IPCC sea level prediction – not scary enough

From the Niels Bohr Institute - Studies agree on a 1 meter rise in sea levels

New research from several international research groups, including the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen provides independent consensus that IPCC predictions of less than a half a meter rise in sea levels is around 3 times too low. The new estimates show that the sea will rise approximately 1 meter in the next 100 years in agreement with other recent studies. The results have been published in the scientific journal, Geophysical Research Letters.

Recent studies agree that sea level will rise by roughly one meter over this century for a mid- range emission scenario. This is 3 times higher than predicted by the IPCC.

Since IPCC published the predictions in 2007, that the sea would rise less than half a metre in the next 100 years, it became clear that there was a problem with the prediction models as they did not take into account the dynamic effects of the melting ice sheets. The estimates were therefore too low.
Better prediction models

However, the new model estimates, from international research groups from England, China and Denmark, give independent support for the much higher predictions from other recent studies.

”Instead of using temperature to calculate the rise in sea levels, we have used the radiation balance on Earth – taking into account both the warming effect of greenhouse gasses and the cooling effect from the sulfur clouds of large volcanic eruptions, which block radiation”, explains Aslak Grinsted, PhD in geophysics at the Centre for Ice and Climate, the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

The research is based on observations of sea levels from the 1700s to the present and estimates of the radiation balance through approximately 1000 years.

The sun’s heat varies periodically and currently there is a solar minimum, but even if solar radiation were to reach its lowest level in the past 9300 years, it will have only a minimal impact on sea levels. Some have suggested that you could inject sulfur into the atmosphere and get a kind of artificial volcanic eruption cooling effect, but the calculations show that it would only slow down the rise in sea levels for 12-20 years. What are important are greenhouse gasses like CO2, the research shows.

The likelihood of flooding due to storm surges increases greatly if the ocean rises one meter. Such a rise in sea level will not flood large areas of land, but what is regarded as exceptionally high water level will occur at least 1.000 times more often in vulnerable areas. (Photo: Northland Regional Council, New Zealand)

Reduced emissions
The results are that the sea level will rise between 0.7 and 1.2 meters during the next 100 years. The difference depends on what mankind does to stop the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. If we seriously reduce the emissions of CO2 globally, the sea will only rise 0.7 meters, while there will be a dramatic rise of 1.2 meter if we continue indifferent with the current use of energy based on fossil fuels.

In the calculations the researchers assume that we continue to emit CO2, but that we move more towards other energy supplies and reduce our use of fossil fuels and with that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. This scenario would give a rise in sea levels of around 1 meter.

Other energy sources important now
Even a one meter rise in sea levels would have a big impact in some places in the world with low lying areas, which will become much more susceptible to extreme  storm surges, where water could easily sweep over the coasts.

”The research results show that it is therefore important to do something now to curb the emission of CO2 – there is about a half meter difference in sea level depending on whether nations of the world continue to pump greenhouse gases from fossil fuels into the atmosphere or whether we slam on the brakes and use other energy sources”, explains Aslak Grinsted.

h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard

About these ads

183 thoughts on “IPCC sea level prediction – not scary enough

  1. But if the oceans are cooling and the poles are growing and we are getting record snow cover on land then how does that all factor in their results?

  2. I wonder if we can establish a hedge fund based on projected sea level rise, or a futures contract !
    I could take out a contract for the greatgrand kids who might still be around in 100 years, will I bet it reaches 1m or will i bet it wont

    see if we can get the scientists who predict this stuff to put their money where their mouths are.

    It would be entertaining

  3. ”Instead of using temperature to calculate the rise in sea levels, we have used the radiation balance on Earth – taking into account both the warming effect of greenhouse gasses and the cooling effect from the sulfur clouds of large volcanic eruptions, which block radiation”

    Like wow, they can predict the world’s volcanic eruptions for the next 100 years, and how much sulphur they will emit into the atmosphere? That is unbelievably good news.

    Can they please let us know which volcanoes and when, I live in Rotorua New Zealand (inside a volcanic crater), sothis information could be extremely useful to me.

    I am assuming that they have also included the effects of increased cloud cover due to increased evaporation with warmer temperatures?

    “Aslak Grinsted, PhD in geophysics at the Centre for Ice and Climate, the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen”

    Nothing rotten there. Move on.

  4. “… 3 times too low…”

    How are estimates 300 percent too low? After they are 100 percent lower aren’t they already at zero?

  5. 1/2 meter…………uhmm…..yep, its panic time. It’s all coming together for me now. Yes, this would be a horrible problem. Happily, I’ve the solution. We can take the solar panels in Spain and fit them with mirrors. Strategically place them about the coasts of the world and reflect the sun to the oceans to evaporate the impending swamping of the world.
    Of course, I probably can’t help little islands like Guam, but they’re capsizing anyways so………..

  6. What is it going to take to make these people come to their senses? Now they are claiming a 1000-year forecast and they know sea level 100 years from now! It’s insanity.

  7. Junk science at it’s worst. They claim that the predictions are based on observations since 1700, yet the trend lines are 2-4X steeper than any observed trends during that period.

    It takes some skill to make the IPCC look reasonable, but they have succeeded.

  8. This uses “the radiation balance on Earth” along with GHGs and large volcanic eruptions to predict sea level rise out to 2110. I’ll bet a 3 dollar bill they are wrong. Are there breakthroughs on understanding the sun and predicting volcanic eruptions that haven’t yet made headlines?

  9. ”The research results show that it is therefore important to do something now to curb the emission of CO2 – there is about a half meter difference in sea level depending on whether nations of the world continue to pump greenhouse gases from fossil fuels into the atmosphere or whether we slam on the brakes and use other energy sources”, explains Aslak Grinsted.

    Hmmm, but were’t we told that CO2 levels could not be wound back. What’s the point of doing anything?

  10. If only the oceans would return to a “normal” level.

    Oh hold it, maybe that’s not so good. According to the chart below the oceans are at near record low for the past 500 million years. “Normal” appears to be about 175 meters higher than it is now. Yikes!

    Sea level during past 500my

  11. This amateurish piece looks like a high school student essay. Take this bit:

    Some have suggested that you could inject sulfur into the atmosphere and get a kind of artificial volcanic eruption cooling effect, but the calculations show that it would only slow down the rise in sea levels for 12-20 years. What are important are greenhouse gasses like CO2, the research shows.

    “some have suggested…”, “a kind of volcanic eruption cooling effect…”, “the calculations show…”, “the research shows”. “You could inject sulfur”…I could, could I? how about you? “What are important are…are they, they are, now? Aye, Arrrh, matey!

    At least they put it through spell and grammar checkers. The software hasn’t been written yet, though, that will take immature journalism and make it look like an authority penned it.

    My bets this page disappears from their website the moment one of the scientists look at it. The actual article is more authoritatively written but its content is the same crap.

    What’s with the broken IPCC line in the figure? Is this the new prediction to appear in AR5?

  12. Anyone ask Dr. Mörner as of late?

    Bet this would coax him put of retirement!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  13. double correction:

    Broken arm one-handed “typing” here.

    And it is my dominant hand that is broken: lefty here.

  14. I am not a GRL member, so have read only the abstract. I suspect that this is little more then some questionable model, filled with questionable assumptions, that ignores the geological record. It would be the first time geophysicists have ignored the geologists. I won’t be the last.

  15. Does this mean His Largeness The Goracle will come out of the restaurant coat closet now? I’m guessing that “sophisticated statistical manipulations” were heavily employed in this new study because the simple reading of a tide gauge certainly will not produce such a result.

  16. Lindsay H. (21:23:49) : “I wonder if we can establish a hedge fund based on projected sea level rise, or a futures contract !…see if we can get the scientists who predict this stuff to put their money where their mouths are….”

    Why should they? The way they have it now, they get to put your money where their mouths are.

  17. ”The research results show that it is therefore important to do something now to curb the emission of CO2 – there is about a half meter difference in sea level depending on whether nations of the world continue to pump greenhouse gases from fossil fuels into the atmosphere or whether we slam on the brakes and use other energy sources”, explains Aslak Grinsted.

    R Gates are you already planning to take only one out of three breath?

  18. Another of the “projections are predictions” genre studies.

    First lets ignore the actual measurable rates of ice melt and sea level rise. Then we run the model with the end result already “known”, or assumed, to be 1.2 meters. All that’s needed then is to fiddle the SOx and CO2 knobs to get the pretty graphs.

    Amazing, and so simple even a caveman can do it.

  19. What is really surprising is that it is only 1 meter. My guess is that by next year the new improved science will revise this to 2 to 3 meters+/- 0.006 cm by March 2076.

  20. @Fred (21:31:50) :

    “… 3 times too low…”

    How are estimates 300 percent too low? After they are 100 percent lower aren’t they already at zero?

    Obviously, you’re not familiar with new math, IPCC style. Here’s how you get to it…..http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/12/the-new-math-ipcc-version/#more-18382
    Amazingly enough, my current president already has a full understanding of it. He recently promised to lower some business financed health insurance by as much as 300%. I’m still working on it, but, I’m confident if I apply myself properly I’ll have a 200% understanding of it!!!

