Bishop Hill Stott and Shuck - the transcript
Sep 29, 2013 Climate: other ;)
Reader Lapogus sends this transcript of the interviews of Emily Shuckburgh and Peter Stott on Friday. Both Lapogus and I were struck by some of the statements made, and felt they were worthy of fact-checking.
BBC Radio 5 Live, Shelagh Fogarty Show, 27.09.2013: Matt McGrath (BBC Environment Correspondent) interview with Peter Stott (UK Met Office) in Stockholm on release of the IPCC SPM5.
Source: http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/FogertyshowAWM.mp3
Shelagh Fogarty (studio, 2.10) … where does this report fit into the IPPC’s history, because it has been an interesting history, not without its issues and not without its attackers…
Matt McGrath (2.30): … Indeed, not without its controversies, it is rather is a bitter day here in Stockholm, the wind blowing in off the water, but I think there is a sense of, I suppose, quite warm delight amongst some of the scientists here today, who see this I suppose, as reclaiming the some of the ground they may have lost in some ways because of the controversies of the last report, chief among them was the error, the blooper if you like, that the Himalayas might all melt by 2035, but there were other issues too that followed in the years to come, I think that one of the clear things that comes out of today’s report is the focus on the science, the absolute, that, you know that Thomas Stocker said that we are not here just to make headlines, we are here to assess the science, and a very serious and sober approach to it. And with me is one of the serious and sober scientists, Peter Stott, from the Met Office, and one of the [IPCC] co-ordinating authors on Detection and Attribution and this is very important, Peter, because… this is saying who dunnit… who is responsible for climate change… so tell us who is it?
Peter Stott (3.25): Well exactly, it is looking at what has caused, eh, the unequivocal warming we have seen, and now we have got this new evidence, which shows very clearly that the dominant cause of the warming is human influence through basically what we have done to the climate system, we have warmed it up, emitted greenhouse gases, so human influence on the climate system is clear, and now we have had this extraordinary thorough analysis of evidence this week, and this is a really strong and robust conclusion about the dominant role of human influence on the climate system.
Matt McGrath (3.55): well, I imagine you are in good voice for someone who has have been up for days, through the night here… um, lots of people talk about the pause, and the fact that the climate temperatures, surface temperatures over the last 15 years have not risen as fast as they were rising before that, and that people have pointed at that and say that there are some holes in your theory, what’s your take on that, after being here?
Peter Stott (4.10): We have always expected to have variability around the longer term trend, and that is exactly what we have seen, in fact we have done a very thorough assessment in this report about the last 15 years, and shown about the important role of the ocean, and also, our understanding of what’s called climate forcing, so these are drivers of the climate system, and we have put all this together, and in fact it is evidence from the last 15 years… the, the warming ocean, the retreating snow and ice, the changing rainfall patterns, the continuing sea-level rise, and this evidence is so strong, of the dominant role of human influence on the climate system.
Matt McGrath (4.45): People have said that the heating, the heating from the pause, might have gone into the oceans, is there enough evidence to substantiate that at the this point ?
Peter Stott (4.55): Um, we have got very clear evidence that the ocean is warming, and that a huge amount of energy that is going into the ocean, and that reflects this imbalance of the climate system that we have, and so we got, we have this beautiful illustration that I presented to the delegates here in Stockholm, that shows that, that continuing rise in energy in the climate system, expressed through not just the warming oceans, but then that melt of the Arctic Sea ice, we had record Arctic sea ice extent, it has changed global rainfall patterns, its, its, its changed extremes as well, more extreme weather…
Matt McGrath (5.25): and it is a clear linear relationship, so that the more you pump into the atmosphere, the more the temperature goes up, its… in a very complex system it is as simple as that?
Peter Stott (5.35): This is a very important new piece of science actually, that again, we explained it in great detail to the delegates here, we all wanted to look at it very very thoroughly, and, despite all the complexities of the climate system, there is this very clear linear relationship between the overall emissions of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, carbon dioxide, and the global temperature rise, so the more we emit, the more the temperature increases.
