UNIPCC AGR6 WG1 SPM page 5 makes the following highly misleading claim about sea level rise acceleration.

Below is why this statement is highly misleading.

1. In 1993 there was a switch in sea level rise measurements from tide gauges to satellites. The data for the latter is available from University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group. The main graph is below.

Figure 1 : Sea Level Rise data plot from University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group

2. From the data the average sea levels in 2018 were 43.8mm higher than in 2006. An average rise of 3.65mm yr-1. Rounded this is the IPCC’s 3.7mm yr-1

3. From the satellites from 1993 to 2006 sea levels rose by 37.5mm or 2.9mm yr-1. From the IPCC sea levels rose by 1.9 mm yr-1 from 1971 to 2006 or 66.5mm yr-1. Therefore from 1971 to 1993 from tide gauge data sea levels rose 29mm in 22 years or 1.32mm yr-1.

4. Simply by switching the method of calculating level rise from some averages of tide gauges to satellite observations doubles the rate of sea level rise. That is most apparent sea level rise acceleration is not in actual measurement. But how robust is the satellite data set?

5. The data I downloaded for the satellite tide data set was from Dec 1992 to Jul 2021. Sea levels rose by around 100.31mm in this period or nearly 4 inches. However, there are considerable changes from year to year. In the 28.5 years, the annual average of rate of rise was 3.5mm, but the rise in individual years varied from a fall of 1.65mm in 1998 to a rise 10.54mm in 2012. See Figure 2. The question is whether these changes are real or due to estimates.

Figure 2 – Change in annual average sea levels on previous year mm from the satellite sea level data set.

6. Actual readings are about 10 days apart, yet have significant differences from one to another both up and down. The average change between readings is 1.8mm or an absolute change of 1821mm or 18 times the net change. Figure 3 compares this with the net changes.

Figure 3 – Annual change & Sum of absolute changes between readings from the satellite data.                                        

7. Given that in the satellite data there is a small apparent acceleration of sea level rise in 28 years when total rise was 100mm or 1/18 of absolute changes in sea level from one reading to another, and given satellites give at least 2x the rate of rise as tide gauges how can anyone claim using that data that sea level rise is accelerating? With individual tide gauges there is at least a control over time as they are in fixed place, but where is the control from the satellite data? Especially given that the sea level varies by many metres across the surface of the earth and that the satellite data gives a completely different set of results to the tide gauges.

8. Regardless of whether the satellite data and the tide gauges give good estimates, the fact that they give significantly results means that splicing together is misleading.

9. The statement about sea level rise is at the summary level. One would expect in the full WG1 report to repeat this claim, then give some sort of justification for the splicing together of two datasets with quite different estimates. The relevant section is Chapter 9.6, starting on numbered page 1287, or pdf sheet 1304 of the full report, or pdf sheet 77 of the Chapter 9 download. I can find no restatement nor justification for the splicing two different data sets together, nor any explicit recognition that the two measures are quite different. The discussion of each set is in separate sections 9.6.1.1 & 9.6.1.2, but nothing to reconcile the two.

10. There is a claim of acceleration in tide gauge average seal levels in the period 1901 to 2010, despite there being no discernible acceleration in the calculated figure for 1901 to 1992 in the SPM statement.¹ But what does confining estimates of acceleration in the tide gauges to saying it was 1902–2010 (–0.002 to +0.019 mm yr–2) miss out?

• Even acceleration of +0.01 mm yr-2 is compatible with 1.3 mm yr-1 for both 1901-1971 and & 1971-1993, but not +0.019 mm yr–2.
• Top of the range acceleration of +0.019 mm yr–2 from 1902–2010 still leaves rates of sea level rise for the period 1993-2010 well below that of the satellites for the period 1993-2010.
• Quoting the same acceleration for the whole period 1902-2010 suggests that the data does not show significantly increased rates of sea level rise after 1990. If there was an increase in acceleration in the rate sea level in line with satellite measurements surely a report trying to demonstrate human-caused climate change would highlight this. After all, the rate of rise in CO2 levels accelerated in the late 1950s when Mauna Loa CO2 levels started to be recorded and the current warming phase only started in the late 1970s.
• The range –0.002 to +0.019 mm yr–2 includes zero. That is the data estimated range includes the null hypothesis that there was no acceleration in sea level rise in the period 1902–2010. For normal science this is a grave issue, but for post-normal science (based on a priori beliefs) it is irrelevant.

Concluding comments

The claim of accelerating sea level rise in UNIPCC AGR6 WG1 SPM is mostly based upon splicing together two different data sets. There is no attempt within the detailed report to justify this splicing. Further, the sea level rise acceleration estimate range from the tide gauges does not exclude zero, whilst the upper range does not allow convergence with the satellite data. Most of the implied acceleration in AR6 WG1 SPM Para A.1.7 is grossly misleading propaganda.

Notes

1. “The SROCC found that four of the five available tide gauge reconstructions that extend back to at least 1902 showed a robust acceleration (high confidence) of GMSL rise over the 20th century, with estimates for the period 1902–2010 (–0.002 to +0.019 mm yr–2) that were consistent with AR5. New tide gauge reconstructions published since SROCC (Dangendorf et al., 2019; Frederikse et al., 2020b) support this assessment and suggest that increased ocean heat uptake related to changes in Southern Hemisphere winds and increased mass loss from Greenland are the primary physical mechanisms for the acceleration (Section 2.3.3.3). Therefore, the SROCC assessment on the acceleration of GMSL rise over the 20th century is maintained.” (9.6.1.1 page 1287)

Kevin VS Marshall

Late last night there was an article at the BBC that I cannot find anymore on the BBC website. Fortunately my history still has the link.

The article linked to a pre-publication article in Nature from the team at Imperial College – Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe

On pdf page 16 of 18. Modelled estimates that by 4th May lockdowns across 11 countries saved 2.8 – 3.1 million lives.
From pdf page 6 / article page 5 there are four countries listed on the Fig 1, the last being the UK.

The graphics show for all countries that the day of the lockdowns saw a massive step reduction in daily new infections & the magic R. For the UK modelled daily infections spiked at over 400,000 on the day of the lockdown and were less than 100,000 the day after. R from around 4 at lockdown to 1 the day after. Prime Minister Boris Johnson gave a very powerful and sincere speech ordering the lockdown, but he did not realize how transformative the power of his words would be. It was the same in all the other countries surveyed. Further, all countries surveyed had a massive spike in infections in the few days leading up to lockdown being imposed. If only the wisdom of the scientists had been listened to a few days earlier – at slightly different dates in each country – then thousands of more lives could have been saved,

I believe that the key to these startling conclusions lies in the model assumptions not the data of the natural world. We have no idea of the total number of coronavirus cases in any country at the start of lockdown, just that the identified number of cases. Thus whilst the model estimates of the number of cases cannot be proved wrong, it is very unlikely. I can think of five reasons to back up my claim, with particular reference to the UK.

First, the measures taken prior to the lockdown had no impact on coronavirus cases and hardly any on R. This includes the stopping of visitors to care homes, social distancing measures, voluntary closing of public places like pubs and the start of home working.

Second, Prime Minister Boris going on TV ordering a lockdown had an immediate impact. Same for other leaders, such as President Macron in France. This is nonsense. People were locked down in households, so there would have still been infections within the households in the few days after lockdown.

Third, we know that many of the coronavirus deaths were of people infected whilst in a hospitals or care homes of people who were infected within care homes. The lockdown did not segregate people within those communities.

Fourth, the assumed pre-lockdown spike followed by a massive drop in daily new infections was not followed a few days later by any such corresponding pattern in daily deaths. It is far easier to make the case for a zero impact of lockdowns rather than this extreme impact. The truth, if perfect data were available, is likely to be nearer zero lives saved than 3 million.

Fifth, in Italy the lockdown was not imposed nationally on the same day. The North of Italy was locked down first, followed by the rest of the country some days later. Like with the imposition of less draconian measures pre-lockdown in the UK, this should have seen a less immediate effect than suggested by Figure 1.

Are the authors and peer-reviewers at Nature likely to be aware of the problems with the headline BBC claims and the underlying paper? Compare the caption to “Extended Data Table 1” (pdf page 16)

Forecasted deaths since the beginning of the epidemic up to 4th May in our model vs. a counterfactual model assuming no interventions had taken place.

to the report from the BBC;

Lockdowns have saved more than three million lives from coronavirus in Europe, a study estimates. …….

They estimated 3.2 million people would have died by 4 May if not for measures such as closing businesses and telling people to stay at home.

That meant lockdown saved around 3.1 million lives, including 470,000 in the UK, 690,000 in France and 630,000 in Italy, the report in the journal Nature shows.

from the Evening Standard;

Around three million deaths may have been prevented by coronavirus lockdowns across Europe, research suggests.

from yahoo! News;

By comparing the number of deaths against those predicted by their model in the absence of interventions, the researchers believe that  3.1 million deaths have been averted due to non-pharmaceutical measures.

and from eCAM Biomed – GLOBAL IMPACT FUND

This study found that nonpharmaceutical interventions, including national “lockdowns,” could have averted approximately 3.1 million COVID-19 deaths across 11 European countries.

These press reports is not disimilar to the title of the Imperial College press release

Lockdown and school closures in Europe may have prevented 3.1m deaths

I would suggest that they are different from the caption to Extended Table 1. The difference is between comparison of actual data to modelled data based on some unlikely assumptions and actual lives saved in the real world. The difference is between the lockdowns having saved 3 million lives and having saved many times less. It is between the desisions of governments sacrificing economic prosperity to save hundreds of thousands of lives, and ruining the lives of millions based on pseudo-science for near zero benefits. The authors should be aware of this and so should the reviewers of the world’s leading science journal.
Are we going to see a quiet withdrawal, like of the BBC report?

Kevin Marshall

Last week Guido Fawkes had a little piece that, in my opinion, illustrates how nasty the world is becoming. I quote in full.

IMPERIAL COLLEGE DROPS “IMPERIAL” MOTTO
“ROOTED IN POWER & OPPRESSION”

In response to representations from students inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement Imperial College’s President, Professor Alice Gast, has announced they are dropping their “imperialist” Latin motto.

“I have heard from many of you with concerns about the university motto and its appearance on our crest. The Latin motto appears on a ribbon below the crest and is commonly translated to ‘Scientific knowledge, the crowning glory and the safeguard of the empire’. We have removed this ribbon and the motto in a revised crest you can see below in this briefing. This modified crest is already in use by my office and the Advancement team and will be integrated into all of our materials over the coming year. We will commission a group to examine Imperial’s history and legacy. We have a long way to go, but we will get better. We will build upon our community’s spirit, commitment and drive. We will draw strength from your commitment and support.”

The College’s motto, coined in 1908, was ‘Scientia imperii decus et tutamen’ which translates as ‘Scientific knowledge, the crowning glory and the safeguard of the empire’. As Titania McGrath might say this motto “is a reminder of a historical legacy that is rooted in colonial power and oppression”. That’s an actual quote from the college’s President, in the interests of diversity she is erasing the past. As someone once wrote “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

UPDATE:This old article from 1995 describes the arms and motto of Imperial College, paying particular attention to the deliberate ambiguity of the Latin:

Thus DECUS ET TUTAMEN translates as ‘an honour and a protection’. The rest of the motto is deliberately ambiguous. SCIENTIA means ‘knowledge’ but is also intended as a pun on the English word ‘science’. IMPERII could mean ‘power’, ‘dominion over’, ‘universal’, ‘of the empire’, ‘of the state’, or ‘superior’; and again is intended as a pun on the English word ‘imperial’.

Because of this ambiguity the full motto can be translated in many different ways. One translation could be: ‘Dominion over science is an honour and a protection’. A more politically correct translation might be: ‘Universal knowledge is beautiful and necessary’.

The Black Lives Matter translation of the motto – ‘Scientific knowledge, the crowning glory and the safeguard of the empire’ – might be valid, but so are many other formulations. Indeed, although Britain at the start of the last century was the most powerful nation and ruled the most extensive empire in history, along with competing with the United States & Germany as the leaders in the pursuit of scientific knowledge, the motto has proved untrue. Imperialists who backed the foundation of Imperial College who thought that scientific knowledge would safeguard empire were mistaken. What is left is an Imperial College ranked about tenth in world rankings of universities so it is a glorious product of imperialist thinking. Given that it is still thriving it is more glorious that the majestic ruins of earlier empires, such as the Colesium in Rome or the Parthenon in Athens.

Deeper than this is that the motto is deliberately a pun. It is superfically meaningful in different ways to those from a diverse range of backgrounds and belief systems. But to those with deeper understanding – achieved through high level study and reflection – know that more than one valid perspective is possible. That also leads into the realisation that our own knowledge, or the collective that of any groups that we might identifying as belonging to, is not the totality of all knowledge possible, and might be even turn out to be false some time in the future. This humility gives a basis for furthering understanding of both the natural world and the place of people within it. Rather than shutting out alternative perspectives, we should develop understanding of our own world view, and aiming to understand others. This is analogous to the onus in English Common Law for the prosecution to prove a clearly defined case beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence. It is also applies to the key aim of the scientific method. Conjectures about the natural world are ultimately validated by experiments based in the natural world.

Consider the alternative “ideal” that we are heading towards at an alarming rate of knots. What counts as knowledge is the collective opinion of those on the self-proclaimed moral high ground. In this perspective those who do not accept the wisdom of the intellectual consensus are guilty of dishonesty and should not be heard. All language and observations of the natural world are interpreted through this ideological position. Any conflict of is resolved by the consensus. Is it far fetched? A quote from Merchants of Doubt – Oreskes Conway 2010.

It has been many months since last posting on this blog due to being engaged in setting up a small business after many years working as a management accountant, mostly in manufacturing. For the first time this year I purchased the Sunday Times. What caught my attention was an article “Amazon sellers rolling in dough from flour crisis“. As my speciality was product costing I noticed a few inaccuracies and exaggerations.

The first issue was on the fees.

Amazon sells many products directly to consumers but more than half of its sales are from third-party sellers on its “Marketplace”. They pay fees to the online giant of up to 15% of the sale price.

The fees at least 15% of the sale price. This is if the seller despatches for themselves, incurring the cost of postage and packing.

Let us take an example of the price rises.

A packet of 45 rolls of Andrex lavatory roll rose from under £24 to more than £95.

For somebody purchasing from Amazon with prime, they will get free postage on purchases over £20. So they can get 45 rolls delivered for about the standard price in a supermarket of 5 x 9 roll packs at £4.50 each. Using an third party app (which might not be accurate) for the Classic Clean Andrex, I find that third party sellers were selling at £23.45 up to March 8 when stocks ran out. Further Amazon were selling for about 3 days at £18.28 until Sunday March 8, when they also ran out. Apart from on Fri Mar 13 Amazon did not have supplies until late April. It was during this period that 3rd party sellers were selling at between £50 & £99.99. Any items offered for sale sold very quickly.

Now suppose an enterprising individual managed to grab some Andrex from a wholesaler (est. £15 inc. VAT) and list them for sale on Amazon. How much would they make? If they already had an account (cost about £30 per month) they could despatch themselves. They would need a large box (at least 45 x 45 x 35 cm) which they might be able to buy for under £30 for a pack of 15. They would have to pay postage. It is £20.45 at the Post Office. If anyone can find a carrier (for 6.5kg) cheaper than £12, including insurance and pick up, please let me know in the comments. If the selling at £50, the costs would be at least £7.50 + £15 + £2 + £12 = £36.50. To make a quick buck it is a lot of work.

This is, however, a bad example. Let us try a much lower weight product. The classic Uno Card Game, that the Sunday Times claims was listed at £5.60 on March 1st and £5.60-£17.99 on April 30th. This compares with £7.00 at Argos & Sainsbury’s and £6.97 at Asda. The inaccuracy here is with the range of prices, as there were multiple sellers on both dates, with £5.60 being the price sold by Amazon themselves. Actual selling prices fluctuate during March and this evening the prices are between £5.49 and £17.99. It is usually the case with popular products that there are multiple sellers. During March and April Amazon were out of stock, with actual selling prices between £4.99 and £19.00. Most often it was in the range of £9.00-£11.50.

A final example from the Sunday Times is for Carex Handwash Sensitive 250ml. As an antibacterial product, as soon as the Government recommended frequent hand washing the product sold out in supermarkets. As such it was ripe for making super-profits dueing the period of panic buying. This product used to be frequently available at £1 or slightly more. The Sunday Times lists the Amazon price at £1.99 on March 1st and at £5.98-£11.50 on April 30th. My App shows a single seller at £7.99, with the March 1st price of £3.25. The Sunday Times have probably picked up a different listing that is no longer available. The best value Carex antibacterial at the time of writing appears to be this listing for 2 x 250ml, where the price ranges from £9.49 to £13.16 including delivery. Selling at around £3.64 prior to March, the selling price peaked at around £32.99 in mid-March.

Whilst the Sunday Times article may not have the best examples, it does highlight that some people have made extraordinary profits by either being in the right place at the right time, or by quickly reacting to changing market information and anticipating the irrational panic buying of many shoppers. Here the problem is not with entrepreneurs meeting demand, but with consumers listening to the fearmongers in the media and social media believing that a pandemic “shutdown” would stop the movement of goods, along with a cultural ignorance of the ability of markets to rapidly respond to new information. In the supermarkets shelves many needlessly emptied shelves. Much of the fresh food bought in panic was binned. Further, many households will not be purchasing any more rice, tinned tomatoes and toilet rolls for many months. Since then there has been an extraordinary response by suppliers and supermarkets in filling the shortages. The slowest responses to shortages have been where the state is the dominant purchaser or the monopoly supplier and purchaser. The former is in the area of PPE, and the latter in the area of coronovirus testing.

Finally, there is a puzzle as to why there is such a range of prices available for an item on Amazon. A reason is that many of the the high-priced sellers were competitive, but the price has fallen dramtically. Another is that the higher-priced sellers are either hoping people make a mistake, or have “shops” on Amazon, that lure people in with low price products and hope they occassionally buy other, over-priced products. Like the old-fashinoned supermarket loss-leaders, but on steroids. Alternatively they may have the products listed elsewhere (e.g. actual shops or on Ebay) and/or a range of products with the extraordinary profits of the few offsetting the long-term write-offs of the many. There is the possibility that these hopefuls will be the future failures, as will be the majority of entrepreneurial ventures in any field.

Kevin Marshall