Guest “For once it’s not worse than previously thought” by David Middleton
But it’s still catastrophic… Because models…
Some Past Sea Levels May Not Have Been as High as Thought, Says Study of Rising and Sinking Landmasses
But Even Reduced Estimates, If Applied to Today, Would Be CatastrophicBY KEVIN KRAJICK | AUGUST 9, 2021
One of the current mysteries of climate science surrounds the widely accepted evidence that during the planet’s most recent past natural warm period, about 128,000 to 117,000 years ago, global sea levels peaked as high as 6 to 9 meters (20 or 30 feet) higher than today. And, during that so-called last interglacial, temperatures were just 1or 2 degrees C (1.8 to 3.6 F) warmer than those of preindustrial times—marks we may surpass by century’s end, if not sooner. Such a deluge could have been produced only by collapses of the Greenland and/or Antarctic ice sheets. If that happens now, it will drown much of the human world. Yet, at least so far, models of future sea level rise generally hover around a meter or so within the next 100 years. What are we missing, and how much should it scare us?
In a new study, a team at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory believes they have an answer: They say that researchers examining signs of past sea levels along various coasts may have failed to accurately correct for long-term ups and downs of the land itself. Based on newly sophisticated measurements made across the Bahamas along with new methods of analyzing data, the researchers produced lower—though still daunting—estimates for the last interglacial. They say seas peaked at least 1.2 meters (4 feet) higher than today—roughly in line with most current models for the next 100 years of so.
[…]
They combined these findings with hundreds of different models of how glacial isostatic rebound could have traveled through the Earth, and converted the calculations into global sea levels. This produced the new, lower estimates.
[…]
Columbia Climate School
This is unmitigted horst schist:
They say seas peaked at least 1.2 meters (4 feet) higher than today—roughly in line with most current models for the next 100 years of so.
Sea level reconstructions over the past 100-200 years show sea level rising at 1.6-1.9 mm/yr.
Total sea level rise over that period of time is about the length of an Estwing rock pick
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.
Jevrejeva et al., 2008 (J08) and Jevrejeva et al., 2014 (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. Church & White, 2006 (CW06) and Church & White, 2011 (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 and a far cry from being 1.2 m and “roughly in line with most current models for the next 100 years of so.”
Short of Doctor Evil suddenly melting the Greenland ice sheet with a “space laser,” it would be physically impossible for sea level to rise another 1.2 m over “the next 100 years of so.”
For sea level to rise by 850 mm by the end of this century, it would have to accelerate to a rate of ~20 mm/yr from 2081-2100. This is nearly twice the rate of the Holocene Transgression.
Sea level rose by about 100 m during the Holocene Trangression.
(Siddall et al., 2003)
That catastrophic sea level rise, including the Meltwater Pulse 1A boogieman, occurred at a time when Earth had a lot more ice to melt than it does now.
Fun with sea level
Here’s J14 plotted at the same vertical scale as the Statue of Liberty…
References
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
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
Shuttup.
What a stupid response to an article about sea-level rise. What is your issue?
The fact that US Gulf of Mexico proved reserves and production are still climbing, rather than declining, has been his issue since about his 8th WUWT comment a few days ago.
He’s made about 20 idiotic comments about the Moon landings being faked, about 300 comments on Peak Oil and about 50 unintelligible comments since August 4… https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/04/the-50th-anniversary-of-the-genesis-rock/#comment-3308158
At least the retarded fake moon landing comments were in posts about the Moon.
Moon landings?
That explains it.
This is Lewandowsky up to his old tricks again.
He seems to believe that oil wells continue to pump out the same amount of oil, day in and day out. Then suddenly, one day, no more oil, the pores are empty.
MODERATOR- it is not often I call for someone to be banned but this Mark Ingraham character has got to go. When one has to scroll through well over 100 comments just to get to one about the actual thread topic, you should know you’ve got a very effective troll on your hands. He clearly exists merely to drag threads off topic and adds nothing to the debate, he is not even worth arguing with. Comments used to be the best part of this blog. Not very useful when the thread is so polluted with idiocy so obtuse it cannot be argued with.
As for the rest of you, I enjoy regular troll mocking more than most. But this guy needs to be shut down. Ignore him. His statements look even dumber when nobody bothers to respond.
Hear Hear.
It is probably not a coincidence that he appeared at this interesting time before COP26.
I suspect we will get other activists trolls too.
This is the blog that revealed Climategate. It terrifies the Climate Industry.
“it is not often I call for someone to be banned but this Mark Ingraham character has got to go”
David, I totally disagree, everyone should have the right to say what they think; everyone else has the right to ignore. De-platforming is what the warmisters do.
Your last sentence is the way to go … “Ignore him. His statements look even dumber when nobody bothers to respond.”
** STOP FEEDING THE TROLL ** (tempting as it is)
Quite agree with not feeding the troll.
Talking of freedom of speech, what’s your view on soccer matches? Does everybody have a right to blow a vuvuzela? And everybody else has the right to ignore the vuvuzela?
Some sort of blocking function would be a useful half way point.
I’m not sure I favor blocking the troll, but I would like an easier way to scroll past the inane “discussion” his posts seem to generate. Furthermore, if we had a blocking function, he would just create new characters each and every time he gets blocked, even if he has to make-up new *.yahoo, *.hotmail, *.outlook or *.gmail accounts each time. And something about dynamic ISPs, I’m not sure how to do that myself, I just know there is such a thing.
This is yet more “if the model does agree with data, the data needs correcting”.
We all know it’s impossible to suggest 9m sea level rise by 2100, so they have to “correct” the geological data.
However absurd and contorted this process is nothing is allowed to conflict the projections of their failed climate models.
So the whole AGW , IPCC , Paris Accord charade is also obsolete. If we have reached peak oil the market will naturally lead to non oil solutions and all this constant hysteria and government interference is unneeded.
When I see unelected UN globalists finally BUTT OUT of trying to dictate every county’s energy policy, I will fully agree that this WUWT will be obsolete. I can’t wait.
“They say seas peaked at least 1.2 meters (4 feet) higher than today—roughly in line with most current models for the next 100 years of so.” But the data show about 6″ per century. This shows the problem with their models – they are all tuned to be grossly out of line with the data.
I recently watched a documentary on Zanzibar and the narrator said that about 130,000 years ago the Indian Ocean was several meters higher.
Here is a picture of a small island in the Zanzibar island group showing the drop.
That doesn’t look like a sea level drop to me. Rather it looks like wave action eroding the rocks at the current sea level height.
“For once it’s not worse than previously thought”
But the past has to be made less worse so that the present and future can be made worse worse.
Modelling climate alarm – Odyssey (wordpress.com)
Remember that Hearty et al 2007 showed that there was a sharp warming peak at the very end of the Eemian interglacial. Those experiencing that peak did not necessarily know that it was at the end of the interglacial of course. This was before the emergence of behaviourally modern humans (70 kya) of course so the words “global warming” wouldn’t have existed yet.
Rapid warming at the end of the last Eemian interglacial caused sea level to rise several meters – just before ice age returned – Odyssey (wordpress.com)
Mark’s right – oil is toast. So are we.
Oil is hydrocarbons.
Toast is hydrocarbons.
Therefore oil is toast.
Your mother dropped you on your head on a regular basis didn’t she? You have the logic God gave a stump and just as much sense.
A few years back I was down at the Twelve Apostles, a natural series of sandstone pillars sitting just off the Southern Coast of Australia. The twelve have been reduced to seven, I believe, as the Southern Ocean keeps gnawing away at their bases. Cracks on the cleff face indicate that more apostles will be born eventually. My observation concerns the erosion rings on the pillars at several different levels, all much higher than the current level at which the ocean is working. The highest ring is just below the lip of the coastal cliffs. I am not a geologist but it seems that sea level has been much, much higher than present. Either that or Australia is rising.
…just as the sea has been much, much lower, in the past. Check any online maps that show the sea-floor as well as on land, every major river has a canyon, now below water, that continues beyond the current mouth of the river until it gets several hundred meters below existing sea level. That canyon would not have been carved unless that portion of the river had been above sea level at some point. Now whether that change in apparent sea level came about due to continental uplift(subsidence) or from a change in the quantity of liquid water is for others to determine/prove.