However, other analyses show the opposite…
Correcting estimates of sea level rise
Acceleration in sea level rise far larger than initially thought
The acceleration in global sea level from the 20th century to the last two decades has been significantly larger than scientists previously thought, according to a new Harvard study.
The study, co-authored by Carling Hay, a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences (EPS), and Eric Morrow, a recent PhD graduate of EPS, shows that previous estimates of global sea-level rise from 1900-1990 had been over-estimated by as much as 30 percent. The report, however, confirms previous estimates of sea-level change since 1990, suggesting that the rate of sea-level change is increasing more quickly than previously believed. The new work is described in a January 14 paper published in Nature.
“What this paper shows is that sea-level acceleration over the past century has been greater than had been estimated by others,” Morrow said. “It’s a larger problem than we initially thought.”
“Scientists now believe that most of the world’s ice sheets and mountain glaciers are melting in response to rising temperatures.” Hay added. “Melting ice sheets cause global mean sea level to rise. Understanding this contribution is critical in a warming world.”
Previous estimates had placed sea-level rise at between 1.5 and 1.8 millimeters annually over the 20th century. Hay and Morrow, however, suggest that from 1901 until 1990, the figure was closer to 1.2 millimeters per year. But everyone agrees that global sea level has risen by about 3 millimeters annually since that time, and so the new study points to a larger acceleration in global sea level.
“Another concern with this is that many efforts to project sea-level change into the future use estimates of sea level over the time period from 1900 to 1990,” Morrow said. “If we’ve been over-estimating the sea-level change during that period, it means that these models are not calibrated appropriately, and that calls into question the accuracy of projections out to the end of the 21st century.”
To obtain their improved estimate of 20th century global sea level, Hay and Morrow approached the challenge of estimating sea-level rise from a completely new perspective.
Typically, Hay said, estimates of sea-level rise are created by dividing the world’s oceans into sub-regions, and gathering records from tide gauges – essentially yard-sticks used to measure ocean tides – from each area. Using records that contain the most complete data, researchers average them together to create estimates of sea level for each region, then average those rates together to create a global estimate.
“But these simple averages aren’t representative of a true global mean value” Hay explained. “Tide gauges are located along coasts, therefore large areas of the ocean aren’t being included in these estimates. And the records that do exist commonly have large gaps.”
“Part of the problem is related to the sparsity of these records, even along the coastlines,” Morrow said. “It wasn’t until the 1950s that there began to be more global coverage of these observations, and earlier estimates of global mean sea-level change across the 20th century were biased by that sparsity.”
“We know the sea level is changing for a variety of reasons,” Hay said. “There are ongoing effects due to the last ice age, heating and expansion of the ocean due to global warming, changes in ocean circulation, and present-day melting of land-ice, all of which result in unique patterns of sea-level change. These processes combine to produce the observed global mean sea-level rise.”
The new estimates developed by Hay and Morrow grew out of a separate project aimed at modeling the physics that underpin sea-level “fingerprints” – explainer from previous story.
“What we were interested in – and remain interested in – was whether we can detect the sea-level fingerprints we predicted in our computer simulations in sea-level records,” Morrow said. “Using a global set of observations, our goal has been to infer how individual ice sheets are contributing to global sea-level rise.”
The challenge, Hay said, is that doing so requires working with a “very noisy, sparse records.”
“We have to account for ice age signals, and we have to understand how ocean circulation patterns are changing and how thermal expansion is contributing to both regional patterns and the global mean,” she explained. “We try to correct for all those signals using our simulations and statistical methods, then look at what’s left and see if it fits with the patterns we expect to see from different ice sheets.”
“We are looking at all the available sea-level records and trying to say that Greenland has been melting at this rate, the Arctic at this rate, the Antarctic at this rate, etc.” she continued. “We then sum these contributions and add in the rate that the oceans are changing due to thermal expansion to estimate a rate of global mean sea-level change.”
To their surprise, Hay said, it quickly became clear that previous estimates of sea-level rise over most of the 20th century were too high.
“We expected that we would estimate the individual contributions, and that their sum would get us back to the 1.5 to 1.8 mm per year that other people had predicted,” Hay said. “But the math doesn’t work out that way. Unfortunately, our new lower rate of sea-level rise prior to 1990 means that the sea-level acceleration that resulted in higher rates over the last 20 years is really much larger than anyone thought.”
###
[UPDATE] My sub-oceanic source has sent me a copy of the actual study. Here is the abstract:
Estimating and accounting for twentieth-century global mean sealevel (GMSL) rise is critical to characterizing current and future human-induced sea-level change. Several previous analyses of tide gauge records1–6—employing different methods to accommodate the spatial sparsity and temporal incompleteness of the data and to constrain the geometry of long-term sea-level change—have concluded that GMSL rose over the twentieth century at a mean rate of 1.6 to 1.9 millimetres per year. Efforts to account for this rate by summing estimates of individual contributions from glacier and ice-sheet mass loss, ocean thermal expansion, and changes in land water storage fall significantly short in the period before 19907. The failure to close the budget of GMSL during this period has led to suggestions that several contributions may have been systematically underestimated8. However, the extent to which the limitations of tide gauge analyses have affected estimates of the GMSL rate of change is unclear. Here we revisit estimates of twentieth-centuryGMSL rise using probabilistic techniques9,10 and find a rate of GMSL rise from1901 to 1990 of 1.260.2 millimetres per year (90% confidence interval). Based on individual contributions tabulated in the Fifth Assessment Report7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this estimate closes the twentieth-century sea-level budget. Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals, also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.060.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010, consistent with prior estimates from tide gauge records4. The increase in rate relative to the 1901–90 trend is accordingly larger than previously thought; this revision may affect some projections11 of future sea-level rise.
Regards to all,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So not only cooling the past, scientists are now lowering the past!
It is really, really difficult to measure, but I think we got it now right. And the results are really, really alarming.
Like, I can’t see the rising in this noisy data, but if I manage to prove it, I’m really alarmed of the rising I could not first see.
Sigh. And really, they re-measure the old height so that the new height woukd be more alarming.
So it is so small you can’t even measure it, but it is much greater than the previous also totally negligible rates ??
Got it ! I think.
