Is it possible for the sea to rise by 100 metres this century? I was asked that odd question by Andrew Bolt, who is well known for writing incendiary columns refuting climate change in Melbourne's Herald Sun newspaper.
The question was odd for two reasons: first, I am not an authority on climate and do no research as a scientist; second, I was supposed to be interviewing Bolt, not the other way around.
My reason for inviting him to the studio to appear on my ABC Radio program, The Science Show, was straightforward: I had recently been to the renowned Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in La Jolla, California; it was here that atmospheric carbon dioxide had first been monitored 50 years ago. I was at the institute to talk to ice core scientist Jeff Severinghaus about his work.
Severinghaus is a tall, friendly man whose analysis of gases over geologic time scales has shown that temperatures go up as CO2 increases.
He had also observed that the beginning of historic warming periods are not immediately preceded by such a rise in gas. As a result, both Andrew Bolt and other critics of anthropogenic warming (not least the notorious film The Great Global Warming Swindle, aired on ABC TV in July 2007) had proclaimed loudly that our present warming need have nothing to do with greenhouse gases made by humans.
Jeff Severinghaus told me this was totally inaccurate and his work was being distorted, wilfully or not. I duly brought back his interview to be broadcast on ABC Radio and, silly fellow that I am, thought Bolt might appreciate being given a right of reply.
So there I was, facing the notorious newspaper columnist, expecting a swift exchange along the lines of what I've done thousands of times before — on matters of fact.
Instead, what happened next was that each answer contained a gratuitous smear of climate scientists of the likes of Tim Flannery of Sydney's Macquarie University, who'd expressed global concerns about humanity's prospects in the face of climate change. Then, unexpectedly, I was asked whether it was possible that sea levels could rise by 100 metres this century.
I had talked to scientists whose peer-reviewed evidence indicated that mammoth rises were possible under extreme circumstances. As it happened, in Arizona, I'd met leading geoscientist Jonathan Overpeck.
Overpeck's published results last year had gone around the world warning that rises had been grossly underestimated, not least by the highly cautious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which projected a mere 52 centimetre rise.
Overpeck had told me that, historically, the rises had been 120 metres down and 100 metres up from present levels. This was very unlikely to happen soon, but, should temperature increases exceed 3-6°C, "all bets are off".
So my answer was, "Yes, but…"
Misrepresent to claim misrepresentation
Your column is misrepresents what actually happened during that interview. The 100 meters question was asked by Bolt during the penultimate stages of the conversation. The opening of your column suggests otherwise, which leads me to conclude that yet again, you can quite righly be accused of misrepresentation.
Real Science
Dear Robyn Williams:
I suggest you read what scientist Nils-Axel Mörner has to say about sea level rise.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf
Dr. Mörner has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, Mörner is past
president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.
Where's the warming
So Robin, should I be asking these questions:
"Why was the rate of warming between 1910 and 1939 the same as the rate of warming between 1970 and 1999?"
Or how about this one:
"If man-made CO2 is causing the Earth to warm out of control, why hasn't it warmed since 1998 and man-made CO2 has increased?"
Or maybe this one:
"CO2 is a trace gas essential for life on this planet, why is it viewed by the religious greens as a pollutant?"
Of course, I know what your answers would be.....how inconvenient.
Unbelievable tripe from the ABC as usual.
Signed Heretic
Right to be wrong
I strongly believe that humans are drastically jeopardising the environment. However, publicly-aired supporters of this point of view seem to be as 'unscientific' as their opponents. This article by Robyn Williams demonstrated the utter unscientific nature of this debate. At least, he confessed to be a journalists who has never done any science.
This article assumes that simply stating that a number of scientists agree with the author is sufficient to convince the reader of the soundness of the author's position. What such articles require is for scientifically obtained data, with sound conclusions, to be presented so the reader can form his/her own opinion. The current article did not present material of this type.
This article also demonstrated a common flaw in modern populist allegedly scientific literature. In that, the flaw holds that if the majority of scientists support a point of view, it must be 'correct'. If this claim is true, there would never be any advancement in scientific knowledge and understanding. Think of all the scientific principles that, at the time of public announcement, were initially rejected (e.g., the specific theory of relativity). There is not one scientific principle that is closed to debate and future modification.
An article should never be written if the author has nothing new to say, which why this one is a waste of space.
Trevor Phelps
Right to be wrong - right to remain wrong
Your argument assumes that there is or can be an open mindedness in this debate that will eventually lead us all to the same conclusion/outcome. From whatever side of the arguement you approach this it is pretty unrealistic to expect that everyone will accept the "truth" or "science" of the situation at the end of the day. Id rather apply the caution now than regret not having done so later. We all take out insurance on cars and houses or even our life, I think it a good investment for the future no matter how much the sea rises or falls to insure the planet.
Policy based upon incomplete, possibly incorrect science?
Seems like a bad policy to me. If the science is not settled, why base far-reaching public policies on it? How do we know we won't do more harm than good?
I can certainly understand the impetus to "clean up the environment." I'm all for that. But it seems like AGW is "clean up the environment" catastrophized. If the hockey stick graph is bunkum, the highest temperature years in the last 100 years weren't in the last decade but rather in the 1930's, this last October WASN'T the hottest on record as advertised (due to repeated September data from Russia carried over into October), it seem like there's a lot of hype and NOT a lot of good data.
We shouldn't be committing large expenditures of public funds if the science isn't settled. If there are reasonable objections that need to be addressed, or if the science upon which the foundation of the AGW scare is based is flawed or wrong, then it seems like a reassessment is in order before committing resources to the various extreme endeavors proposed to combat AGW.
If this is all just "clean the environment" in disguise, why not just have politicians say "forget AGW, let's just 'clean the environment' for the sake of cleaning the environment"? Why perpetuate this giant AGW scare when the science isn't settled. It all seems a bit political. Getting in the back door what won't fit in the front, so-to-speak.
If they say "clean the environment," and that's what's REALLY on the agenda at the end of the day, fine. I'm all for it. If they keep saying "AGW is for sure, and we need a blank check to fix it," when the debate isn't settled by a long shot, I'm sorry but I have to still be an informed dissenter (who is also a wary taxpayer).