Guest geological perspective by David Middleton
There have been at least three recent peer-reviewed papers asserting an anthropogenic acceleration in the rate of sea level rise (SLR): Church & White, 2006 (CW06), Church & White, 2011 (CW11) and Nerem et al., 2018 (N18). N18 only covers the satellite era (since 1993) and might actually be correct, albeit irrelevant. The primary culprits in the SLR acceleration scam are CW06 and CW11. Two other recent peer-reviewed papers clearly shoot down the notion of a recent anthropogenic acceleration: Jevrejeva et al., 2008 (J08) and Jevrejeva et al., 2014 (J14). This post will focus on CW11 (updated through 2013) and J14.
J08 and J14 indicate that the acceleration, to the extent there is one, started 150-200 years ago, consistent with the end of neoglaciation and that a quasi-periodic fluctuation (~60-yr cycle) is present. CW06 and CW11 also note the 19th Century acceleration; but also assert a more recent acceleration, presumably due to anthropogenic global warming. This SLR acceleration is, at worst, innocuous.
If this acceleration was maintained through the 21st century, sea level in 2100 would be 310 ± 30 mm higher than in 1990, overlapping with the central range of projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report (IPCC TAR) [Church et al., 2001].
CW06
310 mm from 1990-2100 is less than 3 mm/yr… Not much of an acceleration.
CW11 is about 100 mm lower than J14. For direct comparison I plotted CW11 on the secondary y-axis with a 100 mm offset.
J14 starts 60 years earlier than CW11, capturing the falling sea level at the end of neoglaciation and the Little Ice Age. We can see that J14 and CW11 match up pretty well from 1880-1930 and then again from about 1993 onward; but they are very different from 1930-1993. J14 exhibits an acceleration to 3.2 mm/yr from 1929-1963 and then a deceleration to less than 1 mm/yr from 1963-1993, after which it accelerates back to about 3.2 mm/yr.
CW11 totally misses this quasi-periodic fluctuation.
Which is right?
Three factors generally control the rate of sea level rise and fall:
- Water temperature and salinity changes (steric).
- Cryosphere changes (glacio-eustatic).
- Changes in the configurations of the continents and ocean basins (isostatic).
Isostatic processes are only relevant to globally averaged sea level changes taking place over thousands to millions of years and can be ignored for the purposes of this exercise.
Water temperature and sea level
When water is heated, it expands. When t cools, it contracts. Earth’s average sea surface temperature has generally been rising since the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, the 1600’s. While the sea surface can warm and cool fairly quickly, it takes more time for that heating and cooling to affect deeper waters. A lag between warming and sea level rise should be expected.
J14 matches up very well with sea surface temperature if a 20-year lag is applied to J14.
According to J14, SLR accelerated from 1.8 mm/yr (1882-1915) to 3.2 mm/yr (1929-1963) about 20 years after the onset of the early 20th Century warming period. It then decelerated to less than 1 mm/yr after the onset of the mid 20th Century cooling period.
Vermeer & Rahmstorff, 2009, concluded that a lag of more than 10 years should be expected in the response of sea level to temperature changes. CW06 also noted a ~20-yr lag between temperature change and SLR rate changes.
Between 1930 and 1960, GMSL rises faster than the quadratic curve at a rate of about 2.5 mm yr−1 (Figure 2c), following (with about a 20 year lag) the 1910 to 1940 period of more rapid global temperature rise [Folland et al., 2001].
CW06
J14 exhibits a lagged response to the ~60 year temperature cycle (quasi-periodic fluctuation), CW11 does not. CW11 totally misses the mid-20th century cooling (“The Ice Age Cometh“) effect on SLR. This cooling was so significant that it even halted the rise in atmospheric CO2.
According to MacFarling-Meure:
The stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentration during the 1940s and 1950s is a notable feature in the ice core record. The new high density measurements confirm this result and show that CO2 concentrations stabilized at 310–312 ppm from ~1940–1955. The CH4 and N2O growth rates also decreased during this period, although the N2O variation is comparable to the measurement uncertainty. Smoothing due to enclosure of air in the ice (about 10 years at DE08) removes high frequency variations from the record, so the true atmospheric variation may have been larger than represented in the ice core air record. Even a decrease in the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the mid-1940s is consistent with the Law Dome record and the air enclosure smoothing, suggesting a large additional sink of ~3.0 PgC yr-1 [Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The d13CO2 record during this time suggests that this additional sink was mostly oceanic and not caused by lower fossil emissions or the terrestrial biosphere [Etheridge et al., 1996; Trudinger et al., 2002a]. The processes that could cause this response are still unknown.
[…]
[11] The CO2 stabilization occurred during a shift from persistent El Niño to La Niña conditions [Allan and D’Arrigo, 1999]. This coincided with a warm-cool phase change of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [Mantua et al., 1997], cooling temperatures [Moberg et al., 2005] and progressively weakening North Atlantic thermohaline circulation [Latif et al., 2004]. The combined effect of these factors on the trace gas budgets is not presently well understood. They may be significant for the atmospheric CO2 concentration if fluxes in areas of carbon uptake, such as the North Pacific Ocean, are enhanced, or if efflux from the tropics is suppressed.
MacFarling-Meure et al., 2006
J14’s quasi-periodic fluctuations are clearly consistent with ocean temperatures.
Cryosphere and sea level
There are places on Earth that are so cold that water is frozen solid. These areas of snow or ice, which are subject to temperatures below 32°F for at least part of the year, compose the cryosphere. The term “cryosphere” comes from the Greek word, “krios,” which means cold.
Ice and snow on land are one part of the cryosphere. This includes the largest parts of the cryosphere, the continental ice sheets found in Greenland and Antarctica, as well as ice caps, glaciers, and areas of snow and permafrost. When continental ice flows out from land and to the sea surface, we get shelf ice.
The other part of the cryosphere is ice that is found in water. This includes frozen parts of the ocean, such as waters surrounding Antarctica and the Arctic. It also includes frozen rivers and lakes, which mainly occur in polar areas.
The components of the cryosphere play an important role in the Earth’s climate. Snow and ice reflect heat from the sun, helping to regulate our planet’s temperature. Because polar regions are some of the most sensitive to climate shifts, the cryosphere may be one of the first places where scientists are able to identify global changes in climate.
NOAA
Glacier mass balance is a way to measure changes in the cryosphere. A glacier with a negative mass balance is losing more ice than it gains annually. A glacier with a positive mas balance is gaining more ice than it loses annually.
Global glacier mass balance has been negative since the end of neoglaciation in the mid-1800’s. When glaciers and ice sheets have negative mass balances, much of the meltwater eventually finds its way to the ocean and sea level rises. Over most of the past 150 years, more glaciers have been retreating (negative mass balance) than advancing (positive mass balance).
Another way to measure glacial advance and retreat is by changes in glacier length. Oerlemans, 2005 climate reconstruction was devised from changes in global stacked glacier length. The following graph overlays atmospheric CO2 and northern hemisphere temperatures on Oerlemans’ stacked glacier length plot.
In the extremely unlikely event that the climate models are right, 90% of the ice loss occurred before an anthropogenic fingerprint could be discerned.
We can see that the 20th Century quasi-periodic fluctuation is also present in Oerlemans’ stacked records of glacial length.
CW11, on the other hand, is not even close…
J14’s quasi-periodic fluctuations are clearly consistent with changes in the rates of glacier retreat CW11 is not.
A bizarre claim in Church & White 2006
The quadratic implies that the rate of rise was zero in about 1820 when GMSL was about 200 mm below present day values. This level is consistent with estimates from bench marks carved in rock in Tasmania in 1840 [Hunter et al., 2003] and the height of ancient Roman fish tanks [Lambeck et al., 2004], which implies virtually no long‐term average change in GMSL from the first century AD to 1800 AD.
CW06
That’s simply wrong.
Conclusion
It is plainly obvious that Jevrejeva et al., 2014 is more consistent with climate and cryosphere changes than Church & White, 2011 and, therefore, more likely to be accurate.
I apologize for the total lack of sarcasm in this post and for not finding a clever way to insert horst schist and other geological euphemisms into at least one fracking sentence.
References
Brock, J.C., M. Palaseanu-Lovejoy, C.W. Wright, & A. Nayegandhi. (2008). “Patch-reef morphology as a proxy for Holocene sea-level variability, Northern Florida Keys, USA”. Coral Reefs. 27. 555-568. 10.1007/s00338-008-0370-y.
Church, J. A., and White, N. J. ( 2006). “A 20th century acceleration in global sea‐level rise”. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
Church, J.A., White, N.J., 2011. “Sea-level rise from the late 19th to the early 21st Century”. Surv. Geophys. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1.
Jevrejeva, S., J. C. Moore, A. Grinsted, and P. L. Woodworth (2008). “Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?”. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L08715, doi:10.1029/2008GL033611.
Jevrejeva, S. , J.C. Moore, A. Grinsted, A.P. Matthews, G. Spada. 2014. “Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807”. Global and Planetary Change. %vol 113, 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2013.12.004 https://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/jevrejevaetal2014.php
Ljungqvist, F.C. 2010. “A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia”. Geografiska Annaler: Physical Geography, Vol. 92 A(3), pp. 339-351, September 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-459.2010.00399.x
MacFarling-Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins (2006). “Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP“. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14810, doi:10.1029/2006GL026152.
Moberg, A., D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén. 2005. “Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data”. Nature, Vol. 433, No. 7026, pp. 613-617, 10 February 2005.
Nerem, R. S., B. D. Beckley, J. T. Fasullo, B. D. Hamlington, D. Masters, G. T. Mitchum. “Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Feb 2018, 115 (9) 2022-2025; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1717312115
Oerlemans, J. “Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records”. Science (80-. ). 2005, 308, 675–677, doi:10.1126/science.1107046.
Siddall M, Rohling EJ, Almogi-Labin A, Hemleben C, Meischner D, Scmelzer I, Smeed DA (2003). “Sea-level fluctuations during the last glacial cycle”. Nature 423:853–858 LINK
David Middleton
Some remarks
0. I’m not interested in any discussion concerning CO2’s influence, let alone about how much of the amount of sea level rise is of anthropic character. We all here don’t know anything about that.
*
1. You omit a very important paper:
Reassessment of 20th century global mean sea level rise
Sönke Dangendorf, Marta Marcos, Guy Wöppelmann, Clinton P. Conrad, Thomas Frederikse, and Riccardo Riva
May 22, 2017
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/5946
Their data is here:
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-019-0531-8/MediaObjects/41558_2019_531_MOESM2_ESM.txt
*
2. You write: “CW11 is about 100 mm lower than J14. For direct comparison I plotted CW11 on the secondary y-axis with a 100 mm offset.”
I disagree.
CW11 is not “about 100 mm lower than J14”: the two time series are departures (anomalies) from different means. That is the reason why you see them differing by such a lot.
If you want to correctly compare them, you must shift these anomalies such that they refer to the same baseline (reference period). They may then still differ but for other reasons.
Since Jevrejeva & al. stops at the end of 2009 and satellite altimetry starts with 1993, the best is to compute, for all other time series of interest, the offset of each time series wrt the mean of a reference period all series have in common, e.g. 1993-2009.
Here is a graph whose plots all are based on that common reference period, allowing for a more correct comparison of
– C&W (the CSIRO version including data till 2013)
– Jevrejeva & al.
– Dangendorf & al
– NOAA sat altimetry
and, as an unprofessional outsider:
– my little layman job (considering only raw raw PMSL data, without any VLM or other adjustments):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11XCSd7YE9QwNFLOrp5a86TVGkf8E6oud/view
Now we have a fair comparison (I deliberately omitted in the graph the period before 1880 because of the increasing backward paucity of PMSL data).
*
3. You pretend that Jevrejeva & al. “clearly shoot down the notion of a recent anthropogenic acceleration”.
How can you write that? We just need to read what they themselves write in the conclusion of their most recent paper:
and
The trends in mm/yr for 1970-2008, computed by Excel out of C&W, Dangendorf and my outsider evaluation:
– C&W: 1.97
– Dangendorf: 1.87
– Bin: 1.71
The fact that the acceleration is, in Jevrejeva’s data, less visible over the whole XXth century than in the other data sets is simply due to the fact that it shows a much higher trend at the beginning of the century than all others.
Let us compare, for the different PMSL tide gauge data evaluations, the sequences of trends for the same, here 5-year distant periods (1883-2009, 1888-2009, …, 1993-2009):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OPGBfY2jXeEFJZVIlPEZ_qHxLx68dLyU/view
If there was ‘no acceleration’, the trend of all these consecutive trends would in all cases be equal to… zero, and would be represented by a flat line.
Again: how much man-made has to be integrated in SLR acceleration is – here – not primordial for me.
Fact is that the acceleration exists. That we don’t view it as dramatic is no reason to ignore it.
*
For me as a layman, the best approach is that of Dangendorf & al. Not because it shows lower trends than others. But because their work has shown the highest strength.
Adjusting to a common baseline is the same thing as a static shift. It doesn’t alter fact that J14 matches the cyclical changes SST and glacial length. CW11 doesn’t.
sea level in 2100 would be 310 ± 30 mm higher than in 1990, overlapping with the central range of projections in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report
And according to the most recent Fifth Assessment Report, it overlaps with the lowest range, the RCP2.6 scenario. Here’s the list from AR5:
RCP2.6 – 260 to 550mm
RCP4.5 – 320 to 630mm
RCP6.0 – 330 to 630mm
RCP8.5 – 450 to 820mm
From the article: “According to J14, SLR accelerated from 1.8 mm/yr (1882-1915) to 3.2 mm/yr (1929-1963) about 20 years after the onset of the early 20th Century warming period. It then decelerated to less than 1 mm/yr after the onset of the mid 20th Century cooling period. . .
Figure 6. 45% of the ice loss occurred before 1900, when atmospheric was still below 300 ppm. By 1950, 75% of the ice loss had occurred. Only 25% of the ice loss has occurred since humans allegedly became the primary drivers of climate change. At the time of “The Ice Age Cometh” (1975), 90% of the ice loss had already occurred.”
Thanks for this article, David.
This is more evidence for the 20th Century warming that the fraudulent Hockey Stick chartsters try to erase. That history they don’t like says the climate warmed up from about 1910 to 1940, then cooled from 1940 to 1980, then warmed from 1980 to present. And, lo and behold, CO2 concentrations increase when it is warming (with a lag) and concentrations decrease when it cools, and we have the record in the ice.
Speaking of the “Ice Age Cometh” graphic on the chart: Notice that the fraudulent Hockey Stick chart shows the time of the “Ice Age Cometh” as not particularly cold. Not any colder than recent preceding years. Folks looking at that chart would say, “What Ice Age”?
The Climategate Data Manipulators, in order to erase the look of the warmth of the 1930’s (just as warm as today) they not only had to cool the past but that resulted in the more recent past showing more warming, and that’s why the 1970’s on a Hockey Stick chart doesn’t stand out as particularly cool.
Fraudulent Hockey Stick chart:
And this (below) is the profile the global chart should really have, the one they changed:
Hansen 1999
Notice how the warm 1930’s and the cool 1970’s are clearly shown. And from this, it should be clear just how much they have bastardized the Hockey Stick chart in an effort to fool people into believing we are living in a world that is warmer than any time in human history.
But all you have to do is look at an unmodified chart (from any part of the world) to see that is not true, that it was just as warm less than one hundred years ago, and that’s what the Alarmists don’t want you to see, and that’s why they changed the temperature chart into the Lie we see today, the bastardized Hockey Stick chart.
The only “evidence” the Alarmists have is a Big Lie.
In addition to Water temperature and salinity changes, Cryosphere changes ), and changes in the configurations of the continents and ocean basins, seawater level is affected by position and alignment of major planets, varying distance to Sun and Moon, and the rise and fall of the mid-ocean ridges.
When I hear alarm over sea rise, I check the data from the tide gauge at Fort Denison at Sydney harbour, near the Pacific Ocean, which is now 50-mm above the reading in 1850 A.D. I then go back to sleep.
David,
Cannot follow your talk of rise being lagged after temperature change for reasons related to water depth. View the sea as being like the alcohol or Mercury in a thermometer. No significant late there. Lags require a storage/memory mechanism while the lag happens. What mechanism do you have in mind? Geoff S
“I apologize for the total lack of sarcasm in this post and for not finding a clever way to insert horst schist and other geological euphemisms into at least one fracking sentence.”
David, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
0.0
🙂
If I had just taken a swig of Diet Coke, it would now be splattered all over my monitor… ROTFLMFAO!!!
Great post! Thank you, sir.
Rock hammer for scale. Gneiss touch
Here’s a big list of papers about sea-level rise acceleration (or, rather, the lack of acceleration):
https://www.sealevel.info/papers.html#acceleration
The most dispositive are the three by Houston & Dean (currently #14, #15 & #31).
Burnie in Tasmania since 1952
Possibly, with the eye of a believer, some sea level rise but acceleration ??
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_61220_SLD.shtml
And Port Vila in Vanuatu since 1993
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1841.php
It goes up and it goes down [or maybe that’s Vanuatu going up and going down]
Not a long period but no suggestion from the last 20 years of Vanuatu drowning
GregK
“Possibly, with the eye of a believer, some sea level rise but acceleration ??”
Does it make sense for you to look at a no more than two single gauges? There are over 1,500 of them:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iCIoZqp0ImvktVLUkJ0yNet1DVVafhzG/view
You even could look at 50 of these gauges without seeing any one showing some level rise, let alone its acceleration.
That is the reason why people analyse so many of them, and average their data to a consistent time series.
Here is a comparison, for the period 1970-2009:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j5JXgB9NpvaQwcJRD6h2pEsq_X25FzYu/view
of the data obtained by two groups:
– Jevrejeva & al.
https://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/gslGPChange2014.txt
– Dangendorf & al.
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41558-019-0531-8/MediaObjects/41558_2019_531_MOESM2_ESM.txt
It should be evident that if no acceleration would exist within the two time series, the quadratic terms in the 2nd order polynomials would be equal to zero, and their plots would look like the black line showing the linear trend.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Cartology affirms that relative sea levels were the same or higher than now during the Little Ice Age:
https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/05/cartology-affirms-relative-sea-levels-were-the-same-or-higher-than-now-during-the-little-ice-age/
Interesting that the step-down in global glacier length coincides with Australia’s actual “hottest-evah” period, the ‘Federation-Drought’. Saw-tooth decade-scale steps-up when cooling, decade steps-up plus down when peaked, and similar steps-down when cooling. A pity this graph doesn’t come up to present-day as it looks more interesting. Decade-scale steps-up and down when bottoming-out too?
Either way the ‘now’ end is visually out of step with cAGW’s narrative-o’-doom, but is consistent with natural-variability.
WXcycles
It’s a bit too easy tho show out of context a graph fitting to your personal narrative.
You give here the wrong impression that Johannes Oerlemanns’s meaning would exclusively reduce sea level rise to natural variability.
The best is to cite him:
The paragraph above is in an article written by Oerlemans together with two other scientists:
Estimating the Glacier Contribution to Sea-Level Rise for the Period 1800–2005
P. W. Leclercq, J. Oerlemans & J. G. Cogley
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-011-9121-7
Debunkhouse? Hmmmh 🙂
The abrupt step-down in global glacier length in that graph between 1890 and 1900 does coincide with Australia’s ‘Federation-Drought’. That’s an observation which you fail to counterpoint with anything factually relevant.
Your quote refers to sea level change, whereas my reference was specifically to the abrupt global change in glacier lengths, that coincided with the logged hottest known period within Australia’s colonial history (hotter than now and almost 130 years ago and well prior to the significant CO2 rise).
I fail to see how that has anything to do with your slight of a “personal narrative”, given I’ve never mentioned the ‘Federation-Drought’ here before, at any time.
And this is from your ink:
“… 2.1 Glacier Length Variations
The dataset on glacier length used in this study is an extension of the one used in Oerlemans et al. (2007). A number of records has been updated, and 152 records were added, mostly from remote areas like Greenland, Alaska, Central Asia and the southern Andes. The total number of records is 349. Although there is a reasonable coverage of the land masses (Fig. 1), there are relatively few records from regions where much ice is found (Alaska, islands of the Arctic Ocean, Antarctica). … … The backbone of the data set is formed by Fluctuations of Glaciers data of the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS 2008 and earlier volumes). Other sources are regular scientific publications, expedition reports, websites of glacier monitoring programs, and data supplied as personal communication. … ”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-011-9121-7
So the global glacial retreat trend shown is accepted valid thoroughly assessed data. The abrupt step-down in glacier length depicted does coincide with the hottest period observed in Australia, so far observed in records.
You seem to be arguing that data and such clear associations should just be ignored. If you can’t even counterpoint without mucking it up perhaps you should try a different hobby?
WXcycles
“If you can’t even counterpoint without mucking it up perhaps you should try a different hobby?”
Thx for your personal attack. No reply at that low level intended.
David, interesting post. Since long-term sea level rise in the middle of the ocean has little or no effect on human interests and activities, I decided to take a look at long-term sea level rise at coastal locations where there are recent continuous GPS monitors. I only found one long term measurement site with a collocated CGPS that showed little recent vertical land motion and it was at Honolulu HI where the measured sea level rise since 1905 has been 1.49 +/- 0.21 with no sign of acceleration in recent years. Data from this site suggest a global coastal absolute sea level rise rate of about 15 centimeters (6 inches) over 100 years, which is hardly alarming. More info and graphs here:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/2019/11/28/sea-level-rise-catastrophe/
Bryan – oz4caster
I follow your professional comments on Nick’s blog since long a time with much interest. But what you write here I really can’t understand.
Why do you select so few data? There are over 1,500 tide gauges worldwide, thousands of GPS sites…
Is it so complicated to search for a combination of them?
You bring one and only one isolated example? So do I.
At the end of the Bothnian Gulf on the Swedish side, there is a PMSL tide gauge in Furuögrund:
203; 64.915833; 21.230556; FURUOGRUND
This corner is known to be at the centre of a glacial isostatic rebound area.
Quite in the near (about 10 km) you find a pretty GPS site in Ostvik: 64.8792 N, 21.0483E
Please don’t tell me it’s too far away for a suitable GIA correction: the local VLM uncertainty at the tide gauges is estimated at 4.10^-3 mm/yr per kilometer of distance between the gauge and the GPS station.
And using that data you easily understand that the raw PMSL data of the tide gauge with a trend of -7.9 mm/yr for 1916-2017 becomes something quite different when the VLM correction (10.4 mm/yr) is applied to the gauge’s time series.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
To those who think that multidecadal oscillations in regional sea levels would request for a minimum of 50-60 years of sea level data to establish a robust long term trend, I propose the following test:
– (1) generate an anomaly time series out of all gauge data out of the well known PSMSL data, wrt a given period (I use to choose 1993-2013 for comparisons), by excluding all gauges having failed in providing sufficient data for anomaly construction;
– (2) select, out of the accepted stations, those having at least 100 years of activity;
– (3) generate a corresponding time series like in (1) but out of the stations selected in (2).
Result: the comparison of 679 PSMSL stations with 81 out of them having at least 100 years of activity, for the period 1880-2018
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UsJgaymQYMGiR1Vxc6cghgzBI5baeor0/view
Trends in mm/yr
1880-2018:
– all: 0.161 ± 0.02
– 100+ yr: 1.58 ± 0.03
1993-2018 (sat era):
– all: 3.07 ± 0.08
– 100+ yr: 2.88 ± 0.20
“The new high density measurements confirm this result and show that CO₂ concentrations stabilized at 310–312 ppm” too could help to solve the cholesterol enigma:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/ATVBAHA.117.307025
https://www.google.com/search?q=+high+density+measurements+&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile