Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Shortforbob

Peoples climate march tomorrow :)

Recommended Posts

 

Lets look at the facts

 

8 inches of sea level rise - Climate Central

 

 

You are an eff'n idiot if you need to reference that article which also says "And compounding this risk, scientists expect roughly 2 to 7 more feet of sea level rise this century - " or 10 times the sealevel rise of the last 135 years. Do you proof read this stuff before you post. Are you incapable of discerning wide eyed alarmism? MORON

 

 

Ahahahahahahahaa and once again the only response our local climate deniers is the typical personal attacks they accuse others of. Talk about hypocrites. The facts couldn't be more clear Sea Level Rise | National Climate Assessment but that doesn't matter to our climate deniers, they just make up their own facts.

 

And speaking of climate alarmism the deniers are foisting an article which purports a 60% reduction is solar activity. Yikes, that would freeze us all into oblivion but they want to know if I proof read stuff. Brilliant.

 

Lets review some sea level rise facts and leave the speculation to the deniers.

 

How much is sea level rising? - Skeptical Science

 

Gavin Schmidt investigated the claim that tide gauges on islands in the Pacific Ocean show no sea level rise and found that the data show a rising sea level trend at every single station. But what about global sea level rise?

Sea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. As well as being a threat to coastal habitation and environments, sea level rise corroborates other evidence of global warming

The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting of ice in Greenland and other places.

Because sea level behavior is such an important signal for tracking climate change, skeptics seize on the sea level record in an effort to cast doubt on this evidence. Sea level bounces up and down slightly from year to year so it's possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is flat, falling or linear. You can try this yourself. Starting with two closely spaced data points on the graph below, lay a straight-edge between them and notice how for a short period of time you cancreate almost any slope you prefer, simply by being selective about what data points you use. Now choose data points farther apart. Notice that as your selected data points cover more time, the more your mini-graph reflects the big picture. The lesson? Always look at all the data, don't be fooled by selective presentations.

Sea-Level-1.gif

graph from Church 2008

Other skeptic arguments about sea level concern the validity of observations, obtained via tide gauges and more recently satellite altimeter observations.

Tide gauges must take into account changes in the height of land itself caused by local geologic processes, a favorite distraction for skeptics to highlight. Not surprisingly, scientists measuring sea level with tide gauges are aware of and compensate for these factors. Confounding influences are accounted for in measurements and while they leave some noise in the record they cannot account for the observed upward trend.

Various technical criticisms are mounted against satellite altimeter measurements by skeptics. Indeed, deriving millimeter-level accuracy from orbit is a stunning technical feat so it's not hard to understand why some people find such an accomplishment unbelievable. In reality, researchers demonstrate this height measurement technique's accuracy to be within 1mm/year. Most importantly there is no form of residual error that could falsely produce the upward trend in observations.

As can be seen in an inset of the graph above, tide gauge and satellite altimeter measurements track each other with remarkable similarity. These two independent systems mutually support the observed trend in sea level. If an argument depends on skipping certain observations or emphasizes uncertaintywhile ignoring an obvious trend, that's a clue you're being steered as opposed to informed. Don't be mislead by only a carefully-selected portion of the available evidence being disclosed.

Current sea level rise is after all not exaggerated, in fact the opposite case is more plausible. Observational data and changing conditions in such places as Greenland suggest if there's a real problem here it's underestimation of future sea level rise. IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend mimicking that of recent decades. In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balanceof continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic (Rahmstorf 2010 ).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Obama stated that 'fish are swimming through downtown Miami at high tide' because of sea level rise.

 

Are you saying this statement is untrue?

 

 

Its downright erie that you can just bet every single claim by a climate denier with be either an outright lie or deliberately misleading

 

 

FT Lauderdale

 

7990381_G.jpg

 

Florida

 

Bull-Shark-Backyard.jpg

 

Now while it is true that some photos of various fish found in peoples backyards are fakes, there's hundreds of examples of fish found after storms or very high tides in not just Florida, but many other places as well. Hell its rained fish in Sri Lanka Fish rain down on Sri Lanka village - BBC News - BBC.com

 

So yeah, the president isn't exagerating when he says they'll be fish swimming in the streets. There certainly could be ;--)

 

NEXT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Earth's temp has been rising overall for 300 years, and sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1-1.5mm / year. The rise has everything to do with the fact that we are living during an interglacial and nothing to do with AGW.

Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000. Throughout the Holocene the rate has decelerated.

They decelerated over the 20th century. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holgate/sealevel_change_poster_holgate.pdf

NASA found the same, 1.3 ± 0.9 mm/yr, less than the 20th century rates.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

We are currently at the cold end of the Holocene interglacial - 9000 years of the last 10,000 have been warmer than today.

You ecotards will get your lower sea levels when we head into the next glacial. And then you will wish that CO2 had been the magic control knob you think it is. Until then, adapt to the 7 inches / century rise. It has nothing to do with CO2 or the AGW fiction in your greenie heads.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it. So lets go through each of Dipshits claims and see just how true it really is


The Earth's temp has been rising overall for 300 years, and sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1-1.5mm / year. The rise has everything to do with the fact that we are living during an interglacial and nothing to do with AGW.

Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000. Throughout the Holocene the rate has decelerated.

They decelerated over the 20th century. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holgate/sealevel_change_poster_holgate.pdf

NASA found the same, 1.3 ± 0.9 mm/yr, less than the 20th century rates.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

We are currently at the cold end of the Holocene interglacial - 9000 years of the last 10,000 have been warmer than today.

You ecotards will get your lower sea levels when we head into the next glacial. And then you will wish that CO2 had been the magic control knob you think it is. Until then, adapt to the 7 inches / century rise. It has nothing to do with CO2 or the AGW fiction in your greenie heads.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

Just for the record to keep the idiot honest so he can't change anything before I get a chance to expose it for the BS it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Earth's temp has been rising overall for 300 years, and sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1-1.5mm / year. The rise has everything to do with the fact that we are living during an interglacial and nothing to do with AGW.

 

 

I love it when these guys make these kinda baseless claims.

 

Earths temp over the last 300 years.

 

decadal-comparison-small.png

 

Clearly the earths temps over the last 265 years have changed its course. From an obvious cyclical nature to an obvious sharp upward trend.

 

Our local deniers very first sentence and very first claim is obviously FALSE followed by several half truths and then the whopper.

 

The rise has everything to do with the fact that we are living during an interglacial and nothing to do with AGW.

 

 

The interglacial period has lasted something like 2~3 million years in which time numerous warming and cooling events took place. Our denier has not one shred of evidence to suggest that this present period should be either cooling or warming. So the claim that the present warming ISN'T because of the corresponding rise in CO2 synonymous with the burning of fossil fuels has absolutely not one shred of merit.

 

From the looks of best evidence, its highly likely we "were" at the top of a cycle and should have been cooling were it not for mans alterations of the atmospheric chemistry by raising CO2.

 

co2-temp.gif

 

Once again each and ever claim can be shown to be either a half truth or an outright lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Random covered this next whopping lie by the deniers quite well.

Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000. Throughout the Holocene the rate has decelerated.

They decelerated over the 20th century. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”

 

Historical sea level changes

High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August, 1992), Jason-1 (launched December, 2001) and Jason-2 (launched June, 2008). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century. Whether or not this represents a further increase in the rate of sea level rise is not yet certain.

 

The two plots below show the GMSL measured from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2.

This one shows it with the seasonal signal removed: (get the data)

 

alt_gmsl_seas_rem.jpg

alt_gmsl_seas_not_rem.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dishits next whopping lie is more than obvious.

We are currently at the cold end of the Holocene interglacial - 9000 years of the last 10,000 have been warmer than today.

 

Can anyone show us where we are in this graph ? ;--)

co2-temp.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Earth's temp has been rising overall for 300 years, and sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1-1.5mm / year. The rise has everything to do with the fact that we are living during an interglacial and nothing to do with AGW.

Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000. Throughout the Holocene the rate has decelerated.

They decelerated over the 20th century. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holgate/sealevel_change_poster_holgate.pdf

NASA found the same, 1.3 ± 0.9 mm/yr, less than the 20th century rates.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

We are currently at the cold end of the Holocene interglacial - 9000 years of the last 10,000 have been warmer than today.

You ecotards will get your lower sea levels when we head into the next glacial. And then you will wish that CO2 had been the magic control knob you think it is. Until then, adapt to the 7 inches / century rise. It has nothing to do with CO2 or the AGW fiction in your greenie heads.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

 

 

 

Neither the worldwide data from tide gauges or the raw satellite data show any significant acceleration in the rise of sea level.

From IPCC AR3, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/425.htm

“There is no evidence for any acceleration of sea level rise in data from the 20th century data … Mediterranean records show decelerations, and even decreases in sea level in the latter part of the 20th century”.

From NOAA “The Budget of Recent Global Sea Level Rise 2005-2012”

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

which finds sea levels have risen at only 1.1-1.3 mm/yr over the past 7 years from 2005-2012 [less than 5 inches/century]

and,

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JC005630/abstract

"The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration. "

From the IPCC AR4, Chapter 5.5.2:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2.html

"Holgate and Woodworth (2004) 1.7 ± 0.4 mm yr–1 sea level change 1948 to 2002, from 177 stations...Church et al. (2004) global rise of 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr–1 1950 to 2000, and Church and White (2006) 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr–1 for the 20th century."

Also,

J. Church and N. J. White, A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01602 (2006). They find a minute acceleration in sea level rise (0.013 mm/yr/yr).

B. C. Douglas, Global sea level acceleration, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 12,699–12,706 (1992). He finds no acceleration (despite his title!) and in fact finds a slight deceleration of -0.011 mm/yr/yr. "Thus there is no evidence for an apparent acceleration in the past 100+ years".

S. J. Holgate, On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L01602 (2007).

Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.

P. L. Woodworth et al, Evidence for the accelerations of sea level on multi-decade and century timescales, Int J Climatol, 29(6), 777-789 (2009).

J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean, Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses Journal of Coastal Resarch, 27, 409 – 417 (2011).

P. J. Watson, Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal Research, 27, 368 – 377 (2011).

Abstract: ...The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000...

S. J. Holgate and P. L. Woodworth, Evidence for enhanced coastal sea level rise during the 1990s, Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L07305 (2004).

5 more citations from the peer-reviewed literature:

  1. Willis, J. K., Chambers, D. P. & Nerem, R. S. Assessing the globally averaged sea level budget on seasonal to interannual time scales. J. Geophys. Res. doi:10.1029/2007jc004517 (2008).
  2. Leuliette, E. W. & Miller, L. Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo and GRACE. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L04608 (2009).
  3. Leuliette, E. W. & Willis, J. K. Balancing the sea level budget. Oceanography 24, 122–129(2011).
  4. Chen, J. L., Wilson, C. R. & Tapley, B. D. Contribution of ice sheet and mountain glacier melt to recent sea level rise. Nature Geosci. 6, 549–552 (2013).
  5. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P. & von Schuckmann, K. Earth’s energy imbalance andimplications. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 13421–13449 (2011).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bosdumb is scared of dinosaurs.

1 The dinosaurs lived during a previous warm period

2 It might get warm again

3 Therefore the dinosaurs are coming to get us

 

This is why he wastes so much bandwidth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bosdumb is scared of dinosaurs.

1 The dinosaurs lived during a previous warm period

2 It might get warm again

3 The dinosaurs are coming to get us

 

This is why he wastes so much bandwidth

 

Bosdumb is a poser and a clown. He is also a liar and plagiarist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah saw that on the ABC a couple of nights ago. Nanny says the sea level isn't rising.

 

CSU5AfVUAAASPgN.png

 

8980129_G.jpg

 

Ocean water surged into neighborhoods on the Southeast coast on Tuesday morning during high tide, pushing gauges well beyond predicted levels. Seemingly overnight, spurred by sea level rise, we’ve entered an era where king tides compete with hurricanes in the water level record books.

 

 

Looks like my yard down in the Eastern Shore marshes anytime we had rain & a high tide, oh yeah, for a temporal reference, that was back in the late 60s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bosdumb is scared of dinosaurs.

1 The dinosaurs lived during a previous warm period

2 It might get warm again

3 The dinosaurs are coming to get us

This is why he wastes so much bandwidth

 

Bosdumb is a poser and a clown. He is also a liar and plagiarist.

I wonder if he's jokawfs sock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One lie after another Dipshit doesn't make it true.

try reading for a change

 

Dishits next whopping lie is more than obvious.

We are currently at the cold end of the Holocene interglacial - 9000 years of the last 10,000 have been warmer than today.

 

Can anyone show us where we are in this graph ? ;--)

co2-temp.gif


Your not looking to good here Dipshit

 

I think Random covered this next whopping lie by the deniers quite well.

Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000. Throughout the Holocene the rate has decelerated.

They decelerated over the 20th century. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”

 

Historical sea level changes

High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August, 1992), Jason-1 (launched December, 2001) and Jason-2 (launched June, 2008). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century. Whether or not this represents a further increase in the rate of sea level rise is not yet certain.

 

The two plots below show the GMSL measured from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2.

This one shows it with the seasonal signal removed: (get the data)

 

alt_gmsl_seas_rem.jpg

alt_gmsl_seas_not_rem.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All those lies are falling apart on you here NGS

 

The Earth's temp has been rising overall for 300 years, and sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1-1.5mm / year. The rise has everything to do with the fact that we are living during an interglacial and nothing to do with AGW.

 

 

I love it when these guys make these kinda baseless claims.

Earths temp over the last 300 years.

decadal-comparison-small.png

 

Clearly the earths temps over the last 265 years have changed its course. From an obvious cyclical nature to an obvious sharp upward trend.

Our local deniers very first sentence and very first claim is obviously FALSE followed by several half truths and then the whopper.

 

The rise has everything to do with the fact that we are living during an interglacial and nothing to do with AGW.

 

 

The interglacial period has lasted something like 2~3 million years in which time numerous warming and cooling events took place. Our denier has not one shred of evidence to suggest that this present period should be either cooling or warming. So the claim that the present warming ISN'T because of the corresponding rise in CO2 synonymous with the burning of fossil fuels has absolutely not one shred of merit.

From the looks of best evidence, its highly likely we "were" at the top of a cycle and should have been cooling were it not for mans alterations of the atmospheric chemistry by raising CO2.

co2-temp.gif

 

Once again each and ever claim can be shown to be either a half truth or an outright lie.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not looking to good here Dipshit

 

 

 

The Earth's temp has been rising overall for 300 years, and sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1-1.5mm / year. The rise has everything to do with the fact that we are living during an interglacial and nothing to do with AGW.

 

 

I love it when these guys make these kinda baseless claims.

Earths temp over the last 300 years.

decadal-comparison-small.png

 

Clearly the earths temps over the last 265 years have changed its course. From an obvious cyclical nature to an obvious sharp upward trend.

Our local deniers very first sentence and very first claim is obviously FALSE followed by several half truths and then the whopper.

 

The rise has everything to do with the fact that we are living during an interglacial and nothing to do with AGW.

 

 

The interglacial period has lasted something like 2~3 million years in which time numerous warming and cooling events took place. Our denier has not one shred of evidence to suggest that this present period should be either cooling or warming. So the claim that the present warming ISN'T because of the corresponding rise in CO2 synonymous with the burning of fossil fuels has absolutely not one shred of merit.

From the looks of best evidence, its highly likely we "were" at the top of a cycle and should have been cooling were it not for mans alterations of the atmospheric chemistry by raising CO2.

co2-temp.gif

 

Once again each and ever claim can be shown to be either a half truth or an outright lie.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like that whole sea level rise argument of yours is pure nonsense as well there Denier.

 

 

How much is sea level rising? - Skeptical Science

 

Gavin Schmidt investigated the claim that tide gauges on islands in the Pacific Ocean show no sea level rise and found that the data show a rising sea level trend at every single station. But what about global sea level rise?

Sea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. As well as being a threat to coastal habitation and environments, sea level rise corroborates other evidence of global warming

The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting of ice in Greenland and other places.

Because sea level behavior is such an important signal for tracking climate change, skeptics seize on the sea level record in an effort to cast doubt on this evidence. Sea level bounces up and down slightly from year to year so it's possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is flat, falling or linear. You can try this yourself. Starting with two closely spaced data points on the graph below, lay a straight-edge between them and notice how for a short period of time you cancreate almost any slope you prefer, simply by being selective about what data points you use. Now choose data points farther apart. Notice that as your selected data points cover more time, the more your mini-graph reflects the big picture. The lesson? Always look at all the data, don't be fooled by selective presentations.

Sea-Level-1.gif

graph from Church 2008

Other skeptic arguments about sea level concern the validity of observations, obtained via tide gauges and more recently satellite altimeter observations.

Tide gauges must take into account changes in the height of land itself caused by local geologic processes, a favorite distraction for skeptics to highlight. Not surprisingly, scientists measuring sea level with tide gauges are aware of and compensate for these factors. Confounding influences are accounted for in measurements and while they leave some noise in the record they cannot account for the observed upward trend.

Various technical criticisms are mounted against satellite altimeter measurements by skeptics. Indeed, deriving millimeter-level accuracy from orbit is a stunning technical feat so it's not hard to understand why some people find such an accomplishment unbelievable. In reality, researchers demonstrate this height measurement technique's accuracy to be within 1mm/year. Most importantly there is no form of residual error that could falsely produce the upward trend in observations.

As can be seen in an inset of the graph above, tide gauge and satellite altimeter measurements track each other with remarkable similarity. These two independent systems mutually support the observed trend in sea level. If an argument depends on skipping certain observations or emphasizes uncertaintywhile ignoring an obvious trend, that's a clue you're being steered as opposed to informed. Don't be mislead by only a carefully-selected portion of the available evidence being disclosed.

Current sea level rise is after all not exaggerated, in fact the opposite case is more plausible. Observational data and changing conditions in such places as Greenland suggest if there's a real problem here it's underestimation of future sea level rise. IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend mimicking that of recent decades. In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balanceof continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic (Rahmstorf 2010 ).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sea level has risen 400 feet in the last 20,000 years. It has nothing to do with capitalism or sport utility vehicles.

 

 


Post-Glacial_Sea_Level-1.png

Sea level rise – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Ten thousand of these anti-science morons known as “Bosdumbs” are currently gathered in Paris destroying memorials to the ISIS victims and throwing their feces at police.

 

1586m9c.jpg

 

It is best not to have anything to do with them.

 

I just presented 12 primary references from the literature and citations from the IPCC and NOAA on sea level, and Bosdumb responded with a cut-and paste-job from an alarmist site run by a cartoonist and college dropout by the name of John Cook, who with his friends likes to dress up in Nazi costumes. This is what passes for science in this crowd of morons.

 

Bosdumb is a liar, a clown, a poser and a plagiarist. He is a member of a cult. It is better to have nothing to do with him or his fellow religionists. And I think anyone can see now why this is the case.

 

53jrep.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it. NGS just hung himself out to dry.

So what happened to the argument that we're at the bottom of a glacial cycle NGS ? that sea level rise graph not only doesn't have the resolution needed to show the rate of rise in the last few decades but what it does show is the evidence of being at the TOP not the bottom of a glacial cycle. Warming temps would mean melting ice right ? so we see melting during the upswing of the glacial periods tempt, then they level off and so does sea level rise. But oddly enough in the last century, for no other reason than an increase in CO2 we have an increase again in sea level rise ? How'd that happen NGS ?

LMAO

Way to shoot yourself in the foot

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level-1.png

 

Obviously there's been a recent slow down in sea level rise dating right up until the industrial age at which point we see dramatic sea level rise over the last century or so. Which of course your graph doesn't have the resolution to show ;--)

 

Lets look at some other information

From
Visit page

In what’s maybe the most comprehensive global temperature reconstruction study to date, scientists at Oregon State University and Harvard University found that the planet today is warmer than it has been during 70 to 80 percent of the time over the last 11,300 years.

3247111294.jpg

Global average temperature graph for the past 2,000 years. © Science

The authors note in their paper published in the journal Science that previous, similar studies have concentrated on assessing global temperatures for the past 2,000 years only. Other studies that have backtracked temperatures over longer periods of time are also insufficiently relevant since they concentrate their analysis over a specific region only, like Europe or North America for instance. Thus, the present study, through its temperature reconstructions up until close to the last Ice Age, aims to put climate change, past and present, in a much broader context.

 

So how about recent sea level rise

by Peter Hogarth

Even many critics would agree that global sea levels are currently rising, regardless of recent scrutiny and revision of estimates of predicted sea level rise. As pointed out previously, predicting sea level rise is tough. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) puts it neatly, “To make predictions, we need knowledge. To gain knowledge we need observations”. However a recent claim disputes that current sea levels are rising significantly. Is it possible to verify or falsify this statement by looking at observations and data from the scientific community concerned with measuring sea level?

The answer is yes. Measuring sea level is now a multidisciplinary effort involving integration of observations from several global networks of hundreds of tidal stations, calibrated with vertical reference data from nearby GPS (Global Positioning System, which now use the American GPS, Russian GLONASS and European Galileo constellations of satellites) or DORIS (Doppler Orbitography Integrated by Satellite) stations, and data from several independent satellite based radar altimeters (recently Jason I, Jason II, and Envisat) which give complete global coverage, data on sea temperature and pressure from the ARGO floating sensors (which give information on temperature and salinity related variations in Oceanic volume), and most recently data from the satellite based gravity sensor GRACE (Gravity Recovery And ClimateExperiment), which can give direct measurements of changes in mass of oceanic and land based water.

A 2009 review by Merrifield et al of the GLOSS (Global Sea Level Observing System) gives some indication of the large number and variety of organizations and workers involved. These measurements are complementary as well as providing independent cross validation checks on any individual data set, and many teams independently process raw observations to derive sea level data. This has enormously improved our knowledge of estimated sea level rise at global and regional level over the past 20 years, with continual refinements of estimates, as well as reductions in uncertainties from the centimetric level to sub mm level.

What are the conclusions from these efforts? Recent reviews (Cazenave et al 2009, Cazenave and Llovel 2010) show that the most up to date estimates of mean rate of sea level rise for the 20th century are converging on around 1.7 to 1.8mm/year, with uncertainties of around 0.2 to 0.3mm. (Ablain 2009, Church 2008, Engelhart 2009, Jevrejeva 2008, Leulette 2009, Merrifield 2009, Woppelmann 2009). The small differences between reported figures are mainly due to the different Glacial-Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) model or GPS based corrections that are used for the tidal stations, and extrapolating current knowledge of these vertical velocity corrections backwards to before the absolute GPS corrected data was available.

sea-level-tidal-satellite.jpg
Figure 1: Global corrected tidal station data (Church 2006 updated to 2009-dark blue, and Jevrejeva 2008- red)

Most recently, corrected tidal station data from the satellite altimeter period of 1993 to 2010 is in good agreement (within the error budget) with the satellite altimeter data, which gives 3.3mm/year ±0.4mm once GIA corrections are added. These values are considered “robust”. The overall message is clear. Sea levels are rising.

sea-level-satellite.jpg
Figure 2: Data from all satellite altimeters and 3 month composite average. The seasonal variations have been retained (trend 2.83mm/year, GIA correction would add another 0.2 to 0.5mm/yr)

Both tidal station data and altimeter data show decadal and shorter term variations in the rate of rise, but there is a significant weight of evidence of a recent acceleration in rate of sea level rise towards the end of the last century (Jevrejeva 2008, Merrifield 2009, Vermeer 2009), whilst the “slowing down” reported by some observers (around 2008) has proved short lived (judging from 2009/2010 data).

It has also now become possible to attempt to “close” the sea level budget, which has components of reported thermal expansion of the volume of water due to increase in accumulated heat energy, and also an increased component from melting ice from land based sources. Again refinements and corrections of recent datasets from GRACE (with GPS) and ARGO resolve previous and relatively recent difficulties, so that the sum of these climate-related contributions (2.85 ± 0.35 mm per year) is now comparable with the altimetry-based sea level rise (3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year) over the 1993 to 2007 period (Cazenave 2010, reporting a consensus of the Ocean Observing Community).

Using these datasets it is estimated that around 30% of the observed rate of rise over the satellite altimeter time period is due to ocean thermal expansion and 55% results from accumulated melting land ice. There is evidence that the land ice melt contribution has increased significantly over the past five years.

The Satellite altimetry data is also truly global in extent, allowing estimates of recent sea level rise to be made for open ocean or areas not served by calibrated tide gauges. The distribution of higher than average historical rises (up to 10mm/year) in sea level reported from many tidal stations, whilst other tidal stations consistently reported reductions in sea level, is verified by the altimetry data, but a much more complete and complex picture emerges, of dynamic changes of sea level and local regions of high and low average sea level rise.

satellite_change_sea_level.jpg
Figure 3: Sea level changes between 1993 and 2008 from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeters. The oceans are colour coded for changes in mean sea level. Yellow and red regions show rising sea level, while green and blue regions show falling sea level. White regions are missing data during parts of the year. On average the global sea level is rising, but complex regional variations are superimposed on this. Credit: Data products from Ssalto/Duacs, distributed by Aviso, with support from CNES.

The correlation with variations in Sea Surface Temperature and also with PDO, NAO, El Nino and La Nina events is marked, and the influence of Westerly equatorial ocean currents and other currents and prevailing wind systems is also apparent. At a glance this confirms and explains for example the discrepancy between data from tidal stations on the Western and Eastern Coast of the United States and the fact that even GIA corrected data from Alaska shows local reductions in sea level over much of the record. This answers a point many observers make such as "why has my local sea level not shown an increase?"

The dynamic nature of sea level variations can be best visualised by time sequence animations of the Topex, Jason I and Jason II global data sets (NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry).

 

The following shows 3-D sea level variations with colours representing sea surface temperatures during the El Nino over 1997 to 1998 (NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio).

 

These yearly rates of sea level rise may appear small compared with daily tidal variations of up to 8m (eg - Bay of Fundy) or even the average wave height in open waters(!). However, while the steady and gradually accelerating increase since pre-industrial times of around 30cm or a foot may appear manageable, if the recent trend of accelerating mass loss from Greenland and Antarctic Ice caps, as well as the world's glacierscontinues, then the potential sea level rises will have significant impact on humanity. The weight of peer-reviewed evidence for this acceleration in sea level rise is robust.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah saw that on the ABC a couple of nights ago. Nanny says the sea level isn't rising.

 

CSU5AfVUAAASPgN.png

 

8980129_G.jpg

 

Ocean water surged into neighborhoods on the Southeast coast on Tuesday morning during high tide, pushing gauges well beyond predicted levels. Seemingly overnight, spurred by sea level rise, we’ve entered an era where king tides compete with hurricanes in the water level record books.

 

 

Combined with a large area of low barometric pressure... no kidding.

 

Sail much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah saw that on the ABC a couple of nights ago. Nanny says the sea level isn't rising.

 

CSU5AfVUAAASPgN.png

 

8980129_G.jpg

 

Ocean water surged into neighborhoods on the Southeast coast on Tuesday morning during high tide, pushing gauges well beyond predicted levels. Seemingly overnight, spurred by sea level rise, we’ve entered an era where king tides compete with hurricanes in the water level record books.

 

 

Combined with a large area of low barometric pressure... no kidding.

 

Sail much?

 

 

There was no such thing as flooding when carbon dioxide was below 350ppm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well not according to that last graph you posted. Didn't it show NO sea level rise, over the last what, few thousand years ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama's home state is drowning.

 

NOAA tide gauge station records at Honolulu shows completely unchanging linear rates of sea level rise measuring between 6 to 13 inches per century. Oops.

 

2cncakp.jpg

 

aaiys0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like more cherry picking to me.

Typical of the deniers camp. They can't address climate so they try and confuse the public with weather and ultra short term graphs which could just about show anything, depends on where and when you cherrypicked the data from

 

Notice how NGS only wants you to look at one very small area of the map, in one very narrow slice of time. Why, because he knows he's lying

For a more definitive look at sea level rise lets look at a broader range of indicators over the entire globe and not just what one denier would prefer to focus on.

Quote

by Peter Hogarth

Even many critics would agree that global sea levels are currently rising, regardless of recent scrutiny and revision of estimates of predicted sea level rise. As pointed out previously, predicting sea level rise is tough. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) puts it neatly, “To make predictions, we need knowledge. To gain knowledge we need observations”. However a recent claim disputes that current sea levels are rising significantly. Is it possible to verify or falsify this statement by looking at observations and data from the scientific community concerned with measuring sea level?

The answer is yes. Measuring sea level is now a multidisciplinary effort involving integration of observations from several global networks of hundreds of tidal stations, calibrated with vertical reference data from nearby GPS (Global Positioning System, which now use the American GPS, Russian GLONASS and European Galileo constellations of satellites) or DORIS (Doppler Orbitography Integrated by Satellite) stations, and data from several independent satellite based radar altimeters (recently Jason I, Jason II, and Envisat) which give complete global coverage, data on sea temperature and pressure from the ARGO floating sensors (which give information on temperature and salinity related variations in Oceanic volume), and most recently data from the satellite based gravity sensor GRACE (Gravity Recovery And ClimateExperiment), which can give direct measurements of changes in mass of oceanic and land based water.

A 2009 review by Merrifield et al of the GLOSS (Global Sea Level Observing System) gives some indication of the large number and variety of organizations and workers involved. These measurements are complementary as well as providing independent cross validation checks on any individual data set, and many teams independently process raw observations to derive sea level data. This has enormously improved our knowledge of estimated sea level rise at global and regional level over the past 20 years, with continual refinements of estimates, as well as reductions in uncertainties from the centimetric level to sub mm level.

What are the conclusions from these efforts? Recent reviews (Cazenave et al 2009, Cazenave and Llovel 2010) show that the most up to date estimates of mean rate of sea level rise for the 20th century are converging on around 1.7 to 1.8mm/year, with uncertainties of around 0.2 to 0.3mm. (Ablain 2009, Church 2008, Engelhart 2009, Jevrejeva 2008, Leulette 2009, Merrifield 2009, Woppelmann 2009). The small differences between reported figures are mainly due to the different Glacial-Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) model or GPS based corrections that are used for the tidal stations, and extrapolating current knowledge of these vertical velocity corrections backwards to before the absolute GPS corrected data was available.

sea-level-tidal-satellite.jpg
Figure 1: Global corrected tidal station data (Church 2006 updated to 2009-dark blue, and Jevrejeva 2008- red)

Most recently, corrected tidal station data from the satellite altimeter period of 1993 to 2010 is in good agreement (within the error budget) with the satellite altimeter data, which gives 3.3mm/year ±0.4mm once GIA corrections are added. These values are considered “robust”. The overall message is clear. Sea levels are rising.

sea-level-satellite.jpg
Figure 2: Data from all satellite altimeters and 3 month composite average. The seasonal variations have been retained (trend 2.83mm/year, GIA correction would add another 0.2 to 0.5mm/yr)

Both tidal station data and altimeter data show decadal and shorter term variations in the rate of rise, but there is a significant weight of evidence of a recent acceleration in rate of sea level rise towards the end of the last century (Jevrejeva 2008, Merrifield 2009, Vermeer 2009), whilst the “slowing down” reported by some observers (around 2008) has proved short lived (judging from 2009/2010 data).

It has also now become possible to attempt to “close” the sea level budget, which has components of reported thermal expansion of the volume of water due to increase in accumulated heat energy, and also an increased component from melting ice from land based sources. Again refinements and corrections of recent datasets from GRACE (with GPS) and ARGO resolve previous and relatively recent difficulties, so that the sum of these climate-related contributions (2.85 ± 0.35 mm per year) is now comparable with the altimetry-based sea level rise (3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year) over the 1993 to 2007 period (Cazenave 2010, reporting a consensus of the Ocean Observing Community).

Using these datasets it is estimated that around 30% of the observed rate of rise over the satellite altimeter time period is due to ocean thermal expansion and 55% results from accumulated melting land ice. There is evidence that the land ice melt contribution has increased significantly over the past five years.

The Satellite altimetry data is also truly global in extent, allowing estimates of recent sea level rise to be made for open ocean or areas not served by calibrated tide gauges. The distribution of higher than average historical rises (up to 10mm/year) in sea level reported from many tidal stations, whilst other tidal stations consistently reported reductions in sea level, is verified by the altimetry data, but a much more complete and complex picture emerges, of dynamic changes of sea level and local regions of high and low average sea level rise.

satellite_change_sea_level.jpg
Figure 3: Sea level changes between 1993 and 2008 from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeters. The oceans are colour coded for changes in mean sea level. Yellow and red regions show rising sea level, while green and blue regions show falling sea level. White regions are missing data during parts of the year. On average the global sea level is rising, but complex regional variations are superimposed on this. Credit: Data products from Ssalto/Duacs, distributed by Aviso, with support from CNES.

The correlation with variations in Sea Surface Temperature and also with PDO, NAO, El Nino and La Nina events is marked, and the influence of Westerly equatorial ocean currents and other currents and prevailing wind systems is also apparent. At a glance this confirms and explains for example the discrepancy between data from tidal stations on the Western and Eastern Coast of the United States and the fact that even GIA corrected data from Alaska shows local reductions in sea level over much of the record. This answers a point many observers make such as "why has my local sea level not shown an increase?"

The dynamic nature of sea level variations can be best visualised by time sequence animations of the Topex, Jason I and Jason II global data sets (NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry).

 

The following shows 3-D sea level variations with colours representing sea surface temperatures during the El Nino over 1997 to 1998 (NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio).

 

These yearly rates of sea level rise may appear small compared with daily tidal variations of up to 8m (eg - Bay of Fundy) or even the average wave height in open waters(!). However, while the steady and gradually accelerating increase since pre-industrial times of around 30cm or a foot may appear manageable, if the recent trend of accelerating mass loss from Greenland and Antarctic Ice caps, as well as the world's glacierscontinues, then the potential sea level rises will have significant impact on humanity. The weight of peer-reviewed evidence for this acceleration in sea level rise is robust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another cherrypicked graph.

NGS knows he's lying

So he tries some slight of hand and wants to put blinders on the public and only have them see this one very small slice of the ocean system

But lets look closer

The trend is definitive, ocean levels are rising, which is interesting since he just a few posts ago claimed the opposite

 

That sea level rise was decelerating

Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000. Throughout the Holocene the rate has decelerated.

They decelerated over the 20th century. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”

 

 

Yet the data he is now cherrypicking says otherwise.

It shows a consistent rise in sea level NOT a decreasing one as he'd previously claimed. Or even a decrease in some of the cherrypicked areas NGS is desperate to hold your attention on. The truth of the matter is however, as can be seen in the final quote, that sea levels are not only rising and fast, but that rise is accelerating

Looks like once again not only are the deniers confused about if sea levels are rising at an increasing rate, decreasing rate or steady rate but they are also confused about the difference between weather and climate

The Battery, New York Harbor. Unchanging linear trend.

 

2rwl4ps.jpg

 

So how confused are the local deniers ?

How about another glimpse of what the best science says on the issue

How much is sea level rising? - Skeptical Science

Quote

Gavin Schmidt investigated the claim that tide gauges on islands in the Pacific Ocean show no sea level rise and found that the data show a rising sea level trend at every single station. But what about global sea level rise?

Sea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. As well as being a threat to coastal habitation and environments, sea level rise corroborates other evidence of global warming

The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting of ice in Greenland and other places.

Because sea level behavior is such an important signal for tracking climate change, skeptics seize on the sea level record in an effort to cast doubt on this evidence. Sea level bounces up and down slightly from year to year so it's possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is flat, falling or linear. You can try this yourself. Starting with two closely spaced data points on the graph below, lay a straight-edge between them and notice how for a short period of time you cancreate almost any slope you prefer, simply by being selective about what data points you use. Now choose data points farther apart. Notice that as your selected data points cover more time, the more your mini-graph reflects the big picture. The lesson? Always look at all the data, don't be fooled by selective presentations.

Sea-Level-1.gif

graph from Church 2008

Other skeptic arguments about sea level concern the validity of observations, obtained via tide gauges and more recently satellite altimeter observations.

Tide gauges must take into account changes in the height of land itself caused by local geologic processes, a favorite distraction for skeptics to highlight. Not surprisingly, scientists measuring sea level with tide gauges are aware of and compensate for these factors. Confounding influences are accounted for in measurements and while they leave some noise in the record they cannot account for the observed upward trend.

Various technical criticisms are mounted against satellite altimeter measurements by skeptics. Indeed, deriving millimeter-level accuracy from orbit is a stunning technical feat so it's not hard to understand why some people find such an accomplishment unbelievable. In reality, researchers demonstrate this height measurement technique's accuracy to be within 1mm/year. Most importantly there is no form of residual error that could falsely produce the upward trend in observations.

As can be seen in an inset of the graph above, tide gauge and satellite altimeter measurements track each other with remarkable similarity. These two independent systems mutually support the observed trend in sea level. If an argument depends on skipping certain observations or emphasizes uncertaintywhile ignoring an obvious trend, that's a clue you're being steered as opposed to informed. Don't be mislead by only a carefully-selected portion of the available evidence being disclosed.

Current sea level rise is after all not exaggerated, in fact the opposite case is more plausible. Observational data and changing conditions in such places as Greenland suggest if there's a real problem here it's underestimation of future sea level rise. IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend mimicking that of recent decades. In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balanceof continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic (Rahmstorf 2010 ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another short term graph, another very small sampling.

The deniers know they're lying so they desperately try and put the blinders on whatever information they do cherrypick and present.

Global data looks very different
sea-level-rise1.jpg?itok=Q0r6_KK6

 

As anyone can see for themselves the 20th century saw accelerating increases in the rate of sea level rise.

Once again the deniers are caught lying through their teeth's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another way to see that there must have been an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise is by looking at the deniers graphs in a little more detail

Here the denier tells us that there is no sea level rise and shows the graph to try and prove it

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level-1.png

 

But just a few posts later the denier then shows this graph and claims that the rate of sea level rise is steady

2rwl4ps.jpg

 

So if the rate of sea level rise was flat or "even declining" as the deniers first claimed then how is it that the second graph the denier shows clearly indicates a substantial rate of sea level rise ?

Obviously the deniers are incapable of comprehending the data even they themselves present.

There MUST HAVE BEEN an increase in sea level rise if the graphs went from flat or declining to a steadily increasing level of increase. Once again the denier shoots himself in the foot by presenting data he doesn't comprehend

The level of ignorance is astounding and yet one denier after another will embarrass themselves in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Earth's temp has been rising overall for 300 years, and sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1-1.5mm / year. The rise has everything to do with the fact that we are living during an interglacial and nothing to do with AGW.

Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000. Throughout the Holocene the rate has decelerated.

They decelerated over the 20th century. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holgate/sealevel_change_poster_holgate.pdf

NASA found the same, 1.3 ± 0.9 mm/yr, less than the 20th century rates.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

We are currently at the cold end of the Holocene interglacial - 9000 years of the last 10,000 have been warmer than today.

You ecotards will get your lower sea levels when we head into the next glacial. And then you will wish that CO2 had been the magic control knob you think it is. Until then, adapt to the 7 inches / century rise. It has nothing to do with CO2 or the AGW fiction in your greenie heads.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

 

This is what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and you humiliated yourself in saying it

 

 

Looks like repeat the lie will be your only answer ;--)

 

 

this

Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000. Throughout the Holocene the rate has decelerated.

They decelerated over the 20th century. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”

 

we just spent 20 or 30 posts thoroughly refuting

Embarasingly so actually

Shall we review

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Earth's temp has been rising overall for 300 years, and sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1-1.5mm / year. The rise has everything to do with the fact that we are living during an interglacial and nothing to do with AGW.

Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000. Throughout the Holocene the rate has decelerated.

They decelerated over the 20th century. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holgate/sealevel_change_poster_holgate.pdf

NASA found the same, 1.3 ± 0.9 mm/yr, less than the 20th century rates.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

We are currently at the cold end of the Holocene interglacial - 9000 years of the last 10,000 have been warmer than today.

You ecotards will get your lower sea levels when we head into the next glacial. And then you will wish that CO2 had been the magic control knob you think it is. Until then, adapt to the 7 inches / century rise. It has nothing to do with CO2 or the AGW fiction in your greenie heads.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

 

 

 

Neither the worldwide data from tide gauges or the raw satellite data show any significant acceleration in the rise of sea level.

From IPCC AR3, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/425.htm

“There is no evidence for any acceleration of sea level rise in data from the 20th century data … Mediterranean records show decelerations, and even decreases in sea level in the latter part of the 20th century”.

From NOAA “The Budget of Recent Global Sea Level Rise 2005-2012”

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

which finds sea levels have risen at only 1.1-1.3 mm/yr over the past 7 years from 2005-2012 [less than 5 inches/century]

and,

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JC005630/abstract

"The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration. "

From the IPCC AR4, Chapter 5.5.2:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2.html

"Holgate and Woodworth (2004) 1.7 ± 0.4 mm yr–1 sea level change 1948 to 2002, from 177 stations...Church et al. (2004) global rise of 1.8 ± 0.3 mm yr–1 1950 to 2000, and Church and White (2006) 1.7 ± 0.3 mm yr–1 for the 20th century."

Also,

J. Church and N. J. White, A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01602 (2006). They find a minute acceleration in sea level rise (0.013 mm/yr/yr).

B. C. Douglas, Global sea level acceleration, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 12,699–12,706 (1992). He finds no acceleration (despite his title!) and in fact finds a slight deceleration of -0.011 mm/yr/yr. "Thus there is no evidence for an apparent acceleration in the past 100+ years".

S. J. Holgate, On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L01602 (2007).

Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.

P. L. Woodworth et al, Evidence for the accelerations of sea level on multi-decade and century timescales, Int J Climatol, 29(6), 777-789 (2009).

J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean, Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses Journal of Coastal Resarch, 27, 409 – 417 (2011).

P. J. Watson, Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal Research, 27, 368 – 377 (2011).

Abstract: ...The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000...

S. J. Holgate and P. L. Woodworth, Evidence for enhanced coastal sea level rise during the 1990s, Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L07305 (2004).

5 more citations from the peer-reviewed literature:

  1. Willis, J. K., Chambers, D. P. & Nerem, R. S. Assessing the globally averaged sea level budget on seasonal to interannual time scales. J. Geophys. Res. doi:10.1029/2007jc004517 (2008).
  2. Leuliette, E. W. & Miller, L. Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo and GRACE. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L04608 (2009).
  3. Leuliette, E. W. & Willis, J. K. Balancing the sea level budget. Oceanography 24, 122–129(2011).
  4. Chen, J. L., Wilson, C. R. & Tapley, B. D. Contribution of ice sheet and mountain glacier melt to recent sea level rise. Nature Geosci. 6, 549–552 (2013).
  5. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P. & von Schuckmann, K. Earth’s energy imbalance andimplications. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 13421–13449 (2011).

 

 

This is what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

another way to see that there must have been an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise is by looking at the deniers graphs in a little more detail

 

Here the denier tells us that there is no sea level rise and shows the graph to try and prove it

 

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level-1.png

 

But just a few posts later the denier then shows this graph and claims that the rate of sea level rise is steady

 

2rwl4ps.jpg

 

So if the rate of sea level rise was flat or "even declining" as the deniers first claimed then how is it that the second graph the denier shows clearly indicates a substantial rate of sea level rise ?

 

Obviously the deniers are incapable of comprehending the data even they themselves present.

 

There MUST HAVE BEEN an increase in sea level rise if the graphs went from flat or declining to a steadily increasing level of increase. Once again the denier shoots himself in the foot by presenting data he doesn't comprehend

 

The level of ignorance is astounding and yet one denier after another will embarrass themselves in this way.

You think that second graph shows an increasing rate of rise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

another way to see that there must have been an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise is by looking at the deniers graphs in a little more detail

 

Here the denier tells us that there is no sea level rise and shows the graph to try and prove it

 

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level-1.png

 

But just a few posts later the denier then shows this graph and claims that the rate of sea level rise is steady

 

2rwl4ps.jpg

 

So if the rate of sea level rise was flat or "even declining" as the deniers first claimed then how is it that the second graph the denier shows clearly indicates a substantial rate of sea level rise ?

 

Obviously the deniers are incapable of comprehending the data even they themselves present.

 

There MUST HAVE BEEN an increase in sea level rise if the graphs went from flat or declining to a steadily increasing level of increase. Once again the denier shoots himself in the foot by presenting data he doesn't comprehend

 

The level of ignorance is astounding and yet one denier after another will embarrass themselves in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is what I said.

 

 

Yes and it was an embarrassing lie on your part

 

Looks like more cherry picking to me.

 

Typical of the deniers camp. They can't address climate so they try and confuse the public with weather and ultra short term graphs which could just about show anything, depends on where and when you cherrypicked the data from

 

Notice how NGS only wants you to look at one very small area of the map, in one very narrow slice of time. Why, because he knows he's lying

 

For a more definitive look at sea level rise lets look at a broader range of indicators over the entire globe and not just what one denier would prefer to focus on.

Quote

by Peter Hogarth

Even many critics would agree that global sea levels are currently rising, regardless of recent scrutiny and revision of estimates of predicted sea level rise. As pointed out previously, predicting sea level rise is tough. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) puts it neatly, “To make predictions, we need knowledge. To gain knowledge we need observations”. However a recent claim disputes that current sea levels are rising significantly. Is it possible to verify or falsify this statement by looking at observations and data from the scientific community concerned with measuring sea level?

The answer is yes. Measuring sea level is now a multidisciplinary effort involving integration of observations from several global networks of hundreds of tidal stations, calibrated with vertical reference data from nearby GPS (Global Positioning System, which now use the American GPS, Russian GLONASS and European Galileo constellations of satellites) or DORIS (Doppler Orbitography Integrated by Satellite) stations, and data from several independent satellite based radar altimeters (recently Jason I, Jason II, and Envisat) which give complete global coverage, data on sea temperature and pressure from the ARGO floating sensors (which give information on temperature and salinity related variations in Oceanic volume), and most recently data from the satellite based gravity sensor GRACE (Gravity Recovery And ClimateExperiment), which can give direct measurements of changes in mass of oceanic and land based water.

A 2009 review by Merrifield et al of the GLOSS (Global Sea Level Observing System) gives some indication of the large number and variety of organizations and workers involved. These measurements are complementary as well as providing independent cross validation checks on any individual data set, and many teams independently process raw observations to derive sea level data. This has enormously improved our knowledge of estimated sea level rise at global and regional level over the past 20 years, with continual refinements of estimates, as well as reductions in uncertainties from the centimetric level to sub mm level.

What are the conclusions from these efforts? Recent reviews (Cazenave et al 2009, Cazenave and Llovel 2010) show that the most up to date estimates of mean rate of sea level rise for the 20th century are converging on around 1.7 to 1.8mm/year, with uncertainties of around 0.2 to 0.3mm. (Ablain 2009, Church 2008, Engelhart 2009, Jevrejeva 2008, Leulette 2009, Merrifield 2009, Woppelmann 2009). The small differences between reported figures are mainly due to the different Glacial-Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) model or GPS based corrections that are used for the tidal stations, and extrapolating current knowledge of these vertical velocity corrections backwards to before the absolute GPS corrected data was available.

sea-level-tidal-satellite.jpg

Figure 1: Global corrected tidal station data (Church 2006 updated to 2009-dark blue, and Jevrejeva 2008- red)

Most recently, corrected tidal station data from the satellite altimeter period of 1993 to 2010 is in good agreement (within the error budget) with the satellite altimeter data, which gives 3.3mm/year ±0.4mm once GIA corrections are added. These values are considered “robust”. The overall message is clear. Sea levels are rising.

sea-level-satellite.jpg

Figure 2: Data from all satellite altimeters and 3 month composite average. The seasonal variations have been retained (trend 2.83mm/year, GIA correction would add another 0.2 to 0.5mm/yr)

Both tidal station data and altimeter data show decadal and shorter term variations in the rate of rise, but there is a significant weight of evidence of a recent acceleration in rate of sea level rise towards the end of the last century (Jevrejeva 2008, Merrifield 2009, Vermeer 2009), whilst the “slowing down” reported by some observers (around 2008) has proved short lived (judging from 2009/2010 data).

It has also now become possible to attempt to “close” the sea level budget, which has components of reported thermal expansion of the volume of water due to increase in accumulated heat energy, and also an increased component from melting ice from land based sources. Again refinements and corrections of recent datasets from GRACE (with GPS) and ARGO resolve previous and relatively recent difficulties, so that the sum of these climate-related contributions (2.85 ± 0.35 mm per year) is now comparable with the altimetry-based sea level rise (3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year) over the 1993 to 2007 period (Cazenave 2010, reporting a consensus of the Ocean Observing Community).

Using these datasets it is estimated that around 30% of the observed rate of rise over the satellite altimeter time period is due to ocean thermal expansion and 55% results from accumulated melting land ice. There is evidence that the land ice melt contribution has increased significantly over the past five years.

The Satellite altimetry data is also truly global in extent, allowing estimates of recent sea level rise to be made for open ocean or areas not served by calibrated tide gauges. The distribution of higher than average historical rises (up to 10mm/year) in sea level reported from many tidal stations, whilst other tidal stations consistently reported reductions in sea level, is verified by the altimetry data, but a much more complete and complex picture emerges, of dynamic changes of sea level and local regions of high and low average sea level rise.

satellite_change_sea_level.jpg

Figure 3: Sea level changes between 1993 and 2008 from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeters. The oceans are colour coded for changes in mean sea level. Yellow and red regions show rising sea level, while green and blue regions show falling sea level. White regions are missing data during parts of the year. On average the global sea level is rising, but complex regional variations are superimposed on this. Credit: Data products from Ssalto/Duacs, distributed by Aviso, with support from CNES.

The correlation with variations in Sea Surface Temperature and also with PDO, NAO, El Nino and La Nina events is marked, and the influence of Westerly equatorial ocean currents and other currents and prevailing wind systems is also apparent. At a glance this confirms and explains for example the discrepancy between data from tidal stations on the Western and Eastern Coast of the United States and the fact that even GIA corrected data from Alaska shows local reductions in sea level over much of the record. This answers a point many observers make such as "why has my local sea level not shown an increase?"

The dynamic nature of sea level variations can be best visualised by time sequence animations of the Topex, Jason I and Jason II global data sets (NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry).

 

The following shows 3-D sea level variations with colours representing sea surface temperatures during the El Nino over 1997 to 1998 (NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio).

 

These yearly rates of sea level rise may appear small compared with daily tidal variations of up to 8m (eg - Bay of Fundy) or even the average wave height in open waters(!). However, while the steady and gradually accelerating increase since pre-industrial times of around 30cm or a foot may appear manageable, if the recent trend of accelerating mass loss from Greenland and Antarctic Ice caps, as well as the world's glacierscontinues, then the potential sea level rises will have significant impact on humanity. The weight of peer-reviewed evidence for this acceleration in sea level rise is robust.

 

You might also review this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I love it. NGS just hung himself out to dry.

 

So what happened to the argument that we're at the bottom of a glacial cycle NGS ? that sea level rise graph not only doesn't have the resolution needed to show the rate of rise in the last few decades but what it does show is the evidence of being at the TOP not the bottom of a glacial cycle. Warming temps would mean melting ice right ? so we see melting during the upswing of the glacial periods tempt, then they level off and so does sea level rise. But oddly enough in the last century, for no other reason than an increase in CO2 we have an increase again in sea level rise ? How'd that happen NGS ?

 

LMAO

 

Way to shoot yourself in the foot

 

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level-1.png

 

Obviously there's been a recent slow down in sea level rise dating right up until the industrial age at which point we see dramatic sea level rise over the last century or so. Which of course your graph doesn't have the resolution to show ;--)

 

Lets look at some other information

 

From

Visit page

In what’s maybe the most comprehensive global temperature reconstruction study to date, scientists at Oregon State University and Harvard University found that the planet today is warmer than it has been during 70 to 80 percent of the time over the last 11,300 years.

3247111294.jpg

Global average temperature graph for the past 2,000 years. © Science

The authors note in their paper published in the journal Science that previous, similar studies have concentrated on assessing global temperatures for the past 2,000 years only. Other studies that have backtracked temperatures over longer periods of time are also insufficiently relevant since they concentrate their analysis over a specific region only, like Europe or North America for instance. Thus, the present study, through its temperature reconstructions up until close to the last Ice Age, aims to put climate change, past and present, in a much broader context.

 

So how about recent sea level rise

by Peter Hogarth

Even many critics would agree that global sea levels are currently rising, regardless of recent scrutiny and revision of estimates of predicted sea level rise. As pointed out previously, predicting sea level rise is tough. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) puts it neatly, “To make predictions, we need knowledge. To gain knowledge we need observations”. However a recent claim disputes that current sea levels are rising significantly. Is it possible to verify or falsify this statement by looking at observations and data from the scientific community concerned with measuring sea level?

The answer is yes. Measuring sea level is now a multidisciplinary effort involving integration of observations from several global networks of hundreds of tidal stations, calibrated with vertical reference data from nearby GPS (Global Positioning System, which now use the American GPS, Russian GLONASS and European Galileo constellations of satellites) or DORIS (Doppler Orbitography Integrated by Satellite) stations, and data from several independent satellite based radar altimeters (recently Jason I, Jason II, and Envisat) which give complete global coverage, data on sea temperature and pressure from the ARGO floating sensors (which give information on temperature and salinity related variations in Oceanic volume), and most recently data from the satellite based gravity sensor GRACE (Gravity Recovery And ClimateExperiment), which can give direct measurements of changes in mass of oceanic and land based water.

A 2009 review by Merrifield et al of the GLOSS (Global Sea Level Observing System) gives some indication of the large number and variety of organizations and workers involved. These measurements are complementary as well as providing independent cross validation checks on any individual data set, and many teams independently process raw observations to derive sea level data. This has enormously improved our knowledge of estimated sea level rise at global and regional level over the past 20 years, with continual refinements of estimates, as well as reductions in uncertainties from the centimetric level to sub mm level.

What are the conclusions from these efforts? Recent reviews (Cazenave et al 2009, Cazenave and Llovel 2010) show that the most up to date estimates of mean rate of sea level rise for the 20th century are converging on around 1.7 to 1.8mm/year, with uncertainties of around 0.2 to 0.3mm. (Ablain 2009, Church 2008, Engelhart 2009, Jevrejeva 2008, Leulette 2009, Merrifield 2009, Woppelmann 2009). The small differences between reported figures are mainly due to the different Glacial-Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) model or GPS based corrections that are used for the tidal stations, and extrapolating current knowledge of these vertical velocity corrections backwards to before the absolute GPS corrected data was available.

sea-level-tidal-satellite.jpg

Figure 1: Global corrected tidal station data (Church 2006 updated to 2009-dark blue, and Jevrejeva 2008- red)

Most recently, corrected tidal station data from the satellite altimeter period of 1993 to 2010 is in good agreement (within the error budget) with the satellite altimeter data, which gives 3.3mm/year ±0.4mm once GIA corrections are added. These values are considered “robust”. The overall message is clear. Sea levels are rising.

sea-level-satellite.jpg

Figure 2: Data from all satellite altimeters and 3 month composite average. The seasonal variations have been retained (trend 2.83mm/year, GIA correction would add another 0.2 to 0.5mm/yr)

Both tidal station data and altimeter data show decadal and shorter term variations in the rate of rise, but there is a significant weight of evidence of a recent acceleration in rate of sea level rise towards the end of the last century (Jevrejeva 2008, Merrifield 2009, Vermeer 2009), whilst the “slowing down” reported by some observers (around 2008) has proved short lived (judging from 2009/2010 data).

It has also now become possible to attempt to “close” the sea level budget, which has components of reported thermal expansion of the volume of water due to increase in accumulated heat energy, and also an increased component from melting ice from land based sources. Again refinements and corrections of recent datasets from GRACE (with GPS) and ARGO resolve previous and relatively recent difficulties, so that the sum of these climate-related contributions (2.85 ± 0.35 mm per year) is now comparable with the altimetry-based sea level rise (3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year) over the 1993 to 2007 period (Cazenave 2010, reporting a consensus of the Ocean Observing Community).

Using these datasets it is estimated that around 30% of the observed rate of rise over the satellite altimeter time period is due to ocean thermal expansion and 55% results from accumulated melting land ice. There is evidence that the land ice melt contribution has increased significantly over the past five years.

The Satellite altimetry data is also truly global in extent, allowing estimates of recent sea level rise to be made for open ocean or areas not served by calibrated tide gauges. The distribution of higher than average historical rises (up to 10mm/year) in sea level reported from many tidal stations, whilst other tidal stations consistently reported reductions in sea level, is verified by the altimetry data, but a much more complete and complex picture emerges, of dynamic changes of sea level and local regions of high and low average sea level rise.

satellite_change_sea_level.jpg

Figure 3: Sea level changes between 1993 and 2008 from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeters. The oceans are colour coded for changes in mean sea level. Yellow and red regions show rising sea level, while green and blue regions show falling sea level. White regions are missing data during parts of the year. On average the global sea level is rising, but complex regional variations are superimposed on this. Credit: Data products from Ssalto/Duacs, distributed by Aviso, with support from CNES.

The correlation with variations in Sea Surface Temperature and also with PDO, NAO, El Nino and La Nina events is marked, and the influence of Westerly equatorial ocean currents and other currents and prevailing wind systems is also apparent. At a glance this confirms and explains for example the discrepancy between data from tidal stations on the Western and Eastern Coast of the United States and the fact that even GIA corrected data from Alaska shows local reductions in sea level over much of the record. This answers a point many observers make such as "why has my local sea level not shown an increase?"

The dynamic nature of sea level variations can be best visualised by time sequence animations of the Topex, Jason I and Jason II global data sets (NOAA Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry).

 

The following shows 3-D sea level variations with colours representing sea surface temperatures during the El Nino over 1997 to 1998 (NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio).

 

These yearly rates of sea level rise may appear small compared with daily tidal variations of up to 8m (eg - Bay of Fundy) or even the average wave height in open waters(!). However, while the steady and gradually accelerating increase since pre-industrial times of around 30cm or a foot may appear manageable, if the recent trend of accelerating mass loss from Greenland and Antarctic Ice caps, as well as the world's glacierscontinues, then the potential sea level rises will have significant impact on humanity. The weight of peer-reviewed evidence for this acceleration in sea level rise is robust.

 

 

 

 

So you lied when you said there was a deceleration in sea level rise because the very next graph you showed depicted steady sea level rise.

 

or aren't you grasping that concept ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can play repeat the same shit over and over if you really have to in order to distract the community at large from seeing just how badly you were just embarrassed but really, you don't even know how to vet the individual bits and pieces of data let alone have any idea whatsoever how to do a comparative analysis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in this post we put all the pieces of your ignorance together and showed how you didn't JUST contradict yourself but completely failed to even remotely comprehend what you were looking at implied about the climate system

another way to see that there must have been an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise is by looking at the deniers graphs in a little more detail

Here the denier tells us that there is no sea level rise and shows the graph to try and prove it

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level-1.png

 

But just a few posts later the denier then shows this graph and claims that the rate of sea level rise is steady

2rwl4ps.jpg

 

So if the rate of sea level rise was flat or "even declining" as the deniers first claimed then how is it that the second graph the denier shows clearly indicates a substantial rate of sea level rise ?

Obviously the deniers are incapable of comprehending the data even they themselves present.

There MUST HAVE BEEN an increase in sea level rise if the graphs went from flat or declining to a steadily increasing level of increase. Once again the denier shoots himself in the foot by presenting data he doesn't comprehend

The level of ignorance is astounding and yet one denier after another will embarrass themselves in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bosdumb is a liar, a cheat, a moron and a plagiarist. I never claimed sea levels were falling (although at some locations that is true).

 

What I stated was:

 

1. They have been increasing for the last 20,000 years

2. The rate of rise has declined throughout the Holocene.

3. This pattern is characteristic of any interglacial period

4. There is no acceleration in the rate of rise (IPCC) (NOAA).

 

5. Several studies indicate a slowing in the rate of rise over the last 100 years. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).” http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holgate/sealevel_change_poster_holgate.pdf And I cited 5 other studies.

Willis, J. K., Chambers, D. P. & Nerem, R. S. Assessing the globally averaged sea level budget on seasonal to interannual time scales. J. Geophys. Res. doi:10.1029/2007jc004517 (2008).

 

Leuliette, E. W. & Miller, L. Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo and GRACE. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L04608 (2009).

 

Leuliette, E. W. & Willis, J. K. Balancing the sea level budget. Oceanography 24, 122–129(2011).

 

Chen, J. L., Wilson, C. R. & Tapley, B. D. Contribution of ice sheet and mountain glacier melt to recent sea level rise. Nature Geosci. 6, 549–552 (2013).

 

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P. & von Schuckmann, K. Earth’s energy imbalance andimplications. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 13421–13449 (2011).

 

The scientific data are very clear: Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000 years, decelerated over the 20th century, decelerated 31% since 2002 and decelerated 44% since 2004 to less than 7 inches per century. There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any effect of mankind on sea levels.

 

 

24dlhes.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lying again NGS

What you said was quoted for just such an occasion as you try and then tell people you didn't say it

Lets review

Yes and you humiliated yourself in saying it

 

 

Looks like repeat the lie will be your only answer ;--)

 

 

this

Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000. Throughout the Holocene the rate has decelerated.

They decelerated over the 20th century. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”

 

we just spent 20 or 30 posts thoroughly refuting

Embarasingly so actually

Shall we review

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The culmination of that last group of lies was to put all your nonsense together and show how you not only completely contradicted yourself but you clearly didn't comprehend what you were posting enough to extrapolate the fundamentals of our present climate situation

 

 

And in this post we put all the pieces of your ignorance together and showed how you didn't JUST contradict yourself but completely failed to even remotely comprehend what you were looking at implied about the climate system

another way to see that there must have been an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise is by looking at the deniers graphs in a little more detail

Here the denier tells us that there is no sea level rise and shows the graph to try and prove it

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level-1.png

 

But just a few posts later the denier then shows this graph and claims that the rate of sea level rise is steady

2rwl4ps.jpg

 

So if the rate of sea level rise was flat or "even declining" as the deniers first claimed then how is it that the second graph the denier shows clearly indicates a substantial rate of sea level rise ?

Obviously the deniers are incapable of comprehending the data even they themselves present.

There MUST HAVE BEEN an increase in sea level rise if the graphs went from flat or declining to a steadily increasing level of increase. Once again the denier shoots himself in the foot by presenting data he doesn't comprehend

The level of ignorance is astounding and yet one denier after another will embarrass themselves in this way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we save this one as well since it also contradicts your previous positions, whatever they were.

What I stated was:

 

1. They have been increasing for the last 20,000 years

2. The rate of rise has declined throughout the Holocene.

3. This pattern is characteristic of any interglacial period

4. There is no acceleration in the rate of rise (IPCC) (NOAA).

5. Several studies indicate a slowing in the rate of rise over the last 100 years.

 

So lets take a look at the pure stupidity of some of these points.

1 and 2 are entirely contradictory

Clearly NGS doesn't know what the Holocene period is or that it encompasses the last 20,000 years or so years.

So in #1 he's claiming that rate of sea level rise has been on the increase and in #2 he's claiming that rate of sea level rise is in the decrease.

Genius, pure genius. But he's upset that I've pointed out his nonsensical diatribe to the public

 

In number three we sink to new depths of ignorance by claiming

3. This pattern is characteristic of any interglacial period

 

when absolutely anything anywhere within the data of the last 2.5 million years let alone within the Holocene would be characteristic of data from the interglacial period.

Again pure stupidity at its finest

 

​4 claims no acceleration yet there must have been if NGS statements were true and sea level rise was declining ( see previous quotes ) and yet he now shows them to be steadily increasing . Again stupidity on an astounding level.

WOW pretty much covers just how easy it is to expose this particular denier for the incompetent he really is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we save this one as well since it also contradicts your previous positions, whatever they were.

 

What I stated was:

 

1. They (sea levels) have been increasing for the last 20,000 years

2. The rate of rise has declined throughout the Holocene.

3. This pattern is characteristic of any interglacial period

4. There is no acceleration in the rate of rise (IPCC) (NOAA).

5. Several studies indicate a slowing in the rate of rise over the last 100 years.

 

1 and 2 are entirely contradictory

 

 

More math trouble, Bosdumb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all its just that you are lying again

What you specifically said was

Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000. Throughout the Holocene the rate has decelerated.

They decelerated over the 20th century. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”

 

And then you posted two graphs which showed two completely different things

This one

2rwl4ps.jpg

And this one

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level-1.png

The two graphs show two completely different things

And your two statements are in total contradiction.

So one again you've have been caught lying

And two your graphs don't even remotely support your nonsense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets review

 

The culmination of that last group of lies was to put all your nonsense together and show how you not only completely contradicted yourself but you clearly didn't comprehend what you were posting enough to extrapolate the fundamentals of our present climate situation

 

 

And in this post we put all the pieces of your ignorance together and showed how you didn't JUST contradict yourself but completely failed to even remotely comprehend what you were looking at implied about the climate system

another way to see that there must have been an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise is by looking at the deniers graphs in a little more detail

Here the denier tells us that there is no sea level rise and shows the graph to try and prove it

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level-1.png

 

But just a few posts later the denier then shows this graph and claims that the rate of sea level rise is steady

2rwl4ps.jpg

 

So if the rate of sea level rise was flat or "even declining" as the deniers first claimed then how is it that the second graph the denier shows clearly indicates a substantial rate of sea level rise ?

Obviously the deniers are incapable of comprehending the data even they themselves present.

There MUST HAVE BEEN an increase in sea level rise if the graphs went from flat or declining to a steadily increasing level of increase. Once again the denier shoots himself in the foot by presenting data he doesn't comprehend

The level of ignorance is astounding and yet one denier after another will embarrass themselves in this way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just remember

This is exactly what you said, which I saved so you couldn't go back later and lie about what you had posted earlier. Which its obviously exactly what you are now trying to do

 

 

I love it. So lets go through each of Dipshits claims and see just how true it really is


The Earth's temp has been rising overall for 300 years, and sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1-1.5mm / year. The rise has everything to do with the fact that we are living during an interglacial and nothing to do with AGW.

Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000. Throughout the Holocene the rate has decelerated.

They decelerated over the 20th century. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Holgate/sealevel_change_poster_holgate.pdf

NASA found the same, 1.3 ± 0.9 mm/yr, less than the 20th century rates.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

We are currently at the cold end of the Holocene interglacial - 9000 years of the last 10,000 have been warmer than today.

You ecotards will get your lower sea levels when we head into the next glacial. And then you will wish that CO2 had been the magic control knob you think it is. Until then, adapt to the 7 inches / century rise. It has nothing to do with CO2 or the AGW fiction in your greenie heads.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

Just for the record to keep the idiot honest so he can't change anything before I get a chance to expose it for the BS it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to repeat.

The Earth's temperature has been rising overall for 300 years, and sea level has been rising at a rate of about 1-1.5mm / year. The rise has everything to do with the fact that we are living during an interglacial and nothing to do with AGW. The recent modern warm period is a rebound from the Little Ice Age.


Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000. This pattern is repeated during each interglacial.

 

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level-1.png

 


SL5_zps5e18150b.png


Sea level rise also decelerated over the course of the 20th century. Holgate found the mean rate for the twentieth century 1.67±0.04 mm/yr. "The first half of the century (1904-1953) had a slightly higher rate (1.91±0.14 mm/yr) in comparison with the second half of the century (1.42±0.14 mm/yr 1954-2003).”

http://meteo.lcd.lu/...ter_holgate.pdf

NASA found the same deceleration, "1.3 ± 0.9 mm/yr, less than the 20th century rates."
http://ibis.grdl.noa...Report_2012.pdf


I cited 5 other studies.


Willis, J. K., Chambers, D. P. & Nerem, R. S. Assessing the globally averaged sea level budget on seasonal to interannual time scales. J. Geophys. Res. doi:10.1029/2007jc004517 (2008).

Leuliette, E. W. & Miller, L. Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo and GRACE. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L04608 (2009).

Leuliette, E. W. & Willis, J. K. Balancing the sea level budget. Oceanography 24, 122–129(2011).

Chen, J. L., Wilson, C. R. & Tapley, B. D. Contribution of ice sheet and mountain glacier melt to recent sea level rise. Nature Geosci. 6, 549–552 (2013).

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P. & von Schuckmann, K. Earth’s energy imbalance andimplications. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 13421–13449 (2011).

The scientific data are very clear:

Global sea levels have been naturally rising for 20,000 years and have decelerated over the past 8,000 years, decelerated over the 20th century, decelerated 31% since 2002 and decelerated 44% since 2004 to less than 7 inches per century. There is no evidence of an acceleration of sea level rise, and therefore no evidence of any effect of mankind on sea levels.

Want more?

24dlhes.jpg



What the IPCC has stated:

From IPCC AR3, http://www.grida.no/...tar/wg1/425.htm

“There is no evidence for any acceleration of sea level rise in data from the 20th century data … Mediterranean records show decelerations, and even decreases in sea level in the latter part of the 20th century”.

 


We are currently at the cold end of the Holocene interglacial - 9000 years of the last 10,000 have been warmer than today.

GISP2%20Ice%20Core.jpg

 

Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev.png



You ecotards will get your lower sea levels when we head into the next glacial. And then you will wish that CO2 had been the magic control knob you think it is. Until then, adapt to the 7 inches / century rise. It has nothing to do with CO2 or the AGW fiction in your stupid little greenie heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yeah saw that on the ABC a couple of nights ago. Nanny says the sea level isn't rising.

 

CSU5AfVUAAASPgN.png

 

8980129_G.jpg

 

Ocean water surged into neighborhoods on the Southeast coast on Tuesday morning during high tide, pushing gauges well beyond predicted levels. Seemingly overnight, spurred by sea level rise, we’ve entered an era where king tides compete with hurricanes in the water level record books.

 

 

Combined with a large area of low barometric pressure... no kidding.

 

Sail much?

 

 

There was no such thing as flooding when carbon dioxide was below 350ppm.

 

 

Randumb would remember the Queensland floods last year. The reported Q'land sea levels at the time dropped by 7mm for months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yikes, Looks like Dipshit is cherrypicking again

 

Lets look at the facts

 

8 inches of sea level rise - Climate Central

 

 

Sea Level 101

 

Global warming has raised global sea level about 8 inches since 1880, and the rate of rise is accelerating. Rising seas dramatically increase the odds of damaging floods from storm surges. A Climate Central analysis finds that sea level rise from warming has already doubled the odds of "century" or worse floods over widespread areas of the U.S., and the problem is growing by the decade.These increases threaten an enormous amount of damage. Across the country, nearly 5 million people live in 2.6 million homes at less than 4 feet above high tide — a level lower than the century flood line for most locations analyzed. And compounding this risk, scientists expect roughly 2 to 5 more feet of sea level rise this century — a lot depending upon how much more heat-trapping pollution humanity puts into the sky.

 

So once again a climate denier working for the oil and gas industry has tried to mislead the public but as we can all see there's a marked rise in sea levels and that rise is accelerating in lockstep with ocean warming due to expansion among other things.

 

Cheers ;--)

see also

 

Sea Level Rise | National Climate Assessment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck. The fucking guardian again. Will you just piss off with your endless propaganda.

 

A new study says Randumb takes it up the arse. Fucking idiots believe anything printed if it starts "a new study says"

 

Mindless fucking parrots the pair of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Global data looks very different

sea-level-rise1.jpg?itok=Q0r6_KK6

 

As anyone can see for themselves the 20th century saw accelerating increases in the rate of sea level rise.

 

 

bosDumb is real funny or a real dickwad. That is a hockey stick graph. The middle is relatively linear as all have been saying, the ends are fiction. bosDumbest again tries to fool the masses. What the fuck is (purple) "Predictions of the future"? Is that from failed models you still hopelessly cling to? What a dipshit you are, bosDumb. (grey)Estimates of the past? Really? Really? How eff'n dumb(est) are you??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy shit boston, you are a stupid obstinate fuck.

 

You're humiliating yourself with this ongoing failure to comprehend the difference between velocity and acceleration.

 

Look, this isn't political, or ideological, or even a matter of opinion. It's just math, and you don't get it.

 

Now, if you want to make a case that the actual rate of change is increasing, go to the NOAA site and find a dozen stations that show an increasing rate of change over the instrumented time period.

 

Again, an increasing RATE of change does NOT mean merely an upward-sloped trend line; it has to be a CURVE that shows an increasing SLOPE. If the line is straight, the rate of change is zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ZZ has just demonstrated is ignorance. Doesn't understand the difference between rate of change and acceleration.

Wow... just, wow. JFC!

 

Rate of change IS acceleration! It's the derivative of velocity.

 

You and Boston are smoking some really good shit today. Stop bogarting and pass it around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ZZ has just demonstrated is ignorance. Doesn't understand the difference between rate of change and acceleration.

Wow... just, wow. JFC!

 

Rate of change IS acceleration! It's the first derivative of velocity.

 

You and Boston are smoking some really good shit today. Stop bogarting and pass it around.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

ZZ has just demonstrated is ignorance. Doesn't understand the difference between rate of change and acceleration.

Wow... just, wow. JFC!

 

Rate of change IS acceleration! It's the first derivative of velocity.

 

You and Boston are smoking some really good shit today. Stop bogarting and pass it around.

:D

Now you're really going to confuse the poor fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we can add walking catfish to the list now, right behind polar bears, plankton, and the Koch brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Meanwhile, out in the oceans ...

 

"Paris (AFP) - Sea-level rise is accelerating, not declining as some have hoped, scientists said on Monday citing meltwater from Earth's ice sheets as the likely cause.

In 2013, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the global mean sea level rose by 19 centimetres (7.6 inches) from 1901-2010, an average 1.7 mm (0.06 of an inch) per year.

 

This accelerated to 3.2 mm per year between 1993 and 2010, the IPCC said in its landmark Fifth Assessment Report."

 

So who do we believe....? :P

I am assuming that you missed this one. Re-posted for your convenience.

I didn't miss it. Go to the NOAA site and find me some sea level stations that are recording actual significant increasing rates of change. I couldn't find any.

 

I am automatically skeptical of aggregate global data because they don't disclose how they weight the individual measurements to come up with the global average.

 

If you understand math you'd appreciate the significance of this.

 

Did you happen to catch that paragraph waaay down at the bottom of your linked article (which you conveniently omitted from your C&P) about how older data was "adjusted"?

 

And of course, this older data was fudged DOWN, so the newer data shows an increasing rate of change.

 

Funny how "adjusted" black-box aggregate data ALWAYS gets manipulated to conform to the Doomer's expected result, hmm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Global data looks very different

sea-level-rise1.jpg?itok=Q0r6_KK6

 

As anyone can see for themselves the 20th century saw accelerating increases in the rate of sea level rise.

 

 

bosDumb is real funny or a real dickwad. That is a hockey stick graph. The middle is relatively linear as all have been saying, the ends are fiction. bosDumbest again tries to fool the masses. What the fuck is (purple) "Predictions of the future"? Is that from failed models you still hopelessly cling to? What a dipshit you are, bosDumb. (grey)Estimates of the past? Really? Really? How eff'n dumb(est) are you??

 

 

Yikes, not real bright are you ;--)

 

Clearly the graph shows a gradually increasing rate of change. If you are blind to that, its your own ignorance blinding you.

 

Classic denial

 

The rate of change is increasing, so fucking what if the final portion of the graph is a projection. Eliminate that projection and we still have a clear and unequivocal increase in the rate of change.

 

But once again our deniers are going to desperately deny even if its right there for all to see

 

Amazing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston: 3rd and final chance: what's the source of that hockey stick graph, how was the data aggregated, and have you found. ANY actually sea level reporting stations, as documented on the NOAA website, that shows a significant increase in rate of change?

 

Still can't admit you were 100% wrong on that whole change vs. rate of change thing, can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still can't admit you have comprehension problems ?

The IPCC Explains... Sea Level Rise pdf_button.png printButton.png emailButton.png

IPCC FAQ 5.1

Is Sea Level Rising?

...there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting...

Yes, there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion of the oceans (water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting.

Global sea level rose by about 120 m during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilised between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century. The instrumental record of modern sea level change shows evidence for onset of sea level rise during the 19th century. Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 mm yr–1.

Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.

In agreement with climate models, satellite data and hydrographic observations show that sea level is not rising uniformly around the world. In some regions, rates are up to several times the global mean rise, while in other regions sea level is falling. Substantial spatial variation in rates of sea level change is also inferred from hydrographic observations. Spatial variability of the rates of sea level rise is mostly due to non-uniform changes in temperature and salinity and related to changes in the ocean circulation.

Near-global ocean temperature data sets made available in recent years allow a direct calculation of thermal expansion. It is believed that on average, over the period from 1961 to 2003, thermal expansion contributed about one-quarter of the observed sea level rise, while melting of land ice accounted for less than half. Thus, the full magnitude of the observed sea level rise during that period was not satisfactorily explained by those data sets, as reported in the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

During recent years (1993–2003), for which the observing system is much better, thermal expansion and melting of land ice each account for about half of the observed sea level rise, although there is some uncertainty in the estimates.

The reasonable agreement in recent years between the observed rate of sea level rise and the sum of thermal expansion and loss of land ice suggests an upper limit for the magnitude of change in land-based water storage, which is relatively poorly known. Model results suggest no net trend in the storage of water over land due to climate-driven changes but there are large interannual and decadal fluctuations. However, for the recent period 1993 to 2003, the small discrepancy between observed sea level rise and the sum of known contributions might be due to unquantified human-induced processes (e.g., groundwater extraction, impoundment in reservoirs, wetland drainage and deforestation).

Global sea level is projected to rise during the 21st century at a greater rate than during 1961 to 2003. Under the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) A1B scenario by the mid 2090s, for instance, global sea level reaches 0.22 to 0.44 m above 1990 levels, and is rising at about 4 mm yr–1. As in the past, sea level change in the future will not be geographically uniform, with regional sea level change varying within about ±0.15 m of the mean in a typical model projection. Thermal expansion is projected to contribute more than half of the average rise, but land ice will lose mass increasingly rapidly as the century progresses. An important uncertainty relates to whether discharge of ice from the ice sheets will continue to increase as a consequence of accelerated ice flow, as has been observed in recent years. This would add to the amount of sea level rise, but quantitative projections of how much it would add cannot be made with confidence, owing to limited understanding of the relevant processes.

Figure 1 shows the evolution of global mean sea level in the past and as projected for the 21st century for the SRES A1B scenario.

faq_5.1_fig_1_global_mean_sea_level_1800

FAQ 5.1, Figure 1. Time series of global mean sea level (deviation from the 1980-1999 mean) in the past and as projected for the future. For the period before 1870, global measurements of sea level are not available. The grey shading shows the uncertainty in the estimated long-term rate of sea level change (Section 6.4.3). The red line is a reconstruction of global mean sea level from tide gauges (Section 5.5.2.1), and the red shading denotes the range of variations from a smooth curve. The green line shows global mean sea level observed from satellite altimetry. The blue shading represents the range of model projections for the SRES A1B scenario for the 21st century, relative to the 1980 to 1999 mean, and has been calculated independently from the observations. Beyond 2100, the projections are increasingly dependent on the emissions scenario (see Chapter 10 for a discussion of sea level rise projections for other scenarios considered in this report). Over many centuries or millennia, sea level could rise by several metres (Section 10.7.4).

Source

This "frequently asked question" appears as originally published by the IPCC:


Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D. Talley and A. Unnikrishnan, 2007: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idiot lives to lie, its amazing how blatant he is about it too. Anyone paying attention to this can see through it. Lie after lie after lie.

Cherrypicking in the extreme.

Kinda makes me wonder who he thinks he's fooling

 

Leave the cherry tree alone. You cherry picked one of the only sites in North America affected by land movements.

 

Let's look at the big picture shall we?

 

fig11.png

 

High-quality global sea-level measurements from satellite altimetry since the start of 1993 (orange line), in addition to the longer-term records from tide gauges (green line, with shading providing an indication of the confidence range of the estimate).

 

Inset: Sea-level increase since 1993 from the satellite altimetry. The light green line shows the monthly data, the dark green line the three-month moving average, and the orange line the linear trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites