CU just updated their global mean sea level.

[ScienceRocks]

CU just updated their global mean sea level. Seasonal removed GMSL is up ~4 mm since the last update. The rate also had a slight bump to 3.3 mm/year from 3.2 mm/year.





http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Up the water goes!!!

 

[Mr. H.]

Run for the hills, brothers!

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Oh noes! We must pay taxes to correct this problem! That will surely solve it!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Oh'nooo's, we must cut, slash and burn!!! Studying science is against GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Surely, we shouldn't attempt to understand our planet as the bible is all we need to know!

Go back to riding your horsy Mike. lol

 

[westwall]

CU just updated their global mean sea level. Seasonal removed GMSL is up ~4 mm since the last update. The rate also had a slight bump to 3.3 mm/year from 3.2 mm/year.





http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Up the water goes!!!

Yeah, they've screwed with the numbers so much nothing they publish is believable anymore. They are the little boy who cried wolf.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

How is the sea level going up when ice melting doesn't raise the water level and the polar ice is now thicker than it was ten years ago? Is this a junior high project or actual science?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Oh'nooo's, we must cut, slash and burn!!! Studying science is against GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Surely, we shouldn't attempt to understand our planet as the bible is all we need to know!

Go back to riding your horsy Mike. lol

If I did you idiots would want to tax the horse for farting. There's no science in this glowbull warming bullshit you idiot. It's people like owl gore who just want your money and will do nothing as if anything would change the worlds weather anyway.

We understand the planet. We also understand you money grabber's of false bullshit are idiots.

 

[Mr. H.]

Oh'nooo's, we must cut, slash and burn!!! Studying science is against GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Surely, we shouldn't attempt to understand our planet as the bible is all we need to know!

Go back to riding your horsy Mike. lol

"Studying science" and "paying for folly" are two different things.

Spending tens of trillions of dollars, shutting down entire industries, and sending tens of millions to the unemployment lines is a mighty big price to pay for yet-solved "science".

Get a grip on yourself, asswipe.

 

[Muhammed]

Idiotic Global Warming Doomsday Cultists grasping at straws again.

Yer all gonna drown Mwuhahahaha!

 

[IanC]

CU just updated their global mean sea level. Seasonal removed GMSL is up ~4 mm since the last update. The rate also had a slight bump to 3.3 mm/year from 3.2 mm/year.





http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Up the water goes!!!

thats not what Watson 2015 says. +2.6 ± 0.4 mm yr−1 (includes the GIA, so 2.3). of course the headlines for the Nature paper is that SLR is accelerating. how much???? (edit- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/extref/nature10581-s1.pdf )

"
Reader Robbo wrote in to say he so was astonished at the ABC story, he read the paper, only to find a very different picture and problems he would fail a first year student for:

Then I carefully read the original paper, and they are completely different from the press release and the ABC version. The paper claims that the rise rate in the last 20 years is actually less than previously thought (that is not mentioned or is at best, carefully massaged by the authors’ press release and ABC piece). But it is true that the title and punchline of the Nature paper is about acceleration: sea level rise is accelerating, they say. And how much is it accelerating? Wait for it: it’s accelerating at 0.043 +/- 0.058 mm/yr2. That’s consistent with zero! I would fail a first year student claiming that 0.043 +/- 0.058 is a Nature-level result.

Finally, how do they get that acceleration result? They fit a second-order polynomial to the data (Fig 3) and take the coefficient of the t^2 term. Again, basic undergrad science, if the linear fit to the data is statistically acceptable, you take the linear fit (the lowest order polynomial that is statistically acceptable). You can always fit the same data with higher and higher order polynomials and get terms in t^2, t^3, t^4,….and of course when you extrapolate those terms to the future your fit goes wild but that is complete rubbish. In their case, all they should have said was that the linear fit is statistically equivalent to the quadratic fit (because a = consistent with 0), therefore we detect no acceleration, end of the paper.
"

 

[Billy_Bob]

CU just updated their global mean sea level. Seasonal removed GMSL is up ~4 mm since the last update. The rate also had a slight bump to 3.3 mm/year from 3.2 mm/year.





http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Up the water goes!!!

thats not what Watson 2015 says. +2.6 ± 0.4 mm yr−1 (includes the GIA, so 2.3). of course the headlines for the Nature paper is that SLR is accelerating. how much???? (edit- http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/extref/nature10581-s1.pdf )

"
Reader Robbo wrote in to say he so was astonished at the ABC story, he read the paper, only to find a very different picture and problems he would fail a first year student for:

Then I carefully read the original paper, and they are completely different from the press release and the ABC version. The paper claims that the rise rate in the last 20 years is actually less than previously thought (that is not mentioned or is at best, carefully massaged by the authors’ press release and ABC piece). But it is true that the title and punchline of the Nature paper is about acceleration: sea level rise is accelerating, they say. And how much is it accelerating? Wait for it: it’s accelerating at 0.043 +/- 0.058 mm/yr2. That’s consistent with zero! I would fail a first year student claiming that 0.043 +/- 0.058 is a Nature-level result.

Finally, how do they get that acceleration result? They fit a second-order polynomial to the data (Fig 3) and take the coefficient of the t^2 term. Again, basic undergrad science, if the linear fit to the data is statistically acceptable, you take the linear fit (the lowest order polynomial that is statistically acceptable). You can always fit the same data with higher and higher order polynomials and get terms in t^2, t^3, t^4,….and of course when you extrapolate those terms to the future your fit goes wild but that is complete rubbish. In their case, all they should have said was that the linear fit is statistically equivalent to the quadratic fit (because a = consistent with 0), therefore we detect no acceleration, end of the paper.
"

Nice Squash of the new alarmist talking points and garbage spewage..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Seems like the alarmists and propagandists are coming out full bore... Throwing anything at the wall to see if they can make it stick long enough to get some traction on..

All they are getting is a nice splattering..

 

[IanC]

Seems like the alarmists and propagandists are coming out full bore... Throwing anything at the wall to see if they can make it stick long enough to get some traction on..

All they are getting is a nice splattering..

View attachment 41206

A while back I said it was a good thing that both UAH and RSS were in the satellite temperature business because they kept each other honest with their methods of adjustments. This latest paper is someone taking a closer look at the known satellite drift and calibration problems, and applying it to satellite altimetry sea level measurements. How could there not be necessary clawbacks when there is such a large discrepancy between tide gauges and satellites?

 

[Politico]

Oh'nooo's, we must cut, slash and burn!!! Studying science is against GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Surely, we shouldn't attempt to understand our planet as the bible is all we need to know!

Go back to riding your horsy Mike. lol

Of left to folks like you horses would be the only transportation left.