I say that 97 angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Piper Paul, yes but that level is rising due to human induced climate change, our computer models show that in the past prior to 1998 only 96.96 +/- 2.3 angles were on top of that pin.
Would that be cherubim or seraphim?
Here is the abstract LINK with graphics
Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14093.html
Extended data figures and tables
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14093.html#extended-data
Some pinheads are larger than other pinheads…97% consensus, 90% confidence, 100% ego… lol
That was my thought too.
Several previous analyses of tide gauge records employing different methods to accommodate the spatial sparsity and temporal incompleteness of the data … AKA making stuff up
Here we revisit estimates of twentieth-century GMSL rise using probabilistic techniques … AKA making more stuff up.
There was an obvious agenda here to prove that the sea level is rising more rapidly now than before. This is politically driven science, Lysenkoism.
Actually they’re not Cherubim or Seraphim, they’re Ophanim and our estimates show that they are all getting alarmingly TALLER…. Soon pin heads everywhere will be hidden under hordes/choirs of very tall angels.
The clothing industry will collapse and people living in the colder regions of the world will freeze to death due to a lack of clothing…..
It’s worse than we thought 😉
B I N G O! This really is climate comedy gold.
We have this from almost a year ago. I think I will go with the consensus. 😉
We must act now on ground water extraction. It’s all for the children. [October 2010] Groundwater abstraction is about “one fourth of the current rate of sea level rise of 3.3 mm per year.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL044571/abstract
Errr, no..
Groundwater depletion leads to subsidence..
For instance………http://ucwosl.rebo.uu.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Koop.pdf
Errr, yes. It also contributes to sea level rise. It goes into rivers and into the oceans. The issue has been covered by WUWT before and partly counters the position that sea level rise is only being caused by melting ice and thermal expansion.
“So not only cooling the past, scientists are now lowering the past!”
No.Raising it surely.
Cooling the past, and now lowering the seas!
Meanwhile tidal gauges all round the world show sea level rise has declined since the mid 20thC
Parting them comes next.
Coffee expectorated onto keyboard!!
The the president did say that now is the time we begin to lower the seas…he just didn’t tell us that it was the past level of the seas that he meant…pesky details!
By lowering the past she claims an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise – despite a bunch of papers saying the opposite (see my above references).
AQccording to the real experts who looked at sea levels on the East Coast
Temporal comparisons at five bay stations over two periods, 1944-1975 and 1976-2007, suggest that, while RSL continues to rise at some of the highest rates found along the U.S. Atlantic coast, there is presently no evidence of a statistically significant increase marking an acceleration in RSL rise at any of the five bay stations.
Present evidence suggests an ASL rise rate of about 1.8 mm/yr in Chesapeake Bay over the 1976-2007 period.
It is of course rising faster than the world average because of subsidence.
Subsidence, or the downward movement of the earth’s crust relative to the earth’s center, is particularly evident in the mid-Atlantic section of the U.S. east coast. Engelhart et al. (2009)
used a geological database of late Holocene sea level indices to estimate subsidence rates of <0.8 mm/yr in Maine increasing to 1.7 mm/yr in Delaware before returning to rates <0.9 mm/yr in the Carolinas.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/sea-level-rise-on-the-eastern-seaboard/
It so bad the data doesn’t show it!!! ;-))
I look forward to the standard WUWT protocol:
1. Respected scientists publish peer-reviewed paper(s) following years of pain-staking fieldwork, research and analysis.
2. Someone writes contradictory post on WUWT using data culled from the internet and and graphed in home office.
3. All commenters chime in to engage in mutual congratulation on how much smarter they are than everyone else.
Your assumption (1) is faulty. Most often, it is more accurately described as a climate scientists manipulates models until the cry uncle in order to prove his or her pet theory, and gets it pal reviewed into a climate journal. Your (2) is correct, because typically the real world assumptions made in (1) are so obviously wrong any semi-educated high schooler can identify the problem.
Usually its 1. torture the input data by carefully applying some nice cherry picks along with infilling and homogenization pre-processing, run some samples, tune the models to expectation, and then run the models on said “dataset”. And then scream Fire at the output garbage.
Are you saying Sir Harry only has the logic capabilities of a grade schooler??
More like, young researchers with little experience in the field construct computer model and use it to “prove” that previous work of respected scientists was wrong. In fairness, the tidal gauge data really is pretty bad. It has poor coverage. And, it lacks reliable estimates of how fast the gauges themselves are rising and sinking due to tectonic forces. But a fair number of people have tried to extract meaningful estimates from what data there is and I see no reason to believe that these guys have a better estimate. I think that the quality of their effort might be greatly improved by changing every “is” and “are” to “might be”. Maybe in a couple of decades we’ll know if their work has merit.
See below: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/14/claim-acceleration-in-sea-level-rise-worse-than-we-thought/#comment-1835607
(Hay and Morrow are the “respected scientists” you refer to, above fyi)
1. One post-doctoral fellow and a recent PhD graduate. And it’s “pains-taking”.
2. Or the Colorado University Sea Level Research Group, and using their graphics from their data.
3. Which is what you’ve just tried to do…
Who funded the research? Unlikely to be paid for results that contradict the pronouncements of dear leader.
L. Ayres says:
Who funded the research?
That is always an interesting question, isn’t it?
That info should be on the front page, above the fold. Every time.
Money keeps the ‘runaway global warming’ scare alive. Because it certainly isn’t science!
Well the original post leaves off two of the authors, here’s the full list:
Carling C. Hay, Eric Morrow, Robert E. Kopp & Jerry X. Mitrovica
JXM – Professor of Physics (Geophysics);
Director & Fellow, Earth Systems Evolution Program, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Also the source of funding is given in the paper’s Acknowledgment section as normal, here it is:
“Tide gauge data were provided by PMSL (www.psmsl.org). This work was supported by US National Science Foundation grants ARC-1203414 and ARC-1203415, the New Jersey Sea Grant Consortium and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NJSGC project 6410-0012), Rutgers University (R.E.K., C.C.H.), and Harvard University (J.X.M., C.C.H. and E.M.). We thank P. Woodworth for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.”
Sir Harry – This isn’t one of those. There’s no fieldwork, no research and no analysis. Come to think of it, there never has been “one of those”.
