We’ve been told over an over again that global warming would melt the icecaps, and melt Greenland, and that would result in catastrophic sea level rise flooding cities. We’ve also been told that “sea level rise is “accelerating” but in an investigation done here on WUWT by Willis Eschenbach, Putting the Brakes on Acceleration, he noted in 2011 that there seems to be no evidence of it at all, and notes that sea level was rising faster in the first half of the record.
Figure 1. Satellite-measured sea level rise. Errors shown are 95% confidence intervals. Data Source.
The smaller trend of the recent half of the record is statistically different from the larger trend of the first half. Will this reduction continue into the future? Who knows? I’m just talking about the past, and pointing out that we sure haven’t seen any sign of the threatened acceleration in the satellite record. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Pierre Gosselin, of “No Tricks Zone” has this excellent summary of what’s been going on since then. Excerpts below.
Over the past months a spate of scientific papers published show sea level rise has not accelerated like many climate warming scientists warned earlier. The reality is that the rise is far slower than expected, read here and here.
The latest findings glaringly contradict alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise. For example the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) here wrote sea levels would “likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century”, due to global warming.
In 2013 The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) wrote here sea-level rise in this century would likely be 70-120 centimeters by 2100″ (i.e. 7 – 12 mm annually) and that 90 experts in a survey “anticipated a median sea-level rise of 200-300 centimeters by the year 2300” (i.e. on average circa 7 to 10 mm every year).
…
Using these modelled estimates, the globe should now be seeing a rapid acceleration in sea level rise. Yet no evidence of this can be found so far. In fact the real measured data show the opposite is happening: a deceleration in sea level rise is taking place.
Instead of the 7 – 12 mm annual sea level rise the PIK projected in 2013, a recent study appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters in April 2017 corrected the satellite measured sea level rise downwards from 3.3 mm annually to just 3.0 mm over the past 24 years – or less than half what PIK models projected.
…
In another newly published paper by Frederiske et al. 2018 just this year, oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of only 1.42 mm per year between 1958 and 2014. That figure closely coincides with the results of Dr. Simon Holgate from 2007. According to the Holgate study: “The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”
The Holgate result was confirmed by another 2008 paper authored by Jevrejeva et al, which found the fastest sea level rise during the past 300 years was observed between 1920 – 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.
In other words: global sea level rise has decelerated since the 1950s.
At less than 2 mm annually, sea level is rising at only one sixth of the 12 mm per year rate projected by the PIK in 2013.
Pierre found this hilarious photo of Stephan Rahmstorf, the second alarmist lieutenant to PIK alarmist-in-chief Hans Schellnhuber doing his own version of baptism at sea while trying to make a point about sea level rise that in my opinion is just the wrongest of the wrong kind of optics. In fact, I’d call it cringeworthy.
Stephan seems to have a fascination with photographing himself, as this photo shows. Not a good look for a scientist, and certainly not a good look for somebody who yearns to be taken seriously:
Source: Stephan’s FTP folder at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
In my last article at Climate Etc. about Climate change mechanisms I showed that changes in the rate of sea level rise are associated to the 60-year climate oscillation, and that the “Stadium Wave” hypothesis predicts a slowdown of the rate of change of sea level rise over the next decades.
NASA shows that for the past two and a half years the rate of sea level rise has been 0 mm/yr. That ought to affect the decadal average.
We are about to hear a lot of protestation and a flurry of scientific articles denying the slowdown in sea level rise that the evidence shows.
And then one hundred paper each providing a unique explanation of why it happened.
Followed by an adjustment to modern technology sea level data to make it as good 100 year old technology sea level data and so restore the rise.
In the meantime people who scream bloody murder about sea level rise will still quietly put their own money into houses by the sea.
No … we r going to sea a flood of papers that adjust the data tha t will be filed in the “it’s worse than we thought file” here at WUWT…. and they will show a sea level rise that is accelerating out of control … accompanied by a picture of the Statue of Liberty in waist deep water.
https://youtu.be/A5_rKqLOQzY
Venice
Yes luckily for us they already are making those claims. The sea floor is sinking.
The excuse for this has already been formulated, BTW.
Apparently, the bottom of the ocean is sinking under the weight of all the added water, so the sealevel won’t appear to be rising – even though it actually is.
http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-sinking-ocean-rising-sea-levels-772862
Soon … the Warmists (Sea Risists?) will be petitioning a FISA Judge to spy on Anthony Watts and all his known associates, for colluding with Putin’s BIG OIL interests to steal the NASA and NOAA data “proving” sea level rise.
I love to read through the comments to get a pulse of the reaction and knowledge of the readership. I find it interesting that in an article by Newsweek (the magazine propagandist clearly in bed with the Marxist plot of wealth redistribution from the middle class) they are getting blasted by all sorts of regular folk and some science based commenters… They are tearing this to shreds at a percentage of 90%+ to ~10%. The people are clearly not fooled any longer and the only ones “clinging to their religion” are the warmist religionists. And the beautiful irony is that they chide the Christians over their belief, allthewhile parading around as “educated” and owning the moral high ground. It is so laughable but simultaneously so upsetting that humans are capable of such self deceit. I genuinely believe that if these people would use logic in their life, they would create so much good- I sincerely believe they care about the planet (but they fell for the globalist eugenics propaganda that humans are a virus). But their smug “holier than thou” attitude and self-congratulatory virtue signaling prevents them from taking right action in the world.
Whew! A lot, I know. I’m preaching to the choir, but it took me over a decade of actually researching this to stop believing in the lie of CAGW, and it was hard work. Very challenging, and about the same time it took me to forsake the idea of a virgin birth. I suppose the most glaring problems that opened my eyes was where Maurice Strong (once I learned about that piece of filth) fit into the movement combined with all “evidence” was based off models, which have never shown to be accurate. Once again, that article relied on “evidence from models” and its just old. I’m tired. These people are the worst kind. They have little to no knowledge on any of the basic fundamentals or even facts, they believe everything in MSM print (which should be a red flag to anyone with a reasonable IQ), and again, by aligning themselves with all the cliche anti-humanist meme’s about saving the planet, they get to pretend they are so morally superior but never actually do anything.
Pardon the length but that Newsweek article was so disturbingly and purposefully false I got naseaus. I’m fed up with the watermelons. Let’s start the movement.
“If you believe man is the primary driver of climate change due to utilizing oil & gas, then completely remove yourself from dependency on items used in any capacity from those fuels.” what was it about 6,000?
That’s it. Let us start putting it to them to put their money where their mouths are. Someone else mentioned this idea and its daggum time we start going on the offensive.
Robervd: Where are all the “Mr. Hankie’s? I thought that Venice discharged its sewer water into the canals just like the Netherlanders do in Amsterdam.
I haven’t read the comments following the news weak (intended) article, but i hope they were along the lines of: “Where did you learn math?” The added hydro-static pressure of surface waves alone is several orders of magnitude higher than any 1.7 mm addition of sea water ever could exert? Now, ratio this “added depth” over the average depth and you get…not worth mentioning
I guess they’ve found out that their writer was dumber than their readers.
Honest Liberty … I enjoyed your read. I’ve come to this topic as a congenital skeptic (and Christian … yes, which stood up to my intense skepticism). I’ve treated the AGW hype the same way I treat some fad diet that claims to “melt the fat away”. Uh, yeah … I already KNOW how to “melt the fat away” … less energy-in, than energy-out. I’m not easily duped.
To your point of reliance on flawed models. The whole sordid ….evil, rotten, weaponized Political FBI, DOJ, HER and FISA Court debacle has reminded us all of the legal principle called … “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”. Each and every carbon tax, and law passed to combat AGW is … “The Fruit of the Poisonous Flawed Model”. The entire UN IPCC … Poison. Everything associated with the debacle known as Global Warming is Poison. And it has POISONED our entire society.
NASA also produced this graph about sea level rise:
GROUND DATA: 1870-2000
Data source: Coastal tide gauge records.
Credit: CSIRO
We could be entering a period like the period 1910-1930 or like 1950-1970.
Hallo Wim…
Can you gift us with the data going back 130 years PRIOR to 1870? I would be curious about a TRUE “trend”…
Dank u.
Patvann February 4, 2018 at 2:12 pm
“Can you gift us with the data going back 130 years PRIOR to 1870? I would be curious about a TRUE “trend”…”
WR: There is a graph going back until 1700 at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/04/the-fantasy-of-accelerating-sea-level-rise-just-got-hosed/comment-page-1/#comment-2734119
And an extra one at: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/04/the-fantasy-of-accelerating-sea-level-rise-just-got-hosed/comment-page-1/#comment-2734127 plus a comment following.
Thank-you, Wim.
Actually, could have told you that years ago, take a look for yourself. While I do not doubt in the slightest the mathematical purity and completeness of Mr. Eschenbach’s analysis, here is a dose of reality for the alarmists :
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9444090
t could all be the fault of San Andres.
We’ll blame him.
Just sent an email to one of the scientists at sealevel.colorado.edu asking why there’s no data since early 2016. He replied saying they’re moving to new database. It should be ready next week
Actually he said we should have an update next week.
“Update” is code for we r almost finished adjusting the data to bring it line with the CAGW hypothesis of catastrophic sea level rise.
Ah, we once supplied data to a NOAA database. EVERY TIME they “moved” to a new database we lost important data. They never told us when they were moving to a new database and certainly never asked our advice. We would try to go in an access the data only to find entire data categories missing, some years missing or truncated.
Where is the acceleration? 2.2mm per year over the next 82 years is about 7 inches. To get to the apocalyptic predictions of 2-80 metres, the rate would have to increase 10 + fold starting NOW. As it would be starting at the 2.2mm a year, on a sliding acceleration, the rate would be 40mm to a metre per year by 2100. It was Robyn Williams that came out with the 90 metre prediction, which is so absurd that you wonder about the credibility of any media outlet that published this on any day other than April 1.
Some of the predictions claim around 20 metres, which would be around .7mm per day average, which is clearly a load of garbage. The modelling to get this sort of absurdity is clearly flawed and most likely the theory behind it is also seriously flawed. As for the high end 90 metre prediction, this entails an average of 3mm per day! As it is a curve that starts low and accelerates, it would be around an astounding 1 centimetre per day by year 2100-nearly half a mm per hour! This is about the speed of grass growing! Clearly a load of rubbish, with anyone believing this being clearly a fool.
Those that sprout this scaremongering must be ridiculed to the hilt and intimidated in to making bets to show their belief in their own predictions. Yes, make them put their money where their mouths are.
Had to google Robyn Williams. Unfunny ex communist.
But in the meantime I bumped into the Flannery alternative reality (alt news aka fake news). My gods, if I had any, that was funny!
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3181944.htm
ABC criticizes Andrew Bolt, and appear to have no knowledge that IPCC does not support Flannery a bit. They are intelligent but totally deluded by the runaway warming mene.
Andrew Bolt reminds it was alarmist professor Mike Archer who dropped the 100m sea level rise in discussion – but in fact the ABC story does not say when that would happen. Year 2070 is mentioned though, so the story implies in 100m in 50 years.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/holding-alarmists-to-account-professor-mike-archer/news-story/e7d770f09284f489b2a3e2be15b4e34f?nk=7768a43bd404bf3ef68d6c55e2c1562c-1517740981
could we swap that to…
they are “educated” but NOT intelligent
as for R williams hes been on the public teat with too much power to control whats heard on abc radio at least for decades too long.
They have been schooled, not educated.
Hugs,
What comes from the ABC in Australia is not worth a pinch of salt.
It has been put together by journalists who are not worth a pinch of sh*t.
I stand corrected. Mate, I must watch for my blood pressure, though.
Sad about Robin Williams. He was manic-depressive looking back on his life and was a big believer in fantasies. I guess when he joined the Church of Omnipotent Greenhouse-In-Carbon he eventually became so depressed by what he was doing to Gaia that he sacrificed himself for her.
Different Robin (Robyn) Williams I think. Robin Williams was a US comedian. Robyn Williams is an Australian … I’m not user how to label him but revolving-door governmental gadfly and media-glamming warmist ne’er-do-well would seem to be a functional / demonstrable start.
Hard to be more precise from here in the U.S.
Yikes, wrong guy. Sorry- should have looked him up.
The data source has data to 2016.5. The graph above ends in 2011.0, because that’s when Wllis wrote his piece. I think an update should be done.
The Holgate paper is interesting. Simon Holgate appears to have published his finding without much vitriol of the Kook Konsensus, why should that be? They usually attack with strength that leaves the person marked in google searches.
And again the rise of 1.4 to 1.5 mm/yr is half the value coming out of the satellite measures. This begs for an explanation as they can’t be both right. I am ever more inclined to the view that in the satellite processing software somewhere a factor 2 has fallen out, for instance by not taking into account that the time delayed return signal measures twice the change in altitude. Anyone with access to that code?
The 1.5 mm is from the paper refered to.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0502.1
They are measuring different things. The 1.5 mm/yr is the sea level rise we experiment and tide gauges measure. The 3.0 mm/yr from satellite data is after corrections for things like the bottom of the ocean sinking. It is trying to account for all the water from land storage mobilized to the oceans, but failing to close the budget.
The ocean bottom sink is not really a correction. It is deliberate misleading by mixing apples with oranges. The only SLR that sinks Venice is relative SLR. The volume of world oceans has nothing to do with it.
By the way, if ocean bottoms are sinking by average, does that not mean land is rising on average by the same times factor 7/3 as there is more ocean than land?
I’m not trying to defend a logic that I do not share, but the land doesn’t have to compensate for the ocean basins getting bigger, because it is already compensated by the mass of water that has moved from land to the oceans.
Hugs,
If you model the “land” as having completely vertical edges, then raising the land does not affect sea level at all.
Using the actual slight slope of the beaches at the water line makes the effect insignificant relative to the volume of the oceans.
GPS is showing that the land at the coasts is rising by an average 0.3 mms/year to 0.4 mms/year.
So if one is trying to measure the volume of sea level rise (as a result of glaciers melting and ocean warming), then one can add in the 0.3 mms/year glacial isostatic adjustment.
But that doesn’t mean the sea level at the coasts is actually rising by the 0.3 mms/year – it is NOT in fact.
If one is trying to say sea level will rise and swamp the land, then you DON’T add in the 0.3 mms/year. If one is trying to say global warming is melting glaciers then you add-in the adjustment.
