This Is the Moment When the Rise of the Oceans Began to Slow

[ph3iron]

science deniers, like you.

Don't forget the climate scientists. They are science deniers too I guess.

Having spoken to you a bit on the topic, I would wager that you have little, to no idea
of what actual climate scientists say on the topic. By your own admission, you have no informed opinion of your own on the topic...you have an opinion that someone else, with a political agenda gave you. Have you ever actually looked at the literature to see what is being said by actual climate scientists?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569118303429

“Regionally, the sea levels in the PRD [Pearl River Delta, China] region and Japan show no significant acceleration from 1900 to present, but only oscillations. This result is consistent with the other coastal area of the world where long-term tide gauges are located. Policy making, and management, should therefore focus on adaptive measures linked to the monitoring by tide gauges and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) of relative sea level rise and land subsidence. Extreme sea level rise warnings based on predictions by never validated models, or speculations, that are defocusing coastal management from every other relevant situation, should be discharged.”

“The long-term tide gauges of the world show no significant sign of sea level acceleration since the start of the 20th century.”

“Ocean and coastal management in the area should be based on the accurate monitoring of the relative sea level rise and the subsidence of the land by coupled tide gauge and Global Navigation Satellite System measurements, rather than models’ predictions and speculations defocusing coastal management from more relevant situations than the non-existent threat of extreme sea level rise.”


The State of the World’s Beaches

3 mm/yr sea level rise “definitely a conjecture”


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071355

Decadal variability of European sea level extremes in relation to the solar activity
This study investigates the relationship between decadal changes in solar activity and sea level extremes along the European coasts and derived from tide gauge data. Autumn sea level extremes vary with the 11 year solar cycle at Venice as suggested by previous studies, but a similar link is also found at Trieste. In addition, a solar signal in winter sea level extremes is also found at Venice, Trieste, Marseille, Ceuta, Brest, and Newlyn. The influence of the solar cycle is also evident in the sea level extremes derived from a barotropic model with spatial patterns that are consistent with the correlations obtained at the tide gauges. This agreement indicates that the link to the solar cycle is through modulation of the atmospheric forcing. The only atmospheric regional pattern that showed variability at the 11 year period was the East Atlantic pattern.”


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JA020732

The solar and Southern Oscillation components in the satellite altimetry data
With satellite altimetry data accumulating over the past two decades, the mean sea level (MSL) can now be measured to unprecedented accuracy. We search for physical processes which can explain the sea level variations and find that at least 70% of the variance in the annually smoothed detrended altimetry data can be explained as the combined effect of both the solar forcing and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The phase of the solar component can be used to derive the different steric and eustatic contributions. We find that the peak to peak radiative forcing associated with the solar cycle is 1.33 ± 0.34 W/m2, contributing a 4.4 ± 0.8 mm variation. The slow eustatic component (describing, for example, the cryosphere and large bodies of surface water) has a somewhat smaller peak to peak amplitude of 2.4 ± 0.6 mm. Its phase implies that warming the oceans increases the ocean water loss rate. Additional much smaller terms include a steric feedback term and a fast eustatic term. The ENSO contributes a peak to peak variation of 5.5 ± 0.8 mm, predominantly through a direct effect on the MSL and significantly less so indirectly through variations in the radiative forcing.”


http://coastalratepayersunited.co.nz/docs/science/Tide gauge location-and measurement of SLR.pdf

“Tide gauges dating back to the 19th century were located where sea levels happened to be rising. Data reconstructions based on these tide gauges are therefore likely to over-estimate sea level rise.”

“We therefore study individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) during 1807 – 2010 without recourse to data reconstruction. Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year.”


And it goes on and on.....the media and a small group of alarmists are hyping a sea level catastrophe....but the actual research tells an entirely different story.

Well I finally waded through the cut and paste.
Don't 90% of climate scientist believe in warming?
75% of these that man has something to do with it?

 

[litman]

I wonder why Florida is raising roads to keep them from flooding.

 

[SSDD]

science deniers, like you.

Don't forget the climate scientists. They are science deniers too I guess.