Point taken, but still, we are talking about very typical alarmism here. It is worse than thought, the results are really difficult to see and yet the ocean is about to inundate Mexico City any second now etc.
Sir Harry – where exactly have you seen any actual rise? In areas where there are ferry terminals or areas built close to the oceans, where has the flooding occurred and where have they had to build new ferry terminals? And why are places like the Maldives building spanking new airports close to the ocean if they were worried about the seas rising? The ice is in fine shape and increasing so the models – once again – are wrong. If there was any “painstaking fieldwork” they would have seen that the “rising” was actually subsidence.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/slrmap.htm
The weld boathouse has been used by the Harvard crew since 1906. A question for all the Harvard and MIT grads…have the docks been raised to account for all the sea level rise in the last 118 years?
Wording quoted directly from the NOAA graphic that Flashman linked to:
” including stations consistent with average global sea level rise rate of 1.7-1.8 mm/yr.”
Also: “Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches (approx 3mm) per year.
This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years. ”
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html“
Oh Harry….Sir…..Harry…..
From your link….”Stations illustrated with positive sea level trends (yellow-to-red) are experiencing both global sea level rise, and lowering or sinking of the local land, causing an apparently exaggerated rate of relative sea level rise.”
“sinking of the local land”!!!!!!!! WOW, who woulda thunk it?!?!
Sir Harry, this has been discussed here before. Good god, you cannot use brand new measuring techniques from 1992 and compare it to data “from the last several thousand years”!! What type of accurate data do we have from 5000 b.c.e.? HOW?
And as a side note, if the NOAA continues to screw with the temperature record, I’m not so sure how much of their information is suitable in the first place.
“Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry …indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches (approx 3mm) per year.”
From NOAA: Satellite altimeter radar measurements can be combined with precisely known spacecraft orbits to measure sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. A series of satellite missions that started with TOPEX/Poseidon (T/P) in 1992 and continued with Jason-1 (2001–2013) and Jason-2 (2008–present) estimate global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3–4 mm.
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/
Is that really a better way to measure SLR?
Gilligan’s Island.
And, why were Billion$ spent on protecting New Orleans ?
Well, over the years since the disastrous 1927 flood, hundreds of millions were spent on lower Mississippi River levees and flood control. But flood control has been used down there since it was first settled. What WAS different was the utter fraud and utter disregard for the people’s lives and property BY the corrupt democrat local and state officials. THEY misused and corrupted the money that was to be used to repair and upgrade the New Orleans levees and then blamed the Washington (Bush republicans) for THEIR OWN corruption and waste. With the deliberate aid and cooperation of the Washington ABCNNBCBS news media.
Sir Harry http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/14/claim-acceleration-in-sea-level-rise-worse-than-we-thought/#comment-1835674
Did you actually look at any of the data in your link? If you had (and understood it), you would know that the vast majority of US sites show a linear rise of sea level since the early 20th century. Were you trying to use it as “proof” of “acceleration” in sea level rise?
I hope not.
Harry
Take a breath, stand back and think a minute about what the paper said. They looked at someone else’s SWAG and inserted their own SWAG. Sorry, but there is no there, there. Let’s be honest, Harry, the kid from Harvard was a legacy admittance and could not tell Daddy he spent all that time on the shores of the Charles River without some accomplishments. Now he can go to Wall Street, work in his Dad’s office and make millions doing what he did for the last few years at Harvard. He will just be substituting financial models for climate models whistling all the way to the bank.
Harry,
Could you please tell us the instruments used to measure sea level rise several thousand years ago. Maybe even explain just who even cared before the rise of the alarmist “cause”.
Don’t even try a ‘cubit’.
Relax. Noah was promised that a flood would never again threaten all of humanity. Then again, he got no promises about a “big rock falling from above” nor “a big blast from a nova.” But a flood? Not going to happen on this earth. 8<)
What type of accurate data do we have from 5000 b.c.e.? HOW?
Jake; it was passed down through the descendants of that 32,757 year old survey participant in Lewandowsky’s paper of course.
Do try and keep up.
Here is the Topex/Posiden data before it is adjusted using a subsiding reference point.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/sea-level/axel-morner/satellite-altimetry-se-level-topex-poseidon-500.gif
Is it really worse than:
respected scientist picks up hypothesis
Spends years of pain staking effort filtering data and fabricating models that proves hypothesis in a computer.
Publishes “study”
Calls it science.
… and picks up grant
harry, my dog is smater than you. He sniffs the post before he pees on it.
you have it wrong. the years of painstaking fieldwork were done by the people that collected the tidal data. they set up the stations, maintained them, and carefully recorded the data.
then along comes someone with zero invested in the data, hungery to get their name published (publish or perish), and low and behold they say “look, all that data you collected, it is wrong and needs to be adjusted”.
so they add in an adjustment to the past, that just happens to not only be larger than the signal they are looking for, it co-incidentally confirms what they were looking for. then they anounce a huge press release with lots of publicity like they discovered the cure for cancer, to tell us all that we are all going to die. as if we will live forever if we just stop driving around in cars. and then they call this science.
the reality, when folks start looking into the papers, there are almost universally worse than we thought. almost without exception the results have not been reproduced, and until they are the papers have little or no scientific value.
” … hen along comes someone with zero invested in the data, hungery to get their name published (publish or perish), and low and behold they say “look, all that data you collected, it is wrong and needs to be adjusted …” ~ ferd berple
Now there is the god’s honest truth. We have fraudsters lapping up government funding hollering that the data collected before the CO2 hysteria all needs to be “adjusted”. (fudged in other words)
You have made a no worthwhile contribution with such a comment. You are nothing but a sneering troll, Flash man.
SHF,
That is what some folks say when they have no evidence to support their Belief.
Oh go away you troll, you are boring.
1. It doesn’t matter who you are. Respected or not (by the way, I don’t respect such ‘scientists’, not a little bit, I despise them). The scientific method does not care how beautiful or respected you are. Nor does it care how much time did you put into your crackpot theory. If it contradicts reality, it is wrong. No amount of respect can change that, even if you worked a million years for that bogus theory of yours.
2. Actually, it can be even simpler than that. Just show a fallacy in the ‘years of research’, or a contradiction and that’s it. You don’t even need to show that reality is denied. Technically, you don’t even need to use data (culled from internet or not). In this particular case, they used a model which they failed to show it is correct. To show it is correct it would require that time machine I will tell you about later. Google ‘ex falso, quodlibet’ to figure out why I don’t respect such ‘scientists’.
3. See point one. It doesn’t even matter how smart you are. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong and one’s IQ won’t bend reality to make it right.
Instead of ‘looking forward’ maybe you should question your pseudo scientists:
– How do they know that? Did they measure it, or did they actually applied some numerology on some scarce data to show a confirmation bias driven result?
– If their theory is false, how could you check that? Does it require you to invent a time machine, go back in time and make measurements in the points there aren’t any but they made the numerological guesstimates? Or a simple guesstimate as theirs that show otherwise would suffice?
And your pre-emptive and presumptive post is for what reason?
Did you bring us intelligence? Or did you bring nonsense to make everyone here feel more intelligent?
The you trot out the typical, not to forget ‘frequent’, troll claims regarding simple troll beliefs about what occurs here on WUWT or Climate Audit or JoNova or Bishop Hill or… yes, the list goes on for sites that you fail to understand.
Respected scientists? Can you supply direct references for this respect to the alleged scientists?
One a post-doc and the other a recent PHD graduate, both with current and future careers in their fields and so desperate to not offend the alarmist persecutors of those who question science as science should be questioned.
Did you notice where the abstract describes the ‘respected’ as averaging cherry picked regions and then averaging their results together again? Anytime anyone averages averages, especially into a global average, something is wrong.
Did you also notice that the ‘respected’ never mentioned the adjustments added yearly to the sea level rise, so we must assume they never thought to correct for adjustments. That current 3mm per year sea level rise sounds to me that they’ve mistaken the adjustments for actual data.
One must also wonder why with advanced radar, laser and satellite telemetry, why they had to bother with averaging averages from their odd cherry picked regional tables? I certainly do.
I was amused the other day. While perusing the current issue of Gray’s Sporting Journal, I read an article where the author used the name ‘Sir Harry P. Flashman’; i.e. he named his dog ‘Sir Harry P. Flashman’.
Everyone knows Sir Harry Flashman was “a scoundrel, a liar, a cheat, a thief, a coward—and oh yes, a toady.” (G M Fraser 1969)
Sir, you would benefit from reading essay Pseudo Precision in ebook Blowing Smoke. Only official government plus peer reviewed stuff (some of which is nonsense, just like this new Harvard model using sparse noisy data to rewrite the past observational record). Therein you will learn about the closure problem. (SLR does not equal the sum of ice mass loss plus thermosteric rise.) This new study would make that problem even worse than it already is. Which means the Harvard authors are either undereducated in the topic of SLR, or produced more CAGW alarm overlooking that their model conclusions do not recomcile to the rest of the SLR literature.
Gone back on your word, have you Harry? You recently and clearly stated that you would cease and desist with your posts and churlish troll behavior on this site.
“””””…..
Sir Harry Flashman
January 14, 2015 at 12:17 pm
I look forward to the standard WUWT protocol:
1. Respected scientists publish peer-reviewed paper(s) following years of pain-staking fieldwork, research and analysis……”””””
People with the usual grasp of the English language prefer to say ” pains taking”.
But maybe you really are referring some other kind of field work and analysis; like Vampire eradication.
….. “following years of pain-staking fieldwork, research and analysis.”
Where have you been, Flashy?
Flashman – Getting through the peer-review process does not make a paper correct.
Anthony supplied the results of work from academics that were used by the young scientists Hay and Morrow. It does not contradict what they said in regards to how much the sea level is rising since 1992. It shows that the most accurate data has no acceleration signal in it at all.
Their argument is that that the previous measures, that were not accurate, could be lower so they are sure that it has accelerated. Their conclusion that the difference between the recalculated pre-992 data and now can be interpreted as acceleration is increasing is debatable.
And why the acceleration in rate of sea level rise should be observable in the satellite data.
“The study also shows that the combined rate of ice sheet melting has increased over time and, altogether, Greenland and Antarctica are now losing more than three times as much ice (equivalent to 0.95 mm of sea level rise per year) as they were in the 1990s (equivalent to 0.27 mm of sea level rise per year).”
Dear Harry:
Seems like I remember you getting your head handed to you in WUWT posts a week or so ago. (Sigh) Here we go again.
So you start off by insulting the entire community.
Considering warmest claim this “stuff” is all settled science, and no further discussion will be tolerated, it’s amusing to see how frequently prior data has to be “corrected” – 20th century temperatures appear to move down…sea level appears to move down…little ice age disappears. And not by trivial amounts, mind you.
And you wonder why so many are skeptical. Put simply, we don’t trust you.
Estimating the first derivative of a noisy data is always difficult and the result is uncertain. The contribution of esteemed researchers is to build a model, fit it to data, and estimate the derivative from the model. Long live science!
I see you’re observing the standard alarmist WUWT comment protocol:
1) When any research emerges to support alarm, no matter how speculative or shoddy, rush to defend it
2) Fail to read actual WUWT post, never mind study itself
3) Make unscientific ad hom arguments having little to nothing to do with study
4) Preen at how much smarter you are than everyone at WUWT
1. What fieldwork did they do? I saw no mention of that. Instead, they took actual fieldwork done by others and revised it to fit their narrative, using computer models and techniques they invented.
This is my biggest problem with the state of Climate Science. No one wants to do the comprehensive fieldwork over timescales that are meaningful. Instead their is a rush to judgement to push a political agenda.
It may be hard for you to comprehend but not everyone wants to be reinserted into the Matrix.
Where is the fieldwork on subsidence? Tide gauges only show a presumed increase in sea level.
Sir Harry Flashman,you quote,”Respected scientists publish peer-reviewed paper(s) following years of pain-staking fieldwork, research and analysis”.and then they come up with this,
Measurments to the nearest metre.
They do drive by comments on papers they didn’t read.
Then they whine if you return the favor and do drive by comments on their drive by comments.
