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.
I love Anchorage Alaska! Falling sharply
I have recently heard, more and more, about Ocean Warming.
A report by Weather-Fox indicates that a new type of Cloud formation has something to do with it!
(Unusual cloud formations—rippled, twisted, and glowing—are appearing more frequently, sparking curiosity and concern. Experts believe shifts in weather patterns, air pressure, and climate change may all play a role in these sky-borne anomalies. [strange clouds] [weather phenomena] [cloud formations] [climate shift] [rare clouds] [unusual skies] [weather signs] [atmospheric change] [climate signals] [cloud science] #strangeclouds #weatherwatch #climatechange #skyphenomena #msnweather #microsoftedgecontent #unusualclouds #atmosphericsigns #skywatchers #cloudscience)
What are the chances that POTUS will turn his ire towards these ‘scaremongerers’?
Ha, good catch. So half-assed. An almost archetypal C-student work.
But then, it’s entirely adequate. This was not intended for any serious consideration, just show up for a summary. By now, it’s not expected to tell anyone anything. Everyone knows the conclusion is foregone and data will be fit it no matter how much it screams. Some will nod it through no matter how little effort they put into this, others will throw it away summarily no matter how much. So if it wins by default and loses by default, why would they bother? And why give this job to someone who would bother to begin with?
w. ==> Josh Willis is a dedicated Sea Level Rise alarmist. And, I think you are right, he points to the seasonal rise and not the annual rise.
Note that satellite SLR has always been wonky. The actual calculations include adding in the 1.8mm/yr expected to the satellite measurement (really…). NOAA and NASA never agree on the details, and NOAA Tide Gauges never show either the annual rise nor the acceleration even averaged across the world at PSMSL.
The problem stems from “measuring different things”. Satellite SLR does not really measure SLR….tide gauges measure the level of the sea surface where it hits the land, which is the only sea level anyone has any concerns about.
As you point out, the slow unstoppable rise of the sea surface is something to plan for but not to worry about. It is going to rise that 2 to 3 mm per year and there isn’t anything we can do about it.
Worse, most important oceanfronts are subsiding causing the appearance of more absolute sea level rise than is actually taking place. Docks and waterfronts suffer even more subsidence as they are often built on fill.
The photo you use is only peripherally related to SLR, seaside cliff erosion is the normal interaction between the sea and the land and has been “since forever”.
Kip, yes the real problem with Josh Willis’ claims is that he is comparing apples and pineapples. His baseline for prediction is a fitted curve, apparently a 2nd-order polynomial, essentially an average from 1993 to the 2024 peak. He is comparing that ‘average’ with the 2024 seasonal range, or change from trough to peak . What he should be comparing it with is the 2024 average so that it is comparable to the baseline, which is an average. Eyeballing the 2024 range, it appears that the mid-range value is very close to the prediction. It looks like Willis is playing the old shell game of hiding the pea. Like any good magician, he distracts one with a large number that is related to what is of interest — how much the 2024 average misses the predicted average — with a measurement that is not appropriate.
Incidentally, Willis remarks, “According to a NASA-led analysis, last year’s rate of rise was … 0.59 centimeters per year, compared to the expected rate of … 0.43 centimeters per year.” None of the ramp-up seasonal changes in the graph show slopes even close to 0.43 cm/yr (except coincidentally at a point near the crest, and a point near the bottom of the trough of the seasonal curve). It is all smoke and mirrors, and I doubt it is accidental.
In his text underneath Figure 6 in the above article, regarding the satellite data sets Willis states:
“Obviously, the two earlier records in Figure 6 above are radically different from the succeeding three. I have no clue why.”
I posit the following explanation:
The satellite SLR data is simply indicating the changes in sea level associated with thermal expansion of the upper layer (say, to 100 m depth) of oceans as driven by changes in global lower atmospheric temperature (GLAT).
Consulting the attached UAH-provided graph of GLAT (ref: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2025-0-61-deg-c/ ), one can see that from 1995 to 2012 (essentially the interval of obtaining measurements from Poseidon and Jason-1 satellites) there was very little net increase, maybe even a “pause”, in change of time-averaged GLAT. However, starting at about mid-2013 and continuing to the present (most of the interval of obtaining measurements from the Jason-2, Jason-3 and Sentinel 6MF satellites) there is an overall increase in GLAT of about 0.05 deg-C/yr.
Furthermore, the reversal change in slope for the 2024-2025 interval compared to slope for the preceding 2023-2024 interval shown at high resolution in the article’s Figure 7 is consistent with the decline in GLAT starting in 2024 compared to the relatively large spike in GLAT seen starting in 2023.
