New paper finds no evidence of a human influence on sea levels

Discussion in 'Environment' started by SSDD, Dec 30, 2012.

  1. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,876
    Thanks Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,514
    In response to the barrage of recent posts by a certain member of this board, the vast majority of which reflect, and discuss nothing more than the output of computer models, I am going to post some recently published papers based on actual observation. The contrast is remarkable.

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1

    This paper, recently published in the Journal of Climate examined the world wide sea level change over the period of the 20th century and found that seal level rise was consistent over the 20th century with little if any acceleration in the rate of rise and that glacier mass lost was not less during the first half of the 20th century than during the second half.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2012
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,150
    Thanks Received:
    14,897
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,864
    Obama promised to stop the seas from rising. That has to be it
     
  3. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,876
    Thanks Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,514
    I saw the sound bite. I would like to know how he stopped sea level rise retroactively to the beginning of the 20th century.
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,281

    An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


    Abstract


    Confidence in projections of global-mean sea-level rise (GMSLR) depends on an ability to account for GMSLR during the 20th century. There are contributions from ocean thermal expansion, mass loss from glaciers and ice sheets, groundwater extraction and reservoir impoundment. We have made progress towards solving the “enigma” of 20th-century GMSLR—that is, the observed GMSLR has been found to exceed the sum of estimated contributions, especially for the earlier decades. We propose that: thermal expansion simulated by climate models may previously have been underestimated owing to their not including volcanic forcing in their control state; the rate of glacier mass loss was larger than previously estimated, and was not smaller in the first than in the second half of the century; the Greenland ice-sheet could have made a positive contribution throughout the century; groundwater depletion and reservoir impoundment, which are of opposite sign, may have been approximately equal in magnitude. We show that it is possible to reconstruct the timeseries of GMSLR from the quantified contributions, apart from a constant residual term which is small enough to be explained as a long-term contribution from the Antarctic ice-sheet. The reconstructions account for the approximate constancy of the rate of GMSLR during the 20th century, which shows small or no acceleration, despite the increasing anthropogenic forcing. Semi-empirical methods for projecting GMSLR depend on the existence of a relationship between global climate change and the rate of GMSLR, but the implication of our closure of the budget is that such a relationship is weak or absent during the 20th century

    Seems to me that the abstract has several contradictions in it. Not only that, the the satellite observations show an acceleration of the sea level rise.

    Be interesting to see the papers refuting his points.
     
  5. Politico
    Offline

    Politico Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    13,855
    Thanks Received:
    937
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,491
    That's not true. Last time I went to the beach I definitely influenced the ocean a bit.
     
  6. Dubya
    Offline

    Dubya Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,056
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +59
    So what you are telling me and all the people I put on this Earth is when I see Greenland melting, I shouldn't care about the facts.

    That's very comforting and thanks again for a WGAF report of the facts.
     
  7. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,692
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    In case of a discrepancy between reality and computer models, reality is wrong.

    /AGW proponent
     
  8. Dubya
    Offline

    Dubya Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    3,056
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +59
    Computer models have consistently shown less warming than what happened in reality. The models just aren't good enough yet.

    Let me give you a link to the Arctic Sea Ice blog, if you don't already have it!

    Arctic Sea Ice

    This is a damned good place where scientists talk to other scientists and people who aren't scientists can join in to create dialogue. If you are interested in other areas of science, you can find directions by asking those people who post there.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to promote another site, but if you want science that doesn't put up with dumbshit from morans (intentional), there is a way to find it.

    I like arguing and I also like knowing the facts. I posted on WUWT, until I made the mistake of mentioning that free speech isn't free if you are getting paid to say it and there are legal complications for lying. The message was obviously more than they could handle at the moment.
     
  9. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,299
    Thanks Received:
    5,692
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,758
    The models suck, and anyone who alters data to fit the model, instead of altering the model to reflect the data, isn't interested in science, but only agenda.
     
  10. Missourian
    Offline

    Missourian Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2008
    Messages:
    16,281
    Thanks Received:
    4,799
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +8,124

    So the models have shown less than zero warming?

    The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.


    The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
     

Share This Page