Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The United Nations has just warned the world that last year sea level rise hit an unprecedented 3.7mm.
Climate change is making the seas rise faster than ever, UN warns
28 March 2019
By Adam Vaughan
Sea levels across the world are rising faster than ever, the United Nations has warned, meaning we urgently need to increase action on climate change.
In a report released on Thursday, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a UN agency, painted a dire picture of all the key indicators of global warming.
The last four years were the warmest on record, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are at record levels and rising, and a global average sea level rise of 3.7 millimetres in 2018 outstripped the average annual increase over the past three decades.
The findings in the group’s annual State of the Climate report will bolster efforts by António Guterres, the UN secretary-general, to make governments commit to more ambitious carbon cuts at a landmark summit in September.
“There is no longer any time for delay,” wrote Guterres in a foreword to the report.
Last year was the fourth warmest on record, bringing the global temperature 1°C warmer on average than before the industrial revolution.
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2198091-climate-change-is-making-the-seas-rise-faster-than-ever-un-warns/
…
The WMO Press Release is available here, the actual report is available here.
Of course the report predicts more rapid sea level rise in the future. From page 16 of the report:
Over the period January 1993 to December 2018, the average rate of rise was 3.15 ± 0.3 mm yr-1, while the estimated acceleration was 0.1 mm yr-2.
Even if the UN estimate is correct, starting from 3.15mm per year this would result in a sea level rise of around:
d = vt + 0.5at2
d = 3.15 x 80 + 0.5 x 0.1 x 802
d = 572mm or just under 2ft of sea level rise by the end of the century.
I hope you all have your coastal evacuation plans ready. If this unprecedented rate of sea level rise per year continues, our children’s children might have to deal with 2ft of additional sea level by the end of this century. How will our grandchildren or great grandchildren cope with economic burden of constructing an extra foot or two of sea wall?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not seeing it.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2018rel1-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-retained
Yep. In fact NOAA has been revising their long term trend (measured by satellite) downward over the last year or so from a high of 3.4 mm/yr to 3.3 then 3.2 and now 3.1 mm/yr. Apparently the U.N. isn’t au fait with the latest data which shows the opposite of what they claim. Sea level rise appears to be slowing, not accelerating.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
Of course tide gauge data shows a lower rate of sea level rise and the slowing is likely due to the rebound from the large El Niño of 2016, but that’s far too technical for the simplified and perverse worldview of alarmists.
When you have a satellite radar with a wavelength of 2.5 cm, you cannot measure 0.1 mm accuracy. You just take two measurements, get the difference, divide by time, and run out as many irrelevant decimal places as you like. So for the Jason satellite series, sea level rise has never been observed.
Single pulse accuracy is 1.2 meters. 1000 pulse accuracy is 4.7 cm.
“1000 pulse accuracy is 4.7 cm.”
Hardly as both the satellite and the Earth have move between pulses.
You have 1000 pulse measurements across a line in the sea NOT at one spot. Can it indicate the sea level hight — sort of, probably but not particularly accurately as you have pointed out.
Now factor-in all those lunar and terrestrial gravitational effects on the sea levels, and things really start to get iffy.
Assuming an unbiased estimator, then with single pulse accuracy of 1.2 meters, 1000 pulses would have an accuracy of 1.2 mm. Estimators of a mean scale in accuracy as 1 over the number of samples.
Estimates of the standard deviation of a measurement, on the other hand, scale as 1 over the square root of the number of samples, which would be 3.7 cm if the 1.2 meters is the standard deviation of the standard deviation of the estimate.
Donald
I’d like to see how you calculated that number. I would like to know the sigma 1 uncertainty of the result for 5 and for 1000 measurements.
Does the calculation include a test to see if the 1000 measurements have a Normal distribution?
The Jason satellite work is an amazing inspiration for remote sensing students. I do feel they should communicate more “about the numbers”, not just the numbers.
Radar ranging takes millions of “measurements”. Your act of recording a dozen of them, and then making the decision to record a thousand of them instead, does not make it allowable for you to state that your measurement is more accurate. Its about a second year statistics comprehension quiz question.
Topex to Jason 1 drift is 100 mm. Jason 1 to Jason 2 drift is 75 mm. Each one is successively increasing the sea level reported by that amount.
Where are the university professors that teach physics and chemistry when it comes to criticizing measurement calculations. They would not let their students get away with ignoring significant digits and error budgets. Why do we never hear any criticisms from them about government agencies and U.N. agencies who massacre the very techniques and scientific application of measurement they teach? They should be ashamed!
If you take a single measurement, then your accuracy is limited. If you take multiple measurements, your measurements will display a distribution, that becomes more and more accurately centered around the true mean. This is true even if you round off your measurements.
The problem with the satellite measurements is that they are returning an unknown systematic error, which may be from adjustments made for estimated water vapor.
Steve O
The fundamental problem is that with SL and temperatures, you are not measuring the same thing multiple times. In the case of SL, one is measuring a range of heights that are perturbed over time by the tides, on top of which is superimposed ‘noise’ resulting from winds and low-pressure systems transiting the radar footprint. Where is the report of the standard deviation on that annual distribution? Precision and accuracy are related, but they are really two different problems. 1,000-pulse PRECISION may be 4.2 cm, but that doesn’t address the issue of systemic bias resulting from errors in the known altitude of the satellite, nor does it address the influences of tides, winds, and atmospheric pressure.
Multiple measurements of a chaotic surface actually increase the width of the distribution, even though they may seem to close in on an average. It’s not really possible to reduce the uncertainty through multiple measurements.
A trivial example: There’s no distribution around a single measurement but there is with 2 and more with 3.
A visual example:
Terrestrial telescopes observe stars with long exposure times to increase the number of photons observed. But they have to contend with the chaotic atmospheric fluctuations. The longer the exposure the blurrier the image becomes. This can only be eliminated by putting telescopes on high mountains or in space, not by increasing observational samples.
Wrong, you can only reduce random error through multiple measurements. You cannot reduce systematic or instrumental error. And in the end you must take square root of squares of all your error types, so the total error cannot be smaller than the instrument resolution.
I suspect satellite radar is using pulse compression, which can achieve much higher resolutions.
It is just fascinating how “sea level” is presumed to be a thing that can be measured at all. It is like measuring the level of a boiling pot of water. To “measure” it requires dampening or you cannot get any reading that is meaningful.
Also 0.3mm/y of that “rise” is a fictitious GAIA adjustment which assumes that the ocean basins are getting deeper. Even if true, that has ZERO effect on actual sea levels at any coast in the world.
The 3.7mm figure is given as 2017-2017 : a one year rise, ie. it is noise not a long term, underlying rise which can be related to “climate change”.
UN are getting more and more desperate that their power grab is failing. They disingenuously present a one year wiggle in statement about “climate”.
So when you have a noisy signal and you take the average over 30y , probably something like 50% of the individual year-to-year changes with “outstrip” the long term average. The other 50% will “understrip” the average.
Next time the wiggle goes downwards will their “State of the Climate” report give us the great news that that year’s sea level rise understripped the average annual increase over the past three decades?
Call me cynical but some how I doubt it.
Greg, the desperation comes from arising expectation that doing nothing about CO2 will show there is nothing catastrophic in “climate change”.
If they can get even a faulty agreement like half the Paris Accord in place, then they can take credit for a cooling period that appears about to take place anyway
I want to add, that it’s nice to know you guys and gals didn’t waste your money on a college degree! I have 3 girls and all three have art degrees. I’ve spent over $500K on them. It cost me a lot of money, so we’ll see, just how well they do.
I have enough left over to hopefully keep my 1994 Lexus running! Lol!
Jim, none of the three worked to help pay their way?
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
ground data says 1.6 mm year
Latitude
“ground data says 1.6 mm year”
Maybe you mean, like so many others, the rate for 1880-present?
The tide gauge rate you can obtain from the PSML data for 1993-2018 is about 3.2 mm/yr.
Again, a 25-year period (1993-2018) does not capture longer cyclical period changes. What are the past SLR cyclical changes? Multi-decadal periods up or down?
My pontoon is ready and waiting. Two by two we will march on board. Ships A-HOY!
Sea level has been rising for 200,000 years and will continue. I don’t exactly know how much rise since then, but 140 meters maybe? (I’m the least expert in the world.) probably why ancient civilizations are discovered under water. It’s a decent guess we’ll get about 5” of rise this century. As long as Greenland stays inside the Arctic Circle where it’s pretty darn cold, I expect. I’ve never been to Greenland, but seen pictures of it – it looks cold. I do know, it has 2,000’ of ice at its center. Again…seems like a lot of ice. According to Mario at mariobuildreps.com and his exceptional team of mathematicians, it will take about 4,000 years for Greenland to be devoid of ice (a great website, I might add). Not my problem…I just want to wake up tomorrow and pay my taxes! Lol
Nils-Axel Mörner says that the raw signal from Jason satellites is zero, and that the 3mm rise consists entirely of adjustments. In any case, Jason accuracy is 4cm, so the correct answer is always 0±4cm. Everyone who has studied physics knows – you are never allowed to ditch instrumental inaccuracy. It can’t be reduced regardless how many times you do the measurements – only the random error can be reduced in this way.
Erast Van Doren
That should be 4cm precision, not accuracy. The accuracy really isn’t known. Comparison to tidal gauges suggest the accuracy is very low.
Please see the following:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/12/are-claimed-global-record-temperatures-valid/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/23/the-meaning-and-utility-of-averages-as-it-applies-to-climate/
Speaking of accuracy, is there any relevant information on the positional accuracy of the Jason satellites themselves? The assumption is that they are in precise fixed orbits controlled or monitored by DORIS, but if measurements down to fractions of a millimeter are being claimed we surely have to know the orbital accuracy as well (presumably also to fractions of a millimeter) and whether further compensatory corrections have been made. Not my subject, but interested to know if there are any astrodynamicists out there.
If you are born today you will be 80 before you need to move you beach house. But you don’t actually need to be a “Climate Scientist” whatever that is suppose to mean, to correlate the recent news of Greenland’s reversal and Ice cap growth in conjunction with reversing sea level rise base on recent NASA data. Yet so few people use common sense.
After retiring early I looked into getting a degree in Climate Science but could’t find a nearby college that offered that education. Strange when considering all the bluster about who is qualified to speak out on Climate Science. Where do all those voters come from who make up this 97%. I simply wanted a vote but couldn’t figure out how to register. Seems it is a secret society voting thing.
These people are so transparently dishonest that it is an insult to everybodys’ intelligence. Just think about how “dumbed down” a person has to be to suffer from climate change anxiety as reported in an alternate post.
One problem is that few of the millions or even billions of people who might be exposed to the statement “The sea rose 3.7 mm last year!” can even picture 3.7mm, or comprehend how minuscule such a rise would be, even if were true. But they sense they should be alarmed.
Most domestic panes of window glass are 4mm thick.
Sasha
António Guterrez was sick the day they did mats at his school. He thinks it’s 3.7 many metres.
LOL
Are the foreign panes thicker?
John Bell
I strongly suspect that the UN pains in the @ss are thick.
Less than half the width of 8 mm film. Less than 1/4 the width of 16 mm film. A smidge over the width of 35mm film.
Any questions?
OOOOOPssss! That should be “a smidge over 10% of the width of 35mm film”.
Sorry. Did not proofread first. My bad.
Jason 3 says garbage to that.
The article linked just gives the number it says nothing of the source … anyone know the source of this junk.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/is-satellite-altimeter-based-sea-level-rise-acceleration-from-a-biased-water-vapor-correction/
Couldn’t predict too much else the UN will need to build boat docks or similar around the UN Building in NY.
If you wonder what I am talking about check out my blog.
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/un-headquarters-and-usd1-2-billion-upgrade-and-rising/
Cheers
Roger
I still think we ought to give property to Trump and let him build condos, and ship the UN to Central Africa, so the stripey pants set can see what real problems are like.
It is junk…the coastal gauges don’t reflect an increase…this is pure rubbish, per normal UN standard operating procedures. Even if it did tic up a 10th of a millimetre or two, who cares.
Did they average that 3.7 mm globally or how did they arrive at that number? SLR is local, and in some places is going down as land rises. Or did they just pick one place on the planet where it is rising at 3.7 mm because the land is subsiding? But they get their headline and that is how they win with the great unwashed masses and the people who feverishly want to believe in this alarmist climate religion of doom. There is a lot of money and power at stake over the citizenry in all this.
Fixed bridges on the IntraCoastal waterway have a clearance of 65’, (some are higher) and sailing boats designed for US East coast sailing generally have a mast height of around 64’6” max. Add a VHF antenna to the top and you tend to ping the bridge. The bridge height was fixed decades ago so if the sea level rise is as much as were being told then soon few boats will fit under the bridges, or maybe sea level doesn’t affect the ICW!
One man’s dystopian marine future …
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/waterworld-1995
Is another man’s adventure!
I look forward to my great grandchildren being born with webbed toes.
Hmmmm, look for Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group to update their webpage
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
that hasn’t been updated for well over a year.
They don’t dare because Jason 3 data is flat they will have to published a reduced rise .. from memory it will drop to like 2.9mm/year.