It would be interesting and insightful to perform a time-based correlation analysis on satellite-measured SLR (as provided by NOAA in Figure 6) versus GLAT (as provided by UAH) . . . unfortunately, doing so properly is beyond by my capability. I am surprised there isn’t more phase delay between the two parameters than appears to be the case visually.
My previous attachment of the UAH plot of GLAT somehow was deleted following my above post.
Here it is in a different file format (still the same extract from the WUWT article at the URL cited above):
TYS, you say:
“The satellite SLR data is simply indicating the changes in sea level associated with thermal expansion of the upper layer (say, to 100 m depth) of oceans as driven by changes in global lower atmospheric temperature (GLAT).”
That is extremely unlikely because the causation is backwards. Due to the MASSIVE difference in the specific heats of water and air, the temperature of the air is determined by the ocean temperature, and not vice versa. In fact, the heat capacity of the top 2.5 meters of the ocean per square meter is about the same as the heat capacity of the entire atmosphere above the ocean per square meter.
In addition, the overwhelming majority of the sunlight and the longwave downwelling radiation at the surface is absorbed by the ocean, not the atmosphere. This heats the ocean, which then heats the atmosphere.
w.
Actually, I agree with you and inadvertently used incorrect phrasing in the sentence that you quote. I should have said “. . .as
driven byassociated with changes in global lower atmospheric temperature (GLAT).”Trenberth-type calculations—example attached—of “Earth’s energy balance” (which are actually calculations of power flux balances to underserved asserted precision, the “balance” often stated to 0.01 W/m^2 precision, and based on an unrealistic condition of steady state balance) typically cite something around 160 W/m^2 of TOA solar radiation being absorbed by Earth’s surface (land, ice and water) with only around 80 W/m^2 of TOA solar radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere (including clouds). So, most certainly, incoming solar energy predominately heats the oceans which in turn provide some, but not all, of the energy that heats Earth’s lower atmosphere, especially considering both nighttime and air over land.
In my comment I specifically mentioned “time-based correlation analysis” that might reveal a phase lag between GLAT data and sea-level trending data, both as measured by Earth-orbit satellite instruments. I did mention the thermal expansion of the upper layer of the world’s oceans, but was perhaps careless in not stating the predominate source of the heat energy causing that thermal expansion.
However, I did point out that if there is any truth at all to my hypothesis, there doesn’t appear to be much, if any, phase lag between smoothed variations in GLAT and smoothed variations in SLR that I can see visually.
I think we both know how well proper mathematical analysis can reveal one’s “lyin’ eyes”. 😉
Willis,
I just performed a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation to confirm that my hypothesis has a credible scientific basis . . . it does.
Note that per the attached screen grab water has a volumetric thermal expansion constant of about 2.1e-4/deg-C. However, the only significant degree-of-freedom for ocean thermal expansion is the radial direction away from Earth’s surface, with the N-S and E-W directions constrained by incompressible water held in place by gravity and the water underlying the surface also being essentially incompressible.
This translates to a linear expansion coefficient away from the surface of 3*(2.1e-4/deg-C) = 6.3e-4/deg-C.
Let’s consider the limit-case results for an assumed uniform delta-T increase of just 0.1 deg-C for two different cases of ocean layer depth:
— for the 0.1 C increase limited to 10 m depth below the surface, the total rise in sea surface would be (6.3e-4*)*10*1000*(1/10) = 0.6 mm
— for the same 0.1 C increase assumed to occur uniformly over a depth of 100 m (e.g., ten times greater water volume) the total rise = 6 mm
So it appears plausible that the measured sea-level changes in the world’s oceans (short term, in the range of 0.1 to 1 mm variations) can be interpreted to be roughly equivalent to a fluid thermometer with a resolution of about 0.6 mm per 0.1 C based on just the 10 m-depth ocean surface layer being affected by absorbed solar radiation and heat-exchange with the lower atmosphere.
Interesting.
Thanks, TYS. My point was not that water can make a passable thermometer, just like mercury and alcohol. However, having said that, water is unusual in that the coefficient of expansion varies with the temperature.
My point was that the temperature of the water is not a function of the air temperature, but the other way around.
In addition, I fear that there’s a couple of errors in your calculations. The volumetric expansion of water is equal to the vertical rise if the water is confined on 5 of the 6 sides.
Consider a box holding 1 cubic meter of water with an open top. If the volume of the water increases to 1.0002 cubic meters from a 1°temperature rise, the depth of the water increases by 0.2 mm.
So if the top ten meters increase by a tenth of a degree, that will also increase the depth by 0.2 mm.
Best regards,
w.
You are correct in that the thermal coefficient of volumetric expansion is (delta-volume divided by original volume) per unit temperature change. I was mistaken in interpreting that to be equivalent linear coefficients in discussing one versus multiple degrees-of-freedom. So, I should not have said that a multipler of 3 should be applied for determining sea-level rise given the stated numerical valve.
For your example, what you say would be true only if the box area normal to the depth direction was exactly 1 square meter.
Best regards back at ya.
Thanks, well done.
w.
Correct me if I am misremembering, but the errors on satellite sea level measurements were in terms of centimeters. How can you accurately measure millimeters with that kind of error range?
Kip’s excellent article on the subject:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/31/sentinel-6-new-international-sea-level-satellite/
Does the annual swing happen because of temperature? They look remarkably like the annual swings of the CO2 level curve.
Steve Andrews on the Tom Nelson podcast proposes that circannual changes in sea temperature, and hence CO2 sollubiltiy, is the primary source of the CO2 fluctuation. Seems to me the circannual swings in sea level add support to this hypothesis.
They do both seem to be related to the seasons, but the time-axis of the NASA-JPL graph is too coarse to compare the phases. Also, there is the question of whether the “year” designation is mid-year or January 1st.
Willis Eschenbach,
Once again you have posted a very nice article supported by great graphs to help visualize what you are saying.
However, I have request: when you post graphs or data of land-based tide gauge measurements of SLR (e.g., that for San Francisco in your above article), can you please make either a blanket statement, or alternatively note on each graph, whether or not the plotted data has been adjusted (via GPS) for land subsidence or uplift at that particular location.
Thanks!
Thanks, TYS. I didn’t bother with determining whether there is subsidence or rebound in SF because it was immaterial to the question of whether the sea level rise suddenly increased from ~2 mm/year in 1993 to 4 mm/year in 2012 and after.
You do make a good point, however, and when it’s relevant I’ll show it. For most of my analyses, however, it makes no difference because generally the question is acceleration (or the lack thereof), not the absolute trend.
Regard,
w.
Willis, you said –
That’s a pretty broad statement. It may be well be true, but have you bothered to check the facts?
For example, the Palace of Fine Arts, in Mexico City, between 1940 and 1960, rose over 3 m in relation to other buildings around the square, while remaining intact. It’s probably sinking again. Yes I know, Mexico City is not near the sea.
San Francisco is, of course, and parts of it are subsiding at more than 10mm/year.
How do you know that the land subsidence rate proceeds at a steady pace? If it doesn’t, sea level measurements using land based tidal gauges are pointless, wouldn’t you agree? Has anyone the faintest idea of whether the floor of the ocean basin is rising, falling, or not moving?
Sorry Willis, but just dismissing commenters’ concerns as “immaterial”, without providing a few facts to back your appeal to your own authority, is not terribly convincing.
All my best to you and yours – the usual proviso applies.
m.
Are we really measuring global sea level heights to tenths of a mm? In addition how is it possible that those hyperventilating about sea levels being tenths of a mm higher than expected are taken seriously?
Just like Earth’s ‘temperature’ which is an average, so too must a global sea level position be an average, with all the complication that averages can cause. And these averages appear to have extraordinary precision and that doesn’t seem to bother anyone from the maths ‘community’?
Here are some points and possible stupid questions:
Earth is not a perfect sphereGravity is not evenly distributedThe Oceans are constantly on the move and each ocean is a different shape and size and depth.If satellites can measure ocean heights to tenths of a mm do they have to adjust for Einstein’s laws as opposed to Newton’s laws, considering the speed and height of a satellite and the fact it will pass through varying gravitational forces?There must be a small central reference point somewhere at the centre of the earth which must be precise to hundredths of a mm? How is this measured?On a satellite there must be a precise point where the ‘measurements’ are taken and this must be impervious to the massive temperature changes that the satellite experiences in the space of 40mins, every 40mins?
Actually, there is such a reference point and it can rather accurately determined: it is called the center-of-mass of Earth and it is the precise point about which the average orbit of any Earth satellite occurs. The center-of-mass (aka center-of-gravity) of a planetary mass is not affected by the shape or mass-distribution of that body . . . in terms of establishing orbital ephemeris of satellites as effected solely by Earth, Earth can be considered to be a point mass.
Assuming there is no significant change in the total mass of Earth over any interval in question (a very good assumption over intervals of a hundred years or so), the “focus” of any satellite’s elliptical or “circular” orbit with respect to Earth will remain fixed in inertial space at Earth’s center-of-mass.
It is true that variations is the density of mass around the Earth (“masscons”) can and do momentarily perturb a satellites’s orbital path, but they do not change the orbital-averaged distances to Earth’s center-of-mass with respect to the satellite’s elliptical orbit.
Being able to combine GPS positional data telemetered from satellites, with ground data from multiple radar sites devoted to tracking satellites and with ground/satellite data from laser range-finding (LIDAR), results in determining instantaneous satellite position to extreme accuracy. Here is what Google’s AI bot summarizes on this subject:
“The distance to Earth’s center-of-mass for orbiting satellites can be determined with high accuracy, primarily through Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR). SLR allows for geocentric orbits to be determined with an accuracy that varies depending on the ranging system and observation policy at terrestrial stations, ranging from about 1 cm for LAGEOS to 5 cm for AJISAI and ETALON, according to AGU Publications.”
[my bold emphasis added]
And here is what that same AI bot summarizes for satellite distance based on using differential GPS:
“Differential GPS (DGPS) can determine a satellite’s distance from Earth’s center of mass with a precision of a few centimeters (e.g., 1-3 cm). This improved accuracy is achieved by comparing the satellite’s range measurements with those from a ground-based reference station, effectively canceling out common errors like atmospheric delays and clock offsets.”
My understanding is that statistical analysis and interpolation, perhaps incorporating “ground truth” calibrations, are used to infer satellite positional determination precision (but maybe not accuracy!) down to mm level.
Finally, note that determining sea-level change rates to mm or even sub-mm resolution is not at all the same as determining absolute distance change (not a rate) to this level of resolution.
We’re still talking centimeters, not millimeters.
Did you not read/understand my comment that SLR rate can be determined to mm/yr resolution if the time period between two successive cm-precision measurements of absolute sea-level are averaged over ten years or more?
Mmm … well, that’s kinda true. One big problem is the high autocorrelation of the measurements. For example, the longest record, the Jason 3 data, has 329 observations. However, due to its high Hurst exponent of 0.80, the effective N is only 10 data points.
This means that the true uncertainty of the trend, rather than being ± 0.05 mm/year as a simple calculation would indicate, is actually ±0.2 mm/year, much larger.
See my post “A Way To Calculate Effective N” for details of the underlying theory.
In addition, this ASSUMES without evidence that the errors in the underlying measurements are symmetrical around the true value …
However, if that were true, the median and the mean of the Sentinel measurements minus the Jason 3 measurements should be the same and should also be zero. However, neither of those is true.
Best regards,
w.
Someone should ask Josh Willis the most basic of water density questions.
If warmer water expands, how does ice float as it is colder than than the water below it.
It just seems to me that taking his discussion point at face value, well, doesn’t hold water.
The density of H2O with respect to temperature is very non-linear near the freezing point,
And strongly dependent on salinity since we’re not talking about freshwater.
The question was about ice floating, which was why I responded about “H2O.” Have you ever seen the pictures of the brine density currents extruded from freezing sea water? I doubt that sea ice is free of salts, but it is significantly less salty than the sea water it was derived from.
First year ice is still fairly salty, as it reenters the winter the brine loss becomes more significant and the ice becomes more ice free. Melted multiyear ice is drinkable, first year not so much, relatively little multi year ice these days though, 4y+ is just a few percent.
“and the ice becomes more ice free” should of course be
‘and the ice becomes more salt free’
But less dense. Archimedes’ principle applies, as Anthony once pointed out to the National Science Foundation, who were carrying on with some malarkey about sea-ice melt would cause sea levels to rise! No, as the ice warms and becomes liquid, it shrinks, just restoring the liquid level.
Water is funny stuff, it cools, contracts, then expands! A handful of elements, plus some alloys, also have negative thermal expansion. Many “experts” claim otherwise, but they are obviously ignorant of things like Wood’s metal (Cerrobend is a commercial form).
Hope this might help you.
Ice at 0 deg-C has a density of about 0.92 that of liquid water at 0 deg-C, the lower density being due to the crystalline-lattice structure compared to the amorphous structure of liquid water,
Considering water’s volumetric expansion ratio integrated over a range of temperature, liquid water would have to be at a temperature of about 150 deg-C to reach a density of about 0.92 gm/cc, at which point (hypothetically) the ice would then begin to sink (i.e., cease floating) per the Archimedes principle. Of course, that temperature is way above the normal boiling point of water, meaning that to continue to exist as a liquid at that high temperature the water would have to be at a pressure much higher than sea-level.
Of course the above doesn’t even address the fact that it’s just not possible to have water-ice surviving on 150 deg-C water for more than a few seconds.
Given the above, the salinity difference between sea ice and sea water is immaterial.
Unless you are a “climate scientist” and believe that the radiation from dry ice at below -85 C can be used to raise the temperature of 20 C CO2.
Of course the perplexity AI explains that surrounding dry ice with CO2 at 20 C will result in the gaseous CO2 getting hotter, while the frozen CO2 gets colder –
Amazing stuff, CO2! Nearly as amazing as the ignorant and gullible fools who believe what the perplexity AI found on the internet.
If any ignorant and gullible fools have taken offence, or “feel insulted”, just tell me your name and address, so I know who to laugh at.
Big floods in Australia, sea level falls, like in 2010-2011.