Hugs, I agree that eustatically continents should rise if the ocean basins sink. This is precisely their reasoning. They think that reduced ice mass on Greenland is compensated by Greenland rising and the ocean basins sinking as the mass is transferred. They forget that ice mass in Antarctica is increasing. There is also the factor that some continents have roots that extend below the plastic layer.
Our planet has a habit of volcanic extrusion. About 2.7 square kilometers of ocean floor per year have been extruded over the last 10 million years. When this effort is more focused in the ocean basins, the ridges stand tall and displace ocean on to the continents. Is this sea level rise? If not, when more of this effort is beneath continents (western North America, northeast Africa) and lifting them, and the ocean ridges displace proportionally less; this cannot be considered sea level fall.
The LEVEL in sea level confuses everyone. Ultimately, it is about the total VOLUME of water in the ocean basins. Nothing is level on a sphere, especially a lumpy one.
Measuring sea level is like trying to measure the level of water in a suspended bucket with a rubber bottom on a windy day and a host of demons kicking it.
How does one measure the bottom of the ocean sinking?
If you take into account continental areas that are almost entirely underwater (as around New Zealand), then rising land mass could have a significant measurable effect, in theory, on ocean levels. Generally though different areas of the sea floor are behaving differently (rising, falling, tilting, subduction, infilling with new sea floor) so no matter what one thinks the sea floor is doing, you can point to an area and say “See! There it is!”
Adding weight to the “Oceans” would mean, necessarily, that you took weight away from land. (unless you count stuff falling from space). So if the sea floor were to bulge downward due to additional weight, it just makes sense that some where land is lifting due to the removal of the weight. In any case, because oceans are much bigger than land masses, the average should be land rising more than oceans fall (assuming there is a measurable effect).
Warming the water is actually more effective at raising sea levels. It makes a unit of water lighter and also more units of water (lower density). This is where the measurable sea level rise should be coming from.
Are the satellites measuring average sea level via radio altimeter or radar? In that case, the resolution cell is very likely to be greater than the average sea level change even without variations in orbit height and other factors, adjusted for. Even the best SAR radars have resolution for distance measured in centimeters rather than millimeters, much less fractions of millimeters.
I personally find it odd that a device which has an alleged precision of 2-3 cm – which I find dubious to begin with – can be used to measure 2-3 mm per year.
Does anyone remember the principle of significant figures from Algebra I? Marque2 you are talking about a factor of 10, you’re right. 2.0-3.0 to 0.2 –0.3.
There is no way they are getting 2-3mm of accuracy out of their radar altimeter neasurements. I doubt their bw is that large. Assume 500MHz – that gives them 30cm with no time sidelobe weighting. More like 45cm resolution. Accuracy is improved by ~sqrt(snr), but one can only take that improvement up to the limits of the radar hardware. The radar hardware – if it is sufficiently wideband, will not support past the resolution. This is not the case for medium band (10s of meters resolution) or narrowband (100’s meters res). What they are getting is probably a lie – not because it is a lie, but rather because the person processing the data doesn’t know what they are doing. Unfortunately this is not atypical.
Wow. Obama said he was going to do it. I thought that was just talk.
The rising seas are a big part of the CAGW scare. Noah and lots more ancient flood myths to work with. So, like most of the real world these days, this is a very serious PR problem for their cause.
I’m sure this ‘pause’ is now always was anticipated by the CAGW science team, as everything is and was.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kDDJYvTHzps/T-fF1XCpMhI/AAAAAAAADfc/f5x5qLUphTE/s1600/obama%2Bas%2Bcanute.gif
Let my people go…….
A modern day Cnut….
Leo wrote:
“A modern day Cnut….”
Spell-check?
Let me fix that for you.
Oops! Better not!
Ahh! Dyslexia, curse of the literate!
Cheers,
Mike Macray (sp?)
Hey Mike,
You might enjoy this. The MacRae’s reportedly got the old place in 1511, with a few bumps along the way.
Yours aye, Allan
AT EILEAN DONAN CASTLE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mOO5qRjVFLw
I think you can safely disregard Frederiske et al. 2018 since they base their GIA correction exclusively on the ICE-5G/ICE-6G GIA models which are known to be grossly inaccurate for the southern hemisphere.
“I think you can safely disregard Frederiske et al. 2018”
So what’s left?
This is another of those misleading lists from Kenneth Richard, where he takes quotes out of context, doctors graphs, and generally
horrifies the authors.. Let’s actually look at the new paper quoted here that supposedly “show sea level rise has not accelerated “.
It is by Frederiske et al, 2018. The extract is
“oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of only 1.42 mm per year between 1958 and 2014”
Do they say there is no acceleration? No! It’s right there in the abstract:
0.07 mm.yr/yr amounts to a change of 3.92 mm/yr over those 56 years. It implies a current rate of rise of 3.26 mm/yr. This is not honest reporting.
Quoted here also is Jevrejeva et al, “which found the fastest sea level rise during the past 300 years was observed between 1920 – 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr”. Did they say there was no acceleration. No! The opposite.
Oops, that quote from Jevrejeva should be
@ Nick, others:
Help me with something here. The paper’s abstract states
The global-mean sea level reconstruction shows a trend of 1.5 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 over 1958–2014 (1σ), compared to 1.3 ± 0.1 mm yr−1 for the sum of contributors. Over the same period, the reconstruction shows a positive acceleration of 0.07 ± 0.02 mm yr−2, which is also in agreement with the sum of contributors, which shows an acceleration of 0.07 ± 0.01 mm yr−2.
Unless I’m misunderstanding, an acceleration of 0.07 mm/yr^2 over 56 yr should cause a total increase of rate of 3.92 mm/yr, which is larger than the total rate cited of 1.5 mm/yr!
What are the authors intending by the phrase “over the same period, the acceleration was…”? Is that not an average acceleration?
So 1/3 of a meter or about 1 foot by 2100.
Jevrejeva et al. show that sea level rise rate change (second derivative) was highest between 1780 and 1900 and lowest (almost linear growth) between 1900 and 2000. Just the opposite of what one should expect from anthropogenic forcing that exploded after 1950. The tittle of the paper says it all. They find that sea level rise acceleration started 200 years ago.
For people that don’t follow the graph, an analogy could be drawn to driving a car that was stopped. The speed of the car is sea level rise, so you start from zero (in 1780) and to increase the speed you increase the pressure on the gas pedal, as the car goes faster you decrease the pressure on the gas pedal and when the cruising speed is reached you no longer change the pressure on the gas pedal. Anthropogenic forcing is supposed to be the pressure on the gas pedal, but increasing the pressure enormously is not increasing the speed of the car, so it cannot be the gas pedal what anthropogenic forcing is pushing.
You have also taken just part of the graph – the whole is here:
The bottom part shows the rate, which is definitely rising; J et al give the trend as 0.01 mm/yr/yr. It has an oscillation, which is presumably where your claim of an early maximum comes from.
Again a url error; here is the graph
The bottom part of the graph is the first derivative, not the second, but it also shows what I am saying. There is no discernible effect of the huge increase in anthropogenic forcing that took place since 1950. So the increase in anthropogenic forcing is having no effect on the rate of change of sea level rise. So any prediction based on such effect is bogus and patently false.
The conclusion: Reducing our CO₂ emissions will have no effect on sea level rise, because increasing them didn’t have it.
Nick Is that why the MSLR was higher in 1950 then it is now? the so called “anthropogenic bump” is lower then the peak in the 1950’s?
so the data you provide does debunk the issue it’s a simple end of LIA sea level rise which is entirely normal
.
“Is that why the MSLR was higher in 1950 then it is now?”
No. It doesn’t show what it is now. It’s a 30 year window, and the result is that it gets the whole mid-century peak, but only a little of the end century rise, although they suggest it is a periodic overlay. Their Fig 4 has a 10 year window and shows the end century better:
Bot of course even that ends 15 years ago. This paper is not, despite what is advertised, recent (“Over the past months”). It is 2008. And again, it doesn’t say it is just a post LIA rise. It says it is accelerating.
No. It says it has been accelerating for 200 years. And the rate of acceleration (mm/yr²) does not show acceleration.
I know you are not mathematically challenged, so you can’t possibly defend that sea level rise is responding to increasing CO₂ levels.
Predictable that Nick would be here playing stupid/semantics/stokes.
Sea level (according to the satellites with a combined 10 different algorithm adjustments) actually fell in 2016
and the early part of 2017 (as the Super El Nino dissipated).
The tide gauges only show about 2.0 mms/year of sea level rise with a tiny acceleration in recent decades. The tide gauges are real measurements and it is actually completely impossible to measure sea level by satellite from 1,400 km orbits down to the accuracy we are looking for.
One hundreth of a mm is part of this discussion? .01 mm? Let’s have a look at what that appears like.
See that quarter pixel on your monitor? I didn’t think you could.
To claim to be able to assess SLR, let alone acceleration, to that level is simply obsurd. Similar to temperature to the hundreth of a degree, when no measurments are done even close to that level.
“.01 mm?”
No, it is 0.01 mm/yr/yr. They are measuring on a centuries scale. 0.01 mm/yr/yr over a century is 50 mm (.5*a*t^2); not so small. Over 2 centuries, it is 200mm.
When comparing apples to apples, or current tide gauge data to past tide gauge data, the global sea level rise rate is “believed” to be 1.7-1.8 mm/yr according to NOAA.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm
“the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year”
What the current tide gauge rate looks like relative to the last 300+ years (using the rates graph from Jevrejeva et al., 2008)…
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Sea-Level-Rise-Rates-1700-2017.jpg
And when we consider the tide gauge data say that sea levels are currently rising at a 1.7-1.8 mm/yr clip….
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm
“the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year”
….and that this is a relative deceleration from the 1920-1950 period, the post-1950s acceleration has obviously not followed the trajectory of what the climate models predicated on anthropogenic CO2 emissions suggest.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CO2-Emissions-GtC-1900-2016.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Sea-Level-Rise-Rates-1700-2017-CO2-Emissions.jpg
Gehrels et al., 2012
http://pure.qub.ac.uk/portal/files/1844373/Gehrels_etal_2012_EPSL.pdf
“Between 1900 and 1950 relative sea level rose at an average rate of 4.2±0.1 mm/yr. During the latter half of the 20th century the reconstructed rate of relative sea-level rise was 0.7±0.6 mm/yr. Our study is consistent with a similar pattern of relative sea-level change recently reconstructed for southern New Zealand.”
The glacier-melt contribution to sea level rise has also dramatically decelerated since the 1920-1950 period (Gregory et al., 2013).
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Glacier-Melt-Contribution-Sea-Level-Gregory-2013.jpg
Fernández-Fernández et al., 2017
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Skafti_Brynjolfsson/publication/312185500_High_sensitivity_of_North_Iceland_Trollaskagi_debris-free_glaciers_to_climatic_change_from_the_'Little_Ice_Age'_to_the_present/links/5876009208ae8fce492c88a4.pdf
“The abrupt climatic transition of the early 20th century and the 25-year warm period 1925–1950 triggered the main retreat and volume loss of these glaciers since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’. Meanwhile, cooling during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s altered the trend, with advances of the glacier snouts.”
“By 1946, this glacier had retreated almost 90% of the total recorded between the LIA maximum (1868) and 2005.”
—————————-
What was the radiative forcing mechanism(s) causing these dramatic glacier retreats and sea level rise contributions that far exceeded the modern rates?
“When comparing apples to apples”
You’re doing nothing of the kind here. You’ve picked up a passing remark on a web page, where someone offers that figure as a basis for working out the land movement component, and you’ve added it to the graph as if it were a 2017 point value, indicating a reduction since 2000. It doesn’t say anywhere what period it relates to, but suggests it as a figure to us to compare the whole tide gauge sequence. It is surely an average over some long period. It’s actually quite close to Frederiske’s figure for 1958-2014.
“a relative deceleration from the 1920-1950 period”
Again, nothing of the kind can be said. You don’t know what period it relates to.
Gehrels et al., 2012
Your link is dead; I can’t find details. But your extract refers only to relative sea levels, and isn’t global. Somewhere the land is sinking.
Gregory “The glacier-melt contribution to sea level rise”
That isn’t sea level. And Gregory 2013 isn’t part of “Over the past months a spate of scientific papers…”. But this is typical cherry-picking. You have picked a reference to a component, and tried to pass it off as sea level rise. Gregory et al look at all the components, and then add it up. Their conclusion:
“Fernández-Fernández et al., 2017” What on Earth is that doing there? It is about glaciers in a particular region of N Iceland. Nothing about global sea level.
The notrickszone article says “Over the past months a spate of scientific papers published show sea level rise has not accelerated…“. Yet the only paper yo have from within the last few months that says anything about sea level rise, Frederiske et al. 2018, was utterly misrepresented. You gave in your article this part of the abstract, with colors:
As so often, the text has been hacked about. But look what was chopped off at the end. I’ve underlined in blue the bits you picked out, and in red the critical omission.
“When comparing apples to apples”
Current tide gauge data showing 1.7-1.8 mm/yr SLR is being compared to historical tide gauge data (from the first half of the 20th century). In other words, tide gauge data are not being compared with satellite altimetry modeled data, which is apples to oranges. When tide gauges are compared to tide gauges, we do not see the recent acceleration rate of 3.2 mm/yr that was claimed by satellite altimetry for the recent decades.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002397
“It is found that the GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012. ”
Actually, sea levels are likely rising much slower than 1.7-1.8 mm/yr according to observations from tide gauges. This is supported by a wealth of recently published papers (that have been highlighted by NoTricksZone). For example:
—
Parker and Ollier, 2017
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0019-5
“Their naïve averaging of all the tide gauges included in the PSMSL surveys showed ‘‘relative’’ trends of about + 1.04 mm/year (570 tide gauges of any length). By only considering the 100 tide gauges with more than 80 years of recording, the average trend was only + 0.25 mm/year.”
