Guest Post by Javier Vinós
No minimally informed person denies that climate changes. The climate has always changed. Since 1860 the predominant climate change has been warming, which is fortunate because if we had a winter like those of 1800-1850, we would be in for a shock. No one has been able to prove that global warming is primarily a consequence of our emissions. It is reasonable to assume that increased CO2 has contributed to warming since the mid-20th century when our CO2 emissions increased significantly, but no one knows how much they have contributed, no matter how much the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) insists that “humans are the dominant cause of observed global warming over recent decades.” (IPCC AR6, page 515).
There is no evidence for this statement. I know this because I have read thousands of scientific papers looking for it. And no, computer models are not evidence of anything but the programming skills of their authors. Models and their predictions are constantly changing and when our knowledge of climate changes, they must be redone.
The absolute lack of evidence contrasts sharply with the decision to cut our CO2 emissions to zero by completely changing our fossil fuel-based energy system and calling CO2 a pollutant—when it is as essential to life as oxygen. All this while most of the world doesn’t give a damn about emissions and many are only on board for the promised money.
To get to the good news about global warming we need to look at variations in the rate of global warming, i.e., the speed of warming. Today we are going to use satellite-calculated global temperature data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, UAH 6.0. They are plotted in Figure 1.
As we can see, the temperature trend decreases since 2016, so 2022 is the seventh warmest year. For 7 years the planet has been cooling. Does that mean that warming is over? No, periods of 7 years of cooling are frequent in the record, there being 8 of them since 1979, and the warming continues. But there is only one period of more than 15 years of cooling, from 1998 to 2014, that appears in the record for the last 45 years. It is known as the “Pause.”
To analyze the evolution of the warming rate, we subtract from each monthly data the previous one to calculate the monthly increase. We then deseasonalize the monthly increase by finding the 12-month moving average to remove a lot of the noise. Finally, we calculate the 15-year average warming rate in °C/decade by calculating the 180-month moving average and multiplying the resulting data by 120.
Each point on the curve in Figure 2 is the warming rate for the 15 years before that month. The Pause shows up prominently as the only period with a negative rate. For the current cooling period to appear on that graph with a negative rate would require the global temperature to remain below the 2016 level at the end of 2030.
But the good news that no one is telling us is that global warming is slowing down. The 15-year rate was very high from the mid-1980s to the late 1990s, reaching 0.35 °C/decade. The average over the entire period of satellite records is 1.3 °C per century or 0.13 °C/decade, but the long-term trend has fallen from 1.6 °C/century to 1 °C/century today. The current cooling period is contributing to this decline in the long-term warming rate.
This good news is not told to us, firstly, because it has been achieved without doing anything to reduce our global CO2 emissions, which calls into question the peremptory need to make a major effort to reduce them.
Second, we are not told this “good” news because the reduction in the rate of warming has taken place while rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is accelerating, as shown in Figure 3. The data from NOAA has already been deseasonalized, so we skipped this step. We follow the same process for the same period (1979-2022) as for the graph in Figure 2.
The problem with the theory of anthropogenic warming is that while the rate of warming is slowing down, the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 is steadily increasing, and in the same period it has gone from growing 14 parts per million (ppm) per decade to 23.5 ppm/decade. In other words, its growth rate has almost doubled.
According to the greenhouse gas climate change theory, it is not possible for warming to slow down while CO2 is strongly accelerating. The consequence of the CO2 increase on the greenhouse effect is well known. Each additional molecule intercepts infrared radiation, raising the average height of emission from the atmosphere and requiring an increase in surface temperature for the planet to maintain its radiative balance, that is, to radiate an energy equivalent to that which it receives from solar radiation. The theory does not allow global warming to slow with accelerating CO2 emissions. The theory is wrong or incomplete. There are fundamental things about climate change that we do not understand, that are capable of offsetting, canceling, and even reversing the effect of the CO2 increase on temperature. I have already proposed an alternative, which is not considered by the IPCC, in the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis, based on changes in poleward energy transport.
Thirdly, we are not bombarded daily with the good news that global warming is slowing down because the models predict just the opposite, which indicates that despite costing a fortune these models are useless. The 5th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) was already projecting greater warming for the period 2006-2022 than has been observed. To the dismay of climatologists (Voosen 2022), the changes introduced in the CMIP6 models cause much more warming to be projected, so they have decided that, instead of averaging all models as was done in CMIP5, only the coolest ones should be averaged. Even so, the deviation between models and reality becomes more unbearable with each passing year (Figure 4).
Other good climate news
2022 has been full of more good climate news that we haven’t heard about.
In September, sea ice reached a minimum extent of 4.87 million square kilometers in the Arctic. This is higher than the extent in 2007, which means the Arctic summer sea ice trend is zero for the past 16 years (Figure 5). We were told ad nauseam that the Arctic was melting, and Greenpeace used it to raise money from the unwary. Well-intentioned money which it used, among other things, to maintain the high lifestyle of its executives. The Arctic melted significantly between 1990 and 2007, but it has not done so for the past 16 years, and I don’t think it is because of the money given to Greenpeace.
With data available till September, sea level has risen only 2 millimeters in the first 9 months of the year. The decreasing sea level rise trend over the last 10 years continues (Figure 6). This indicates that sea level rise is probably linked to temperature rise, which is logical. Therefore, sea level rise models are at least as wrong as the temperature models, and those sea level rise figures of one meter or more that the media are trying to scare us with are ridiculous.
It must be said that satellites measure a rate of sea level rise that is about twice that recorded by coastal tide gauges. Either the sea is rising more in the center than on the coasts, or there is a problem in measuring sea level rise to the center of the Earth that does not take into account what is happening at the bottom of the oceans.
In any case, the ridiculous sea level rise is only a problem in areas where there is subsidence by human action, due to groundwater extraction or excessive coastal construction. As an example of the non-existence of a serious problem here are two photos separated by 45 years of the same building located just 10 meters from the shore of the Mediterranean Sea, where I spend my vacations (figure 7). Coastal erosion has affected the profile somewhat, but the sea level does not appear to have risen detectably. The local Alicante II tide gauge shows a sea level rise of about 10 cm in 60 years or one-and-a-half millimeters per year.
Despite all the continuous claims that climate change is making extreme events more intense and frequent, there is no data to support this, which is why the data are never presented. The IPCC reports do not conclude that extreme events are getting worse, except heat waves, which are definition dependent.
2022 has been a very quiet year in terms of hurricanes, continuing the downward trend since the mid-1990s in both frequency and energy (Figure 8).
I have already mentioned on occasions that in a warmer world, the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles is smaller, reducing the amount of energy to be transported and the intensity of atmospheric circulation, so we should not expect warming to increase the frequency of extreme events, just as we should not expect the global precipitation level to decrease.
Conclusion
2022 has been a good year in terms of climate, and it also reaffirms the positive trends toward a reduction in the intensity of climate change in many of the main indicators: temperature, Arctic sea-ice extent, sea level, and extreme phenomena. Let us not be fooled by those supported by our taxes. We have nothing to fear from climate change now or in the foreseeable future. Richard Feynman, one of the best physicists of the 20th century, said in 1966 that “science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”, and Stuart Firestein teaches us that ignorance is the fuel that makes science advance. Those who believe they know what is wrong with the climate, who refuse to accept their ignorance, are not advancing science, but hindering its progress by slowing it down. They do not deserve to be called scientists because they do not serve the cause of science, which is to increase knowledge. They are only trying to line their pockets by defending an orthodoxy of clear political interest. It is clear why the climate panel is called “intergovernmental.”
Lightly edited by Andy May
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Excellent post, Javier Vinós! Thank you.
My favorite snippet from the first paragraph is “…no one knows how much…”.
Exactly.
As I see it, the climate sensitivity to CO2 or to any of the non-condensing GHGs – whether the ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) or the TCR (transient climate response) or variations thereof – cannot be reliably differentiated from zero by any means we have available to us.
The key word is “reliably” – concerning which I have high regard for Pat Frank’s evaluation of the reliability of GCM global air temperature projections. (Most WUWT readers will know what I am talking about – his paper is here https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full )
From the article: “The theory does not allow global warming to slow with accelerating CO2 emissions. The theory is wrong or incomplete. There are fundamental things about climate change that we do not understand, that are capable of offsetting, canceling, and even reversing the effect of the CO2 increase on temperature.”
This is the true state of climate science today.
We should not be destroying our economies based on this obvious lack of knowledge.
Alarmist climate scientists are harming the public when they claim certainty about how the Earth’s climate works, when there is no certainty. Politicians are taking harmful actions (destroying their economy) based solely on the unsubstantiated speculation of alarmist climate scientists. How crazy is that!?
I am a bit surprised the usual cast of anti-science trendology noise makers have not jumped all over Javier’s article like they do to CMoB’s. Maybe they were unable to find anything to nitpick, which would be another testament to the article’s quality.
“Maybe they were unable to find anything to nitpick”
I think that might be the reason.
“There are fundamental things about climate change that we do not understand, that are capable of offsetting, canceling, and even reversing the effect of the CO2 increase on temperature.”
For a guy who talks about what ‘we’ don’t understand about climate, who hasn’t demonstrated what the CO2 effect is on temperature, you are awfully glib about then claiming the things ‘we don’t understand’ are then capable of countering whatever CO2 effect that you didn’t specify.
Those claims are a hallmark of pseudo-science which allow you to think just about anything.
This allows you to say just about anything, which you have. Example:
“I have already mentioned on occasions that in a warmer world, the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles is smaller, reducing the amount of energy to be transported and the intensity of atmospheric circulation, so we should not expect warming to increase the frequency of extreme events, just as we should not expect the global precipitation level to decrease.” [my emphasis]
The warmer world we have lived in still hasn’t changed that much because the change in the equator to pole temperature gradient continued to range within 30-0C during 1970-2022.
You haven’t provided any reason to think this relatively unchanging temperature gradient can drive more or less extreme events. You aren’t doing science here Javier, you’re handwaving.
If you were to be convincing on this subject, you would have provided strong evidence linking extreme events (ACE) to specific equator-pole temperature gradient levels, which you didn’t.
Well it looks like so far at least one person favors BS over evidence.
Millions, nay, billions favor BS over evidence, or at least tolerate it.
You’re in the right place to see plenty of that!
Why has the earth been cooling for 7 years and the warming-rate decreasing for 28 years?
That’s an excellent couple of questions John. Thank you for asking.
I predicted the present solar cooling period in my 2018 AGU session poster entitled
“Extreme Weather Events and Climate Extremes are Limited by the Duration of Solar Cycle Irradiance Extremes“, Climate Extremes: Patterns, Mechanisms, and Attribution.
It was based on a quantifiable solar cycle influence on the ocean, relative to my solar threshold theory, where the sun-ocean decadal warming threshold is 95 v2 SN, 120 sfu F10.7cm solar radio flux, and 1361.25 W/m2 SORCE v17 TSI (1362.11 W/m2 TSIS-1).
The more recent 7 years period (and true of the prior pause into 2014) was a solar TSI cooling period due to the immediate and lagged effects of long-duration low solar activity below my sun-ocean warming threshold. I found a lag of up to a year between ocean warming and TSI long durations above the threshold. Since TSI has exceeded the threshold most of 2022, we can expect warm water upwelling along with direct surface solar TSI warming later this year that will erode the La Nina & reverse cooling.
I said in the poster this solar cooling period would last until 2021 +/-1 year, assuming a hypothetical July 2019 solar minimum, which was 5 months sooner than it actually happened, so by advancing the minimum to actual, the true projection is ~2022+-1 yr.
The best thing about this article was Javier’s Figure 2 of the 15y warming rate.
The 28y long 15y warming rate decrease is from progressively lower overall solar cycle activity since strong solar cycles #21, 22, a smaller #23, and an even smaller SC #24.
The rapid 2013 downspike in the 15y warming rate stands out, coinciding with high-sunspot driven TSI downspikes which I depicted here in my 2018 AGU poster image, driving exceptionally cold NH winter weather.
The sun then followed with sustained strong TSI above my threshold in 2Q2014, which continued with the solar sunspot maximum in late 2014, powered the equatorial ocean heat content increases and initiated the Kelvins waves that lead to the 2015/16 El Nino and subsequently related extreme events.
The climate cooled since 2016 from long duration low solar activity that is over now.
Now we are back to where we started, waiting for strong TSI to do its work again and turn the solar cooling La Nina period into a solar warming phase with another El Nino.
Looking at the equator to pole temperature gradient as a driver of extreme events misses the real climate driver, changes in TSI over solar cycles.
I think you might benefit from reading some articles about the relationship between Earth’s temperature and the Equator-poles temperature gradient. For example, here are two, one from Willie Soon and the other from Cristopher Scotese:
Soon, W. and Legates, D.R., 2013. Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 93, pp.45-56.
Scotese, C.R., Song, H., Mills, B.J. and van der Meer, D.G., 2021. Phanerozoic paleotemperatures: The earth’s changing climate during the last 540 million years. Earth-Science Reviews, 215, p.103503.
And then some papers from the people that have a better understanding of climate thermodynamics and defend that it is not possible that the atmosphere of a warmer planet does more work because of the intensification of the hydrological cycle. For example:
Laliberté, F., Zika, J., Mudryk, L., Kushner, P.J., Kjellsson, J. and Döös, K., 2015. Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate. Science, 347(6221), pp.540-543.
My work confirms the basic TSI equatorial to polar connection Soon and Legates hypothesized, but I don’t use Scafetta’s Hoyt-Schattan based TSI like they do, so I don’t agree with their Figure 1. Scafetta’s sunspot-TSI basis is wrong and their method obviously precludes any solar-ocean accumulation over several solar cycles.
The next lagged relationship could not occur without inherent sun-ocean accumulation during high TSI absorption periods,which indirectly refutes the “only direct TSI“-climate forcing regime the Soon-Legates Figure 1 implies.
Like them, I have also empirically connected the sun to SST (above), then NH SST to the Arctic (below), in a few simple steps.
More recently I connected the intensification of the hydrological cycle to solar activity level in my 2022 AGU Frontiers in Hydrology presentation: higher SN => higher precip.
The net change in top of atmosphere Earth Energy Imbalance as measured by CERES instrumentation is caused by a decreasing shortwave out. This is not controversial.
Longwave up and down is changing proportionately to temperature, as one might expect considering observed LW IR is a consequence of the temperature of things, at 0.56W/m² during the CERES period of record.
Net radiation at the surface and the corresponding convective activity are set unequivocally to OLR/2.
Therefore, we should consider a supposed climate gas forcing mechanism to be a failed hypothesis.
Such that, through the use of observational evidence, it is more reasonable to be hypothesizing about the formation and distribution of the liquid and solid phases of matter in fluid dynamics.
I have no clue regarding why hundreds millions USD were invested in the satellite altimetric SLR measurement programs since we have a network of hundreds of tide gauges everywhere in the world that give us reliable records of the evolution of SLR for long periods, some among them being more than 2 centuries old.
Until now nobody could explain the huge discrepancy existing between the average SLR with no acceleration (less tan 2mm/year) recorded by the tide gauges and that of the satellites. Of course the IPCC scornfully rejects the first ones, keeping only the satellite records as clearly showing an almost 4mm/year accelerating rise as the dramatic result of the CAGW. “Is Science truly settled”?
No matter how fast it’s rising, it’s all natural (sun, volcanoes, isostatic adjustments) unless someone can prove how much man-made CO2 is warming (or cooling) the earth. According to the NEEM project, seas where up to 25 feet higher during the last Interglacial Warm Period — so we have nothing to complain abut. Either way, the fish are loving it as they now have more room to swim. In other words, global warming is making the oceans great again.
Thanks, John.
Does anyone know how much lower was the oceans level during the minimum temperatures of the Little Ice Age ?
They were about 400 feet lower, and they’ll probably go that low again during the next glaciation … http://www.climatecraze.com/pix/SeaLevels.jpg … and no doubt the IPCC will blame humans again.
According to:
Jevrejeva, S., Moore, J.C., Grinsted, A. and Woodworth, P.L., 2008. Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(8).
Global sea level has risen about 300 mm since 1700, or about 1 mm per year.
I am a huge fan of data gathering as that is the food that feeds science. Satellite measurements have a lot of problems but have a huge advantage over tide gauge measurements. Tide gauges do not distinguish a rising sea from a sinking land.
That said there is a third technique that has probably the best of both worlds, tide gauges tracked by GPS satellites.
“I have no clue regarding why hundreds millions USD were invested in the satellite altimetric SLR measurement programs since we have a network of hundreds of tide gauges everywhere in the world that give us reliable records of the evolution of SLR for long periods, some among them being more than 2 centuries old. ”
To gain control , money , “fame” etc ?
😉
Here in the UK there is a has been a steady rise in summer temps since the mid 1960’s which looks artificial to me.
As there has been no noticeable change in both the sunshine and rain fall records during the summer since the 1960’s that l would expect to see with such a rising trend in temps.
Which leads me to believe that this trend over the last 60 years has at least in some part a artificial cause rather then a fully natural cause. So l think this change is due to the changes in the way the temps have been record over these years. By means of moving away from recording temps the old school Maz Min mercury way, and over to recording temps by the way of electronic recordings.
You have to know that a majority of the meteorological stations in Europe were installed all along the last century in suburban zones in a time when they still were rural/agricultural places. The towns expanded and progressively reached these stations’ locations: The lanes became macadamed roads, residential and commercial zones were built, thus bringing the UHI (Urban Heat effect) with them.
It has been demonstrated that the UHI may enhance the local temperatures up to 8 °C (!) during canicular periods with respect to the surrounding countryside’s ones, and more modestly up to 2°C during winter cold periods.
Thus it is easy to understand that the warming is partially, if not mainly, an artificial, unnatural phenomenon.
Other good news, the climate has been getting more stable as it warms.
The highs get slightly higher, but the lows get even higher. The swings are smaller and less frequent.
Warming makes the climate more stable.
https://twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1612075237230903297
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4867/meta
Better to just ignore MSM in general – the quality of journalism has hit the sewers
I don’t understand figure 6 that shows sea level rise at 11mm per year a decade ago even though the discussion is how it’s ~2?
That is the rate of change for the past 15 years. A few high years in a row can do that. It is easy to find rates of 11mm/year using monthly data. I’ve attached a plot I made using the Church and White monthly data.
Fig. 6 gives the ‘instantaneous’ annual rate of change. The decadal average is about half that in the early part of the decade; it declines to about 2 at the end of the decade.
Some years sea level rises quite a lot, and some years very little or even negative. In Niño years, the sea level tends to increase more than in Niña years. In 2022 sea level is increasing very little and comes after some years of low increase. This helps demonstrate that there is no acceleration in sea level rise, as several articles have noted:
Kleinherenbrink, M., Riva, R. and Scharroo, R., 2019. A revised acceleration rate from the altimetry-derived global mean sea level record. Scientific reports, 9(1), pp.1-6.
Thank you
The UAH lower troposphere temperature plot for Australia shows a pause of 10 years 7 months to the end of 2022.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/uahjan2023.jpg
Thanks to Christopher Monckton for the method.
Note the strong cooling trend since about 2016.
If you convert that peak to trough cooling to conventional terms, it works out at minus 26 degrees C per century.
And people are making policy about an alleged 1.4 degrees C per century global warming rate and proxy based stuff like hockey sticks.
That minus 26 deg C per century is from data torture, a questionable scientific method, but in matters as grave as this, one has to fight fire with fire.
Thank you, Javier, for your reality. Geoff S
Debates on trivial fluctuations of climate are a diversion from the important issue: providing adequate energy on demand and at an affordable cost to the planet. Civilization is being pauperized by $trillions wasted on ‘renewable energy’. That waste is based on the narrative that energy produced CO2 is responsible for warming the planet; an hypothesis for which there is no reliable data, just assertion contrary to observation.
Building vast wind farms and PV parks does have measured, negative climate effects. Since there is a solution: nuclear fission energy, which produces NO CO2, the debate is moot. Build the necessary fleet of nuclear power plants. Let’s get on with civilization.
Regarding “The current cooling period is contributing to this decline in the long-term warming rate”: The “current cooling period” is from one of the two greatest El Ninos since the one of 1877-1878 to the third dip of a triple dip La Nina. Although the CMIP5 models overpredicted warming and the CMIP6 ones did so even worse, the author of this article seems to be overstating his case.
Consider that for the 22 years of this millennium, there has only been net warming in two, 2014 and 2015. So I would say that for over 20 years, the only warming we got was from “one of the two greatest El Ninos.” It is clear that the warming is not what it used to be.
“El Nino of 1877-1878”
Interesting.
This chart Phil Jones uses below shows the high temperatures of the 1880’s and the 1930’s to be on the same level.
The U.S. chart shows the 1930’s to be just as warm as 1998/2016.
It looks like we have a cycle since the Little Ice Age ended where the 1880’s, the 1930’s and 1998/2016 all fall within a narrow range, and the cool part of the cycle also falls within a narrow range with the 1910’s, and the 1970’s being equally cool.
So we have a cycle that varies about 2.0C from coolest to warmest, and within the cycle, the temperatures warm for a few decades and then they cool for a few decades and then the pattern repeats.
Here’s a U.S. temperature chart (Hansen 1999) that shows the magnitude of the changes: Keep in mind that the UAH global temperature chart shows 1998 and 2016 to be tied for warmest year in the satellite era (1979 to present).
The year 1934 was the hottest in the United States. Hansen shows 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998/2016.
Re Fig. 4: The CMIP’s calculate the temperatures on the ground (“tas”) and NOT in the lower troposphere. A fair comparison should therefore include only GMST. And IF you use UAH why not RSS? This dataset describes the same time-lenghth and the same issue. If you would use only GMST your argument would hold also. Why this “game play”?
The decrease in the rate of warming since the mid-90s is present in the datasets I have checked (HadCRUT and UAH) and has been reported:
Munshi, J., 2016. Trend Profiles of Atmospheric Temperature Time Series. Available at SSRN 2839119.
The degree of divergence between model and data trends is simply not possible.
I don’t have to justify why I use UAH. It is one of the datasets available. It is thoroughly reviewed every month at WUWT so people are familiar with it.
You didn’t answer my question why you compare TLT ( UAH) with “tas” in CMIP’6s. This would be the fair way to compare apples to apples.
I didn’t do that comparison. The figure is from Charles May, and he used UAH. Lower troposphere and 2 m. temperature trends should not be very diverging, and the atmosphere is not warming more than the surface, it is warming less.
Excellent post, Javier. Just wanted to let you know that I have added a couple of Keeling plot examples to the thread where we were discussing the 13C/12C ratio changes (or lack thereof) in the incremental atmospheric CO2.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/04/the-new-pause-lengthens-100-months-with-no-warming-at-all/#comment-3662505
I remember the times when some WUWT articles were discussed for weeks until they were closed for further comments. There was a controversial moderator that was fired for posting a last-word controversial comment minutes before the article was closed for comments. These days comments are dead three days after posting. Attention span and concentration are lost mental abilities in the human species.
I’ll follow in the old thread.
Thanks for your birthday wishes. I’m aiming for 123 in 2061 to see Halley’s Comet again!!
I returned to my spread sheets for Aug 2022 and redid your Figure 6 but only up to the end of 2021. I have repeated two of the graphs from my work leading up to the WUWT essay
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/14/sea-level-rise-acceleration-an-alternative-hypothesis/
Not sure if I am in the “elite” club who can insert figures into their comments, so I have used Google Drive links for each. The first shows the Aug 2022 data with a Linear and Quadratic fit and indicating the “Residuals” showing the differences between the Actual and Linear values.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UWW8dF_1srbGRIztlOXda6lULm65QeXP/view?usp=sharing
Next is plot of Residuals with a quadratic fit and a sinusoidal fit. Up to recently the sinusoidal curve was a 22 year period curve with a +/-3.5mm range. I have recently, in light of 4 years of data, changed this to a 26 year curve with a +/-4.2mm range. I feel slightly embarrassed quoting a +/-4.2mm range – so accurate it must be true!!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y3eYuCjn0n0tqQNkb89-8hQlL8EvoAwY/view?usp=sharing
I then repeated your Figure 6 and added a Linear fit. The curves labelled Quadratic and Sinusoidal are based on the full data set. Also produced a similar curve for all the data up to end 2021. These graphs look less convincing as with the second graph above due to only plotting annual changes instead of all the readings. The first is similar to yours but I still maintain using short time periods is misleading.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qyq-1D-Y8KoN03TWEzjdP-oWO_UnG2LI/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zlU-tkNfTePQ7aRPYB40J873vO1hemn0/view?usp=sharing
I’m hoping to do a 30 year update of my work after the Dec 2022 results have been issued and I expect Nerem et Co will do likewise, especially as they make statements along the lines that the “acceleration” in sea level rises has leveled off and that 30 years is a long enough period to calculate “accelerations” – complete rubbish.
Alan,
I didn’t get access to your last three figures.
To display images in comments you need to first place them on an image-hosting website with https address. Several of them are free. For example https://imgur.com
Of course, it is, but this post is only about 2022 good climate news. In 2022 Artic sea ice did not decrease, temperature did decrease, sea level increased less than average, and there were fewer hurricanes.