Having spoken to you a bit on the topic, I would wager that you have little, to no idea
of what actual climate scientists say on the topic. By your own admission, you have no informed opinion of your own on the topic...you have an opinion that someone else, with a political agenda gave you. Have you ever actually looked at the literature to see what is being said by actual climate scientists?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569118303429

“Regionally, the sea levels in the PRD [Pearl River Delta, China] region and Japan show no significant acceleration from 1900 to present, but only oscillations. This result is consistent with the other coastal area of the world where long-term tide gauges are located. Policy making, and management, should therefore focus on adaptive measures linked to the monitoring by tide gauges and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) of relative sea level rise and land subsidence. Extreme sea level rise warnings based on predictions by never validated models, or speculations, that are defocusing coastal management from every other relevant situation, should be discharged.”

“The long-term tide gauges of the world show no significant sign of sea level acceleration since the start of the 20th century.”

“Ocean and coastal management in the area should be based on the accurate monitoring of the relative sea level rise and the subsidence of the land by coupled tide gauge and Global Navigation Satellite System measurements, rather than models’ predictions and speculations defocusing coastal management from more relevant situations than the non-existent threat of extreme sea level rise.”


The State of the World’s Beaches

3 mm/yr sea level rise “definitely a conjecture”


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071355

Decadal variability of European sea level extremes in relation to the solar activity
This study investigates the relationship between decadal changes in solar activity and sea level extremes along the European coasts and derived from tide gauge data. Autumn sea level extremes vary with the 11 year solar cycle at Venice as suggested by previous studies, but a similar link is also found at Trieste. In addition, a solar signal in winter sea level extremes is also found at Venice, Trieste, Marseille, Ceuta, Brest, and Newlyn. The influence of the solar cycle is also evident in the sea level extremes derived from a barotropic model with spatial patterns that are consistent with the correlations obtained at the tide gauges. This agreement indicates that the link to the solar cycle is through modulation of the atmospheric forcing. The only atmospheric regional pattern that showed variability at the 11 year period was the East Atlantic pattern.”


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JA020732

The solar and Southern Oscillation components in the satellite altimetry data
With satellite altimetry data accumulating over the past two decades, the mean sea level (MSL) can now be measured to unprecedented accuracy. We search for physical processes which can explain the sea level variations and find that at least 70% of the variance in the annually smoothed detrended altimetry data can be explained as the combined effect of both the solar forcing and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The phase of the solar component can be used to derive the different steric and eustatic contributions. We find that the peak to peak radiative forcing associated with the solar cycle is 1.33 ± 0.34 W/m2, contributing a 4.4 ± 0.8 mm variation. The slow eustatic component (describing, for example, the cryosphere and large bodies of surface water) has a somewhat smaller peak to peak amplitude of 2.4 ± 0.6 mm. Its phase implies that warming the oceans increases the ocean water loss rate. Additional much smaller terms include a steric feedback term and a fast eustatic term. The ENSO contributes a peak to peak variation of 5.5 ± 0.8 mm, predominantly through a direct effect on the MSL and significantly less so indirectly through variations in the radiative forcing.”


http://coastalratepayersunited.co.nz/docs/science/Tide gauge location-and measurement of SLR.pdf

“Tide gauges dating back to the 19th century were located where sea levels happened to be rising. Data reconstructions based on these tide gauges are therefore likely to over-estimate sea level rise.”

“We therefore study individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) during 1807 – 2010 without recourse to data reconstruction. Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year.”


And it goes on and on.....the media and a small group of alarmists are hyping a sea level catastrophe....but the actual research tells an entirely different story.

You're incapable of processing what I've tried to explain to you so I won't try anymore. Good luck standing up to those corrupt scientists pushing the AGW hoax.

What you are trying to explain is that you don't have an informed opinion of your own, and you think that is fine...and you would like it if everyone else would simply accept their opinions from someone with a political agenda, rather than actually spending time learning about the topic and spotting the flaws in the pseudoscience..

 

[Confounding]

you don't have an informed opinion

Neither do you, at least compared to the people you're accusing of being wrong.

 

[SSDD]

This hilarious stupidity was on WUWT, a kook invoking the tidal gauge at The Battery, NY as proof that sea level rise wasn't accelerating.

30 years of NOAA tide gauge data debunk 1988 Senate hearing climate alarmist claims

Here's the graph that the numbnuts showed. As it's from WUWT, the deniers will be forced to consider it to be absolutely correct.

However, any non-retard can look at that graph and see that the trend is increasing. The author fudges things by starting "high" and ending "low". That is, deniers just lie about not seeing an increase in the rate of sea level rise. If you just look at the past 30 years of data, you get this.

