We’ve been waiting for the UC web page to be updated with the most recent sea level data. It finally has been updated for 2008. It looks like the steady upward trend of sea level as measured by satellite has stumbled since 2005. The 60 day line in blue tells the story.
From the University of Colorado web page:
Since August 1992 the satellite altimeters have been measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. The TOPEX/POSEIDON (T/P) satellite mission provided observations of sea level change from 1992 until 2005. Jason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm.
They also say:
Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the studies of global climate change. The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Long term sea level variations are primarily determined with two different methods.
Yes, I would agree, it is indeed a variable of considerable interest. The question now is, how is it linked to global climate change (aka global warming) if CO2 continues to increase, and sea level does not?
There’s an interesting event in October 2005 that I’ll come back to in a couple of days.
(h/t to Mike Bryant)
Sponsored IT training links:
Join pass4sure for best PK0-003 solution. Our 352-001 pdf contains all the required study materials that you need to pass 642-681 exam.
Gee, another divergence problem?
Cooling sea perhaps since 2005? It would seem to fit with La Nina too…
Must be due to global warming, causing increased evaporation. If we’re not frying, we’ll be drowning, due to increased rainfall, or buried in snow. But, of course there will also be more extreme drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, species extinction, no more haggis, etc.
Cooling seas? Has accumulated ocean heat been radiated back out into the atmosphere now after (or as a result of) all those strong el ninos in recent years?
Making climatic trends over 3 years is at the best naive, not to say misleading.
“Look at this! No rise between 1992 and 1995. Proof there’s no warming. The same holds for 1998-2000 where the levels actually decreased!!! But … Wait… How is it possible then that sea levels increased between 1992 and 2000 ? ”
Short term and long term. Never heard of short-scale variability?
I wish the data was shown indicating its source; Jason 1 or Jason 2. AVISO has similar plots. Here is their plot like UC without seasonal variations being removed, http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_J1_Global_IB_RWT_PGR_NoAdjust.png . Here is their plot with seasonal variations being removed, http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/ , the end of this guy is dropping like a rock.
Bruce Cobb (09:19:42) :
No haggis???!!!?!??!!
Talk about alarmist!
That’s just crazy talk. Let’s not get carried away.
JimB
Hmmm. If sea level has risen 120 meters since the end of the last glacial advance, about 15,000 years ago, we’ve experienced an average of 80mm/decade rise in sea level over that period. According to the graph above, we’ve seen an increase of 32 mm during the past decade, so the recent increase is about 40% of the long term rate of sea level rise.
I’m confused; is the 60 day smoothing the blue zig zag or is it the nice black straight line, which seems to be walking off the data.
Is everything in climatology supposed to match some straight line; is that how they get a 200 ft sea level rise in 100 years ?
Is the point scatter considered to be real data, or is it system noise ? I imagine that a good bit of it is simply noise, but the blue zig zag still leaves us with the same question; is the blue trace still random noise or is it true (10 day) change in sea level; and if the latter what is the change mechanism.
But pretty amazing that you can get a few mm data from a satellite looking at something as shifty as the oceans.
George
Aviso took over operation of Jason-1 while they were calibrating the new Jason-2 satellite (I think they have turned Jason-2 over now). There were some technical problems with Jason-1 so they haven’t been updating the data but it seems the problems are worked out now and they have been updating the data for a month or so. (Note the error correction resulted in a slightly reduced overall sea level trend.)
The Aviso data is updated to the end of the third quarter while I think the UC chart is only to the end of the summer.
At this link you can get the newest sea level data. Click “time series” rather than map and select the other options such as which satellite to use, which one of the processing algorithms to use.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/altimetry-data-and-images/index.html
There are some strange things going with sea level. Note there is an overall seasonal signal which peaks at the end of the year. So a high level in the July data indicates there was a rapid increase in sea level rise from the spring to the summer but it has now dropped like a stone.
3.3 mm per year = almost 13 inches per hundred years…
The sky is falling!!!
This is a serious problem for policymakers, because sea level rise is supposed to be the major threat from AGW.
BTW, have you noticed the Sun has been blank again for a while? We are supposed to be a major uptick right now as the cycle starts…
http://www.spaceweather.com/
OK Mr. Hansen, we’ll accept your resignation now.
All those letters behind your name mean nothing if you are wrong.
And you are committing an even greater wrong if you are not man enough to admit it.
Flanagan: “Making climatic trends over 3 years is at the best naive, not to say misleading.”
Your comment is confusing. Would you quote the exact passage in the article that says 3 years constitutes anything other than a short-term trend (as stated in the title)?
Barak Obama was right – the sea DID stop rising when he was elected!
“Making climatic trends over 3 years is at the best naive, not to say misleading.”
15 years isn’t very long, either. And ~34cm./100 years doesn’t exactly spell “catastrophe” to me.
Hi Mr. Watts,
I know you moderate these comments, and I couldn’t find a contact item, so I guess I’ll use this.
Several people have been asking “what happens if you only use the CRN 1 or 1&2 stations to do the temperature trend.” Actually, I spent a bunch of time last year helping a local science student to do exactly that, as part of his Science Fair project (a project that won him a trip to Atlanta, Georgia in the national competition.) The large part of his project was showing that different surfaces cause vast differences in temperature, but part of it was taking the USHCN temperatures and then attempting to apply an adjustment to the “bad” stations for the type of material they were sited at. As part of this, he downloaded all the stations from surfacestations and identified the types of bias visible in the photos and then applied “corrections” (sorry for the Hansen term there) to the items.
But, as another part, he ran the heat maps using just the CRN 1 and CRN 2 stations.
I’m sure I can get this data for you if you want (he actually used my server as a backup database for all the data.)
Just thought I’d drop the offer.
Oh, and if you need a new article, you can always play “Spot the mistakes” in the graph on this page: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/05/climate-change-weather
My favorite is that they claim the graph represents “deviation from the 1960-1990 average” yet every value between 1960 and 1990 (save two tiny positive values) fall far below the “zero” mark.)
Jeff
Jim,
Let’s be really careful about resignations and wrong. Yes, Hansen should go, not because he’s wrong, but because he’s lost all hope of objectivity. The best of the best are often wrong, but they don’t keep beating a recently deceased equine. They accept the fact, and change methods or viewpoints and move on.
Hansen has not. That’s the reason he needs to find other work – digging ditches would be a good start, the man needs to get his hands dirty.
Mike
Jeff,
And if you look at the comments on that Guardian article (a very left wing paper), you’ll see how many people think that AGW is a big con. The average citizen doesn’t like being taken for a ride, not when he’s paying for it and it is going in the wrong direction. Time will show the truth.
The declining sea level is most likely due to the renewal of the ice shelfs but the only one that would have a great impact is that at the South Pole since the ice at the North Pole displaces it’s own volume of water. You could never guess that when you hear them talking that the planet has a fever… again with no correlation whatsoever with the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
But talking of concentration, a concentration is based on the relative quantity of one specie to the total of the sum. So, since we are cooling, the concentration of CO2 will rise because less and less water is in the atmosphere. The absolute humidity is always smaller in cold air due to “forced” precipitation.
Your monitor may vary…
The blue zigzag line is the 60 day smoothing. The straight black line apparently is the “rate” whose definition is given in the lower right area of the graph.
And if I’m thinking of the correct birds, Jason-2 was put in an orbit several miles behind Jason-1 so both were getting almost the same data during Jason-2 calibration. However, I think Jason’s data is calibrated against tide gauge data, so the satellite data is not fully independent of factors which affect tide gauges.
It seems to me that the only reference point for measuring sea level is the center of the Earth. How accurately can that be determined.? Plus or minus 3-4 mm? It seems that sea levels tend to be local and not global. Nature continues to display an irreverence to the religion of AGW and the computer models of Hansen and Schmidt (of Crane, Poole and Schmidt?).
To most people sea level is the point at which the surface of the land and sea meet. Officially known as the sea level datum plane, it is a reference point used in measuring land elevation and water depths. It refers to the vertical distance from the surface of the ocean to some fixed point on land, or a reference point defined by people. Sea level became a standardized measure in 1929. Mean sea level is the average of the changes in the level of the ocean over time, and it is to this measure that we refer when we use the term sea level.
Constant motion of water in the oceans causes sea levels to vary.
Mean sea level can also be influenced by air pressure.
Increases in temperature can cause sea level to rise.
Sea level can be raised or lowered by tectonic processes.
About 30,000 years ago, sea level was nearly the same as it is today. During the ice age 15,000 years ago, it dropped and has been rising ever since.
Since the Kyoto Treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, sea levels have been rising precipitously. (:-)
Anthony,
“There’s an interesting event in October 2005 that I’ll come back to in a couple of days.”
Are you talk about the drop in the Planetery Index around that time?
Not sure if I see a three year short term trend though. There seems to be some similar events back in the record. Overall rise seem to go in steps. That 1997-98 El nino seems to have raised the level in one step. Are the other spikes El nino events too?
Phillip
“And if you look at the comments on that Guardian article (a very left wing paper), you’ll see how many people think that AGW is a big con. The average citizen doesn’t like being taken for a ride, not when he’s paying for it and it is going in the wrong direction. Time will show the truth.”
Want to see what I got landed with tonight.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7767061.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7767910.stm
Worse than all that my haggis plant died due to the cold.
But worse than all that.
Sea level is rising at St Andrews golf course.
“Professor Jan Bebbington, director of the St Andrews Sustainability Institute” says so. A Professor!!! Well you cannot get better than that, well maybe an expert.
And we are all going to turn into “car-sharing nation of vegetarians”.
(Who thought California was off the wall?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7666809.stm
So there sea level is not rising.
A professor says so!!
Ed Scott:
The earth’s tectonic plates move and all three directions. Additionally, satellite orbits vary for various reasons. I’m curious how those (and other) factors are accounted for.
BTW: Sea levels have risen steadily and fairly constantly for 3 centuries. The most logical, reasonable and simple explanation is this is a natural phenomenon and has nothing to do with human activities. Whatever natural forces started the sea level rise 3 centuries ago is ongoing.
I wonder now if the AGW proponents will now savage the TOPEX/POSEIDON data as much as they’ve been beating up on the satellite temperature data. It wouldn’t surprise me it they do since their little game of global warming scaremongering is unraveling.
Oops! Should have also included comments about data from Jason.
Somewhere in mid 2006, a British/Dutch team using a European (polar) satellite reported on ten years of data on the level of the arctic ocean. They reported that the arctic ocean was falling 2 mm per year for that ten years. They didn’t know why, but were very confident of their data.
Two years earlier I predicted that the sea level should fall when the floating sea ice melts; because an astronomical amout of latent heat is extracted from the surrounding ocean to melt all that ice so the sea cools and shrinks (water with a salinity above 2.47% has no maximum density before it freezes) Typical ocean salinity is 3.5%.
You can find my letter in Physics today for Jan 2005.
However their measured results do apparently prove that the floating sea ice was indeed melting during that time. It would be interesting to know what the arctic ocean sea level is doing now that arctic sea ice is evidently recovering.
“What goes up, must come down”
That also applies to sea level.
“The orbital velocity of the satellite depends on its altitude above Earth. The nearer Earth, the faster the required orbital velocity. At an altitude of 124 miles (200 kilometers), the required orbital velocity is just over 17,000 mph (about 27,400 kph). To maintain an orbit that is 22,223 miles (35,786 km) above Earth, the satellite must orbit at a speed of about 7,000 mph (11,300 kph). That orbital speed and distance permits the satellite to make one revolution in 24 hours. Since Earth also rotates once in 24 hours, a satellite at 22,223 miles altitude stays in a fixed position relative to a point on Earth’s surface. Because the satellite stays right over the same spot all the time, this kind of orbit is called “geostationary.” Geostationary orbits are ideal for weather satellites and communications satellites.
The moon has an altitude of about 240,000 miles (384,400 km), a velocity of about 2,300 mph (3,700 kph) and its orbit takes 27.322 days. (Note that the moon’s orbital velocity is slower because it is farther from Earth than artificial satellites.)”
SO basically, if the gravitational constant and the mass of the satellite does not change, a satellite with a constant velocity and a perfect circular orbit can measure the changes in altitude of the ground (or sea) with a radar-type of device.
George
“because an astronomical amount of latent heat is extracted from the surrounding ocean to melt all that ice so the sea cools and shrinks”
Brilliant!!!
Absolutely Brilliant!!
Latent heat, missed that one, I should have thought about that.
Brilliant!!
Flanagan (09:34:58) :
> Making climatic trends over 3 years is at the best naive, not to say misleading.
Not completely. The last time the PDO flipped, in the late 1970s, the climatic response was very quick. Joe D’Aleo likes to refer to it as the Great Pacific Climate Shift. So there is precedence. Not naive, but it is dancing around the error bars a bit. It is nice that data is matching expectations.
Hello B. Kerr,
A very instructive or at least illuminating experiment can be performed by anyone in the kitchen.
You start with two equal quantities of water; 8-12 oz or so; doesn’t matter how much so long as they are equal.
You pour one sample into an ice tray and put into the freezer to freeze.
The remaining sample you put into a microwaveable container at least twice as big. It will help to have a 0-100 deg C glass thermometer (doesn’t everybody have one of those).
So once the ice is frozen into cubes you transfer the tray to the refrigerator to let it warm up to closer to zero (but not melt).