  21. Again the radiation balance… what a wonderful model that can deliver anything alarmist and should political climate change, make it disappear as fast.
    But hey they are based on physics laws and that alone should mean they are right, right?

  22. The more of this the better.. absolute junk. That’s why people are not believing it keep it up.

  23. This is absurd. Not only is the reasoning incredibly suspect on its face, these ‘scientists’ have again chosen variable and static elements to create the desired affect.

  24. See, there’s that blasted “consensus” word again. This is yet another cartload of the so called post normal junk science. Doesn’t it make you sick?

  25. Oh brother.

    We’re witnessing a global epidemic of lunatics and liars in a frenzied panic to create any public panamonium neccessary to keep them from going down in history for what they are.

    I’m getting sick of them.

  26. This is based on the obsession with CO2 as the main driver in the climate models. Frankly, mankind will adapt whatever the results. As for the 100 years forecast – what arrogance to think that we know it all.

  27. Why isn’t junk science like this treated the same way as forgery and counterfeiting? After all billions if not trillions of dollars are at stake here. These so called “climate scientists” should be behind bars.

  28. [quote Peter S (21:27:15) :]
    Like wow, they can predict the world’s volcanic eruptions for the next 100 years, and how much sulphur they will emit into the atmosphere? That is unbelievably good news.
    [/quote]

    They can average out the volcanoes that have already occurred over the past several hundred years and use that to project forward.

    I’d put a lot more faith in that than either their cloud or energy budget projections.

  29. Will these alarmist scare forecasts for what supposedly is going to happen 100 years ahead never end?

    It must be great to make these kind of long term forecasts knowing that there is absolutely no way you will ever be held accountable for being wrong, as by then you will either have gone gaga or be in your box.

  30. Do the math. 96,000 CUBIC MILES of land borne ice must melt.

    Now factor in the energy required. The IPCC and its supporters are simply lying.

  31. Sorry, but this whole modeling scenario has ‘financial bubble’ written all over it. Why? Because the people who have issues with the models bearing resemblance to physical reality are being cast as the dumbos.

    “Housing prices (re:temperature) have nowhere to go but up!”

    Anyone disputing that is an idiot, and that is the reality of the political situation, but the reality of the physical situation is different. Temperature is high, but why will it continue to be higher? Because models expect it to? Is there a reason to expect housing prices, oops, I mean temperature, to drop? No? I’ll take that bet. In fact, I got five on it.

    Delete the link if you have to. :-)

  32. Was already tought by Prof. Schellnhuber that there is “a direct link between CO2 and global mean temperature”.
    But now we are told that even the sea level rise depends directly from the emission of “greenhouse gases from fossil fuels” into the atmosphere.
    How scary, but how does the sea level make this fossil distinction?
    And how does this new science influence the temp link mentioned above?
    (scratching my head)

    It’s about time, to publish the graph how global wealth and health has been linked to increasing CO2 in the past, from whatever sources.
    And to predict how this would go further into the future if we drastically reduce emissions, by destroying industries, change lifstyle, apply new taxes, being governed by green idiologists, etc. …

  33. See this image of Post glacial sea level rise – now that’s scary!

    Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
    Sea level expert reviewer for the IPCC 2000 and 2006

    “….in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
    ……
    ….in 5,000 years, the whole of the Northern Hemisphere experienced warming, the Holocene Warm Optimum, and it was 2.5 degrees warmer than today. And still, no problem with Antarctica, or with Greenland; still, no higher sea level.” [Source Pdf click here ]

    The last 150 years’ trend was ~1.0 mm/yr, the present trend is ~1.0 mm/yr and this value is likely to persist even in the next century. My personal evaluation (Mörner, 1995) is “10 cm, at the most 20 cm, in the next century. Source: click here

    More from Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner:
    Memorandum to UK Select Committee
    Maldives sinking!

  34. Well, I will go to Oslo on the 17th April, 12:00 , and listen to what Niels Axel Mørner has to say about this.

    He has the opinion that this is fraud.

  35. And, as the recent trend in research continues, we have studies
    of studies, with the very deep down conclusions and their
    foot-noted caveats, reviewer comments and follow-up
    corrections buried or stripped out.

    This way any study used by the ICCP to produce a “conclusion”
    that has been questioned or found lacking in substantive validity
    is reduced to a citation and can still be used as a foundation for logical arguement structures.

    This is high school debate techniques at their worst.

    We’ll only see more of this “review” research as the scientists
    doing basic or fundamental studies are forced to cross the t’s
    and dot their i’s due to archiving demands and assumed
    potential independent “auditors” checking up on them
    and possible FOIA requests for data and interpolative statistical
    treatments and programs.

  36. I wonder when the 3.2mm/yr rate will ramp up? If we’re in another 30 year cold half-cycle, it will have to make a pretty steep climb after the temps start rising again.

    Maybe they are doing “Mike’s trick” (the other Mike M) and splicing the the temperature record on to the end of the sea level curve.

  37. Another – “The sky is falling” – subgroup to THE TEAM

    I am baffled as to why anyone can take any of these little boys seriously-

    We all know they do know how to fake everything while leaving out relevant bits here and there.

    I see they are still in the ICE IS MELTING – Phase while we have all discovered that has reversed-

    OOPSI – they did not get the grant request in on time – gotta make it look really bad – still try to get the money.

  38. It always raises a red flage when I read;

    “…the new model estimates,…”

    “…independent support for the much higher predictions…”

    “…and estimates of the radiation balance…”

    You just have to look at warmist’s failed predictions to understand that these guys don’t have a clue what they are talking about.

    Does anyone know who funds these chaps?

  39. “Richard111 (22:44:51) :

    Do the math. 96,000 CUBIC MILES of land borne ice must melt.

    Now factor in the energy required. The IPCC and its supporters are simply lying.”

    Much of the ice is well below freezing, and would have to first be heated up to the melting point first.

    Sea levels have risen 120 meters over the last 12,000 years since the end of the last ice age, and were as much as 3 meters higher during the last interglacials maximum.

    Maybe if a super volcano erupted under the Antarctic ice shelf this is possible for this much ice to melt in a short time, but not from CO2 slowing LWR on it’s march to space.

    “we have used the radiation balance on Earth ”

    Where are the measurements (not estimates) on the radiation balance today (outgoing and incoming), forget about estimating what it was 1000 years ago.

    Bohr Institute. Wasn’t Bohr that guy Einstein said meant God rolls dice, and that we don’t need to find the physical causes for what happens, just assign it a probability. Climate Science has a lot in common with quantum physics.

  40. How can anyone expect to get away with crap like this?

    Answer : They have already been getting away with it for 20+ years.

    Why is it crap?

    Answer : It is the same circular logic that the IPCC used.

    The research is based on observations of sea levels from the 1700s to the present and estimates of the radiation balance through approximately 1000 years.

    No doubt they estimate the radiation imbalance from the IPCC computer models, which are themselves built on circular logic. This radiation imbalance is then correlated with the sea level rise – in other words, by ignoring everything else, they have made the assumption that the estimated radiation imbalance is the cause of the sea level rise. So everything is based on an assumption, with no supporting evidence – just like the IPCC report. Only in this case, the assumption looks like it comes from the IPCC report in the first place. Circular logic built on circular logic.

    So they just go round and round and round, making it look like new research when it’s really just the old crap regurgitated, without there ever having been any supporting evidence.

    Now, since I accuse them of not having any evidence, how about I provide a bit of evidence for what I have just said?

    OK : They examined sea levels and radiation imbalance. That means they looked at sea levels (how can I express that more simply?) and the difference between incoming and outgoing radiation. That means they were not looking at CO2. Yet their conclusion is:
    What are important are greenhouse gasses like CO2, the research shows.
    Huh? They look at sea levels and radiation, yet their conclusion is about CO2???

    I think that is all the evidence I need.

  41. My objection is with the statement; “new research shows”. Research is the discovery of new facts and data from the study of present and past occurrences: either in the laboratory or from the natural environment. As far as I can see there is no new data behind this work, it is a remodelling of old data with different assumptions and handling, to make revised predictions into the future. This is not “new research” but new conclusions about the future drawn from already existing data. It can only become ‘research’ if the assumptions are shown to be borne out by occurrences in the future. Until then, such model-based studies are just explorations of future possibilities based on a specific set of assumptions which can only be tested for their accuracy from future observations. This is not to say that such modelling cannot be of great use in helping to understand complex systems and improving predictability, but calling it ‘research results’ creates a misleading impression of proof and certainty.

  42. Speaking of sea level rise estimates…

    Please consider my series of posts concerning Vermeer’s and Rahmstorf’s 2009 PNAS paper “Global sea level linked to global temperature.”

    Part 1, the basic problem.
    Part 2, little more detail on the math.
    Part 3, a few examples that show some bizarre consequences that would result if Vermeer and Rahmstorf were correct.
    Part 4, improbable parallel universes
    Part 5variation of gamma

    ClimateSanity

  43. This is every bit as good as the projections of the US debt in 2020. Some show things will be just dandy. Others indicate another future.

    Do they mention the dates for planting crops in 2090? Or is that another topic?

