ROYAL NETHERLANDS INSTITUTE FOR SEA RESEARCH
In their effort to provide decisionmakers with insight into the consequences of climate change, climate researchers at NIOZ, Deltares and UU are bringing order to the large amount of sea level projections, translating climate models to expected sea level rise. Their new overview study was published in the scientific journal Earth’s Future. “These results offer tools for decision making on the shorter and longer term.”
Aimée Slangen is a climate scientist at NIOZ and co-author of the IPCC climate report. Together with climate adaptation experts Marjolijn Haasnoot and Gundula Winter from Deltares and Utrecht University, both also IPCC authors, Slangen investigated the similarities and differences between the many sea level projections published in recent years.
Eight families
“We found that the set of more than 80 different projections can be reduced to eight ‘families’,” says Slangen. “Within each of the families of projections that we identified, researchers have often used similar data, but they have for instance used different model approaches. As a result, every new publication resulted in different amounts of projected sea level rise, depending on whether the publication focused on the shorter term or the longer term, or depending on the models used to estimate the processes causing a potentially large contribution of accelerated melting of the Antarctic ice sheet.”
These details are interesting for scientists, but make it more difficult for users to maintain overview. Slangen: “This can be an issue when you have to decide as a government what you are going to do to protect your coasts from rising sea levels. Decision makers can’t adjust their policies with every new publication.”
Half a meter rise before the end of the century
The researchers hope to dispel this doubt, as all families paint a similar picture for the first 50 cm of sea level rise. Slangen: “We will see the first half-meter rise before the end of this century, even if we start reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a large scale. For this period, it therefore makes little difference which family you use for sea level projections.”
According to adaptation expert Haasnoot, this therefore means that we can already start adapting to the consequences of sea level rise now. “Those who have to make the climate-proof decisions can already get started. However, it is important to take into account the uncertainty of the future. If you plan cleverly, you make sure that what you are doing now for a half meter sea level rise can be adjusted later for one meter. That will save a lot of money and effort.”
Models and emission scenarios
The larger the sea level rise, the more diverse the eight families become. Slangen: “From 75 cm to one meter sea level rise, it matters more which model approach you use and which climate scenario you follow. While such larger values are only exceeded in the long term, they can inform adaptation decision making already for the medium term. Each family is valuable for a specific situation and at what point certain threshold values are exceeded.”
Haasnoot : “In a vulnerable area, for example, you might choose a family with a large acceleration in the contribution of Antarctic melt. Many major world cities, such as London, New Orleans and Rotterdam, are in vulnerable areas. In such mega-deltas, relative sea level rise is even faster because of the land subsidence caused for instance by groundwater extraction.”
Flowchart
In their publication, the authors present a flow chart that policymakers can use when deciding when and how to adjust, while taking into account the range of uncertainty in sea level projections. “For example, the timing of these sea level values can be used to estimate until when a measure will remain effective,” says Haasnoot. But vice versa as well: given a desired lifespan, you can use these values to design a protective measure.
Slangen: “For the first 25 centimeters of sea level rise, the bandwidth of the timing is small: the projections show that this will happen before 2060. Half a meter rise will be reached before the end of the century. The larger the sea level rise, the larger the uncertainty. Depending on the family, 1.5 to 2 meter rise can be reached by the year 2100, but it could also be 2200 or later.”
DOI
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Data/statistical analysis
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
Not applicable
ARTICLE TITLE
Rethinking Sea-Level Projections Using Families and Timing Differences
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
30-Mar-2022
I rather think someone misplaced a decimal point here or there. .8mm over 80 years would be 160 mm, which is quite different from half a meter.
Umm. I get 0.8 x 80= 64 mm 64/254= 25.19 in.
Uh. Lost a decimal 2.519 inches. Half a meter is about 19.5 inches.
64 mm / 25.4 mm/inch = 2.51 inches
Tom, sea level is not rising at only 0.8 mm per year. It is several times larger than that.
Maybe try again, but this time, using real sea level rise values.
20 inches in less than 80 years, or 1/4 inch per year, will not happen. That much rise could not go unnoticed very long, and it is not happening.
“It is several times larger than that.”
More MGCBS….. even the much adjusted satellite data is only 4 times (not several)
Tide gauge average is just below 2mm/year with no acceleration (Brest shows a slight deceleration over the last 50 years of increased CO2 emissions.)
Are you scared yet !!!
Is it time to PANIC ?
One station. And about the most quirky one at that. I love what passes for scientific evaluation here…
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021JGeoS..11…95I/abstract
MGC is the one who brought up that station, not me. !
There is no evidence of CO2 having any affect on SLR whatsoever.. get over it, (Snipped) SUNMOD
“MGC is the one who brought up that station, not me. !”
I agree. Since I spend more time than you with the computer off, doing ****, I didn’t trace the entire thread. He should – and does – know better than to use one station to make the point about trans GHG forcing correlating with acceleration. He can tell us why he did it. You merely prolonged the discussion, and only because you appear to not know any better.
“There is no evidence of CO2 having any affect on SLR whatsoever.. get over it, bigslimyblob.”
Just the fact that you overamped enough to cause you to throw in a middle school epiphet tells us that you suspect better.
“As greenhouse gases trap more energy from the sun, the oceans are absorbing more heat, resulting in an increase in sea surface temperatures and rising sea level.”
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/oceans#:~:text=As%20greenhouse%20gases%20trap%20more,temperatures%20and%20rising%20sea%20level.
Hmmm. You, or the EPA? tough choice….
EPA.. the far-left con-artists
You again, have nothing but baseless propaganda.
There is absolutely ZERO SCIENCE in that propaganda.
CO2 DOES NOT trap heat.. it is a conduit.
Oceans cannot absorb heat in that way, evaporation happens first. (Which actually cools the surface)
Only solar energy warms the oceans.
EPA knows this, but LIES to con gullible, scientifically ignorant people like you.
Thinking that a mantra driven statement from the EPA far-left, is actually scientific evidence
(Snipped the nasty personal attack, you can do better without them) SUNMOD
Ah, the Dr. Evil, EPA (and every other superterranean organization) conspiracy. All to get rich on government grants that mostly get passed thru to greedy grad students, sleeping on loungers in labs while waiting on supercomputer runs, and living it up on Ramen soup….
zero evidence blob !
Just believe what you are “told” to believe.
No thought of your own needed or capable.
Let’s assume it is double. 1.6 mm/year. Per decade = 16 mm * 10 decades = 160 mm. 160 / 25.4 = 6.3 in. Basically 6 inches over the next 100 years. Not exactly earth shattering!
Are you the same MGC who used to post lies on Yahoo! before they terminated comments because too many people were challenging their false narrative? The MGC who posted that Climate Change would make fresh water a scarce resource almost immediately followed by Climate Change would inundate us with rain? That idiot?
Now you’re trying to obfuscate with words like “several times larger”. Yeah, MAYBE 3 times larger. That’s a whole 7.5 inches in the next 80 years – about the same rate it went up over the last 80 years.
OMG, don your life jackets now. /sarc
When you talk about coast lines, only the relative mean sea level rise of the tide gauges at the coast line in question are relevant.
You have to count in the isostatic movement.
Models, seriously? Anyone looking at a the real world?
So nice to have the models divided into families. Dumb and dumber! And worse?
They call this science.
Rather than average all of the various models then proclaim the result to be reliable, their improvement is to average into families then average the families (while ignoring that none of the inputs agree with each other ).
A new, innovative, best practice, state-of-the-art statistical calculation using the world’s most powerful multi-processor super computer must be right, right?
Yeah, We are and there is nothing happening in the real world. Sea level rise during the last 40 years of fake and hysterical “predictions” = 0.0″ in reality… That sea has not risen 1mm!
re: “sea has not risen 1mm”
It’s just amazing what kinds of utterly ludicrous nonsense and lies, like this one, are posted so routinely in WUWT discussion threads.
Hey, found another troll for generalizing?
Did you know that in the last 50 years, when CO2 has risen significantly, Brest (MGC’s chosen sea level data) has a trend of a SCARY 2.8mm/year.. (lol).
and a negative acceleration
Poor little ranter… Data proves him to be full of manic misinformation, yet again.
He really has absolutely nothing to contribute as rational scientific data or discussion.
“…translating climate models to expected sea level rise.”
Interpreting the entrails…. Keep the faith, brother.
So, 25cm by 2060 and 50cm by 2100.
Doing some arithmetic, when will this 5-6mm/year rate start?
Since we are now at about 3mm/year, with acceleration controversial (thanks latest WUWT articles !) at best (you know with splicing satellite data onto tide gauges etc), the rates have to start increasing radically pretty soon.
And we see no evidence of that.
Acceleration is not “controversial” among real scientists; only among deliberately disingenuous denier propagandists who make up fake stories about “splicing satellite data onto tide gauges”. And you sadly fell for their propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
Thats just not true, but even if it were the resulting “acceleration” is far from sufficient to support the view that there will be half a meter rise in the next 80 years, which would require the rate to be 10 times greater than at present, starting today
Brest sea level
yes, a kink change for some reason around 1900-1910
but .. DECELERATING over the last 50 years
You believe that climastrologists are real scientists? They are cultists.
Slowroll’s comment is a typical example of the kind of disparaging insults to scientific professionals that I was talking about earlier in these threads, that WUWT does nothing about, and even encourages.
Anyone who fits a curve to a short, recent time series and proclaims quadratic acceleration isn’t practicing science. At all.
So satellites over a moving swelling tide driven storm swept ocean with 18 year lunar cycles is accurate, but directly measured almost static tide gages with very minor adjustments for land movement are not?
MGC, common sense and peer review says you ate wrong.
We’re actually way behind the curve speed wise.
Consider 20,000 years ago, the seas were 120m lower.
so that’s 120,000 mm in 20,000 years, or reduced to:
120mm/20yrs. Which we can plainly see is 6mm/yr.
But we’re stuck at sea level rise of less than 3mm/yr.
Lil-Mike
Sorry for nitpicking.
and
With all due respect your math result is 2X in error… basically. 🙂
Not 20,000 years, but more likely 10,000 years.
The climatic warming trends are ~10,000 years long not 20,000.
Same for the cooling trends… ~10,000.
So if SL variation at 120m value, then according to your math per average estimation, it will be 6X2mm/yr (12)…
and something like 6-24mm/yr per range speed estimation, with a proposition of acceleration and deceleration.
Further more.
If this; “Consider 20,000 years ago, the seas were 120m lower.”
then
The actual sea level variation would be considerably higher than 120m.
At the top of Interglacial Optimum, the sea level is at the optimum, considerably in a higher lvl than at the present.
According to the proposition of Global Ice content variation being interlinked with Sea Level variation and both climatic parameters/indicators then;
As at present we are at a period clearly outside the Interglacial Optimum,
by ~5K years, then the present is something like 7-8K years from the last sea level optimum,
and ~18K years from the last sea level minimum.
cheers
“Haasnoot : “In a vulnerable area, for example, you might choose a family with a large acceleration in the contribution of Antarctic melt.”
Clearly insane, specifically schizophrenia.
In a vulnerable area, you “obviously” choose a worst-case scenario.
One supposes that conversely, for a low risk area you would pick a lower risk model.
Why on Earth would the model you trust the most be dependent on some point you chose on a map, classed as “high risk” or “low risk”?
We have been over this here at WUWT time and time again. SLR is a constant, and has been as far back as any tide gauge goes. There is *no* acceleration at all. End of story.
From my reading there have been short term accelerations and short term slow downs in sea level rise over many years – all unexplained.
Well, it’s not exactly a “constant” otherwise it would be much more difficult for the griffters to sell their snake oil. It speeds up a bit and then slows down a bit, cyclically on top of the very linear long term rate. It may have slightly sped up and most recently began to slow down again.
Anyway it’s just another worthless YouReekAlot! press release. That alone is proof it’s nonsense.
All that matters is that the grant was paid, and the headline made.
@ Terry
@ Rich Davis
Of course.
I observe the speed ups and slow downs as well in my graphs of tide gauge data.
I always gave these short term trends a big “So-What?”, as they do not affect the longer trends.
I found a much more interesting question is what exactly causes these fluctuations.
I also found it interesting how absolutely minuscule the higher-order (acceleration) term is with a simple polynomial fit.
To hit 25 cm by 2050, things better start accelerating a lot.
Or one starts skewing the data. Reminds me of our local school principal who announced that his project over the school year would be reducing the number of discipline cases sent to his office. I pointed out there were at least 3 ways this could happen: 1. Fewer kids needing discipline. 2. Refuse to deal with discipline cases, telling teachers to deal with it themselves. 3. Redefine what you term a “discipline case” .
With something as nebulous as sea level rise – and the lack of rigor in measuring it or even defining it – the numbers generated can be anything and are therefore meaningless.
I can see the sense in this, and the same approach is taken in flood planning.
If a change may have an adverse impact, having a worst case estimate will assist in planning a response.
If you aren’t at any risk, it’s a “don’t care” situation. If you are 100m above high tide, a 1cm or 1m sea level rise has the same lack of effect.
That is only true if your purpose is to do mitigation: raising sea walls, increasing pump capacity, installing floodgates, etc.
These people want to de-industrialize the world and cause the deaths of 80% of the population through starvation and exposure, using the worst-case as a justification for their megalomania.
“These people want to de-industrialize the world and cause the deaths of 80% of the population through starvation and exposure”
A typically absurd denier strawman fallacy.
Yet that is exactly what will happen if the green meanie gets it way.
Starvation, due to fertiliser and transport shortages
Many people unable to afford electricity due to huge increases in price because of infection of unreliable in the supply system.
We have already seen the consequences in Sri Lanka.
Germany have figured it out, and are gradually increasing their coal fired electricity output.
And of course China have known all along, and have just ignored the AGW ranting and scaremongering.
Yours is a typical statement of a reality denier or real science denier. Do you ever think things through beyond first effects? Having once been responsible for analyzing international politics, I have found that if you don’t take into account at least to the quaternary effects, you will fail at whatever analysis you do. Life will take the left turn in Albuquerque and you’ll forever be too many steps behind to catch up. (This is usually why the Department of State messes up just about every project they stick their noses into.)
If you remove the ability to produce food by eliminating primary fuels and fertilizer, the agricultural sector will quickly lose its ability to feed more than about a billion people and more like 600 million. Everyone else starves. Cities will mostly be unsupportable as it will take too many people doing back-breaking field work manually planting, cultivating, and harvesting the little food that grows.
If you remove reliable electricity, people will freeze in winter, but first they will burn every piece of wood they can find until trees are a thing of the past. Once the trees are gone or greatly reduced, no one will have winter heat, increasing the death toll further.
The future relying on unreliable wind and solar is a bleak hell-scape worse than any post-apocalyptic novel you have heard of, and the Davos crowd thinks managing that decline sounds like a marvelous opportunity.
“If you remove reliable electricity, people will freeze in winter, but first they will burn every piece of wood they can find until trees are a thing of the past. Once the trees are gone or greatly reduced, no one will have winter heat, increasing the death toll further.”
We have history of what happens when you cut down to many trees. It called Easter Island, seem if I recall right the few people that remained resorted to cannibalism.
Dude – you watched the behavior of western governments over the last 2 years dealing with a cold – and you really think they are above attempting mass “population control”? Why do you think homosexuality and transgenderism is pushed so hard now? It’s about getting birth rates down.
Sorry, RRR, but a virus that has killed over a million people here in the U.S. and over 6 million worldwide cannot seriously be described as merely a “cold”.
And why do you say homosexuality is being “pushed so hard” now? Homosexuality has existed all throughout human history. What is being done now is simply acknowledging the fact of its existence, rather than trying to pretend it away.
And the “monkey pox”, like HIV in the beginning, is being spread by the promiscuous homosexual community.
Promiscuous homosexuality of MALE humans as in bathhouses in Frisco for HIV, and now a sauna in Spain and a “Pride” festival in Belgium for monkey pox, are super spreaders of disease and their operators and promoters are, in my opinion, merchants of death.
But not to worry MGC, hard working straight taxpayers will foot the bill for the monkey pox “pandemic”, the same way we have for 0ver 30 years for HIV/AIDS. The US government spends more money on AIDS care subsidies then we do on cancer research.
Only if the “worst case estimate” is based upon reality.
Estimates based upon fantasy will not fool people long.
From the paper–“The first step to restructure the large number of SLR projections (Section 2) is inspired by work done on the genealogy of climate models in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) database (Knutti et al., 2013; Masson & Knutti, 2011)……The first question in the decision tree relates to the treatment of the ice sheet contributions. We identify two families relying on structured expert judgement (SEJ) studies:…..
As an expert with six decades of hurricane genealogy experience and building a house that was successful in Hurricane Harvey in the highest wind field area, I suggest Earth’s Future should not publish insurance type papers. Instead they should seek investigations of governments and private individuals continually building too close to sea level and structures susceptible to wind and subsidence. The Harvey FEMA report reported on some of this, didn’t require models.
Structured Expert Judgement. Probably get different answers depending on the experts involved. Been there. Done that. No T-shirts available.
“Structured Expert Judgement.”
Ummmm…., my guess is _______!
More self fulfilling prophecies.
Except sea level is rising at 15 inches per century (38cm), nowhere near 50 cm.
Photos from 50 years ago compared to photos from today around the island on which I live, shows no such rise at all. Perhaps my island (Whidbey) is rising, I don’t know. But comparing high water marks on the Deception Pass Bridge pylons with photos taken 50+ years ago show no visible change.
And aerial photos from the 60s in particularly low-lying coastal areas also show no noticeable change in the high tide mark.
I haven’t noticed Pioneer Square flooding either. Unless I am mistaken, the elevation was set following the Great Seattle Fire (1889).
The tidal gauge measurements in nearby Seattle show over 200 mm. sea level rise over the past century. Graph of Seattle tidal gauge data is attached.
Washington state is sinking due to forebulge collapse
So about 2mm/year
Are you SCARED yet !!
Half that rate in The Netherlands, a pessimistic scenario is 20 cm per century.
8-9 inches per century, steady state
Doesn’t matter at all in places that rise a foot in 17 seconds as the Loma Prieta earthquake did in 1989. The same can be said for places that sink 5 feet in 6 minutes as the Tohoku Earthquake in Japan did in 2011. Talking about sea level rise there is meaningless.
Wtf are you talking about? Dynamic wave events have exactly zero to do with sea level
No, you are wrong. It shows people can cope with the change and move on. It even worse is that those changes happen in minutes not years. It does not matter if the land sinks a few feet or the sea rises a few feet, someone will get there feet wet if they stay there. The only real question to the people involved is when do I have to move and will I have the time to do it.
weasel words much ? …. from the article
Depending on the family, 1.5 to 2 meter rise can be reached by the year 2100, but it could also be 2200 or later.”
Love the “or later”. Maybe, could be, possibly around the time that fusion power will be commercialized? (forever plus 40 years)
Here’s a quote from a previous WUWT post saying NASA inflated the SLR by 0.3mm/yr due to the
seabed sinking (GIA). Do they still do that?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/07/nasas-tricky-sea-level-newsletter/
“What’s more, the second graph is not really just from tide gauge data; it’s from tide gauge data inflated by a +0.3 mm/yr
GIA “adjustment,” to subtract off the rate by which the sinking ocean floor is hypothesized to reduce
sea-level rise. The real rate of coastal sea-level rise from averaged tide gauge measurements is
only about 1.4-1.5 mm/yr (under six inches per century), and that rate hasn’t increased since the
late 1920s.”
Since MSL is a measurement of the sea level above the center of the earth. Adding 0.3mm/yr
sounds dubious at best as the seabed level is immaterial & any change due to GIA can be
accounted for so as to leave a net change due to other factors.
This is a bunch of hooey.
Regurgitated hooey by re-tards who made the same BS predictions 30 years ago…
I wouldn’t worry about it, AOC told us we will be all gone in about 10 years from now.
On the other hand Vlad the Terrible might chuck few nukes at Boris, the neclear winter armageddon will ensue.
London will not get floded, instead we will have every July ice fairs on Thames to celebrate the enthroning of the good king Cuck and the fair queen Camellia.
The world ends May 13, 2031. AOC said 12 years, and that was on May 13, 2019.
Of course, we are DOOMED! What did you expect?
But we get to enjoy the 2030 clean energy emission targets set by concerned government agencies for a whole year.
Queen consort, please.
You’re too polite!
Just trying to insert some civility!
A Civil Engineer
50 cm is just over 19 inches – dont our tides rise and fall more than that? So most sea walls today are already capable of handling this, and if necessary, you would just have to add a few more inches to last another 50-100 years! Much ado about nothing.
“50 cm is just over 19 inches – dont our tides rise and fall more than that? So most sea walls today are already capable of handling this”
C’mon now. Mean sea level would always be at today’s high tide level. Then add another full high tide increase on top of that. No, at lot of sea walls would not be able to handle that.
“and if necessary, you would just have to add a few more inches to last another 50-100 years”
Also incorrect. The sea level rise rate can be expected to be even faster over the following 50 to 100 years. Way, way, way more than just “a few more inches”.
“The sea level rise rate can be expected to be even faster over the following 50 to 100 years.”
Expected by who? models? ROFLMAO !!
Did you know that your chosen “Brest” sea level over the last 50 years is only 2.8mm/year, and is actually DECELERATING.
Could have, should have, would have, all words of a loser. The changes that the out so called better predicted were predicted ten, twenty, thirty forty fifty years ago have not happen. Why should I believe them now? After the Population Bomb turned out to be a sad joke. Tell me what different today!
8-9 inches per century dudes, is what it is right now and has been since records began. That’s only 20-23 cm by 2122, or 8-9 cm by 2060. Nobody has ever demonstrated that sea level rise is accelerating – that is merely the warmunist model projection, not reality.
re: “Nobody has ever demonstrated that sea level rise is accelerating”
Totally false, (SNIPPED another sitewide insult) SUNMOD
Attached is a graph of the data from the longest running tidal gauge in the world at Brest, France. Do you really think there is “no acceleration” in this trend?
C’mon. Be real already. (You need to post a source for the chart)
(You have been put in moderation which means you will now need moderator approval for your comment to appear in public because of your numerous personal and sitewide insults) SUNMOD
WHere did you take your graph from?
The website sonel.org for BREST (France) is: https://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=maregraphe&idStation=1736
Where do you see an acceleration?
Range of 6850 to 7200 (mm) indicates PSMSL (annual) data for Brest, but the use of a “XèY scatterplot” graph format masls what’s happening.
Note the “ID number” assigned by PSMSL to that dataset …
URL : https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/1.php
If there is any it’s not “obvious”.
Plotting the monthly data highlights that something “weird” happened in the 1905-1920 time period.
Missing graph …
An appropriate quote for people who downvote without providing an actual rebuttal.
“It is a narrow mind which cannot look at a subject from various points of view.” — Mary Anne Evans (AKA George Eliot, in the novel Middlemarch)
From “Vertical land motion and relative sea level changes along the coastline of Brest (France) from combined space-borne geodetic methods”
Poor FAILED MGC.
Yes, something happened around 1900-1915 to cause a kink in the chart.
Can’t have been human CO2, can it !
Furthermore.
In the last 50 years, when CO2 emissions have been at their highest…
Brest actually has a linear trend of only 2.8mm/years and is DECELERATING.
I have seen several charts that appear to have that kink type change in trend around 1900-1910.
Might be interesting investigating further.
Of course, propagandists will use it to try and show acceleration, which it patently is not. Not can it be anything to do with atmospheric CO2 ..
…. particularly since trends after that kink are pretty much uniformly so close to linear as to have ZERO significant acceleration, either + or –
It must be adjusted for subsidence. When adjusted for subsidence no tidal gages show acceleration in sea level rise.
“When adjusted for subsidence no tidal gages show acceleration in sea level rise.”
Not true. Even taking into account subsidence variability with time, 2/3 to 3/4 of all stations show statistically significant post 1980 acceleration.
I’ve actually done this evaluation with 20 randomly picked stations. With searches for each to pin down subsidence. But luckily for me, the bogus claim is yours, so it’s up to you to defend it. Once again, the Rule of Hitchens.
“THAT WHICH CAN BE ASSERTED WITHOUT EVIDENCE, CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.”
LOL, we know how you “randomly” pick stations.
We know you are a faker.
We know your claims are bogus and always have been
“LOL, we know how you “randomly” pick stations.”
You can pick. Their randomness can be easily checked. Not by you I know, but that’s why I’m letting you pick.
Yawn
You are a failure in your own mind, little blob !
Now you are unemployable, you have time to take advantage of all the benefits of fossil fuels, don’t you.
All that computer time to search through and find the sites you want.
Thank goodness for fossil fuels , hey.. 😉
You’re going full Jim Steele with the fact free bile. It can’t be comfortable, or even healthy. I’ll respond with a steal from Frank Zappa:
You‘ll hurt your throat, stop it!
When you recover, feel free to provide those randomly selected sea level stations….
“Thank goodness for fossil fuels , hey..”
I agree. They will provide the needed bridge to our inevitable green future.
They also provided quite nicely for me and my family. Lots of moves and days away from that family, but a good, satisfying career. Started at 14, pulling slips (under age) over the Sooner Trend. Then, a hitch in the Seabees, GI Bill for a “Mines” school, a couple of petroleum engineering degrees, work in many of the world’s oil and gas basins, and on and on….
“our inevitable green future”
ROFLMAO !
Speaking of “moderation”
It’s rather ironic, don’t you think, that commenters can come here and routinely disparage, insult, or even directly lie about prominent climate science professionals, or about entire scientific organizations, without suffering any “moderation” consequences at all.
WUWT does not admonish such attacks, but appears to actually condone them, and via the contents of its articles, is probably even encouraging them.
Double standard much?
Not really, but I doubt you’ll ever understand why.
Yet your post was approved despite that it is completely off topic.
You were put on moderation for THIS reason:
(You have been put in moderation which means you will now need moderator approval for your comment to appear in public because of your numerous personal and sitewide insults)
You were REPEATEDLY attacking the owner, attacking the entire membership of the website, numerous personal attacks making faking false claims against the website sometimes ALL of it in a single comment.
No one else is doing that just YOU.
re: “No one else is doing that”
There are many commenters here who disparage and insult climate science professionals from all over the world. But WUWT does not admonish those commenters. In fact, to all appearances, such behavior is condoned and encouraged.
As I said, you would be unable to understand.
“Yet your post was approved despite that it is completely off topic.”
How long have you followed WUWT? If more than a day, you should know that that is completely ignored….
Poor MGC, do you need a nappy change ?
Check out the much more fact free, much more ventful, name calling rants by Jim Steele, exchanging views with bdgwx, after his recent post. Mr. Steele got owned, repeatedly and over a couple of days by among the most fact based, courteous posters in WUWT. I had to wipe the bile off my screen. To my knowledge no “moderation” there.
Need to join the club and stop suffering fools so poorly, MGC….
Oh cry me a river. !!
You really are pathetic !!
Right up there with the middle school insult you shouted at me way back when. “Hey! **** you man!”
BTW, sorry for the lunch money. I’m not that guy any more…
Yawn. !
“I’m not that guy any more…”
No you are even more of a wimp.. just trying to cover it up with blustering bravado.. Its hilarious..
Just checked 6 “random” SL gauges, 4 had nothing, 2 had negative acceleration.
Select your “random” very carefully ! 😉
And if you run the numbers from the Brest France tide gauge HERE you will get 0.013 mm/yr² of acceleration. That’s way less than the 0.098mm/yr² claimed by the alarmists HERE
Steve, run the numbers on the acceleration at Brest France over the same time frame as the satellite data link you posted. You’ll find it is 0.194 mm/yr². Twice the level of what you call an “alarmist” dataset.
And why is “alarmist” name calling being resorted to here? Scientists who are merely reporting the results of satellite data are “alarmists” ?? Is the weatherman who reports on a severe storm also an “alarmist” ??
Here is a comment I made previously but fits in here
Attaching a table of analysing the Brest Data over different time periods
Analysis of Brest Sea Levels
1850 to 2018 Slope = 1.3058 X2 Coefficient = 0.0054 “acceleration” = 0.0108
1850 to 1935 Slope = 0.0882 X2 Coefficient = 0.0221 “acceleration” = 0.0442
1835 to 201 Slope = 1.5591 X2 Coefficient = 0.0224 “acceleration” = 0.0448
1850 to 1892 Slope = 0. 0269 X2 Coefficient = -0.0360 “acceleration” = -0.0720
1892.5 to 1935 Slope = 2.3077 X2 Coefficient = -0.0594 “acceleration” = -0.1188
1935 to 1977.5 Slope = 0.5052 X2 Coefficient = -0.0283 “acceleration” = -0.0566
1977.5 to 2018 Slope = 2.6652 X2 Coefficient = -0.0162 “acceleration” = -0.0324
1850 to 1871.25 Slope = -1.2595 X2 Coefficient = -0.4504 “acceleration” = -0.9008
1871.25 to 1892.5 Slope = -1.5110 X2 Coefficient = -0.5387 “acceleration” = -1.0774
1892.5 to 1913.75 Slope = 3.1467 X2 Coefficient = 0.5480 “acceleration” = 1.0960
1913.75 to 1935 Slope = -1.1201 X2 Coefficient = 0.4905 “acceleration” = 0.9810
1935 to 1956.25 Slope = -0.2152 X2 Coefficient = 0.0168 “acceleration” = 0.0336
1956.25 to 1977.5 Slope = -0.3548 X2 Coefficient = -0.4453 “acceleration” = -0.8906
1977.5 to 1998.75 Slope = 3.4006 X2 Coefficient = -0.0163 “acceleration” = -0.0326
1998.75 to 2018 Slope = 2.5326 X2 Coefficient = 0.1322 “acceleration” = 0.2644
The full period gives an acceleration of 0.0108 mm/year2
The 2 half period each give accelerations over 4 times bigger
The 4 Quarter periods all give de-accelerations between 0.0324 and 0.1188
The 8 Eighth periods vary between an acceleration of 1.0960 and a de-acceleration of -1.0774.
That for a total period of 168 years. What chance does Nerem have with a period of less than 30 years for the satellite readings.
Nobody ever suffered anything from eustatic or global sea rise. Local sea level – a combination of subsidence and sea level rise is what makes the difference to getting your feet wet or losing your house.To see how you will be affected look at your nearest long term tide gauge and extrapolate.
By the way I will give $1000 to anyone producing a 100 year tifde gauge that shows any significant recent acceleratiojn
You’ll need to define “significant”.
To hedge your bet you had best require that it be accurate.
I remember 1998 when these same-retards said NYC would be under water by 2015,,, Some of us are not so stupid!
Another false claim.
Nope, he said it would be under water.
It isn’t and is nowhere near it..
Massive fail.. !
In 1988 James Hansen claimed that thé West Side Highway in New York would be underwater by 2000. It is not, and you are a liar.
Here’s the quote apparently.
From here : https://electroverse.net/nasas-james-hansen-1989-new-york-citys-west-side-highway-will-be-underwater-by-2009/
Its possible its misquoted but I dont think so. This is a well known faux pas from Hansen.
So technically “false” because it should have been 2009 and not 2015…but if its predicted for 2009 then it applies in 2015 as well and that most certainly wasn’t your meaning of “false”
Tim you left out the caveat of “doubled greenhouse gas levels”. That was an assumption that was part of that discussion. We haven’t arrived at “double greenhouse gas levels” even yet.
And it was also just an off-the-cuff conjecture. It is not in any way “representative” of the consensus of scientific thought on this topic. But lots of folks seem to want to pretend that it is anyway.
Clinging to the mere out-of-context conjecture of a single guy is not “science”.
Perhaps but the question didn’t allow for an immediate doubling and should have been interpreted to mean “as we head for a doubling”.
Hansen’s history studying Venus and his mistaken fear we could become another Venus with runaway warming betrays his lack of sense and intuition.
Hansen was perhaps the father of AGW fear and his part in this was crucial.
I predict the level of horse manure inside the skull of the drooling-retard who wrote this pile of schitt to be 100%!
They must be using the same “models” that over stuffed bag of Bullschitt Gore used 30 years ago… Of but they are super, duper cereal this time….
double plus anti-ultra-MAGA cereal
The only thing they truly have certainty about is that they won’t be accountable when thier predictions fail miserably and the money will keep flowing.
‘Contribution of Antarctic MELT’.
Some days ago for a comment, I looked up the range of summer peak temperatures at McMurdo, which is on the coast so ‘moderated’ by summer ocean. It has ranged from a peak high of 23F to 31F. All still below freezing as Antarctic ice sheet is freshwater.
As nonsensical a statement as the rest of the findings.
It is melting from below.
Climate will ingress from all directions, more powerful than an active volcano, faster than a speeding bullet, its worse than we thought ! 🙂
If it is melting from below from warmer water, it is sea ice already and contributes zero to sea level rise.
What are climate proof decisions?
It means the climate decisions have been proofread to ensure the narrative is maintained
Ok, for what it could be worth:
“Game of Thrones | SURVIVORS”
cheers
Not
Sea level rise of 250 mm in 38 years? This is “certain” because all the models assure that result?
What do the bookies say about it? That is 6.6 mm rise per year. Has anyone bothered to look at the tide gauges, or are we living inside their model?
They will be lucky to see 70mm of rise by 2060.
We have the same lies about accelerating sea level rise dressed up as a scientific study from boffins here in New Zealand .
A couple of so called scientists from Victoria University (Tim Naish and James Renwick ) announced that our sea level around New Zealand will rise by 60 centimeters by 2100 .
This equates to 7.5 millimeters per year up from 1,5 mm that tide gauges are showing .
The satellite measurements show 3 mm per year which are has to be exaggerated as tide gauges with GPS checks are accurate.
What do the scientists do when their satellite records show double the rise of what the tide gauges show over 10 or 20 years ?
Answer they do as always ADJUST.
These clowns said they have worked with MODELS that show this rapid acceleration will happen .
Then they produced a map of New Zealand with blue dots all around the coasts showing that New Zealand was sinking beneath the waves .
They have now changed the dots to red to make id even more scary .
They predict that some coasts will sink by up to 60 cm by 2100 doubling sea level rise in those areas to 1.2 meters .
This crap study was dressed up as science .
Given the volcanic and earthquake prone nature of the entirety of New Zealand, dare say somewhere they will be correct. On the other hand, the Kaikoura earthquake raised sea levels there about 2m in a few seconds. And many places throughout the upper North Island have buried, toppled trees – due to tsunamis from offshore earthquakes and eruptions from submerged volcanoes. Inundation from melting Icecaps are the least of our worries, geologically speaking. Personally, Im more afraid of a third term of Socialist, Globalist, inept Labour Government.
Look more closely at the data from your graph, Crispin:
NY City Battery Sea Level Rise Rate by Century:
19th century: 2.4 mm/yr
20th century: 3.0 mm/yr
21st century: 5.3 mm/yr
No link for those numbers which is why I don’t know if they are valid or not.
You’re telling half the story:
21st century period is too short to have any meaning whatsoever.
There have been several other short periods where trend was similar .
This why should many of us laugh at these forecast. They are so non scientific that it is painful to read and it is a religion for the climate activists. They have yet to be right with their models.
The absolute sea level rate of rise from tide gauges around the world has been running about 1.7 mm/yr with no notable change going back as far as the 1850’s. To get to a 1/2 meter rise by 2100 (78 years from now), the 1.7 mm/yr would have to increase to about 6.4 mm/yr beginning now. It would be useful to be told just when such and increase is to begin so I won’t have to keep checking PSMSL so often as I do.
Your 1.7 number is correct, but not fully accurate because it is from a large sample that assumes vertical land motion washes fully out. It does not.
The best sample was derived by Moerner and can be replicated. He used two criteria: long running gauges >60 years, and diffGPS vertical land motion correction either on the gauge or in reasonable proximity (IIRC within 10 km). That sample of about 70 tide gauges yields 2.2mm/year and no acceleration. The 2.2 also closes while 1.7 does not; it underestimates the closure derived value. For details on all the above see my guest post a few years ago titled ‘Sea Level Rise, Acceleration, and Closure’.
Further explanation. At least 60 years is needed to span 3 known 18.6 year lunar nodal tide cycles to wash them out.
A most excellent and interesting post, Rud. For those interested, here’s a link to Rud’s contribution.
w.
given the accuracy, I reckon its safer to say, about 2mm/year +/- a small amount.
The most accurate measurements of the SLR are those of tide gauges which are corrected of the occasional vertical movements by an altimetric GPS beacon.
The following study made with 5 tide gauges in the Pacific area finds an average relative rate of rise of +1.306 mm/yr., with an average acceleration of +0.00490 m
Far from the apocalyptic predictions of the IPCC
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/nleng-2020-0007/html#j_nleng-2020-0007_ref_007_w2aab3b7d713b1b6b1ab2b1b7Aa
Sorry: …average acceleration of +0.00490 mm/yr2,
You are correct, but that small sample has two problems.
One, it is ‘local’ rather than global.
Two, these are all ‘new’ tide gauges, so no long reference records. See my subcomment just posted above.
Fort Denison in Sydney is highly stable
It has a huge average sea level rise of 1.07mm/year
And a massive acceleration of 0.008mm/yr²
One expects serious researchers to fully vet any model they intend to use.
At which point they’d notice that none of the models reflect reality.
Instead these idiots assume all of the models are of value and then group the models into families so they can breed the useless things.
Valueless models producing extreme sea level estimates immediately paint their research as seriously deficient.
Downright buggered for their purpose.
Their alleged picture depicting high tide… N.B. the muddy look to the water. That is caused by high surf caused by a storm.
“Global mean sea level reached a new record high in 2021, after increasing at an average 4.5 mm per year over the period 2013 -2021. This is more than double the rate of between 1993 and 2002 and is mainly due to the accelerated loss of ice mass from the ice sheets. This has major implications for hundreds of millions of coastal dwellers and increases vulnerability to tropical cyclones.”
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/four-key-climate-change-indicators-break-records-2021
Still below the accuracy of the instruments.😂
When the satellite accuracy is +/-33mm it is still below the accuracy of the instruments. 4.5mm +/-33mm.
You’re getting your units wrong. It’s 4.5 mm/year. This means that your +/-33mm comparison is base free.
Not to worry. Pat Frank did the same thing in his functionally (thank the Imaginary Guy In The Sky!) uncited 2019 “Propagation” paper. As a data evaluator and statistician, he has a proud tradition of existence. Meaning, he has not manned up to his mistake(s) like Laura Resplandy. Don’t be like Dr. Frank….
Disfunctional families.
I’ve come in a bit late on this.
MGC’s graph of the Brest data looks dramatic but did he calculate the acceleration. The perception is all in the scales used.
The acceleration will work out at just over 0.01mm/year2. All of the long tidal data sets (over 150 years) show an acceleration of this order, which is a great deal lower than the so called “accelerations” from Satellite reading which is the source of most alarmist predictions.
All these calculations use quadratic curve fitting and to misquote JFK, “it is not because it is difficult but because it is easy”.
There are many other ways of curve fitting but the biggest mistake is in the use of extrapolation.
Definitely caused by a kink from level trend to positive trend around 1900-1910
So not human CO2.
As pointed out further up, Brest SLR is actually DECELERATING over the last 50 years.
And nearly all the satellite ” acceleration” comes at changes in satellite, often through adjusting previous data.
The sea level rise is currently about 3 mm / 10 years. In 100 years it will be 300 mm = 30 cm or 12 inches if everything continues as it is now. I think something will change by then, nothing is as regular as change!
Attaching a table of analysing the Brest Data over different time periods
Analysis of Brest Sea Levels
1850 to 2018 Slope = 1.3058 X2 Coefficient = 0.0054 “acceleration” = 0.0108
1850 to 1935 Slope = 0.0882 X2 Coefficient = 0.0221 “acceleration” = 0.0442
1835 to 201 Slope = 1.5591 X2 Coefficient = 0.0224 “acceleration” = 0.0448
1850 to 1892 Slope = 0. 0269 X2 Coefficient = -0.0360 “acceleration” = -0.0720
1892.5 to 1935 Slope = 2.3077 X2 Coefficient = -0.0594 “acceleration” = -0.1188
1935 to 1977.5 Slope = 0.5052 X2 Coefficient = -0.0283 “acceleration” = -0.0566
1977.5 to 2018 Slope = 2.6652 X2 Coefficient = -0.0162 “acceleration” = -0.0324
1850 to 1871.25 Slope = -1.2595 X2 Coefficient = -0.4504 “acceleration” = -0.9008
1871.25 to 1892.5 Slope = -1.5110 X2 Coefficient = -0.5387 “acceleration” = -1.0774
1892.5 to 1913.75 Slope = 3.1467 X2 Coefficient = 0.5480 “acceleration” = 1.0960
1913.75 to 1935 Slope = -1.1201 X2 Coefficient = 0.4905 “acceleration” = 0.9810
1935 to 1956.25 Slope = -0.2152 X2 Coefficient = 0.0168 “acceleration” = 0.0336
1956.25 to 1977.5 Slope = -0.3548 X2 Coefficient = -0.4453 “acceleration” = -0.8906
1977.5 to 1998.75 Slope = 3.4006 X2 Coefficient = -0.0163 “acceleration” = -0.0326
1998.75 to 2018 Slope = 2.5326 X2 Coefficient = 0.1322 “acceleration” = 0.2644
The full period gives an acceleration of 0.0108 mm/year2
The 2 half period each give accelerations over 4 times bigger
The 4 Quarter periods all give de-accelerations between 0.0324 and 0.1188
The 8 Eighth periods vary between an acceleration of 1.0960 and a de-acceleration of -1.0774.
That for a total period of 168 years. What chance does Nerem have with a period of less than 30 years for the satellite readings.
Why do you think limo libs like Obama buy million dollar estates on the water if they thought sea level rise was a concern? The answer is, they don’t. Climate change scare is for the peasants and useful idiots. Wake up folks.
The satellite data are global to be fair, not based at a single location.
Sorry – when Obama, Gore, Pelosi, and others all buy new beachfront property for millions of dollars – I do not buy that they believe sea level will rise to any appreciable degree in a hundred years. Seems like hokum to me.
The Gore and Obama properties are not truly “beachfront”. They are both a considerable distance from the shoreline. And the Pelosi story is just flat out false:
Conservative Media Makes Up a Fake Florida Mansion for Nancy Pelosi
Anatomy of a Viral Lie.
https://www.thebulwark.com/conservative-media-makes-up-a-fake-florida-mansion-for-nancy-pelosi/
Can’t make correct conclusions starting from false information, RRR.
So not beachfront properties?? Pictures, easy enough to find say otherwise MGC.
As to the Pelosi and/or Gore things, Rick Ray Robinson appears to have NOT verified for himself what he read in some news releases, you know, like about EVERY climate scare headline including those about “accelerating” sea level rise.
But you DID lie in your statement, “Obama properties are not truly beachfront”! Of course they are. Now the homes are not ON the sandy beaches, but BOTH properties go to the WATERLINE, and the Hawaii one even needs a seawall.
So there you are conflating true and false statements into one, just as R R R has appeared to have done. Pot, meet Kettle!
Hypocrisy is still hypocrisy, and when you consider the number of properties both ALGORE and Her Highness own, and the massive “carbon footprint” of same, what difference does it make whether they own beach front property, their massively ENERGY wasteful lifestyles say all there needs to be said about their “belief” in CAGW.
Drake, when I said “properties” I meant the houses. Sorry that I did not make that clear. As can be seen from the pictures you’ve provided, the buildings are a good distance from the water and are elevated.
1) Property is property. (“Can’t make correct conclusions starting from false (provided) information.”)
2) Look at the Hawaii photo … what the hell kind of a rationalization are you trying for. Given that level of self-delusion, it becomes apparent as to why you can hold the opinions that you hold without (yet) imploding.
3) “… good distance from the water and are elevated”. (Can’t make correct conclusions starting from false (provided) information).
4) The east coast Obama house is in the FEMA mapped flood plain. You are going to try a little harder to explain what you mean by elevated. That house was constructed without regard for current modeling, let alone future projections.
5) Liar, deluded, or both?
DonM
Can you really not see that high sea wall in the second picture?
And how much longer are the Obamas going to live? Maybe 40 years? How much will sea level rise in their lifetimes? Maybe a foot? The house is set far enough back for that.
Folks don’t seem to understand the real issue with sea level rise. Once set in motion, it will continue to accelerate and keep rising at elevated rates for centuries if not millennia to come, and will be almost impossible to stop later on.
The real issue is that we’re now pushing over the first domino in a centuries long chain of dominoes.
So, why can’t you just be honest in your discussion.
*Obama et al are hypocrites that don’t care what will happen after their lifetime(s). They are in it for now, but they claim (like you) that we all need to sacrifice for the common good.
*Yes, they are on the shore, and are directly subject to ocean events and changes.
*You think that the premise (or theory, if you prefer) of human influenced sea level rise is a real thing … and we need to sacrifice now protect others centuries into the future. You think that there is a tipping point and our current societies has the ability to tip the world into an accelerating SLR.
re: “You think that the premise of human influenced sea level rise is a real thing.”
Of course I do. So should anyone else who examines the scientific evidence in an unbiased, rational manner. Even Anthony Watts himself admits that human influence on sea level rise is real.
BTW, how is Obama a “hypocrite” for buying an already existing home? He did not build that home. Whatever sea level issues that may eventually arise for that building will occur regardless whether he bought that home or not.
re: “You think that there is a tipping point and our current societies has the ability to tip the world into an accelerating SLR”
Based on the available evidence, there is high confidence within the worldwide scientific community that the onset of “tipping the world into an accelerating SLR” has already occurred.
I’m stupid. And darn proud of it. I mention this only in the service of asking for patience when I ask stupid questions. Like this one: What is “relative sea level rise?”
Since the oceans are contiguous, sea level must be the same all over the world. That is, absolute sea level rise must be the same in Maine and Indonesia, surely. How can there then be relative sea level rise at all? The word “relative” implies a fraction. If the numerator (current sea level) is the same all over the globe, and then sea level rises (at the same level all over the globe) there is no relativity of sea level rise among different jurisdictions.
I have got to be missing something here, and I hope somebody will explain it to me.
“relative sea level rise” means sea level rise measured in relation to a local land reference. One way that “relative” sea level rise can differ from place to place is because the land itself can be moving up or down in different places.
Also, surprising as it may seem at first, “sea level must be the same all over the world” is actually not correct. The oceans are not like a quiescent bath tub. Because of differences from place to place in temperatures, winds, currents, and even gravity, absolute sea level (measured relative to the earth’s gravitational center) is not the same everywhere.
Hope that helps.
PS – I also hope “darn proud of it” is just joking around, LOL.