http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Low_tide_in_Brittany.jpg
We are constantly being told that 2010 is the hottest year ever, and that the polar ice caps are melting down at a record rate. Dr. Hansen tells us to expect 3-6+ metres of sea level rise this century. That would be a minimum of 30 mm/year.
Given Dr. Hansen’s record heat, the oceans must be heating and expanding, and the polar ice sheets must be melting and pouring into the sea. Sea level must be rising like crazy!
Hansen’s completely bogus graph below shows Greenland blowing away their previous record high annual temperature. They must be having a flood of melting ice up there.
Only problem is, since the start of the hottest year ever, sea level has fallen 10 mm. The most recent data from The University Of Colorado is shown below.
We can conclude that the oceans are neither heating nor are the polar ice caps melting at a rapid rate. As usual, Hansen’s theory does not match observations on the ground.
Hansen is so last millenium. He already used up all of his best temperature adjustments and is running out of time to get some real warming going.
Surprisingly low. I’ve noticed that the rate of change has decreased since they switched to JASON from TOPEX, but the last few data points are way below what’s been reported over the last few months. Shrinkage due to heat being released? Could explain the high global temps being reported.
Let’s see, the sea level is falling and even of it wasn’t the level of rise is routinely misreported as 10x or 20x the actual rate observed .
Time to stop buying the lies these liars tell.
And another thing .
The metric system.
Eff it.
Too easy to mix up the different measurements and then claim a mistake or misquote.
I want inches and feet.
If you mean 1/8 of an inch, ( Actual hstorical rate of yearly SLR) damnit say so !
Pingback: Sea levels are falling, current rate 10mm per year. | Sullivan's Travelers
A quick calculation from the data provided shows that the 2010 average is more than 2 cm greater than the 2009 average. The data do not prove your point. Random variation in data points must be smoothed.
That means that sea level rose in 2009. It is falling in 2010 as you can see quite clearly.
No, it means that the sea level fell a small amount from January to April. You don’t know what’s happened in the six months since then.
Yes I do. SSTs have plummeted and sea level has continued to fall. I don’t know why CU hasn’t updated their data. The graph would have looked better if they did.
“Random variation in data points must be smoothed.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I don’t understand your graph and your claim.
what is the Y (mm) ? an anomaly? compare to what? what is the base value?
If I read the graph, the sea level still increases 27 mm this year(at the last point on the graph).
I’m not a scientist. your claim maybe is correct. could you explain more?
My point is that sea level is not rising at anywhere near the rate it needs to meet Hansen’s claims.
From January to the most recent reading, it has fallen 10 mm.
I don’t believe in AGW. and I don’t believe CO2 has so big effect on the climate. but this post is not a proof of what you want to prove.
27mm is so close to 30mm and the date only up to 1/3 of a year.
seasonal variation shouldn’t count too much.
I’m wondering, how they can measure so accurate to mm level? there are tides, waves , currents, temperature changes. Sea level changes all the times.
Wenson,
take a look at these 2 graphs to see what the seasonal variation is thought to be:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg
The first graph includes seasonal variation and the second has what they think is the seasonal variation removed.
“I’m wondering, how they can measure so accurate to mm level? there are tides, waves , currents, temperature changes. Sea level changes all the times.”
Wenson,
Like you, one has to be rather sceptical. Satellite measurements are only accurate to about 100 mm [4 in] anyway so a computer program is needed for “adjustments”.
With the earth being a pear-shaped geoid with flat spots it is impossible to maintain a parallel orbit plus there is often orbital drift that goes undetected. Add a sea surface that rises and falls up to 20 m [66 feet] every few seconds and as US oceanographer Carl Wunsch says: “at best the determination and attribution of sea-level change is at the very edge of knowledge and technology”.
AAPOI, I have a 47 year old benchmark that is showing sea-levels in my area to be up to 400 mm [16 ins] below their 1963 levels.
Not only that Spangled D.
Continental drift. The Australian plate and Australia move North east at a rate of 70cms per year – yep, that’s right 7 metres per century. How much of this movement involves rise and fall of the Australian coastline?
How can sea level rise and fall be measured against this?
Furthermore, to the best of my understanding, sea levels rise and fall in different parts of the world all the time. Not to mention land rises and falls throughout the world.
30 mm is the amount of required change. Actual change is -10 mm.
Steven,
You should take an entire yearly cycle (melt and freeze both of NH and SH) to make this statement that it has fallen. I find statistically a slight increase (nothing like the Hansen projections) but still less than 3mm a year (No acceleration).