So you take the vessel of water and you heat it either with the nuke or on a hot plate stirring with the thermometer, until you get it up to 80 deg C. Pretty damn hot !
So now you have X ounces of ice at about zero deg C, and also X ounces of hot water at 80 deg C.
So you pour the ice cubes into the 80 deg C water, and stir. DO NOT PANIC if you noitice some of the ice melting; it is supposed to do that, in fact it is all going to melt, as you stir; and just as the last vestiges of ice vanish, your whole vessel of water plus melted ice will now be at zero degrees C.
Now your kids do this every day with ice cubes and Coke or Pepsi, but how little do they know how much cooling power is hidden in that latent heat of 80 calories per gram.
Sea level is an almost perfect proxy for the heat content of the “biosphere” of our planet, as the oceans contain almost all of the stored heat, and water expands and contracts very nicely as it is heated and cool.
I simply don’t understand why we don’t use sea level as the ultimate proxy for long term temperature variations – it’s far preferable to surface or even satellite air temperature readings. Although sea temperature trends and atmospheric temperature trends might diverge over the short term, thermodynamically they must converge over the long term.
Note also, sea level has been rising for quite some time. No idea how CO2 caused sea level rises back in 1850.
One little orbital factoid to add to Ray’s post above. If you have a satellite orbiting in a circular orbit at any altitude; and you suddenly increase its speed by square root of 2, the circular orbit will be transformed into a parabolic escape orbit.
I can’t make any use of that, but it is something useful to know if you get stuck on a desert island without Google.
Joshv, I don’t agree. You proposal only works if there is no ice melt at the poles.
John Galt
Are you related to the hero of Ayn Rand’s book, Atlas Shrugged? There is talk of “Going John Galt” to resist the government incursions on the liberties and freedoms and finances of the citizens of the USofA in the presence of the government’s proclivity for spreading our wealth.
An email correspondent and his wife departed for Galt’s Gulch several months ago.
Both tide gauges and satellite radar altimetry are used to measure the present rates of change in sea level. Tide gauges measure sea level relative to the ocean floor whereas the reference for satellite altimetry is the earth’s center.
When measuring sea level by satellite, there are several references, which, by definition, are error free. This leaves only the error of 3-4 mm due to the altimeter measurement. (:-)
From Ray (11:23:07) :
The declining sea level is most likely due to the renewal of the ice shelfs but the only one that would have a great impact is that at the South Pole since the ice at the North Pole displaces it’s own volume of water.
[…]
So, since we are cooling, the concentration of CO2 will rise because less and less water is in the atmosphere.
-end quote
What about all the extra snow on land in the N.H. right now? And the snow in N. Zealand … and the late snow in Australia … and the lake effect snow in New York et. al.? And… Can sea level serve as a proxy for total snow fall globally? (Yes, rampant speculation… that’s where learning starts…) Or is it total precipitation since more rain means more water wandering through the groundwater system for a few decades / centuries…
Also, I’ve often wondered: Doesn’t CO2 dissolve better in cold water than warm? Would not temps down in the -30 to -50 C way up north argue for CO2 extraction into precipitation? I can’t shake the notion that there might be some negative feedback cycle with very frozen water taking CO2 with it at the poles… (again, rampant speculation…)
sea level … has now dropped like a stone.
Sea level looks to be a current indicator of El Nino/La Nina conditions. As I noted in the previous thread, we seem to be going into a new La Nina.
This mean sea temperatures (which determine sea levels due to thermal expansion/contraction) drive atmospheric temperatures, rather than the reverse as AGW theory predicts.
Expect temperatures to fall over the next 6 months.
E.M. Smith – actually there was an article here showing a graph of the solubility of CO2 in water vs Temperature ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/11/04/guest-weblog-co2-variation-by-jim-goodridge-former-california-state-climatologist/ ). But remember that CO2 is actually in equilibrium with carbonic acid in water. Once you freeze that water, all the gaseous CO2 will escape but only the carbonic acid will remain. The CO2 they measure in the ice core are actual bubbles that were trapped as the snow got compacted over time.
But when you look at the distribution of CO2 vs latitude, you will also see that the “concentration” of CO2 at the poles (or in altitude) is higher… kind of wonder if that is not because of the lesser concentration of water where it is bitterly cold.
Compared to the enormous mass of water locked in Antartica, the relatively small quantity of solid water that accumulates in some places during winters is almost, but not completely, neglectable. In any case, compared to the rest of the water mass, it’s not much… even if you feel it’s a lot when you look out your window and you will have to shovel it in the morning and when you see the plower coming to push all that back in your driveway. I’s so happy to live on the west coast!
I wonder how much of the rise in ocean level is due to factors like sediments flowing into the oceans, dust falling into the ocean, and those house sized ice comets smashing into the atmosphere every day?
Bob B/Joshv
It’s much more complicated than that. The volume of the oceans is not constant for several reasons.
Land that was weighed down by ice during the last glaciation is still rising (about 4 inches a year in the northern Baltic). On the other hand coasts all around the world are still sinking from the 400 feet of water deposited on them 12000 years ago when the last glaciation ended. The mid ocean ridges swell or shrink with the amount of volcanic activity (this is good for a couple of hundred meters of sea-level change over several million years). Rivers carry sediment into the ocean, while other sediment disappears down into the mantle at subduction zones, probably not at the same rate.
The amount of fresh water in glaciers, lakes, rivers and groundwater is always changing and so is the temperature of the oceans.
To isolate just the last factor is not easy, to put things mildly.
Too many here are not reading the graph correctly.
Sea level is not falling. The rate of sea level rise is declining.
Sea level is still rising. Its just not accelerating as fast as it was when the sun was much more active. Until it stops rising, the AGW clergy will continue to use this as proof of their dogma.
The oceans will hold the heat that accumulated during the last 150 years of warming for many years.
The best evidence of the falsity of the AGW dogma lies elswher, such as in the failure of the models to accurately track the reality of climate, or with Svensmark’s work and the CERN experiments that are to test them.
It should be noted that the satellite data may only indicate a 1.6mm/yr increase as has been noted by several authors ie: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2007JCLI1840.1
The accuracy of these measurements should be questioned as they are obtained from 200 miles up, measuring a moving surface and compairing it to the center of the earth 300 miles down which is also moving. When the claim is made that sea level rise is accelerating, the satellite data is being compaired to older tide guage data which interestingly enough continues to show about a 2 mm/yr rise. I live in the San Francisco area so I follow the bay measurements http://www.bodc.ac.uk/data/information_and_inventories/gloss_handbook/stations/158/plot/823031/ which shows only about 60 mm rise in over 150 years. To be fair the smoothed slope is probably about 1.5 mm/yr.
It’s almost as if low solar activity somehow affects light incident on bodies of water. Like there’s been more clouds over seas.
