Bishop Hill Delta farce
Jan 5, 2015 Climate: IPCC Climate: WG2 I awoke this morning to find notification of a tweet from Jan Pascal van Ypersele, the vice chairman of the IPCC. He had tweeted the image of a new graph from the Japanese Met Office suggesting something of a leap in global temperatures in 2014. I had pointed out that the long-term trend marked on the graph was, at just 0.7°C, hardly the stuff of nightmares.
At this point, our exchange was interrupted from a environmentalist who pointed to the current wildfires in South Australia and one to problems in the delta of Bangladesh. His point was somewhat obscure in relation to what van Ypersele and I had been discussing, so I ignored these contributions, but it seems that the great man felt that the Bangladesh point was worth a wider audience and he retweeted to his followers:
Here's the original:
@aDissentient @Sustainable2050 @JPvanYpersele You're probably not a Bangladeshi subsistence farmer. Conspiracy? http://t.co/jgurhF8Zzm
— David Hoyle (@VeteranDave) January 4, 2015
The link is to a story in the Sydney Morning Herald which tells of farmers being driven from their lands by rising seas and is based on a report from the Asian Development Bank. It's a familiar story.
It's worth recalling, however, that sea level rise is only one of several factors in play in the delta area of Bangladesh. The area of the delta is affected not only by rising seas, but also by the continual discharge of sediment from the rivers that feed it. I had thought that the simplistic story that the delta was disappearing had been killed by research published in 2008, which showed that the area of the delta has increased. Interestingly, one of the threats to this process is the advent of hydroelectric dams upstream in India. So the preference for renewables over fossil fuels may well be the real threat to the delta.
The authors of the SMH story also want you to believe that salinity issues are leading to a vast loss of agricultural land:
The proportion of arable land has fallen 7.3 per cent between 2000-2010, faster than South Asia's 2 per cent decline, with geography playing a large role.
The problem is that the World Bank's data finds that there has been no fall in the proportion of agricultural land. In fact there has been an almost uninterrupted increase in production of rice in Bangladesh and I think I'm right in saying that most of this comes from the delta.
This is not to say that there aren't salinity problems, but salinity is a complex issue with multiple factors at play - see overview here. Given what we know about the increase in size of the delta it's hard to imagine that sea level rise is a major factor. And given that the climatic contribution to sea level rise is at present nugatory, I think we can say that the SMH story is largely nonsense.
Reader Comments (43)
Any minute now David Hoyle will post his apology for spreading false information.
Sarc
When I attended the Royal Society meeting to hear their reaction to Judith Curry's "climate models are not fit for purpose", I also happened to hear a presentation about research on longer term forecasting of floods in Bangladesh.
It turned out that the group were having success with weekly forecasts that gave a reasonable enough prediction of flooding so that many lives could and HAD been saved.
But this research that had proven it could save lives was being ignored and instead the funding is going to pathetic useless twats like the above tweeter.
That's Bangladesh's real problem. Arrogant selfish Western climate academics who care nothing about the deaths they cause by fuel poverty (I also leant that even in India more people die in the winter), spend their time denying funding to projects that do save lives in order to give to "research" intended to increase fuel poverty and kill people.
These people: they have their snouts so deep in the trough of public funding that they can't see their own hypocrisy lies and heartlessness.
Arable land as % land area
2010 2011 2012
Bangladesh 59.5 58.6 59.0
Last figures from the world bank.
Of course the data forming this hockey-stick graph would have absolutely no impact on the situation.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Bangladesh_population_1900to2010.svg/2000px-Bangladesh_population_1900to2010.svg.png
The Sydney Morning Herald is Alarmist Central. They even had a Carbon Economy Editor for a while, whatever that means.
Strictly budgie cage liner, not fit for anything else.
Hi.
Your link to Increased land mass? So 7billion tonnes of silt per year being deposited is actually a good thing?
Pretty narrow and selective interpretation I feel.Farmer A loses land due to rising sea level, but farmer B gains due to silt deposition. According to your view: no problem!
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0902/full/climate.2009.3.html
Try reading with an open mind.
@ johanna:
Agreed. A would-be imitator of The Guardian, and losing circulation rapidly (more so than most other major papers).
Ironically The Guardian now has an australia version which will eat into their alarmist cousin's circulation, so it dies the death of a thousand cuts.
Re the bush fires in South Australia, I am somewhat closer to them than the SMH. It is very hard for any logical person to believe they are the result of rising CO2/Climate Change etc. when the BIG fires were 1866, 1939, 1955, 1983 and 2009. They have far more to do with the weather, e.g. a couple of wet years brings lots of growth** followed by a year with a dry spring then a few hot days in summer (caused by strong NW winds from the hot interior).
** which were usually reduced by spring controlled burn offs, until the Greenies objected. Following the disaster of 1983 they are generally ignored, but they still try to control the local Councils and prevent burning, removal of dying trees etc.
Well, Veteran Dave, it does seem to be having a positive effect on rice production.
Veteran Dave
Let us try this in words that are easy to understand.
Bangladesh is increasing its land mass because of the amount of silt brought down into the delta.
Quoting from the BBC report linked to above ...
"This was due ... to the billion tonnes of sediment that the Ganges, the Brahmaputra and 200 other rivers bring from the Himalayas each year before crossing Bangladesh.
Only about a third of this sediment, he said, makes it into the Bay of Bengal.
Much of the rest is dumped in Bangladesh's vast delta, attaching itself to river banks, or even creating new islands.
Mr Sarkar said that in the next 50 years this could add up to the country gaining 1,000 square kilometres."
OK so far, Dave? Anything in there you have a problem with? Guy on the ground who ought to know what he's talking about says Bangladesh growing in size by 20 sq km a year.
Guy who works for the IPCC says that his computer models (he talks about a "projection"; I tend to talk about "guesswork", personally) say different. He thinks on no empirical evidence that sea-level rise will be disastrous for Bangladesh.
Sarkar knows based on empirical evidence (aka observation or 'fact' as we call it) that at the present time at least that is not likely to be the case.
Open minds all round!
By the way, muchos kudos to you for sticking your neck into this lions' den and defending you pov!
No.3,
Also dont forget the role Greens played in the 2009 fires because farmers were forced, by pain of imprisonment, NOT to clear fire breaks and cut back trees that would eventually add, pardon the pun, fuel to the fire!
Mailman
@ Veteran Dave at 11:25 AM
I note you selectively replied about just one aspect.
Do you consider the hockey-stick graph I linked to at 10:14 has any effect?
A simple 'Yes' or 'No' will suffice.
Jan 5, 2015 at 11:25 AM | Veteran Dave
It would be worth thinking through the problem.
As sea levels rise, land will initially be above the level of say, once in a century storm surges, will experience the problems of once in a decade storm surges, then might become vulnerable to annual spring tides.
With 3.2mm of sea level rise a year, annually there might be no loss of land. If that rate of sea level rise is maintained (asnit has for the last 20 years from satellite data), flood defences of one metre high (or one metre higher than existing) would mean that the new defences resolve the problem for 300 years.
If sea level rises are the rate of the IPCCs gloomiest predictions those flood defences will still last out the century.
This alarmist report shows that the writer knows nothing about natural delta processes which cause the land to sink. Seas have been rising by up to 3mm per year, not enough to cause problems, but delta processes cause land sinking by many meters a year.
Deltas provide very rich fertile soil which is why people live there to grow crops not because there is nowhere else to live. But the downside is flood threats with every high tide or storm surge.
Bangladesh is more than half delta which is the largest on the planet and sediment will be many kilometers thick.
Delta's are a self-healing system. If the sea level rises then the slow down of river water and the deposition of silt takes place earlier in the delta building the delta up. The worst thing that can happen for maintenance of a rich delta is a reduction in sea level; then the river runs faster toward the sea and carries silt with it. The absolute worst case probably espoused as a cure for the problem by Veteran Dave, is the canalization of the river so that Farmer A can rest assured that his land will not be washed away by a new meander in the river as sea level rises. This does stabilize the land of Farmer A for a short while but then the delta starts dying as the accelerated river flow between levees takes all the silt out to the deeper sea. This is the reason that the barrier islands formed from Mississippi silt South of New Orleans are slowly disappearing.