This is from week 30 2009 – week 30 2010
[10/1/10 7:23 PM Plot: ''Graph1'']Linear Regression of dataset: Table1_2, using function: A*x+B
Weighting Method: No weighting
From x = 2.009302600000000e+03 to x = 2.010307100000000e+03
B (y-intercept) = -5.838180050954009e+03 +/- 5.116547373746596e+03
A (slope) = 2.919236089133360e+00 +/- 2.545793069073725e+00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chi^2/doF = 2.182686509873965e+01
R^2 = 0.0352378963844101
Adjusted R^2 = -0.0198913666793379
RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) = 4.6719230621597
RSS (Residual Sum of Squares) = 785.767143554627
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for the last 10 years (2000-2010):
[10/1/10 5:19 PM Plot: ''Graph1'']Linear Regression of dataset: Table1_2, using function: A*x+B
Weighting Method: No weighting
From x = 2.000018000000000e+03 to x = 2.010307100000000e+03
B (y-intercept) = -5.620933147873363e+03 +/- 1.630279555108592e+02
A (slope) = 2.810641050120067e+00 +/- 8.130454070964246e-02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chi^2/doF = 2.117031003971977e+01
R^2 = 0.768000299990042
Adjusted R^2 = 0.766711412767764
RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) = 4.60112052001681
RSS (Residual Sum of Squares) = 7,642.48192433884
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting that your Slope Fitting shows a tiny increase for 2009.30 – 2010.30 (buried in variation):
[10/1/10 7:34 PM Plot: ''Graph2'']Linear Regression of dataset: Table1_2, using function: A*x
Weighting Method: No weighting
From x = 2.009302600000000e+03 to x = 2.010307100000000e+03
A (slope) = 1.438696706052624e-02 +/- 3.786299866232580e-04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chi^2/doF = 2.200500180083951e+01
R^2 = 0.00034647152337412
Adjusted R^2 = -0.0274216820454211
RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) = 4.69094892328189
RSS (Residual Sum of Squares) = 814.185066631062
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was a spike in late 2009, due to El Nino. The decadal rate of sea level rise is more than a order of magnitude too low for Hansen’s projections.
It’s interesting that you’re willing to attribute the “spike in late 2009” to El Nino, yet you conclude that a small intraannual decline proves that temps did not rise, or something. How come the spike was due to El Nino, but the decline can’t be due to the end of El Nino and the beginning a La Nina? Why does it have to show that Hansen is wrong about temps?
Forget logic, this isn’t even internally consistent.
Hansen’s 30 mm minimum expected rise is much larger than the noise introduced by changes in ENSO. Think about it.
I did think about it. I’m not sure you did. The projected rise due to AGW is the end result of a nonlinear trend. There is no expectation that it will rise in a straight line or that there will never be any declines due to other factors. It does not imply that the rise will be a constant 30mm/year throughout the entire century. It does not imply that there will be an instant response to an increase in temperature, as you seem to think. And it certainly does not imply that there will never be any intraannual declines. This is cherrypicking of the most obvious sort.
Your readers might be interested to compare a graph of the full Colorado data set to your graph of one-third of one year:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg
The simple fact is that you are willing to attribute an increase in sea level to El Nino, but not the inevitable subsequent decline.
I publish that graph and raw data all the time. No drive-bys here, please.
The only evidence of non-linear behaviour is that temperatures haven’t risen for the last 12 years.
Your essential claim here is that a slight decline over the course of a third of a year shows either (a) that Hansen’s projection is wrong, or (b) that 2010 has not been an unusually warm year (I’m not clear which it is).
To support (a), you need to show that he expects sea level to rise in a straight line at 30mm/year and, worse, that there will be no intraannual variability. To support (b) you have to show that Hansen or anyone else expects sea level to respond more or less instantly to temperature changes.
Can you do this?
Steven,
There is a lot of spikes in the data. 2001, 2004 and 2005 had spike ups at the end of the year, while 2002 and 2003 had spike downs. Are all of these El Nino/La Nina events?
Agreed on the order of magnitude error. It will be interesting if the sea-levels reach 3 meters in a thousand years. Based on the observations, it be over an inch short 😉
According to the Univ of Colorado graph, the rate of sea level rise has been mostly below the 18 yr mean for the past 4 yrs.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.pdf
Metric system is good because it is easy to claim, after the event, that you meant mm not meters or is was a typo. It is good to see that with global sea temperatures falling that sea levels fall as well (or the rate of rise decrease). As would be expected.
I am surprised by the discontinuity of the temp graph for Godthab Nuuk. It shows the highest temp in the 1940’s, and then going down and increasing temp in recent decennies, but nowhere as high as in the 40’s.
Where does that strange spike recently. Any change in location? Any change in prodessing data? Any problem locally with the capture of data?
They are taking an annual average temperature, but the year isn’t over yet. Jan-Aug is of course going to be much warmer than Jan-Dec. They didn’t used to do this stupid trick.
come on guys, with this being the warmest year yet, what do you expect? all the oceans are evaporating.
What probably happened is the high temps increased the evaporation rate. Which probably means that snow accumulated somewhere. It is funny how the loones forget about that.
I have a question.
I see here, mentions of 30mm, 20mm, and 10mm per year.
But when I look up references as to what the sea level rise is, I am presented with numbers in the range of 1.8mm-3.2mm py as more or less historic and current figures,
depending on where you are and who does the measure.
Why ?
Pingback: Top Posts — WordPress.com
And then there is Nils-Axel Morner, oceanography expert who spent several years in the Maldives studying sea levels. He states that there has been little or no rise in the last 50 years. In some of the Maldives, the level is actually falling, contrary to the mis-information being fed to the residents t will be that they will be inundated.
From Church et al, 2006
“The long tide-gauge records in the equatorial Pacific indicate that the variance of monthly averaged sea-level after 1970 is about twice that before 1970. We find no evidence for the fall in sea level at the Maldives as postulated by Mörner et al. (2004).”
“Mörner et al. (2004) and Mörner (2004) recently drew attention to the potential vulnerability of the Maldives. However, Mörner et al. (2004) argued that there had been a 30 cm fall in sea-level at the Maldives over the last 50 yrs while Mörner (2004) argued that there had been no global averaged sea-level rise over the decade of the 1990s. Mörner’s conclusions concerning a sea-level fall at the Maldives have been firmly rebutted by Woodworth (2005), Woodroffe (2005) and Kench et al. (2005).”