  44. For the “doesn’t account for observations” crowd:

    “The research is based on observations of sea levels from the 1700s to the present..”

    But this has me stymied:

    “..estimates of the radiation balance through approximately 1000 years”

    Starting from when? How do they correlate it with sea-level rise since CO2 levels started to accelerate (or non-rate-of-rise such as for most of the last decade)?

  45. @Jimbo (23:09:31)
    “Does anyone know who funds these chaps?”

    Yup

    You do. And me. And all the other hard pressed tax payers. And you’ll also be paying for their nice index-linked pensions when they collect them.

    And these rent seeking clowns probably don’t realise that they have debased “science” so much that most sensible people, faced with their “prediction” that 15th April was going to be a Thursday, would carefully check with at least three calendars.

    We really should shove their little models, and the computers they run them on, where the sun don’t shine. Maybe that would cool things down a bit.

  46. Then again -

    I just think we may be missing something here-

    They may be trying to scare all the rich folks from their ocean front living, drive the values down, and pick up the de-valued real estate at bargains-

    Rent them out for a bit-

    Come out with a “revised” study that shows all is well – after all-

    Talk about profits-

    Soros could pull this off easily (look what he did in 98)-

  47. Wouldn’t it be ecocide to try to stop this sea level rise? Imagine the harm we would do to the plankton. Let’s put everyone who builds a dike on trial, he only wants to protect humans living by the seaside. (I’m talking Polly-Higgins-ish here for those who missed it)

  48. By my own estimate 90% of all that is written about what would happen if the globe heated up is complete absolute twaddle.

    However, the one area where you should expect reasonable scientific forecasts based on known science and not the vivid imagination and hysteria of over-excited grant applicants is on sea level rise.

    To be honest I’ve got absolutely no faith whatsoever in the IPCC’s measurements of sea level rise because you can’t try to hide the way these are distorted by selected the sea level gauges that show rise and expect anyone to then trust the result.

    However, even if the recorded sea level rise is fiction, and even if you believe the hysteria about (urban heated) global temperature rise, I couldn’t reconcile the small 1m rise with the general level of hysteria present in the IPCC report. It always seemed far too tame, a bit like a spot of calm in a sea of hysteria.

  49. Dont seem to scary. I see relation with ENSO but nothing to worry to much in the annual change, at least to buy a new house far from the coast :).

  50. I read it as as an admission of using the wrong model for the past 20 years. Yet they were so certain.

    cheers David

  51. Hello Anthony et al.,

    beside the question if a factor 3 difference in trend can be called 300% lower or better 1/3 :)
    I keep on wondering, if this publication is based on oversmoothed data (I left a question for that at RC which is unaswered so far)
    If you compare Holgate’s “Rate of Change” in measured data with Rahmsdorf’s version of it, you can see a pronounced diviation for example around 1990 wich is very close to the point where the data ends and the extrapolation starts . .

    Compare for example figure 1 here:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/07/22/sea-level-rise-an-update-shows-a-slowdown/

    With figure 1 here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/science-story-the-making-of-a-sea-level-study/

    I would appreciate if someone could comment on that idea . .

    All the best,
    LoN

  52. Do you think that this was worth repeating. Exploring this relationship of course useful but the rather rapid skew into CO2 mania implies that the rest of the paper is not too accurate either.

    Hey we need the publicity, have we got anything we can release?
    How about this- The relationship between sea level and the radiation from the sun

    “They use the radiation balance on Earth – taking into account
    both the warming effect of greenhouse gasses and the cooling
    effect from the sulfur clouds of large volcanic eruptions, which
    block radiation”,
    The results are that the sea level will rise between 0.7 and 1.2 meters
    during the next 100 years.

    That sounds great but it still needs some pizazz, how about linking it to Global Warming, it will make it easier to get it published. OK I’ll slap a bit on the end and send the paper in for publication

    “What are important are greenhouse gasses like CO2, the research shows.”

    “The research results show that it is therefore important to do
    something now to curb the emission of CO2″

    Yours cynically

  53. Hmmmmm! IPCC 2007SPM, Table SPM1 (adjusted from ballsed up orignial):-
    Rate of Sea-Level Rise, 1961-1993, 1.8mm/year + 0.5mm/year error = 2.3mm/year, 1993-2003, 3.1mm/year – 0.7mm/year error = 2.4mm/year. The same number if you’re an engineer! Accepted rate of sea-level rise for 80 years from the good Dr Morner,……………2.3mm/year! Wow.

    I suppose this means that good ol’ Al baby’s condo on the western coast of the colonies bought for $4M in ’08 is on the market going for a song as a result?

    News flash just in:- last night at Exmouth Docks sea-levels rose dramatically causing widespread concern among local residents, who swore on someone else’s mother’s life that it had never happened before! Then 6 hours later the sea-level dropped dramatically for no reason, causing even more concern for said residents, who believed witches were to blame. Then 6 hours later it rose dramatically again for no reason whatsoever! Several local middle-aged women were arrested & tried under new PDR of EU Regulations, by throwing them into the sea. Some drowned because they couldn’t swim & were pronounced innocent immediately, those that could swim were quickly rescued & dried off in a rather unusual & somewhat dramatic fashion! Your trusted Climate Change Correspondent, AtB, out!

  54. Did the paper finish with the standard ending with departmental budgets in mind

    ….of course further research is required.

  55. New research from several international research groups … provides independent consensus

    Independent consensus???

    I guess they all got the memo: “Get out and talk this thing up from its death-bed”

  56. This people are paid by plitical bureaucrats to produce the desired reports on a regular basis. I reckon there must be a lot of people at the Neils Bohr institute who are unhappy. Any leaks?

  57. This looks like an overly coordinated effort for comfort – over the last few days the local warmists where I live have been telling scary stories to the local newspapers about how much of their local coastal towns are going to be inundated, and how much worse it is going to be that it was thought previously. Anybody else see signs of an activist policy influence network at work here?

  58. How about draining some of the Pacific Ocean into Death Valley? It’d make a nice inland lake. Or we could pump ocean water onto Antarctica and let it freeze? Or we could realize every prediction by the warmists has gone awry and stop listening to them! After the last few weeks of stories on WUMT, the liberals that I debate have finally yielded! Not a peep out of them! It’s a minor miracle! BTW, I agree CO2 is a GHG but we obviously have time to change w/o destroying the free market. In fact, the free market is what will bring us the next tech that will solve the energy crisis. It sure won’t be by socialism. Just look at medicine, 95% of all treatments and lifesaving drugs came from the USA, or used to…

  59. Right, so the trend is linear from 1950 to the present day (assuming once again that we can actually measure global sea level rise to within 10cm, which we can’t) and then starts to rise exponentially starting…. tomorrow.

    Just how stupid do they think we are?????

  60. Anyway, look at the logic of what they are saying.

    You live in a part of the world that is close to sea level. You have two choices:

    1] Build sea defence that can cope with a sea level rise of 1.2m

    2] Build sea defences that can cope with a sea level rise of 0.7m and then badger the other 160 odd nations of the world to dramatically reduce their CO2 emissions.

    Doesn’t logic suggest that option [1] is the only realistic solution?????

  61. Are they are saying that (0.5/1.2)x 100=42 % of the rise is due to human CO2 emissions??? Twaddle.

  62. I am pleased to see the dig against sulfur injection.

    The StratoShield method proposed by Intellectual Ventures Labs (2″ garden hose pumping SO2 into the stratosphere) is cheap (millions of US dollars to deploy and run, not billions or trillions), relatively easy to deploy, cheap, adjustable, cheap, quickly reversible, cheap, does not require an all-encompassing worldwide regime under UN control, and is cheap.

    That the backers of CAGW alarmism continue to push doubt about the method, even going out of their way to stick a snide mention into something like this, indicates to me that SO2 injection has great potential to be their greatest nightmare, a real solution that will really work that is really cheap that ordinary people will really go for instead of their planned carbon-trading schemes. Really.

  63. Studies agree that etc… this should read NEW SUPER MODELS agree that etc.
    If the IPCC model was wrong, how do they know in which direction it was wrong. Surely it was just WRONG.
    The chances are that it was WRONG because of the use of estimates of one sort or another. OOPS these new models also use estimates. Oh well. lets wait for the next revision and see what they use.

  64. “What are important are greenhouse gasses like CO2, the research shows.”

    Research? This article describes model runs, not research. They have discovered that their models, into which they have programmed a highly improbable degree of CO2 sensitivity, show that the sea level is highly sensitive to changes in CO2. Spot the circular argument anyone?

    Whatever this is, it ain’t research!

  65. One meter? Is that the worst? We have idiots predicting 7 m at conferences on land use in Australia. Even if it was true its not a problem.
    In 100 years 60 to 80% of the coastal urban development in the western-world will be demolished and rebuilt twice over. We don’t build building to last forever any more. So the cost of replacement and renovation is only the difference between building on the existing foundations and building a meter higher. Raising road surfaces, resort amenities and parks are minimal challenges and these often need to be redone after a hurricane anyway in the tropics.
    There may be a few hundred historical sites that need expensive work but even stone building can be moved intact today. One of the homes of the USA’s founding fathers, in Boston, was jacked up slid over one building, under another onto a road, and is now in a park dozens of yards away.