I did some work on the long-term sea level rise predictions for my book. Even the intermediate scenarios are wild exaggerations. My projection includes the 65-year sinusoidal found by Jevrejeva et al.
Good luck with your 123-year project.
Javier
Glad you caught up with my comments as they should have been sent as a reply further back.
I have been able to click on all the https links and see all the figures. I will investigate “imgur”.
In 2018/19 I tried to submit a paper to PNAS and all going well until it was peer reviewed (I have my suspicions by who) and it was rejected. Below is the title and summary and it shows I studied the Tidal Gauge and NASA readings. I must admit the presentation of graphs in it could have been better.
—————————————————————————————-
Accelerating Sea Level Rise – Reconciliation of Tidal Gauge Readings with Satellite Data
By Dr Alan K Welch FRAS FBIS
Summary
The tidal gauge sea levels follow quite closely a constant accelerating curve. Closer analysis also shows that by combining this curve with a long-period (57 year) sinusoidal function many aspects of the tidal gauge data are even more accurately portrayed. A combined equation of the form
y = (0.0063×2 – 0.2452x + 174.82) + 6sin(((50+2t)/57) π)
was derived, where t is now defined as 1800 being t=0. See figure 8 and Appendix 2. This equation was then used for short and long-term projections. During this study other possible formulae to replace the constant acceleration were also investigated.
A separate study of the NASA satellite results was also carried out when the deviation from the linear regression line was used. This arrived at a similar short-term (22 year) sinusoidal variation resulting in a combined equation given by
(3.225x – 37.377) + 3.5sin(((5+2t)/22) π)
See figure 22. Short term projections were carried out.
The 2 periods of 57 years and 22 years could be related to known ocean oscillations.
————————————————————————————
Since then I have been in regular contact with Kip Hansen and occasionally with Dave Burton regarding sea levels. Kip helped me get my 2 papers (Sea Level Rise Acceleration – An Alternative Hypothesis Parts 1 and 2) published on WUWT and to polish up my presentation.Thanks for the Fig of projected sea levels. Projections to 2100 tend to give me the shivers, not by what they show, but that the extreme predictions use quadratic curve fitting and 80 year extrapolations. As an engineer I find this totally unacceptable. At least since the start of 2020 Nerem’s “accelerations” have slowly reduced month on month and may finish up nearer long term Tidal Gauge values around 0.01mm/year2 in a decade or so.
Best wishes for 2023
Alan
Of course you do, because it is your drive, but it says to me that I need access (not for the first two figures).
It may be a problem with the way you configured the permissions to see those figures.
Javier
This topic must be getting near it’s “dead and buried” stage with comments drying up.
There is one thing I want to raise regarding the plot you showed a few comments back on “Sea Level Rise Intermediate Scenarios”.
I may be wrong, but I thought the 65(ish) year variation was applicable to the combined Tidal Gauge Graph and was due to the combined affects of all the main ocean decadal oscillations all which have different amplitudes and phase shifts. The satellite readings would not be affected the same but the fact that they only cover 95% of the oceans may have an effect. The important point is where this missing 5% is. A quick look at an atlas points to a major part being the Arctic Sea so any oscillation between this and the North Atlantic may induce a perceived oscillation over a 25(ish) year period with a +/-4(ish) mm amplitude. This small amplitude is sufficient to create short term “accelerations” similar to those quoted by Nerem et al in 2018 and are not real long term effects.
Are you aware of any decadal oscillations between the Arctic Sea and the North Atlantic or are this areas and any amplitudes too small to show up
Alan?
I read your WUWT articles and I agree with what you say in them. Sea level rise acceleration is very small and presents multidecadal oscillations.
Javier
My fault – new at this
Hope to have changed settings.
Figures a combination of your Figure 6 with quadratic and sinusoidal curves added. Cover part period and full 29 years.
As I said before using annual changes leaves the graphs wanting a bit whereas using all 10 day results as in my second figure results in a better presentation.
Hope I’ve cracked it.
Alan
This article was re-blogged,
here: Goed klimaatnieuws, maar de media zwijgen – Climategate Klimaat
(Netherlands)
and here:
Good Climate News the Media didn’t tell you | Bread on the water
(South-Africa)