Matt McGrath (6.00): And people talk about the dangerous 2 degree level, from what you have seen, from what we know now, are we going to blow right past that, and if so, when? Peter Stott (6.05): Well there is still, still time, we showed we showed different scenarios, and the point about this is that what happens about the future depends very much on what we emit, and there is still a chance to avoid 2 degrees if you like, but it very depends on the scenario of the next, of the coming years, the next few years actually.
Matt McGrath (6.25): And we have had conversations like this before, in 2007, 2008 and 2009, leading to political inaction, why will things be any different now?
Peter Stott (6.30): We have this new report, and this is the the most thorough report, if you look at the document released today in Stockholm, it goes right across the climate, it is the most thorough document, it is the most thoroughly reviewed ever, and so this is really something the policy makers have owned in Stockholm, and now they have to take this document on and and, take it into account.
Matt McGrath (6.25): Okay, that remains for another day, Peter Stott, thank-you very much for talking to us, and back to you in in, in Falsham (?).
Shelagh Fogarty (studio, 7.00): Thank-you, that’s exactly where we are, thank-you Matt, Matt McGrath, the BBC’s environment correspondent. Listening to that was Dr Emily Shuckburgh, the head of Open Oceans, at the British Antarctic Survey, and I will talk to Andrew Montford in a moment as well, who is a writer, blogger and climate change sceptic. Dr Shuckburgh, on that question that Matt was raising there with Peter Stott, about this pause, the hiatus as it is called in the report, since I think ‘98 that there has been no evidence, or the Earth’s temperature sorry, hasn’t gone above the global average, and sceptics have leapt on this, perhaps understandably, and said ‘now where’s your continuing endless climate change’, what’s your thought on why that pause has happened?
Emily Shuckburgh (7.40): Well first of all it is important to understand what is being described here, so in fact the last three decades have seen increasing temperatures, decade by decade, and so when people talk about a pause, it is more of a plateau actually, we are still at record warm temperatures, and as was described by Peter, um just now, if we consider the Earth as a whole, then, although the surface temperatures haven’t warmed significantly over the last 15 years, we have seen many other changes in, around the Earth, we have seen record Arctic sea ice decrease over this time period and we have also seen continued sea level rise, so what’s been happening is that we can tell from satellite data that the heat trapped by greenhouse gases, has continued, but that heat has been re-distributed, around other parts of the Earth.
Shelagh Fogarty (8.35): Well into the oceans? because that is far from proven, is it?
Emily Shuckburgh (8.40): Well we do have um observations of the ocean, which show that the oceans have been warming…
Shelagh Fogarty (8.45): But we don’t know why, do we? We don’t know why.
Emily Shuckburgh (8.48): Well we do know that the heat has been going from the atmosphere into the oceans, but we don’t have a long record of the temperatures of the deep ocean, and so it is that, that eh, deep ocean that we would like better understand how much heat is going into that deep ocean.
Shelagh Fogarty (9.00): What about what that report says on sea levels,. because its 2007 report was criticised for the claims it made on rising sea levels, and in this report, it is claimed that by the year 3000 (sic) I think it is, they expect sea levels to be what 2½ feet, 80cm higher than now, in your view what would that result in? In the UK for instance?
Emily Shuckburgh (9.25): So that’s by the end of this century, um, the upper projection is just under 1m of sea level rise, that is the maximum that is anticipated by this report, and to put that into a UK context, if you think of the Thames Barrier, which was built some 30 years ago now, to protect London from flooding, at the time it was built, it was built to protect London from a 1 in a 1000 year storm, um and associated flood, um if you had 50cm of sea level rise then that would reduce down to only protecting London from a 1 in say, 250 year storm flood, and if it went up to a metre, which is considered unlikely but possible, then that would only protect London um, from an event that would occur one in every 10 years.
Shelagh Fogarty (10.15): And if someone listening to this in their house, and is sitting listening to you, and looking at their 3 different types of recycling bins, and their environmentally friendly shopping bags from the supermarket, and they are putting a sweater on rather than turn on the heating because it is getting a bit chilly now it is nearly October, and thinking, this is so huge, surely, me and a few other people doing this, in one country isn’t going to make the difference.
Emily Shuckburgh (10.40): Well you know, I can understand easily how one thinks about it, it is difficult to imagine how our individual actions could make a difference to such a huge problem, but at the same time, our individual actions have generated the problem in the first place, so it is case that each of us, doing our bit, can make a difference, and one of the things that was mentioned in your report just now, is one of the key new messages from this new climate report, is that the temperature that we will anticipate in the future is absolutely dependent on the amount of emissions we put into the atmosphere, so everybody who puts in an extra little bit of greenhouse gas emissions is contributing to that future temperature rise…
Shelagh Fogarty (11.36): however small…
Emily Shuckburgh (10.36): however small.
Shelagh Fogarty (11.36): Okay, thank-you very much, Dr Shuckburgh…
-----------
Reader Comments (60)
Fact checking: where to start? They are making it up on the hoof and not very imaginatively. Let me have a go.
Ocean acidification due to increased carbon dioxide is now corroding holes in the thermocline and the heat is falling through those into the deep ocean.
"...we have got this new evidence, which shows very clearly that the dominant cause of the warming is human influence through basically what we have done to the climate system, we have warmed it up, emitted greenhouse gases, so human influence on the climate system is clear, and now we have had this extraordinary thorough analysis of evidence this week, and this is a really strong and robust conclusion about the dominant role of human influence on the climate system. "
So there you have it.
Ans it's now a linear relationship. (You cannot make this stuff up.)
All those models and the complexity that we apparently don't understand and all those variables - Oh, no. It's a linear relationship between the two of them. CO2 released is proportional to temperature increase. Who'd a bleedin' thunk it. eh?
Well, lots of joined-up thinking, er, um, there. Time to bring in Professor Kevin Anderson of Manchester University who, in the magisterial "Getting to Four Degrees" said, and I jolly well quote:
“I mean there are some things in science, you know, gravity will remain roughly the same, there will be lots of things in science that remain the same. And therefore we can say quite a lot about the physical makeup of the world. And if you know there’s 9 million billion people in there about how they may respond.”
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/audio/getting-four-degrees If we'd had brains like this running our scientific counermeasures in WW2 where would we be today?
Terrible when journalists like Shelagh just take the pisz. No-one like to see that happen.
I was thinking about this IPCC charade and wondering what they can possibly hope to gain from it. Then something from my distant poker playing past came to mind.
The IPCC have gone "All In".
They know they cannot survive another hand after this one so what is there to lose?
Trouble is they have left the likes of Stott and Shuckburgh burbling incoherently by the wayside. They should have warned the zealots that this was the last hand so that they could sneak away from the table.
No, No, No.
The needle is stuck in the groove.
I thought this twit was paid to observe - I want my taxes back.
You can't talk, or explain - to people who are not rational and Emily is right out there and away with the fairies.
The IPCC, is about politics, someone please explain to me - why, why were they allowed to present another assessment saying the same things, the same unproven, modelled speculation - that they were uttering way back in 1990?
And finally:
BBC link.
I get it, it's only "statistically significant" when it's warming, otherwise, ie, cooling - it signifies nothing - oh yes indeed - a bit like the sound and fury at the IPCC.
Good old Phil, what ever happened to him, oh yeah ...........another comfy sinecure peddling the myth of global warming on some other British campus, proof, if proof were needed - it's not what you know, it's how you say it, even if it is a load of bull's manure.
Matt Mcgrath is dreadful. Earlier on in the week he wrote an article about how the pause was central to the IPCC. After the press conference on Friday he said the evidence for the pause was slight and it was just an aberration. Well Matt, you didn't say that earlier. Are you just a parrot or do you fact check anything? Surely a good journalist would have been able to check for themselves before the IPCC press conference and deduce if the evidence for the pause was slight. You probably don't have the specialist skills to do that and were unwilling to pick up the phone and ask. As it was he looked stupid, on Monday saying the pause was real and on Friday saying it wasn't.
After last week's performance all I can say is that he is a worthy successor to Richard Black.
And by the way, what are McGraths qualifications. Surely not another example of the BBC appointing a specialist correspondent who has no relevant experience!
There was talk here the other day of third rate scientists. These two don't even make 10th rate. And they get air-time and influence. No wonder there is no future for this country.
No one seems to have asked about the MWP, when the warmists talk about record decadal temperatures. The current high mean surface global temperatures are certainly around the same now, as they were during the MWP. Could be slightly higher, could be slightly lower. But certainly within fractions of a degree.