“We also test the veracity of assertions (Mörner, 2004; Mörner et al., 2004) that no significant sea-level rise is occurring. The data sets and techniques used are described briefly in Section 2. The results (Section 3) indicate large interannual variability of the tropical Pacific and Indian ocean region and clear evidence that global average sea level has been rising both over the last decade and the last half of the 20th century. We find no evidence for the 30 cm fall in sea level “in the 1970s to early 1980s” for the Maldives as postulated by Mörner et al. (2004).”
“As found by Singh et al. (2001), we find that the rates of sea-level rise are large in these very short records (8.4 mm yr? 1, 3.7 mm yr? 1, and
4.4 mm yr? 1, respectively). (Note however that this result is in contrast to Mörner et al. (2004) who state, but do not justify, that the records “reveal a total absence of any secular trend”.)”
“In direct contrast, Mörner (2004) shows a plot (his Fig. 2) of sea-level variations from October 1992 to April 2000, based on TOPEX/Poseidon data, ostensibly showing that there is no rise in GMSL. This is described as being “raw data”, and appears to be cycle-by-cycle (10 day) averages of global mean sea-level. Unfortunately, there is neither a description of the data that were used to produce this figure, nor a reference to its source. In order to be a meaningful estimate of global mean sea-level, a number of corrections would have been necessary, including wet tropospheric path delay, dry tropospheric path delay, ionospheric path delay, sea-state bias and tides, but it is unclear which, if any, of these well-known and understood corrections have been applied. “
Excuse the typo in the last sentence—–due to my quirky computer.
“And then there is Nils-Axel Morner, oceanography expert who spent several years in the Maldives studying sea levels.”
Plum job, that. Stay in one of those nice watery hotels , stick yer ruler in the water twice a day, have a margarita.
Do they serve margaritas there ?
Pingback: www.TheTruthHurts.co.uk » Blog Archive » Sea Level Falling In 2010
This is most likely the result of another momentary Pacific Ocean cooling trend due to the most recent switch from El Niño to La Niña, a process that has been going on probably since the ocean came into existence. Using all the data will show a clear upward trend in sea level with repeated up and down fluctuations due to periodic changes between El Niño and La Niña. See .
“See Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010” at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Cherry-Pickers-Falling-sea-levels-in-2010.html
See http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/as-usual-john-cook-doesnt-get-it/
Pingback: As Usual, John Cook Doesn’t Get It | Real Science
No doubt the placing of a picture of a Brittany low tide was completely innocent of trying to suggest that the ocean levels are going down so much that boats are getting stranded. Living just across the water from Brittany I can vouch for the fact that tides that go out for at least a mile are common around here because we have almost the highest tidal range in the world.
“The height of the tide, the variation in level from when the tide is in or out, is exceptional in Brittany, where the highest tides in Europe are recorded, for example 5.45 m at Penmarc’h, 12 m in the Bay of Saint-Malo and more than 16 m in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, whereas the average worldwide is just 2 m.”
Surely predictions of sea level rise in the literature are not given with the expectation that it will be a linear rise, as some of your commenters seem to believe, based upon the arguments they put forward? That makes no sense given that the slow mixing of warmer surface waters with the colder depths takes, at least, decades.
The sheer common sense view suggests that any anthropogenically enhanced sea level rise will start off really slow due to the huge thermal inertia then pick up speed, accelerating all the while over the decades to come. Even if we magically stopped anything that might be warming the planet, sea level would continue to rise for many years before stabilising.
What would be going on in your neighborhood if Hansen’s 3-6 metre rise was actually happening? Hansen has actually been quoted giving numbers as high as 25 metres. If you believe his numbers, you might want to consider relocating.
I live at a altitude of about 60 meters. Hansen’s worst wouldn’t even give me a sea front property yet our capital would be drowned and I wouldn’t be able to get a decent pizza. Worth making strenuous efforts to avoid.
My position is scepticism about all sides. I trust the basic physics that increasing CO2 will/is causing a radiative imbalance which will/is warm/ing us up. I doubt the accuracy of the IPCC predictions as the “unknown unknowns” are unknown. Clouds might save us. Methane clathrates might cook us. The only way to tighten up the science and know for sure is to run the experiment then stick Earth in a time machine and re-run it several times, changing the conditions each time and seeing what happens. It’s the only way we could get an accurate handle on the climate sensitivity.
As warming and cooling episodes of the past have led to dramatic changes of climate and massive die-off extinction events it’s clear to me that Earth’s natural changes can be extremely dangerous and that relatively small forcings can cause big events. I don’t believe that humanity is under any form of divine protection – God is not going to rescue us at the last minute like the US cavalry coming over the hill. We’re on our own and we will sink or swim according to what we do.
I think the wisest position is one that relies upon risk analysis. The sceptic/denialist/contrarian position is that nothing, or hardly anything, is happening and we’ll be alright. The IPCC median position is that things are happening/will happen that will cause a lot of difficulty all the way up to great difficulty for civilisation. The Hansen position is that unless we pull out all the stops and pursue a policy like the Manhattan or Apollo projects, we are in for mega disruption/disaster. Lovelock’s position is that we are already screwed and we might as well move as far towards the poles as we can as the crap hits the fan.
All can defend their position to some extent. So, for risk analysis, one just has to imagine what would happen if each facet of opinion/science is wrong and judge it that way.
Personally I think the risks to civilisation of believing the “it’s not a problem” sceptic crowd – if they’re wrong – massively outweigh the risks of believing Hansen/Lovelock, if they prove to be wrong.