    In the third world it is radically different the marginal cost for adaptation to a meter of sea level rise is virtually zero since almost all of the third worlds coasts need renovation, modernising and the development of whole new agriculture system is needed. We also need to replant millions of hectares of coastal forest, mangroves and estuarine marsh. That wont happen unless we find a way to craft these ecosystems into productive farming systems and agroforestry with some aquaculture.

    That leaves a few percent that will be unusable for conventional housing and a few places that are below sea level like some parts of New Orleans. The solution there was known before Katrina; several people were blocked in their attempt to build floating houses below sea level. It would have saved lives. The simple solution of making a house that floats still stands and its getting cheaper and becoming more accepted.

    Will all these mitigations cost money? Yes even if greenhouse is not real and there is no sea level rise most of these things will be done anyway. Will it break the bank? No its already broken! We need a new system anyway. Big government and big banks don’t need any help from natural disasters, their quite able to go broke by them selves.
    My guess is that we will get 20 cm in 100 years and a few interesting law suits from people who got ripped off because they believed in sea level rise and sold at a loss.

  66. OT

    Hey, I’ve just been looking at the UAH graph, and I’ve realised something. The 1998 record high el nino took place in January through to April. The 1998 peak was higher than todays peak. That means this current record high we’re experiencing is not an ‘all time record’ , it’s a 12 year record.

    Without explaination, the UAH high res graph chops off the data mid 1998, so that a January April 1998 – 2010 comparision is not possible.

    See for yourself
    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ … ?amsutemps

  67. What a crock! The Danes have a century to build a 6 foot wall around their peninsula and the islands, and are telling us it can’t be done? Wonder what the Hollanders are thinking? (as if it needs doing)
    Love this site and read it all every day, but can’t help wondering if I’m wasting my time. We live in a world of steadily increasing ignorance and there must, must be a “tipping point” when our Marxist teaching profession finally succeeds in producing a population of complete idiots. We need, not to re-educate the useful idiots who push this inhuman nonsense down the throats of the masses, but to take them out the back door and “Ceausescu” them. Snip away, McDuff, this is what reasonable people are coming to believe.

  68. It is very easy to get a computer model to predict the end of the world. You just need a tiny bit of excess positive feedback and run it for years. By the end of the run it will drown out everything else in there. If you have a PHD and think public policy should be determined by an inaccurate computer model run for 100years predicting the end of the world, you should give it back for the sake of your peers.

  69. “Instead of using temperature to calculate the rise in sea levels, we have used the radiation balance on Earth – taking into account both the warming effect of greenhouse gasses and the cooling effect from the sulfur clouds of large volcanic eruptions, which block radiation”.

    Forgive me for being flabbergasted. Shouldn’t the temperature and the radiation balance be interchangable and therefore give exactly the same result?

    If not, then why and how do you calculate the temperature from the radiation balance in the first place? And if temperature and radiation balance do give different results, then how do you know which result to use?

    For all I know they could both be wrong.

  70. This is more “Rahmstorf” crap. I have yet to find a single scientist who is willing to place bets on even just 6mm/yr SLR over the next 10 years. Not one!

    Those that claim SLR over a meter by 2100 are just blowing hot air.

  71. OT – news just in

    BBC – 14 April 2010 11:28 GMT
    ‘No malpractice’ by climate unit

    First the bad whitewash news:

    “There was no scientific malpractice at the research unit at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, an independent panel has concluded.

    The panel, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, was convened to examine the conclusions of research published by the unit.”

    Now the good news – maybe:

    “The panel said it might be helpful if researchers worked more closely with professional statisticians.

    “We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” the panel remarked in its conclusions.””

    Now the suspicious news:

    “The chair has also been challenged over his other interests. Lord Oxburgh is currently president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables.”

  72. Is there any reason to think that sea level could rise another 0.5, 1.5, 3.0 meters or more over the next few hundred to few thousand years? Sure. Sea level was 3 to 5 meters higher than it is now during the previous interglacial (Sangamonian/Eemian ~130 kya). There’s no reason to expect the Holocene sea level to behave any differently than the Sangamonian sea level.

    How about over the next few decades? Is there any reason to think that sea level might rise 0.5 meters or more by the year 2100? Well, to answer that question, we have to look at how sea level has been behaving over the last few decades to few centuries and see if it has been behaving anomalously over the most recent few decades.

    Here is CU-Boulder’s record of global sea level change since 1993…

    Sea Level Since 1993

    I took the liberty of pasting a 6-inch ruler onto the chart so that we can keep recent sea level changes in perspective as we expand the time horizon. Total sea level variation since 1993 has bee less than 3 inches. The rate of sea level rise has been ~3.2mm/yr over that period. However, if you look closely at the data, you’ll see that the slope changed back around 2003…

    Sea Level Since 1993 Part Deux

    Since 2003, the rate of sea level rise has declined by more than 30%. Is this sort of sea level rise unusual? Is the variation in rate unusual? Unfortunately, the Jason/Topex data only go back to 1993… But, there is an excellent sea level reconstruction available that goes back to 1700. Jerejeva et al., 2008 produced an isostatically corrected sea level reconstruction from 1700 AD to 2002 AD. Here is the Jerejeva reconstruction with the CU-Boulder data tied in using a static shift…

    Jerejeva & CU

    It looks to me as if the post-1993 satellite data fit right into a trend of sea level rise that began in the 1700’s (during the warm up from the Little Ice Age). If we take a closer look at the 20th Century portion of the Jerejeva reconstruction, we can see a pattern of alternating rates of sea level rise…

    Jerejeva Mini-Trends

    It looks like sea level has been experiencing alternating ~30-yr phases of ~3mm/yr rises and hiatuses since the end of the Little Ice Age. The rise in the late 20th century was statistically indistinguishable from the rise in the early 20th century; and the late 20th century rise has been slowing down since 2003.

    It appears that the change in sea level over the last 20 years is not anomalous when compared to the last 100 years and it appears to be a continuation of a pattern established in the early 1800’s.

    So, how does the last 300 years of sea level change fit into the “big picture”?

    Let’s look at sea level change since 4000 BC by comparing Jerejeva to a couple of Holocene/Pleistocene sea level reconstructions…

    Sea Level Since 4000 BC

    When viewed in the context of the last 6,000 years, the sea level rise since the 1700’s becomes insignificant.

    Now let’s keep expanding the time frame. First stop: 20,000 years ago during the last Pleistocene glaciation…

    Sea Level Since 20,000 BC

    Now, let’s go back a bit over 300,000 years to take in a couple of full glacial cycles…

    Sea Level Since 300,000 BC

    That 6-inch ruler is now totally insignificant… But let’s keep the time machine rolling. Now we’ll use Miller’s (2005) Phanerozoic Eon sea level reconstruction and go back to 2,000,000 BC and the Lower Pleistocene…

    Sea Level Since Lower Pleistocene

    Now on to the Mid-Cretaceous… 100 million years ago…

    Sea Level Since Mid-Cretaceous

    Modern sea level changes are simply not anomalous at any scale.

    Could sea level rise another 1, 3 or even 5 meters before the end of the current interglacial? Sure. It rose that high in the previous interglacial.

    Could sea level rise another 1 meter over the next 90 to 100 years? No. There is no historical or geological evidence to support such a scenario.

    Assuming Earth stays in the warm phase of the 1,500-yr cycle until at least 2100 (not a huge assumption), the maximum possible sea level rise by then will be a bit more than 0.25m above current MSL…

    <a href =http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/SeaLevelProjection-1.png

    1/4 of a meter… A bit less than 1 foot… That’s it… That’s the worst case scenario that is actually possible in the real world.

    The climate modelers make me think of an Aubrey McClendon (CEO of Chesapeake Energy) quote:

    “That kind of analysis, I think, can only come at the dangerous intersection of Excel and PowerPoint. It can’t happen in reality.”

  73. re ” IPCC prediction of less than half a meter rise in sea level is 3 times too low” Is this supposed to mean they think the rise will be 3 times what has been predicted ? i.e. one and a half meters. If so, what would 2 times too low mean ? Would it mean the sea level would rise 2 times what has been predicted ? i.e. one meter, and what would one time too low mean? Anything times one stays at one. So no rise. Then what would zero times too low mean? This would also presumably mean no rise. So have I proved one equals zero? I dont think so. But I hope to have shown that “three times too low” is sloppy ambiguous use of language. What I think they are trying to say is that the IPCC predicted rise is one third of what they predict. But lets look at it from the other end. Predicted rise is half a meter.One time (s) that could mean alternative prediction is for one whole meter. Two times could mean one and a half meters and three times would indicate a predicted rise of two meters. Not the same as the one and a half meters, which is what you get if you count it the other way. What all this boils down to is we should not say predicted rise is three times too low,we should say previously predicted rise is one third of what we newly predict , if this is what we mean, or one quarter of what we newly predict if this is what we mean. This is not about sea level.It is about use of language.A clear statement is not one which can be understood, rather one which cannot be misunderstood.

