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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?