Oops thought this was about temp, not melt. Of course, temp is part of sea level rise independent of melt.
Ray (13:48:01) :
It’s really more complicated than that. First, I don’t know what kind of orbit these spacecraft are in but any orbit would be perturbed by various outside factors.
One, the Earth’s mass isn’t completely uniform, so you have strong and weak gravitational spots that will speed or slow the spacecraft – thus changing its altitude.
A second is due to the gravitational effects of the moon, it will tend to pull the spacecraft away from its orbit.
Any spacecraft will have to update its orbit routinely.
One way to minimize the importance of this drift would be to very accurately measure the position of the spacecraft through some other mechanism.
MikeEE
George E. Smith (14:44:39) :
My kids are nuking the Coke before they drink it? I thought they knew better than that! I tried to teach them to make iced tea by making hot tea with half the amount of water (and half the heating time), then dissolve the sugar in the hot water, then add ice to bring the volume up to full and chill the tea, and have a little ice left over. (I skip the warm to freezing step.)
I don’t know where they got the idea to heat the soda. No wonder the soda in the bottle goes flat so quickly. 🙂
MikeEE (18:36:32) :
More on my last post. The Jason 1 is a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellite at 1,330 kilometers (860 miles) – see http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/jason-1.html . A GEO (Geosynchronous) wouldn’t be useful as it stays over the same location of the Earth all the time, the LEO eventually gets to see the entire circumference, but depending on its inclination will miss some part around the poles.
While searching for info on Jason 2 I came across this interesting FAQ page that explains a little about sea level at http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/puscience/
I hope I got that tag right this time!
MikeEE
I appreciate many folks here who comment very intelligently. Still, I detect a little fear from the global warming people from comments that say “see, the trend is reversing in the last X numbr of weeks”. It’s a little like trying to tell what ails a patient by just observing his symptoms.
I’ll put this idea out from my naive point of view, in hopes that others more qualified can refine what I propose. I would like to see cause and effect carried all the way back to root causes as applied to global climate. Here is my first stab at it. The sun’s magnetic field is the root cause of short term climate change and the Milankovitch effects are the root cause of long term climate change. My statement is based on my assumptions that it is the flaring and ejections from the sun that pour energy into earths atmosphere and cuase global warming, and it is the tilts and distances of the earth-sun system that establishes how much of the solar energy the earth will receive.
During the last two years, the earth has received very little extra energy from sun spots or CMEs and we are just using what extra heat the oceans had during the last solar peak (which was a doosey). The Milankovitch angles are pointing us to cooler already.
If these assumptions are true, then there is no need to wonder if global warming is going to pick up in the next 20 years. It won’t unless CO2 can overwhelm all these forces. Looking at the patients blood sample and identifying a pathenogen is the sure way to prescribe a cure.
What say? Is there enough motivation out there to convince the rest of us that there really is recipe for global climate change. And I don’t mean the IPCCs recipe.
This is very interesting. The paper is apparently Compo and Sardeshmukh published in Climate Dynamics. A somewhat breathless account is at
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/12/03/rethinking-observed-warming/
I am unable to find even the abstract.
“Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming.”
Ha- abstract is here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/23/compo-and-sardeshmukh-oceans-a-main-driver-of-climate-variability-its-the-heat-and-the-humidity/
I’m right on top of things- not.
Nah, no need to worry about global warming or cooling. Just worry about those crops getting ruined with a Sun that lies flat on it’s face in a pile of non-active hydrogen goo. Just like the folks did in centuries past, though they had no clue as to the why’s of what happened. All we know is that it does happen.
The Named Minimums & the crop failures.
So what role has science to play in this? Record the data and preserve it for future generations who may have a chance to do better than we and those before us.
That’s all folks.
The world’s oceans have raised an inch in 14 years? Send out the life rafts!
Which oceans have raised, by how much and where? Have lakes and rivers also raised? Has land sunk around the oceans or has land also risen up to keep up with the oceans? Does land always stay constant? Do oceans always stay a constant level? Will my 50th great-grandchildren become rich because my inland property will eventually be ocean front?
I am not very educated and I am repelled by boring science stuff. That’s why it alarms me that as stupid as I am, I can see through the bogus in all the AGW fear mongering and yet the global warming movement marches forward, with our tax dollars paying the way. It makes no logical sense and yet it’s given a free pass by our government and the media. We are living in a time of great insanity and deception.
“2008 will be coolest year of the decade: Global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, but cooler temperature is not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists” by James Randerson @ guardian.co.uk, Friday December 5 2008.
Ed Scott (11:41:51) :
It seems to me that the only reference point for measuring sea level is the center of the Earth. How accurately can that be determined.?
We have reference spheroids (aka geoids) to use as a datum – the whole science of cartography is based on these – ie anything to be mapped on this lumpy, non homogenous earth (this is largely gravity driven) needs this as a basis, including mapping sea level changes. Redundancy of satellite measurements increases the signal to noisy quality of sea level measurements (the random noise cancels itself out) – allowing for highly accurate measurements. Satellite position relative to the reference spheroid (aka datum) is also worked out fairly easily (ie GPS technology).
To see a vertically exaggerated picture of how lumpy the geoid is + some more details on methodology , see link:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/grace-in-space
OT: Some dire predictions from David Barber, a geoscientist, at the University of Manitoba.
Arctic will have first ice-free summer in 2015: Researcher
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Arctic+will+have+first+free+summer+2015+Researcher/1039105/story.html
“In 2008 it recovered a bit, but my research shows there isn’t anything to instil confidence in . . . we’re expecting 2009 will be another year of low ice.”
Deadwood,
The rate is determined by the slope and the slope appears to be flat for the last 3 years. That was the whole point.
Re the Guardian article – has anyone come up with a sensible answer as to why the global temperatures started rising so quickly from 1910
Phillip:
>And if you look at the comments on that Guardian article (a very left wing paper) . . .
Well, yes and no. Back in 2004, the (a right-of-centre) Daily Telegraph noted that:
“A private equity house backed by Paul Myners,the Guardian Media Group chairman, and Sir David Frost, the broadcaster, is about to turn wind into money.
“Englefield Capital is set to sell its stake in Zephyr Investments, Britain’s biggest wind energy provider, for more than three times what it paid for the business just three years ago.
“In February 2004 Englefield, RWE Innogy and the First Islamic Investment Bank paid around £33m each to buy into Zephyr, the green energy investment fund, which then bought out RWE’s existing wind energy sites and its development portfolio.”
For details, see: http://www.swap.org.uk/index.asp?pageid=86553 page 21
Wikipedia In re Paul Myners:
Paul Myners, Baron Myners, CBE (born 1 April 1948) was appointed as a government minister, Financial Services Secretary (a position sometimes referred to as City Minister) in HM Treasury, in October 2008, when it was also announced he would be elevated to the peerage. He also serves on the Prime Minister’s National Economic Council. He became a peer on 21 October 2008.]
He was, until the date of his Ministerial appointment, chairman of the Guardian Media Group, publisher of The Guardian and The Observer newspapers, and chairman of Land Securities Group, the largest quoted property company in Europe at the time. He is a former Chairman of Marks & Spencer and Deputy Chair of PowerGen.
Vested interests in the AGW debate? The very idea.
George E. Smith
Thanks for reply.
I have explained to my wife what we are going to do.
“NOT in my kitchen!! I’ve just cleaned the floor!”
I am aware of latent heat.
It is a question of scale.
Observed effects in a science beaker are one thing but to apply those effects to an Ocean. Yes brilliant. You may gather I’m impressed.
“Now your kids do this every day with ice cubes and Coke or Pepsi”
No no no no that is foreign muck, no one drinks that!!
We have IRN-BRU, it is made from girders and has a latent heat in excess of 200 cal/g and has been known to glow in the dark!!
Please enjoy:
http://www.irn-bru.co.uk/advert/snowman.html
B Kerr
Correct me if I’m wrong (as I’m sure you guys will) but haven’t actual measured temperatures shown no temperature increase starting in 1998 with a decrease starting in 2002? It seems that this coincides pretty well with the decreasing sea-levels, or is this just something that I’m reading into it?
What I think of these measurements of vast systems is that I seriously doubt if any of them are outside of the MOE by any appreciable degree.
I think that the free use of proxies, and then claiming that they are as accurate as modern methods is not only fallacious, but deliberately misleading.
We know that sea levels have risen and fallen over long periods of time. Often by tens of feet, even hundreds.
For people to get excited by fractions of millimeters over decades, when the end result is a trend line that is the historical norm is yet more evidence that what is interesting about AGW is its life as a social movement.
James,
The sea level trend starts to level in 2006 so that is later than the temperature changes. Could be the short term trend is just an anomaly and sea level will continue back on its climb soon or it could be real. There are other spots in the data that show flat trends for two or three years. If it is related to the temperature curves and is just a lagging indicator it should keep the new trend for a couple of more years.
I have been trying to visualize what may be happening to sea levels and the following questions have cropped up.
The earth is not a perfect sphere and is not a solid mass and so has no real strength in compression or tension, only the very thin crust gives it that illusion, in actual fact the earth is quite plastic, rather like a very soft rubber ball) as the earth orbits the sun in a slightly off centre oval could this plastic quality affect the shape of the earth and therefore influence sea levels? As the earths land masses are not evenly distributed around the equator is there a possibility that the fluid pacific sea level is influenced by the earths orbit around the sun while the opposite side of mainly land mass stays in place and does this also have an dynamic effect on the earths orbit?
Do the gas giants(planets) exert a force on this planets oceans as they pass close to earth, I do know that the moon influences sea levels and even ground levels as its mass exerts a gravitational pull on the earths surface, now can all the above influences shift sea levels in a cyclic pattern to give the false impression of a sea level rise when in fact liquid water volumes are pretty much constant?
I would very much appreciate any advice or input anyone might be able to offer so I could better understand what is actually happening.
James (03:22:08)
Yes, James, it is my relatively uninformed opinion that the sea level most closely follows thermal contraction or expansion, and this near term stasis is a manifestation of the general cooling also shown in the atmosphere. This would argue that there is no ‘extra heat’ in the pipeline deeper than the two miles measured by the Argos buoys.
============================================
Love that IRN BRU ad! Mr. Kerr, having some deep roots in the Highlands,I hope one day to see that “auld sod”.
That said, has anyone seen any recent Mauna Kea CO2 data?
Mauna Loa CO2:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Posting in this topic here as there is a reference to sea level rise.
——-
Today I watched an interview on the BBC News channel here in the UK where a leading Green campaigner was challenged by a BBC correspondent as to the veracity of Anthropogenic Climate Change, I was floored by this novel and totally unexpected treatment from a BBC correspondent. Below is recollection rather than a verbatim report.
Caroline Lucas UK MEP Green party Leader was interviewed today by Peter Sissons on BBC News TV (viewed at 1.15pm GMT approx) and went immediately into a save the world monologue including the tipping point is nigh and other related phrases. When Sissons’ got a word in he raised the point that the climate is not cooperating in this respect re. recent weather, the response then implying that the evidence is in the melting icecaps and rising sea levels. Sissons when he got back in injected no warming since 1998 and made the point that contrary to the “consensus” an increasing number of scientists are coming out to state against the consensus. By this time Lucas was virtually apoplectic mixing words and demanding to know how the BBC could be coming out and making such comments and insisted that the consensus be followed and everyone should move on. Sissons came back that his role as a journalist is always to investigate and review all sides and he would continue to do so. Lucas finished with a further attack and somewhat veiled warning to which Sissons replied with an “Oohh”.
In the following hour he interviewed Nick Clegg, leader of the UK Liberal Democrat party who started with the need for reduced CO2 emissions and commended the Climate Change bill signed in by the UK Government recently. Sissons then asked what real impact UK steps would have on the entire global climate and then mentioned again the falling global average temperatures since 1998 and insisted that this is promoted by leading scientists. Clegg insisted otherwise and rolled out the IPCC and its experts, Sissons parried this and again Clegg said he did not think it a true statement restating his own belief. He did seem just a little surprised at being challenged with such questions in a concerted manner. Wonder if he will check the statement made by Sissons or rely on Cognitive Dissonance to resolve rude intrusion into his belief set.
For those outside the UK that may not know, an MEP is a member of the European Parliament and Caroline Lucas leads the UK Green party members there. The UK Liberal Democrats are the distant third or so political party here in the UK.
Peter Sissons is a veteran BBC reporter.
I have recorded the second interview and will leave it recording today in the hope that the earlier interview is repeated. Also might be worth watching out for it on Youtube, maybe someone else captured it. There is, of course, the question as to whether he will have a job next week. We will recall what happened when a BBC on-line reporter went off message and reported a contrarian report verbatim.
When I read the comments, I become overwhelmed because the conversation appears to be way above me. However, I am going to throw something out for discussion. I may regret the idea.
There has been little discussion about the sun. In October 2005, there was a significant shift in the solar conveyor belt as was noted by Livingston and Penn at the National Solar Observaory. Could there be any relationship between this shift and sea level change?
I’m sorry. It may just be a crazy idea.
Jeff,
There is nothing at all crazy about the question. It seems that every part of the puzzle affects every other part to some degree. The climate of our dear Earth is only now yielding up a few of her secrets. It seems that with each advance in our understanding, we find ourselves with new questions. However it has become abundantly clear that CO2 in our atmosphere is a minor player.
Cassandra King
Jeff L answered my question: “It seems to me that the only reference point for measuring sea level is the center of the Earth. How accurately can that be determined.?”
Jeff referred to this link: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/grace-in-space.
This link describes the technology involved, but does not answer the question of accuracy. There are several measurement systems involved, each unavoidably having a range of error. Giving the error range of 2-3 mm for sea level measurement without reference to other system errors is an incomplete picture, unless the total system error is combined in the sea level measurement. Leaving out the other pluses and minuses is bothersome to me.
The real kicker in the article is the revelation: Measurements reveal that some parts of the ocean are a remarkable 390 feet lower than average, and others are 300 feet higher. What is the average sea level, within an error range of 2-3 mm? (:-)
Mick J
I wish that I had seen Peter Sissons on the BBC news.
Looks like I missed a show!!
I’ve been into BBC ipod but one o’clock news is not available.
Well done Peter Sissons.
Can we take a step back from curent minimal sea level rise (or is it fall?) and view it in its historic context?
CA had a debate about this;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
Sea levels were higher back in the MWP and the Roman warm period. Harlech castle in Britain for instance is these days remote from the sea (nothing to do with stasis or silting) When it was built there were steps from the castle leading to a sea gate and quay. William the conquerors landing site in 1066 is now dry or merely marshy. Where the Romans landed has a similar scenario albeit a thousand years earlier.
Check out http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov
where yoiu can check out the historic records of many places. I have cherry picked Newlyn in the Uk aND which goes back nearly 80 tyears where sea levels have been dropping in recenmt yerars anmd atre nearly back to those levels.
Brunel built a sea wall to take his new steam train from Lobndin through the west of England. I can see it from my houyse and often walk by it. THe height hasnt shiofted since thern. We need to look at a much loinger hiostoric context than we tend to do-the sea level isnt going to rise by 20foot by the end of the century as Hansen recently claimed the latest estimates are 8 to 12 inches.
If you want to do a serious appraisal of sea levels merely google ‘Prof Morner’# whi is considered tyhe greatest expert abnd see what he thinks-Clue he thinks global sea level rise are ‘a lie’
I agree with him although that is not to say that by the nature of things some places arent going to have higher levels but on the whole this whole thing is highly exaggerated.
TonyB
Can we take a step back from current tiny sea level rise (or is it fall?) and view it in its historic context?
CA had a debate about this;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
Sea levels were higher back in the MWP and the Roman warm period. Harlech castle in Britain for instance is these days remote from the sea (nothing to do with stasis or silting) When it was built there were steps from the castle leading to a sea gate and quay. William the conquerors landing site in 1066 is now dry or merely marshy. Where the Romans landed has a similar scenario albeit a thousand years earlier.
Check out http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov
where you can examine the historic sea level records of many places. I have cherry picked Newlyn in the UK and Helsink in Finland, as they both have long records going back many years. Helsinki shows a substantial decline since 1880. More relecant to me is Newlyn some 60 nautical miles away from my coastal home. That level hasn’t moved and bears out my own observations-.
Brunel built a sea wall to take his new steam train from London through the west of England in 1850. I can see it from my house and often walk by it. The sea height hasn’t shifted since then-as evidenced by the water marks and the historical Newlyn data.
If you want to do a serious appraisal of sea levels merely google ‘Prof Morner’ who is considered the greatest expert on the subject and see what he thinks about the IPCC’s prouncements on the subject.
We need to take a look at the historic context much more than we do, whether its sea level rise (unchanged) , temperatures (barely changed in 300 years) ‘unprecedented’ arctic ice melt-which happens every 50 years or so. I dont think there is a single historian in the IPCC or they wouldn’t continually come up with their nonsensical ‘unprecedented’ claims so often.
TonyB
Sorry everyone
The first post ‘escaped’ before it was finished-please read only the second
TonyB
Thanks Mike Bryant for the info. Is it me, or does the graph seem to be a bit precipitous for what appears to me to be just another BB in the atmospheric Boxcar?..
Completely missed the BBC interview we are discussing, Peter Sissons has always struck me as someone from the Bruce Forsyth mould of honourable people trying to present as a reliable man shoulod. I’m really interested in the viw of the interest average Brit regarding this becaue we are being charged £10 billion extra on our household bills due to the European Emissions Trading Scheme and absolutely no-one is aware of it, not even the journalists. And then we have a weather station survey like at http://www.wacv.co.uk which shows huge heat sources around measuring sources. I give up,I really do..
“Is it me, or does the graph seem to be a bit precipitous for what appears to me to be just another BB in the atmospheric Boxcar?..”
The neat thing about graphs is that you can make them as “precipitous” as you want. If you include the values down to zero it does not appear nearly so steep.
Also look at the graphs here:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf
Regarding the Peter Sissons interview, I scoured the BBC website for a copy of the news at one, which normally would be available on iPlayer. I have found the link to the news item, however a diferent part of the site states that this item is no longer available. Me thinks someone is purposely trying to hide it…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00g3fcd (not available message)
Here is something very interesting.
At the Aviso site, you can also pick which ocean to look at.
It is really only the Indian Ocean which is rising since 2002 at 5 mm per year. All the other ocean basins are close to flat over the period.
That would signal ocean circulation and regional heating being responsible for sea level rise with global warming playing a more minor role. The recent El Ninos of the last ten years eventually push warm ocean water into the Indian Ocean and into the west side of the Pacific, where it can stay for long periods of time.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_J1_Indian_NoIB_RWT_PGR_NoAdjust.png
Same data with the seasonal signal removed.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_J1_Indian_NoIB_RWT_PGR_Adjust.png
Paul S
Let us try this site tomorrow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007mpl9
We can only hope!
This is quite sad, don`t laugh, my 24 year old granddaughter came to visit today, she mentioned getting a BBC DVD titled Natural world or something for a friend, this led to global warming. My granddaughter mentioned in the ensuing conversation that she had been informed that the Maldives would sink below the ocean in about 2 years and she would like to visit before that happened, she is an administrator in charge of a large department in a major UK power supply company, she had no idea what carbon credits or carbon trading was, she also had no idea that a 100 watt bulb used more power than a 11watt low energy lamp. The generation that left school before this AGW rubbish started have no idea how much this madness is going to cost them.
??
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=06&fy=1979&sm=12&sd=06&sy=2008
??
WUWT
Aliens?
B Kerr (14:31:03) :
“Paul S
Let us try this site tomorrow.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007mpl9
We can only hope!”
Hope and The Ministry of Truth do not play well together-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00g3fcd/BBC_News_at_One_06_12_2008/
If it ain’t there by now…..
Terry,
I guess it’s their way of saying, “We can paint anything we want to an the sea ice pictures, and you can’t do anything about it.”
Mike,
It is worse than that, as you well know.
Looks like not only-
“BBC News: 06/12/2008 is no longer available. Programmes are available for a limited number of days after broadcast”
at the above link, but they even expunged the day itself !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007mpl9
That Winston Smith. One efficient little drone isn’t he.
(I don’t often use exclamation marks but figured this warranted one)
Douglas DC:
You’re right about the x-axis in the Mauna Loa CO2 graph.
Here’s the same info in a not-so-scary format:click
Looks as if BBC 24 TV is not streamed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_news24/2008-12-06
Maybe someone has downloaded Peter Sissons on Sky+
Ah well, would have been good to have seen.
Smokey (02:02:35) :
Douglas DC:
Even more interesting is the increase of CO2 from year to year, shown in
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FlaticecoreCO2.pdf .
It lags the temperature anomaly by some months but follows its shape.
AnnaV
i have posted these graphs elsewhere but interested in your comments
THe ice cap graph seems to confirm something I have been saying ever since I compiled this graph-it shows Hadley CET back to 1660, together with the CDIAC/IPCC estimates of total global human co2 emissions since 1750
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken.xls
it was obvious from this that either;
a) CO2 had nothing to do with anything, as we have had historic measured temperatures as warm as today’s without the benefit of co2 levels of 380ppm
OR
b)That there were co2 spikes and troughs ‘missing’ that would explain the fluctuating temperatures.
As a result I became intrerested in the work of Ernst Beck and have just finished thoroughly researching the historic use of co2 from the 1820’s onwards.
Suffice to say that from the Victorian era onwards accurate measurements were routinely taken for a variety of medical and enmployment purposes-there was even a British factories act in 1889 to ensure co2 levels were kept lower than 900ppm in cotton factories.
These measurements were taken by very many extremely high quality scientists-some nobel winners- who knew perfectly well how to use their equipment in order to arrive at accurate readings that were commonly as high as today.
If you then read GS Callendars archives (hundreds of files on DVD) and Keelings autobiography, you realise the first was guilty of cherry picking in order to further his theory of AGW, whilst the latter -as a young man with no experience whatosever of climate sciece, co2 measurements or history- merely accepted what the older man told him. As a result of all this I compiled the following graph
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.xls
This is more sophisticated than the first graph in as much it accurately measures metric million tons against both ppm and temperatures. The blue line just discernible at the bottom is the total of ALL human co2 emissions since 1750 (Cdiac/IPCC) but put in the context of ALL co2 emissions.
The yellow dots are some of Ernst Becks historic measurements. I have researched the circumstances of the 12 he considers the most reliable and they do range from around 290 to around 400ppm. AsS you can see all the co2 action takes place at around 600,000 to 820,000 MMT. It takes around 260GT to move from the highest to the lowest part of the scale, which sources/sinks can outgas or absorb over one year. Temperature rises first and co2 follows and the whole cycle is very quick.
Either the ice cores are wrong OR temperatures can rise and fall by large amounts at a constant level of 280ppm. I think the former is most likely.
The graphs are in Excel so people can hover the mouse pointer over a dot to obtain the background data. Alternatively I have a jpeg available if people merely want an image,
Tony Brown
Ok…once again, you science folks have gotten it all wrong.
As it turns out, we need to MELT the icecaps…asap…because MELTING icecaps help solve GW.
I’m a bit dissapointed that someone here didn’t figure this out first…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/07/melting-icebergs-slow-global-warming
Jim
Hi Mike Bryant,
It is I, Jeff, with the crazy solar conveyor belt theory. I hope you are still visiting these comments. First of all, thank you for not dismissing the idea. This is where I am coming from on the theory.
In October 2005, there was a significant shift in the solar conveyor belt. Anthony posted on this on June 15, 2008. He also posted on the Livingston and Penn paper June 2, 2008.
Since October 2005, there has been a significant decrease in the heliosphere and a significant increase in cosmic rays bombarding the Earth. These cosmic rays focus toward the Polar Regions because they are charged particles and the poles are magnetic.
Under Svensmark and Friis-Christensen solar forcing theory, there is probably a significant increase in low-level stratus cloud cover over the Polar Region. The Polar Regions probably have a much greater percentage change in cloud cover than the rest of the planet because of this focus of cosmic rays.
With more cloud cover, there are probably colder temperatures and less sun light for melting. This is only a theory. I am not a scientist.
If you are still out there, tell me, what do you think about this theory.
Jeff Wiita
Sorry, I did not finish the theory before I submitted.
With more cloud cover, cooler temperatures, and less sun light for melting the polar ice caps, water from precipitation accumulates at the Polar Regions. That results in lower sea levels.
Jeff Wiita
Sorry, I thought of one more thing for the solar conveyor belt theory.
More cloud cover results in cooler temperatures, which cools the oceans, which makes the oceans contract, resulting in lower sea levels.
More cloud cover also strengthens the PDO, and lengthens La Nina in the ENSO.
Have a nice warm future mini ice age.
Jeff Wiita
The second interview with Nick Clegg, leader of the UK Liberal democrat party is at http://shorterlink.com/?KQUTJC
The last minute of the four minutes or so segment is the interesting part where at least one BBC staffer breaks ranks with the “consensus”.
{sarc}The Ubermessiah has already pushed back the oceans{/sarc}
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Mike J
Great link. They boy did well!!
Nick says “All scientist agree … … eh .. most … eh.. ”
Excuse me but who is Nick Clegg?
Why is he on the BBC being interviewed?
Is he important in England.
I’ve heard of “Furious Cameron”, tries to look like Al Gore and Data from Star Trek.
Mick J (10:27:52)
Watch Nick Clegg’s grimace as the topic is brought up. I waver between thinking he’s chagrined at disinformation, or chagrined at being caught out. He falls back solely to a argument to authority and ‘disputes very much’ what should be plain as the hand in front of his face, that the globe is now cooling.
Oh, yes, cooling for how long, even kim doesn’t know.
=====================================
Kim say:
Watch Nick Clegg’s grimace as the topic is brought up. I waver between thinking he’s chagrined at disinformation, or chagrined at being caught out. He falls back solely to a argument to authority and ‘disputes very much’ what should be plain as the hand in front of his face, that the globe is now cooling.
What cooling?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/ann/us-summary.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
look at this book:
Gille, Sarah T. – “Warming of the Southern Ocean Since the 1950s”.
And about the rise of sea level look at this photo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
This is not the high warming on the earth, it is only a relatively small warming(i.e.:Greenland – green+land – this means greenland was green, and not white, when vikings found them), in some ages is possible the ice didn’t exist.
But, the warming is NOW present!
Larh,
The US economy may have a tremendous influence on the rest of the world, but the same may not be said of the US Climate.
As for the sea level rise, like every other graph on Wikipedia related to climate change, it is outdated. The data end in 2003.
I wouldn’t cite anything by Hansen as he has proved he’s lost his marbles when he said that sea levels would rise 20ft by 2100.
Just saw the Nick Clegg interview. He did look a little nervous when Mr Sisson’s told him global temperatures had fallen over the last 10 years…
B Kerr (11:31:39) :
Excuse me but who is Nick Clegg?
Why is he on the BBC being interviewed?
Nick Clegg is the leader of the Liberal Democrats. The no3 party here in the UK. He’s on the green campaign trail so his position and stance on green issues is most likely the two reasons why he’s being interviewed.
To Larh
There have been a number of times in geological history when temperatures have been higher than now. The key to understanding the raising temperatures for the 30 years prior to 1998 is to understand why and how historical changes happened. I truly believe that once we understand why it happened then, we will have a good understanding of why it happened recently.
Larh, a graph of sea levels at 23 unamed tide gauges means absolutely nothing.
With a basic knowledge of tectonic processes (knowing where land is rising or falling), I could name 23 locations where I could gaurantee sea level has fallen, as well as 23 locations where sea level has risen.
The satellite data is more reliable as it attempts to measure sea levels across the globe and isn’t subject to local tectonic effects like tide gauges.
And, graphs that don’t show recent temperatures isn’t a very convincing argument against recent cooling.
OT China is cold this year too:
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-36861020081204
TonyB (04:50:32) :
Interesting . I agree with you that most probably the icecores have arbitrary callibrations in absolute scale. I still suspect that being close to huge sinks of cold water they are just a record of the CO2 in that region and not a world CO2 proxy( in addition to all the objections on methodology by a number of people).
I would like to investigate further the question of ice cores showing a constant 280ppm since pre industrial times and 295ppm since 1900. The observational evidence as referred to here (my post at 4.50 today goes into detail) shows low co2 levels seem to have no effect whatsoever on historically high temperatures
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/mencken.xls
This graph puts all human co2 emissions since 1750 into context.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.xls
If co2 has an effect on temperature, historic co2 levels MUST be higher than today. The yellow dots give observed readings from 1820 onwards.
Any information on how the ice cores are measured, their reliability or ANYTHING that will demonstrate how a constant 280ppm in the past can produce temperatures equivalent to- or higher- than today, is welcome. If Anna herself -or anyone-can amplify her most interesting comments that would also be great.
Constant low levels of co2 should be consistent with constant low temperatures that barely fluctuate, but they self evidently aren’t. WHY?
TonyB
You all are missing the point. Follow the money! How can they sell carbon credits if there isn’t a carbon disaster aka Global Warming. If the oceans rise to much we can move on to them. Didn’t any of you see the movie “Sea World”. If not driving SUVs can change the climate of the the world just think what 2 or three atomic bombs will do. Maybe some smart lawyer (follow the Money) can bring a class action suit against God and make him stop all volcanic activity and other natural pollution. The thing to remember is we live in a closed environment it all was here and can not leave. All that is except what NASA shoots up into space.
TonyB, how about posting your graphs as jpegs, can’t open xls. Thank you
TonyB wrote:
Any information on how the ice cores are measured, their reliability or ANYTHING that will demonstrate how a constant 280ppm in the past can produce temperatures equivalent to- or higher- than today, is welcome.
It’s simple. CO2 does not “produce” temperatures. It lags temperature changes, sometimes by as much as centuries.
The Vostok Ice cores are among the longest time records as far as I can tell, and I have read that they had to stop drilling because of the discovery of “Lake Vostok” underneath all that ice, and a desire to not drill into it; at least not prematurely before adult scientists decide what if any would be the benefits of doing that.
But Vostok is one of the weirdest places on this planet, because of its temperatures, where CO2 snow is apparently a relatively common occurrence. I talked to someone on another site, who had actually observed CO2 snow at the south pole.
So does any one wonder; as I do, just what information is really encapsulated in those deep ice cores. Where does that water come from originally, and what were the conditions under which the CO2 in it got there. CO2 must dissolve in water droplets or ice crystals in clouds, and when that stuff falls to earth, it must sit for a long time during which it is in contact with the local atmosphere. How about migratioon of the CO2 and other gases during the eons of the ice compaction.
Frankly if I wanted to store a representative sample of earth’s atmosphere, I would not choose a pile of compressed snow to do it.
Now I suspect that the timing of steep edges of composition changes in the ice are of some reliability; but why would anybody believe that the absolute concentration levels of the gases are what was laid down originally.
So I believe the relative timing information at least to the extent that they are careful in counting the “tree rings” which is what the snow layers are equivalent to; but I would take the concentration numbers with a good deal of caution. I wouoldn’t be making any local climate declarations based on that and I certainly wouldn’t be even wildly guessing any global climate from that information.
So if I drill a 10,000 ft rock core in Spokane, and another one in Atlanta, is it ok for me to describe the entire geology record of North America based on that information. does anyone in this business understand the mathematical laws of sampled data systems?
Just asking !
Snow is falling on the home page of the WUWT web site and its intensity seems to be increasing.
Intense dredging activity in SF Bay this year. It’s a struggle to keep it navigable.
Clark (10:43:55) :
Barak Obama was right – the sea DID stop rising when he was elected!
Barak Canute?
Flanagan said:
“Making climatic trends over 3 years is at the best naive, not to say misleading.
“Look at this! No rise between 1992 and 1995. Proof there’s no warming. The same holds for 1998-2000 where the levels actually decreased!!! But … Wait… How is it possible then that sea levels increased between 1992 and 2000 ? ”
Short term and long term. Never heard of short-scale variability?”
Yes! In fact, most of us evil “deniers” HAVE heard of it. Which is why many of us ARE “deniers”. The satellite data have only been around since 1992. No matter what they show — it’s short term. Prior to that, all Warmists have is ridiculous tide chart data, mostly from the low countries in Europe.
At the same time you scoff at half the data, you try to claim that the other half is reliable.
What is presented here does not disprove Global Warming; but then, that’s NOT OUR JOB! It is the job of Warmist fanatics like you to PROVE that warming exists. This has never been done. What the data here shows is that it is VERY unlikely that it ever will be done.
30 years of prediction after prediction — rescinded and re-predicted. Hundreds of highly publicized predictions by Warmist Acolytes — And NOT ONE has ever come true.
In THREE DECADES of incessant apocalyptic predictions, and NONE have been accurate? What do you call a “scientific” theory with ZERO predictive value?
Hint: I call it Horsesh*t.
What
Steve
my post of 7 December and your reply.
As suggested here is graph 2 in jpeg form
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg
I am hoping to have the first graph available in same format by friday.
TonyB