  74. As part of my charitable giving, I am going to be buying beach front property for fractions of a penny on the dollar. Since all of these properties will be under water in a few short years, I am going to be helping all the poor mansion owners currently living on the ocean.

    Why own a house under water and worthless, when you can sell it to me and at least get a few dollars compensation?

    Hey can I win a Nobel Peace prize for my charitable giving like Al?

  75. The word is “ADJUSTMENT”. One has to understand that no one can measure anything accurately, even going back to the 1700s. Thus, everything needs to be adjusted, because with 20/20 hindsight, these scientists know EXACTLY what the real measurements should have been.

    Models will fail egregiously as long as the real factors, particularly the negative forcing factors (water cycle), that mediate our climate are properly included. However, that will not be forthcoming until these “scientists” de-politicize their morals and go scientific in themselves.

    Models are NOT science.

  76. where’s the sea level rise already? I was promised some sea level rise by now, I don’t see any yet. I want my money back.

  77. Even at 3.2 mm/yr you barely get a rise of just over a foot in a century) but the rise over the last ten years has only been about 25mm (~one inch). That means that you’d need a rate of almost 11mm/yr to get to a one meter rise by the end of the century.

    It used to be when everyone used sliderules that you could just say that you misplaced the decimal point somewhere, but they don’t even have that excuse anymore.

  78. The sea level rise seems to be attributed to land snow/ice melt. However over the past 150 years of popuation growth and resultant urbanisation what portion can be attributed to draining of wetlands and storm drainage. Whereas the ground now covered buildings and ashphalt would previously had soaked up, and retained large volumes of rainwater it is now efficiently flushed out to sea through our storm drainage networks

  79. This takes the biscuit:

    “The likelihood of flooding due to storm surges increases greatly if the ocean rises one meter. Such a rise in sea level will not flood large areas of land, but what is regarded as exceptionally high water level will occur at least 1.000 times more often in vulnerable areas.”

    Except, gradually, over 100 years, “what is regarded as exceptionally high water level” will change.
    The human monkey is quite good at adaptation. It can even cope with tides much higher than a meter. Twice a day.

    Don’t Danish climatologists ever go to the seaside?

  80. I wonder if we can establish a hedge fund based on projected sea level rise, or a futures contract !

    They are making a derivatives market for carbon, so why not do something for something just as stupid as sea level rise. We haven’t done enough to the markets, we need to really send them down in a blaze of glory!

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M

    The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.

    Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity — in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

    ‘Heavy Involvement’

    “This requires a massive redirection of capital,” Masters says. “You can’t have a successful climate policy without the heavy, heavy involvement of financial institutions.”

    As a young London banker in the early 1990s, Masters was part of JPMorgan’s team developing ideas for transferring risk to third parties. She went on to manage credit risk for JPMorgan’s investment bank.

    Among the credit derivatives that grew from the bank’s early efforts was the credit-default swap. A CDS is a contract that functions like insurance by protecting debt holders against default. In 2008, after U.S. home prices plunged, the cost of protection against subprime-mortgage bond defaults jumped. Insurer American International Group Inc., which had sold billions in CDSs, was forced into government ownership, roiling markets and helping trigger the worst global recession since the 1930s.

    How big is the current derivatives market? No one really knows, but some have put it at over $700 Trillion, with US banks holding “notional” derivatives contracts worth $212 Trillion, increasing $8.5 Trillion from last year. And if you look at page 23, you will see that JPMorgan is exposed 78-1; B of A is exposed 44-1; Citibank is exposed 34-1; Wells Farge is exposed 4-1; but the one that takes the cake is Goldman Sachs, they are esposed 457-1! Yeah…we need more of that.

    http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2010-33a.pdf

    And we shouldn’t forget that more gold certificates are being sold than there is actual gold, making that commodity quesitonable as well. Instead of selling on a one-to-one ratio, traders are selling at a ten-to-one ratio. From a former Goldman Sachs commodities trader:

    One of the things that the people who criticize the bullion banks and talk about this undue large position don’t understand what is the nature of the long positions of the physical market and we don’t help it; the CFTC when it did its most recent report on silver used the term that we use “the physical market”. We use that term as did the CFTC in that report to talk about the OTC market in other words forwards, OTC options, physical metal and everything else. People say, and you heard it today, there is not that much physical metal out there, and there isn’t. But in the “physical market” as the market uses that term, there is much more metal than that…there is a hundred times what there is.

  81. Slightly OT:-) As noted above:-

    AtB is a pure genius so far, two inquiries into leaked/hacked emails from UEA/CRU, turned out to be complete whitewashes, one more to go. My prediction? Minor indiscretions only, slapped wrist, nothing to see here move along!!!! Who is going to take odds against that? You know exactly the line they’ll take, Ed Millitwit will say “oh come on now this really is preposterous, we’ve had three separate, independent, inquiries look into this business & all found nothing wrong was done by anyone!” It’s is totally predictable. Perhaps I should take up weather forecasting!

  82. Ref – Per Strandberg (04:55:07) :
    “Yeah! And all of Denmark will be under the sea, except for Møllehøj on which they put a lighhouse.”
    ___________________
    Vikings need to start getting out and about more. Like in the “Good Ol’ Days”. Mexico’s nice!

    Ref – maelstrom (05:08:11) :
    “where’s the sea level rise already? I was promised some sea level rise by now, I don’t see any yet. I want my money back.”
    ___________________
    Shhhh… When Iceland blows the first thing you get is sea rise; though very minor on a global scale, mayby .5″. This is followed by ocean temperature, surface salinity, and current changes in the North Atlantic. Then comes weather change in Europe, Asia, and Canada very soon thereafter. Then the sea levels start to decline for ~85K years and that’s when you make a bundle in Coal Futures. I got it from a reliable scorce, Fat Albert. He said to buy now! Don’t tell a soul:-)

  83. Niels Bohr must be spinning in his tomb:

  84. The reality appears that sea level rises are well below IPCC predictions, and are not significantly different from historical norms.
    Hansen, of course, predicted that Manhattan would be inundated by now.
    Gore made millions showing special effects clips of sea levels drowning New York and Florida.
    Guam is tipping over from its abuse by the military.
    AGW is a social movement combining the worst of tulipomania and eugenics.

  85. You should never confuse issues: The only one thing that is rising its levels is your sea of currency inflation. It will surprise you with the most gigantic tsunami or rogue wave ever seen.

  86. From the abstract:

    Using an inverse statistical model we examine potential response in sea level to the changes in natural and anthropogenic forcings by 2100. With six IPCC radiative forcing scenarios we estimate sea level rise of 0.6–1.6 m, with confidence limits of 0.59 m and 1.8 m. Projected impacts of solar and volcanic radiative forcings account only for, at maximum, 5% of total sea level rise, with anthropogenic greenhouse gasses being the dominant forcing. . .

    I don’t know what “an inverse statistical model” is, but since this ‘study’ builds on the assumptions in IPCC models, it sounds awfully like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The whole debate outside of IPCC ‘climate science’ circles is over the existence and extent (if any) of “anthropogenic greenhouse gas” forcing. Studies of this kind simply don’t acknowledge that there is a debate. And of course these are the people the political establishment and the media listen to.

    /Mr Lynn

  87. GIGO! The alarming exponential curve results from two false assumptions that are common with all AGW models. 1. That anthropogenic emmissions contribute significantly to atmospheric concentrations of CO2. 2. CO2 significantly reduces OLR. Actual measured data do not support those assumptions. Natural processes, like sea level changes, are cyclical and what appears to be exponential is more likely a early rising segment of a long wave- length sine wave.

  88. Antarctica melting,

    And the arctic free sea ice melting.

    Or maps.

    Gosh and Golly Gee.

    Math models are iterative not predictive.

  89. My next job will be in insurance. Or maybe I will set up a printing press for carbon certificates.

    Here’s an idea, everyone of us is carrying around a bucket of carbon that when planted underground, saves people living by the seashore from having seashells for dinner during a storm. We could sell our carbon credit just before we are buried which would cover the cost of a pretty elaborate funeral. Hey, if corporations can do it, so can I right?

  90. The problem is that the study was done from models. How are the models doing so far? Terrible .

    Here is the Sea Level Rise according to the University of Colorado.

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    Notice that since 2006 there has been no sea level rise. Why?

    Notice that the rate of SLR before then was 3.2 MM per year which is 1 cigarette length in 30 years. Big deal !

    Where is the “energy imbalance ” going ? Not into the seas !

    Here are the results of the ARGOS temperature measuring probes in the oceans.

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    Notice that since the measurements have been done correctly [2005] the temperature has been going down.

    Prior to that they were measuring from ships that happened to be in the area, which gave very inaccurate results. They were biased by where the readings were taken also.

  91. It seems people forgot iteration in favor of predication.

    Computers do iteration math concepts.

  92. The epidemic of anxiety disorders is more pervasive than the swine flu epidemic.
    If we react to every fear from the nut cases, we will be as bad off as they are.

    On climate progress Joe is
    afraid of drilling,
    afraid of running out of oil
    afraid of enhanced oil recovery techniques
    afraid of contaminating the water table
    afraid of CO2.
    afraid of Big Oil using frac techniques like they have for 60 years
    afraid oil companies are sneaking by without paying more taxes than any and all other industries

    I am not afraid of sea level rise. I can live on a boat and when the water goes up, so does the boat. I know I have imputed more physics than a liberal can handle.

  93. That is all.

    Iteration does not go out that far.

    Someone forgot to tell fools, Computers do iteration, and iteration a man with a calculator and a life time can do or a computer with nanoseconds but both need data to move forward.

    Step be step.

    It’s iteration.

  94. Crap though this “study” is there are interesting ramifications (but none of them will be followed up on, mark my words).

    If the effect of reducing CO2 is a 0.5m sea level reduction in 100 years, then we can proceed to calculate the cost of mitigation versus adaptation quite easily. Since India and China are going to increase, not decrease CO2 emissions we can go ahead and plan for 1.2m total sea level increase over the 100 year planning horizon.

    That makes all the national and international crusades to reduce CO2 quite meaningless, doesn’t it?

    Oh, and by the way – 100 years would just about use up the fossil fuel reserves. Problem *solved*! (well, the nonproblem that was never a problem was solved by those who hallucinated both the problems and the solutions).

    Spendulus
    http://www.WarmerPropaganda.com

  95. Just as predicted, and right on cue, the UAE has been upheld as an outstanding example of climate correctness:
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “No malpractice” by climate unit

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8618024.stm

    There was no scientific malpractice at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, which was at the centre of the “Climategate” affair. This is according to an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which was convened to examine the research published by the unit. The panel said it might be helpful if researchers worked more closely with professional statisticians. This would ensure the best methods were used when analysing the complex and often “messy” data on climate, the report said. “We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians,” the panel remarked in its conclusions.

    The e-mails issue came to light in November last year, when hundreds of messages between CRU scientists and their peers around the world were posted on the world wide web, along with other documents. Critics said that the e-mail exchanges revealed an attempt by the researchers involved to manipulate data. But a recent House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report into the e-mails concluded that the scientists involved had no intention to deceive. And Lord Oxburgh said that he hoped these further “resounding affirmations” of the unit’s scientific practice would put those suspicions to bed. He stated: “We found absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever. That doesn’t mean that we agreed with all of their conclusions, but scientists people were doing their jobs honestly.”

    The chair has been challenged over his other interests. Lord Oxburgh is currently president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables. Critics say clean energy companies would benefit from policies to tackle climate change. But Lord Oxburgh insists the panel did not have a pre-conceived view. The panel included Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, who had been examining the way CRU used statistical methodology to develop an average annual global temperature.

    Climate sceptics have argued CRU’s statistical methods were inadequate. And Professor Hand pointed out that the translation of “messy data” into clear facts had caused problems. But he said that the CRU were “to be commended for how they dealt with the data,” adding that, in their research papers, they were very open about the uncertainty in the numbers.

    It is straightforward to get a measurement precise in space and time from an individual weather station – albeit with uncertainties attached. But some countries have many weather stations, while others have very few, and there are sizeable areas of the Earth with no surface measurements at all. “Unfortunately,” Professor Hand said, “when this research is [republished and] popularised, those caveats tend to be forgotten.”

    The panel noted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was one of the organisations that had “oversimplified” the CRU data it used in its publications. They said it had neglected to highlight the discrepancy between direct and “proxy” measurements, such as the tree ring data often used to reconstruct past temperature changes. He added that CRU had been “a little naïve” in not working more closely with statisticians.

    Lord Oxburgh said that undertaking such interdisciplinary work in the future would address the fact that the there “probably there wasn’t enough involvement of people outside of the immediate [climatic research] community” in the work undertaken at CRU.

    UEA’s vice chancellor Edward Acton said he welcomed the report. “It is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice,” he said.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    As I said when this whitewash was set up with all its Establishment figures on board, everybody is innocent and nobody will be blamed for anything no matter how blatant the fraud and corruption was at the CRU. The Establishment protects its own and Jones will probably get some sort of promotion and end up in the House of Frauds. Oh, sorry! House of Lords.

  96. But but and but but.

    Math stat models are iterative.

    No math stats exists to drive iteration that far forward.

    There is either a new science theory unknown for that predicitve capacity, math stat as a modelling tool can’t do it.

    Ask the economists how good their modelling and predictive capacity really is and they use huge data sets approaching normality.

    And their rate of success, ask them without their qualifications.

    They do best guess.

  97. 1 meter seal level rise = at least a factor 10 higher compared to the current numbers.

    So my response to this article: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics … and Graphs!

  98. oh gawd, not this again.

    What insults me is not just that this is a lie, but that it’s such a tranparently bad lie. And so poorly done!!!

    I swear, they’re just mailing it in at this point.

  99. I am all ears for a new math stat model that can predict more than a year out on monthly results.

    And we have monthly climate data., shit in the age of the sattelite we have daily data.

    So predict the curve monthly, quarterly or annually. That data set is there.

  100. These math stat models rely on a data set, not the physics and not the assumptions.

    Math stat models like this rely on history, Data sets.

    Data is data.

  101. The research results show that it is therefore important to do something now to curb the emission of CO2

    Huh, thought that “they” started saying it’s not just co2 that’s the problem anymore but all the pollutants that go along with burning fossil fuels. And, of course, we still have to do something now. Good thing God isn’t sloppy like that since he doesn’t play dice.

    Never was a big fan of Niels Bohr because of how he treated Einstein. Now I’m not a big fan of the Institute that bears his name.

  102. THe models dont do Physics, they do data.

    These algorithms dont compare data type only measurement.

  103. Jimbo (22:47:31) :

    Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner

    Thank you for bringing up Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, someone who actually knows the data.

  104. What these people who predict this high sea level rise do not tell you is the effects of an acceleration from the current rate of 1.74mm/year. The only way to get to a 2 meter increase in 100 years is to have an acceleration of 4.3% (you can do this on a spread sheet easy enough). But the interesting thing, which you can see in the graphs, is that to get to that hieght in 2100 the rate of increase in the seas would have to be some 80cm PER YEAR in the last year 2099! All you have to do is plot the rate change for each year on a graph to see what acceleration does.

    They do not explain where all that water would come from to give 80cm increase in the last year.

    Of course there is no acceleration in sea level rise, just normal cyclic variation.

    http://cdnsurfacetemps.blogspot.com/2010/03/no-acceleration-in-sea-level-rise.html

  105. “the new model estimates, from international research groups from England, China and Denmark, give independent support”

    Hmmm, given what we know about ClimateGate do we really believe that these groups were at all independent? Or do we believe there was no end of communication going on between these scientists who all met up at the last IPCC meeting?

    A conspiracy to commit fraud I would call it.

  106. Models are not science – they’re just guesses with presupposed outcomes that conflict with the presupposed outcomes I have in my head! These research groups better stop using models and start building time maches and go into the future to tell us what it’s really like because models are for the loons!

  107. Don’t anyone mention this to Congressman Hank or he’ll be holding hearings on how to prevent the North American continent from capsizing.

  108. James Sexton (22:19:11) :
    @Fred (21:31:50) :

    “… 3 times too low…”

    How are estimates 300 percent too low? After they are 100 percent lower aren’t they already at zero?

    Obviously, you’re not familiar with new math, IPCC style.

    Apparently he’s not even familiar with old math, high school level, “3 times too low”, implies about 33% of the actual value, not this ’300%’ he made up.

  109. There is no benign situation that imagination and computer models can’t make into a hockey stick:

    Soon there will be new graphs on the:

    Wolfication of dogs, within 100 years all dogs will be roaming in packs.
    Worldwide droughts
    Worldwide floods
    Worldwide snow
    Frozen oceans
    Boiling oceans

    Everything is possible, and vewwy, vewwy scary, in Post Normal “Science”

    How I long for the good old days when everyone knew that death is inevitable and that adaptation to unfolding conditions was sensible.

  110. meemoe_uk (03:14:44) :

    Yeah. wow!! you are right

    is there any other source for the raw data?

    Anthony, is it possible to ask Dr. Roy Spencer, if he can help explain this late start in the graph for 1993???

  111. Since the government took over flood insurance (and thus the rates have gone through the roof) I’ve been following sea level rise for some time. My base level is 9 feet above sea level.

    There is nothing, and has not been anything, to suggest that the sea will rise a meter in such a short space of time (~90-100 years). Many links posted here demonstrate this. *could* it rise that much, though? Sure, it *could*. I’m sure someone could come up with a convoluted model to suggest such (oops, to late).

    But as CO2 rises, there seems to be little, if any, correlation with sea level rise, let alone causation. I expect a 1ft sea level rise over this time period, with a possibility of slightly more or slightly less – based on historical observation.

    These models are based on some kind of runaway thermal effect – the tipping point – with no natural tipping point in evidence, going far beyond even the absurdity of simple extrapolation of the linearization of observed events as a predictor; which, itself is illogical – linearization of an inherently non-linear system. From that, backtracking to a single compound as *the* cause; and not only that, attributing changes in that compound to man as a whole. *Further* narrowing down the cause to a specific minority within that group.

  112. Science would be better served if these guys followed in Al Gore’s footsteps and spent more time eating lunch.

  113. >>>there was a problem with the prediction models as they
    >>>did not take into account the dynamic effects of the
    >>>melting ice sheets.

    Errr, what melting ice sheets? Total polar ice is increasing.

  114. The earth’s sea level has gone up and down about 100 meters each way … So now man can control sea level? But only to make it go down. What will we do when the next glaciation cycle hits? What a joke.

    If we can make it go up, why can’t we just make it go back down? If CO2 makes sea level rise, surly some magic elixir can make sea level go back down. I remember back in the ice age scare of the 70s, we were told to use the then new 747 to cover the poles and Greenland ice with carbon black. It was supposed to be a brilliant twofer, they planned to use old tires to generate the carbon black.

    Somehow this seems quite dubious on it’s face. First we need to figure out when you are reading temperatures at 40 below, how a degree or two melt the ice you are standing on.

    If CO2 reduction is your religion, then building nuclear power plants should be your savior.

  115. I must say it amuses me after 60 years plus of strong solar cycles that this article claims we are at a point of ‘deep solar minimum’.

    There was a 2 year period of that. Against 60 years of higher than normal.

    Is that science or a lawyer arguing in a courtroom?

    You tell me.

  116. So “three times too low”? That would indicate a 1.33m rise even if you accept his poor use of fractions and multiples…. and we trust these folks with statistics?

  117. Here are a couple of other interesting hockey stick graphs:-

    GDP per capita since 1500

    CO2 Emissions since 1850

    Looks like we spent a long time being poor before the invention of CO2 producing technologies in 1850 ramped up our income. Nothing like having 5 shire horses in the form of heat energy at your beck and call 24 hours a day to improve your productivity I guess….

  118. The slope of the sides of the vessel holding the water is important. All models must have all landmass edges taken into account before you can say how much rise will occur.

  119. Absolutely nothing in the abstract to justify the estimate. They are obviously making a lot of assumptions about the size of anthropogenic forcing in order to come up with this scenario. And since the climate sensitivity number is still an unknown, their projections are simply bunk.

    The whole paper is aimed at the desired conclusion, which is:

    ”The research results show that it is therefore important to do something now to curb the emission of CO2 – there is about a half meter difference in sea level depending on whether nations of the world continue to pump greenhouse gases from fossil fuels into the atmosphere or whether we slam on the brakes and use other energy sources”, explains Aslak Grinsted.

    When the scientists that are presenting the papers are also drawing the political conclusions, you can be sure that the paper is a piece of propaganda, and not a piece of science.

  120. IPCC is not worth the mention here. IPCC does not need free promotion, be it positive or negative. After CLIMATE GATE they DO NOT EXIST AT ALL.

  121. Here is my solid scientific can’t miss ha-ha it’s not nice to fool mother nature top this 100 yr forecast:

    The difference in sea level between this picture

    and this 65 years later picture

    will in 100 years have a higher probability of remaining within 1/3 of the current 65 year difference than doing nothing.

  122. http://news.ufl.edu/1998/09/28/storms/

    This is a link to a 1998 University of Florida report on historic sea level rise in southwest Florida as it pertained to the local inhabitants, the Calusa Indians.

    In part it says:
    “Nearly 1,700 years ago devasting tempests associated with sea-level rise destroyed the viallages of the Calusa Indians on the soutwest Florida coast, near present-day Ft Myers, forcing the native fishermen to move inland to relative safety”, said UF anthropologist Karen Walker.””

    She also speaks of the Roman Optimum and the Medieval Optimum saying “sea-level fluctuations in Florida correlate to these climate fluctuations known from Eurpoean history.”

    However, she then goes on to say ” a growing number of researchers argue that the earlier warming trends also were in part human- induced. The Roman Optimum warming, for example correlates with the Romans’ clearing of vast forests as they expanded their empire into northern Europe…”

    While Walker has good archeological evidence of past sea level fluctuations, for some reason she falls into the “blame it on humans” mantra.

    I guess we are just bad for the planet where ever and when ever we exist.

  123. Did either IPCC or any of the these new scare monger institutes take into account the rising trend in using ocean water, less the salt and crap, for our pleasure and crops?

    Added to this, but shouldn’t they also factor in that less river water are, apparently, reaching the oceans?

  124. “””pft (23:16:59) :

    “Richard111 (22:44:51) :

    Do the math. 96,000 CUBIC MILES of land borne ice must melt.

    Now factor in the energy required. The IPCC and its supporters are simply lying.”

    Much of the ice is well below freezing, and would have to first be heated up to the melting point first.”””

    As pft correctly points out much of the ice is well below freezing. Consider also, most of the Antarctic never gets above 0C, and most of the Arctic achieves just +3C over roughly three months during summer.

    All that ice can only be melted by hot air! Humanity would be extinct long before the 100 years melt period would be up.

    Why are’nt these claims challenged on this point alone?

  125. kadaka (02:35:44) :

    “I am pleased to see the dig against sulfur injection.”

    If this method (sulfur injection to relect incoming radiation), after careful investigation of all possible consequences seems realistic and safe – I see
    no objection from a AGW fearer viewpoint. Because a lot of excess CO2
    is already up there warming the globe. Maybe there are some on ‘our’ side, who would prefer to watch if the projected scenarios happen, but I think
    or hope they are few. But, note the strict condition: careful investigation.

    Having been to some degree self-critical, I have to say that the insane
    ranting in this thread, where you can nearly feel pure hate spilling over is really depressing.

    Which comment were you responding to?

  126. There isn’t any hot air up there to melt the ice as the alarmist predict.
    Which is why there is no connection to be made between AGW and Arctic Ice Loss. There isn’t a hot air causation to be correlated.

  127. Wyatt (02:05:15) :

    How about draining some of the Pacific Ocean into Death Valley? It’d make a nice inland lake. Or we could pump ocean water onto Antarctica and let it freeze? Or we could realize every prediction by the warmists has gone awry and stop listening to them! After the last few weeks of stories on WUMT, the liberals that I debate have finally yielded! Not a peep out of them! It’s a minor miracle! BTW, I agree CO2 is a GHG but we obviously have time to change w/o destroying the free market. In fact, the free market is what will bring us the next tech that will solve the energy crisis. It sure won’t be by socialism. Just look at medicine, 95% of all treatments and lifesaving drugs came from the USA, or used to…

    I suspect the liberals to whom you refer, far from yielding, have found better things to do with their time! Never play an idiot at his own game because he will always win on experience! Reading alot of the comments here is often like reading religious bigotry. Many here simply don’t want well reasoned debate, instead just affirmation of passionately held views is all that really counts.

  128. pft (23:16:59) : Climate Science has a lot in common with quantum physics.

    ouch…

    Quantum Physics is more like the complement of climate ‘science’

    They admit they don’t really know what’s really happening, but make correct predictions.

    In climate ‘science’ they claim to know what’s really happening, but make incorrect predictions.

  129. Star Wars: Neil Armstrong, Obama Spar Over NASA’s Future

    It’s quite clear that the Administration wants to control science with funding, not fund science for the betterment. And whose money is it, btw?? It’s the taxpayers money.
    A whole lot of Astronauts are weighing in on this, not just Neil.

  130. Eyeballing that chart, am I right that it appears to suggest that the separation from IPCC predictions happens in the future (i.e. it hasn’t happened yet)?

    Is there observed separation from IPCC predictions yet on this topic?

  131. magicjava (22:40:49) :
    [quote Peter S (21:27:15) :]
    Like wow, they can predict the world’s volcanic eruptions for the next 100 years, and how much sulphur they will emit into the atmosphere? That is unbelievably good news.
    [/quote]

    [quote magicjava (22:40:49) :] They can average out the volcanoes that have already occurred over the past several hundred years and use that to project forward.

    I’d put a lot more faith in that than either their cloud or energy budget projections.[/quote]

    I was being facetious. :-)

    I realize that that you can average historical volcanic emissions to predict future ones, and the average may actually end up being close to what occurs, but that does not mean that using the average is actually useful. That would only be the case if the eruptions themselves occurred with average frequency, distribution and intensity.

    Lets use the “Super” Volcano (read worst case) example- one eruption might be sufficient to release 100 years worth of average emissions in a single eruption, and lets say there were no other eruptions over the rest of that 100 years. The emissions would be average in the 100 year context, but the effects would not be. (Or there again they might be – do we actually know whether something like that would cause a major climate shift, or would the effects be short enough in time frame for them to become average in a 100 year context?)

    I’ve come to the conclusion that averages tend to be a bit like silly putty – interesting and fun to play with, but still waiting for someone to find a real world practical use for them.

    I agree with you about the cloud and energy budget predictions.

  132. “mikael pihlström (10:54:25) :
    [...]
    If this method (sulfur injection to relect incoming radiation), after careful investigation of all possible consequences seems realistic and safe – I see
    no objection from a AGW fearer viewpoint.”

    Should such a “careful investigation” be done as careful as say Phil “ooh, i think i lost my notes” Jones’ temperature adjustments? And who do you think should we trust with the job? The Club Of Rome maybe?

  133. DirkH (14:19:04) :

    “mikael pihlström (10:54:25) :
    [...]
    If this method (sulfur injection to relect incoming radiation), after careful investigation of all possible consequences seems realistic and safe – I see
    no objection from a AGW fearer viewpoint.”

    Should such a “careful investigation” be done as careful as say Phil “ooh, i think i lost my notes” Jones’ temperature adjustments? And who do you think should we trust with the job? The Club Of Rome maybe?

    You don’t get the point. It is an independent idea, which is very
    neutral on the axis you cannot disconnect from: the debate between sceptics and the AGW-theory proponents. So your comments do not
    hit any target.

  134. After seeing the movie “Dumb and Dumber” I thought nothing could be more stupid.

    Looks like I was wrong !!!

  135. twawki (21:18:38) :

    But if the oceans are cooling and the poles are growing and we are getting record snow cover on land then how does that all factor in their results?

    Well, you are not looking at it correctly. They tell us:

    ”Instead of using temperature to calculate the rise in sea levels, we have used the radiation balance on Earth – taking into account both the warming effect of greenhouse gasses and the cooling effect from the sulfur clouds of large volcanic eruptions, which block radiation”, explains Aslak Grinsted, PhD in geophysics at the Centre for Ice and Climate, the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

    The research is based on observations of sea levels from the 1700s to the present and estimates of the radiation balance through approximately 1000 years.

    So you see, it’s no longer the (non) rising temperature that is important. The models not only rely on fabricated behaviour, they now rely on fabricated input parameters, because the real ones don’t produce the right results.

  136. Garbage models produce garbage science that is not produced in the real world.

    Good models produce wonderful plastic planes and cars that compare to the real world!

    I will stick with Nils-Axel Mörner, who goes out into the real world, observes and says “”the sea is not rising, It hasn’t risen in 50 years.”

    I am still tying up my boat to the same harbour mooring ring that I was using in 1963 and my hand still does not get wet and that, my friends, is empirically acquired information and can I have my grant money now?

  137. Steves (03:49:43) :

    I think you will find that that is the result assuming everything else is acceptable. I am given to understand that if any other factor is unacceptable, such as the amount of water, sunlight or nutrients, the results may be even more pronounced. Effectively CO2 gives significantly more benefit to thos areas where other plant resources are lacking.

    Hmmmm ….. so were talking about famine areas here perhaps? Oh, yes! CO2 actually helps prevent famine.

  138. Curtis (05:02:22) :

    “As part of my charitable giving, I am going to be buying beach front property for fractions of a penny on the dollar. Since all of these properties will be under water in a few short years, I am going to be helping all the poor mansion owners currently living on the ocean….”

    Notice how the very rich like the Kennedy’s are rushing to dump their beach front property…. NOT. When I see fire sale prices on property in Monterey, Montauk, the Hamptons, Cape Cod,… THEN I will start believing in CAGW.

  139. DirkH (14:27:59) :

    I agree. sublimation does occur. But 96,000 cubic miles into fresh cold air?
    In a 100 years? Will the satellites record the lower ice levels for us?
    Should be visible right now, but where? Oh, yes, that will make a LOT of cloud. :)

  140. “However, she then goes on to say ” a growing number of researchers argue that the earlier warming trends also were in part human- induced. The Roman Optimum warming, for example correlates with the Romans’ clearing of vast forests as they expanded their empire into northern Europe…”

    So the Roman Optimum, which was much warmer than today, was man-made, didn’t cause a tipping point to be reached, didn’t cause sea levels to rise dramatically and didn’t do the Roman’s any harm. Fine. Why worry then?

  141. mikael pihlström (10:54:25) :

    If this method (sulfur injection to relect incoming radiation), after careful investigation of all possible consequences seems realistic and safe – I see
    no objection from a AGW fearer viewpoint. Because a lot of excess CO2
    is already up there warming the globe. Maybe there are some on ‘our’ side, who would prefer to watch if the projected scenarios happen, but I think
    or hope they are few. But, note the strict condition: careful investigation.


    You have *got* to be kidding me?!

    This is the kind of stupidity – yes, real stupidity – that messes up our environment. This is the same as slamming your head in the door to take your mind off what you think is the pain in your little finger. No ‘careful investigation’ is required.

    While we have spoiled certain aspects of our environment through past (and current) ignorance, willful – or ‘government mandated’ – spoiling is an appalling act.

  142. OceanTwo (04:51:41)

    “This is the kind of stupidity – yes, real stupidity – that messes up our environment. This is the same as slamming your head in the door to take your mind off what you think is the pain in your little finger. No ‘careful investigation’ is required.”

    Tell me shortly, what is your vision; what will happen? Not the details
    I have previously worked on acidification of ecosystems for some
    decades

  143. mikael pihlström (07:16:13) :

    Tell me shortly, what is your vision; what will happen? Not the details
    I have previously worked on acidification of ecosystems for some
    decades

    Put it this way, to combat the effects of a ‘pollution’ do you:
    a) Stop the ‘pollution’; or
    b) Put an unrelated pollutant in the system.

    Bonus question:
    How do you combat the unintended consequences of introducing a pollutant to a system? (see above question).

    If you work in acidification, then you should be quite clear about the effects of introducing a foreign substance into a system.

  144. This makes a lot more sense if you replace the word “studies” with the phrase “computer generated fantasies with no basis in reality”.

  145. OceanTwo (09:00:16) :

    mikael pihlström (07:16:13) :

    Put it this way, to combat the effects of a ‘pollution’ do you:
    a) Stop the ‘pollution’; or
    b) Put an unrelated pollutant in the system.

    The point in this idea is to insert the sulfur, very high up, in the stratosphere
    with a different atmospheric chemistry, which I suggested should be
    fully investigated, so that we can either bury this idea once and for all or
    keep it in the arsenal.

  146. OceanTwo (04:51:41) :

    You have *got* to be kidding me?!

    This is the kind of stupidity – yes, real stupidity – that messes up our environment. This is the same as slamming your head in the door to take your mind off what you think is the pain in your little finger. No ‘careful investigation’ is required.

    While we have spoiled certain aspects of our environment through past (and current) ignorance, willful – or ‘government mandated’ – spoiling is an appalling act.

    And now we actually read the article I linked to

    How much aerosol would the StratoShield put into the stratosphere?
    The reference system we’re studying would inject 100,000 metric tons of sulfur dioxide a year into the stratosphere, which at a constant flow rate works out to only about 34 gallons (130 liters) a per minute. About 100 million tons of sulfur dioxide already rises into the stratosphere each year, about half from manmade sources (such as power plants) and half from natural processes (such as volcanoes) . One StratoShield installation would thus increase annual aerosol input to the atmosphere by about one part in 1,000. Scientific studies so far have concluded that a worldwide system (which would require a dozen or more StratoShield installations) would probably have to spread several million metric tons a year of sulfur dioxide throughout the stratosphere to reduce solar radiation hitting the entire planet by about 1.8% (4 W/m²) globally. Climatologists believe that small reduction in sunlight would be adequate (if it occurred equally around the globe) to counter all of the warming caused by a doubling of CO₂ over preindustrial levels. (…)

    You’re not adding anything new, certainly nothing that doesn’t already naturally occur. It’s a small increase of one part per 1000 per installation, far overshadowed by the two other main sources, with only a dozen or so installations needed for worldwide dispersal to counter the imagined effects of a doubling of CO2 levels.

    Oh, from OceanTwo (09:00:16) :
    Put it this way, to combat the effects of a ‘pollution’ do you:
    a) Stop the ‘pollution’; or
    b) Put an unrelated pollutant in the system.

    Definitely “b”. You have an oil spill on water, add some detergent. Pond or lake is going acidic from mine runoff, add baking soda. And then there is lime and other things gardeners add to their soils. Plus if those are the only options, only “b” qualifies as “combating” the effects.

    Actually, this shows your question is badly worded. Sure, you can try to stop the pollution if possible. This can go fast; a drain valve on a tank was left open so you close the valve. But it may take a long time, as with taking care of mine runoff. It may be impossible, as when the “pollution” is naturally leached from mineral deposits. Meanwhile, taking care of the damage still needs to be done. You can’t always wait until the firefight is over to stop the bleeding and cover the wounds. When it gets down to it, “a” and “b” are really two separate processes that may both be triggered by the same event, that may have some timing in common as both conclude as best as possible.

    For added brain twisting, consider how small the amount of SO2 injection being proposed is, compared to the amount of man-made SO2 emissions from power plants and the like. Consider the late 20th century when the worry about acid rain really took off, we reduced SO2 emissions with scrubbers on smokestacks and used low-sulfur fuels… and we started getting a string of “hottest ever” years. By so drastically cutting our SO2 emissions, did we create much more warming than we would have had otherwise? By demanding even lower sulfur emissions, won’t we make the warming even worse?

  147. kadaka (14:52:36) :

    The amount of S might not be large, but have all the atmo chemistry
    effects been considered. Maybe it is in the article … hm.

  148. @ David Middleton (04:45:29) :

    Excellent. Very clear and revealing information/charts on the history of sea level rise. Many thanks.

Comments are closed.