1) Sceptics wrong – Hansen/Lovelock right. Devastated planet – end of civilisation as we know it
2) IPCC wrong – sceptics right. No climate disruption but a lot would have been done to wean ourselves off peaking fossil fuels and off foreign oil. More sustainable world thrown into the bargain
3) Sceptics/Hansen/Lovelock wrong – IPCC median right. We might be OK, we might not depending on that rather uncertain sensitivity figure.
Are you feeling lucky, punks?
Basic physics tells us that more CO2 does very little to temperature. The catastrophism theory is based on theoretical feedbacks.
Pingback: Economy 10-2-10 | Dprogram.net
Here is the real long term graph
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/goddard_SLR2.gif
and here what “Steven Goddard” makes out of it
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/goddard_SLR3.gif
Sceptical Science has an article about this cherry-picking story here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Cherry-Pickers-Falling-sea-levels-in-2010.html
No more to say.
Charlie,
If sea level was rising 3-6 metres per century, don’t you think someone would have noticed?
3-6 meters ? LOL. ‘She”would have noticed.
http://jssgallery.org/Other_Artists/Richard_Morris_Hunt/Statue_of_Liberty.htm
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Liberty-statue-from-front2_crop.jpg
Actually, if you want a REAL LONGTERM graph, checkout Ekman 2003.
http://www.psmsl.org/products/author_archive/ekman_2003.pdf
Statistics on his data are as follows (1774-2000):
[10/3/10 8:13 PM Plot: ''Graph1'']Linear Regression of dataset: Table1_2, using function: A*x+B
Weighting Method: No weighting
From x = 1.774000000000000e+03 to x = 2.000000000000000e+03
B (y-intercept) = 1.011227060687095e+04 +/- 1.314814909797835e+02
A (slope) = -4.093467332401933e+00 +/- 6.938669936863220e-02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chi^2/doF = 3.847451957804932e+03
R^2 = 0.943607111415877
Adjusted R^2 = 0.943062252588978
RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) = 62.0278321224024
RSS (Residual Sum of Squares) = 800,270.007223426
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That my friends is minus 4mm a year for 200 years with an R^2 of 0.94. Oddly, enough, land upwelling in Stockholm Swedenis in the order of 3.9mm/year. Odd…
My point here is that the analysis format is fundamentally flawed. Plate tectonics and general land shifting affects the way the sea appears in height.
Hosojima and Tonoura/Hamada Japan (southern islands).
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
Neighboring townships but one -0.53mm/year the other +0.38mm/year.
Same for Northern Spit near Eureka California and Crescent City. One +4.73mm/year and one -0.65mm/year — 66.1 miles apart by highway!
Sell sea rise craziness somewhere else. I am all stocked up.
What units do we see on that graph showing satellite data from the University of Colorado between 1992 and 2010?
“Hansen has actually been quoted giving numbers as high as 25 metres. If you believe his numbers, you might want to consider relocating.”
Hansen offers century to millenial scale predictions, which Steve counters by graphing a few months he picked from several decades of data. On what time scale should Nick Palmer consider relocating?
Hansen is forecasting for this century. No doubt a few more ppm CO2 is going to make all the laws of physics break down and the world will dissolve in chaos.
“Hansen is forecasting for this century.”
He did not forecast 25 meters for this century, which is what prompted your “relocating” comment.
“Dr. Hansen tells us to expect 3-6+ metres of sea level rise this century. That would be a minimum of 30 mm/year.”
That would be a minimum of 30 mm/year if Hansen’s model was linear, but as Hansen explains carefully, it is not.
Hansen posits an exponential disintegration of Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, making a contribution to sea level on the order of 10 mm over the whole decade 2005-2015. The rate increases with a doubling time of about one decade.
Of course you will disagree with that too, but why not make the effort to understand what he actually said, and confront that honestly?
“Hansen posits an exponential disintegration of Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, making a contribution to sea level on the order of 10 mm over the whole decade 2005-2015. The rate increases with a doubling time of about one decade.”
It is easy to disagree with that because it is manifestly not happening.
He keeps throwing it at the wall but it is not sticking.
It is easy to disagree with that because it is manifestly not happening.
You’re right–the Greenland melt rate didn’t double in one decade. It only took about six years (Velicogna 2009).
If you were interested in an honest look at this issue, why would you cherry pick the data so severely? Why wouldn’t you simply provide the long-term record. It’s right at the University of Colorado site for anyone who is actually interested:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
For a dramatic illustration of just how severe, see Charlie Williams’ comment above. Spot on Charlie!)
Another commenter here notes that the rate of long-term sea level rise has been lower than the long-term average during the past four years or so. Fair enough, but does anyone here on this list see anything other than a rising trend line overall? If so, maybe you can refer me to your ophthalmologist. I could use a pair of rose-colored glasses like that.
I post the long term record at least once a week. Do you have a hard time focusing on the topic of this article?
Pingback: Eco Logs – Kindling Wood – Kindling For Sale – Kindling » Blog Archive » Climate Cherry Pickers: Falling sea levels in 2010
So Steven, we’re agreed then, right?: All those people in the blogosphere and the Twittersphere who have taken your post to mean that sea level is dropping over the long term have completely misread what you are saying. And that they are wrong to label scientists who say otherwise as “hoaxers.”
Let’s get serious here: What is your real purpose in posting a tiny snippet of a long term record? Tell us explicitly what your point is, and more important, what your overall motive is.
Never mind. It’s pretty clear.