No a message they want to post.
It’s the University of Colorado.
“Last year was the fourth warmest on record, bringing the global temperature 1°C warmer on average than before the industrial revolution.”
Even if this claim was true and there had not been the widespread reduction of historical temperature records, no man or beast would have noticed a 1 degree C increase (or decrease) in temperature, even if it had occurred overnight. The people in the pre-Industrial era would have been greatly encouraged to hear that their great-great-great-great-grandchildren would be spared the grinding winters that they had themselves suffered.
Looking at António Guterrez, Secretary-General of the United Nations, I would have to say that I would not have bought a used car from him. With no scientific backing or quoted data, a claim of a rise of 3.7-mm. in the seas, is quite vacuuous. There has been no such increase in high or low tide records in Sydney Harbour last year. Where is their evidence?
The BBC were at it again last night in their Blue Planet series of CAGW alarmism. Accurate quote “The temperature of the world’s oceans has risen by one degree in the last 50 years.” (They usually use Centigrade in their pronouncements, but 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit would have been “better”. They never say Celsius of Kelvin because they know it would have no mental impact. )
An unforgivable and nonsensical generalisation, again. If I had the time I’d do the heat calculation, but I have better things to do and too few years left to pander to their corporate idiocy.
Is it just me, but does eyeballing the graphs indicate rising sea levels have been leveling over the past few years?
Satellites with an accuracy in the centimeters (at best) measuring SLR to the tenth of a millimeter? I’ve read the various apologia, but it is still all arm-waving.
To the best of my knowledge, tidal gauges (adjusted for local land rise and fall) show no such acceleration, much less the 3+ mm/yr rise derived from satellite measurements. Will the UN IPCC’s AR6 sort this out?
They have been levelling because Jason 3 has seen very little rise. Jason 3 processes waves height differently to the old Jason 1 & 2 and what seems to have been happening is wind strength around the world had increased and thus you got increased wave height. As Jason 3 doesn’t see the increased wave heights the sea level rise data has flattened.
Exactly. Ask an alarmists – can you measure thermal expansion of a table with a tape measure? Nope. The expansion is in the range of a 0.1mm, while tape accuracy is ca. 1mm. Doesn’t matter how many times or how many tables you measure – the answer will always be zero.
Australia has a long running coastal sea level monitoring program with 16 standardised sites dotted around the coast. If the WMO global data is correct then Australia is being inundated 27% faster than the rest of the globe with an average annual rate of 4.7mm/yr.
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60201/IDO60201.201902.pdf
This data is corrected for ground movement.
There is no acceleration. The rate was 4.75mm/yr a decade ago. So good news if you have an existing waterfront or bad news if you are on elevated ground and living in hope of rapid sea level rise to attain a waterfront.
As always all the acceleration is anywhere you don’t have a sensor or direct measurement 🙂
Given their impeccable reputation for honest nonpartisan data-keeping I’m sure the BOM stats are correct for the continent as a whole, however the Sydney tide gauge record from 1890 shows a linear trend of +0.74 mm/yr:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/Sydney-NEW.gif
On the same page @ur momisugly climate4you Fremantle since 1900 on the other side of the continent shows a linear trend of +1.67 mm/yr.
There is a big gap between say +1 mm/yr (splitting the difference) and 4.75 mm/yr.
You don’t actually believe something coming out of BOM?
NOTICE the lack of mention of the +/- 0.4mm error! Also the sample period is three decades only???? What kind of scientists are comming up with this and WHY are scientists not offering themselves up for cross examination. As usual the “bad news” is given by a politician.
Jon Scott
“…lack of mention of the +/- 0.4mm error!”
It isn’t actually an error. It is a range of uncertainty of the nominal measurement. That is, it is a bound on the precision.
Clyde,
I’ve been researching university web pages on significant digits and uncertainty propagation, and one of them made your point. The author had a bit of a sense of humor, too. He said “error” was a “terrible” word, and that’s why it’s called The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and not “The Heisenberg Error Principle.”
Thirty years on the high side of an approximately seventy year cycle? In a world recovering from the depths of the Little Ice Age?
Ignore the bigger picture, and focus on the fear factor.
BECAUSE as with all other land based sea level monitoring NO allowance is made for isostasy. This is nothing less than wilful. That is why the northern coast of Australia is “sinking” quicker than else where. Nothing to do with sea level it is land level change!
“The United Nations has just warned the world that last year sea level rise hit an unprecedented 3.7mm …”.
