Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
.
Summary and conclusions
Around the beginning of 19th century, sea levels began to rise, after several centuries associated with cooling and sea level decline. There are only a few historical tide guage records that extend back to 1800, with several along European coasts. Improved time series analysis methods do not support the statistical significance and likelihood levels of the IPCC’s conclusion that sea level rise has accelerated in the 20th century relative to the 19th century.
Recent analyses of 20th century sea level rise find significantly lower values than were cited in the IPCC AR4 and AR5. These lower values between 1900-1990 are more consistent with integral constraints from mass budget analyses. These lower rates of sea level rise have major implications for the assessment of sea level rise and its acceleration in the satellite era since 1993 and also for the baseline scenario of 21st century sea level rise.
No, I don't know that, because the evidence shows that we are the main driver of the current, rapid warming.You do know it will happen regardless, if man was here or not right??????
Not true. i do, however, ignore a lot of YOUR stupid questions, because they are not honest questions, and you are a childish troll.You avoid a lot of questions.
Yes westwall, I know you think this sounds smart and will fool people, but -- fort he umpteenth time -- I am unmoved by your pseudo-intellectual appeals to emotion and your bullshit regarding models.They are all eventually modified by computer models. Huh. Imagine that
I see. So this is also modified by computer programs? LOLClimate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era
Observations show sea levels rising, and climate change is accelerating it - CNN
More accurate methods show us these things are happening faster than we thought. Now expected to pass 2 feet rise by 2100.
Amazingly enough, when you look at their methods they all have one thing in common. They are all eventually modified by computer models. Huh. Imagine that. Take real data, massage it through the magic of computer modelling, and voila, you have the result you desire. But....it ain't data. It's computer derived fiction.
Methods
Altimeter Data Processing.
The altimeter data were processed following the recommendations set forth in ref. 15, including the latest orbits, tide models, sea-state bias models, water vapor corrections, etc. Following ref. 15, the “cal mode” correction to the TOPEX data was not applied, because the correction degraded comparisons to tide-gauge sea-level measurements, and because later investigation showed it should not have been applied in the first place. Not applying the cal-mode correction slightly increases the estimated sea-level acceleration. Measured GMSL was corrected for the effects of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment with a global model, which increased the GMSL rate by 0.25 mm/y (25).
Pinatubo GMSL Contribution.
The computation of the effects of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo on GMSL using the NCAR LE of models (21) is described in ref. 12. Because this model ends in 2010, we assumed an exponential decay from 2010 to the present. This correction increases the quadratic acceleration estimate by 0.02 mm/y2. The error in this correction was estimated from the variance of the NCAR LE at 0.01 mm/y2.
Computation of the ENSO GMSL Contribution.
We removed the effects of ENSO and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)-related variations on GMSL by computing a correction. This correction was computed via a joint cyclostationary empirical orthogonal function (CSEOF) analysis of altimeter GMSL, GRACE land water storage, and Argo-based thermosteric sea level from 2005 to present. The physical interpretation of these two modes is discussed in ref. 26, although here the understanding of the modal decomposition is extended through the inclusion of additional variables. The two leading CSEOF modes were subsequently projected onto the altimeter data from 1993 to present and averaged over the global ocean to arrive at what we refer to as a GMSL ENSO correction. Applying this correction reduced the quadratic acceleration value by 0.033 mm/y2. Based on the ENSO and PDO variability during the altimeter record, a positive acceleration is expected due both to the presences of two large El Niños at either end of the record and the recent shift from the positive to negative phase of the PDO. To allow for the possibility that this correction might have not removed all of the ENSO signal and also based on sensitivity tests of the decomposition, we carry an error estimate of 0.01 mm/y2 for this correction.
Calculation of Acceleration.
We perform a least-squares fit of a quadratic using a time epoch of 2005.0 (the midpoint of the altimeter time series), where acceleration is twice the quadratic coefficient. All of the data were weighted equally––weighting the data based on error estimates from tide-gauge differences did not appreciably change the results.
Tide-Gauge–Based Altimeter Acceleration Error Estimate.
The altimeter sea-level measurements were differenced with individual tide-gauge sea-level measurements, and then stacked and globally averaged to detect changes in the altimeter instrument behavior, assuming the tide-gauge measurements are perfect, following ref. 13. While there are overlaps between each of the four satellites in the time series, allowing instrumental biases to be determined and removed, there was no overlap in early 1999 when the TOPEX altimeter was switched from Side A to Side B of its electronics. As a consequence we estimated a bias here of 5.7 mm by leveling the TOPEX Side A tide-gauge differences to an average of the Jason-1–3 differences. This is a slightly different value than was found in ref. 15 (5 mm) because our analysis technique was different. Once this adjustment was made, an AR1 noise model was used to estimate the 1σ error in the quadratic acceleration coefficient of 0.011 mm/y2. This is almost certainly a conservative error estimate because it assumes the tide-gauge sea-level measurements are perfect.
Acceleration Validation.
We computed a rough validation (Table 2) of the altimeter-based acceleration estimate by comparing to other datasets, although they cover different time periods. We used the GRACE mascon data from ref. 27 and computed time series by averaging the mascons over (i) Greenland, (ii) Antarctica, and (iii) mountain glaciers and small ice caps (areas updated from ref. 28).
Constraining the thermosteric contribution to sea-level acceleration is hampered by the large discrepancies and related uncertainties that exist in ocean heat content datasets (20, 29). The root cause of these discrepancies has been attributed to errors in the raw data and mapping methods used to infill data gaps, which are particularly large in the southern oceans, but substantial progress has been made recently in dealing with these issues (30, 31). Given the systematic biases imparted by both data errors and infilling methods, a simple averaging across available datasets is not an effective means of minimizing bias (32). Rather, the optimization of mapping methods is likely to offer a suitable best estimate for quantifying both thermosteric contributions to acceleration and their uncertainty. Here we use the estimate provided from ref. 23. Comparison with independent data, such as the top of atmosphere (TOA) radiative balance also provides insight (32). We find the TOA reconstruction of ref. 33 to be broadly consistent with the value of acceleration derived from ref. 23.
That's the conclusion of a team of University of Miami scientists that used a wealth of data from everything from tidal records and rain gauges to insurance claims to look at how often Miami Beach's streets have ended up underwater. They found that since 2006, rain-based floods have increased by 33 percent and tidal flooding by an astounding 400 percent.
"That's a surprising number," says Dr. Shimon Wdowinski, the study's lead author. "Nobody can say whether it will continue increasing at this rate. But this is still clearly a significant increase in flooding events."
Miami Beach's Tidal Flooding Has Jumped by 400 Percent in the Past Decade
You could not possibly know the truth of that, which means it is you who sounds like the idiot. warmer oceans mean more energetic hurricanes. That is a fact we know. We have warmed our oceans via our emissions. That is also a fact we know. It is fair to say that climate change affects every single hurricane. Every single one.Hurricane Harvey stalled, dumped 60 inches of rain. Nothing to do with CO2.
Yeah, I know a lot of people do not care. Good for you. You are not irritating me, you are only embarrassing yourself..well I don’t care.
Yes westwall, I know you think this sounds smart and will fool people, but -- fort he umpteenth time -- I am unmoved by your pseudo-intellectual appeals to emotion and your bullshit regarding models.They are all eventually modified by computer models. Huh. Imagine that
Yes, the same scientists who taught you anything and everything you know about any of that are the ones sounding the alarms about manmade climate change. Do you not realize how stupid you sound to imply that they are, bizarrely, laboring under the ignorance of their own discoveries? I mean, how can you NOT understand how fucking stupid you sound?Science has determined that the Oceans have been rising since the end of the last ice age.
Science has determined that Earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles.
You could not possibly know the truth of that, which means it is you who sounds like the idiot. warmer oceans mean more energetic hurricanes. That is a fact we know. We have warmed our oceans via our emissions. That is also a fact we know. It is fair to say that climate change affects every single hurricane. Every single one.Hurricane Harvey stalled, dumped 60 inches of rain. Nothing to do with CO2.
My retort is to refer westwall, the amateur, to the professionals. Why do you suppose westwall is here vomiting his pseudo-intellectual garbage on a right-wing-nutjob-clearinghouse instead of publishing scientific articles or debating scientists?Yes westwall, I know you think this sounds smart and will fool people, but -- fort he umpteenth time -- I am unmoved by your pseudo-intellectual appeals to emotion and your bullshit regarding models.They are all eventually modified by computer models. Huh. Imagine that
Wow I am very impressed by no retort on the subject at hand ...
One millimeter per decade = 2 feet in 80 years?Riiiiiiitggggghhhhtttt...because satellites really can detect a 1mm per decade trend in sea level.
haha... and here is YOUR retort to the 'matter at hand"... yes, we all look forward to your next published scientific article, "Fact My Ass, By Dr. Bear, the uneducated slob"Fact my ass
You could not possibly know the truth of that, which means it is you who sounds like the idiot. warmer oceans mean more energetic hurricanes. That is a fact we know. We have warmed our oceans via our emissions. That is also a fact we know. It is fair to say that climate change affects every single hurricane. Every single one.Hurricane Harvey stalled, dumped 60 inches of rain. Nothing to do with CO2.
I am not arguing that it caused the hurricane to stall, Trollster. I am citing the fact that warmer waters make hurricanes more energetic, which would have led to more rain.Feel free to post the CO2 mechanism that caused the hurricane to stall.
I am not arguing that it caused the hurricane to stall, Trollster. I am citing the fact that warmer waters make hurricanes more energetic, which would have led to more rain.Feel free to post the CO2 mechanism that caused the hurricane to stall.
haha... and here is YOUR retort to the 'matter at hand"... yes, we all look forward to your next published scientific article, "Fact My Ass, By Dr. Bear, the uneducated slob"Fact my ass
One millimeter per decade = 2 feet in 80 years?Riiiiiiitggggghhhhtttt...because satellites really can detect a 1mm per decade trend in sea level.
what, idiot? don't post to me, you're a moron.
Old Rocks did not make that specific claim, you insufferable little liar.That's a relief, because when Old Rocks made that claim, it sounded moronic.
