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.
Tom P,
From 1910 to 1960 sea level rose at a fairly steady rate of 2mm/year. Over the past three years the rate has been much lower than this. Does that prove global cooling?
Your concept of “natural background” is meaningless at the sensitivity you are looking at. If you have any knowledge of statistics you should know that in a Gaussian distribution, there is a range of “normal” values.
Once again you are trying to hijack the discussion and claim that the article is about what is going on inside your own head. If you had read all four or five short paragraphs of the article, you would have known that Hansen’s prediction is a central point, which you refuse to think about.
Steven,
You wrote: “Your concept of “natural background” is meaningless at the sensitivity you are looking at.”
So the subsidence-corrected sea-level-rise historical trend of 0.9 mm a year you first drew attention to in the document http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/climate/holocene.pdf
has now become meaningless?
“If you have any knowledge of statistics you should know that in a Gaussian distribution, there is a range of “normal” values.”
This statement just by itself demonstrates your own very limited grasp of statistics.
“If you had read all four or five short paragraphs of the article, you would have known that Hansen’s prediction is a central point.”
So central you omit to mention either his name or his prediction (55mm/year rise) in the article.
I gather you already have a past record in misinterpreting ice-area time series data. Your retraction is here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
You can now add misinterpretation of sea-level time-series data to your score card. Perhaps Anthony Watts would like to consider if your articles really do much to enhance the scientific credibility of his site.
Tom P,
The Register piece most certainly is not a retraction. Thee article is about a very real discrepancy between NSIDC and UIUC sea ice >15% concentration maps. NSIDC got upset that I implied the problem “might” be at their end, and I explained that that implication.probably is not valid. This became obvious only after extensive discussions with NSIDC and UIUC people. Your reading comprehension is deficient, again.
As far as the Hansen 55mm, I posted above the link to the Hansen 5m before 2100 paper. I’m assuming that you know how to do math well enough to divide 5,000mm/90 years.
You have to understand, most of the readers are highly intelligent and don’t need everything to be spoon fed to them. But obviously not all.
.
Sea levels falling??
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/msl-rept.htm
.
Tom P,
Perhaps you can explain something to me.
Why is ad hominem attack and desperately attempting to silence dissidents, the standard operating mode of people of your persuasion?
“Steven Goddard”
[post removed]
Reply: Sorry, over the top. Complain all you like, but be respectful ~ charles the moderator
Steven,
I’m not quite sure why the last post was censored – please be assured there was no personal abuse in it.
You wrote: “As far as the Hansen 55mm, I posted above the link to the Hansen 5m before 2100 paper.”
I’m not disputing that, but stating that the link to Hansen’s prediction was posted in the subsequent discussion flatly contradicts your previous assertion:
“If you had read all four or five short paragraphs of the article, you would have known that Hansen’s prediction is a central point.”
And I’m not trying to silence you – I’d very much welcome seeing any further contributions to the science you think you can make. I’m just not so sure how Mr Watts feels.
If you shrunk the Earth to the size of a billiard ball and then carefully dried the oceans and all water from it’s surface, would it be smoother than a billiard ball?
OK, first, how smooth is a billiard ball? According to the World Pool-Billiard Association, a pool ball is 2.25 inches in diameter, and has a tolerance of +/- 0.005 inches. In other words, it must have no pits or bumps more than 0.005 inches in height. That’s pretty smooth. The ratio of the size of an allowable bump to the size of the ball is 0.005/2.25 = about 0.002.
The Earth has a diameter of about 12,735 kilometers. Using the smoothness ratio from above, the Earth would be an acceptable pool ball if it had no bumps (mountains) or pits (trenches) more than 12,735 km x 0.00222 = about 28 km in size.
The highest point on Earth is the top of Mt. Everest, at 8.85 km. The deepest point on Earth is the Marianas Trench, at about 11 km deep.
Hey, those are within the tolerances! If you shrank the Earth down to the size of a billiard ball, Earth would be smoother. (discounting the oblating effect caused by centrifugal force)
Maybe the heat within the Earth is more of a factor than anyone thinks. And perhaps the sea temperature lag is shorter than conventional wisdom dictates.
Batting average is created as a percentage of runs caused by your hitting the ball compared to the number of opportunities you were at bat. It is a statistic that compares opportunity to score with actual scores. Your batting average in any one time series is not compared to your average runs over a longer time series. Global warming is an average of MANY batters measured at one time (some with high averages and some with low averages), compared to an average number calculated over a long time series. Your batting average is for you. Not for anyone else. It is therefor a useful measure of how you are performing because it measures only you. It says nothing about your neighbor and is never used for that purpose.
The global average sea level is mistakenly used to do what it should never do. It tries to say what you are doing. It cannot do that. What if the sea raised a bunch somewhere else, but your sea actually went down? Don’t laugh. This has happened. Therefor the global average is meaningless. You cannot say that the seas are rising. They are rising in some places, but lowering in others. Try again.
I once saw a man’s batting average go from 0 to 1000 in a single appearance at the plate. Nolan Ryan, in his first at-bat with the Houston Astros, hit a home run.
(…assuming I remember that correctly)
Pamela,
The average height of the sea compared to the Earth’s gravitational potential is a well defined number. No oceanographer, including Nils-Axel Morner would dispute that.
The fact that the sea may be higher in some locations than others does not challenge the validity of the number any more than we would be surprised if a batter performed above or below his batting average in any particular game in a season. One is just the average over a surface for a particular planet, the other an average over a season for a particular batter. I hope this much is accepted.
Westhoustongeo, I do the same thing with my jeep that Nolan did with his first at bat. Kind of. I have a V-8 jeep commander with tow package (farmer thing) that gets between 17 and 18 mpg. I go up and down mountain passes every week. When I get tired of my number I just hit the reset button while going down the other side of some mountain pass and presto! I have the gas mileage of a two-door mid-sized Subaru!
Hot off the front page of the always hysterical BBC Anyone claiming to be a scientist can get front page coverage by upping the Armageddon ante
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7934046.stm
‘More bad news’ on climate change
Matt McGrath
BBC environment reporter
File photo: Heard Island in the Southern Ocean (17 December, 2008)
Scientists will present the most recent data on sea level rise
More bad news on climate change is expected as more than 2,000 climate scientists gather in Copenhagen.
They will be trying to pull together the latest research on global warming ahead of political negotiations later in the year.
The scientists are concerned that the 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are already out of date.
Their data suggests greater rises in sea levels this century.
Sea level rise rates have declined this decade, so the study quoted in the BBC claims that the predictions need upwards adjustment. Completely irrational.
What we are witnessing is a rebirth of scientific method, according to the 16th century Vatican. i.e. someone decided that the IPCC numbers aren’t scary enough yet, so they did a study to fix the political problem. The actual observed data makes no difference.
More from the BBC.
The IPCC was widely criticised for stating that sea level rise this century would only amount to 59cm (23in).
The most recent data, to be presented here, will suggest a far higher figure with dramatic implications for many island nations and coastal regions.
Sea level is rising at 2.4mm/year, so these geniuses conclude that 6+mm/year is too low. Welcome to the dark ages.
Ralph Ellis
I think we miss John Daly. He posted considered and thoughtful material which I also used just today.
It does our cause no good at all to hear the sometimes shrill voices on these pages proclaiming the truth of unsubstantiated material that only confirms the warmists opinion of our case.
Having said that this remains a blog where mostly civilised discourse can take place. I just wish that the wilder excesses of Ad hom attacks from either side could be thought through before posting.
Tonyb
Actually wouldn’t that have been no average since he hadn’t batted before? Zero and no average aren’t the same. If he had struck out or otherwise not made it to the plate, then his average would have been zero.
Er, not to the plate, but on base.
Steven Goddard (06:21:36): ~snip~ Please… ~dbstealey, mod.
Kindly resolve my quary,
If any body have Indian city SEA Level Height , Kindly send me.
Amit,
Yeh dekho
http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf