Scientists estimate we’re already locked into around 6 inches of global sea level rise by 2050.”
Now this passage is tosh. First, because the scientists who estimate say no such thing. NOAA, for instance, makes the possibly overheated claim that:
“The rate of global sea level rise is accelerating: it has more than doubled from 0.06 inches (1.4 millimeters) per year throughout most of the twentieth century to 0.14 inches (3.6 millimeters) per year from 2006-2015.”
But even so, 0.14 inches per year is only 1.4 inches per decade. And since we have less than 2.5 decades between now and 2050, we get less than … uh, can anyone in the newsroom do math even with a computer? Yup, it’d be 1.4 times 2.5, which is… hang on… 3.5 inches. Not six. Dang.
Oh well. Math is hard. But what makes that statement really insolent rubbish is that it’s exactly what journalists have been saying scientists were saying for decades now.
And what’s the point of a dramatic new finding if it changes nothing, not even the verbiage?
OK, what also makes it insolent rubbish is the insinuation that anyone might plausibly be off by three feet about the water level in their local harbour, beach, etc., until some expert comes along and informs them that secretly their dock is underwater.
But there’s more.
Where the story gets interesting, while remaining insolent rubbish, is that in paragraph six it explains that:
“The report authors analyzed 385 peer-reviewed studies published over the past 15 years on sea level rise and the hazards it poses to coastlines. They found 90% relied only on assumptions from models rather than real, measured observations.”
What? You mean the whole field is conducted inside a computer in brazen disregard of actual measurements? Surely that’s the lead, that’s the headline.
That’s a staggering thing to discover and, as noted above, an even more staggering thing to discover and go right on believing everything else you believed about the climate crisis, including its sea-level-rise aspect.
And it’s always-worse-than-we-thought aspect, since the article goes on immediately that:
“It’s a ‘methodological blind spot’ that has resulted in widespread underestimations of coastal sea levels and people’s exposure to their related hazards, [study co-author Philip] Minderhoud said.”
So, isn’t it serious that the people who’ve been doing all this stuff and fueling the panic for a decade and a half had this “methodological blind spot” of not caring about facts?
Yes, but only in the usual way:
“The findings suggest that if sea level rises by around 3 feet, it would put 37% more land underwater than currently assumed, affecting up to 132 million people across the world.”
No no no no no no no, we cry. Stop. Just stop. The only way that claim can be true is if a bunch more land is already underwater than people believed just by looking at it.
And there cannot be millions of fools out there who think something that’s underwater is above water until some academic wags a pencil at them.
Or maybe there can, if people still believe this kind of journalism. Certainly, there are far too many fools in newsrooms and, it seems, climate computer labs.
Read more at Climate Discussion Nexus
The article makes a good point of alarmists using models rather than real data. However, there is real data that is inaccurate and makes sea level rise appear worse. In some locations the elevation of the land is sinking. In those spots tidal gauge show an increase in sea level that is greater than reality.
tide gauges have been doing a good job of measuring the relative sea level in some places for over a century so why does anybody need to research when you have actual measurements?
As the phrase goes, “Who are going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” As you say the tide gauges give actual data on how fast the seas are rising instead of using models.