“The loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory—the climate models predict an accelerated sea-level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission—has been also evidenced in other works such as Boretti (2012a, b), Boretti and Watson (2012), Douglas (1992), Douglas and Peltier (2002), Fasullo et al. (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2006), Holgate (2007), Houston and Dean (2011), Mörner 2010a, b, 2016), Mörner and Parker (2013), Scafetta (2014), Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Wunsch et al. (2007) reporting on the recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise. The minimum length requirement of 50–60 years to produce a realistic sea-level rate of rise is also discussed in other works such as Baart et al. (2012), Douglas (1995, 1997), Gervais (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2008), Knudsen et al. (2011), Scafetta (2013a, b), Wenzel and Schröter (2014) and Woodworth (2011). Therefore, the world wide average relative sea level result derived from tide gauge of sufficient quality and length shows slow rising with no acceleration since 1993. … [T]he absolute sea level rise velocity determined from the worldwide average tide gauge is probably smaller than 0.24 mm/year, not accelerating, and at least partly due to subsidence at the tide gauge. This result is in striking contrast to the global mean sea level determined from satellite altimeter-based computations and they cannot both be true.”
“a relative deceleration from the 1920-1950 period”
Why do you get to decide what can be said? According to Jevrejeva et al., 2008, the rate of global sea level rise for the 1920-1950 was 2.5 mm/yr with decadal variability removed (it was actually higher than that during the 1930s and 1940s decades). According to Frederiske et al., 2018, the rate of sea level rise was 1.32 to 1.52 mm/yr since 1958. Therefore, a conclusion can be reached that the 1958-2014 period represents a deceleration in sea level rise relative to the 1920-1950 period.
Klige, 1990
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-0701-0_10#page-1
“During the recent century the rate of sea-level rise has reached 1.5 mm per year. The most intensive rise at a rate of more than 3 mm per year occurred from 1924 to 1948 (Fig. 2).”
Glaciers melted far more dramatically during 1920-1950 than after. Do you disagree? If not, what was the causal mechanism for that pronounced melt, Nick?
—
Gregory et al., 2013
“Length records included in L indicate a greater rate of glacier retreat in the first than in the second half of the twentieth century in Greenland (Leclercq et al. 2012)”
—
Jevrejeva et al., 2008
“The fastest sea level rise, estimated from the time variable trend with decadal variability removed, during the past 300 years was observed between 1920– 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.”
“[E]stimates of the melting glacier contribution to sea level is 4.5 cm for the period 1900 – 2000 with the largest input of 2.5 cm during 1910 – 1950 [Oerlemans et al., 2007]”
[Melting glaciers contributed to 88% more to sea level rise between 1910 and 1950 (.63 cm per decade) than for the rest of the 20th century (.33 cm per decade)].
—
That’s the problem. Detecting acceleration vs. deceleration based on 2 decades worth of data is not recognized as scientifically valid.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00238.1
“Data show that decadal variations will obscure estimates of underlying accelerations if record lengths of individual gauges are not greater than at least 75 years. Although worldwide data are less affected by decadal variations than individual gauge data, decadal variations still significantly affect estimates of underlying accelerations, in particular for record lengths less than about 60 years.”
I thought it would be obvious that it wholly supports the conclusion that glacier melt was more pronounced prior to the 1950s than since. That is what’s being discussed here, no?
[Thank you. .mod]
@Nick Stokes
Lets put that in human perspective at what about 5 to 8 generations and are you still living in your ancestors house from 5-8 generations ago and does the world even look like it did back then?
We wont even be around to see if it is correct and I doubt to many normal non leftist green loons are going to worry about that sort of thing.
“I thought it would be obvious that it wholly supports the conclusion that glacier melt was more pronounced prior to the 1950s than since. That is what’s being discussed here, no?”
Well, you jump from one thing to another. But no, we’re talking about whether global sea level rise is accelerating.
“The rest of the quote clearly states that the “not accelerated” is in relation to the stated expectations in climate models”
It doesn’t. Any reasonable reading would be that climate scientists warned of acceleration, and it didn’t happen. Especially when you have bolded just the part that says “sea level rise has not accelerated”. And it appears just below the heading saying
“Bewildered Scientists…A Global Warming Crisis Fails To Appear: Sea Level Rise Grinds To A Crawl”
“Grinds to a crawl” means accelerated?
And it comes above a heading just a bit further down saying
“Evidence in fact points to deceleration”.
You say
“Detecting acceleration vs. deceleration based on 2 decades worth of data is not recognized as scientifically valid.”
And then you cite a paper quoting (your bold)
“It is found that the GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012. ”
There is just no consistency. You jump from one thing to another, quoting totally unrelated things.
“I thought it would be obvious that it wholly supports the conclusion that glacier melt was more pronounced prior to the 1950s than since. That is what’s being discussed here, no?”
So decadal-scale fluctuations in glacier melt contributions to sea level rise are unrelated to sea level rise acceleration/deceleration? Why, then, does the Frederiske et al. (2018) paper go into great detail on the glacier and ice sheet melt contribution to sea level rise? Did you not realize that that’s what the “sum of contributors” rate (1.32 mm/yr) refers to? Did you see the part where the article references the total of 0.59 of an inch contribution from Greenland and Antarctica combined during 1958-2014? Do you find that to be alarming, Nick?
By the way, I’ve asked you multiple times now why it is that the glacier melt contribution to sea level rise was so much more pronounced during the first half of the 20th century than it has been since the 1950s. What was the mechanism for that explosive glacier melt contribution during the 1920-1950 period identified in the Gregory et al. (2013) graph? Will you continue to avoid answering this question?
“The rest of the quote clearly states that the “not accelerated” is in relation to the stated expectations in climate models”
Unbelievable. I had no idea you were this disingenuous. Here is the entire quote (that you misleadingly truncated to suit your purposes):
“Over the past months a spate of scientific papers published show sea level rise has not accelerated like many climate warming scientists warned earlier. The reality is that the rise is far slower than expected, read here and here.”
This is what you wrote:
“Let’s actually look at the new paper quoted here that supposedly ‘show sea level rise has not accelerated'”
Pierre didn’t write that sea level rise “has not accelerated”…and then left it at that. He wrote that several papers published in recent months (which would include several you obviously have no idea he’s referring to) show that sea level rise has not accelerated like scientists had warned/expected. You purposely left the last part off so that you could attempt to expose how wrong this statement is.
The Frederiske paper indicates that sea level rise has accelerated relative to the year 1958, which happens to be a year when sea levels were barely rising at all. The NoTricksZone article clearly states that there has been a deceleration in the rate of sea level rise relative to the 1920-1950 period, when sea levels were rising at a faster rate than 1958-2014. That’s what the article actually says. Please stop misrepresenting what has been written.
According to Frederiske et al. (2018), sea levels only rose by 3.1 inches during the 56 years between 1958 and 2014. That’s not a “global warming crisis”. Sea levels are still rising. They’re just not accelerating like the climate models predicted they would. That’s what that headline means.
Correct. Relative to the first half of the 20th century, when sea level rise rates were faster. Why is this not clear?
Unbelievable again! Nick, by citing a paper that uses a 20-year period (1993-2012), I am illustrating the problem with using 20 year “trends”! Decadal variability needs to be removed so as to detect acceleration versus deceleration. And one cannot remove decadal variability when there are only 2 decades to work with!
“Will you continue to avoid answering this question?”
Yes. It’s just a transparent attempt to wriggle away from the key assertions of your posts and this one – that a spate of papers in recent months show that sea level rise is not accelerating.
“that you misleadingly truncated to suit your purposes”
I gave the full text initially. But here is the full picture in color:
That’s the head of the article. Are you seriously trying to say that isn’t saying that “sea level rise has not accelerated“.
[re Evidence in fact points to deceleration]
“Relative to the first half of the 20th century, when sea level rise rates were faster. Why is this not clear?”
What would make it clear. Here is the heading and following section (my red):
It says nothing about the first half of the 20th century. It baldly says that a deceleration is taking place. And then there is the canard about “the 7 – 12 mm annual sea level rise the PIK projected in 2013”; the PIK did not say that 7-12 mm/yr is expected any time around now. That’s your arithmetic.
“by citing a paper that uses a 20-year period (1993-2012)”
No, it says “started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012”. That’s 8 years. Yet you’re happy to cite it to claim deceleration. And still say “Detecting acceleration vs. deceleration based on 2 decades worth of data is not recognized as scientifically valid.”
“Will you continue to avoid answering this question?”
I assumed you would avoid it. To answer, you’d have to acknowledge that predominantly natural mechanisms would have necessarily caused such a pronounced rise in glacier/ice sheet retreat during 1920-1950, and none of the climate models predicated on anthropogenic CO2 concentrations as the cause of glacier/ice sheet melt and sea level rise could account for the much higher rates of both during the 1920-1950 period relative to the post-1950s period, when sea level rise and glacier melt has decelerated. So instead of tackling this challenge to your belief system, you have decided to pretend like the question hasn’t been asked 4 times. It’s not as if you’re fooling anyone.
I’ve asked you to stop deliberately misquoting what Pierre has written 3 times now. And yet you continue doing so, belying any semblance of integrity I thought you might have.
For the 4th time now, you have truncated the quote intentionally so as to make it appear Pierre wrote something he did not. He did not say that the papers say that sea level rise is not accelerating…and leave it at that. He wrote that sea level rise is not accelerating as the climate modelers/scientists predicted/expected they would. There is a fundamental difference between what you wrote and what he (we) wrote (have written). I will ask you again: Please stop misrepresenting what we have written.
“that you misleadingly truncated to suit your purposes”
No, you didn’t. You initially tore into the article by claiming Pierre wrote that the Frederiske paper says sea levels are not accelerating…which he didn’t. You truncated the quote:
As mentioned several times now, Pierre wrote that sea level rise has not accelerated like climate scientists/models predicted/expected. You left out that part (intentionally). Again. In my highlighting of the Frederiske paper, I very specifically identify the time period that sea level rise rate has decelerated from: the 1900-1950 or 1920-1950 period. Sea levels rose faster during the first half of the 20th century than they have since, or during 1958-2014. That’s why it’s called a deceleration. Has sea level rise accelerated since 1958? Yes. That’s because the sea level rise rate was low in 1958, much lower than it was in the 1930s and 1940s. The acceleration vs. deceleration depends on the starting point. Is this becoming clearer, or are you still not understanding what’s being said here?
On the other hand, Pierre was probably referencing the papers that we highlighted in recent months that actually do indicate a lack of a detectable sea level rise when he talks about the “spate” of papers. For example:
Parker and Ollier, 2017
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0019-5
“The loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory—the climate models predict an accelerated sea-level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission—has been also evidenced in other works such as Boretti (2012a, b), Boretti and Watson (2012), Douglas (1992), Douglas and Peltier (2002), Fasullo et al. (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2006), Holgate (2007), Houston and Dean (2011), Mörner 2010a, b, 2016), Mörner and Parker (2013), Scafetta (2014), Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Wunsch et al. (2007) reporting on the recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise.”
“The sea levels have been oscillating about a nearly perfectly linear trend since the start of the twentieth century with no sign of acceleration. There are only different phases of some oscillations moving from one location to another that do not represent any global acceleration. …The global sea-level acceleration is therefore in the order of + 0.002 ± 0.003 mm/year²”
—
Morner, 2017
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16A-00015.1
“The Indian Ocean seems to lack records of any alarming sea-level rise in recent decades; on the contrary, 10 sites analyzed indicate a sea level remaining at about 60.0, at least over the last 50 years or so.
—
Watson, 2017
“[N]o consistent or compelling evidence (yet) exists that recent rates of rise are higher or abnormal in the context of the historical records available across Europe”
This is getting really weird. I had never imagined that you could be THIS dishonest.
Look at the review article, Nick. The “Bewildered Scientists…” one you keep referencing. Notice that about 2/3rds of the way down, IN BOLD LETTERS FOR TWO SEPARATE HEADINGS, Pierre wrote that the deceleration is relative to the first half of the 20th century:
—
Second half of the 20th century slower than in the first half
In another newly published paper by Frederiske et al. 2018 just this year, oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of only 1.42 mm per year between 1958 and 2014. That figure closely coincides with the results of Dr. Simon Holgate from 2007. According to the Holgate study: “The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”
The Holgate result was confirmed by another 2008 paper authored by Jevrejeva et al, which found the fastest sea level rise during the past 300 years was observed between 1920 – 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.
In other words: global sea level rise has decelerated since the 1950s.
—
What is my arithmetic? Do you deny that scientists like James Hansen have claimed sea levels will rise by 10 feet by 2065? That’s 24 inches per decade between 2015 (when the paper was produced) and 2065. Sea levels rose by 3.1 inches in the 5.5 decades between 1958-2014. Do you believe Hansen’s paper and sea level rise claims are supported by the rates of rise for recent decades? No? Then are you not saying something similar to what Pierre has been saying when he wrote that sea level rise has not been accelerating as climate scientists (like Hansen) have expected?
“Do you deny that scientists like James Hansen”
You keep wriggling. You said, repeatedly, that PIK said that SLR should be 7-12mm/yr. They did not. You constructed that.
“I’ve asked you to stop deliberately misquoting”
I quoted what you put in bold type. It’s what people see. It’s what you wanted them to see.
“Yes. That’s because the sea level rise rate was low in 1958, much lower than it was in the 1930s and 1940s. The acceleration vs. deceleration depends on the starting point. “
That’s not the normal usage of accelerate. And it makes no sense. People don’t say, well it’s accelerating wrt 1960 but decelerating wrt 1940. Acceleration, like velocity, is a function of now. A second derivative. You may need to curve fit over a period to estimate it, but that doesn’t make it a difference with some time in the remote past. If it did, then which time?
You’re bowling along the highway, and have to slow down for a truck. It turns off after a while, and you accelerate to get up to speed. Or do you decelerate? After all, you were going faster before. Do you decelerate till you get up to speed?
It’s not trivial. The point is that people want to know whether SLR is accelerating now, because they want to know what the future holds.
Nick I agree with many of the things you say in your discussion with Kenneth, but disagree with the bottom line.
What the data shows is that sea level acceleration precedes anthropogenic forcing and has not been affected by anthropogenic forcing.
What this means is that, regardless of any other effects, if we reduce our emissions we are not going to affect sea level rate.
Do you agree or not with these two statements? All the rest is just noise.
Javier,
“Do you agree or not with these two statements?”
I think they are arguable. Forcing certainly doesn’t seem dominant. For my part, I think it is likely that SLR won’t be a major problem, unless there is a big change in icefield melting. That is possible. We don’t know.
But I think one has to get the observations right first. How is SLR evolving? Then we can think about why.
The main papers being discussed set a lot of this out. Glaciers have been variable. Thermal is accelerating, but has limited scope. Volcanoes had an effect. Major icefields haven’t contributed much yet, but are the ones to watch. And keeping an accurate eye on acceleration is the way to do that.
The interpretation of the data is always arguable, but the data is not. It is either correct or incorrect.
The data shows sea level rising since the 18th century and acceleration being small and long term constant with a marked 60-year oscillation. Most authors agree on a 1.5-2 mm/yr rate for the 20th century, and an acceleration of about 0.01 mm/yr² during this time.
We are now at the crest of the 60-year oscillation. Short term rate is ~ 3 mm/yr and acceleration is 0 mm/yr².
The 60-year oscillation projects over the next couple of decades that the rate will decrease to ~ 2 mm/yr and the acceleration will be negative in the short term.
If we take the past 120 years sea level change and project it over the next 80, then the IPCC projection of 30-40 cm is not conservative, and a projection of 20-30 cm looks adequate.
By the way, thermal is not accelerating either. A linear fit to 1950-2017 cannot be rejected.
“Do you deny that scientists like James Hansen”
It’s not wriggling…although I understand why you’re running away from it. It’s asking if you will acknowledge that James Hansen has claimed (in a peer-reviewed paper) that sea levels will rise by 10 feet by 2065 because of catastrophic Antarctica and Greenland ice sheet melt. Assuming you don’t consider James Hansen an unworthy climate scientist, this level of sea level rise (more than 24 inches per year every year on average) would not appear to be consistent with the 3.1 inches of overall sea level rise between 1958-2014. Therefore, the climate scientists expecting rapid sea level rise have not had their expectations realized in recent decades, have they? Would this lend support to the stated position that there has been no recent acceleration in sea level rise that is compatible with what the climate scientists/modelers had predicted/expected?
I didn’t construct that. I quoted Pierre, who wrote this:
“In 2013 The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) wrote here sea-level rise in this century would likely be 70-120 centimeters by 2100″ (i.e. 7 – 12 mm annually) and that 90 experts in a survey “anticipated a median sea-level rise of 200-300 centimeters by the year 2300” (i.e. on average circa 7 to 10 mm every year).”
For a very short article, you certainly have misread it (and who wrote it) many times and in multiple ways.
“I’ve asked you to stop deliberately misquoting”
Again, this is Pierre’s article. He wrote it. He emboldened it. And I am defending him from your purposeful misrepresentations of what he wrote. Pierre didn’t highlight the Frederiske et al. (2018) paper in an article. I did that. Pierre wrote about the Frederiske paper too, using source material and quotes that I did in pointing out that sea level rise has decelerated relative to the pre-1950s period. That’s why he wrote in his “Bewildered…” article that sea level rise has decelerated. Please, when you go about hurling your false accusations, at least attempt to get your facts straight about who wrote what. All you need to do is look at the top of the article where it says who the author is.
And you do not have my/our permission to deliberately truncate a quote so as to misrepresent what we have written just because the part you nixed isn’t emboldened. Especially since I have ASKED YOU TO STOP PURPOSELY MISREPRESENTING WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN 5 TIMES NOW.
“Yes. That’s because the sea level rise rate was low in 1958, much lower than it was in the 1930s and 1940s. The acceleration vs. deceleration depends on the starting point. “
Acceleration vs. Deceleration is significantly dependent on the starting point. I really couldn’t care much less if you don’t find that “normal”.
“People” definitely point out that warming and cooling trends switch from one period to another, based on a chosen set of years. Why would this be any different with acceleration vs. deceleration?
Piecuch et al., 2017
“In 2004–2005, SPNA [North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content] decadal upper ocean and sea-surface temperature trends reversed from warming during 1994–2004 to cooling over 2005–2015”
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/North-Atlantic-Cooling-OHC-Piecuch-2017.jpg
Oliva et al., 2017
“However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades [Antarctic Peninsula] has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014.”
—
Westergaard-Nielsen et al., 2018
“Warming trends observed from 1986–2016 across the ice-free Greenland is mainly related to warming in the 1990’s. The most recent and detailed trends based on MODIS (2001–2015) shows contrasting trends across Greenland, and if any general trend it is mostly a cooling. The MODIS dataset provides a unique detailed picture of spatiotemporally distributed changes during the last 15 years. … Figure 3 shows that on an annual basis, less than 36% of the ice-free Greenland has experienced a significant trend and, if any, a cooling is observed during the last 15 years (<0.15 °C change per year).
Well, as of now, an anthropogenic signal in sea level rise has not been detectable.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Lack-of-Sea-Level-Rise-Acceleration-Parker-Ollier-2017.jpg
Sea levels were accelerating at rates of over 3 mm/yr during the 1924-1948 period, with a high of 4.68 mm/yr in 1939. Then, after that, sea levels decelerated (in rate) for the next 45 years. In the 1990s, the rate began accelerating again. This is what’s called an oscillation. Oscillations don’t allow us to pick out a “now” and decide that THAT version of now is going to tell us what the now 45 years hence will be. That’s the problem with cherry-picking short-term trends and declaring an acceleration…and that humans are the cause of it.
Of course, that’s about all you have done here…because you know you can’t point to a long-term acceleration. We understand your predicament.
Nick:
It’s not very good math, either. Unless the author’s idea of “acceleration” is different from classical physics’ definition, I get the following:
s = 0.5 * a * t^2
s = 0.5 * 0.07mm ±0.02mm/yr^2 * 56yr
s = 109.75mm ±0.04mm
Which figure is obviously not true; sea level has not risen nearly 110mm since 1966. Your value of 3.92 mm is got by just multiplying 0.07 * 56, which would properly be the velocity of SLR after 56 years, not the distance (rise). Does anybody ever apply a sanity check to their derived values? Or does “acceleration” mean something else here besides, er, “acceleration”?
[? s = 1/2 * a * t * t, not v = a * t for v0=0, s0=0 and a = constant. .mod]
James,
“Which figure is obviously not true; sea level has not risen nearly 110mm since 1966”
The operative figure here is the quoted average rate of 1.5 mm/yr. That implies a rise of 84 mm, which is not unreasonable from the Jevrejeva plots shows above. The acceleration just determines how this rise was distributed over the years. It implies that the rate started out negative (-0.64 mm/yr) and rose to 3.28 mm/yr at the end. In your algebra
s = 1.5*(t-28.5) + 0.07*(t-28.5)^2, with years 1 to 56.
[mod: I don’t get what you’re saying there.]
Nick: I get what you’re saying, but those aren’t really accelerations in the classical sense, are they? More like step changes in the rate, at given times.
Also, could you explain the terms in your equation?
s = 1.5*(t-28.5) + 0.07*(t-28.5)^2, with years 1 to 56. Makes a very nice curve, too.
I assume you mean t = 1..56 years, and 0.07 is the acceleration, but where do 1.5 and 28.5 come from?
James
1.5 is the mean rate over the 56 years, and 28.5 is the mean year. Or should be; I think on checking that it is actually 57 years, so I should have labelled years 0:56, with mean 28.
Nick, I mentioned this paper here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/09/sea-level-rise-and-fall-part-4-getting-a-rise-out-of-nothing/#comment-2713486 and also it’s results. I was shouted down.. but the outcome stands!
Nonsense frank. I just read through that entire post and nowhere do I see you being “shouted down”
What is it with people of your worldview? You obfuscate everything to either play victim or call someone an oppressor. It’s a worn out tactic and the people on this site have enough intelligence to see your tactics for what they are.
Good grief, the more I interact with people of the “left” the more I recognize the devastating reality of what Dr. Jordan Peterson has been describing about Post-Modernist Neo-Marxists. My interpretation: You’re a one trick pony, and the tricks are transparent.
But I suppose in the eyes of CAGW religionists (not an ad hominem, it is an apt description), discourse is considered “shouting down” when the discourse disposes of your deliberate attempts to falsify reality. And no, I’m not going to be polite to liars, which is what you are. There wasn’t a single ad hominem levied towards you nor any exclamation points or all caps. That is “shouting down” through actual shouting in print or ad hominem, which is also unacceptable to discourse.
I think you should rephrase your response to Nick to account for your deliberate recollection of the events that transpired.
hl: it seems to me you argue on a dead end street. I’m not at all a “CAGW follower” but the citing of a paper that does NOT bolster the claim of the post ( no acceleration in SLR) without mentioning the core-message is a little bit pure, at least.
Hello Honest,
I have no opinion on FrankC, having no time to read the subject posts.
However I do agree with your general observations about Global Warming Activists, as follows:
“What is it with people of your worldview? You obfuscate everything to either play victim or call someone an oppressor. It’s a worn out tactic …
Good grief, the more I interact with people of the “left” the more I recognize the devastating reality of what Dr. Jordan Peterson has been describing about Post-Modernist Neo-Marxists. My interpretation: You’re a one trick pony, and the tricks are transparent.
But I suppose in the eyes of CAGW religionists (not an ad hominem, it is an apt description), discourse is considered “shouting down” when the discourse disposes of your deliberate attempts to falsify reality.”
Leo above referred to a global warming hysteric as “a modern day Cnut”. I still think a spell-check is in order.
Regards, Allan
Sea level rise arguments seems the most confusing of all arguments. Firstly does sea level rise in a warming climate or not. Is there more precipitation. At higher altitudes in a warmer climate trapping water in snow on glaciers. Are all glaciers shrinking in the world? What causes local sea level rise? Is it just climate? How about earth rotational speed? Tectonic movement of plates over time? Setttling of coral atolls? Development of shore lines? Earthquakes? Poor equipment? Past measurement errors? What is the natural expected change in sea level rise and what portion is man contributed?
When I look at this one from 1800 https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual.htm?stnid=190-091 is it fair to say this is on a rocky area that it is likely accurate over time?
In which case since 1800…where is the sea level rise concern?
Actually, the articles clearly provide a reference point (which you, misleadingly, do not). They do not say that sea level rise has not accelerated at all, or since 1993, or since some year in the more recent decades. Instead, they say:
1. Sea level rise has not accelerated like the models have claimed they would (i.e., 7-12 mm/yr).
2. Sea level rise has not accelerated, but decelerated, relative to the 1900-1950 period/1920-1950 period (Holgate, 2007; Jevrejeva et al., 2008)
Please do make a point not to misrepresent what is actually being stated.
“Please do make a point not to misrepresent what is actually being stated”
You are doing that. What was stated was (your bold)
“Over the past months a spate of scientific papers published show sea level rise has not accelerated like many climate warming scientists warned earlier. “
“The latest findings glaringly contradict alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise.”
But you don’t do any comparison with “like the models have claimed they would” If alarmist claims of accelerating rise are contradicted, that generally means that there was no accelerating rise. If you want to argue that it’s accelerating, but not as much as claimed, then you need to say what was claimed, and how it was wrong.
But the main failure here is that you actually only have one paper in recent months that talks about accelerating global sea rise at all, and it affirms it.
No, it is clearly you misrepresenting what has actually been written.
After oddly accusing me of distortions and misrepresentations, you proceeded to distort and misrepresent what we wrote about the new paper by Frederiske et al. (2018). You claimed that we wrote that that Frederiske and colleagues “show sea level rise has not accelerated”. Neither Pierre or I wrote that. Instead, Pierre clearly wrote in the review article that:
By falsely claiming that we wrote that the Frederiske paper says sea levels have not accelerated (and leaving it at that), you have misrepresented what was actually written.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/01/new-scare-science-global-sea-levels-rose-a-staggering-3-1-inches-1-42-mmyr-during-1958-2014/
In the above article featuring the Frederiske paper (Pierre is the author of the others), it was stated that sea level rise has decelerated relative to the rate of rise in the first half of the 20th century. Again, this is supported by multiple papers which show sea levels rose faster than the rate identified for 1958-2014 (1.42 mm/yr) in the Frederiske paper. I assume you understand that a deceleration does not mean that there has been an acceleration relative to some other reference period. By excluding these explanations and truncating the quote, you have clearly misrepresented what was actually written. Subsequently, all of your criticisms that are based on this intentional misrepresentation are an exercise in debating a straw man.
Pierre clearly did in his review article…the one that this WUWT links to. Did you not read it?
Clearly, 1.42 mm/yr during the 56 years between 1958 and 2014 is not even close to reaching the alarming levels projected by climate models. And 1.42 mm/yr is also a decelerated rate relative to the first half of the 20th century — which again is in direct contradiction to what climate models suggest should be happening.
The acceleration identified in Frederiske paper refers to the acceleration since 1958 — which was obviously a time in which sea levels were barely rising. When identifying an acceleration from a faster-rising period, the rate of acceleration is much less pronounced…and a deceleration even emerges.
For example:
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
Our first analysis determined the acceleration, a2, for each of the 57 records [1930-2010] … There is almost a balance with 30 gauge records showing deceleration and 27 showing acceleration, clustering around 0.0 mm/yr. The mean is a slight deceleration of -0.0014 mm/yr ±0.0161 mm/yr (95%).
We also analyzed the worldwide data of Church and White (2006) for the period 1930–2001 and obtained a deceleration of -0.0066 mm/yr . … We analyzed the new data set from 1930–2007 [Church and White, 2009] and obtained a deceleration of -0.0130 mm/yr. Therefore, the deceleration that we find in U.S. gauge records for 1930–2010 is consistent with worldwide-gauge data of Church and White (Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, 2010b)
Please stop misrepresenting what we have written, Nick.
“Pierre clearly did in his review article…the one that this WUWT links to. “
Well, he certainly doesn’t support your claim that you weren’t really saying no acceleration, only just not as much as might be expected. The article is titled
“Bewildered Scientists…A Global Warming Crisis Fails To Appear: Sea Level Rise Grinds To A Crawl”
Doesn’t sound like he’s talking about reduced acceleration. And it goes on:
“In fact the real measured data show the opposite is happening: a deceleration in sea level rise is taking place.”
You say
“Sea level rise has not accelerated like the models have claimed they would (i.e., 7-12 mm/yr).”
presumably citing PIK. But 7-12 mm/year is not an acceleration but a rate. And PIK did not say that; that is your distortion. What PIK said was
“Sea-level rise in this century is likely to be 70-120 centimeters by 2100 if greenhouse-gas emissions are not mitigated”
We are talking acceleration here. 70-120 cm by 2100 does not mean 7-12 mm/yr now. In fact, if you calculate Frederiske’s 0.07mm/yr/yr with the 1958-2014 mean of 1.5 mm/yr, you get a rise of close to 60 cm over the century; pretty similar to PIK. But Frederiske did not say that acceleration would remain constant.
