I see that the NASA folks are busily putting the hype back into hyperventilate. Over at The Cool Down, the news is headlined:
From the underlying NASA article:
Global sea level rose faster than expected in 2024, mostly because of ocean water expanding as it warms, or thermal expansion. According to a NASA-led analysis, last year’s rate of rise was 0.23 inches (0.59 centimeters) per year, compared to the expected rate of 0.17 inches (0.43 centimeters) per year.
“The rise we saw in 2024 was higher than we expected,” said Josh Willis, a sea level researcher at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Southern California. “Every year is a little bit different, but what’s clear is that the ocean continues to rise, and the rate of rise is getting faster and faster.”
YIKES! Be very scared!
Here’s the image of the satellite-based sea level measurements that Josh Willis used to illustrate the change.
Figure 1. JPL sea level data. I haven’t found the source for the data, which shows an annual swing over the course of each year of 5 to 20 mm.
Here’s the first oddity. Take a look at this closeup of the above graphic.
Figure 2. Closeup of Figure 1
My problem is, I can’t really tell what they are calling the “2024 RISE”. First, from the vertical black line it seems like they are measuring the annual swing … but why? Next, the vertical black line (presumably the 5.9 mm rise) covers less vertical distance than the vertical extent of the slanted green line showing the 4.3 mm rise. ??
And how is the annual swing at all comparable to the actual rate of sea rise? Overall sea level rise has nothing to do with annual swings. What am I missing here?
Setting that conundrum aside for the moment, the NASA JPL’s data is different from the NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry data below.
Figure 3. NOAA graph showing the sea level along with the timing and overlaps of the satellites. Note the data in the top right corner.
The JPL data is also different from the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group data. However, other than ending slightly before the end of the NOAA data, the Colorado data agrees with the NOAA data above.
Figure 4. Sea levels by satellite from the University of Colorado. Note that it agrees with the NOAA data shown in Figure 4.
Now, both the NASA graph and the Colorado graph above claim that the satellites show an acceleration of 0.083 mm/yr^2. However, back in 2021, I showed that the acceleration was nothing more than an artifact of improperly spliced satellites. Here’s the money graph from that post.
Figure 5. 2021 graph of NOAA sea level data, showing the trend of each of the full individual satellite records and the overall trend. SOURCE: NOAA Excel Spreadsheet
Note that there are two pairs of satellites, the early and the late pairs. The early pair shows ~ 2.6 mm/year sea level rise. The late pair shows ~ 3.9 mm/year rise. They have been improperly spliced together
With the new claims by Josh Willis, I thought I’d update that graph. Here’s the 2025 version hot of the presses, using the updated version of the spreadsheet linked to just above. The bogus splice has just become more obvious.
Figure 6. Updated version of Figure 5, showing the trends of the records of each of the five satellite datasets.
Since 2021 they’ve added another satellite, Sentinel 6MF. Both Jason 3 and Sentinel 6MF are active up until the present, so we have two overlapping records since 2021. You can see the overlap of the Jason 3 and the Sentinel data at the top right of the graph.
Obviously, the two earlier records in Figure 6 above are radically different from the succeeding three. I have no clue why. But it gets stranger. Remember that Josh Willis said that they expected a 4.3 mm/year trend for 2024, but they found a 2024 trend of 5.9 mm/year?
To begin with, they only expected a 2024 trend of 4.3 mm per year because Josh Willis, as well as the Colorado researchers, think there’s acceleration in the record. But the “acceleration” is an artifact of improper splicing. The actual individual satellite records in Figure 6 show no acceleration in either the earlier half or the later half of the time period.
But the curious part is their claim that in 2024 the trend was 5.9 mm/year, a very high rate of sea level rise … but when I investigated that, here’s what I found.
Figure 7. Close-up of the last four years of the records shown in Figures 3, 4, and 6 above.
I’m sure you can see the oddity. Far from the sea level rise in 2024 being unusually large, according to both of the two satellites, the sea level fell in 2024 …
So I have no clue what Josh Willis was talking about when he was claiming that “the ocean continues to rise, and the rate of rise is getting faster and faster”. Overall, the actual tide gauges continue to show that there’s no increase in the rate of rise. Absent the bogus splice, the two halves of the satellite record each say no increase in the rate of rise. And the NOAA and University of Colorado data both say sea levels fell in 2024.
Over time, the disparity between the satellite record and the tide gauges continues to grow. The tide gauges still say the rise is around 1.8 mm per year or so. For the first two decades of the satellite records, they claimed about 2.6 mm per year, which was not too much more than tide gauges show, perhaps credible, but likely not.
Since then, if we ignore the bogus splice, the last three satellites have claimed an instantaneous rise to a trend of ~ 4.0 mm per year … a rise that is totally discredited by the actual tide gauges. If the rise were that large, it would be seen in every tide gauge around the planet … but it’s not seen in any of them. Here’s an example:
My theory is that for decades, they’d predicted a catastrophic sea level rise as an inevitable and very damaging result of “global warming”. Here’s a partial list:
• A 2004 Pentagon analysis warned that major European cities would be underwater by 2020 due to climate change, and that Britain would experience a “Siberian” climate due to the failure of the Gulf Stream
• In 1988 James Hansen said that by 2028 the West Side Highway in New York would be underwater. In 2008, ABC News aired a special suggesting that New York City could be underwater by 2015 due to rising sea levels. Neither one came true.
• In 1988, Maldives environmental officials warned that their island nation would be completely underwater within 30 years (by 2018). The Maldives remain above water, and are building resort hotels.
• Media reports and some scientists warned that Pacific coral atolls would be underwater before now due to sea level rise. However, the scientists forgot that Charles Darwin showed that coral atolls are created by sea level rise, not destroyed by it. And studies (e.g., Webb & Kench, 2010) have shown that ~ 80% of the atolls have experienced either a gain or no loss of land area since the 1940s despite rising sea levels.
The problem for the sea level alarmists is that, having made so many predictions of oceanic thermageddon from rising sea levels only to see them crash and burn, and now watching the climate grift slowly collapse, they have no choice other than to put their thumb on the scales. As Bill Shakescene remarked, “There is a tide in the affairs of men”, and although these good prognosticators thought the rising sea levels would “lead them on to destiny”, back here in the real world, they are now feeling the tide ebbing out from under their feet and getting very nervous.
There’s an old lawyer’s maxim that says:
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”.
I fear this is just Josh Willis pounding the table and yelling …
TLDR Version? The claim of acceleration in the satellite sea level data is a false conclusion from an unjustifiable splicing process, and the claims of Josh Willis and the NASA JPL of a large sea level rise in 2024 are contradicted by a drop in the actual sea level data.
Best to everyone on a sunny evening,
w.
Yeah, you’ve heard it before: When you comment, please quote the words you’re discussing. It avoids heaps of confusion.
Also: I’m tired of the name-calling. I’ll snip it without remorse.