As 4.58 mm/year is bigger than 2.85 mm/year, even the denier data shows how sea level rise is accelerating.

Poot hairtball....always misinformed...

 

[SSDD]

you don't have an informed opinion

Neither do you, at least compared to the people you're accusing of being wrong.

Of course I do. The fact that you can't discuss the science has nothing to do with my ability to do so...

 

[SSDD]

Poll: Majorities of both parties support Green New Deal

Both parties. Man, that's got to sting. All those years of denier propaganda, just to end up a world laughingstock.

What a laugh...and I bet you actually believe that...which makes it even funnier..

 

[Confounding]

you don't have an informed opinion

Neither do you, at least compared to the people you're accusing of being wrong.

Of course I do. The fact that you can't discuss the science has nothing to do with my ability to do so...

You think you're qualified to disagree with the global scientific community?

 

[SSDD]

you don't have an informed opinion

Neither do you, at least compared to the people you're accusing of being wrong.

Of course I do. The fact that you can't discuss the science has nothing to do with my ability to do so...

You think you're qualified to disagree with the global scientific community?

Of course I am...Sorry you think science is out of your reach. I am qualified to disagree any of the physical sciences.....

 

[Confounding]

Of course I am.

A scientist would laugh in your face, and you would deserve it.

 

[justoffal]

science deniers, like you.

Don't forget the climate scientists. They are science deniers too I guess.

The only thing that bunch has established
Is that the sun rises and sometimes it snows out.

Jo

 

[SSDD]

Of course I am.

A scientist would laugh in your face, and you would deserve it.

So tell me about my education...

 

[justoffal]

science deniers, like you.

Don't forget the climate scientists. They are science deniers too I guess.

Having spoken to you a bit on the topic, I would wager that you have little, to no idea
of what actual climate scientists say on the topic. By your own admission, you have no informed opinion of your own on the topic...you have an opinion that someone else, with a political agenda gave you. Have you ever actually looked at the literature to see what is being said by actual climate scientists?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569118303429

“Regionally, the sea levels in the PRD [Pearl River Delta, China] region and Japan show no significant acceleration from 1900 to present, but only oscillations. This result is consistent with the other coastal area of the world where long-term tide gauges are located. Policy making, and management, should therefore focus on adaptive measures linked to the monitoring by tide gauges and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) of relative sea level rise and land subsidence. Extreme sea level rise warnings based on predictions by never validated models, or speculations, that are defocusing coastal management from every other relevant situation, should be discharged.”

“The long-term tide gauges of the world show no significant sign of sea level acceleration since the start of the 20th century.”

“Ocean and coastal management in the area should be based on the accurate monitoring of the relative sea level rise and the subsidence of the land by coupled tide gauge and Global Navigation Satellite System measurements, rather than models’ predictions and speculations defocusing coastal management from more relevant situations than the non-existent threat of extreme sea level rise.”


The State of the World’s Beaches

3 mm/yr sea level rise “definitely a conjecture”


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071355

Decadal variability of European sea level extremes in relation to the solar activity
This study investigates the relationship between decadal changes in solar activity and sea level extremes along the European coasts and derived from tide gauge data. Autumn sea level extremes vary with the 11 year solar cycle at Venice as suggested by previous studies, but a similar link is also found at Trieste. In addition, a solar signal in winter sea level extremes is also found at Venice, Trieste, Marseille, Ceuta, Brest, and Newlyn. The influence of the solar cycle is also evident in the sea level extremes derived from a barotropic model with spatial patterns that are consistent with the correlations obtained at the tide gauges. This agreement indicates that the link to the solar cycle is through modulation of the atmospheric forcing. The only atmospheric regional pattern that showed variability at the 11 year period was the East Atlantic pattern.”