My purpose was exactly as stated. Sea level is not rising at anywhere near the rate Hansen claims. Off by a mile.
You should instead ask what his purpose is.
It is more than obvious what “Steven Goddard”‘s intentions are with his web blog “Real Science”.
Watch “Climate Change and Sea Level Rise”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kffsux-ifKk
They’ve been saying this crap for a long time now.
There is precious little evidence of even a slight sea level rise.
And if it happened a long time ago ( Melt pulse) when there were no people and no industry, why should we believe that should that be happening again that there would be any chance of forestalling it by reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere ?
It makes no sense.
For those really interested in science I like to advise
“Global Warming in Geologic Time”
from David Archer University of Chicago
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/080227Archer/f.htm
“Conclusions
Global warming is well understood, it has been detected, and the forecast for the end of the century is frightening.
CO2 emission will continue to effect climate for hundreds of thousands of years into the future.
Sea level may ultimately rise 100 times more than the forecast for the year 2100.”
Video lectures website of the University of Chicago:
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
It is well understood, but nature just refuses to cooperate with reason.
I only can conclude that you didn’t even bother to take a look at David Archer’s lecture.
Not very scientific, “Steven”.
Why don’t you show any profile from yourself, “Steven Goddard”?
Why do you hide yourself?
If you had any reputation you wouldn’t do that.
Are you afraid because you know that you’re wrong and doing all that here only for money?
Steven Goddard on October 3, 2010 at 10:15 pm
“Basic physics tells us that more CO2 does very little to temperature. The catastrophism theory is based on theoretical feedbacks.”
I thought any warming of the troposphere from CO2 doing the basic physics thing would increase the average height at which water vapour condenses and thereby increase the depth and humidity of that part of the atmosphere that has water vapour in it, thus increasing the greenhouse effect from that vapour. Doesn’t seem that theoretical a feedback to me – it looks likely.
Besides just from CO2 alone we are looking at about 1 deg C rise. The difference between the coldest part of the little ice age and the warmest part of the medieval warm period looks to me, on recently published sceptic graphs, like about 1.15 deg C tops. If there was such a difference in results then, from grapes growing willy-nilly all over the place to iron-hard frozen English rivers, with a comparable temperature difference to the one from expected mid 21st century levels of CO2 (without any “theoretical” feedbacks) if we don’t back off, it looks like we are risking quite severe changes. Pray that the feedbacks remain theoretical. Or don’t be so certain and thereby gamble with everyone’s future.
Think clouds.
As you can see from my my icon, I’m a hang glider pilot. I not only think clouds, I feel clouds too. Almost uniquely in aviation ( part from paragliders) we can feel the air – its humidity, temperature etc. I know exactly what it’s feels like to be in a cloud and, more importantly for this discussion, near a cloud.
Your “think clouds” comment suggests you believe that the increased humidity and depth of atmosphere in the tropopause will lead to more clouds which, in certain weather conditions, is true but not in others.
I think what the people who hope clouds will form a negative feedback to save us, like the aforementioned US Cavalry over the hill, neglect to consider is that the spaces between and below the clouds (which are reflective, condensed water vapour) are still full of more non-condensed, non-reflective green house water vapour. I have been there. In order for increased clouds to “save us” they would have to reflect more incoming radiation than the enhanced greenhouse effect from the increased water vapour between and below them would “retain” outgoing radiation. If you speculate that the “gaps” will become less then remember that increased clouds at night act as a very effective “blanket” preventing accumulated daytime heat from escaping into space.
Clouds are not a silver bullet that give us a silver lining get out of AGW jail free card. Like so much else, these ideas are not bulletproof.
Again, I say it comes down to risk perception and analysis. One the one hand we have a potentially massive problem which could be headed off by what we need to do anyway to wean ourselves off peaking fossil foreign fuels or, on the other hand, a non-problem damp squib whereby, if we do nothing, we will end up watching our civilisation go down the tubes due to the escalating price and reducing availability of fossil fuels.
What we need to do looks like a no-brainer to me.
Re couds: The Arctic, I find this interesting.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/arctic_reflector.php
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/arctic_reflector2.php
“So in addition to changing sea ice, we can kind of guess that something must be happening in the atmosphere over the Arctic, too.” Clouds are bright, too, and an increase in clouds could cancel out the impact of melting snow and ice on polar albedo.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticReflector/arctic_reflector4.php
“Although sea ice and snow cover had noticeably declined in the Arctic from 2000 to 2004, there had been no detectable change in the albedo measured at the top of the atmosphere: the proportion of light the Arctic reflected hadn’t changed. In other words, the ice albedo feedback that most climate models predict will ultimately amplify global warming apparently hadn’t yet kicked in.”
“According to the MODIS observations, cloud fraction had increased at a rate of 0.65 percent per year between 2000 and 2004. If the trend continues, it will amount to a relative increase of about 6.5 percent per decade. At least during this short time period, says Kato, increased cloudiness in the Arctic appears to have offset the expected decline in albedo from melting sea ice and snow.”
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/gorodetskaya/irina_ipccpaper.pdf
“The predicted substantial decrease in Arctic summer sea ice concentrations during the twenty-first century may favor cloud formation, which should diminish or even cancel the ice-albedo feedback by shielding the surface.”
“Water droplets are more effective in reflecting and absorbing solar radiation than nonspherical, typically larger ice crystals (Dong et al. 2001).”
ChrisD says:
October 3, 2010 at 12:04 pm
“Forget logic”
That’s the problem, lack of logic.
The data at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ shows many years where the sea level is measured to go downwards, yet the trend in the data is still clearly upwards.
No one said otherwise
So why show a graph of less than 1 years worth of data when it’s meaningless in the context of looking at Hansen’s prediction?
I see you neglect to respond to Gneiss above
It is almost as if you skipped the entire conversation up to this point.
True. I saw the “less than one years” data and thought that there’s no way you could make a proper comparison on that basis.
Your title “Sea Level Falling In 2010” and the pic of boats grounded on a low tide show your intent. Neither of which are relevant when making a comparison to Hansens prediction.
It doesn’t take much reading to know that the forecast increase in sea level rise is not linear, why do you make a comparison against a linear projection?
The dramatic sea level rise will occur once the Antarctic land ice melt starts in earnest. It could be quite a rapid rise once an ice sheet rises off the ocean floor, but the timing of such an event is something that’s difficult to predict.
Are you joking? Do you have any idea how cold summers are in Antarctica?
By that reasoning you are suggesting there is never any melt? Ever?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222120137.htm
So how does this ever happen, if by your suggestion the summer is too cold?
@Nick Palmer:
Quote: “Pray that the feedbacks remain theoretical. Or don’t be so certain and thereby gamble with everyone’s future.”
Omg, you are a perfect example of the people following the CAGW-cult out of fear.
Feedback from clouds IS negative. Doubling of CO2-levels will have little or no effect, because of this negative feedback.
CO2-levels follow warming, CO2 doesnt cause warming.
Do your homework, don’t follow the official partyline. CAGW is a hoax.
The science is settled: CO2 is plantfood.
@Steven Goddard:
Keep sending the message! I like your blog very much. Keep fighting. Victory is near!
Thanks!
Scarface. Why are you so sure? Most people with proven analytical capability who look at ALL the evidence think that the simple minded standard extreme sceptic/denialist memes you dredge up, which have been refuted zillions of times, are incorrect. Yet you choose to believe them because it is convenient to you to reinforce your prejudices. You are irresponsible and a danger to the rest of us
Zillions of times?
I’m aware of the term but that many cases have been brought up?
Rabble.
Poetic licence. I don’t know how many a zillion is but I’m sure it’s a lot.
CO2-levels follow warming, CO2 doesnt cause warming.
There’s no logic to this; it assumes that there’s not such thing as mutual causation in nature. But there is.
“A causes B” does not imply that B cannot cause A.
Clouds save us? Where’s the evidence for that? Are you relying on Lindzen to come up with a new flawed paper?
Oh BTW Scarface did you not notice that the blog writer about – whom you said “I like your blog very much. Keep fighting. Victory is near!” – Steven Goddard on October 3, 2010 at 10:15 pm wrote:
Basic physics tells us that more CO2 does very little to temperature. The catastrophism theory is based on theoretical feedbacks.
That implies clearly that CO2 does do something to temperature. No credible scientist disputes that increasing CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature – the only dispute is about how much and how quickly. Yet you loudly and arrogantly state:
“CO2-levels follow warming, CO2 doesnt cause warming.” which directly conflicts with what your hero Steve Goddard wrote. Furthermore you also state “Doubling of CO2-levels will have little or no effect, because of this negative feedback.” which implies that, while repeating this meme, that you believe that CO2 would cause warming if it were not for the “theoretical feedbacks” (quote from Steve Goddard) operating negatively. So, in the course of your short post you come out with a couple of mutually contradictory beliefs (one of which is contradicted by Steve himself) and you also make it clear that you will accept unquestioningly a “theoretical” cloud feedback if it turns out to be negative but will completely reject a “theoretical” positive feedback from the increased water vapour if it turns out to be positive. Looks like cherry picking to me.
I think you need to think it out again.
Pingback: Sea Level Falling In 2010 « The Invisible Opportunity: Hidden Truths Revealed
Brendon Says
“The dramatic sea level rise will occur once the Antarctic land ice melt starts in earnest. It could be quite a rapid rise once an ice sheet rises off the ocean floor, but the timing of such an event is something that’s difficult to predict.”
Ice sheets do not rest upon the sea floor.
Your understanding is more flawed than mine. And I am a dropout.
The blatant ignorance of the “science is settled” crew is shocking.
Stand out in the sun on a hot day. Wait for a cloud.
When the cloud shades your area , are you hotter or cooler ?
Clouds give negative feedback. Empirically proven by backyard science.
Sorry, your backyard science experiment is incomplete, partly because you’re only considering daytime clouds. At night, clouds act sort of like a blanket. Haven’t you ever noticed that clear nights tend to be colder than cloudy nights? The TV weather forecasters sure have. They mention this routinely.
Ok negative in the day positive at night. ( Pretty much thought that)
But I would say that what happens when the sun is shining has more effect.
(more personal observations pre-deleted)
I would say that what happens when the sun is shining has more effect.
You really don’t have any basis for saying that, sorry. This is a very complex issue that climate science has been working on for a long time. It’s not going to be resolved by gut feelings.
And IF the ice sheets DID rest on the Sea floor ( which they do not since ice floats)
then they would already be accounted for in the sea level just as they are when they are floating.
Jimash says “Ice sheets do not rest upon the sea floor. Your understanding is more flawed than mine. And I am a dropout.”
Perhaps you dropped out before they covered the term “grounding line”?
Here’s some research from people that didn’t drop out.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100116103350.htm
Ok Brendon.
I can see that .
And I can understand how that could lead to a release of the land
ice of it were so inclined.
Regardless, Ice in the water, attached or not is already part of the sea level.
Postulating catastrophic overnight melting of the land ice is just wild speculation and of course modeling.
“The melting of ice shelves won’t directly lead to sea level rise, since ice shelves already rest in the ocean. However, the loss of the shelves will allow melt from the terrestrial Antarctic ice sheet to reach the ocean and eventually raise sea levels threatening islands, low-lying areas, and coastal communities and cities. If all the land-based ice in Antarctica melted, researchers estimate that sea-levels would rise by over 213-240 feet (60-73 meters).
Researchers found that even the coldest part of the Antarctic Peninsula has been affected. They say that melting in the Antarctic Peninsula represents a good model of how other parts of Antarctica will react as global temperatures continue to climb. ”
I am not getting it. IF it is too cold to melt ice, then, what is melting the ice ?
And if the “Glaciers are retreating” would they not move inland ?
Jimash says “Regardless, Ice in the water, attached or not is already part of the sea level.”
Agreed. Floating ice will not directly cause a rise in sea level. Land-based ice will.
The float ice shelves of Antarctica partly help slow the flow of glaciers into the ocean. Without the sea ice, this flow can accelerate.
Jimash says “I am not getting it. IF it is too cold to melt ice, then, what is melting the ice ?”
Most of Antarctica is too cold all year round for ice to melt. As you move further away from the South Pole it gets warmer and at times during summer it’ll be above zero and warm enough to melt ice. As the planet gets warmer the amount of above zero weather will increase thus exposing more ice to melting temps.
Sea ice is also susceptible from a warmer ocean since it can melt from underneath too.
Jimash says “And if the “Glaciers are retreating” would they not move inland ?”.
The Glaciers that are “in retreat” are retreating because they are losing ice as it melts, this melt occurs at the lower altitudes where temps are above freezing. The water created from that melted ice runs into the ocean causing a higher sea level.
Pingback: Once Upon A time In La La Land | Greenhouse Bullcrap
Even if all the sea ice of the northern polar ice cap melted the sea level would not rise. All the ice is floating and Archimedes Principle clearly demonstrates that. We know the ice is floating because submarines have gone under it for over 30 years. Yet, “scientists” still say it is a potential flooding hazard. It clearly is not. So, all of you stop worrying about it, OK? Now you know!
Yet, “scientists” still say it is a potential flooding hazard.
No, they don’t. Regardless of what you might think, “scientists” are not stupid. The sea level rise projections reflect melting land ice–primarily Greenland and Antarctica–not sea ice.
Indeed, scientists are not stupid … as opposed to folks like Joe here.
Nick Palmer says:
October 3, 2010 at 10:06 pm
“…Personally I think the risks to civilisation of believing the “it’s not a problem” sceptic crowd – if they’re wrong – massively outweigh the risks of believing Hansen/Lovelock, if they prove to be wrong…”
A proper risk analysis would show that there is a tendency for climate drift into ice age rather than for it to overheat. As Earth’s temperature oscillates up and down to the tune of the underlying quasi-cycles of the deterministic chaos which drives it, no one can predict what the next 10y will bring.
Bearing this in mind, rather than spending trillions acting on the failed ‘science’ behind the CAGW myth, I’d spend the money on helping the NH population prepare for the possibility of cold, which is by far the biggest killer.
Are you feeling lucky, punk?
Tenuc says: “A proper risk analysis would show that there is a tendency for climate drift into ice age rather than for it to overheat.”
Naturally, without our additional greenhouse gases, the climate would have been headed for another glacial period in about 20,000 years. Greenhouse gases might have been a good way to avoid this long term problem, but at the moment we’ve over-compensated it seems.
Tenuc says: “underlying quasi-cycles of the deterministic chaos which drives it”
Do you mean the Milankovitch cycles which seem to have dominated the recent interglacial periods?
Dan R says:
October 3, 2010 at 6:45 am
From Church et al, 2006
“The long tide-gauge records in the equatorial Pacific indicate that the variance of monthly averaged sea-level after 1970 is about twice that before 1970. We find no evidence for the fall in sea level at the Maldives as postulated by Mörner et al. (2004).”
Mörner’s conclusions concerning a sea-level fall at the Maldives have been firmly rebutted by Woodworth (2005), Woodroffe (2005) and Kench et al. (2005).
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MornerEtAl2004.pdf
I would sooner go with Morner.
http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/13-CSPP-gwandsealevelrise.pdf
Temp increase of 0.8 degrees C since 1860, no increase in the rate of warming to the present, in fact probably a decrease since the 60`s due to the urban heat island effect, no warming over last 10 years, probably due to the UHI effect reaching its maximum in the developed world where the majority of the weather stations are situated yet CO2 has increased rapidly over that same period. Sea temps are not warming, air temps are not increasing yet sea levels are supposedly rising, bullshit.
In fact the whole of this AGW co2 warming is total rubbish.
Do the UHIs affect satellite temps? Or NOAA’s USCRN, which is a separate network of climate monitoring stations that are carefully sited away from any sort of outside influence? Because they both show the very similar trends trends as GISTEMP, which is what you’re probably referring to as being contaminated by UHIs.
If UHI is such a big deal, why doesn’t it make any difference if you remove all of Watt’s “bad” sites from the data?
Please bear in mind that the statistic of interest is not the absolute temperature–which is certainly affected by urban locations–but the rate at which it’s changing. This is much less subject to UHI effects than the actual temp is.
Tenuc says: “A proper risk analysis would show that there is a tendency for climate drift into ice age rather than for it to overheat.”
