It’s not really a very clear statement, but the head of the IPCC seems to be claiming that a 17 centimeter sea-level rise over the last century worsened the impact of the recent Japan tsunami. ???
Here is the quote:
“In the 20th century, sea-level rise was recorded at an average of 17 centimetres. If the sea-level was significantly lower, clearly the same tsunami would have had a less devastating effect. Therefore, sea-level rise is a kind of multiplier of the kinds of threats and negative impacts that will take place anyway,”
However, a post at WattsUpWithThat throws some sea water on the claim:
The entire post is here:
I’ve read the Pachauri quote several times and it is muddled to say the least. He may be trying to say that sea level means more water, which means a higher tsunami or he may in fact be trying to say the 17 cm made “all the difference.”
It seems pointless to argue that a 17 cm rise over 100 years somehow made the difference in the tsunami, and pointless to suggest that a fraction of a centimeter rise in sea levels over each decade acts as a “force multiplier.” If in fact he is not saying sea level rise was much higher than 17 centimeters. Apparently, the rise over the last century has not in fact been near these levels. Pachauri needs to clairify his comments.
It is clear that this comment is in line with many AGW comments, which sound scientific on the surface but don’t stand up to scrutiny. AGW proponents are not alone in this, we are inundated with “pharmaceutical science” in which sales people use scientific sounding phrases to push everything from the latest BigPharma pill to “alternative medicine.”
Marketing and Advertising met Science a long time ago and the results have not been good for us.