Nick, the article I wrote says that sea level rise has decelerated since the 1950s, as the sea level rise rate was about 2.5 mm/yr during 1920-1950 or 2 mm/yr during 1904-1953 (Holgate, 2007), and it was only 1.45 mm/yr for 1954-2003 (Holgate, 2007) or 1.42 mm/yr during 1958-2014 (Frederiske et al., 2018). Since the latter rates are slower than the former, it is accurate to say that the more recent sea level rise has decelerated relative to the early 20th century rates. That’s what the article was saying. It’s also what Pierre wrote in his review article. Please stop making up your own claims of what we’ve written. Please stop truncating quotes so as to mislead others into thinking we’ve written something we have not.
Right. That’s because sea levels have only risen by a total of about 3.1 inches since 1958 according to Frederiske et al., 2018. That would not indicate a sea level rise crisis has been brewing in the last 55-60 years. Especially when we consider that sea levels rose faster and glacier melt was more pronounced during the 1920-1950 period, or when CO2 emissions were about 1 Gt/yr vs. today’s 10 Gt/yr. Climate models suggest that sea levels should be accelerating dramatically. They haven’t. Not only that, but Greenland and Antarctica combined contributed only 0.59 of an inch to sea levels since 1958, which is a dramatic deceleration since the 1920-1950 period too. Do you find that the polar ice sheet contribution has been alarming?
James Hansen claims we’ll get 10 feet of sea level rise by 2065 due to the dramatic melting of Greenland and Antarctica. Do you think these 1958-2014 trends lend support to that alarmism?
Exactly. Relative to the 1920-1950 period, sea level rise has decelerated…which is explained above. I have been assuming you understand that a deceleration is not the same thing as “no acceleration”. It’s a deceleration in the rate of acceleration. Should I not have made the assumption that you understood that? Perhaps this could explain why you seem to be confused by the word choices here.
If sea levels are rising 1.42 mm/yr during 1958-2014, and then they change to 7-12 mm/yr during 2018-2050, would that constitute an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise? Conversely, if sea levels are rising by 2.03 mm/yr during 1904-1953, and then they change to 1.45 mm/yr during 1954-2003, would that constitute an acceleration in the sea level rise rate, or would it constitute a deceleration in the rate of rise? That’s what we’re talking about here.
What was the forcing mechanism that caused the faster rate of sea level rise in the first half of the 20th century, Nick? Will you be answering this question?
kenneth richard wrote/explained: “In the above article featuring the Frederiske paper (Pierre is the author of the others), it was stated that sea level rise has decelerated relative to the rate of rise in the first half of the 20th century.”
Exactly.
After reading this thread, I just don’t see what point you are arguing here Nick. If the rate of sea level rise is slower now than it was, it has decelerated. Slowed down. It could accelerate again, and inevitably will. The key point is that it is NOT rising as the models (and whole CAGW story) predicted. Period.
If you want to see catastrophic sea level rise you have to walk into the ocean like Rahmstorf did. The faster you walk, the faster it rises.
Richards via no tricks zone via Dellingpole via Breitbart… so much truthiness.
I suppose you think the cynically and deceptively named “Skeptical Science” is, by contrast, a “credible” source, when it derides the very basis of scientific inquiry (i.e., skepticism) in favor of unshakable BELIEF in the CAGW secular religion with the same zeal as an Islamist embraces radical Islam.
According to a WUWT post from Roy Spenser’s blog, SLR in the early part of the satellite altimetry record has been revised downward. A summary of several papers covering this revision was published in Nature in 2017. The full abstract from one of the papers mentioned in the Nature summary is shown below. Looking at some SLR websites (CU, AVISO, but not NOAA), I still see rates above 3 mm/yr. At the moment, there seems to be a lot of contradictory information floating around. Willis’s graph shown in this post is presumably is obsolete. IIRC, the lower 2.6 mm/yr rate comes from GPS estimates of VML (vertical land motion), while the higher 2.9 mm/yr comes from some kind of model.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/23/study-sea-level-rise-revised-downward/
http://www.nature.com/news/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades-1.22312
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2635 (2015)
The rate of global mean sea-level (GMSL) rise has been suggested to be lower for the past decade compared with the preceding decade as a result of natural variability1, with an average rate of rise since 1993 of +3.2 ± 0.4 mm yr−1 (refs 2, 3). However, satellite-based GMSL estimates do not include an allowance for potential instrumental drifts (bias drift4,5). Here, we report improved bias drift estimates for individual altimeter missions from a refined estimation approach that incorporates new Global Positioning System (GPS) estimates of vertical land movement (VLM). In contrast to previous results (for example, refs 6, 7), we identify significant non-zero systematic drifts that are satellite-specific, most notably affecting the first 6 years of the GMSL record. Applying the bias drift corrections has two implications. First, the GMSL rate (1993 to mid-2014) is systematically reduced to between +2.6 ± 0.4 mm yr−1 and +2.9 ± 0.4 mm yr−1, depending on the choice of VLM applied. These rates are in closer agreement with the rate derived from the sum of the observed contributions2, GMSL estimated from a comprehensive network of tide gauges with GPS-based VLM applied (updated from ref. 8) and reprocessed ERS-2/Envisat altimetry9. Second, in contrast to the previously reported slowing in the rate during the past two decades1, our corrected GMSL data set indicates an acceleration in sea-level rise (independent of the VLM used), which is of opposite sign to previous estimates and comparable to the accelerated loss of ice from Greenland and to recent projections2,10, and larger than the twentieth-century acceleration2,8,10.
“Over the past months a spate of scientific papers published show sea level rise has not accelerated like many climate warming scientists warned earlier. ”
Well some climate scientists may have “warned” that SL rise would accelerate, but when did they say it would be detectable?
And projections from the IPCC did not….
http://www.realclimate.org/images//IPCC_AR5_13.7ab.png
Also this paper found that the depletion of OHC following the Pinatubo eruption stalled any rise…..
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245
“…. Here, a combined analysis of altimeter data and specially designed climate model simulations shows the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo to likely have masked the acceleration that would have otherwise occurred. This masking arose largely from a recovery in ocean heat content through the mid to late 1990 s subsequent to major heat content reductions in the years following the eruption. A consequence of this finding is that barring another major volcanic eruption, a detectable acceleration is likely to emerge from the noise of internal climate variability in the coming decade.”
Excuses for the evidence not supporting the hypothesis so far, and a new prediction that is likely to fail. To be repeated in ten years time. We already have over 30 years of experience with these tactics.
http://www.ametsoc.net/sotc2016/Ch03_GlobalOceans.pdf
“Variations in GMSL (Fig. 3.15a) result from changes in both the mass and density of the global ocean (Leuliette and Willis 2011; Chambers et al. 2017). From 2005 to present, increasing global ocean mass observed by the NASA Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) contributed approximately two-thirds of the GMSL trend, 2.1 (±0.4) mm yr−1. The positive trend in ocean mass primarily resulted from melting of glaciers and ice sheets (see Chapters 5e,f), but these contributions from land ice were partially offset by increased hydrological storage of fresh water on land, −0.7 (±0.2) mm yr−1 (Reager et al. 2016). Mostly owing to ocean warming, steric (i.e., density-related) sea level rise, 1.0 (±0.2) mm yr−1, has been observed by the Argo profiling float array and accounts for the balance of the GMSL trend since 2005.”
Ha. Claims that the global sea level budget is closed have been made several times in the past. The truth is that it won’t be really closed until we know a lot more and have better measurements. Until then it is one more fantasy that is blown as soon as someone (Zwally) shows data supporting that Antarctica is actually drawing from sea level rather than contributing. This can only convince those previously convinced in absence of reliable data.
“Until then it is one more fantasy that is blown as soon as someone (Zwally) shows data supporting that Antarctica is actually drawing from sea level rather than contributing. This can only convince those previously convinced in absence of reliable data.”
You mean this Zwally?
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/mass-changes-of-the-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-and-shelves-and-contributions-to-sealevel-rise-19922002/BADBDF82CC705AEE3296E158F32A2080
“Changes in ice mass are estimated from elevation changes derived from 10.5 years (Greenland) and 9 years (Antarctica) of satellite radar altimetry data from the European Remote-sensing Satellites ERS-1 and -2. For the first time, the dH/dt values are adjusted for changes in surface elevation resulting from temperature-driven variations in the rate of firn compaction. The Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins (–42 ± 2Gta¯1 below the equilibrium-line altitude (ELA)) and growing inland (+53 ± 2Gta-1 above the ELA) with a small overall mass gain (+11 ± 3Gta–1; –0.03 mma–1 SLE (sea-level equivalent)). The ice sheet in West Antarctica (WA) is losing mass (–47 ± 4Gta–1) and the ice sheet in East Antarctica (EA) shows a small mass gain (+16 ± 11 Gta–1) for a combined net change of –31 ± 12 Gta–1 (+0.08mma–1 SLE). The contribution of the three ice sheets to sea level is +0.05±0.03mma–1. The Antarctic ice shelves show corresponding mass changes of –95 ± 11 Gta–1 in WA and +142 ± 10Gta–1 in EA. Thinning at the margins of the Greenland ice sheet and growth at higher elevations is an expected response to increasing temperatures and precipitation in a warming climate. The marked thinnings in the Pine Island and Thwaites Glacier basins of WA and the Totten Glacier basin in EA are probably ice- dynamic responses to long-term climate change and perhaps past removal of their adjacent ice shelves. The ice growth in the southern Antarctic Peninsula and parts of EA may be due to increasing precipitation during the last century.
As he says “an expected response to increasing temperatures and precipitation in a warming climate”.
Science done for a period 15 years ago I note.
Yes, this Zwally:
Zwally, H. J., Li, J., Robbins, J. W., Saba, J. L., Yi, D., & Brenner, A. C. (2015). Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses. Journal of Glaciology, 61(230), 1019-1036.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/983F196E23C3A6E7908E5FB32EB42268/S0022143000200221a.pdf/mass_gains_of_the_antarctic_ice_sheet_exceed_losses.pdf
Yes, put it in the future, then you have your Acceleration. A convenient vehicle to catastrophize the effects of global warming. Here, the word would fit more, learn from the past and present, then you know the future. And that is far less catastrophic than the AGW religion wants to tell us.
“Excuses for the evidence not supporting the hypothesis so far, and a new prediction that is likely to fail. ”
AS I showed, there has never been a projection in the current time-frame that has “failed” (in so far as the IPCC published as consensus science).
So you deny that Pinatubo caused the OHC increase to stall, which in turn would lessen the steric response?
I don’t have to deny anything. There is no evidence that Pinatubo effects were anything but temporary.
The anthropogenic emissions period has one of the lowest volcanic forcing for centuries, yet its warming is not significantly different from previous periods of warming. If volcanoes have a significant cooling effect, then anthropogenic warming is even weaker than lukewarmers admit.
“I don’t have to deny anything. There is no evidence that Pinatubo effects were anything but temporary.
The anthropogenic emissions period has one of the lowest volcanic forcing for centuries”
Figure 1: global upper ocean heat content from 1955 to 2008. Blue line is yearly ocean heat content for the 0–700 m layer (Levitus 2008). Red line is the global mean stratospheric optical depth, indicating the timing of major volcanic eruptions (NASA GISS, data ends in 1999).
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/262263718_fig4_Global-average-projections-of-sea-level-rise-relative-to-1990-based-on-the-IPCC-AR4
From the above graph the amount of rise projected by the IPCC from 1990 to 2020 is ~10cm.
At the current rate of SLR (~3mm/yr) we would get 9cm rise
So the IPCC has barely projected an acceleration of SLR at present based on it’s AR4 report.
Like I said the IPCC has not projected an acceleration in SLR (one that could be gleaned via data anyway) in this current time-frame.
Which is why the likes of Zwally do not contradict the IPCC in that SLR lies in the future, one when the rate of lower lying melt in Greenland and Antarctica exceeds the accumulation of snow in the interior due the increase of WV as the world warms.
But can the Greenland-Antarctica land areas falling/rising really account for very much?
Greenland = 2.06 Mkm^2 of total area,
Antarctica = 14.0 Mkm^2
Earth = 514 Mkm^2.
Oceans = 350 Mkm^2 (70% of the 514.)
True, 98% of Greenland is covered by ice. But the central Greenland ice cap is not uniformly and completely covered by an “even” average 3000 meter-thick ice cap as some would imagine. It is more like a shallow basin 1000 kilometers across: Like the lower plains between the PA and KY and TN and GA mountains being covered with gradually thicker ice all the way from Nashville across St Louis to Colorado and from Chicago to Memphis. Melting and upthrust are NOT going to be smooth and evenly “averaged” out over of the cities and counties in between.
Greenland is 1/7 the size of Antarctica as a whole, and Antarctica is much larger than Australia. Or India. What is the effect on water levels globally if all of India is being forced north at 3 inches per year and “half” of India is being tilted “up” into the Himalaya Mountains? Does not the southern coast of that sub-continent tilt down?
The Rift Valley of Africa is splitting Africa in two, but has not flooded out (yet.) How much greater is the forced movement of that land area being pushed into the Indian Ocean than that of some part of some ice caps melting in some part of Greenland? Is ANY part of ANY rift line accelerating ANYWHERE in the globe?
How much of a 1/2 inch per year times 35,000 kilometers of rift line mean in terms of volume acceleration?
Rift lines have only been accepted since the mid-1960’s. Do we know whether they are moving any faster now than 250 years before?
Except that first you have to demonstrate that the measurement of OHC was adequate prior to the Argo era. And second you have to demonstrate that any correlation found has an associated causality and is not the result of chance or some other cause. You only have a hypothesis. Good luck with the evidence unless we have another eruption.
And lastly the figure supports what I say. Even if we accept the data at face value and assume a causal correlation (I wouldn’t), the effect is still temporary.
Yes, 20 cm by 2100 is within IPCC projections range, but only for the lowest emissions scenarios. This implies a reduction in the rate of sea level raise.
But IPCC does not conduct research nor publishes scientific literature. What we are discussing is an article (or several) that are looking for the acceleration, because it is expected by their models.
If increasing CO₂ levels by 100 ppm since 1950 has not accelerated sea level rise, the next 100 ppm are expected to have even less effect.