Good job, Willis, pointing out the addition of politics and feelings into science. Us geologists are used to thinking about 150 meter sea level variations, over a very short (geological) time scale, so we are unmoved by the hysterics of those true believers. Press On!
I love geology. Didn’t take much in forestry school. But after some creationists tried to seduce me into their nonsense I went back to my alma mater and bought ever geology textbook in the store, then actually read them with delight. That gave me an essential grasp of the science- which made my trips to the American west even better than if didn’t have that knowledge. Actually seeing rock formations at large scale and realizing all the forces at work- and the time scale- is totally mind blowing to me. I’ve been to the bottom of the Grand Canyon several times and loved every second of that hard hike. Anyone who grasps the immense changes the Earth has experienced wouldn’t be panicking over the trivial changes occurring now. These changes occur because the Earth is alive- in a sense- and extremely dynamic. There are several excellent geology YouTube channels and I watch all of them- especially that of Myron Cook.
Have you read John McPhee’s (1998) Annals of the Former World, or the books published in the ’80s that form the core of it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_of_the_Former_World
I’ve read most of his books.
I hiked into the Ditch only once, never out. I have had the experience of drifting its entire length several times, passing sequentially back through the ages. Numerous other river journeys have likewise amazed me with the slow tortures in stone that dwarf the scratches made by man.
I also dug Green River Formation fossils for years in Wyoming, a reminder of when palm trees and crocodiles once populated the area. The strange idea that change is a new thing, an unprecedented crisis, astounds me.
In the world of physics, mass attempts to maintain a perfect spherical shape; so how does the sea level relative to coast lines in the tropics maintain stability when the ice build up over the artic regions have miles of ice build up over the 100k year ice age cycles?
The crust of the earth exposed to the atmosphere with respect to the seas should rise and fall with the melting and build of the ice cycles. It would seem this is a very slow process involving thousands of years. For the sake of the laws of physics this spherical shape of the earth must be maintained!
Has there been much conversation on this aspect of sea level change. Not a healthy thing to consider when you are a climate change advocate.
This effect is independent of the rise and fall of sea level do to ice melt and is most pronounced when ice melt has become more stable.
DipChip, in the early 1990’s Exxon geologists and geophysicists noted that seismic profiles, from all over the world, in fairly stable environments, shared a remarkable similar sedimentary profile. The part of sedimentary geology known as “Sequence Stratigraphy” was born. The first order variations, which coordinated all over the world, tropics included, were due to large changes in sea level.
Most people’s “100 item worry list” doesn’t include rising sea levels.
At today’s rate, I figure I’ll be 6′ below sea level in about 200,000 years.
I’m afraid that in 200,000 years, you will be 6′ below ground level.
I am 1700 feet below the surface of a vast lake that was only 12,000 years ago, right now.
It still looks like bad calibration of the satellites. Given that usual surface waves and ripples in sea are much larger than the purported rise, it could just be bad software.
How about data with cm error bands reporting changes in mm?
Reporting changes of what? Given that ocean waves are usually thousands of millimeters high, how precise is the satellite altimetry? The trend surely suggests a slow rise .. of what?
Or fractional mm?
Thanks, Dave. I’ve given you the link to the data. You’re welcome to have a go at it.
I abstained, for a few reasons.
• The uncertainties in the underlying data are unknown. But with a maximum difference between the Jason and Sentinal records of almost 7 mm, clearly they are not small.
• Precision is different from accuracy, but the uncertainties are harder to measure.
• Due to the satellite overlaps, the data density varies over time. This changes the statistical uncertainty, and thus the overall uncertainty, over time.
• They have reprocessed the data shown in Figure 5 to have less variation in Figure 6. The observations cluster more tightly around the trend lines … but what has this done to the uncertainty?
• And the main point—NONE of these uncertainties change the conclusions I described in the TLDR summary.
But heck, like I said, you’re free to calculate some uncertainty figures.
w.
Willis, did not 2023 have a unexpected and unexplained ocean warming, followed by an equally unexplained rapid cooling? Curious, did the tide Guage record reflect the 2024 SL lowering?
Thanks Willis. My first thought when reading this was, “Where are the error bars?”
Shades of Yogi Berra saying –
All my best to you and yours, of course.
m.
Dave ==> Be fair now, you know full well that NOAA/NASA never add any uncertainty/error bars to their graphs I have referred to it as “errorless sea level rise”. No w.’s fault.
Why not just use REAL sea level gauges? Battery Park in NYC has one you can walk up to. Rock Port, MA has one. Gulfport, MS has one. Miami, FLA has one. Pretty sure every coastal city in America has them, just use those. Screw computers and satellites. USE REALITY.
How can you save your funding for CC if you are rational? Common sense is best countered with alarmism, so they are doubling down on all their news feeds.
Tide gauges measure the level of the sea relative to the land the gauge is nailed to. In several parts of the world the land is sinking or rising due to geological changes, or due to the land being made of landfill and sinking.
Yes! They are reality, not fantasy computer crap.
Land-based tide gauge data, without GPS correction for land subsidence or uplift, is worthless for trending over a year or more. That’s reality.
It is not worthless to those that live there. Tide gages adjusted for geo static land mass show about 1.4 mm per year and no acceleration.
I clearly stated “. . . worthless for trending over a year or more.”
Perhaps you overlooked that.
I lived near and on the Atlantic ocean coast for decades and never once consulted a tide gage, because I NEVER noticed any long-term change in the max, min and slack tide levels which varied by more than +/- 4 m in the period of a lunar month with accounting for “king tides” (but NOT including hurricane ocean surge effects).
1.4 mm/year??? Get back to me in 100 years when the sea-level has risen by about one-half foot. Maybe I’ll get concerned then.
YES! They are reality, not fantasy computer crap.
Gavin gish galloping again.
We have this number called “sea level” We measure it relative to what could be called “land level”apparently to mm precision.
But that “land level” is only 30% of the planet…we actually have no idea how much the ocean floor rises due to plate tectonics unless it jumps a meter and causes a tsunami. So there’s ocean floor and under ice data that we certainly don’t have to mm precision. Plus the sounding satellites are 1/10 of the way to the moon and are constantly recalibrated against ground based DORIS Earth stations which can go up and down nearly a foot a day due to Lunar “Earth tides” The Jason Manual says their instrument is accurate to 25 mm IIRC, so…
.
So we are quite possibly dealing with a measurement of sea level that exists because of the buoyancy of our silicate continental rafts floating on the magma beneath, and maybe very little on how much annual ice melt in Antarctica….just sayin’ …remember 70/30 or 75/25 with ice caps…
I was going to mention “earth tides” – you beat me to it!
D Mckenzie comment – “The Jason Manual says their instrument is accurate to 25 mm IIRC, so…”
I have read that measurement error range was likewise around the 25mm range. How accurate is the 5.9mm rise during 2024 when the measurement error is 25mm?
Its also worth noting the large swings in SLR year to year.
There was no such rise in the blow up data Willis showed.
Jason 3 only make a pass every 10 days but only takes a reading every 30 KM and according to JPL is only accurate to 4 CM. Jason 3 determines its location in space using “DORIS’ which is accurate to 2CM then add the constant movenment of the ocean.
With all the confounding variables the data is less then useless when compared to fixed location/depth and only 1 variable (sea level)
https://directory.eoportal.org/satellite-missions/jason-3
Very interesting, Willis!
From the source article:
“In recent years, about two-thirds of sea level rise was from the addition of water from land into the ocean by melting ice sheets and glaciers. About a third came from thermal expansion of seawater. But in 2024, those contributions flipped, with two-thirds of sea level rise coming from thermal expansion.”
How would they know that? And why did the proportional contribution from melting ice sheets suddenly diminish? These questions seem obvious to ask, but the source article does not address them.
When viewing data with a mind fog they have to invent what they are seeing.
Measuring the sea level accurately is very difficult. Exquisite and subtle methods are utilized, and sometimes summed together, such as ARGO buoys, GRACE I and FO, and Jason satellites. The agreement is astonishingly good, to better than 1 mm, in spite of sea level changes of up to 15 meters that occur constantly. Even a passing polar front can raise or lower the sea surface by more than one meter, along with waves of 1 to 8 meters or more are everywhere, all the time. Nonetheless, the annual rise (always a rise) is measured accurately to be ~ 2mm per year since about 1850. Little mention of the sea level prior to about 1850 is found, for good reason. The sea level was then falling, according to the best data.
In any case, the sea level rise is irrelevant, as long as the rise of land is faster, at least in the context of drowning humans and their cities when situated on marshy land from which ground water is withdrawn faster than replenished, as is the case for Jakarta, for example..
The issue of interest, then, is what is the net change in coastal land area versus coastal sea area. Measuring that is straightforward, unlike measuring sea level. Just use Landsat, etc., and highly accurate measures result. More than 13,000 km2 of NEW LAND rose from the ocean in the last 30 years (DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3111). Erosion is defeating the sea level rise. Even Bangladesh, poster child for sea inundation and horror stories galore, has accumulated more that 1000 km2 of new land since 1980.
Nonetheless, new horror stories arise from new subtle measurements with regularity.
Thanks, wh, an interesting comment. However, you say:
“The agreement is astonishingly good, to better than 1 mm, in spite of sea level changes of up to 15 meters that occur constantly.”
It seems you missed my note at the bottom of Figure 7 …
Best regards,
w.
Long-term that is true for the moving-average or fitted curve. However, because you said “annual rise” I hasten to point out that Eschenbach’s Figure 3 (above) shows about a 2-year decline starting in 1998 and about a 1-year decline about 2011, with several shorter declines of less than a year throughout the record. So, the net or average SL change is increasing, but there are declines of more than a year.
Between the “Little Ice Age” and pseudo-random volcanism variations, fall then raise should not be surprising.
Speaking of which, yes, not only the “sea level raise” is tiny compared to tides, and tides are very modest compared to fairly common “hiccups” in weather patterns, but those are often dwarfed by the tsunami inevitable due to tectonic events occurring repeatedly in every region that’s even slightest bit unstable. And decaying solitary waves running onto the shelves proved vastly greater threat than usual flooding.
I mean, sure, the Great Flood managed to mess up the entire Eurasia and then some — but this does not happen every thousand years, and it took what, the whole Iranian cyclone path going haywire for years?
@WUSTL – Geology department? Remote sensing was a course that 2 roommates took back in 1980. That was cool even back then.
The geology department needs to bring back the “Reunite Gondwanaland” t-shirts.
AB LA 1983 – Econ.
Josh Willis of JPL has been ‘infamous’ for quite a while.
Way back when (if I recall correctly 2007 or 2008) he published the very first analysis of early ARGO data on thermosteric rise. Except he didn’t realize until after his paper got published and critiqued that he had ARGO showing a thermosteric decline. OOPS.
At that early time ARGO used two different temperature sensors depending on who had made the specific ARGO float. So Josh and JPL decided that one of the two must be faulty, picked the one showing thermosteric rise as correct, then mandated only that sensor be used henceforth by all float manufacturers. All the ‘faulty’ early Argo floats were simply deleted from the ARGO database.
Problem ‘solved’.
For more on ARGO sensor evolution, see my old long ago post requested by Charles titled something like ‘ARGO—fit for purpose?’. And the companion, ‘Jason 3–fit for purpose?’ delves into the inherent satalt uncertainty NASA ignores.
Rud, as usual, clear, interesting, and intriguing.
I’ve inserted the links to your two previous posts you refer to above.
I also did an in-depth search using perplexity for the issues surrounding the retiring of the FSI sensor. As usual, it’s more complex than I imagined, involving the entire FSI package. The main problem was that the firmware on the FSI floats was taking incorrect pressure readings, and much of it couldn’t be corrected post-hoc. Some of the FSI profiles were corrected and retained, while others lacked the basic data to correct them and had to be discarded.. Entire story with references below.
Best regards as always,
w.
===
The discontinuation of FSI sensors in Argo floats stemmed from empirically documented technical failures and data inconsistencies, independent of manufacturer claims. Key factors include:
1. Firmware-Induced Pressure Errors
FSI-equipped floats (primarily WHOI SOLO models) exhibited systematic pressure miscalculations due to firmware flaws in data bin averaging algorithms. These errors caused temperature/salinity profiles to be misaligned with depth, introducing depth-dependent cold biases (e.g., −0.02°C at 200 m) [2] [8] [12]. While the pressure sensors themselves were functional, firmware limitations truncated negative pressure drifts to zero, making corrections impossible [2] [12]. Approximately 30,000 profiles from FSI floats were flagged as uncorrectable [1] [9].
2. Sensor-Specific Conductivity Drifts
FSI inductive conductivity sensors suffered from non-linear salinity drift due to biofouling mitigation coatings altering cell geometry. Empirical comparisons against SBE sensors and reference datasets (e.g., WOCE hydrography) showed FSI salinity errors exceeding 0.01 PSS-78, incompatible with Argo’s climate monitoring goals [8] [10]. In contrast, SBE sensors demonstrated long-term stability (≤0.002°C drift over 5 years) [4].
3. Josh Willis’s Role
Willis identified cold biases in FSI float data by cross-validating Argo profiles against satellite altimetry-derived “pseudo temperature profiles.” His method revealed depth errors of ~30 m RMS in FSI cohorts, correlating with firmware-induced pressure offsets [6] [12]. By excluding ~8% of Argo profiles (mostly FSI), Willis reduced spurious cooling trends in ocean heat content estimates [1] [5]. However, his concurrent reliance on warm-biased XBT data drew criticism for potentially overcorrecting toward warming [11].
4. Decision-Making Process
The phase-out was ratified through independent technical audits:
• JAMSTECidentified Druck pressure sensor thermal lag errors in FSI floats, validating depth-dependent biases [6].
• CSIROanalyses confirmed FSI salinity drifts violated Argo’s ±0.01 PSS-78 threshold [8] [10].
• The 2009 Argo Data Management Meeting mandated exclusion of all uncorrectable FSI profiles from global heat content calculations [2] [12].
Critical Analysis
While firmware issues were predominant, FSI sensors faced additional hardware limitations (e.g., slower biofouling recovery compared to SBE) [8]. The decision prioritized empirical data integrity over manufacturer specifications, though Willis’s methodology conflated sensor and firmware errors. No peer-reviewed studies directly attribute the phase-out solely to sensor flaws; it was a systems-level failure of the FSI-CTD package.
Primary sources:
• Firmware-pressure error linkage: Barker et al. (2011) [2], Abraham et al. (2013) [8]
• Conductivity drift: Janzen et al. (2008) [4], Riser et al. (2016) [10]
• Decision audits: 8th Argo Data Management Meeting [6], Argo QC documentation [12]
Follow-up questions could explore whether firmware corrections were attempted for FSI sensors or if manufacturer accountability was pursued.
Citations
[1] https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/26/4/2008jtecho608_1.xml
[2] https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/28/8/2011jtecho831_1.xml
[4] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.00700/full
[5] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCooling/page1.php
[6] https://argo.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/361/2020/04/iast9.pdf
[8] https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00654/76568/77698.pdf
[9] https://floats.pmel.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/gcj_3o.pdf
[10] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022
[11] https://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/11/correcting-ocean-cooling-nasa-changes-data-to-fit-the-models/
[12] https://argo.ucsd.edu/data/data-faq/
Is this the same perplexity Absolutely Idiotic computer program that worked out how much frozen CO2 (dry ice, -80 C or so)was required to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water from 20 C to 30 C?
[SNIPPED—Calling people names goes nowhere.]
What’s wrong Willis? It’s a pretty simple question. What’s wrong with providing an answer?
That’s not very helpful, if you are appealing to the dubious authority of the perplexity AI program. Some people are gullible enough to accept disinformation dished out by perplexity, but not me.
You may be using a different perplexity. Are you?
Once again, Michael, whining about the SOURCE of information goes nowhere. Either you can find and QUOTE an error in my claims or you can’t, and so far, you can’t.
w.
Willis, I’d be curious to the quick at your accusation, if I knew what you were talking about.
I asked –
You responded –
I know you think that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter. It doesn’t.
You think that four and a half billion years of sunlight has warmed the oceans and atmosphere. It hasn’t.
You hope that I have a cure for your bruised and fragile ego. I don’t.
All my best to you and yours. I wish you well.
m.
PS When you comment, please quote the words you’re discussing. It avoids heaps of confusion.
PPS If name-calling is not up to scratch, immediate raucous laughter will occur.
I don’t believe either of them anymore. Until there is a massive purge of both agencies no one should listen to anything they say.
And next up from NASA JPL –
“How Titanic could have avoided collision with iceberg if only they had factored in rising sea level effects on visible distance to horizon”
Made me laugh. 😁
I figure science should be fun, glad you enjoyed it. It was a play on the quote from Robert Greene, a contemporary of Shakespeare’s, who wrote:
Regards,
w.
And who remembers Robert Greene? Very few. Have you seen the British comedy series Upstart Crow? It’s a sort of family sitcom involving W. Shakespeare, and Robert Greene appears in it as the villain! Very funny.
Very nice Willis. If I had the authority I would give you the authority to walk into NASA and hand out pink slips. If you wouldn’t want to hand them out you could write the pink slips up and we could make Al Gore hand them out.
Thanks Willis.
It seems the sea is no better understood now than it was when sailors threw a tethered log off the stern and counted knots in the rope.
If Josh Willis had used the prediction for 2023 and compared it to the trough-to-peak change for that year he could have claimed an even scarier situation. In his haste to spin the situation he overlooked an opportunity to make it look even worse. As it is, he has demonstrated that the situation has improved rather than gotten worse. I have to question his intellectual integrity. He is probably worried about having to look for another job.
Tide gauges with records back 100 Years say acceleration is a nearly
nonexistent 0.01 mm/yr/yr. I’m away from my lap top, other wise I’d put
up that distribution chart that I’ve slapped up here at WUWT a few times.
“The bogus spice has just become more obvious.”
It’s the spice!
Thanks, Joel, fixed. I hate typos, but that was a good one.
And this is one of the reasons I love writing for the web. My errors don’t last long.
Regards,
w.
You’re welcome, Fred.
Willis,
Could you seek spell checks from the Splice Girls?
Geoff S
It’s the splice of life!
Interesting that I just queried GROK on X about this and that AI tool has totally bought the Josh Willis farm so to speak, using the numbers you have in this article. What I like is it is presented as total fact along with the usual dig at any skeptics objections. It’s obviously designed to ignore an essay like this one. I use GROK a lot to consolidate or find information that I would have used DuckDuckGo or Qwant for, but you really have to be careful making sure the results are valid.
It did give this when I asked about error bars:
Annual Anomalies (e.g., 2024’s 0.59 cm rise):
Single-year GMSL changes, like the 0.59 cm in 2024, carry uncertainties of ±0.1–0.2 cm, driven by short-term climate variability (e.g., ENSO, AMOC fluctuations) and measurement noise. The 2024 anomaly’s deviation from the predicted 0.43 cm falls within this range but highlights model limitations.
Did you quote the article and show the splicing and the tide Guage records? I have found Grok very willing to change when information changes.
This might be a good time to remind readers of something that Kip Hansen wrote about the latest satellite to track sea level:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/31/sentinel-6-new-international-sea-level-satellite/
I’ve never seen a paper exploring global land level changes. Presumably that’d be easier than sea level to measure by the satellites.
An earlier comments in this thread shows land area increasing. I do know of a past study using about 50 tide guages around the globe, and the geo static correction for land movement. It showed about 1.4 mm per year annual rise with zero acceleration.
Australia has run such a project for Pacific islands since 1993, entitled PSLGM- Pacific Sea Level and Geodetic Monitoring. The stations combine tidal gauges with land level sensors. The 2023 report is here:
http://www.bom.gov.au/research/publications/researchreports/BRR-085.pdf
My previous post on the project:
https://rclutz.com/2018/07/09/updated-pacific-sea-level-data/
I also have a problem, but a different one. The satellite record says a rise of 10.1 cm over the 3 decades since 1993. The tidal gauges in the North Sea, however, give an average rise of 1.9 mm/yr, which over that same 3 decades amounts to 5.5 cm. Therefore I must conclude that either the oceans have risen 5 cm above the North Sea level or, given that that bloke in Syracuse 2000 years ago figured out that such is impossible, that one of those two records is faulty.
Personally, give me the tidal record and forgive me for considering the satellite record as nonsense.
What you have not allowed for is the isostatic rebound which along the North Sea coast is about 1mm/yr (more the further north you go).
No, that is included in the 1.9 mm/yr. In fact the actual sea level rise on the Dutch coast is more like 1.6mm/yr with the 0.3 mm/yr being subsidence (not rebound) because of the sediments dumped by river Rhine from the Alps. The river delta on which the Netherlands sit is a geosyncline depression.
The person who wrote this is ignorant, gullible, or both.
He apparently has not the faintest idea of the fact that the shape of the ocean basins changes by the minute, or that continents are constantly rising, falling, and changing location.
Mt Everest is currently rising about 2mm per annum, and the continent of Australia was majestically sailing NE at about 70 mm per annum the last time I looked.
The deep oceans are heated from below, and nobody has any idea now much extra basal heat comes from direct magma contact at mid-ocean ridges, nor how much comes from an unknown number of thermal vents ejecting water at 400 C or above.
As a matter of interest, many human hairs are thicker than 0.1 mm, so if anybody claims that they can measure “sea level” of any sort to this accuracy – they’re either lying or delusional. Sea levels change constantly – tides exist, and are, not surprisingly – unpredictable!
What a load of codswallop from NASA. [SNIPPED—Calling readers “stupid” because they disagree with your “scientific” claims is OTT.]
“The deep oceans are heated from below, and nobody has any idea now much extra basal heat comes from direct magma contact at mid-ocean ridges, nor how much comes from an unknown number of thermal vents ejecting water at 400 C or above.”
Here it is:
It’s only about 0.03% of the Earth’s total energy budget at the surface, however.
Phil, at night, it’s 100%, is that it?
Sunlight is irrelevant, Phil. Four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has resulted in the Earth cooling.
Try and find some climate scientist who claims otherwise – I’m sure you find some.
Michael, you say:
“Four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has resulted in the Earth cooling.”
This is true, but only about the average temperature of the earth from the surface down to the center of the core.
However, it’s as meaningless as saying “It’s really hot outside, because down 3,000 km into the earth there’s red-hot lava”.
This climate discussion, like all climate discussions, is not about the average of the earth from the surface to the core. That’s just an extraneous fact that you use to get people involved in a meaningless discussion because that’s not what we’re talking about.
We are discussing the SURFACE TEMPERATURE, or more generally the air temperature 1 meter off the surface. And this temperature has seen wide variations, both cooling and warming over centuries and millennia.
So please, enough with the “continuous cooling” argument. We’re talking about surface temperatures.
Thanks,
w.
Willis, you say –
Not really, but I understand your confusion. Climate nutters refer to supposed land based near surface air temperatures taken at various heights above a nominal sea level as “surface temperatures”. WMO meteorological observation sites actually take a surface (ground) temperature, but “climate scientists” reject these surface temperatures as irrelevant.
However, your statement rejecting the use of the actual average temperature of the Earth itself is excellent. Stop the nonsense about “Global Warming”, or “The Earth is getting hotter, we’re all going to die!”
It’s not surprising that some thermometers become hotter when exposed to the radiation from hotter objects. That’s what they are designed to do.
As the population increases, and per capita energy production increases, Urban Heat Islands lead to National Heat Islands, aggregating to a World Heat Island.
Adding CO2 to air does not make thermometers hotter. Four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has not made the surface hotter. There is no GHE (not that anyone can provide a consistent and unambiguous description of this impossible effect).
The surface, (apart from the ephemeral effects of man-made heat) is of course continuing to cool. It’s hotter than the surrounding environment of around 4K. Do you really think it’s going to heat up all by itself?
Even you wouldn’t be game to say that, would you?
Maybe you could ask perplexity? Here’s my last interaction about so-called “global warming” –
I suppose you have just had second thoughts about AI? You’ll notice the AI thanked me, and apologised for being inconsistent. Maybe you should follow the example of the authority to whom you have appealed in the past.
No?
Michael, you’re the only person I know who thinks that the climate debate is about the average temperature of the entire planet, surface to core. For everyone else, the discussion is about what is sometimes called “GAST”. Here’s a typical description.
Yes, overall the entire Earth, surface to core, is cooling. Yes, it’s continually losing something on the order of 44 TW through the surface. And yes, perplexity agrees with that. Of course it does. It’s true.
A closer look reveals that about 20 to 24 TW of that heat loss is from internal radioactivity, and the rest is from primordial cooling. So that’s a constant loss of about 20 TW that results in actual cooling.
Given the Earth’s weight (5.9722×10^24 kg), its specific heat (~ 1000 J/°C/kg), and the ~ 20 TW continuous loss, over the next 100 years, the earth will cool by something on the order of 0.00001°C.
NOW do you see why nobody but you cares about that? It’s immeasurably small.
Over the next hundred thousand years it will result in a hundredth of a degree of cooling … but you go on and on about it as though that is important. Bad news. A hundredth of a degree cooling over a hundred thousand years means NOTHING.
Let me invite you to stop being the only person talking about that, for obvious reasons, and join the ongoing discussion of the warming and cooling of the part where we actually live.
Cordially,
w.
Willis, glad to see that you seem to agree that bagging me for trying to point out that the “average temperature” of the “Earth” is totally misleading, is not useful.
As I have mentioned before, “climate scientists” disregard actual surface temperature recorded at WMO meteorological observation sites.
You mention “warming and cooling of the part where we actually live.”, without actually saying what you mean. Maybe you really meant to say “the warming and cooling of certain thermometers”? All parts of the Earth where people live is subject to warming and cooling, and the surface can vary between about -90 C and 90 C. You need to be a little more specific.
Yes, I understand that people think that the temperature of a thermometer is a proxy for the temperature of something else – maybe the planetary surface, maybe the air surrounding the thermometer, but let’s concentrate on reality – the measurement itself.
My opinion (based on fact) is that thermometers are designed and constructed to indicate their “degrees of hotness”. Thermometers respond to radiation which impinges on them (conduction, convection, advection all being outcomes of light interacting with matter, as Feynman put it).
To put it simply, thermometers respond to heat. There is far more man-made ephemeral heat in the environment that 120 years ago, and thermometers respond accordingly.
Luckily, all the heat of the Sun is dissipated at night – as you say, the surface will cool by a very small amount over the next 100,000 years. Cool, not heat, if left alone.
If you accept that that thermometers get hotter as a result of increased heat, where do you think this heat comes from, if not from man-made energy production and use?
Good luck.
“Phil, at night, it’s 100%, is that it?”
No because unlike the one you live on the planet I live on is not glowing red hot and is permanently receiving solar radiation. What part of total energy budget do you not understand?
Phil, how much solar radiation are you receiving at night? None, that’s how much.
Even Willis agrees the surface is not getting hotter. His main complaint currently is that it is cooling at an imperceptible rate. Cooling, even very, very, slow cooling, is not heating.
You obviously don’t want to accept that even the surface is cooling – as it must, in an environment of 4K or so.
It doesn’t really matter though. Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter. [SNIPPED—Stop with the endless insults. They’re not hurting anyone but you.]
Michael, you say:
“Even Willis agrees the surface is not getting hotter.”
Hogwash. Total fantasy. THIS is why I ask people to QUOTE WHAT I SAID.
I agreed that the planet as a whole is cooling imperceptibly. However, the SURFACE is warming and cooling on an hourly, daily, monthly, yearly, decadal, centennial, and millennial basis.
w.
So when you wrote the above, mentioning the “surface”, you didn’t really mean the “surface”, is that it? What part of the planet, “surface to core” is not cooling?
You said –
You also correctly said “Hogwash. Total fantasy”.
What fantasy reason do you propose to explain “warming . . . on a millennial basis”? You are talking about the planetary surface, are you?
Something to do with CO2, perhaps, or the unspecified “natural causes” ploy?
You seem to be taking refuge in semantic trickery, where the surface is simultaneously cooling and not cooling. Yes, I know, you haven’t said that – you’re pretty good at denying saying anything at all to do with the mythical GHE.
Terrestrial surface temperatures vary between roughly -90 C, and 90 C. How did your “millennial” warming and cooling affect these extremes? No answer? Colour me unsurprised.
“Phil, how much solar radiation are you receiving at night? None, that’s how much.”
Actually I was our walking tonight and I was receiving some via the moon, it was bright enough to cast a shadow!. On average the Earth receives about 6.8mW/m^2 from the moon, about a quarter of that coming up from the Earth’s core.
However, the main point is as I asked you: “What part of total energy budget do you not understand?” Clearly you don’t understand it at all, because it refers to the Earth’s energy budget, not my personal one. Solar energy continues to fall on the Earth 24 hrs/day.
And after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the surface has cooled, has it not?
What was your point? That sunlight didn’t make the surface hotter?
“And after four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the surface has cooled, has it not?”
The Earth is presently warming as it has on numerous occasions in the past (notably after ice ages ), and it’s the sunlight that is making it happen.
The Earth’s a long way from the Sun – that’s why it has cooled for four and a half billion years, and is currently cooling – losing about 44 TW.
At least you’re saying the Sun is warming the planet – that’s not quite as insane as thinking adding CO2 to air makes it hotter.
You’re getting closer to accepting reality, so that’s something.
Strange – I don’t appear to be feeling any pain at all. Are you perhaps confusing me with someone else?
Maybe someone with a tender and easily bruised ego, who chooses to take offence, seeking sympathy to cover up their low self esteem? Certainly not me, unless you can explain the nature of this “hurting” that am supposed to “feel”.
Sorry, Willis, you need to provide a little more information.
That is like arguing that the gas flame on the kitchen stove can’t be used for cooking because, averaged over the volume of the kitchen, the contribution of heat is negligible.
The map clearly shows that the injection of heat energy is linearly localized and the ratio of the fluxes is about an order of magnitude. Thus, the thermal gradient is not negligible and can initiate currents. Also, if polar ice is near the melting point, only enough heat is required to force a phase change creating significant topographic changes.
Averages can hide a multitude of sins.
Clyde, actually it’s more like arguing that a candle can’t be used to heat a kitchen because, averaged over the volume of the kitchen, the contribution of heat is negligible.
Which is true.
Yes, it will still burn you if you stick your finger in the flame, but as a contribution to the heating of the house, it is lost in the noise.
Can geothermal heat initiate currents? I’m probably one of the few people reading this who can talk from personal experience. In my middle youth, I was the navigator on a voyage from Fiji to Tonga. Somewhere in the middle, we came across a bunch of pumice floating on the surface, and the water was slightly warmer and discolored brown. At first I was worried I’d steered us over some uncharted reef, but the sonar showed no bottom. Then I realized we were over an undersea volcano.
However, in years of blue-water sailing, that’s the only one I’ve encountered … and while there were local effects, the overall effect on the oceanic heat content was trivially small.
Best to you,
w.
Just goes to show what you think you know, but don’t.
The only source of heat in the ocean depths is that coming from beneath. Deep ocean currents are convective – chaos and fluid dynamics in action. Water poured onto the surface of a globe in space just sits there. If you cool it or heat it, it will expand or contract – but it doesn’t wander off by itself.
Gravity holds it in place. Heating deep water from the bottom overcomes the force of gravity, and off we go! Even so, the surface doesn’t suddenly erupt due to convection. Gravity eventually wins, and the water levels out if left to itself.
If you’ve sailed from the Antarctic to the Equator, you haven’t sailed uphill, regardless of what a desk globe might make you think.
All my best to you and yours, of course.
m.
Sorry, I’m gonna pass on that one. Too many misunderstandings.
Best to you,
w,
PS—Due to Earth’s rotation, the sea level at the equator is higher than near the poles. This is a result of the centrifugal force from Earth’s rotation, which causes both the solid Earth and the oceans to bulge outward at the equator. The difference in distance from the Earth’s center between sea level at the equator and sea level at the poles is about 21 kilometers. So yes, in that sense if you sail from the Antarctic to the Equator, you are sailing uphill … and not only that, but you weigh less at the Equator than at the poles for the same reason.
Willis, fair point, but I assumed you could see what I meant. I’ll try to be more pedantic next time.
However, relative to sea level, you haven’t sailed uphill at all, have you?
Measuring from the centre of the Earth might have you believing that the sea level had increased! By 21 km! In that case, all the water should fall downhill, and accumulate at the poles. All a bit pointless, isn’t it?
Only joking – if you don’t want to believe that the oceans are prevented from freezing right through by heat from the Earth’s interior, that’s your choice.
Just say “too many misunderstandings”, but don’t actually say what it is you don’t understand. I won’t blame you.
What would happen if that pumice event you experienced were to happen in Antarctica beyond the grounding line of one or several of the glaciers? Those pumice events are not all that rare, despite you only experiencing one in your lifetime. We know little about what happens in the oceans outside of the major trade routes.
Speaking of candles, my fireplace chimney has a damper at the top rather than the bottom. After an ice storm, the damper was frozen shut and I couldn’t start a fire without filling the house with smoke. My solution was to place a candle in the fireplace hearth and let it burn for a couple of hours. The slight warmth from a single candle was enough to melt the ice and allow me to open the spring-loaded damper. A little force applied in the right place can accomplish significant things. It doesn’t need to warm the entire ocean, which was my point about averages.
AS I SAID, if you put your finger in the candle, you’ll get burned, so your example adds nothing to the discussion.
We are discussing the total energy budget of the ocean geothermal heat flux, not what happens at one single point. I gave you facts and references about what is known about oceanic geothermal heat flux, which is quite a bit, along with references.
For unknown reasons, both you and Michael Flynn have chosen to ignore that scientific information entirely, wave your hands, and say we don’t know much about it.
w.
No, Willis, you are trying to avoid the reality that the oceans are heated from below. You might want to dictate what is fact, and what is not, but eventually you have to face facts.
Just saying that “quite a bit” is known about something may be quite useless, if important specifics remain unknown. As I said, I know more about physics in general, and terrestrial heat flows than you are ever likely to, but neither I nor anybody else knows more than a small fraction of what occurs in the deep oceans.
You may discuss irrelevancies like “total energy budgets of the ocean geothermal flux” all you like, if it makes you feel “scientific”. The oceans are heated from below, and nobody knows how much extra heat is transmitted to the deep ocean by direct magma contact or hydrothermal vents.
By the way, adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter. [SNIPPED—What is it with you and insults?]
Michael, you say:
Here’s just one of the references I gave you, which you handwaved away without identifying a single error in any of them:
The Heating of Oceans by Volcanic Magma – Quantifying Global Warming by Submarine Volcanoes
w.
From the abstract –
A suggestion which differs from the prevailing consensus.
Of course, you are not prepared to say whether the authors’ suggestion is correct, or whether the prevailing consensus is correct.
That’s a pretty silly bit of handwaving, even from you!
You might care to actually read your reference, and note that it merely copies data from other sources, and states –
So estimates of other people’s estimates and speculations, restricted to specific events. As I said before, nobody knows how much extra heat is transmitted to the deep ocean by direct magma contact and hydrothermal vents.
Why are you asking me? If you choose to feel insulted, how would I know why you “feel” that way? Your “feelings” are your own affair, and nothing at all to do with me.
But seeing as you don’t seem to understand why you choose to feel insulted, I’ll try to help. Maybe you can’t cope with facts and reality, and feel jealous because others can decline to feel offended, insulted or upset by worthless opinions from an anonymous commenter.
If you really don’t know why you are unable to control your feelings, I can’t really help.
All the best to you, in any case.
m.
You may be discussing the total energy budget, but for some reason you fail to understand that when I say that “Averages hide a multitude of sins,” or remark that Phil’s map demonstrates that the “the injection of heat energy is linearly localized,” I’m not. But then even your anecdote about a pumice raft you encountered is speaking to local effects, not the aggregated effect. Why are you indignant about me casting your “scientific information” in a different slant? Has Flynn thrown you off balance?
As an aside, you demand everyone everyone quote what you say, but I don’t recollect you quoting anything I have written. That might help to be sure that you are responding rather than talking past me. After all, I can only defend my own words, not your interpretation. [It seems I have read that somewhere before.]
Michael, you say: “Nobody has any idea now much extra basal heat comes from direct magma contact at mid-ocean ridges, nor how much comes from an unknown number of thermal vents ejecting water at 400 C or above.”
Here’s what I find is known. As usual, there are unknowns, but the overall average global amount of geothermal heat flux is on the order of a tenth of a watt per square meter. This is about 0.04% of the absorbed solar radiation entering the system, and because it is so small, it is usually omitted from climate calculations.
Best regards,
w.
===
The global average geothermal heat flux into oceans is 105.4 mW/m² based on direct measurements of conductive heat flow through oceanic crust [1] [4]. This value primarily reflects heat from Earth’s interior, including residual planetary formation energy and radioactive decay [4] [8].
Volcanic magma contribution:
• Direct heating from submarine volcanism adds an average of 0.034 W/m² (34 mW/m²)across ocean basins [2].
• During peak volcanic activity (e.g., interglacial periods), this may reach 0.16 W/m² [2].
Hydrothermal vent systems:
• Localized vent fields exhibit extreme fluxes up to 250,000 mW/m² at active sites [3].
• Diffuse flow areas average 50,000-100,000 mW/m² [3].
• When averaged globally, vents contribute <1% to the total oceanic geothermal flux due to their limited spatial distribution [8].
Measurement constraints:
• Values derived from sediment temperature gradients (1-3m depth) and thermal conductivity measurements [4].
• Excludes short-term volcanic events, which are captured only if occurring during measurement periods [6] [7].
• Uncertainty ranges ±10-20% due to sediment heterogeneity and probe calibration limits [3] [4].
Citations
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1463500317302093
[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4687577
[3] https://rucool.marine.rutgers.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Noble.pdf
[4] https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/earth-and-atmospheric-sciences/heat-sources-and-heat-flow
[6] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00297-2
[7] https://se.copernicus.org/articles/15/513/2024/
[8] https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/85577
No, here’s what an Absolutely Idiotic computer program has hallucinated for you. Isn’t that right?
You haven’t contradicted a single thing I said, as far as I can see.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter, and four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has resulted in the Earth cooling, not heating up. Don’t you agree?
I assume that you are trying to imply something, without actually saying what it is.
Am I right?
By the way, if I claim that I am “offended” or “insulted”, or that my “feelings” have been “hurt” by your smarmy “Best regards – w”, will you snip your comment?
No? Ah, I see, it’s “Do as I say, not do as I do”, is it?
It’s OK, Willis. I can’t be bothered taking offence, or feeling insulted, due to comments by people like you. You may choose to suffer from “hurt feelings” if you wish.
All my best to you and yours,
m.
Michael, I gave you the scientific references for each claim. I note that you have not quoted a single thing that you think is an error in any of them, much less shown that it is an error. Instead, you just wave your hands and declare it’s all false.
Yeah … that’s totally how scientific debate works…
Next, you say “You haven’t contradicted a single thing I said.”
To the contrary, I’ve clearly contradicted your false claim that “Nobody has any idea now much extra basal heat comes from direct magma contact at mid-ocean ridges, nor how much comes from an unknown number of thermal vents ejecting water at 400 C or above.”
Then you ask if I’m “trying to imply something, without actually saying what it is”?
Nope. I don’t engage in those kinds of tactics. I’m just giving you what’s known about under-ocean geothermal heat flux which, contrary to your claim, is quite a bit.
As to my saying “Best regards”, you don’t seem to understand that I wish you well regardless. I learned long ago that hating on your opponents is like taking poison yourself and then expecting your opponents to die … it’s corrosive to your soul.
So I’m 100% serious in offering you my …
Best regards,
w.
Willis, I said “Nobody has any idea now much extra basal heat comes from direct magma contact at mid-ocean ridges, nor how much comes from an unknown number of thermal vents ejecting water at 400 C or above.”
You responded with an irrelevant Actual Idiocy summation, and said
What claims did you make? None at all, apart from implying that I wa# wrong! As usual, you were just trying to avoid acknowledging that my statement was correct – nobody knows how much extra heat comes from direct magma contact, nor from thermal vents.
You have obviously not read the AI “references”, which in no way contradict what I said. Modelling, estimation, guesses, and statically analyses of unknown quantities are not arbiters of fact. As a matter of fact, at least one of the references explicitly supports me, not surprisingly.
I don’t believe you “wish me well” at all. Your efforts to try to get me banned because you felt insulted, or had your feelings hurt, give the lie to that particular piece of smarmy hypocrisy – in my opinion, of course.
If I say “all the best to you and yours”, I’m just having a laugh at your expense. I don’t really care about your situation, or your state of health. Why should I?
But cutting to the chase, you also said –
What a silly thing to say! “Quite a bit” is meaningless, in the context of my statement that nobody knows how much heat comes from direct magma content or hydrothermal vents. It’s obvious that I know far more about the facts than you, and your attempts to appeal to authority are not helping you. To the contrary, not a single one does other than agree with me!
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter. Four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight has not stopped the Earth from cooling. There is no GHE. [SNIPPED—Adults discuss contentious issues without calling each other names]
All the best to you and yours,
m.
Michael, you say:
“I don’t believe you “wish me well” at all. Your efforts to try to get me banned because you felt insulted, or had your feelings hurt, give the lie to that particular piece of smarmy hypocrisy – in my opinion, of course.”
Believe what you wish. I was told by the site managers that they would ban you if I gave the OK … and yet, here you are.
Why?
Because I didn’t give the OK. But that could change.
Returning to the science, yes, there are uncertainties in the estimates of heat from magma and subsea vents from the references I gave. That’s how science works.
So, despite your claim that “nothing is known”, quite a bit is known, with the usual associated uncertainties.
On the other hand, you STILL have not identified a single example of what you think is an error in the citations I gave, much less shown that it’s an error.
If you wish to show I’m wrong, or that my citations are wrong, here’s how to do it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/
I invite you to read that post and consider it before engaging in yet another fact-free handwaving expedition.
w.
A veiled threat? And here was I, prepared to believe that you wished me well, and had nothing against me. I feel “insulted” and “offended” by your veiled threat. Only works one way, does it? Not going to snip yourself for threatening or bullying behaviour?
Now you put words in my mouth, quoting me as saying that I said “nothing is known”, when I didn’t say that at all!
I said –
I know quite a bit. None of your references are worth anything at all, as none of them claim to know how much extra heat comes from direct magma contact or thermal vents.
You cannot name anyone who claims to know how much extra heat comes from direct magma contact or hydrothermal vents. Hence, your attempt to confuse the issue with straw man references and diversions.
Willis, I am right. Nobody knows. I do, however, know that nobody has produced a consistent and unambiguous description of the GHE, so maybe you can produce one and prove me wrong.
Otherwise, I am right again.
Michael, I said:
You ask if that was “A veiled threat?”.
Nope. It was a clear threat. Shape up or ship out.
I have nothing against you, and I truly wish you find it within yourself to change your ways and dial back on the aggro and the name-calling. Which is why you haven’t been blocked.
Yet.
Next, I told you that if you wish to show my references (or anyone’s claims) are wrong, you need to QUOTE what you find untrue in the subject matter and SHOW us why it’s wrong. And I cited this post to explain why.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/
You’ve done neither, so there’s nothing to discuss. I can’t falsify your vague handwaving. There’s nothing of substance to falsify in your statement that “None of your references are worth anything at all.”
Onwards,
w.
Oooooh! An unveiled threat! I’m quaking in my boots – fairly shivering in fright at your power and influence. Or maybe not?
You also declared –
Oooh! You told me, did you? If you provide references to back up your disagreement to anything I said, I will certainly point out anywhere I thought they were defective.
But you didn’t, did you? You couldn’t find anything to support your disagreement, so you tried to bluff your way through, so to speak.
I’m happy for others to form their own opinions. You certainly can’t seem to name anyone who claims to know how much extra heat is provided to the oceans by direct magma exposure or hydrothermal vents.
As I said, nobody knows. Maybe you could “pass”, and talk about global warming or CO2 or something.
“You cannot name anyone who claims to know how much extra heat comes from direct magma contact or hydrothermal vents.”
Actually when you first said this I posted the actual data, which you ignored of course!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/05/sea-level-nasa-versus-noaa/#comment-4069417
Phil, no, posting imaginary “data” in the form of brightly coloured pictures, is not naming anyone who claims to know how much extra heat comes from direct magma contact or hydrothermal vents.
Your link does not even mention the terms! Are you seeing things that don’t exist? Hallucinating like Actually Idiotic (AI) computer programs are wont to do?
Sorry the caption did not transfer with the image:
Map of the preferred global heat flux (mW m−2), utilising the underlying estimates for each geology category.
From: Earth’s surface heat flux
J. H. Davies and D. R. Davies
Solid Earth, 1, 5–24, 2010
http://www.solid-earth.net/1/5/2010/
Unlike your AI, they claim to have presented a revised estimate of Earth’s surface heat flux that is based upon a heat flow data-set with 38,347 measurements, which is 55% more than used in previous
estimates.
Now when are you going to actually give a source for your assertions?
Someone from the last century preferably.
Phil, your reference gives an estimate of an ongoing energy deficit of about 47 TW. A little more than the figure of 44 TW I generally use.
Whichever figure you like is fine by me – cooling a little faster is still not heating. However, my statement of fact was “You cannot name anyone who claims to know how much extra heat comes from direct magma contact or hydrothermal vents.”
You still haven’t.
Thanks Willis, interesting estimates of Earth’s heat flux. However without contemplation of the residence time of said energy flows, we lose a great deal of understanding of their contributions to earths energy budget, and know I only mean from the surface up, yet that ncludes the energy in the oceans where the flux you descrbe has a residence time that may last up to 1000 years before escaping to space.
And you are arguing that geothermal heat flow can be ignored? Only if one lives in a world of imaginary averages.
“• In 1988 James Hansen said that by 2028 the West Side Highway in New York would be underwater. In 2008, ABC News aired a special suggesting that New York City could be underwater by 2015 due to rising sea levels. Neither one came true.”
In fairness to Hansen he was asked what would happen in 40 years if CO2 concentration doubled.
-3
Well we haven’t reached 2028 yet but CO2 is unlikely to be doubled by then, however the West side highway has been flooded during storms in the manner Hansen described several times.
Here it is in 2012: 121030073448-sandy-flooding-west-side-highway-c1-main.jpg
and more recently:
Hi Willis, the post I made has had a problem with the image I added can we have it deleted, thanks.
I tried to delete just the image but I couldn’t, so I deleted the whole comment.
Regards,
w.
Thanks Willis, sometimes this site has problems with images and produces those strange symbols instead, i’ve never encountered it elsewhere?
It appears to be back.
Yes, I’ve no idea why!
An excellent article as ever. The rate of change today is miniscule as to the rate of advances and retreats of the sea level that took place post the last se level rise. In 1958, Russell Fairbridge produced a chart on sea level changes which showed far more rapid changes than take place today. Sputnik 1, launched in 1957, was of no help, of course. He relied on geology to identify the advances and retreats from 20,000 years BP to the present. In the early 1979s I either drilled or sampled to Valders or mapped with shallow seismic to Port Huron of the large sections of the Australian East Coast Continental Shelf. Some reports survived and they can be found in various state archives.
The other side of this vigorous action is that sea levels changes obliterated signs of human habitation from the current sea level to at least 140 metres of depth, along the entire continental shelf of Australia.
Fairbridge’s mapping, as it turned out, proved to be most accurate. Not bad for 1958.