New data shows that Bangladesh's landmass is increasing, contradicting forecasts that the South Asian nation will be under the waves by the end of the century, experts say.
Scientists from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) have studied 32 years of satellite images and say Bangladesh's landmass has increased by 20 square kilometres (eight square miles) annually.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted that impoverished Bangladesh, criss-crossed by a network of more than 200 rivers, will lose 17 percent of its land by 2050 because of rising sea levels due to global warming.
Director of the US-based NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, professor James Hansen, paints an even grimmer picture, predicting the entire country could be under water by the end of the century.
AFP/Yahoo News: Bangladesh gaining land, not losing: scientists
"I suggest that you reread my post. I do not refer to direct quotes as hearsay quotes"
Really? Let me quote from your post above:
"Finally, note that not one of these statements is a direct quote from Mr. Hansen -- they are all statements by other people who are presenting their opinions of Mr. Hansen's beliefs."
As I subsequently pointed out, #1 and #2 are direct quotes from Hansen. #3 is quoted from his testimony before Congress. They are not 'their opinions of Mr. Hansen's beliefs', or 'hearsay' - but rather the words out his own mouth.
So what would your motive be in publishing something that is obviously and demonstrably false?
Ivan writes: "The fact that you continue to refer to these as "hearsay comments" is, quite frankly, simply being disingenuous."
I suggest that you reread my post. I do not refer to direct quotes as hearsay quotes, and in fact I talk about the DIFFERENCE between the two kinds of quotes, and further I discuss the content of the direct quotes.
With reference to sea level, you rely on cherry picking your data. Yes, there is some data that suggests that sea level has not risen. However, there is a great deal more data, and more reliable data, indicating that sea level is rising. It is not rational to pick the data you like and ignore the data that you don't like. Please see IPCC AR4 Section 5.5.
Lastly, your hypothesis on my internal thought processes is based on a selective interpretation of a tiny amount of data. You think climatology is complex? Try human cognition! 😉
"You take me to task for pointing out the difference between the hearsay comments and the direct quotes"
See my previous post.
Item #1 and #2 are taken from direct quotes. Item #3 is taken from direct testimony. James Mayeau previously provided a link to a paper authored by Hansen where he spcifically mentions "almost all of Bangladesh":
(www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/CanWeAvert_20070625.pdf)
The fact that you continue to refer to these as "hearsay comments" is, quite frankly, simply being disingenuous.
"You are apparently assuming that there is no evidence of sea rise anywhere on the globe...Thus, your premise is false."
Not only am I assuming it, but in my post at July 31, 2008 09:23 PM, above, I provided references whereby the notion of sea level rises in the Arctic, Pacific and Indian Oceans is challenged by measurement. The premise is not false, as you assert, but is supported by contemporaneous measurement, rather than by "manufactured" data from history.
The fact that you continue to ignore any of the substantive points that are made in the various comments and focus on the irrelevant (e.g. hearsay vs. direct quote) indicates to me that you are more interesting in sidetracking the discussion than debating the issues.
That's fine with me - but don't be disappointed if it all just keeps going around in circles.
Louis, I urge you to read IPCC AR4. You state that "AGW only considers polar ice cap melting as the sole factor affecting ocean volumes." This is false. Here's the relevant quote from IPCC AR4, (5.5.1, page 408):
"On decadal and longer time scales, global mean sea level change results from two major processes, mostly related to recent climate change, that alter the volume of water in the global ocean: i) thermal expansion (Section 5.5.3), and ii) the exchange of water between oceans and other reservoirs (glaciers and ice caps, ice sheets, other land water reservoirs - including through anthropogenic change in land hydrology, and the atmosphere; Section 5.5.5). "
It also discusses subsidence issues.
Ivan writes: "Of course - it's the standard weasel word in the AGW lexicon. Since they have no science, they can only run with the guessing game. "Could" and "If" appear in every AGW prediction."
No, these are qualitative statements of uncertainty. An honest scientist acknowledges the uncertainty associated with every measurement and every calculation. In a few cases, the uncertainty is small enough to be negligible. Most of the time, however, the uncertainty is non-negligible and the scientist has an ethical responsibility to report that uncertainty. And you criticize these scientists for their honesty?
"Localised D is greater than Global R. And this explains why areas not affected by D are not being submerged by R? A sort of sympathetic non-sinking phenomenon? Do you guys ever think through the nonsense you write?"
You are apparently assuming that there is no evidence of sea rise anywhere on the globe. Please see Figure 5.3 from IPCC AR4, which shows a rise of sea level of just under 200 mm in the last 130 years. Thus, your premise is false.
You take me to task for pointing out the difference between the hearsay comments and the direct quotes; however, there's a crucial difference between the hearsay quotes and the direct quotes: Mr. Hansen is careful to state the limitations of his statement, such as the long time range, the inherent uncertainties, and the contingencies. That's why I criticize the reliance on hearsay -- it's usually inaccurate.
