So the Oceans are rising are they?

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,323
Reaction score
7,225
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
its odd how the areas with the best data always seem to show the least amount of 'climate change' and the areas with poor data and the most infilling and 'adjustments' show the most. I cant help but think the next 10 or 20 years will show an interesting reversal of trends as the cumulative affects of 'pushing' data in a certain direction will pop the bubble and lead to a correction. we may get a preview of that when the Berkeley data comes out hugely expands the error bars for a large percentage of the planet.
OK, Ian. What is your criterion for stating that the intitial article had the best data? That, and two I posted, were from the same peer reviewed journal. The first one was from data only from the US. The other two were world wide data.

I think your criterion is that it agrees with 'the way things ought to be'.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
OR- my criteria? the best data are collected in the USA and they show less warming, less sea rise, etc even though they have the most CO2 production, land use change, UHI, etc. could it be just regional variation? of course, but it is also the most measured region and cant be ignored just because some other place with padded data can be twisted to tell a different story.
 

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
Im going to keep it simple...

I have lived on the coast all my life, and the beach is still in the same place as it was when I was a little bitty boy :cool:
Damn your empirical first person observation!!
 
OP
westwall

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
63,970
Reaction score
15,534
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
Seems the sea level isn't really rising in Tuvalu either, nor the rest of the Pacific Islands that are being measured....yet another alarmist claim go's POOF.

Quick oltrakrfraud, post three more!

ICECAP
Well, Walleyes, you managed to post one that was peer reviewed.

ICECAP is just another denier site, with really lousy credentials. Why don't you post more from peer reviewed sites like the first one. At least that was credible. ICECAP is junk.




The graphs I presented are from other peer reviewed sources. They are posted on ICECAP for ease of review. Here is a little revelation about Mann. Still wish to claim your alarmists have good credentials? And yes the info is from a "denier" blog, but then most of your info comes from alarmist sites so turn about is fair play. The only thing that matters is is the information correct.

"The IPCC plucked Mann from total obscurity after his problematic and “rushed” Ph.D was granted. His viva voce examination was in 1996 and he was required to make corrections. Such a two year delay suggests substantial errors and corrections which would normally require a second viva, but this was strangely not recorded. Then, despite no reputation whatsoever in the field of tree ring proxy research Mann was bizarrely appointed not only as an expert by the IPCC but as Lead Author for the 2001 Third Report.

Several fellow academics, including Dr. Judith Curry smelt something most fishy at once and their fears were confirmed when Canadian statistical experts, Steve McIntyre and Professor Ross McKitrick found a string of ‘errors’ in Mann’s work. All the errors skewed the data in favor of the man-made global warming hype.

It transpired Mann and his secretive clique of climatologists who ‘pal reviewed’ his junk science benefited to the tune of millions of dollars in government research grants. Since the Climategate revelations public support for the IPCC has nose-dived."

John O'Sullivan: Desperate Climate Scientists File Second Lawsuit Against Top Skeptic | Climate Realists
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
not just Mann was under qualified to take major roles in the IPCC, there are many others. but Mann did the most damage with his pseudoscientific hockey stick graph and its bastard progeny.
 

Toronado3800

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
7,608
Reaction score
559
Points
140
Seems the sea level isn't really rising in Tuvalu either, nor the rest of the Pacific Islands that are being measured....yet another alarmist claim go's POOF.

Quick oltrakrfraud, post three more!

ICECAP
What is that chart showing? I am on my cell phone. Looks like sea level dipped in 98 and has gone up since? Only a small average increase since 93?

Where is all that Alaskan glacier ice going then?
 
OP
westwall

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
63,970
Reaction score
15,534
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
Seems the sea level isn't really rising in Tuvalu either, nor the rest of the Pacific Islands that are being measured....yet another alarmist claim go's POOF.

Quick oltrakrfraud, post three more!

ICECAP
What is that chart showing? I am on my cell phone. Looks like sea level dipped in 98 and has gone up since? Only a small average increase since 93?

Where is all that Alaskan glacier ice going then?



It shows a normal cyclical change with no discernable rise in the water level. The same is true of the other Pacific Islands as well.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,323
Reaction score
7,225
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Yet the people who actually study the subject completely disagree with you as the fact that the GSL is rising.

Of course, we must realize that the total real science establishment are a bunch of commie pinkos, right, comrade?


Melting ice sheets now largest contributor to sea level rise

Melting Ice Sheets Now Largest Contributor to Sea Level Rise
ScienceDaily (Mar. 8, 2011) — The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating pace, according to a new NASA-funded satellite study. The findings of the study -- the longest to date of changes in polar ice sheet mass -- suggest these ice sheets are overtaking ice loss from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps to become the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, much sooner than model forecasts have predicted.

The results of the study will be published this month in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
The nearly 20-year study reveals that in 2006, a year in which comparable results for mass loss in mountain glaciers and ice caps are available from a separate study conducted using other methods, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes a year on average. That's enough to raise global sea level by an average of 1.3 millimeters (.05 inches) a year. (A gigatonne is one billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds.) Ice sheets are defined as being larger than 50,000 square kilometers, or 20,000 square miles, and only exist in Greenland and Antarctica while ice caps are areas smaller than 50,000 square km.

The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before. In comparison, the 2006 study of mountain glaciers and ice caps estimated their loss at 402 gigatonnes a year on average, with a year-over-year acceleration rate three times smaller than that of the ice sheets
 

Toronado3800

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
7,608
Reaction score
559
Points
140
FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.7°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)
Ian, do you have a link to this that you prefer? What is that, 2 degrees F ?
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,323
Reaction score
7,225
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.7°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)
Ian, do you have a link to this that you prefer? What is that, 2 degrees F ?
Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9°F since 1880 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now “unequivocal,” based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC, 2007).

Even more important than the numbers, are the effects of the rise. That rise in uneven, actually cooling in some places, and rising rapidly, like Alaska, indeed, the whole Arctic, in others.

At present, we are seeing the North Polar Ice Cap rapidly decreasing both in volume and extant.


https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/130

Another effect is the movement of climatic zones.

What Might Man-Induced Climate Change Mean? | Foreign Affairs

The whole point is that we are presently engaged in a worldwide experiment in which we will have to live with the results for many generations. With no real idea of how much change we are creating. A point of fact, we have not seen the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere for at least 15 million years. Nor the present level of Ch4 for at least that long, maybe a good deal longer.
 
OP
westwall

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
63,970
Reaction score
15,534
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
FACT: The temperature has only increased 0.7°C in the last 100 Years (IPCC)
Ian, do you have a link to this that you prefer? What is that, 2 degrees F ?
Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9°F since 1880 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now “unequivocal,” based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC, 2007).

Even more important than the numbers, are the effects of the rise. That rise in uneven, actually cooling in some places, and rising rapidly, like Alaska, indeed, the whole Arctic, in others.

At present, we are seeing the North Polar Ice Cap rapidly decreasing both in volume and extant.


https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/130

Another effect is the movement of climatic zones.

What Might Man-Induced Climate Change Mean? | Foreign Affairs

The whole point is that we are presently engaged in a worldwide experiment in which we will have to live with the results for many generations. With no real idea of how much change we are creating. A point of fact, we have not seen the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere for at least 15 million years. Nor the present level of Ch4 for at least that long, maybe a good deal longer.



Oh yes, let's use the EPA's website which is still showing all the info from the totally discredited IPCC report. Get real, this is crap and you know it. Come up with something relevent and accurate. These links are usable for papering the bird cage and nothing else.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,323
Reaction score
7,225
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Sure, Walleyes, the like of Watts is far better than the scientists at the EPA, IPCC, and the AGU.

Why don't you just admit it. No matter what evidence is presented, you will not admit that you are completely wrong. A real scientist does not post from the people that you do for evidence.
 
OP
westwall

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
63,970
Reaction score
15,534
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
Sure, Walleyes, the like of Watts is far better than the scientists at the EPA, IPCC, and the AGU.

Why don't you just admit it. No matter what evidence is presented, you will not admit that you are completely wrong. A real scientist does not post from the people that you do for evidence.



Watts is far more accurate then the bloody IPCC! Even THEY ADMITTED THEY WERE FULL OF CRAP!:lol::lol::lol:

And you are completely wrong. Show me compelling empirical evidence that has not been screwed with by the climate mafia and I will happily climb back on board. You forget, I was a "believer" at one time. So far though, no empirical data supports the alarmist camp.
 

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,581
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Tuvulu in the south Pacific is also being lost to rising sea levels...
:eek:
Global warming sinks disputed island in Bay of Bengal
Thursday 25th March, 2010 - Reports indicate that global warming has claimed its latest victim, namely, a low-lying island in a sprawling mangrove delta in the Bay of Bengal, which has been disputed by India and Bangladesh for almost 30 years.
According to a report in The Independent, the New Moore Island has disappeared beneath the waves, which is an alarming indication of the danger posed by rising sea levels brought about by global warming. "It is definitely because of global warming," said Professor Sugata Hazra of Jadavpur University in Kolkata. "The sea level has been rising at twice the previous rate in the years between 2002 and 2009. The sea level is rising in accordance with rising temperatures," he added.

Known as New Moore Island in India, and South Talpatti in Bangladesh, the uninhabited outcrop in the Sundarbans delta region measured barely two miles in length and one-and-a-half miles in width. Yet, the island had been angrily disputed by the two countries, almost ever since Bangladesh secured independence from Pakistan in 1971. The disappearance of New Moore Island, which was never more than two metres above sea level, may be a doom-laden portent for many islands in the delta. According to Professor Hazra, countless other islands were threatened by sea levels that for the past decade have been rising by around five millimetres a year.

Before that, they were rising by around three millimetres a year. Indeed, several islands in the Bay of Bengal have already had to be abandoned. The island of Lohachara was abandoned in 1996, while 48 per cent of Ghoramara is reportedly underwater. Thousands of so-called climate-change refugees have already fled. At least 10 other islands are said to be immediately at risk.

Global warming sinks disputed island in Bay of Bengal
 

RollingThunder

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
4,818
Reaction score
512
Points
155
Well no, it appears they are not. Surprise surprise. And looky here a real peer reviewed study by real scientists. :eek::confused::cuckoo: Poor oltrakarfraud.

worldwidegauge records as shown in Miller and Douglas (2006)

Abstract:

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses

J. R. Houston† and R. G. Dean‡ †Director Emeritus, Engineer Research and Development Center, Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, U.S.A. james.r.houston@usace.army.mil

‡Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Coastal Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A. dean@coastal.ufl.edu

Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.

Received: October 5, 2010; Accepted: November 26, 2010; Published Online: February 23, 2011

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses, J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean

Discussion: (excerpt)

We analyzed the complete records of 57 U.S. tide gauges that had average record lengths of 82 years and records from1930 to 2010 for 25 gauges, and we obtained small decelerations of 20.0014 and20.0123 mm/y2, respectively. We obtained similar decelerations using worldwide-gauge records in the original data set of Church andWhite (2006) and a 2009 revision (for the periods of 1930–2001 and 1930–2007) and by extending Douglas’s (1992) analyses of worldwide gauges by 25 years.

The extension of the Douglas (1992) data from 1905 to 1985 for 25 years to 2010 included the period from 1993 to 2010 when satellite altimeters recorded a sea-level trend greater than that of the 20th century, yet the addition of the 25 years resulted in a slightly greater deceleration.

Conclusion:

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.

Journal of Coastal Research online journal - Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses

OOPS Never-Mind! Climate Scientists Withdraw IPCC-Related Article Claiming Sea Is Rising « PA Pundits – International
And the dingbat deniers fail again as they make up more lies and distortions. Look at the title of this thread: "So the Oceans are rising are they?" The denier who started the thread clearly imagines that the study cited means that sea levels aren't rising. But of course, he's wrong again, as usual. Sea levels are rising, as the authors of this study affirm.

An editorial about this study was published in that fruitcake Mooney rag called the Washington Post. It was certainly and inevitably parroted on all of the denier cult blogs and disinformation sites as more "proof" that sea levels aren't rising as the IPCC and numerous scientists around the world claim, based on a variety of measurements including satellite altimeters and direct measurements of the amount of ice melting off of Greenland, Antarctica and the world's glaciers. Here's what the authors of the study had to say about sea level rise.

Sea Level Researchers Debunk Wash. Times' Distortion Of Their Work
(short excerpt as allowed under copyright law and forum rules)

A Washington Times editorial falsely claims that a recent sea level study "shows oceans are not rising." In fact, the study does not dispute that sea levels are rising, and the study's author calls the Washington Times' claim "a mischaracterization of our work." Study Author James R. Houston, Director Emeritus of the Corps of Engineers' Engineer Research and Development Center and an author of the study cited by the Washington Times, stated in an email: "Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels are rising...". ...Media Matters asked Houston about the Wash. Times' statement that "The result did suggest the sea level was increasing in the western Pacific, but this was offset by a drop in the level near the Alaskan coast." Houston replied that this was a reference to satellite measurements, not the tide gauge measurements that his study analyzed. Houston also stated: "Basically, from 1993 to 2010, sea level rise measured by satellite altimeters has been remarkably spatially variable over the planet. But if you add up all the ups and downs, the net effect has been a rise measured by the altimeters of about 3.1 millimeters per year from 1993 to 2010. The newspaper article implies that the net effect has been no rise. This is not the case." ...Responding to the Washington Times' claim that his study "shows oceans are not rising," Robert Dean, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering of the University of Florida, stated via email: "There is a difference between "rising" and "accelerating". Accelerating means that the rate of rise is increasing. Sea level in the 20th Century was (and is) rising, it wasn't accelerating taking the entire century as a whole. Because the satellite altimetry has concluded that since 1992, the rate of rise has been more rapid than in the 20th Century (which would imply a recent acceleration), we are now examining more than 400 gauge records over the last 20 years or so."

© 2011 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
 
Last edited:

Big Fitz

User Quit *****
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Messages
16,917
Reaction score
2,521
Points
48
Well no, it appears they are not. Surprise surprise. And looky here a real peer reviewed study by real scientists. :eek::confused::cuckoo: Poor oltrakarfraud.

worldwidegauge records as shown in Miller and Douglas (2006)

Abstract:

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses

J. R. Houston† and R. G. Dean‡ †Director Emeritus, Engineer Research and Development Center, Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, U.S.A. james.r.houston@usace.army.mil

‡Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Coastal Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A. dean@coastal.ufl.edu

Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.

Received: October 5, 2010; Accepted: November 26, 2010; Published Online: February 23, 2011

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses, J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean

Discussion: (excerpt)

We analyzed the complete records of 57 U.S. tide gauges that had average record lengths of 82 years and records from1930 to 2010 for 25 gauges, and we obtained small decelerations of 20.0014 and20.0123 mm/y2, respectively. We obtained similar decelerations using worldwide-gauge records in the original data set of Church andWhite (2006) and a 2009 revision (for the periods of 1930–2001 and 1930–2007) and by extending Douglas’s (1992) analyses of worldwide gauges by 25 years.

The extension of the Douglas (1992) data from 1905 to 1985 for 25 years to 2010 included the period from 1993 to 2010 when satellite altimeters recorded a sea-level trend greater than that of the 20th century, yet the addition of the 25 years resulted in a slightly greater deceleration.

Conclusion:

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.

Journal of Coastal Research online journal - Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses

OOPS Never-Mind! Climate Scientists Withdraw IPCC-Related Article Claiming Sea Is Rising « PA Pundits – International
And the dingbat deniers fail again as they make up more lies and distortions. Look at the title of this thread: "So the Oceans are rising are they?" The denier who started the thread clearly imagines that the study cited means that sea levels aren't rising. But of course, he's wrong again, as usual. Sea levels are rising, as the authors of this study affirm.

An editorial about this study was published in that fruitcake Mooney rag called the Washington Post. It was certainly and inevitably parroted on all of the denier cult blogs and disinformation sites as more "proof" that sea levels aren't rising as the IPCC and numerous scientists around the world claim, based on a variety of measurements including satellite altimeters and direct measurements of the amount of ice melting off of Greenland, Antarctica and the world's glaciers. Here's what the authors of the study had to say about sea level rise.

Sea Level Researchers Debunk Wash. Times' Distortion Of Their Work
(short excerpt as allowed under copyright law and forum rules)

A Washington Times editorial falsely claims that a recent sea level study "shows oceans are not rising." In fact, the study does not dispute that sea levels are rising, and the study's author calls the Washington Times' claim "a mischaracterization of our work." Study Author James R. Houston, Director Emeritus of the Corps of Engineers' Engineer Research and Development Center and an author of the study cited by the Washington Times, stated in an email: "Latest report shows oceans are not rising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels are rising...". ...Media Matters asked Houston about the Wash. Times' statement that "The result did suggest the sea level was increasing in the western Pacific, but this was offset by a drop in the level near the Alaskan coast." Houston replied that this was a reference to satellite measurements, not the tide gauge measurements that his study analyzed. Houston also stated: "Basically, from 1993 to 2010, sea level rise measured by satellite altimeters has been remarkably spatially variable over the planet. But if you add up all the ups and downs, the net effect has been a rise measured by the altimeters of about 3.1 millimeters per year from 1993 to 2010. The newspaper article implies that the net effect has been no rise. This is not the case." ...Responding to the Washington Times' claim that his study "shows oceans are not rising," Robert Dean, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering of the University of Florida, stated via email: "There is a difference between "rising" and "accelerating". Accelerating means that the rate of rise is increasing. Sea level in the 20th Century was (and is) rising, it wasn't accelerating taking the entire century as a whole. Because the satellite altimetry has concluded that since 1992, the rate of rise has been more rapid than in the 20th Century (which would imply a recent acceleration), we are now examining more than 400 gauge records over the last 20 years or so."

© 2011 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
Oh look! TrollingBlunder has returned. damn. Gonna have to put that ignore back up.

But note his 'news source'

© 2011 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!

Flush! Credibility go down the hoooooole!
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
from the OP
Conclusion:

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.
since the 80's we have been told over and over that catastrophe is just around the corner. temps are going to increase in ever accelerating increments, sea levels are going to rise in large amounts, extreme weather will be the norm. all because of a trace gas that acts logarithmically. but it hasnt happened. sure, we have warmed up since the Little Ice Age but not in any way that couldnt easily be due to natural variation. are glaciers retreating and sea levels rising? yes, that's what happens when it gets warmer. are the rates of these things happening spiralling out of control? no. are we being warned that they are? yes, in many, many studies they model the climate to parameters that are inconsistent with what is actually happening, and then tell us what might happen in the extreme case scenario.
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,314
Points
245
Ian, do you have a link to this that you prefer? What is that, 2 degrees F ?
Recent Climate Change - Temperature Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Records from land stations and ships indicate that the global mean surface temperature warmed by about 0.9°F since 1880 (see Figure 1). These records indicate a near level trend in temperatures from 1880 to about 1910, a rise to 1945, a slight decline to about 1975, and a rise to present (NRC, 2006). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in 2007 that warming of the climate system is now “unequivocal,” based on observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC, 2007).

Even more important than the numbers, are the effects of the rise. That rise in uneven, actually cooling in some places, and rising rapidly, like Alaska, indeed, the whole Arctic, in others.

At present, we are seeing the North Polar Ice Cap rapidly decreasing both in volume and extant.


https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/130

Another effect is the movement of climatic zones.

What Might Man-Induced Climate Change Mean? | Foreign Affairs

The whole point is that we are presently engaged in a worldwide experiment in which we will have to live with the results for many generations. With no real idea of how much change we are creating. A point of fact, we have not seen the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere for at least 15 million years. Nor the present level of Ch4 for at least that long, maybe a good deal longer.



Oh yes, let's use the EPA's website which is still showing all the info from the totally discredited IPCC report. Get real, this is crap and you know it. Come up with something relevent and accurate. These links are usable for papering the bird cage and nothing else.

obviously I disagree with your first link. I think the globe has warmed up more than 0.9F since 1880. of course the real question is how much of the increase is attributable to the increase of atmospheric CO2
 

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top