Steven – have you found a beginner’s stuff, or not yet? ERL – Effective Radiative Level. How high is it in Berkeley now? Does it change with the time of day? With seasons? With a location? What is the temperature there? Can your equations predict the ERL temperature?
I have been looking forward to your reply since January 5.
Mosher
I can’t believe you can’t see the shallowness of this study. What they said is that they added 2 + 2 and it came up with 5 which they didn’t like, so they just inserted 6 and called it a model with probabilistic dimensions.
Steven – have you found a beginner’s stuff, or not yet? ERL – Effective Radiative Level. How high is it in Berkeley now?
It’s at the height such that the opacity to IR above it is low enough that LWIR escapes to space.
Does it change with the time of day?
yes.
With seasons?
yes
With a location?
Yes.
What is the temperature there?
depends on the height silly
Can your equations predict the ERL temperature?
yes.
I have been looking forward to your reply since January 5.
read more comment less. Talk to a optics expert is you are really interested.
“Mosher
I can’t believe you can’t see the shallowness of this study. What they said is that they added 2 + 2 and it came up with 5 which they didn’t like, so they just inserted 6 and called it a model with probabilistic dimensions.”
1. Dont comment on papers unless you read them
2. Then read the papers in the bibliography.
3. Then see if you can reproduce the results.
4. Then provide an argument why the approach they use to estimate is worse than other approaches
do some work.
Don’t need to to do all of that, Mosher. I have done my own research in the matter. Its quite simple: consult the data that is genuine and unadulterated.
In this case it is tidal gauge data. Study this from the stable coasts and you will see that sea level rise is a myth.
So you see, no need to waste time on junk science when one knows better.
Some scientist suffer from a chronic inability to reject models that are refuted by the simplest of observations.They never make very good scientists nor teachers.
Steven – thank you very much for spending your valuable time to answer beginner’s questions. I am aware of the definition of ERL, which you quote. But you don’t tell me what that basic height central to your theory is. As you know, it is usually said to be 8-10 km. What is the temperature there? Mosher: Depends on the height, silly. I asked you about the height, Steven.
So you don’t know. Welcome to the club. Beginner’s stuff.
I have no idea why we are wasting all those society’s dollars maintaining the 4,000 tide gauges and 1,000 GPS stations.
The data is effectively useless. It must be adjusted to include an upward trend.
And it is the same with all those 15,000 temperature monitoring stations. The data needs to be corrected with an upward trend.
Who do you believe? 20,000 data collectors or 2 global warming promoters (and a Flashman).
So we got three choices. Quit wasting society’s resources on measuring stations, climate science adjustments or just waste even more of society’s resources by continuing both.
If we choose Flashman for President, then all would be solved since we would not have any resources to waste in the first place.
I have adhered only to number 1 – here and here.
It looks like “Carling Hay, a post-doctoral fellow in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences (EPS), and Eric Morrow, a recent PhD graduate” have a very slim publications list. But I could be wrong so please Sir Harry give me their publications list from the peer review. I looked hard for Carling Hay but very little. Maybe it’s because she got her PHD in 2012!
Well Jimbo, clearly you didn’t even take the trouble to read the abstract of the paper, sloppy work on your part!
As I posted above the original post leaves off two of the authors, here’s the full list:
Carling C. Hay, Eric Morrow, Robert E. Kopp & Jerry X. Mitrovica
JXM – Professor of Physics (Geophysics);
Director & Fellow, Earth Systems Evolution Program, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Phil,
I still want the publications list for Carling Hay and Eric Morrow. Was she the lead author?
It’s typical to put the junior authors first and the faculty advisor last.
Try Google scholar, JXM about 138 entries, REK about 290, CCH 10 entries, EM doesn’t work well because it’s not a unique entry.
The Associated Press (AP) describes Carling Hay as the lead author. If they are correct then you too are getting sloppy.
She sees an acceleration AFTER adjusting the past with her model. It’s worse than we thought!
Frankly, like a global average temperature, I don’t think a global average sea-rise figure is a meaningful thing to calculate.
I also would like to see a proper error bar quoted rather than a “90%” confidence level.
To Mr Sir Harry Flashman the esteemed
Perhaps Mr Sir Harry Flashman the esteemed could take the time to respond to individual criticisms of the paper, instead of using an appeal to authority argument, which is no argument at all. In the meantime I will respond to Mr Sir Harry Flashman the esteemed adhominems for no good reason.
“1. Respected scientists publish peer-reviewed paper(s) following years of pain-staking fieldwork, research and analysis.”
In one statement you traverse lack of foundation and end up in absurdity. Respected by whom? Years of pain-staking fieldwork? Does field work now include typing on a keyboard?
“2. Someone writes contradictory post on WUWT using data culled from the internet and and graphed in home office.”
So? Is Mr Sir Harry Flashman just recently becoming aware of the internet and how it works? Is this something new to him, collaboration and sharing of ideas and data? If so, it is unfortunate.
“3. All commenters chime in to engage in mutual congratulation on how much smarter they are than everyone else.”
It’s all relative, anyone standing next to Mr Sir Harry Flashman suddenly looks like a genius.
Alx January 15, 2015 at 8:02 am
To Mr Sir Harry Flashman the esteemed
Perhaps Mr Sir Harry Flashman the esteemed could take the time to respond to individual criticisms of the paper,
Perhaps those critics could actually read the paper? Or even the abstract, and get the author list correct.
“Fieldwork”? There’s no fieldwork in it at all. It’s massaging data with computer models, to get the desired “worse than we thought” result.
See the above post with peer reviewed papers. FYI..
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Bilder_Dateien/Puls_Rahmstorf_Mann_Meerespiegel_2000/MSp.J.Coast.Res.2011May.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002397
Just saying…
I think I understand this
The records for the 20th century are really bad, so we have made up a number that is lower than everyone else’s
We deducted this from a total we grabbed out of thin air (based on the bad records) and the bit left over was greater than other studies, but fit exactly with the teory we had when we asked for money to do this.
Please send more study money and we will gaze into the future with it
They aren’t saying the records are bad. They are saying they are sparse. The oceans are huge, and tidal records are at a few coastal locations, subject to movement. Everything else has to be estimated to get a global record.
So the primitive estimate is to say, well, it’s all the same. That’s an assumption, the old one. H&M are saying, we can do better. Based on the observations.
Observations? Nick, they infered this result from a model that they themselves says was built for a different purpose, that they themselves said was fed sparse noisy data im order to makemthe model extrapolations. At least read the post and the paper abstract before making such silly disprovable assertions.
Gee thanks Nick.
So no we know you can clean up “sparse data” with nifty computer models.
Probably easier than cherry picking tree rings.
Rud, speaking of reading the paper, I can’t find it in the current weekly issue (Jan 15) of Nature. Am I looking in the wrong place? Was it a full blown article?
Nick,
You only need one tidal gauge if it is on a stable coast. That’s all; just one.
You only need one tidal gauge if it is on a stable coast. That’s all; just one.
================
Here you are. The highest tide in Vancouver was 47 years ago. The water hasn’t been higher since that day. ANd since record low water occurred 20 years later, this suggests ocean levels are falling.
VANCOUVER, B.C. 49° 17′ 14″ N 123° 06′ 36″ W
Historical Extreme High Water in metres(05 December 1967) =5.64
Historical Extreme Low Water in metres (13 December 1985) =-0.30
or how about this. Again oceans are falling. (lowest in 2008)
TOFINO, B.C. 49° 09′ 13″ N 125° 54′ 45″ W
Historical Extreme High Water in metres(30 November 1951) =4.75
Historical Extreme Low Water in metres (07 May 2008) =-0.32
or this. again oceans are falling.
QUEEN CHARLOTTE, B.C. 53° 15′ 7″ N 132° 04′ 18″ W
Historical Extreme High Water in metres(11 December 1973) =8.15
Historical Extreme Low Water in metres (27 May 1998) =-0.51
Surely the big new headline to emerge from this “study” is that the researchers have asserted that sea level data gathered to date cannot be relied on to make long term detailed predictions for the future? Ok they then went ahead and made up some figures based on models but don’t all climate scientists do this?.
You only need one tidal gauge if it is on a stable coast. That’s all; just one.
================
here is what the US government says about sea level change in Vancouver.
The mean sea level trend is 0.37 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.23 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1910 to 2011 which is equivalent to a change of 0.12 feet in 100 years.
0.12 feet in 100 years = 1.5 inches in 100 years.
1.5 inches in 100 years!! ITS WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!! At this rate we will be underwater in a couple of million years. whatever will we do? where will we go? please send money to help the sea level refugees in canada, payable to ferdberple scam industries inc.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=822-071
“Observations? Nick, they infered this result from a model that they themselves says was built for a different purpose, that they themselves said was fed sparse noisy data im order to make the model extrapolations.”
They fitted a model to observations.
“Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals…”
There is no other way to get a global sea level average. There is a huge area of sea, with a few tide gauges on the periphery, which are not consistent. Some estimate has to be made of that vast interior. It was estimated before, it is estimated again. But better.
They’re claiming they can do better than sparse measurements, based on a computer model of other processes that are even more sparsely measured.
It’s an interesting attempt, but I don’t know why anyone would believe this claim, except ideological convenience. If they had claimed to find less recent acceleration, would anyone be discussing this? Or would the climate mafia have given this study cement boots by now?
Also, as was pointed out elsewhere, no one gives a rat’s ass what happens to the sea level in the middle of the ocean. Tide gauges have policy implications. This is true even where local subsidence is a known problem.
Think again, Nick. The only place where sea level change is of conseguence is at the _coast_ and it matters not a whit whether SL fluctuates by a few mm at some place 1267 km NE of PangoPango.
In a Nutshell (for those with little time for recreational reading)
“Typically, Hay said, estimates of sea-level rise are created by … gathering {data}.”
***
“The new estimates developed by Hay and Morrow grew out … computer simulations.”
The End.
Please Harvard. What new data is used? – Thank you. MIT.
Harvard – because not everyone can go to MIT
As a graduate of The Great Eastern Technological Institute Upon the Banks of the Charles, I appreciate the comment. However, there are many fine people who’ve graduated from Harvard – I even count some as friends.
Just not in climate science, where classes are taught by the likes of Naomi Oreskes.
Fight fiercely Harvard! Fight! Fight! Fight.
Show them our prowess and skill!…
…Hurl that spheroid down the field and fight, fight, fight!
– Tom L
Harvard lost all credibility when the MIT hackers “remodeled” the football field by -10% by completely redrawing everything to 100 marks in 90 yards….and noone noticed. It was one of the finest hacks MIT ever pulled.
What about subsidence in many developing areas giving the mistaken impression of sea level rise?
This is another of the new science memes: present day data is “better” than older data, therefore we adjust data from the past to match our favored present day hypothesis.
It is hard for an old-school disinterested “just give me the data” scientist to see the wisdom of this approach.
This is done daily with surface temperatures as well — see https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ — “The full period of record monthly values are re-homogenized whenever the raw database is re-constructed (usually once per day)”.
Kip it is worse than that. See numerous vivid examples in essay When Data Isn’t in Blowing Smoke.
After searching for this ‘essay’–thinking the essay was something weirdly entitled “When Data Isn’t in Blowing Smoke”–I realized it was Rud Istvan’s book, “Blowing Smoke,” available as an e-book on Amazon. I’ve been plowing through some of the essays over the last two hours. Great stuff there for non-scientists like me. Highly recommended for all the lurkers here who are trying to get their bearings on the issues accurately. Judith Curry wrote the intro. She writes
Dead on. You’re being too modest not underscoring what Blowing Smoke is, Mr. Istvan. Not to mention the time lost trying to figure out what the hell you were talking about in your response to Kip Hansen.
Sorry about the time lost. Trying not to be commercial, as AW isn’t either.
Rud, Rip Van Bones just woke up and took a look at Blowing Smoke. Great book! Thanks
I was razzing you about the time. There was no edit button to add a 😉 which I forgot so it sounded harsh. This is a really good book. I’m going through the Reykjavik stuff right now. I remember when Steve Goddard was first making his claims two years ago about changes to the USHCN data, and I actually wrote the MSM journalist who had reported it insinuating that Goddard was a conspiracy theorist (can’t remember who, or the org). I asked him why he wasn’t taking Goddard’s claim seriously. The reporter got in touch with Judith Curry and maybe Homewood, but he didn’t contact Goddard. Effing typical. Now, reading your book, I am seeing the extent of what the NCDC did. Changing the global record!
The NYT should have had a reporter in every state talking to every state meteorologist examining those records. There’s no other word for it: fraud.
I have to admit, these grant writers are the most creative bunch around !!
So I’m guessing they are sitting at a bar one night and one of these has an epiphany on how to make a straight line turn into a hockey stick. A $1M grant later and bingo, they did it.
Even though their own commentary indicates there is no real, comprehensive, (believable) data to do it, they plowed on nevertheless and are accurate evidently to the width of a human hair, more or less.
They did do one thing right. At the end of their press release they inserted this obligatory phrase “…….is really much larger than anyone thought.” Rumor has it that grant agencies reward 5 Gold Stars and a Milky Way if that phrase is found somewhere in their work.
Ah ah, have we have been playing with the King Knut factor again?
Something to do with the older tidal gauges under-measuring, as well the measurement was done at noon and not in the morning, Just because the satellites dont agree doesn’t mean they are right
From just a few day ago…
Models overestimate melting. Models vs observations.
Efficient meltwater drainage through supraglacial streams and rivers on the southwest Greenland ice sheet
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/07/1413024112.abstract
We all know by now to trust the models over the data…
Flashman == comic
Flashman: ‘following years of pain-staking fieldwork, research and analysis.’
Paper: “modeling the physics that underpin sea-level “fingerprints”
No doubt! If intending to amuse, great wit! {and no “sarc” tag needed, really, I’m serious — too funny}
I suspect it was unintentional, however… likely just copied/pasted Response #10.
Thousads are flocking to beaches world wide to observe catestophic sea level rise… Cheers and Beers
https://www.google.com/search?site=&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=633&q=crowded+beaches&oq=crowded+beaches&gs_l=img.3..0l4j0i5l2j0i24l2.3303.6543.0.6881.15.13.0.2.2.0.220.1681.0j9j1.10.0.msedr…0…1ac.1.61.img..3.12.1689.YjtNMKlVNFU
“Unfortunately, our new lower rate of sea-level rise prior to 1990 means that the sea-level acceleration that resulted in higher rates over the last 20 years is really much larger than anyone thought.”
Liars! No other word for it. These people can model and weasel anything and everything.
Three comments:
1. Harvard University: A once prestigious organization, now a pathetic anti-human, anti-American wasteland.
2. Carling Hay is a liar.
3. Eric Morrow is a liar.
They know that what they have done is dishonest. They know they have distorted the truth. They know they are liars. They have made their bed and now the world knows the kind of twisted leftists they are. (I would have said leftist liars, but that’s repititious.)
The graph shown here (going back only to 1992) with a rise of 3 mm/decade does not disagree with the Hay and Morrow study, which finds the same rise post-1990. Even if you accept the latter “half-curve” slope of 2.5 mm/decade (probably not a good way to treat the data, with an artificial division into two slopes), that is still twice the rate found by Hay and Morrow for the pre-1990 values. I’m not in any way accepting their results, just saying that if you want to audit their work, you will need to focus on their pre-1990 estimates.
No. 20 years is long enough to spot acceleration if the measurements are as precise as indicated. It could have only started accelerating 10 years earlier due to fossil fuel use.
“It’s a larger problem than we initially thought.” How much did they initially think they thought – did their thoughts come in waves, or just little ripples?
Well, since, despite increasing human CO2 emissions, there has been NO “global warming” of any significance since he was about 6 years old, “recent graduate” Morrow’s brain appears to still be at ebb (in mid-June in the northern hemisphere, to boot)…. which, given the free flow of information during his lifetime, indicates that there is a very thick seawall blocking the tide from advancing up the beach… .
This is pure fraud.
Brace yourself for this big reveal! We just created a model and now realize that all the warming since the last Ice Age occurred in the last ten minutes. I would have shared our model with the world, but my Mom flushed it before I could take a picture.
Sincerely – carling hay & eric morrow
This is not Carling’s first model adjustment.
The satellite record shows a quite steady rise of 3 mm/yr from about 1993 through August 2014. Tide gauge records show a quite steady rise of about 1.6 mm/yr since the mid 1800’s continuing through the 20th century up to recent times. I know of no reconciliations of the difference between these records.
Even NOAA disagrees with your tide gauge assertion about the pre-satellite SLR. Look up their estimates. You can even get their plotted rates.
Re: “even NOAA”
1. The Data Twisting NOAA
“For the new ERSST.v4 data, NOAA severely limited the warming from the early-1910s until the mid-1930s and then added an unusual sudden warming.”
Bob Tisdale author of e book Climate Models Fail
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/01/has-noaa-once-again-tried-to-adjust-data-to-match-climate-models/
2. The Human CO2 Propaganda (here, aimed at school children) NOAA
“Climate change mitigation generally involves engaging in activities that reduce the production of human generated greenhouse gas emissions… .”
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/climate-stewards/
NO, the raw Topex data is shown here
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/sea-level/axel-morner/satellite-altimetry-se-level-topex-poseidon-500.gif
It gives a rate of 1mm/year.
Its only after someone “adjusts” it using a reference point that is sinking at 2.3mm/year is added to the result. that a rate od approx. 3mm/year is produced.
The logical inference would be that the land is simultaneously rising at 1.4 mm/year, no? I.e. there is a land rise of 1.4 mm/year and a sea level rise of 1.6 mm year, which, from a satellite, gives the ocean the appearance of rising 3.0 mm/year. But since the water is carried up by the rising crust, it only shows 1.6 mm on tide gauges. I have heard that the satellites are calibrated somehow based on the tide gauges, though, so there may be other explanations.
There is no tide guage on Earth where the tide guage’s reference can come anywhere near stability that can be used to measure 3 mm over the course of 12 months. What nonsense!
NOAA tidal gages on the west, Gulf, and East coasts show no sea level rise for the past 15-20 years, except where other is local subsidence, as in the Chesapeake Bay area.
None of these studies pay any attention to such data. Instead, they fabricate a sea level rise via modeling or ” adjusting” satellite altimetry data.
People like Flash man are deceived by the rent-seekers.
This link from NOAA shows sea level rising in every part of the US except areas of the Alaskan coast. In some cases, the trend is towards a substantial rise. Where is your information coming from?
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/slrmap.htm
Harry
Did you bother to check that link and the supposed sea level rises?
New Orleans is going to flood anytime soon. Just like it has been for over a century.
The light green and blue dots represent less than 3mm/year, the dark blue ones show sea levels receding at -6 to -12 mm per year.
The yellow dots predominate around the mid-Atlantic where NOAA adjusts sea level rise for land rebound.
Now have you got any evidence that your respected post doc fellow and recent PHD data torturers are in any way possibly correct??
I was responding to a specific assertion that “NOAA tidal gages (sic) on the west, Gulf, and East coasts show no sea level rise for the past 15-20 years,except where other is local subsidence, as in the Chesapeake Bay area.” This is demonstrably false.
I acknowledge that it’s a little confusing, because elsewhere NOAA says sea level rise globally is about 3 mm annually. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
“Now have you got any evidence that your respected post doc fellow and recent PHD data torturers are in any way possibly correct??”
The paper is the evidence, though I freely admit insufficient expertise to judge. Have you got proof that’s it’s wrong?
SHF (today at 1:28pm): “This is demonstrably false… .”
Demonstrate it.
So far, you have provided no evidence, just words which, so far, have proven to be empty of any significant meaning.
Harry–Have you looked at the actual specific trendlines for each of the locations on NOAA’s site? Let’s take something close to my home, as one example…San Francisco Bay at Alameda. It’s adjacent to a body of water that comprises, well, a fairly substantial portion of all the water on Earth (the Pacific). Here’s a link to the trendline: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414750 Not only does it show ZERO acceleration in the ‘been happening since the Ice Age’ ongoing rise in sea level (whether you drive an SUV or not), but it’s lower today than the 1940 peak and shows no sign of anything catastrophic happening. The northern sites in North America still have glacial rebound and other tectonic influences that are contributing to a ‘relative’ fall in sea levels (see Alaska and Hudson Bay); the Gulf Coast and Chesapeake have major subsidence happening. Please–take a step back and look at the big picture. Look at a bunch of sites. Where is the predicted acceleration? The Hay & Morrow report simply makes me shake my head (and make me sick).
And for a little more interesting history on mid ocean SLR:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/
Funny I thought Alaska had as much coastline as the rest of the US put together, so its going up in some places and down in others, how horrible.
Flash man
This is a prime example of lying by a government agency. My comment referred to specific gauges, of which there are several score on the various coasts. You must read each gauge to see the truth of my assertion.
The NOAA is now a political instrument, but for the real tidal data you have to dig deep for each gauge station. I have done this and I know whereof I speak.
To reiterate,
NOAA tide guages show no rise in sea level for the last 15-20 years on stable coasts where there is no subsidence.
This is shown by individual gauge data.
Do _not_ rely on charts and figures presented by the NOAA, or you will be deceived.Look at each individual tidal gauge data.
Agreed, and I am surprised that NOAA still have this data available (the site-specific trendlines). It looks like they’re trying to get site visitors to accept the oh-so-scary upward arrows ‘at first glance’ and not encourage any deep-diving into the data.
“You know, I spent 6 hours at the Bay of Fundy one afternoon…saw the sea level drop over 50 feet…Figured the oceans would be empty by now…”
@ur momisugly the U K, oh, I mean you, ‘k (smile), re: 4:43pm today — LOL, ME TOO!
(o_o)
Follow this link to the HockeySchick where I was quoted:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/10/satellite-sea-level-data-has-been.html
I’d do a better job posting this but I’m on an Apple product today, and it is extremely user hostile.
Here is what the canadian west coast tidal records show. The highest tide in Vancouver was 47 years ago.
VANCOUVER, B.C. 49° 17′ 14″ N 123° 06′ 36″ W
Historical Extreme High Water in metres(05 December 1967) =5.64
Historical Extreme Low Water in metres (13 December 1985) =-0.30
You’re all not addressing the main point which is that sea levels are definitely rising due to warming , but what would scientists know ?
Frank, a little help to get you back on track:
The “main point” of this thread is:
data versus
computer simulations;
for example, NOAA tide gauges versus
no-skill model “trends”.
OK, so you agree that sea levels are rising due to warming, good.
No, Frank. I do not.
So nicely stated and, if you are a sincere truth seeker Frank, exactly what you are looking for, that I repeat:
The main point is:
Rud Istvan today at 1:09pm
Janice, TY. Hope you like the ebook Blowing Smoke: essays on energy and climate. Foreword from Prof. Judith Curry. There is much in it that suits your style.
Thanks, Rud — I plan to read your “Blowing Smoke” — my budget is a bit restricted while I am “between jobs,” but, at $9.99 it is a good deal!
http://www.amazon.com/Blowing-Smoke-Essays-Energy-Climate-ebook/dp/B00OJSOCNK/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414877191&sr=1-4&keywords=Rud+Istvan
#(:))
Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age.
Old news, bad presentation, horrible math skills, worse data analysis skills. Absolutely nothing is different this century than the last several centuries regarding sea level rise.
They followed the favored climate team member’s methods; decide results, torture data, graph then torture data and re-graph till desired results appear.
When data refuses to collaborate there are a raft of terrible climate models that can be used fill out the desired graph with faux data.
Since the last glacial, the average rate of sea level rise is 5.7mm pa (IPCC). So an acceleration up to half that is inconsequential.
Frank- And you’re missing the even bigger point that even if sea levels are rising at whatever rate, that by no means proves it’s due to AGW.
They are claiming an _acceleration_ of see level rise based on numbers that have been adjusted. The _acceleration_ doesn’t seem present in the raw measurements. Therefore the most obvious conclusion _acceleration_ seems to be an artefact of the adjustments.
Even NOAA accepts that some of the red dots on their maps are due to subsidence. Good luck addressing that by reducing CO2.
In addition to my post above, here’s a little graph I ginned up that illustrates what Colorado University has done with the rate of satellite generated sea level rise over the last ten years or so.
http://oi59.tinypic.com/24e8482.jpg