https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JA020732

The solar and Southern Oscillation components in the satellite altimetry data
With satellite altimetry data accumulating over the past two decades, the mean sea level (MSL) can now be measured to unprecedented accuracy. We search for physical processes which can explain the sea level variations and find that at least 70% of the variance in the annually smoothed detrended altimetry data can be explained as the combined effect of both the solar forcing and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The phase of the solar component can be used to derive the different steric and eustatic contributions. We find that the peak to peak radiative forcing associated with the solar cycle is 1.33 ± 0.34 W/m2, contributing a 4.4 ± 0.8 mm variation. The slow eustatic component (describing, for example, the cryosphere and large bodies of surface water) has a somewhat smaller peak to peak amplitude of 2.4 ± 0.6 mm. Its phase implies that warming the oceans increases the ocean water loss rate. Additional much smaller terms include a steric feedback term and a fast eustatic term. The ENSO contributes a peak to peak variation of 5.5 ± 0.8 mm, predominantly through a direct effect on the MSL and significantly less so indirectly through variations in the radiative forcing.”


http://coastalratepayersunited.co.nz/docs/science/Tide gauge location-and measurement of SLR.pdf

“Tide gauges dating back to the 19th century were located where sea levels happened to be rising. Data reconstructions based on these tide gauges are therefore likely to over-estimate sea level rise.”

“We therefore study individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) during 1807 – 2010 without recourse to data reconstruction. Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year.”


And it goes on and on.....the media and a small group of alarmists are hyping a sea level catastrophe....but the actual research tells an entirely different story.

Exxxxxxactly.... There is no consensus such as they have claimed.

Jo

 

[Crick]

From: By the Numbers | Understanding Sea Level – NASA Sea Level Change Portal

 

[jc456]

Nobody csres about the 3mm rise in the ocean anyways.....

Said an imbecile...

Yeah but the imbecile is correct! Where is there any evidence that people care about the supposed sea rise? Only those who tend to the hysterical in life get all bent out of shape due to a few mm in sea rise!

well all of the sky is falling flock? You see any of them abandoning the current mainstream economy?

 

[westwall]

From: By the Numbers | Understanding Sea Level – NASA Sea Level Change Portal

View attachment 249727
View attachment 249728
View attachment 249729

View attachment 249730

You want to know what is interesting here crikey old boy old pal...you have posted up estimates, but then neglect to post up the actual observed results. Almost ALL of those "studies" are old enough that we can check what the actual results were.

How about you posting up the raw data for us to peruse.

That's the problem with only posting up studies based on models, when they are old enough, like these are, we can see just how far off those "estimates" were.

So, link up to the data.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Poll: Majorities of both parties support Green New Deal

Both parties. Man, that's got to sting. All those years of denier propaganda, just to end up a world laughingstock.

And you didn't bother to read who it is that they questioned........College kids currently in school.... not the general populace.... LOL Not an honest bone in your body...

 

[Crick]

From: By the Numbers | Understanding Sea Level – NASA Sea Level Change Portal

View attachment 249727
View attachment 249728
View attachment 249729

View attachment 249730

You want to know what is interesting here crikey old boy old pal...you have posted up estimates, but then neglect to post up the actual observed results. Almost ALL of those "studies" are old enough that we can check what the actual results were.

How about you posting up the raw data for us to peruse.

That's the problem with only posting up studies based on models, when they are old enough, like these are, we can see just how far off those "estimates" were.

So, link up to the data.

How about you put up links to some authoritative source that identifies these data as the output of models?

 

[SSDD]

From: By the Numbers | Understanding Sea Level – NASA Sea Level Change Portal

View attachment 249727
View attachment 249728
View attachment 249729

View attachment 249730

Funny...that is about as much as you can torture data in an effort to get it to say what you wish were true...so easily fooled... Ever consider posting actual observations rather than estimates derived from failed models? If your intent was to demonstrate how shitty the models actually are, congratulations, you have succeeded.

 

[SSDD]

From: By the Numbers | Understanding Sea Level – NASA Sea Level Change Portal

View attachment 249727
View attachment 249728
View attachment 249729

View attachment 249730

You want to know what is interesting here crikey old boy old pal...you have posted up estimates, but then neglect to post up the actual observed results. Almost ALL of those "studies" are old enough that we can check what the actual results were.

How about you posting up the raw data for us to peruse.

That's the problem with only posting up studies based on models, when they are old enough, like these are, we can see just how far off those "estimates" were.

So, link up to the data.

How about you put up links to some authoritative source that identifies these data as the output of models?

Sure skidmark...just for fun, I started looking at the links to the studies provided on the chart...

The very first link mentions the model his data came from 156 times...
The second states that his study is based on the outputs of coupled models
The third is the same as the first...models
The forth is model based...

See a trend developing here skidmark?

You provided the links that demonstrate that the data output is from models...