Veteran Dave ought to ask himself how the continual sea level rise from the start of the Holocene has not destroyed the Bangladesh delta. Observation used to trump conjectures written in software.
This 3.2mm/year rise in sea-level is based on the latest measurements. However, Nils Axel Morner still maintains that the average rate rise last century was only about 2mm/year! Studies also suggest that sea-level will generally fall due to the sheer weight of water on the sea-bed. Little mention is made in other studies of isostatic rebound, where in many countries the land has rising sea-level behind!
Ian. You nailed it! Good work.
Ian W
I don't know about Veteran Dave, whose solution to the Bangladesh non-problem would probably for us all to stop using fossil fuels since that is apparently the only solution that enviro-activists have to just about everything, but the IPCC apparatchik Rahman (quoted in the BBC report linked to in the main piece) appears to think that the answer lies in the first instance in a "village-by-village survey of coastal Bangladesh".
Why does that not surprise me? It's called displacement activity, the bureaucrat's go-to substitute for useful work.
Mike, all those billions that they are demanding for the Third World won't just spend themselves, you know.
johanna
I wouldn't mind if it was being spent on Third World people instead of people doing meaningless things and pretending they're for the Third World.
It always amazes me the extent to which western politicians are so easily convinced that the money the fling around in aid (our money!) actually hits those they are supposedly aiming it at.
I suspect Veteran Dave would rather all that silt be washed out to sea, raising the seabed and thus becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy that sea levels are rising.
Bishop : the climatic contribution to sea level rise is at present nugatory
How can one tell?
There was a big scare story a few years ago about the delta falling two meters or so under water due to rising sea levels. Anyone who knows Calcutta is well aware that if the Bay of Bengal rose by only one meter millions would be dead or displaced.
Vernon - displaced, possibly - but probably not dead - unless the rise all happened on one day?
Nice reply Ian.
Howard
P.Geol. M.Sc. Geology
These fires are "bush fires" to Australians, not "wild fires"
And thank you Ian
These fires are "bush fires" to Australians, not "wild fires"
And thank you Ian
Veteran Dave should perhaps heed his own advice and open his own mind.
Ian W is spot on. This principle applies to drowned valleys as well as deltas.
However, if the sea level improbably were to rise some metres in a very short period of time the delta would be under water until the delta was rebuilt: at feasible rates of sea level rise deltas of large rivers can easily keep pace, and rates of rise since the Late Glacial Maximum have at times been many times higher than recorded over the last century - great observation, Ian.
A sea level drop might be a problem initially, as this would rejuvenate the river system and cause erosion in the most seaward reaches of the river, but once the nick point had migrated sufficiently far inland (and rejuvenated all the tributaries as well) the sediment supply would increase.
Major river system deltas (e.g. Nile, Mississipi) can thus grow seaward both with rising AND falling sea levels. They may be ephemerally affected by storms, but are crucially affected by loss of the sediment supply.
johanna
I wouldn't mind if it was being spent on Third World people instead of people doing meaningless things and pretending they're for the Third World.
It always amazes me the extent to which western politicians are so easily convinced that the money the fling around in aid (our money!) actually hits those they are supposedly aiming it at.
Jan 5, 2015 at 3:14 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely. I am confident that in the unlikely event that they get their $100 billion fund for the Third World, almost all of it will be wasted.
Hi again. You certainly seem to have a like-minded readership!
My initial point was, your sarcastic use of #scary #not did not offer a world view. Some nations would be more scared than you, in your affluent first world ivory tower.
4 countries most at risk of sea level rise; Vietnam, Egypt, Tunisia and Indonesia.
http://m.irinnews.org/report/85179/global-twelve-countries-on-climate-change-hit-list#.VKsnA3gazCR
All have significant strategies to mitigate Climate Change.
http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/33916/files/viet-nam-environment-climate-change.pdf
http://www.climate.org/topics/international-action/egypt.html
You can find more, if you look.
You have other contributors citing the Tony Dum Dum Abbott line that 'Australia has always had bushfires'.
Ask the experts and they agree, Aust has an increasing fire danger level.
http://climatechange.slicedlabs.com.au/sites/climatechange/files/documents/04_2013/20100630-climate-fire-biodiversity-PDF.pdf
The thing that irks me most about the denial camp, is their ability to call Climate Change realists blind to the reality.
Atmospheric physisists, agriculturalists, fire fighters, Glaciologists, tourist operators, miners, insurance companies etc etc etc all agree on Climatr Change.
What have you guys got? A smattering of scientists. Mouthpieces of oil and gas companies. A gazillion bloggers. Not one major science institute or university in the world.
And yet, you mock the entire concept.
So yeah. I objected to your diminution of the rate of sea level rise. But it doesn't affect you (yet) so keep on blogging that everything is rosey and the world majority are nuts.
Try commenting utilizing a mind first.
Virtually everyone agrees on 'climate change'! If you think your teaching us about climate change, you're way off base.
So, you base your science on consensus? Very democratic of you; totally unscientific, but very democratic.
Trouble is, poll after poll identifies that catastrophic climate change ranks at the very bottom of almost everybody's list; except for those profiteers who depend on alarmism for their salaries. Anyway, the total democratic vote is in and CAGW alarmism fails, catastrophically.
As long as the politicians feed billions of dollars or Euros to those with their hands out, that will be the status quo. When climate science hits the fans, those same places will publicly fire the losers, claim innocence and start research into how the scam was perpetuated.
You mean that we here on this blog cause the sea level rise to be less? Less than 1.3-3mm per year? It's hard enough to get anyone to absolutely justify their measurement for sea level rise. Meanwhile tidal gauges in use for centuries are still in use and have yet to drown. Sure an earthquake drowned the former port of Alexandria, but what port has gone under since then?
Which brings people back to the question, where is sea level rise, caused by global warming that is, causing anyone actual trouble? That is, definitively show proof, not someone's white tower model for third world sea sides.
Been to Norfolk Virginia? Why not buy some shoreline real estate there? The locals believe all this consensus stuff on rising sea levels. Wink wink. You could all get great deals on beach houses.
http://www.virginiaplaces.org/climate/norfolkdrown.html
The denialist view on consensus is kind of weird. I'm a medico. To my knowledge, there is no PROOF that cigarettes cause cancer. http://www.forces.org/writers/soren/files/verdict.htm
Easy to find bloggers who agree. However, I do not know any of my colleagues in oncology, surgery, radiotherapy or palliative care who believe such bloggers. Most are prepared, in the absence of a proof to what is essentially unprovable, to accept the multitude of studies indicating a high probability smoking isn't good for you.
My question would be: do you understand the concept of scientific proof? Given that you oppose 99% of scientists who actually study climate, what actual proof do they need to provide to meet your high standards?
I'm guessing, the answer is that it can't be proven. It's not happening. Good luck with that.
@veteran dave
I think I'd be more impressed if your argument featured a lot more primary data and a lot less about other people's interpretations of it and their predictions of future doom.
But then I guess I did a practical hard science degree where such stuff is pretty important.
Think our Veteran Dave chap has been away for the last ten years & has missed whats gone on & why we are so confident now that cagw just aint happening. Very out of date...talking points from a decade ago.
Veteran Dave -
There's a recent discussion thread about sea level rise. In it, I cited the AR5 WG1 projection that under RCP6.0 emission scenario, the likely range of sea level rise over the century is 33 to 63 cm. It seems difficult to conceive of this being catastrophic.
As to your use of the word "denial", I think you have a rather cartoonish view of our understanding of science.
OK, veteran dave, let's take Norfolk Virginia. You claim 'the locals believe'.
30s of googling finds this
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2712-E-Ocean-View-Ave-Norfolk-VA-23518/2104564245_zpid/
Someone is asking $500,000 for a plot of land right on the bay. Now, what would that land be worth if there is rapid and accelerating sea level rise there?
Or this one, just sold last year for a similar figure.
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2413-Sandfiddler-Rd-Virginia-Beach-VA-23456/60760343_zpid/
That brown bit on the right of the picture; that's the beach.
So who know more about sea level rise in Virginia; you, or people buying building plots by the beach in Virginia?
Dave, may I remind you that Australia has only been settled by Europeans for a bit over 200 years? And that most of the place was empty of Europeans for most of that time? And that most of it still is? We know very little about the history of bushfires over a meaningful period of time across this vast brown land.
Anyone who claims otherwise is just making stuff up.
@ Ian W
We both agree on the processes.
If sea level falls the delta moves further seaward, the tidal part of the river moves upstream. It is flocculation that causes the clay particles to form sediment due to increasing salinity. Salinity helps the process.
You are correct that delta processes are well understood by geologists but not alarmist climateers unfortunately.
I see that according to Dave the Vet it is now 99% of "climate scientists"
Just when I was getting used to the 97% they go and change it.......
Interesting!?
I ask you to provide proof for disastrous sea level rise and you whine on about tobacco and lack of definitive proof. That must indicate you have a total lack of proof on sea level rise.
Yes, I often fish at Cape Charles just across the bay from Norfolk and Virginia Beach. Over several decades I've yet to see definitive proof that the ocean is higher. Kind of odd when you're fishing that one finds their eyes observing the familiar landmarks, piers, pillars, sunken ships and noting, with satisfaction, that waves wear consistent lines into semi-permanent objects.
I am still watching for that wear line to climb higher. Remember, observations trump models and assumptions in the world of science no matter who bleats out the assumptions; e.g. your imaginary 99% climatastrologists.
The 'Great Dismal Swamp' begins right on the outskirts of Norfolk and Virginia Beach and continues south into North Carolina. Odd how a swamp mere inches above the sea hasn't suffered from the drastic sea level rise... Great place to visit. Absolutely requires some sort of shallow draft vessel to really visit it. I also don't recommend staying exposed to the air when it gets dark.
I've also lived near Boston and happily visit Cape Cod and Plum Island whenever I get the chance.
I grew up near New Jersey's shore and visited it every summer and fall for a couple decades. Looked exactly the same last time I was there too, just a couple of years ago.
I lived in New Orleans for a while. No one in New Orleans that actually goes out on the water regularly is a believer in CAGW sea level predictions. Maybe some of the urbites living in ivory towers believe...
I've got a cousin living in South Carolina making his living shrimping and charter fishing. He's fully dependent on knowing how deep the sea is over large areas. Sea level rise? Not a problem in his life!
And so on and on... Experience and observations are absolute whenever observations are contrary to supposition!
Now about your so called proof?
Let's break this down some. Where is all of this water coming from that is causing the sea to rise?
Rivers haven't become larger so strike that source.
Antarctica is well below the freezing point of water year round. Only a few days climb above freezing in the very brief summer. That leaves the volcanoes along one peninsula melting some ice, but not enough to drastically increase sea levels.
The Arctic and Greenland also rarely reach surface temperatures well above 0C (32F). Waters transition point from solid to liquid requires significant periods above freezing for significant melt to occur; not just a few hours during the daytime as refreezing at night will impede water loss.
Again, where is your measured and verified significant freshwater sources for sea level rise beyond what has been measured and averaged for decades?
The supposed 'huge' increases in polar temperature have not increased temperatures high enough. Nor do they look like they will reach ice melting temperatures anytime soon.
Veteran Dave,
No doubt your keen understanding of sea level rise around Norfolk Virginia will allow you to identify the CO2 signal in the data at this two stations.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8638610
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8638660
Once you do, please point it out to the rest of us.
Yep. Bangaladesh IS a delta. The bigger, the bigger.