Guest post by Steven Goddard
One of the most cited “proofs” of global warming is that sea level is rising, as can be seen in the graph below.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global_sm.jpg
This is a nonsensical argument, because sea level would be rising even if temperatures were going down, as they have been since 2002. The main reason why sea level rises is because the equilibrium between glacial ice and temperature is out of balance, and has been for the last 20,000 years.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_png
Note that from 15,000 years ago to 8,000 years ago, sea level rose about 14mm/year – which is more than four times faster than the current rise rate of 3.3mm/year, as reported by the University of Colorado. During the last ice age, sea level was so low that people were able to walk from Siberia to Alaska across the Bering Strait. One of the more stunning pieces of evidence of this is the remarkable similarity of appearance and culture between the indigenous peoples of Eastern Siberia and North America.
In 2002, the BBC reported that a submerged city was found off the coast of India, 36 meters below sea level. This was long before the Hummer or coal fired power plant was invented. It is quite likely that low lying coastal areas will continue to get submerged, just as they have been for the last 20,000 years. During the last ice age, thick glaciers covered all of Canada and several states in the US, as well as all of Northern Europe. As that ice melts, the water flows into the ocean and raises sea level.
http://uk.encarta.msn.com/media_461527006/ice_extent_during_the_last_ice_age.html
The IPCC has stated that sea level may rise two meters this century, which would be a rate of 22mm/year, nearly seven times faster than current rates. Do we see such an acceleration? The simple answer is no. There has been very little change in sea level rise rates over the last 100 years, certainly nothing close to the immediate 7X acceleration which would be required to hit 2 meters.
Sea level is rising, and the abuse of this information is one of the most flagrantly clueless mantras of the alarmist community.
Even if we returned to a green utopian age, sea level would continue to rise at about the same rate – just as has done since the last glacial maximum.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In the not too distant past, folks assumed that rising SST’s were caused by global warming. Now that more information is known about oscillations between cold and warm oceanic temperatures, that argument has been tabled. So if that argument is brought up, that increased SST is caused by AGW, one will have to ask if AGW also causes decreasing SST. The same is true for the Sun argument. If the Sun is heating up the oceans directly, then the same argument must accompany colder ocean oscillations. The problem is that solar output cannot explain both sides of the same argument, just as increasing CO2 cannot. In fact, the degree of warming or cooling in the records cannot be explained by CO2 or its supposed affect on water vapor or ice melt. One must put into the calculation an overwhelming oceanic, jet stream, and trade wind affect that results in weather system responses consistent with these prevailing causes. These natural colder or warmer weather pattern variations are characterized by both short and long term oscillations that easily stretch through the temperature trends, both up and down, known in this interglacial period.
a few “decadal oscillation” links…
…herald cooling…
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200807201494/energy-and-environment/pacific-decadal-oscillation-shift-assures-global-cooling-for-next-30-years.html
…affect clouds, and subsequently the weather/climate…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/
…and solar forcing…
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/pdotrend.htm
With respect to sea level rise/fall…
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15732081
“Satellite altimetric data from September 1992 to January 2002 and hydrographic data from 1927 to 1999 reveal the presence of low-frequency variability of sea surface height (SSH) within the Japan/East Sea (JES). SSH interannual variability amounting to approximately 15 cm is in phase with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), with higher SSH, warmer, fresher surface (upper 200 dbar) layer during negative phases of the PDO; and lower SSH, cooler, saltier surface layer during a positive PDO.”
Peer reviewed paper based on IPCC data, showing 90cm rise this century as the most likely scenario – ranging up 140cm. See figure 4. Reference is from Gavin at RealClimate.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_science_2007.pdf
Many climate scientists have upped the ante to 100-200cm since.
From that same paper.
On the other hand, very low sea-level rise values as reported in the IPCC TAR now appear rather implausible in the light of the observational data.
The observational data being that rates have dropped from 3mm/year to 2.4mm/year over the last decade?
4years, The solar forcing paper is the odd duck in the bunch. While it is true that solar heating is an important part of our planet, and no one I know can or would dispute that without lottsa alcohol, its variation is so small that temperature variation can not be explained by solar variation. If all these weather related causes stopped then maybe. Here is what it sounds like. No wind, no jet stream, no tides, no Earth spin, no water sloshing, just an enclosed container with air, water, and some land masses just sitting there under the Sun…do you see where I am going with this? We would have to get rid of everything that causes weather pattern variation except the Sun. By the time we did that, we would still find that the Sun’s variation will not cause the now static system to swing up and down in temperature to the degree it does. The Sun warms us. The Earth varies that warmth.
INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUND
FOUND, HERE…
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/11/decadal-oscillation-in-sea-level-change.html
Smokey: “Misdirection? Nope. That ‘incidental’ matter is in fact the entire basis for the AGW hypothesis” [etc.] This post is called “Basic Geology Part 3 – Sea Level Rises During Interglacial Periods”. You can argue about anything you like, but if you are not on-topic don’t expect me to indulge you.
Steven Goddard: “Dr. Hansen is considered very highly credentialed”… …”We have to take his word as unquestioned fact.” Why are you talking about Hansen’s credentials when the question is about yours? If I knew yours I might not be so… dare I say it… skeptical. (I’d love to hear whether Hansen thinks he’s getting some sort of free ride. Snort.)
“So you choose to quibble with me over 1cm instead. I am not impressed.” I “quibble” over the fact that you are presenting clearly incomplete data as proof of your arguments, regardless of what the disputed measurements are. This has been the thrust of my criticism throughout this thread, which you still fail to address. Are you familiar with the previous Quaternary interglacial cycles (Sangamon, Yarmouth and Aftonian)? What was the character of their sea-level changes? What were their peaks and troughs? It still only a few iterations, but the predictions that might flow from that analysis would be taken a bit more seriously.
Steven,
I’m really not sure what you’re now trying to demonstrate here, except that there’s a range of projections by climate scientists which fall short of Hansen’s upper-bound estimate.
In the meantime, and rather more germane to your original article, you still leave unanswered why subsidence should be left out of sea-level calculations – no oceanographer, including Nils-Axel Morner himself, would support your position here.
But no matter. As I’m sure your basic geology would tell you, if you leave subsidence out of the historical data, you should also take it out of the current trend to make a valid comparison. According to your plot which sits at the head of this post, we are still left with over a 2 mm/year present rate of increase in sea level above the natural background of the last 5,000 years.
Tom P, re: your comment about what we are left with. Would you please add your understanding of oceanic thermal expansion during positive and negative oceanic oscillations. Do you believe them to be short term or long term trenders? Specifically, which oscillations have been positive during your statement, “we are still left with over a 2 mm/year present rate of increase in sea level above the natural background of the last 5,000 years.” Also, do you know what the error bars are for that “natural background of the last 5,000 years”?
On second thought, my question to you Tom is unfair. The mean sea level statistic, the graph with a trend line and the stair step data, to me, is a nonsensical analysis. It’s like saying the average annual incident of frost-kill in the US is such and such. Such an analysis completely ignores the fact that there are many growing zones in the US. Some zones experience a much higher frost-kill than other zones. You can’t make any kind of statement that is useful to those who buy plants by telling them what the frost-kill is for the entire US.
Tom P,
So far I haven’t seen any objections to the article. What I see is a couple of people who tried to hijack the thread by going off on a pointless tangent about the last 7,000 years.
The points of this article are that sea level would be going up, even if temperatures were going down – and that Hansen et al estimates are completely out of line with observational evidence.
You appear desperate to keep those topics off the table.
Ben Lawson,
If you want to write a blog about some favorite topics and can find someone to publish it, then go for it.
Do you dispute that sea level has been going up for the last 20,000 years? Do you dispute that temperatures have been going up for most of the last 10,000 years? Do you understand that sea level would be going up, even if temperatures weren’t? Do you accept Dr. Hansen’s claim of 5m this century?
I’m not going to be dragged off topic into an irrelevant academic exercise. Save that for the classroom.
@Pamela Gray (15:19:37)
T’WAS THE SUN WHAT DONE IT, GOV’NER…
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002945.html
…maybe.
(another look at that Holgate data)
Once again we find that solar activity correlates well with warming, and/or the effects of warming. To just say that there’s so little heat it couldn’t make a difference doesn’t seem reasonable when solar variations seem to be having a marked effect. Obviously we don’t yet know, so more observations are needed. Still, the correclation is a lot better between the sun and many climate parameters than with CO2 and same.
It appears that someone moderating the thread changed my last post?
It did and should read “Do you dispute that temperatures have been going down for most of the last 10,000 years?
as seen here-
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
REPLY: I don’t think either moderator on duty would have done that for any reason. Don’t rule out the possibility that you may have accidentally put in one word when you meant another. I’ve done the very same thing. It happens. – Anthony
Steven,
You write an article comparing current trends with natural trends, and now regard my establishing the prior historical trend of the last few thousand years as going off at a tangent? I’m afraid there are problems deeper than your basic understanding of geology here.
Pamela,
I’m not quite clear as to what you’re implying, but to give you another analogy, I take it you see the worth of measuring changes in the life expectancy of Americans, without such a number being of direct relevance to the health of any particular American?
If you reject using globally derived measurements, how can we hope to understand the relationships which are globally driven by say solar input, orbital dynamics and atmospheric gas concentrations?
“If you reject using globally derived measurements, how can we hope to understand the relationships which are globally driven by say solar input, orbital dynamics and atmospheric gas concentrations?”
Reminds me of the statistician who drowned in a river with an average depth of only 3 inches.
And all those factors you list have different values, and so behave differently, in different areas, therefore a ‘one size fits all’ model is bound to give inaccurate results, as in fact they all do.
Tom P (18:16:29)
“I take it you see the worth of measuring changes in the life expectancy of Americans, without such a number being of direct relevance to the health of any particular American?”
That’s right. The life insurance premium of some 35 year old alcoholic with pancreatic cancer is going to be a lot higher (if he can get it) than a 50 year old in good health and with good habits.
You have answered your own question by the example you give. Life expectancy is a measure that says very little about what is being measured, what to fix, how to help, or who to help. Is it more babies surviving? Or old people surviving longer? Smoking rates going down? Epidemics easing? Not to mention that you have narrowed your data from a global number to a more localized number. You need to know more about the, yes, noisy data that makes up the global data. How about this one: Globally averaged stock is going down. Tell me how you can use that number to address your stock portfolio without looking at the stocks themselves in your portfolio? Are they going down? How do you know, based on the single stock market number? Are you willing to jump ship with just that single number, or would we find you late at night studying the performance of the individual stocks in your portfolio?
Steven Goddard: “I’m not going to be dragged off topic into an irrelevant academic exercise. Save that for the classroom.” What I am disputing is the core evidence of your post, which you relentlessly refuse to address. The only conclusion I can draw at this point is that you have no defensible response and simply won’t to admit it.
“Do you dispute that sea level has been going up for the last 20,000 years?” Nope, I don’t dispute this. What happened in the years before though? If all you look at is “up” how do you know what “down” looks like?
“Do you dispute that temperatures have been going [you meant down] for most [emphasis mine] of the last 10,000 years?” Nope, I don’t dispute this. Slightly down overall (~0.5C) over the last ~10,000 years. This is after a comparatively rapid increase (~6.0C) in the previous ~10,000 years. The record (adjacent to your link) also shows that in very recent times this gradual 10,000 year decline has been overwhelmed in the blink of an eye by that new temperature increase that the “alarmists” are talking about. Gee, I guess there is some relevance to looking past the last half of the last cycle of glaciation!
Etc., etc.
Anthony,
I still had the original post (awaiting moderation) open in a different window, and it said Do you dispute that temperatures have been going down for most of the last 10,000 years?
But it appeared posted as “up” rather than “down” so I am quite certain that someone must have thought that they were correcting a typo.
Tom P,
I think you have completely missed the point of this article. John Kerry said last week that rising sea level is proof of global warming. This is nonsense because it implies that sea level was not rising prior to the recent upturn in CO2. In fact, sea level rose through the last 8,000 years of continuously falling temperature, and it also rose during the ice age scare of the 1960s and 1970s. It was rising at nearly the same rate in 1910 when there were only a few hundred or thousand automobiles in the world.
Hansen claims 55mm/year average through the rest of the century. Right now we are at 2.4. Does that seem realistic? If you actually cared about the truth you would be going after him, instead of wasting everyone’s time here arguing with me about 1mm of subsidence.
Pamela, HasitBeenFourYears,
I said specifically that such a number is not applicable to an individual, so your posts just reiterate that basic aspect of a statistical average in various different ways. I had actually thought it rather obvious that knowing the underlying change in life expectancy in a country would be of some worth…
But I’ll give you one more example which might make more obvious the statistical validity of your positions.
A batting average obviously says very little about the performance of the batter in a particular game. Would you therefore on that basis advocate not calculating such a number as it is “nonsensical analysis”?
Steven,
“I think you have completely missed the point of this article.”
So it had nothing to do with comparing the current rate of sea-level change against the natural background?
Why then did you choose to conclude your article:
“Even if we returned to a green utopian age, sea level would continue to rise at about the same rate – just as has done since the last glacial maximum.”
My simple point, your conclusion is wrong. Based on the very data you have presented, if we could turn back the clock the rate of sea-level change would be one half to one third of what we now are seeing.
But I fully understand why you want to move the discussion on from your faulty analysis.
Tom P,
Like I said, you are obviously not interested in the truth about sea level.
Do you disagree that sea level will continue to rise, even if temperatures go down?
Do you understand the meaning of the word “about?” 1mm/year is 54mm less than Hansen’s figure. 2mm/year is 53mm less than Hansen’s figure? 1.5mm is 53.5mm less than Hansen’s figure. Nobody cares. They didn’t have satellites before 30 years ago measuring sea level. No one knows what the exact figure from 7,000 years ago.
Your analysis is based on a clueless parsing of words, yet you ignore Hansen’s mountain of error.
Ben Lawson,
So now you are implicitly suggesting that we would be currently headed into an ice age, if not for AGW.
In that case, I will immediately increase my CO2 production.
Steven,
In your conclusion you are comparing the historical and present sea level rise rates to each other, not to a projected rate. You are attempting to rewrite your own article now.
But what really concerns me is that you don’t feel it’s worth either disputing or wondering why your data indicate sea levels are now rising two to three times the natural background.