"The quotes you provide all contain a common element:"
Dead right:
"inundated"
"disappear"
"drown"
Seems plain enough to me.
"Note also the use of the word "could" in every case."
Of course - it's the standard weasel word in the AGW lexicon. Since they have no science, they can only run with the guessing game. "Could" and "If" appear in every AGW prediction.
"Presently, D is greater than R, and so Bangladesh is gaining land area."
Let me see if I have got this right:
Localised D is greater than Global R. And this explains why areas not affected by D are not being submerged by R? A sort of sympathetic non-sinking phenomenon? Do you guys ever think through the nonsense you write?
"Finally, note that not one of these statements is a direct quote from Mr. Hansen"
This is a completely disingenuous statement. If you had bothered to follow the links, you would find that the first one directly references an interview conducted with Hansen (i.e. IS from direct quotes):
http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=4898
The second extensively quotes from Hansen's 'testimony' to Congress (i.e. IS from direct quotes)
And the third directly quotes from two of Hansen's works (i.e. IS extracted from direct quotes).
R is predicted to be rising? Based on one factor - melting ice masses?
What about land subsidence - and I know as a fact the existence recent raised beach strandlines inland from Tweed Heads in northern NSW. In fact I was drilling the submerged beach strandlines off Tweed Heads in 1970, some 6 fathoms under the sea. Looking for beach sand deposits.
So we have a recent submergences of old beaches, together with raised beaches of a comparable age inland.
And AGW only considers polar ice cap melting as the sole factor affecting ocean volumes.
The GCM's are somewhat incomplete.
First off, Ivan, to state that one is unaware of a fact is not to deny the fact. I think your insinuation is unfair.
The quotes you provide all contain a common element: they are long-range predictions. Note the time indicators:
"within the lifetime of children now being born now"
"by the end of the century"
"this century"
Note also the use of the word "could" in every case. Finally, note that not one of these statements is a direct quote from Mr. Hansen -- they are all statements by other people who are presenting their opinions of Mr. Hansen's beliefs. While such statements have some suggestive value, they're certainly not enough to hang your case on. Hearsay is never a solid form of evidence.
But let's get back to the point about the long range of the predictions. The evidence we have shows that Bangladesh has been gaining land area. That's because there is some silt deposition rate -- which I shall call D -- from the rivers flowing through it. There is also another factor at work: the rise in sea level due to the melting of ice, which I shall call R. Presently, D is greater than R, and so Bangladesh is gaining land area. However, if we predict that R is rising, then we conclude that at some point in the future R will exceed D, at which point Bangladesh will begin losing land area. Thus, there is no conflict between Mr. Hansen's statements and the evidence provided, and hence the headline of this article contains a false statement.
"nor am I aware of any such claim by Mr. Hansen"
Who are the denialists now?
Here..
(http://lightblueline.org/nasas-james-hansen-ipcc-forecast-climate-change-news-business)
"According to Hansen, large areas of Florida, East Anglia and the Netherlands, as well as many oceanic islands and most of Bangladesh, could be inundated within the lifetime of children now being born."
And here:
(http://www.topix.com/forum/world/bangladesh/TBJSRG1BU23254VMC)
"Bangladesh could disappear entirely by end of century: NASA"
And here:
(http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=43563)
"Johann Hari wrote: "[A]nd found that many climatologists think the IPCC is way too optimistic about Bangladesh. I turned to Professor James Hansen, the director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose climate calculations have proved to be more accurate than anybody else's. He believes the melting of the Greenland ice cap being picked up his satellite today, now, suggests we are facing a 25-metre rise in sea levels this century -- which would drown Bangladesh entirely.""
..amongst others.
I'd like to point out a fundamental flaw in the title of this post. I have not seen any claim by IPCC that Bangladesh would lose land area, nor am I aware of any such claim by Mr. Hansen. The IPCC AR4 mentions increased flooding in Bangladesh, but not loss of land area.
Thus, as far as I know, they are not "wrong again" in this case.
wes: So to say ""sea level is rising and has done so almost continuously since the first IPCC report in 1990" indicates that you didn't major in the earth sciences while at uni . .
Wes, you give David too much credit. I have my doubts given his statements that he has yet to make it out of grade school . . . He obviously needs to be taught!
Lesson 1:
Rise in sea level, driven by thermal expansion of the ocean has been consistent through the whole span of the 20th century regardless of CO2 levels:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise_png
The average temperature of the ocean is 4.8 deg C. The average surface temperature is about 12.5 deg. C. So you see my boy, it's still got a lot of warmin' and expandin' to go!
Lesson 2:
Measured sea levels are no actually dropping:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SeaLevel_TOPEX.jpg
Lesson 3:
The Arctic and Antarctic are recipients of a whopping 2.8% of the incident solar radiation to the earth. Basic math which you obviously don't understand my boy! Albedo schmeedo!
Now study up or you'll be held back a grade (again!)