=========================================================
The linear trend 2005 – 2017 was +3.81 mm/yr so the supposed rate of sea level rise, according to satellite data, must be slowing:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SeaLevelSatellites-NEW.gif
Chris Hanley
“The linear trend 2005 – 2017 was +3.81 mm/yr so the supposed rate of sea level rise, according to satellite data, must be slowing…”
Certainly it isn’t. Because if it was, then the linear estimate for 2005-2017 would have to be lower than that for 1993-2017. But… 3.81 seems to be a little bit higher than 3.16, isn’t it?
Please have a look at the picture you yourself referred too…
I was being a bit mischievous.
What a beautiful word…
3.7 mm! We’re doomed!
PAY NO ATTENTION to the ~3,000mm sea level rise from tropical storm surge making landfall, behind the curtain.
Gah! No! You mean we only have what, 80 ish years to built a 3 to 4 brick high sea wall to save us !? Lordy me I might need a bit of a lie down.
Most of your houses will have been replaced by then … in any city try a guess at how many +100 year old buildings exist.
For good old New York there is actual data to look at
https://www.citylab.com/life/2013/09/map-shows-ages-million-buildings-new-york-city/6932/
In good old London, England, most of the housing stock is considerably older than 100 years.
The Palace of Westminster (the seat of our government) dates back to the 11th Century.
Interestingly it’s built on the banks of the River Thames and is in such a state of disrepair that it will soon undergo major refurbishment costing some £5bn. Judging by past government projects that’s liable to be £10bn by the time they are finished (I kid you not).
Being that SLR is ‘accelerating’ that would seem an awful waste of money as at full tide the river is mere feet below the level of the Palace which suggests one of two things:
1. Wild assessment of SLR are just so much crap and the British government is well aware of it.
2. Despite supporting the grossly expensive Climate Change Act, our government officials don’t know what it means (entirely likely).
If it helps visualize it this is New York 108 years ago
Wonderful video. Anyone who likes it should check out Jack Finney’s 1970 best-seller, “Time and Again,” a time-travel trip back to 1882 NY City.
Here in Australia, we had a science commentator claim 90 metres-a metre a year!! The guy was out by a factor of over 100! 2 orders of magnitude. Going by a logorithmic progression, since it would not be a millimetre every 3 days at this rate starting now, the rate would be a millimetre a day by year 2100. This is clearly a fantasy.I am calling this one-it is clearly a load of bovine excrement. To claim that one high reading is proof positive is NOT science.
A good appreciation of what globally happens is given by NOAA’s tide gauge data trends:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
Click on ‘Global’ to have them all visible. As we can see, the majority of the gauges show a trend below 3 mm/yr. Notable exceptions are US’ east coast and East Asia, especially Japan.
What would be of further interest of course is to collect all the data and to see which places clearly show an acceleration in consecutive trends.
when corrected for local land subsidence (high accuracy long-series GPS makes this possible to do very accurately) sea level is only rising at about 1-2mm around the globe (eg in antipodean locations as far afield as Dunedin in NZ and New Lynn in UK both are at ~1.1mm/year. The Satellite data is unsupportable. Given large known thermosteric sea water expansion contribution (~1mm/year) and also large ground water extraction component (up to 0.5mm/year) it means that ice caps are not in fact shrinking to any significant degree.
Most inconvenient
But but … the Carteret atoll needs to be evacuated! It’s was halfway done already in 2015, so surely that and next Tuvalu (“Tuvalu is the most vulnerable country to the effects of climate change” -the UN). /sarc
[I don’t want to sound harsh. Should Tuvalu start disappearing into waves (which it is not doing as of now), I’m all in for adapting to sea level rise. I even support modest economical support in building sea walls, moving people to better locations, and developing economy of Tuvalu so that it can solve the challenges. Carteret’s example shows though, that some places are pretty difficult to help. An unmitigated population bomb voids any attempts to improve living conditions in absence of education, contraceptives, heath care and working economy.
But don’t talk shit about Tuvalu disappearing into ocean when there is no real sign of that happening.
Sea-level at Funafuti, capitol of Tuvalu:
(1994-2018)
(1978-1999)
As a matter of fact the sea-level at Tuvalu seems to be exceptionally stable, except for brief periods of very low sea-level during strong Ninos.
My understanding was that Tuvalu and most Pacific atolls have actually gained land mass over the last couple of decades due to wave action etc. Sorry, can’t quote the reference but most likely an article on http://www.notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com They’re not disappearing, they’re actually getting bigger.
Hugs
It’s difficult not to agree, especially when one never visited the corner in question.
The gauge ‘1839’ at Funafuti shows 4 mm/yr for 1994-2018, and 3.5 when excluding “sea-level during strong Ninos”.
Thus the layman can only say: “It looks like everywhere else”… and “Time will tell”.
The 3.7 mmyr-1 value for 2018 was obtained by fitting a quadratic function to the sea-level data (only satellite era and only satellite data, and probably including a more or less fictitious “GIA correction”).
I. e. the acceleration was obtained by assuming that there is an acceleration, not by actual measurement. There is nothing in the report to show that this quadratic function was a better fit than e. g. a linear regression. And of course the data are entirely unsullied by actual measurements of relative sea-level changes.
tty
Sorry: you have it all wrong.
1. The first line you read when accessing
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2018_rel1/sl_ns_global.txt
is: Date 2018_rel1 GMSL w/ seasonal signals and GIA removed (mm)
2. Here is a comparison of that data with
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
for the sat period 1993-2017:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/165M66btxeC5apsmo-h3XNgCBB4S_rEGI/view
3. Successive OLS estimates till 2017 for the sat altimetry:
1993-2017: 3.16 ± .02
1998-2017: 3.34 ± .02
2003-2017: 3.46 ± .04
2008-2017: 4.26 ± .06
Acceleration: 0.07 mm / yr². Very low indeed; but what is, is.
3. “And of course the data are entirely unsullied by actual measurements of relative sea-level changes.”
Some valuable proof at hand, tty?
So the ‘acceleration’ is less than the total error band, since at least 2003. Wow! (In what is the highly suspect ability of satellites to measure such small differences at all.)
There is only one sea level that matters and that is what the tide gauges show relative to land. Anything else is irrelevant as far as ‘threats’ go.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/165M66btxeC5apsmo-h3XNgCBB4S_rEGI/view
Anomalies.
You seem to belong to those people still ignoring what anomalies exactly are.
Bindidon
Sorry: you have it all wrong.
Read the WMO report:
https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=5789
Especially p. 16.
It does not use any of the sources you name.
You can find the data actually used here:
http://www.esa-sealevel-cci.org/node/284
Read the text underneath the curve. it says “The curve has been corrected for the GIA effect”.
Any comments?
Oh yes! I sent a data request by email to
Sea Level CCI
So we will see how the sources differ.
“Last year was the fourth warmest on record, bringing the global temperature 1°C warmer on average than before the industrial revolution.”
But before the industrial revolution we were in a cold period. so what is the problem?
Odd. isn’t it. If we went back a true 1C (rather than the 1C supposedly in the ‘data’) we would struggle to feed the world’s population.
As it is despite all the supposedly worsening extreme weather nearly every harvest of every type gets bigger year on year (with the odd local hiccup obviously).
Netherlands is for a large part below sea level. We take extra special notice of it and have been doing so for centuries.
Our sea level, measured by tide gauges, was lower by a whopping 72 mm in 2018. Granted mostly due to wind conditions but no acceleration detected here.
recent report is very clear on that.
https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/Zeespiegelmonitor-2018-final.pdf
I’ve wondered why the satellite used to measure SLR only has a resolution of 2.5cm and not .1mm and then I remembered the prediction made by James Hansen in 1988. If the SLR had been 20 feet as predicted, then the 2.5cm resolution would have been adequate. Just an example of why you have to take scientific predictions with a grain of salt. I mean, you wouldn’t want to build billion dollar desalinization plants in major Australian cities based on a prediction by Tim Flannery that the rains will never return. Or destroy a perfectly good power grid because you think burning coal is going to melt the planet.
Lysenkoism is practised by our governments using failed predictions of prostituted climate scientists. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted on this nonsense that could have been used for better good.
This is where the falsehoods start.
As tenuous an idea as a average global temperature
The report is at:
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/daf3c1527c528609c379f3c08/files/82234023-0318-408a-9905-5f84bbb04eee/Climate_Statement_2018.pdf
Page 16 has sea level in 2018 3.7mm higher than 2017
Sorry but nobody measures a rise in sea level of 3.7mm.
“Sea levels across the world are rising faster than ever, the United Nations has warned, … global average sea level rise of 3.7 millimetres in 2018 outstripped the average annual increase over the past three decades.”
Hmmm. So “ever” means any time over the last three decades. I always wondered how long “ever” was.
This means any list of the best U.S. Presidents “ever” must choose from either George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump.