IPCC Sea Level Rise Estimates

[CrusaderFrank]

Crusader Frank is a poorly disguised synonym for willfull ignorance on all subjects.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

 

[IanC]

Reality is that we know that we are seeing a bit of an increase in the rise. A slight bit more than predicted. Reality is that if the Arctic Sea becomes devoid of ice for a goodly portion of the summer before 2050, and the Arctic Clathrates let go, we have no idea what the sea level will be, nor what the climate will be in 2100.

why didnt the clathrates 'let go' in the MWP, RWP, or any of the other warm periods in the past?

what is your opinion on the predicted methane rates that are massively exaggerated compared to the measured reality? these predicted rates are incorporated into climate models and are a significant fraction of the IPCC's forecast of increased temperatures.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now back to climate change. The ocean has risen only a foot in the New York area, yet look at how much differance that made during Sandy. A meter rise would be catastrophic worldwide to present infrastructure of most seaports. A bit of planning for that eventuality might be a wise move. But we see the GOP of North Carolina passing such nonsense as a bill that would allow their planners only to consider a rise the same as in the last century. By 2020, we will see how stupid that peice of idiocy truly is.

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy." -- IPCC

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reality is that we know that we are seeing a bit of an increase in the rise. A slight bit more than predicted. Reality is that if the Arctic Sea becomes devoid of ice for a goodly portion of the summer before 2050, and the Arctic Clathrates let go, we have no idea what the sea level will be, nor what the climate will be in 2100.

why didnt the clathrates 'let go' in the MWP, RWP, or any of the other warm periods in the past?

what is your opinion on the predicted methane rates that are massively exaggerated compared to the measured reality? these predicted rates are incorporated into climate models and are a significant fraction of the IPCC's forecast of increased temperatures.

Irrelevant!

The models say AGW is for real.

/thread

science = settled

 

[IanC]

Figure 3 : Comparison among different sea level data sets; (1) the Official Australian claim (AFGCC, 2011; ABSLMP, 2011), (2a) the Australian 39 station record, (2b) the Australian 70 station record, (2c) the Australian 86 station record, (3a) the 2059 station PSMSL (2011) average, (3b) the 159 station NOAA (2011) average, (4) the reconstruction of sea level changes by Church and White (2011), and (5) the Topex/Jason satellite altimetry record (CU, 2011). All the data are shifted for a zero MSL in January 1990. The differences are far too large not to include serious errors in some of the records. The official Australian trend (1) lies far above all the other curves, indicating a strong exaggeration. The Australian (2a-c) as well as global (3a-b) curves vary between 0.1 and 1.5 mm/year. The satellite altimetry records (5) include “calibrations” previously questioned (Morner, 2004, 2011c, 2013). The record (4) of Church and White (2011) lies between the satellite altimetry curve (5) and all the graphs representing global (3a-b) and Australian (2a-c) tide gauge records. The acceleration in curve 4 is strongly contradicted by all the other records. The same absence of acceleration is found in many other records (further discussed in the text) indicating that the concept of acceleration ought to be revised.

Conclusions:

In view of the data presented, we believe that we are justified to draw the following conclusions:

(1) The official Australian claim [2,3] of a present sea level rise in the order of 5.4mm/year is significantly exaggerated (Figure 3).

(2) The mean sea level rise from Australian tide gauges as well as global tide gauge networks is to be found within the sector of rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 mm/year (yellow wedge in Figure 3).

(3) The claim of a recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise [2,3,12] cannot be validated by tide gauge records, either in Australia or globally (Figure 3). Rather, it seems strongly contradicted [19,21,24,39-41]

The practical implication of our conclusions is that there, in fact, is no reason either to fear or to prepare for any disastrous sea level flooding in the near future.

even if Morner is stretching the figures his way a bit (as opposed to warmers stretching theirs a lot), there is no huge flood coming in the near future.

edit- http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/jaeger/Moerner_Parker_ESAIJ2013.pdf, it may be an Indian journal but at least its not in its first year like the BEST paper. speaking of which, where are the other BEST papers?

 

[mamooth]

Using anything from WUWT as a source is bad. Using Morner on WUWT is just crazy. A dowser (he finds water with a stick!) and conspiracy theorist (Those awful scientists chopped down the tree that proves he was right!) is the official "sea level expert"?

Oh, I can find no claim by the Australian government of a current 5.4mm/year sea level rise. The closest I get is that out of several scenarios they present, the worst case is a 1 meter rise predicted by 2100, which would be around 5.4mm/year. That, however, is a very different thing than what Morner claims. Morner seems to have masterfully disproven something that no one ever said.

 

[SSDD]

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows sea levels around Australia have declined over the past 7000 years
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds sea level trends are biased by natural ocean oscillations
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Inconvenient Truth: Sea Level Rise has Decelerated 44% since 2005
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Sea level rise in Southwest Pacific dropped by factor of 6 during latter half of 20th century
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: NOAA 2012 report finds sea levels rising at less than half the rate claimed by the IPCC
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds sea level rise has greatly decelerated over past 10 years
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds global sea levels will rise only about 5 inches by 2100
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds sea level changes since 1950 have been due to natural variability
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds no evidence of a human influence on sea levels

 

[mamooth]

Ah, a fine "avalanche o' crap" dump by SSDD. Common cultist tactic.

If you don't spend hours refuting each bit of cherrypicked nonsense individually, the cultist proclaims victory.

If you _do_ spend the hours, the cultist simply temporarily retreats and posts the exact same refuted nonsense somewhere else, even though he knows full well it's garbage.

Hence, one does not waste time on it. One simply points and laughs.

 

[SSDD]

Ah, a fine "avalanche o' crap" dump by SSDD. Common cultist tactic..

Peer reviewed papers published in respectable journals finding that sea levels aren't behaving as the models predict are junk in your opinion? Interesting.

 

[IanC]

Figure 3 : Comparison among different sea level data sets; (1) the Official Australian claim (AFGCC, 2011; ABSLMP, 2011), (2a) the Australian 39 station record, (2b) the Australian 70 station record, (2c) the Australian 86 station record, (3a) the 2059 station PSMSL (2011) average, (3b) the 159 station NOAA (2011) average, (4) the reconstruction of sea level changes by Church and White (2011), and (5) the Topex/Jason satellite altimetry record (CU, 2011). All the data are shifted for a zero MSL in January 1990. The differences are far too large not to include serious errors in some of the records. The official Australian trend (1) lies far above all the other curves, indicating a strong exaggeration. The Australian (2a-c) as well as global (3a-b) curves vary between 0.1 and 1.5 mm/year. The satellite altimetry records (5) include “calibrations” previously questioned (Morner, 2004, 2011c, 2013). The record (4) of Church and White (2011) lies between the satellite altimetry curve (5) and all the graphs representing global (3a-b) and Australian (2a-c) tide gauge records. The acceleration in curve 4 is strongly contradicted by all the other records. The same absence of acceleration is found in many other records (further discussed in the text) indicating that the concept of acceleration ought to be revised.

Conclusions:

In view of the data presented, we believe that we are justified to draw the following conclusions:

(1) The official Australian claim [2,3] of a present sea level rise in the order of 5.4mm/year is significantly exaggerated (Figure 3).

(2) The mean sea level rise from Australian tide gauges as well as global tide gauge networks is to be found within the sector of rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 mm/year (yellow wedge in Figure 3).

(3) The claim of a recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise [2,3,12] cannot be validated by tide gauge records, either in Australia or globally (Figure 3). Rather, it seems strongly contradicted [19,21,24,39-41]

The practical implication of our conclusions is that there, in fact, is no reason either to fear or to prepare for any disastrous sea level flooding in the near future.

even if Morner is stretching the figures his way a bit (as opposed to warmers stretching theirs a lot), there is no huge flood coming in the near future.

edit- http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/jaeger/Moerner_Parker_ESAIJ2013.pdf, it may be an Indian journal but at least its not in its first year like the BEST paper. speaking of which, where are the other BEST papers?

Saigon's Finnish Met has an article out calling for 20-2000 cm sea level rise by 2100. does anyone believe that 2 meters of increase is even remotely possible? look at the graph above and extrapolate the steepness of the curve necessary to produce 2m in 87 years.

It is estimated that by the end of this century, ocean levels will rise at least about 20 centimetres. The highest estimates are nearly two metres.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Climate "Science" is a poorly disguised front for Marxism

I think you're right but also Old rocks is right at the same time...Human nature takes advantage of things for power.

You---> Of course the global left is using it to advance their beliefs.
Old rocks--->Global warming is real and he's right that it may fuck us.

 

[IanC]

doomsday articles are always talking about a one meter rise by 2100, sometimes two meters or even six. here is the graphic representation of just half a meter. even that seems unlikely doesnt it? can you mentally plot the steepness of the lines for 1, 2 or 6 meter increases?

time to update for AR5-

Figure 13.27 | Compilation of paleo sea level data, tide gauge data, altimeter
data (from Figure 13.3), and central estimates and likely ranges for projections of global
mean sea level rise for RCP2.6 (blue) and RCP8.5 (red) scenarios (Section 13.5.1), all
relative to pre-industrial values.

from 0.5 - 1.2 metres. interesting.

 

[SSDD]

Reality is that we know that we are seeing a bit of an increase in the rise. A slight bit more than predicted. Reality is that if the Arctic Sea becomes devoid of ice for a goodly portion of the summer before 2050, and the Arctic Clathrates let go, we have no idea what the sea level will be, nor what the climate will be in 2100.

Actual reality, vs model reality is that we are seeing a slight decrease in the rate of sea level rise. Go read the published work rather than the disinformation and propaganda at SS.

 

[Abraham3]

Sea Level rising 60% faster than IPCC projections
Sea Level is rising 60% faster than IPCC projections according to a new climate change related study comparing the actual rise in CO2 concentration, global temperature and sea level with past projections done by the IPCC.
Rising Global temperatures are consistent with past projections made by the IPCC fourth assessment report. But Projections for sea level rise amounted to 2 mm a year, while sea-levels are actually rising at a rate of 3.2 mm a year.
Lead author of the study, Stefan Rahmstorf, said: "This study shows once again that the IPCC is far from alarmist, but in fact has under-estimated the problem of climate change. That applies not just for sea-level rise, but also to extreme events and the Arctic sea-ice loss."

Figure 2: Sea level measured by satellite altimeter (red with linear trend line; AVISO data from (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales) and reconstructed from tide gauges (orange, monthly data from Church and White (2011)). Tide gauge data were aligned to give the same mean during 1993–2010 as the altimeter data. The scenarios of the IPCC are again shown in blue (third assessment) and green (fourth assessment); the former have been published starting in the year 1990 and the latter from 2000. From Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011 Stefan Rahmstorf et al 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 044035 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035

The study - Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011 - looked at global temperatures and sea-level data over the past two decades, comparing them both to projections made in the IPCC's third and fourth assessment reports.
The article abstract says:
We analyse global temperature and sea-level data for the past few decades and compare them to projections published in the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The results show that global temperature continues to increase in good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC, especially if we account for the effects of short-term variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, volcanic activity and solar variability. The rate of sea-level rise of the past few decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low.
The researchers, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Tempo Analytics and Laboratoire d'Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales, rule out as very unlikely several possible causes for this discepancy such as internal multi-decadal variability, or a temporary episode of ice discharge from one of the ice sheets.
The researchers say "the observed rate of sea-level rise on multi-decadal timescales over the past 130 years shows a highly significant correlation with global temperature (Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009) by which the increase in rate over the past three decades is linked to the warming since 1980, which is very unlikely to be a chance coincidence."
"In contrast to the physics of global warming itself, sea-level rise is much more complex," Rahmstorf says. "To improve future projections it is very important to keep track of how well past projections match observational data." Rahmstorf stresses that "the new findings highlight that the IPCC is far from being alarmist and in fact in some cases rather underestimates possible risks."

http://takvera.blogspot.com/2012/11/sea-level-rising-60-faster-than-ipcc.html

 

[IanC]

Abe- I agree that the IPCC up until AR5 had given fairly realistic estimates of SLR. unfortunately the 20-60 cm projection in 2007 has morphed into 50-120 cm in 2013. even with The Pause, and other clawbacks in the actual document rather than just the SPM.

out of curiousity, did you ever point out that SLRs of one metre or more were unrealistic when posters here cut and pasted exaggerated numbers out of news articles and such?

 

[Kosh]

All of these AGW models have been proven to be bunk, not sure why anyone claiming to be for science would continue to push such non science.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sea Level rising 60% faster than IPCC projections
Sea Level is rising 60% faster than IPCC projections according to a new climate change related study comparing the actual rise in CO2 concentration, global temperature and sea level with past projections done by the IPCC.
Rising Global temperatures are consistent with past projections made by the IPCC fourth assessment report. But Projections for sea level rise amounted to 2 mm a year, while sea-levels are actually rising at a rate of 3.2 mm a year.
Lead author of the study, Stefan Rahmstorf, said: "This study shows once again that the IPCC is far from alarmist, but in fact has under-estimated the problem of climate change. That applies not just for sea-level rise, but also to extreme events and the Arctic sea-ice loss."

Figure 2: Sea level measured by satellite altimeter (red with linear trend line; AVISO data from (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales) and reconstructed from tide gauges (orange, monthly data from Church and White (2011)). Tide gauge data were aligned to give the same mean during 1993–2010 as the altimeter data. The scenarios of the IPCC are again shown in blue (third assessment) and green (fourth assessment); the former have been published starting in the year 1990 and the latter from 2000. From Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011 Stefan Rahmstorf et al 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 044035 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044035

The study - Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011 - looked at global temperatures and sea-level data over the past two decades, comparing them both to projections made in the IPCC's third and fourth assessment reports.
The article abstract says:
We analyse global temperature and sea-level data for the past few decades and compare them to projections published in the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The results show that global temperature continues to increase in good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC, especially if we account for the effects of short-term variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, volcanic activity and solar variability. The rate of sea-level rise of the past few decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low.
The researchers, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Tempo Analytics and Laboratoire d'Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales, rule out as very unlikely several possible causes for this discepancy such as internal multi-decadal variability, or a temporary episode of ice discharge from one of the ice sheets.
The researchers say "the observed rate of sea-level rise on multi-decadal timescales over the past 130 years shows a highly significant correlation with global temperature (Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009) by which the increase in rate over the past three decades is linked to the warming since 1980, which is very unlikely to be a chance coincidence."
"In contrast to the physics of global warming itself, sea-level rise is much more complex," Rahmstorf says. "To improve future projections it is very important to keep track of how well past projections match observational data." Rahmstorf stresses that "the new findings highlight that the IPCC is far from being alarmist and in fact in some cases rather underestimates possible risks."

Sea Level rising 60% faster than IPCC projections | Climate Citizen

The fact that you have to pull ALTERED crayoned drawings from SkepticalScience to make your point indicates how marginal this view is.. That 1st plot for certain never even MET any real data.. As the TAR, FAR, AR4 plots show.. If you really followed the IPCC graphs and understood them, you wouldn't still be getting your talking points from SkS...

Projections made in the 90s or 2000s that are plotted only to 2010 or 2015 are Freaking WORTHLESS SHIT.. The argument about alarmism comes from what the press and politicians mangle about the RESULTS for 2100.. THAT'S the issue...

 

[IanC]

Abe- I agree that the IPCC up until AR5 had given fairly realistic estimates of SLR. unfortunately the 20-60 cm projection in 2007 has morphed into 50-120 cm in 2013. even with The Pause, and other clawbacks in the actual document rather than just the SPM.

out of curiousity, did you ever point out that SLRs of one metre or more were unrealistic when posters here cut and pasted exaggerated numbers out of news articles and such?

how come you seldom seem to respond to questions? I am interested in hearing your opinions, and perhaps learning something.

do you think that the top line on this graph is realistic (and that line is lower than the bottom of the AR5 range)

I have seen nothing in the last seven years to indicate that there should be a large increase in SLR estimates, and perhaps a few to warrant a decrease. your thoughts?

 

[SSDD]

I have seen nothing in the last seven years to indicate that there should be a large increase in SLR estimates, and perhaps a few to warrant a decrease. your thoughts?

He is a parrot...he has no thoughts. He repeats whatever he is told to repeat by whoever happens to be a snug fit with his political leanings....it has nothing to do with science.

An actual ocean engineer (as he claims to be) would probably provide an endless stream of opinion regarding what is happening in the oceans and one would expect that an actual ocean engineer wouldn't be unable to read graphs...especially those describing what is happening in the oceans.

 

[IanC]

I have seen nothing in the last seven years to indicate that there should be a large increase in SLR estimates, and perhaps a few to warrant a decrease. your thoughts?

He is a parrot...he has no thoughts. He repeats whatever he is told to repeat by whoever happens to be a snug fit with his political leanings....it has nothing to do with science.

An actual ocean engineer (as he claims to be) would probably provide an endless stream of opinion regarding what is happening in the oceans and one would expect that an actual ocean engineer wouldn't be unable to read graphs...especially those describing what is happening in the oceans.

hahahahahaha

you do realize that he holds the same opinion about you, right?

I am pretty sure I have never convinced anyone to act smart by calling them retarded.

the only way to get someone to move away from an emotionally held opinion is to get them to defend it logically and then start trimming out the inconsistencies. I know for myself that the more I learn about climate science, the less certain I am about just about everything. but that doesnt mean that there isnt lots of things that are just plain wrong, and should be discarded.