Toneb – That graph in your 8:37 AM post was very interesting. But, bottom line, it shows a SLR range of from 20 to 80 cm by 2100. Hard to take that shotgun science seriously. One model possibly could hit the target if it shot in the right direction, but this is IPCC and all they see is CO2. If they are wrong, could there be 20 to -40 cm change by 2100?
..Well some climate scientists may have “warned” that SL rise would accelerate, but when did they say it would be detectable?…
What planet have you been on? Climate scientists and alarmists claimed it had already been detected and had human fingerprints all over it.
When we compare rates of SLR – which has been changing – we are faced with the problem that SLR must always be measured over a period. In other words, the average rate of SLR over than period is being reported. In the case of individual tide gauges, it sometimes takes about 50 years for the confidence interval around a rate to shrink enough that it doesn’t include zero – so that the rate is statistically significant. Composite records from many tide gauges can produce a narrower confidence interval in a shorter period of time, but that is often done by excluding outliers assumes to be due to vertical land motion. So there is no easy way to compare satellite altimetry (a little more than two decades) with tide gauges (which have large confidence intervals for periods as short as two decades. Satellite altimetry produces much narrower confidence intervals than tide gauge records, but it is extremely difficult to convert radar data from space into a height above sea level. Several large systematic errors (like the one mentioned above) have been corrected and there may be more corrections in the future.
?w=356&h=308
If one looks at the entire record since 1880, it is likely that there has been a very modest acceleration in SLR (though not necessarily statistically significant). However, as this post demonstrates, it is possible to cherry-pick starting and ending points so that this isn’t true. However, that isn’t really important. To reach 1 m of SLR by 2100, the current rate of SLR (about 1 inch/decade, 2.5 mm/yr) needs a constant acceleration of about 1 inch/decade/decade (0.25 mm/yr/yr). No one is currently reporting an acceleration of anywhere near this magnitude. Unfortunately, even satellite altimetry (assuming it can be trusted) will take several decades to detect such a change with high confidence.
The data source linked to for the top chart runs to the second part of 2016, but the chart data stops in 2010.
According to the top chart, the overall sea level rise trend up to 2010 was 30 +/- 4 mm/decade. According to the source provider (University of Colorado), as of late 2016, this had risen to 34 +/- 4 mm/decade (the quote 3.4 +/4 mm/yr)/
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2016_rel3/sl_ns_global.png
What’s that if not an acceleration?
Colorado University has been dinking with the data for over a decade trying to claim acceleration. Here’s a graphic that shows the changes they’ve made since 2004:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/2hz4cqt.jpg
They link to 4 other satellite altimeter SLR sources on the CU site (left column, marked ‘GMSL rates’).
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
All show pretty much the same rate as CU. Are they all in on it?
They probably make sure they all agree.
NASA data has just been updated this past January. They have adjusted the data to the effect that the rate was lower – see Kip Hansens’s Post last month:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/09/sea-level-rise-and-fall-part-4-getting-a-rise-out-of-nothing/
If CU ever updates their stuff you can look to see if it reflects the NASA changes.
Is that the reason they give – they are trying to make acceleration show up? What are their reasons for data adjustment? Do you know, or are you simply assuming they are corrupt?
DWR54 question: “What’s that if not an acceleration?”
Answer: That is regression toward the mean.
Andrew Burnette
Hardly, when it’s moving ‘away’ from the previous long term average.
Thats only the blip of an Super- El Nino. This Graph ends up by 2016, the worst El Nino in the graphs History. But why not take in account the graph until the End of 2017?
Topex – accuracy 4.2cm “an accuracy of 4.2 cm,”, “Measured sea levels with unprecedented accuracy to better than 5 cm”
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/topex/
” an accuracy of 4-5 centimeters (better than 2 inches).”
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/
“Maintain the same measurement accuracy of Jason (3.3 cm) with a goal of achieving 2.5 cm”
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/ostmjason2/jason2factsheet/
The second quote is for Jason -1
That data source from Colorado University’s Sea Level Group is 18 months old, the last entry is 2016.5512
?w=720
The last entry from NASA’s Data is 2017.8521170
Besides that Kip Hansen’s post earlier last month demonstrated that NASA is lowering the earlier rate of sea level rise which in effect allows the claim of acceleration to be made here’s his graph/animation from that post:
If CU’s Sea Level Group ever publishes a new release it will be interesting to see what they say. After all, over the years, they’ve been telegraphing what they expect to find. All you have to do is read the titles of their various publications
Why has an acceleration of sea lever rise not been observed during the altimeter era?
NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?
The failure of predictions will not deal a fatal blow to CAGW alarmism. Expert predictions have a miserable success rate. The experts manage to keep their credibility because they have many excuses they can use to explain their failure.
The Church of CAGW is a lot like the Christian church. There have been many failed predictions for the Second Coming of Christ. link All have failed. In spite of that, Christianity finds a way to go on. CAGW will do likewise.
The thing that will make CAGW irrelevant will be politics. When it is no longer useful as a lever of power, we won’t hear about it any more.
Alarmists and doomsdayers will never go away, they will just find a new catastrophe for which they will seek grants in order to save us all.
Church an AGW church needs one another.
Learning from the Vatican means winning, as Rahmstorff boss Schellnhuber knows
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/klimaforscher-schellnhuber-spricht-im-vatikan-risiko-fuer-die-menschheit201d/image/image_view_fullscreen
“There have been many failed predictions for the Second Coming of Christ… All have failed. In spite of that, Christianity finds a way to go on.”
——————-
To even make such predictions is to widely miss the mark.
One must first leave, in order to return.
Matt.28:20
commieBob,
“The Church of CAGW is a lot like the Christian church. There have been many failed predictions for the Second Coming of Christ. link All have failed. In spite of that, Christianity finds a way to go on.
I’m a Christian, and I am aware of no such predictions . . not by what could rationally be called “the Christian church”, anyway. It’s not a totalitarian system sort of deal, and it makes far less sense to speak of “the church” making such predictions than to speak of “science” predicting impending climate catastrophe . . (if we don’t cough up plenty of dough ; )
It appears (as usual) that one can take any assertion about climate and find figures to prove or disprove it.
Perhaps we should approach the problem from the opposite end, and look for natural phenomena which are capable of being isolated and measured with some degree of accuracy, and then see what they say?
In the case of sea-level rise I assume the aim here is to show that increased global temperatures are causing an imminent catastrophe? Very well – let us find a nice isolated lake – perhaps several – and measure the rise and fall there. We should be able to pin down the lake inputs and outputs better than we can for the oceans, and get a better base to have our arguments over…
I’d say they keep their credibility because we have a biased press that turns a blind eye to what’s going on. If the worm ever turns there will be a giant explosion of revelations.
If CU’s Sea Level Group ever publishes a new release it will be interesting to see what they say. After all, over the years, they’ve been telegraphing what they expect to find. All you have to do is read the titles of their various publications
Why has an acceleration of sea lever rise not been observed during the altimeter era?
NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas
Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?
Ha that picture of Rahmstorf makes it look sea level is rising because all of the carbonphobes are wetting their pants.
Up to his waist, maybe a meter high. 333.33 years worth of rise, and he couldn’t just walk away?
Caption I’d like to see:
“Man-made sea level rise proven true when man unintentionally raises sea level several feet after severe attack of carbonphobia.”
Yes, except for those particular spots around the world that have sinking land, the seas stay where they always were. A bit like those horizontal lines of real average temperature readings, nothing of any note going on at all.
Perhaps one day the people who half live in computer generated make believe state of minds , will leave the real world completely and stop bothering us?
When scientific debate degenerates into a discussion indistinguishable from that of sports fans in a pub, is that not a sign that either the data is too awful for serious use or the problem is not well understood?
Likely both. For one thing, where are the error bars on all these charts? Without error bars, it’s not science, it’s propaganda. As a reality check, I’m inclined to listen to the folks who live by the sea and point out that it hasn’t moved in living memory. What crisis?
See your Rahmstorf and raise you our Cox. UK leads the world in vainglorious CAGWphiles.
Archaeological work in cities like Rome shows that to access earlier times in history, just dig deeper. New buildings are built on older ones which sit atop even older structures. With many centuries of continuous human life and structural remodelling, cities gradually rise by many meters.
I saw this for myself recently when visiting a home where I lived in my childhood in Kuantan, Malaysia. We had lived in a one storey house behind a church. Behind the house was forest/jungle. The jungle and house were on a lower level by about 3-4 meters than the church, separated by a slope. Returning there in 2014, the church was still in place, but behind it – nothing. In place of our home, a car park, and in place of the vanished jungle, apartment blocks. Most notably, the whole area was on a single level – there was no trace of the previous slope down behind the church. Over the whole area where our house and neighboring forest had been the ground level had ascended by 3-4 meters.
Thus the few mm per year that the seas rise will never “drown” cities that are rising several times faster. Cities that always grow upwards are their own flood defence against slow sea level rise.
Let’s assume both tide and satellite measurements are correct. That leaves a difference of about 1.5mm/yr. This is possible. There must exist a thermal gradient between the earth center and the surface. All evidence suggests that the earth is still warming…therefore the gradient would be in a state of flux. And average earth temperature increase of .01c (this is about what the argo floats say is happening in the oceans) would account for a 2mm expansion in the diameter of the earth. therefore the satellites would increase the 2 mm more than the tide gauges
If you can believe it:
Correcting Ocean Cooling
OK, all this discussion is about the rate of SLR but ignores the fact that the sea level is still rising. If one believes in the law of Conservation of Stuff then the earth has a fixed amount of water. So what happens when the water leaves the sea and stays on the land? Don’t a couple of the graphs above show a recent flat line in absolute rise? Doesn’t that mean that the water is going somewhere? I can tell from simple observation that the Great Lakes have more water in them now that they had just a couple of years ago.
Antarctic ice sheet mass is increasing. Antarctic sea ice mass is increasing. Greenland ice mass is increasing. Arctic sea ice volume is increasing (Arctic sea ice extent is essentially meaningless data)
It’s the threat of changes that these people can’t control. They are control freaks from the get-go.
An increase in the volume of water in Lake Michigan means that (maybe) the shoreline changes a little. That’s only a problem if someone builds a house on the edge of the shore where the land is being eroded anyway by wave action.
When I lived in Chicago, my two apartments were just off North Clark street, which is the top of the ridge that slopes down to the shore of Lake Michigan. It is ancient beach land.
If the lake filled in all of that space, a distance of about 2.5 miles, the volume of water required to do so is astronomical.
Change terrifies these people because they can’t control it.
You make a good point, about the quantity of water needed to cause a vertical rise of a certain amount being “astronomical.” Not to mention that any attempt at “mitigation” is foolhardy when there is no empirical evidence (regarding CO2) of causation, and since the rate of SLR is such that the only REAL solution (for ANY “climate change” however caused) is and remains and always will be ADAPTATION.
Interesting article.
Of course we find our regulars linking to ‘reconstructions’ to debunk the article in support of the CAGW cause.
They keep using that word ‘reconstruction’ but I do not think that word means what they think it means.
I’m still mystified by this panic attack rhetoric over Greenland’s ice cover melting when clearly, it’s renewed every winter and if anything, where it is semi-permanently gone, the land rebounds. What part of that do these clowns – and they are clowns – not understand?
I’m more than a bit disturbed by the antangonistic and belligerent approach embraced by cosmically dumb critters like Bill Nye and that McKibben fellow, never mind that Tamino twit. Anyone whose stance is threatening – and theirs seem to be – is clearly on a bender of some kind This Rahmstorf person is another one. He may not act in a threatening manner now, but I don’t think he’s far from it.
Maybe it’s just as well that they get the public’s attention when they say and do things that are really, really stupid. They seem desperate for attention. Some sort of personal crisis seems to be looming there. But we really do need to keep an eye on them. They’re a lot more dangerous when they’re ignored. When someone like McKibben or Tamino appear in public with their sleeves rolled up, they are signaling “I’m picking a fight, I double dog dare you to argue with me”.
If you want to win a battle like this, you must know well your opponent’s moves.
288 – 255 = 33 is bogus.
“Back” radiation is bogus.
RGHE is bogus.
All the rest is just noise.
If you say so.
Nick, please stop with your off-topic pet rants.
@A. Watts Why so reluctant to discuss the GHE as such? There are plenty of (obvious) subjects with it that can not be denied. I know there has been a lot of stupid and unsubstantiated criticism, but that does not verify the theory. Neither does the unreflected following of that theory by apologetics AND deniers give it more substance. Not if plain, simple facts falsify it.
Because when the topic is discussed in the context of “there is no greenhouse effect” employing such silly arguments as “it’s a pressure gradient effect”, “cooler object can’t heat a warmer object”, “I can calculate any planet’s temperature using this simple model that I had to get published by faking my own and my co-author’s name” and “there is no backradiation” it inevitably, and without fail, turns into a nasty and pointless food fight that wastes huge amount of moderation time.
I’ve been doing this now over 11 years, and I know these kinds of discussions are pointless. Been there, done that, not going to do it anymore. If somebody wants to discuss that junk science, they can rant about it over at Principia or Tallbloke’s, but not here. I’m just not interested.
Bottom line, there is a greenhouse effect, and yes there’s problems with it. The biggest is that over 30 years, science has not been able to pin down the value of climate sensitivity. That’s really the only science argument worth having.
Don’t take this as an invitation to reply with a rebuttal.
Being “just not interested” is a perfectly valid personal position. Yet that will not mean others will be equally ignorant. In a very odd way you seem trying to shut down the discussion. What does that remind me of?
(It had a few long run of discussions already, as Anthony told you but stopped it because it became a moderation problem as people went off the rails, quoting Anthony: “and without fail, turns into a nasty and pointless food fight that wastes huge amount of moderation time.” besides the topic is SEA LEVEL RISE, you want us to go completely off topic to talk about it, shame on you as Anthony already stated it was off topic) MOD
@Leitwolf;
Feel free to set up your own web site to engage this debate if it means that much to you. This is Anthony’s sandbox, it’s his rules.
Does Nick Stokes have a new pseudonym?
No, even Nick Stokes wouldn’t touch that junk to try to make a point. Separate person.
And here is the reason why..
https://www.scribd.com/document/370673949/The-Net-Effect-of-Clouds-on-the-Radiation-Balance-of-Earth-3
“One of the oldest tide gauge benchmarks in the world is at Port Arthur in south-east Tasmania. When combined with historical tide gauge data (found in the London and Australian archives) and recent sea level observations, it shows that relative sea level has risen by 13.5 cm from 1841 to 2000.” and that’s an average of 0.85mm/yr for one and a half centuries down here
OTOH-
“We have used a combination of historical tide-gauge data and satellite-altimeter data to estimate global averaged sea level change from 1880 to 2014. During this period, global-averaged sea level rose about 23 cm, with an average rate of rise of about 1.6 mm/yr over the 20th Century.”
https://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
Which is nothing at all like the geology of Hallett Cove in South Australia which can show an average sea level rise of 16.25mm/yr for 8000 years between 15000 and 7000 years ago and connecting that together with the CSIRO findings was when I leapt off the tree ring circus utterly and completely, if I wasn’t having serious misgivings about it before that. It’s a scam by religious nutters posing as scientists.
It’s -27 F in Bemidji MN…where is the global warming?
My uncle is freezing.
Because of Global Warming, that -27 you are currently experiencing would have been -35 so…
Thanks Global Warming
How far is that from where the Superbowl is playing today?
When I saw the picture of Stephan Rahmstorf, CAGW acolyte half submerged in the water, the words to an old gospel tune came to mind:
“As I went down in the river to pray
Studying about that good old way
And who shall wear the starry crown
Good Lord, show me the way!
O sinners, let’s go down
Let’s go down, come on down
O sinners, let’s go down
Down in the river to pray”
It puts me in mind of some words from “Riverside” by Agnes Obel;
“When that old river runs past your eyes
To wash off the dirt on the riverside
Go to the water so very near
The river will be your eyes and ears
I walk to the borders on my own
To fall in the water just like a stone
Chilled to the marrow in them bones
Why do I go here all alone
Oh my God I see how everything is torn in the river deep
And I don’t know why I go the way
Down by the riverside”
Has anyone done a repeat of the Holgate-9 sea levels, with GPS corrections?
The KEY element of the CAGW alarmism is the hypothetical fascination of an increase in carbon dioxide will cause tropospheric water vapor to increase at much larger rates and thus cause a run-away thermal effect.
That they have failed in the primary hypothesis has further cemented the faith in the second. Faith is failing and nothing drives the deluded greater. The end is nigh. Repent or suffer damnation.
Some wag once noted that a mountain is a mole-hill made to government specifications.
Just think how much CO2 will be produced in order to keep the indoor temperature at the advertised of 70F for today’s Stupidbowl with outdoor temps at about a predicted 5F. Then there is all the CO2 produced by the various modes of transportation to get there. We should see an observable blip in sea level rise acceleration just from this one event!
Yep, better to stay indoors these days. Things of the past visiting Spain too.
https://www.windy.com/36.721/-4.422?rain,36.557,-3.985,10
https://youtu.be/sVYvTJEZCjA
I’m not sure about Pierre Gosselin’s (or is it PIK’s) math in the excerpted text from NoTricksZone. Unless it’s a misquote, either the numbers or time periods are incorrect
There are currently 82 years between now and 2100.
7mm per year for 82 years is 574mm by 2100 and 12mm annually is 984mm by 2100.
By likely meant 7 – 12 mm per decade as 70 – 120mm / 82 years is .85 – 1.46mm per year
Bryan A
To be fair to him, the way I read it the PIK is referring to sea level rise over the course of the 21st century, i.e. from 2001-2100. If so, then I think Gosselin’s figures are right.
Setting aside the argument over whether the rate of sea level rise has accelerated recently (I believe it has, slightly) it would take a heck of a further acceleration to come anywhere near to PIK’s projected 95 cm (central value) by 2100. This is one area where I tend to side with the ‘sceptics’ rather than the ‘warmists’; for now, anyway.
I’m guessing somewhere in the middle. But who knows? Everything depends on the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere and on the effects of natural fluxes, feedbacks and stochastic and cyclic variables. Too complex for me to predict, and to me the models are the only reasonable alternative
To me the point is not so much the quantitative accuracy of every prediction as the facts that the trends are obvious, the risks very high, and as the 2nd highest CO2 emitters, we have a responsibility to cooperate with the rest of the world in attempting to ameliorate the problem.
@Kristi “the models are the only reasonable alternative” – REALLY?! The models that IGNORE “the effects of natural fluxes, feedbacks and stochastic and cyclic variables,” treating them as nothing more than “random variability” while ASSUMING that CO2 is THE (one and only) cause of any upward temperature “trend” over a (cherry picked) period beginning with a cold period and ending during a warmer period?! AND that this will produce “runaway effects” never demonstrated in the Earth’s climate history, at CO2 levels up to 17.5 times that which is supposed to induce panic today?
The “models” are absolute crap based on incorrect assumptions, poorly supported hypotheses, and extrapolations on all of that. A house of cards.
We don’t have to “attempt to ameliorate the problem” because the scientific basis FOR any such “problem” is nothing more than a politically motivated secular religion dressed up to look “sciency.”
Even if the figures were for the 100 year period of 2001 – 2100, the 7mm per year would be 700mm per 100 year period. 7 is 1/10 of 70 so 7 would be per decade instead of per year
Or the figure is off by one decimal place
They are switching between mm and cm.
Thanks Nick,
As Homer Simpson would say D’oh
Just another American not adjusted to Metric
… I could be off here, but it seems silly to me that we’re talking about the difference between roughly 1mm/yr vs 3mm/yr in an ocean with an average depth of roughly 3,688,080mm ……
I’m no statistician, but 3/3,688,080 ain’t even in the noise.
It’s a small fraction of what makes the whole AGW argument farcical ….. Highly skilled scientists arguing about the wavelength of butter….
(sorry. I’ve spent too much time dealing with NIST and tolerances)
The heating is not evenly distributed, it’s mostly at the top 200 ft, some down to 700 ft. The heating is not just a problem in itself, but also makes sea level rise through expansion of the water.
Oh, whoops! What am I thinking? Duh.
SLR! Even those little bits add up over decades, and can make very obvious differences on land, especially when the differences are amplified due to natural factors. For example, king tides are normal occurrences, but they have gotten higher, causing flooding more often along the east coast and Hawaii, and many other areas. Miami Beach has spent $600 million on infrastructure to deal with the growing problem. Storms are more destructive with higher sea levels. Some intertidal and coastal ecosystems are quite sensitive to change in average depth
“A computer analysis of tide-gage records in the northeast Pacific indicates that the active volcanic islands of eastern Hawaii are subsiding at a rate considerably faster than the eustatic rise of sea level. The rate of absolute subsidence increases progressively toward the center of current activity on the Island of Hawaii. Honolulu, Oahu, appears to be stable; Kahului, Maui, is subsiding at 1.7 mm per year; and Hilo, Hawaii, is subsiding at 4.8 mm per year.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02596771
“We analyzed 23 ERS-‐1/2 images acquired during the period 1993-‐2005 using InSAR time-series techniques. Preliminary results yield localized subsidence at a rate of 2-‐3 mm/yr, mostly along the western section of the city. The subsiding areas correlate well with the areas that were built on reclaimed swamps.”
http://www.ces.fau.edu/arctic-florida/pdfs/fiaschi-wdowinski.pdf
@Lee “The subsiding areas correlate well with the areas that were built on reclaimed swamps.”
Reminds me, once more, of this classic from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
“When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. And that one sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up.”
Moral to the story is, don’t build on swamp land.
It would be great if Figure 1 could be updated to include data up to end of 2017.
Here’s NASA’s version up to 2017.85
ftp://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/merged_alt/L2/TP_J1_OSTM/global_mean_sea_level/GMSL_TPJAOSV4.2.jpg
Here’s the data page from which it came:
Global Mean Sea Level Data
Updated 1/29/18, 10:12:00 PM
NASA, and CU’s Sea Level Research page don’t vary that much.
You made the Twitter haters, complaining you stopped at 2011 (iirc) and then went in to show an increase on a chart from NASA.
I don’t believe them, but that doesn’t matter to the faithful.
Guest posted previously on SLR, acceleration, and closure. More details supporting this post.
Lack of sea level rise acceleration is one of the big picture, simple CAGW rebuttals. Others include the large discrepancy between modeled and observed tropical troposphere temperature (~2:1 if using Santers erroneously corrected 2017paper, >3:1 if using John Christy’s March 29 2017 congressional tesrimony), the lack of ocean acidification thanks to buffering and biology, thriving polar bears (hence the scandalous attack on Susan Crockford), and planetary greening. Doesn’t hurt that South Australia blacked out thanks to obereliance on renewables.
More natural ‘wiggle watching’, while the alarmi feebly Stokes the guttering flicker flame of AGW.
Meh….
It seems a perverse fantasia, afflicting these folks. They go down to the beach, to attempt to see 1mm wiggles in the sea level, as wahine in bikinis gently sashay past their AGW occluded eyes.
But sea-level is rising rapidly, Oakland, CA stated it in their lawsuit so it must be true.
“The rapidly rising sea level along the Pacific coast and in the San Francisco Bay, moreover, poses an imminent threat …”
http://www.oaklandcityattorney.org/PDFS/Oakland%20Climate%20Change%20Lawsuit.pdf
This should be breaking news. NASA updated their Global Mean Sea Level Variations this past Monday. Here’s a layout of the changes they’ve made in 2017:
http://oi64.tinypic.com/2dugrnr.jpg
Here’s the page where you can find the link to the latest data:
ftp://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/allData/merged_alt/L2/TP_J1_OSTM/global_mean_sea_level/
The graph shows the last four editions. Only the last update is available on the web, NASA doesn’t keep old variations – you have to save them and they’re not on the Internet WayBack Machine.
Coupled with the changes to the beginning of the time series they made earlier in January, See Kip Hansen’s post from earlier last month,
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/09/sea-level-rise-and-fall-part-4-getting-a-rise-out-of-nothing/
acceleration is likely to be announced.
Indeed, the new data shows a rate from 1992 to 2005 of 2.89 mm/yr and from 2005 to 2017 it’s 3.94 mm/yr which comes to an increase of a little over a millimeter per year over the last 25 years.
Amazing. Satellite altimetry “measurements” of sea-level seem to be infinitely malleable.
SLR is merely the Alarmists fall-back, for when temps aren’t cooperating with their Warmist ideology, along with Arctic sea ice, which fluctuates very nicely for them, but has little, if anything to do with the slight warming we’ve experienced. Because, through the magic of CO2 warming, the “missing heat” just shows up in other metrics, when it hasn’t simply gone AWOL into the deep oceans.
Oakland and San Francisco city fathers are schizophrenic in their lawsuits against big oil, claiming $22-38 billion in damages (to sewer systems and property) by the end of the century, while at the same time reassuring investors in their municipal bond prospectuses that “the city is unable to predict when seismic events, fires and other NATURAL EVENTS such as sea rise, or other impacts of climate change, or flooding from a major storm could occur…” (and, moreover) can’t be sure, even if such events occur, “whether they will have a material adverse effect on the business operations or financial condition of the City or the local economy.”
Completely different messages.
It’s pretty clear whether sea levels rise, fall, or stay the same, the threat of victim-hood can still provide a source of income for seaside residents.
From paywalled WSJ article:
Climate Change Could Swamp Your Muni-Bond Portfolio
California localities warn of disaster when suing oil companies. So how come they don’t tell investors?
By Jay Newman
Feb. 2, 2018 6:20 p.m. ET
I go down to the beach. Hasn’t changed in 50 years.
Yeah that is the problem they face with anyone in the older age bracket they know the sea level change is meaningless. That is why they can only really sell it it to the young and naive. If you believe there numbers it is the height of a brick every century and that assumes nothing else moves or changes.
It is never going to be a problem in any single persons lifetime and the world we live in will change so much in the period we are talking about it is meaningless.
“In another newly published paper by Frederiske et al. 2018 just this year, oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of only 1.42 mm per year between 1958 and 2014.”
This is close to the 60 year period that is recommended to say something about acceleration. So I would say that if the second half period show a steeper increase than the first it can show some acceleration. So , what is the sea level rise from 1958 to 1986, and from 1986 to 2014? But it would be even better to look ar the 120 year perod from 1897 to 2017. And even look at the changes every 10 years. If you have no defined method, it is just hand-waving, and you cannot know.
As Frank says (and I agree): “If one looks at the entire record since 1880, it is likely that there has been a very modest acceleration in SLR (though not necessarily statistically significant). However, as this post demonstrates, it is possible to cherry-pick starting and ending points so that this isn’t true. “
And if you cannot eliminate natural cycles, you have no case.
And they can’t, since they don’t even know what all of the natural cycles ARE. And given the tragic state of so-called “climate science” today, it is unlikely to make much progress in the study of REAL climate driving forces until the current crop of CO2-is-the-root-of-all-evil pseudo-scientists have their heads forcefully removed from the trough.
Seems to me this topic is being actively debated by the scientific community. One can find positions on both sides, perhaps depending on the data set and the years and method used for comparison. The graph at the top is only 18 years and we are given no information about the data set (raw? Adjusted, and if so, how? If there is a trend, it might be hidden by noise, requiring more advanced statistical procedure to identify. The blogs with graphs and short excerpts are not really very meaningful without knowing the methods, or what the literature on the subject as a whole tends to suggest.
Not all research is equal or equally meaningful. Do those who write articles for this site include a cross-section of evidence? Identify areas of debate, and what each side says?
Many people theses days don’t trust scientists, and believe themselves more capable of interpreting scientific results accurately and without bias than researchers, without even having read their papers. Is this not a little odd? It’s like me saying I know better than a hedge fund manager where to invest because I have a bank account, and 97% of hedge fund managers are obviously, inevitably, unquestionably corrupt or inept. Somehow. Though I’m not really sure how, so I accuse them of all the possible ways there might be corruption just to cover my bases. Then I find any whiff of debate within the HF community and say that’s proof that the 97% are wrong.
And I spread that message far an wide to others who want to believe the same because it’s a national fight, and one needs to be well-armed against the enemy. Global Marxists have brainwashed 97% of hedge fund managers and everyone who uses them and all those who claim to care about the economy – brainwashed them into thinking Americans should give up all their wealth so that people in Timbuktu can have gold-plated butter knives.
Makes sense to me.
This doesn’t: “Instead of the 7 – 12 mm annual sea level rise the PIK projected in 2013, a recent study appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters in April 2017 corrected the satellite measured sea level rise downwards from 3.3 mm annually to just 3.0 mm over the past 24 years – or less than half what PIK models projected.”
What is meaningful about this comparison of now vs. a prediction 82 years in the future? This is the kind of statement that doesn’t really say much but gives an impression in order to mislead.
(NOTE that this is a correction downward. Isn’t that against the Rules of Corrupt Science that any data correction must show more climate change, not less? It must be a strategic move to trick Skeptics into thinking the science is legitimate. Brilliant!)
But seriously, whether the sea level rise is accelerating is an open question right now, so why the hype? It’s rising, that’s clear. The fact that it’s rising at a rate that can’t be accounted for by glacial melt is evidence that it is also warming.
There should be a term equivalent to alarmism, but for the reaction to whatever people imagine the alarmists won’t like. Contralarmism?
Kristi ==> If you are not just trolling for the thrill of it (a very common practice of some commenters here — if you are really just trolling, you can stop reading here and save some time), then you might want to spend some time reading about the topic of Sea Level Rise here at WUWT. I have done a series on sea level rise, which, if I may say so, is at least informative and fairly comprehensive. In that series, you will find links to several of my other essays on specific examples of SLR. My essays are not technical in nature, so are a fair easy read. Others, such as Rud Istvan, have done more technical writing.
If you were to read the series, you would see that that the general fact of sea level rise is that there has not been much, if any, change in the rate of sea level rise since record keeping began. Claims to the contrary are not based on sound foundations. The field is quite young and still trying to find its scientific way.
Of the major sea level scientists, there are a few that publish papers saying “there really hasn’t been much SLR at all, really”. Nils-Axel Mörner is one of these.
Even the major US agencies that publish sea level rise rates — NOAA and NASA/JPL disagree about the current rate of rise: One says 3.2 mm/yr one says 2.8 mm/yr. That’s a 12-14% difference and they use the same raw satellite data — I hope you can see the significance of that. So when some individual researcher, or some small group of researchers, claim to have “found” a sudden acceleration…..smaller than that 12-14% difference — it is not a radical idea to suggest that their new finding might just be a difference of calculation — not a difference in actual sea surface height change over time.
If you read up on SLR in general, you will find that the figures reported for SLR — those numbers in millimeters per year — are not really how much the surface of the sea(s) rose in the last year at all — but an “index” of how much the sea surface height might have risen given ideas of how much ice has melted, how much the Earth’s crust has shifted that might have changed the volume of the sea basins — and a number of other things that are not actually related to measured sea surface height changes — all added to the changes in sea surface height “calculated” (not measured).
It is not an easy topic. Good luck with it.
Kristi Silber provides a few more comments after your challenge that indicates to me she has zero interest in actually looking at this subject in any way that might actually challenge her beliefs or open her eyes to another point of view.
I predict with a 100% certainty that Kristi won’t look at any of those links you have provided.
“But seriously, whether the sea level rise is accelerating is an open question right now, so why the hype?”
Of course that’s my very point above with SLR off Tasmania for one and a half centuries recently being one nineteenth that for 8000 years in the past as measured by Hallett Cove geology nearby in South Australia. Do you really believe the SLR off SA was exactly the average of 16.25mm/yr for every decade or century for that eight millenia? Why then the hype now in spending billions on fickle unreliable power generators and the delusion that we’ll run modern transport on the same unreliables plus electrochemical storage?
As you say so clearly and eloquently why the hype? Can you explain why these dooms-dayers are hyperventilating so much over so little for such a short period? Are they delusional, technically illiterate or just plain lying to me or some combination of all three?
0.07 +/- 0.02mm/yr ? … and THAT’s not junk ? Okay, if you all say so.
What do your numbers refer to?
I think the photos are kind of cool. Scientists aren’t a bunch of guys in lab coats with pocket protectors – not all of them, anyway. You are so willing to think the 97% are abominable, you’d say the guy takes himself too seriously if he did. Either way, he’s still considered the enemy.
The photo shows he likes taking pictures of himself? What kind of reasoning is that, Anthony?
Is it really necessary to be insulting about something personal like this? Is it part of the climate debate to make fun of individual scientists, Anthony? Is that in the user’s manual for the propaganda machine? Or is it just giving your readers what they want?
I suppose I should watch my tongue, or I’ll get banned. I’m just so tired of hearing scientists castigated.
What is this 97% thing you keep mentioning?
EH, probably this one; John Cook et al 2013 –
“We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
He should not have his back to the sea; rogue waves and all.
“ necessary to be insulting ”
If a researcher has a photo that shows evidence of sea level rise, why not show it and explain,
His grand kids might like to see a picture of him showing him in unidentified water up to his butt . . .
To me it is some sort of stunt that doesn’t work.
Kristi, can you give a good rational for this photo?
The second one appears to be on a wave-cut platform.
His clothing and lack thereof, suggests this is a photo-op, of no significance.
None of this is of concern regarding a link between CO2, global warming, and redesigning modern economic societies — cue Christiana Figueres.
Not sure if this post from today has already been added to the discussion:
http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/04/world-leading-authority-sea-level-absolutely-stable-poor-quality-data-from-office-perps-ipcc-false/#sthash.EYhicXRO.dpbs
Interesting argument that there has been no increase in sea level after doing research in Fiji. Those Fijians must be really stupid to build their villages where there is regular flooding from king tides.
Darwin believed in 1842 that Fiji was affected by subsidence. Scientists have been writing about the problem ever since. They’ve had that sinking feeling for a long, long time, well before the IPCC was a gleam in anybody’s eyes.
““We started noticing the effects of climate change in our village a long time ago; back in 1956”
http://fijisun.com.fj/2014/08/20/vunidogoloa-relocation-mooted-in-the-50s/
That far back?
Your attempt at implying a drowning village proves CO2 apocalypse is real is historically uninformed.
Check the archaeology if drowned and flooded sites.
Additionally, blaming climate for geological subsidence is clise to magical thinking.
Two more papers to look at:-
Watson, P.J., 2016. Acceleration in US Mean Sea Level? A New Insight using Improved Tools. Journal of Coastal Research, 32(6), pp.1247-1261.
Watson, P.J., 2017. Acceleration in European Mean Sea Level? A New Insight Using Improved Tools. Journal of Coastal Research, 33(1), pp.23-38.
reference ==> The second of those two papers. “Acceleration in European Mean Sea Level? A New Insight Using Improved Tools” by Phil J. Watson, states “Key findings are that at the 95% confidence level, no consistent or compelling evidence (yet) exists that recent rates of rise are higher or abnormal in the context of the historical records available across Europe, nor is there any evidence that geocentric rates of rise are above the global average. It is likely a further 20 years of data will distinguish whether recent increases are evidence of the onset of climate change–induced acceleration.” published in the Journal of Coastal Research.
Looks like Stephan Rahmstorf managed to find a lake with a slope on it.
The ability of climate scientists is clearly not something that should be taken lightly.
as a novice on th e matter of sea level- its a complicated picture – water ceases to expand at 4C and is at its maximum expansion at 0C – for the purposes of climate since water has a high heat capacity, the surface matters – but for the volume of water temperature- the kilometres deep seas aren’t climate dependent, and likely have a wide range of temperatures globally which change regularly, making the rise, fall fluctuations impossible to trace..
Other than that -certain moorings, like those in Istanbul bays, and here in London the Tower – show the same level today
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tower+of+london+picture&client=opera&hs=DTE&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipouOV243ZAhUiD8AKHXldBOwQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=970#imgrc=i6e4Q0Msu7fKfM:
as from it’s early ancestry
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tower+of+london+early+picture&client=opera&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CelOq0L55_1raIjjPgP3YD3SV1-8nwSXgJJa3tM8pPTq_1ejYpDoSel14VHpU7hFJ6GJdS2rIHCmyfsz50Wtd2y7vN7ioSCc-A_1dgPdJXXEbIYa4uerK4fKhIJ7yfBJeAklrcRwTQ_1oOxTWuoqEgm0zyk9Or96NhF_1oQDl1x8Q9SoSCSkOhJ6XXhUeEb11E6NenoXBKhIJlTuEUnoYl1IR6aPaBaFTV8cqEgnasgcKbJ-zPhEuU47tCXSqUSoSCXRa13bLu83uEQ0Z8K6fKTm-&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjryuDe243ZAhWSHsAKHQXMBU4Q9C8IHw&biw=1920&bih=970&dpr=1#imgrc=7yfBJeAklrdZkM:
Some basics of geology:
Oceanic crust (mostly basalt) is denser and thinner than continental crust (granite , schist e.t.c). Therefore, continental crust is more “buoyant”
Secondly: Continental shelves are mostly sedimentary basins. These gradually subside to provide accommodation for incoming terrestrial sediments. Without this process there would be no hydrocarbons. They require burial of 2-4 km to mature. Some basins are 10’s of KM thick in sediments. Fine sediments also reach well beyond continental shelf
Hypothesizing on “sinking seabeds” is a venture into a minefield. It is extremely complex and (I am sure) has never been measured
Regards
M
The Warmists made a prediction, and it failed? Unthinkable!
“The Warmists made a prediction, and it failed? Unthinkable!”
They did …. trouble is it isn’t projected to happen yet…..
Again (from above).
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/262263718_fig4_Global-average-projections-of-sea-level-rise-relative-to-1990-based-on-the-IPCC-AR4
From the above graph the amount of rise projected by the IPCC from 1990 to 2020 is ~10cm.
At the current rate of SLR (~3mm/yr) we would get 9cm rise
So the IPCC has barely projected an acceleration of SLR at present based on it’s AR4 report.
Like I said the IPCC has not projected an acceleration in SLR (one that could be gleaned via data anyway) in this current time-frame.
Which is why the likes of Zwally do not contradict the IPCC in that SLR lies in the future, one when the rate of lower lying melt in Greenland and Antarctica exceeds the accumulation of snow in the interior due the increase of WV as the world warms.
1.5 mm/yr
The sad truth is that data, the scientific method, honesty and integrity have little bearing on many of the climate faithful.
They have their faith in the CO2 climate apocalyose and the fire that faith generates in their hearts.
Data based studies that conflict with this faith are ignored or rejected. Skeptics, despite their proven track record, are vilified.
to me the sea level rise acceleration debate can be reduced in a following analogy:
it’s often looked as a bathtub gilled with water that is slowly warmed up and where glacier melt is the tap that is dripping in it. the more melt the more the tap drips the faster the tub level rises.
however i don’t see oceans as a static tub: discharges of sediments, under water volcanoes, coral reef growths, tectonic movements are constantly “changing the shape and volume of the tub”
imho there are a lot of forces operating when you talk about MSLR we can’t even pinpoint what exactly contributes to the current rise all i read are estimates based on the theory. (pro CAGW or not i leave that topic deliberately out of sight)
pure fact is: when your tub changes form and volume you can’t say how much rise the dripping tap is causing as your level would rise and fall even without a dripping tap. it all comes to how your tub is “changing”
that’s the only thing i see as “error” (better sais mistake of judgment): we make a trend out of an ever changing dynamic system and think of it as balanced but as everything is variable (sun, earth’s crust, weather systems,…) why do we “pretend” to say “this is normal, and that isn’t normal?”
sea levels will rise and will fall. the rate of rise and fall will NEVER be constant it will always be variable. Same with temperature, same with glaciers,… In the end we only can adapt to what nature serves us….
Well said! I have always laughed the idea that there is any sort of “normal” for any climatic or geologic condition! As a geologist, the concept of scale is always on my mind. The Earth orbits an incredibly hot fusion reactor in the sky. The Earth is a ridiculously huge planet that has existed for a ridiculously long time. Humans occupy an incredibly small portion of said planet. Humans have existed for a hilariously short time frame on said planet. And yet we control the temperature and climate? Yeah. Sure. Ok.
+1,000
As L of the D says, “well said.”
I’m tempted to throw in a great movie line that sums it all up – from Godzilla (2014):
“The arrogance of man is assuming that man is in control of nature, and not the other way around.”
I would like to thank all you gentlemen (and ladies) for your comments. I’ve read all the comments down to the bottom and, as a layman, return to the conclusion that there is, no “settled” in science, and if there was, it is not science. Hooboy, this has been some mother load of mental gymnastics, but I remain grateful that you argue the toss. As a ‘lurker’ I revel in the debate, but lean distinctly to being a ‘skeptic’ of the BS being fostered on us by the CAGW crowd. If they are right, then let them argue it on the merits, the weeds is where I lurk. Show me the money! Even NickS, if I’m not wrong, (and I follow Nick’s comments with enthusiasm) suggested that it’s up in the air, which is no small admission. He’s coming around. Come on Nick, you can admit it, you’re among friends here. Big hugs. We understand your need for an intervention, it’s why you’re here, right?
It would be interesting if the author of the graph with the “Polynomial Fit” (with r^2=0.94) showed the equation of the polynomial. If this was a second-order (quadratic) equation and the X^2 coefficient was negative, this would prove a decelerating trend.
As for the tilted photo of Stephan Rahmstorf wading up to his waist fully clothed, the water only has very small waves, and the background shows a forested hill behind him. This is more typical of an inland lake than the ocean, so there probably aren’t even tides, much less sea level rise, in that location!
The rise of sea that matters most
Is that which happens at the coast
On oceans far to west or east
Those millimeters matter least
Wow! that was/is quite a duel… I guess we know what happened to Atlantis now… did anyone take account of all that mud being dumped into the oceans by Ole Miss, the Amazon, Niger, Ganges et al? ..and I thought Muddy Waters was a Jazz musician not the cause of Sea Level Rise.
Cheers
Bahamamike
The proper link to Stephan’s annotated portrait photos is http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/stefan_rahmstorf_foto_portraits.html What a laugh, well worth a look! Especially that Financial Times magazine cover!!
As a photographer I have to admit they are good photos by classy photographers, though. Mark Steinmetz for National Geographic! Benno Kraehahn for Vanity Fair! And Rax – a famous Arctic photographer. These are the kind of people that get an assignment by a magazine and approach the job with a clear concept of what the photo will look like – the person photographed doesn’t get much of a say in this. You really should acknowledge these photographers and pay them their regular publication fee. It is tough nowadays to feed a family as a photographer, with media using more and more cheap stock photos. (I know, I gave up on being a pro photographer.)