German scientists Dr. Sebastian Lüning (geology) and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt (chemistry) say recent sea level rise paper is “alarmist” and based on sloppy, “faulty” science.
===============================================
Sea level rise grossly overstated by sloppy science
By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Text translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
In mid February a frightening report made the rounds through the mainstream media, and also the German evening news Tagesschau warned: Sea level is not rising linearly, but rather exponentially and thus we should expect a sea level rise of 65 cm by the end of the century! At linear sea level rise rate at today’s 3 mm/year, 25 cm would be only manageable. So what’s behind the story?
The urgent report is traced back to a study led by Robert S. Nerem of the University of Colorado in Boulder. In it the authors should have adequately filtered out the ENSO sea level fluctuations. An El Nino results in much greater rainfall in the East Pacific, which leads to a temporary rise in global sea level. Vice versa, a La Nina results in much rain falling on land (especially Australia) where it is temporarily stored and so leads to less water in the ocean, and this is clearly detectable globally.
Fig. 6: Plot of the Nino3,4 index since 1980. Currently it is showing a moderate La Nina. Source here.
As it is clear to see in Figure 6, near the beginning of the satellite measurements in 1998 there was a surplus water amount. After 2010 there was a deficit of water and in 2017 too much. The authors of the study, however, did not adequately remove these natural fluctuations, as was later discovered shortly later. As a result the recent El Nino got partially used in the calculation and impacted the trend result, as did the 2011/12 La Nina and the 1997/98 El Nino. This resulted in a growing trend and allowed Nerem et al (2018) to use a quadratic fit, which was then extrapolated out to the year 2100.
Such an approach resembles the error of a real beginner, which one calls over-fitting. The data basis of 1993 to 2017 is much too small, and also fraught with error and so does not allow a credible trend going out to 2100.
And because no data were included with the study, it was necessary to invest two or three hours to uncover the shortcoming. Perhaps the peer-reviewers could not be bothered to check it adequately and so allowed the scientific sloppiness to find its way into a journal. From there, the media turned it into headlines.
A total false alarm
The conclusion is clear: a faulty paper that bordered on alarmism ended up making its way into the German evening news.
Findings on the temperature trend-dampening factors such as the AMO and the PDO don’t even get mentioned in our science media. This is how politics gets done using science selection. We will see over the coming years exactly how things develop. Both major ocean indices are pointing negative and the solar activity is below normal, which are major counter-warming factors.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/global_50yr.shtml?stnid=120-022
Explain this curve. German station Wismar with periodic changing water level showing no sign of acceleration.
We deserve a better research.
From THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, v. B.P. P.L.C., et al., Defendants.
William Happer, Steven E. Koonin, and Richard S. Lindzen, on behalf of the defendants put together a tutorial to educate the court. In it they very reasonably stated —
This is going to hurt.
That would be good. No gain without pain!
The reason why this paper and the multitudes of others that assume that “something” is getting worse, like global temperatures, or sea-level rises, is because most of these authors, I dare not call them scientists or intelligent, is because they fail miserably in following the basic principles of statistical or data analysis. One obvious lesson these authors, I am sure have been taught, but yet flaunt, all for reasons of grant profiteering, akin to the 18th century high-seas privateers (aka pirates), is that you never extrapolate beyond your data-set range! There are literally multitudes of textbooks outlining all the dangers of doing this.
But, of course, if you extrapolate 100-17=83 years beyond the 2017-1993=24 years of data-set, you can concoct any wacky scenario, irrespective of normalizing out El Nino and La Nina variations.
Think about it. These authors seriously thought that you could conclude an absolute, that is, not providing a correspondingly suitable error margin (which in itself would make the entire paper meaningless), that is inferred from just 24 years of data, for something that will not happen for another 83 years!!!!!
Frankly, these authors along with the editors who passed the paper, should be dismissed and have they’re degrees pulled from them. This paper, and the peer review system that passed it, is exemplary of gross incompetence and out right scandalous betrayal to science that is going on in the Scientific Community.
As I have often said, if we allow such nonsensical papers to be published, our Journals will be filled with so much garbage, that so much time will be wasted in filtering through all the minutiae and out-right lies that no body will ever find the good science to build upon. Specifically, if a really major break through paper is written, it will may well be decades or longer, before it becomes in general science for its breakthrough work.
We truly are entering an Age Of Dark Science, were good science is buried under scientific filth all because of grant larceny.
Congrats for a very well written ‘put down’
Well said.
My thanks too Dorian. Down to earth sensibilities expressed in a clear dispassionate manner.
“Flout”, please, Dorian. “Flaunt” is showing off, “flout” is ignore or disobey.
Otherwise 10/10!
I am curious, can you provide examples for “good science” in the field of climate research?
Seems that seb realised just how little REAL science there is in climate alarmism.
No empirical science to even back up the big fallacy of warming from enhanced atmospheric CO2
Not much good science anywhere from the AGW troughers.
More likely that the paper was “pal” reviewed.
Papers that give the “right” answer, will get a free pass.
“ore likely that the paper was “pal” reviewed.
Papers that give the “right” answer, will get a free pass.”
The Court did not ask for a new peer-reviewed paper, but rather a “tutorial”, which is what the Court got.
Frederick, I’m talking about the sea rise paper, not the court paper.
Why do you guys trust Lüning and Vahrenholt so much regarding climate science? I mean they wrote a book full of false statements which was generally regarded as “junk science” … yet you translate every article they write on their blog (the very blogscience Kenneth so dreads) and the skeptic crowd chears like those two are some kind of super scientists who speak the truth about everything (because it matches your gut feeling about climate change).
Very weird …
I read the entire book, and even translated it in English. Lüning and Vahrenholt look at the whole spectrum of peer-reviewed science and examined the climate models in detail. Consequently they’ve uncovered that it is in fact the alarmist scientists who have been putting out the “junk science”. All the points they make are robustly backed by hard scientific literature and observation. When you read the part about models, you quickly come to the conclusion that the models are quite ridiculous. This has been confirmed dozens of times by peer-reviewed literature. It’s not about matching with gut feelings, but theories matching with observations. That’s why we are skeptics.
The likelihood is high that SebastianH has not read the entire book, and instead he relies on smear-blogs in declaring their work “junk science” and “false statements”.
We know what kind of books you read and promote. The question was why you trust these authors so much?
And now I have additional questions. The most burning one would be why you think they unconvered something and not just wrote common skeptics talking points that have long been refuted together so they can publish a book? A book that is generally viewed as “Quatsch” with lots of half truths which had its own “Bild” campaign to promote it …
@Kenneth:
There is no likelihood at all, you can be certain that I would not read such a book and neither the book Pierre recommended a few days ago.
But your reply is interesting, you seem to be a victim of the illusion so many skeptics are falling for: you expect your opponent to read everything you put our there and reply to each point no matter how often it was refuted and repeated by you guys. If your opponent can’t be bothered with the repeated nonsense you claim victory and call it the truth (again, no matter how often it got refuted before).
Kind of a denial of service attack, you’ll just repeat it over and over until it sticks … at least in your community.
You seb, do not refute claims made by scientists, you only distract away from the topic to your delusions.
To refute it would require you to have some measure of rational scientific education, thus far you have shown none, you just parrot whatever nonsense someone else has written.
Please cite the sources that identified the large volume of “false statements” in their work and the sources who characterize their work as “junk science”.
Just read any review of that book …
They are lucky non of their nonsense had to go through peer review, just book reviews.
Try reading the book yourself, first. The “nonsense” they cite is in large part peer-reviewed papers. Clearly you don’t understand the difference between publishing a book and publishing a scientific paper. One has nothing to do with the other. Again you need to first learn to look at both sides of the argument, and not just the ones that fit your end-of-world fantasies.
I understand that anyone can publish a book and so they did just that …
I wish skeptics would be capable of doing that 😉
I know your side of the argument from reading blogs like these. I don’t need to read a book with bad reviews just to “understand you better”.
I wish you’d read the book first before judging it.
Send me your edition and I’ll perform a scientific experiment how many pages I manage to read before finding the first false/refuted claim.
Not going to spend 25€ on something those two guys wrote.
They don’t have libraries in Germany?
“refuted claim”
You have NEVER been able to refute any claims of theirs that Pierre has put forward here..
Why would anyone expect you to be able to start now?
“I wish skeptics would be capable of doing that”
You have yet to put forward ANYTHING of scientific worth.
Whenever you are asked to PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE, you invariably fall flat on your face.
Let’s give you yet another chance, seb
If you believe that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere, or ocean, or anything..
then PRODUCE THE EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
Unbelievable – he dismisses the book even before reading it. I’m glad our system of justice doesn’t work that way, where the jury refuses to listen to the defence. In Seb’s world everyone one on the defence site would be summarily executed.
Are you saying one can’t trust those who already read it to give a fair review of its contents? Why this distrust? I can recommend you lots of crappy books to read, maybe they are really good when you read them? Who knows.
I’m saying you need to read it yourself. What others think is not a factor. Mojib Latif “reviewed” the book, but then admitted he had never read it.
I won’t spend 25 € on a book about climate skepticism that was promoted by the “Bild”, sorry. Read some of the 1-star reviews on Amazon, they make a very good case why this book is BS.
I am not reviewing the book …
Anyone can write a review on Amazon…without having read the actual book.
Then shut up with your criticism if you’re too lazy or cheapskate to read it.
And so Pierre you recommend a book to people to read but then someone voices their opinion that they wouldn’t read it because of their personal prejudice on the science topic of the book and its authors, and instead reads reviews from like-minded prejudiced people.
They then have the temerity to say the book is “nonsense” and “A book that is generally viewed as “Quatsch” with lots of half truths which had its own “Bild” campaign to promote it” based on such flimsy evidence.
Umm, not very scientific, not exactly logical to voice judgment on the book without actually reading it. It would appear person prejudice overrides all logical thought for this irrational person.
I now wonder why anyone should be bothering to reply to this unscientific, illogical and idiotic troll.
You have yet to show one piece of what they have every written as being “false statements”.
Except in your mindless little fantasies, of course.
You are EMPTY, seb.
Guys, why o why do you engage with this mindless troll?
The only reason he posts his childish questions is to divert your attention.
He is never interested in the answers you provide.
He just wants to waste your valuable time and the thread off topic.
If EVERYONE just completely ignores his mindless rabbeting he will eventually curl up & go away……
What SebastianH has to offer is an illustrative representation of the vacuousness of the beliefs he espouses as Truth.
Every time he writes an unsupportable claim (e.g., 30,000 species are going extinct every year, CO2 is causing browning/desertification on a global scale, “acidification” is happening so fast that marine species cannot adapt, West Antarctica is warming 10 times faster than the rest of the globe, etc.), or every time he non-substantively criticizes papers highlighted in our articles, and then, in response, we use scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals to support our positions and undermine his beliefs as he cites alarmist blogs…we are demonstrating how feeble his beliefs are…and how his name-calling and insults (“It’s nonsense!”) and blogscience aren’t persuasive.
My main issue with him is when he dishonestly makes up positions that we don’t have and tries to pass them off as something we have written/posited. That’s about all he has left to do (concoct straw men), as his views consistently get pummeled in the comment sections.
In sum, SebastianH is our prop. He’s like the opposing “team” that the Harlem Globetrotters face in their “games”.
Yep, poor seb does immeasurable HARM to the AGW “cause”
He is sort of like a drunk, brain-addled heckler from the back row of a concert.
All he has is meaningless attempts at distraction.
Most AGW trollettes are like that.
Mindless yapping with NOTHING in the way of real science to back up anything they say.
They need to be answered though, to show just how VACUOUS and EMPTY their yapping is.