Sep 29, 2013 at 6:08 PM | Brent Hargreaves
We'd be ruled by the Germans! ...Oh, wait ...
Matt McGrath (2.30): […] I think that one of the clear things that comes out of today’s report is the focus on the science, the absolute, that, you know that Thomas Stocker said that we are not here just to make headlines, [...]
But, as Richard North pointed out, this wasn't 'the report', it contained no science and its only purpose was 'to make headlines'.
What is it with these people?
Sorry .. http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84361
@LucyP. Yes, I noticed the same thing (McGrath blowing, er, hot and cold. Sorry. Getmecoat.)
A couple of days before IPCC-day BBC TV News had a major caption behind their newsreaders: "Global Warming: No Rise Since 1998". Joy of joys, I have framed copies at work and home. By Friday it was, "You're all going to fry!"
We slag off the Harrabins, the Blacks, the Grays etc., but is the propaganda machine driven from higher? Harrabin an innocent victim of bullyboy bosses who make him spout this nonsense for the sake of his - sob - family?
How do these expert climate scientists have the gall to make such pronouncements?
Another example of someone who should know better being interviewed:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/climate-change/july-dec13/climate2_09-27.html
They really have gone all in. Is there no legal mechanism by which Stott can be called to book for deliberately making the statement that CO2 has a linear relationship with temperature? He is after all paid by the tax payer. If he believes his statement then he should be sacked by the Met Off. immediately.
Good news, as I'm sure most here know, the only coverage of the IPCC in the Sunday Telegraph and Times were critical inside page stories. Amazing. Will Geoffrey Lean leave the DT?
It is appalling that Peter Stott, head of the MO's Climate Monitoring and Attribution Team should claim there is a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature.
He should either make a public retraction or resign.
This is liar-level stuff. We can only hope incompetence. Btw if he's sober does that mean the others are drunk? Some explanations at last.
Regarding my comment at 7.48, I would willingly contribute £50 or more towards legal fees if lots of others did too, assuming there is a mechanism and a chance of success.
The blatant propaganda from people like Stott, Shuckburgh and so many others has gone on too long and the only remedy, it seems to me, is to take them to court.
Many thanks to Lapogus for the transcript! I've also posted it here:
https://sites.google.com/site/mytranscriptbox/home/20130927_r5
There's also a gem of a quote from Ed Davey, from earlier in the programme (my bold):
Stott and Shuckburgh are truly "all in." Apparently, they have lost the ability to fire up the old imagination and project themselves into the future. They are truly fearless. In the court of public opinion and in the court of scientific opinion, they will pay dearly for their words and for the stand they have taken.
If you decide that CO2 generates feedbacks then you can make the CO2 and temperature relationship a straight line. Whether it's true or not... Climate scientists don't mention the complicated stuff in case someone asks them to prove it. They would merely say they were keeping things simple for the audience.
Only because they have nothing to fear. They will never be held accountable for anything they say provided it is on message, and they know it.
And so it goes for the rest of the public sector, of which climate change hysteria is very much a product.
As I mentioned in another post, please ask Lindzen, Carter, Svensmark, Shaviv or any other 'climate expert' to speak for sceptics when you are invited to appear on the mainstream media. Otherwise we have sceptics described variously as 'bloggers' 'think-tank reps' or 'not climate scientists'. As credible as you are, and as logical your points, it suits the warmist media to let the public think it is scientists against, with respect, amateurs.
Alex Cull
I think we will have to stop debating whether Ed Davey is the dimmest bulb in the box, Because the evidence is 97% overwhelming. What did the country do to deserve this cretin.
Leniency? Possibly even forgiveness.
Thanks Alex Cull and Lapogus. That's an interesting quote from Ed Davey.
Earlier on today I was holding a debate with myself about whether I would be exaggerating if I described the AR5 SPM as possibly the most dishonest public document to ever disgrace the name of science. I haven't yet come to a decision.
The overwhelming feeling I get from the transcript and other coverage is that even the warmists don't believe any of it any more. Previously they had the dead-eyed certainty of the zealot; now they have the stumbling inanity of someone who knows they are lying, and knows that everybody knows. But they have to go through the charade because their salary (for now) depends on it. One could almost pity them.
So, the heat in the atmosphere, caused by the increase in CO2, caused by us feckless lot, would normally be expected to result in the heated air to rising, and cooler air to flow in to take it’s place and so on, until the upper atmosphere gets really hot, and this can be measured and all that.
Separately, when we heat water in a pan, we place the heat source beneath the pan, we don’t place it above the top of the water. That would be silly, wouldn’t it? The reason we behave in this manner (the heat beneath the pan) is because we have found out that warm water rises. So the top layer gets hotter and cooler water flows down from the sides to the warm bottom, and then gets heated and so on, just like the air.
And know we know that despite all of this CO2 excess, the reason the planet didn’t warm it’s silly self, is because the heat from the newly heated air is GOING DOWN, not UP. Now, isn’t that curious?
And we further know now that this heated air is heat-polluting the top surface of the oceans, and the newly heat-polluted water is taking it’s heat downwards!
OK, that’s believable, because 95% of scientists tell me so. They tell me that hot air moves downwards into the oceans and newly warmed hot water in it's turn moves downwards.
But I wonder how the very hot continental deserts dispose of their heat-pollution? Does it slither inconspicuously along the 1,000 miles or so of the continental surface, until it can sneakily creep into the sea?
Skeptics in the desert.
Today in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, I was interviewed by Dubai Eye 103.8 (probably the most listened to current affairs radio show) for a reaction to the release of the IPCC SPM.
FWIW, the short (< 10 mins) podcast is here
https://www.wetransfer.com/downloads/7006caf1a9a4ebc519e11e1683944c5520130929181325/e25ec6ec7fc434e0c3894d6b97a36e8620130929181325/91f232
Emily Shuckburgh (8.48): "Well we do know that the heat has been going from the atmosphere into the oceans"
"We" do? What heat? From what observations? What physical process/mechanism? What scientific study (hopefully studies) documents this phenomenon? What does WGI cite - anything?
If Shuckburgh and the IPCC can't answer those questions, they've got nothing at all to support their anthro-origin-heat-going-into-the-ocean assertion. Stocker says there's "not enough literature".
1950 - 2009 was the modern solar Grand Maximum so there was certainly more short-wave energy going into the oceans than there was for at least 1000 years, radiatively, and naturally.
But downwelling long-wave infrared radiation that would originate from GHGs (let alone aGHGs) and clouds can only penetrate the ocean surface around 10 microns (Hale and Querry 1973, and other corroborations).
And the ocean surface is on global average about 3 C WARMER than the air above so there's no readily apparent temperature gradient for a sensible heat transfer. Any air => sea sensible heat transfer (if even possible in the quantities required) would therefore be confined to the tropics.
The IPCC only "expects" their mechanism to be "air-sea fluxes". Nothing else. They don't elaborate on whether radiative or sensible heat energy transfer, or both, or where, or what quantity. They have a lot more work to do before this particular premature idea has any credibility whatsoever.
Keith
copied and pasted address but it didn't work. Can you check it please.
A week ago Stott wrote about the upcoming IPCC report on the Met Office website and got the role of the IPCC wrong in the first sentence, see
http://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/a-new-blog-for-the-new-ipcc-report/
though the mistake was promptly corrected.
Is someone transcribing the discussion with the other person they interviewed?
My theory about any increase in deep sea temperatures, according to Paul Nurse, has to be refuted by a better theory for it to be overturned. So, I reveal my theory here, mechanism and process, and challenge climate science to come up with a better one.
Spontaneous combustion of starfish.
So let us now hear the climate science one.
It seems like one of those situations where a large part of losing is to admit that you've lost, so they're going to burble on and certainly not admit that they've lost.
The wheels on the CAGW bandwagon are getting a bit wobbly, but it's still rolling along. May as well whistle a cheerful tune and ride it for as long as possible, there's no point jumping off and walking before you have to. Something may turn up.
@ Paul Matthews (10:26 PM), absolutely - will aim to post it early tomorrow. :)
ssat
You want the truth!
You can't handle the truth, but here it is anyway.
At the precice point that the atmosphere interacts with the ocean, there is a quantum
effect which takes place in one of the extra (rolled up) dimensions predicted by M8 theory.
This creates a microscopic singularity which transforms photons into photrons.
These photrons attract nough higgs bosons to enable them to sink into the deep ocean,
carrying their extra heat to depths of several hundred metres.
See, told you you couldn't handle it.
Slightly late PS
The information in my previous post came straight from the horse mouth,
the location of which (said mouth that is) I am reliably informed, is just
beneath its tail.
Some of the people posting comments here seem to doubt that heat can get into the oceans but tropical seas are warmer than the seas around Britain.
Heat gets into the oceans from increased solar SW energy which penetrates up to 180 m for UV.
The IPCC argument of accelerated warming by more IR 'back radiation', with no experimental proof, fails on two counts. Firstly there is no 'back radiation'. Secondly, even if it diode exist, in tropical seas all of the energy is lost as latent heat from evaporation.
Roy,
They are claiming heat in deep oceans. The surface waters are measured, the deep waters are not.
"ome of the people posting comments here seem to doubt that heat can get into the oceans but tropical seas are warmer than the seas around Britain."
Which has something to do with latitude and tilt of the earth's axis - and consequent energy differential calculated in joules per square km - over to you Alex.
It could get colder if it gets warmer:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10337064/IPCC-report-Britain-could-cool-if-Gulf-Stream-slows.html
"For the first time, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due to give a clear prediction of how global warming will affect currents in the Atlantic Ocean. It will say that the circulation of warm and cold water in the Atlantic, which includes the Gulf Stream, will weaken by 20 to 44 per cent by the end of the century. Scientists claim that such a slow-down in the Gulf Stream will have a big impact on Britain, causing cooling of about 1.8F (1C) and disrupting weather patterns."
This has been pushed before and a letter on the subject from Dr Carl Wunsch, Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology was published in “Nature” 428, 601, April 8, 2004): (Dr Wunsch is not known as a "denier").
“Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns”
"European readers should be reassured that the Gulf Stream’s existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet. The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both."
The Telegraph report also said:
"The Gulf Stream carries warm water from the equator to the west coast of Britain, making the country’s climate warmer than it otherwise would be."
In 2002 Seager et al showed this to be false:
The Source of Europe’s Mild Climate Original published in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 128(586): 2563-2586), 2002. Richard Seager et al http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu//papers/qj.pdf
In 2006, he was very angry that the Gulf Stream story was in vogue still:
"The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth."
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/num2/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate/5
"The play that the doomsday scenario has gotten in the media—even from seemingly reputable outlets such as the British Broadcasting Corporation—could be dismissed as attention-grabbing sensationalism. But at root, it is the ignorance of how regional climates are determined that allows this misinformation to gain such traction. The blame lies with modern-day climate scientists who either continue to promulgate the Gulf Stream-climate myth or who decline to clarify the relative roles of atmosphere and ocean in determining European climate.
This abdication of responsibility leaves decades of folk wisdom unchallenged, still dominating the front pages, airwaves and Internet, ensuring that a well-worn piece of climatological nonsense will be passed down to yet another generation"
Yet here we are in 2013 and these scientists, paid from the public purse, are still repeating the same thing and the media happily pass it around.
<quote>Keith
copied and pasted address but it didn't work. Can you check it please.
Sep 29, 2013 at 10:06 PM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia</quote>
Worked for me using VLC.
It seems that as I watch this long slow train wreck the climastroligists trip over themselves to attach more boxcars.
"Thank you for talking to us, Andrew Montfort, who is a writer, and blogger and who is clearly a climate change sceptic."
Yes, clearly!
I think that was a compliment.
This reminds me of an old market trader term, a "Rio spread". It means leveraging up your trades as much as you can in one direction. If you get it right, you've made a fortune. If if goes against you, you're on the plane to Rio.
"Shelagh Fogarty (9.00): .....and in this report, it is claimed that by the year 3000 (sic) I think it is, they expect sea levels to be what 2½ feet, 80cm higher than now,.....
Emily Shuckburgh (9.25): So that’s by the end of this century......"
?!?
Regarding this linear relationship, I was under the impression that the CO2 forcing was logarithmic with respect to CO2 concentrations.
Where does the linear bit come to play?