Robuk says (amongst a whole load of unsupported assertions) “Temp increase of 0.8 degrees C since 1860, no increase in the rate of warming to the present”
Tenuc is correct that without a new factor we would be drifting into ice age. And yet, as Robuk says, we are warming so there must be something which has reversed the expected trend. Probably all the buried carbon we’ve dug up and oxidised.
Ever thought what feedback the melting arctic ice means? Ice refexes. Darker water much more absorbs incoming radiation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybjg0ZN3jl0&p=B0CE3EB1ABE15715&playnext=1&index=12
Charlie,
The Arctic minimum occurs in September, just as the Sun sets for the winter. There isn’t any incoming SW radiation.
So Steve, what’s producing all the light in this image?
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2010/images/noaa2-2010-0916-112546.jpg
If you look at the shadows, you can see that the sun is at about 5 degrees, meaning solar insolation is very low
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/images/annual_solar_insolation.png
Yet you said “There isn’t any incoming SW radiation.”.
Clearly there is.
Also, why do you only think of Arctic minimum?
June of this year also had much less sea ice extent than in the past, thus adding to the amount of SW radiation absorbed.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure2.png
At that low angle, essentially zero SW enters the water. Read up on your high school physics.
I’ll agree it’ll be very low as I am well aquaited with high school physics. But that’s not the same as saying “There isn’t any incoming SW radiation.”.
And you neglected to answer my point about June, during the high solar insolation, and how the sea ice then was also well below historical levels thus allowing more SW radiation to be absorbed.
Mr Goddard, I have to commend you on your infinite patience when dealing with those on your blog with closed minds.
As a somewhat aged person I have lived through much climate change, though I would prefer to call it cyclic weather patterns. Real science tends to show that around 6000 years ago and it is down hill from now on as temperatures go.
The only constant I have observed in my life has been the insidious propaganda from those with a cause, the techniques refined to fully encompass the observations of George Orwell. The obviously indoctrinated easy to spot on your post. It is so sad that so many have been sucked in to cause, another ism no less dangerous than those that have gone before, causing death and destruction to hundreds of millions of innocent souls. Those believers here please look to the ravings of some of your revered scientists and politicians, for they espouse a global population cull that would make Pol Pot look like a gentleman.
This is a political propaganda exercise, with the science used to indoctrinate. 10/10 anyone.
Strange but fully two thirds of a century latter from my child hood the beach is still in the same place, the odd little privately owned 150 year old bathing boxes built on the sand just above high tide. If the common belief of one eighth of an inch was correct per year, my beach and the bathing boxes would be history.
Sadly the thing I believed the scientists about was the sun, wonderfully constant for another billion years, this also is proving to be some what not true. Rather variable and tending to tantrums, after partying for a couple of decades old Sol is having a holiday. This is by far the worst news our planet could have as the interglacial is due or indeed overdue to end. Misplaced faith in AGW would best be directed to a little sun worshipping, the faith will have the same effect on the climate either way.
Wow, a lot more trolls are beginning to come to this site. Steve must be doing something good . . . !
I am a firm believer the the majority of the warming in the past 150 or so years is natural, coming out of the ‘little ice age’. Solar activity, the PDO, AMO from all I have tried to learn are the biggest drivers.
But I know I won’t change anyone’s mind who are convinced that Hansen, Gore, and the rest, are right with all the ‘doom’ scenarios’. . Try visiting a site called icecap.us, or look into discussions/papers from Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. John Christy, just to name a few. Ask yourself why Hansen, Gore, et al. will NEVER debate the ‘skeptics’.
And let’s see what the next couple of years bring as far as temperatures, because of the sun cycle we are in. Look that up too.
Wow, a lot more trolls are beginning to come to this site.
“Troll” has a pretty specific meaning, Martin. It is not simply “anyone who expresses a differing opinion.”
Ask yourself why Hansen, Gore, et al. will NEVER debate the ‘skeptics’.
Hansen does debate the skeptics, Martin. He does it where scientific debate is supposed to occur–in the scientific literature. A Google Scholar search for author:”JW Hansen” and “climate” returns 22 results in just the last five years. That’s scientific debate. Debates on science occur in the literature, not on a stage in front of an audience.
A debate on climate by Gore would be doubly useless: A non-scientist debating science in a forum that’s not appropriate for debating science. I can hardly imagine a bigger waste of time. If you want Gore to debate, ask him to debate policy, not science.
Martin C wrote:
“Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. John Christy, just to name a few.”
Actually that’s virtually all the credible scientists you could quote to support your side. It is widely published that those scientists fully accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that the rise is mostly due to us, that CO2 continues to increase, that that rise will warm up the planet and that the Earth has been and still is warming despite all the blizzards of propaganda that attempt to use short term cyclical trends to obscure the truth.
Clinging onto trends as short as 5-15 or so years to claim that AGW has stopped or reversed is as dopey as the person who measures the temperature at noon in April then later on at 3 in the morning, sees that it’s now a lot cooler and concludes that winter is on the way soon.
Does that mean AGW believers can stop yelling about a “hot” warming trend that lasted about 7-8 months (December 2009-July 2010).Or stating this is the hottest year on record starting in the month of May.
Or hollering in the last part of 2005 and mid 2006 that the very busy 2005 hurricane season is proof of the AGW hypothesis.With a number of silly hastily published papers pushing the hurricane/CO2 forcing link.Later shown to be useless because the hurricane seasons since then have been much quieter.
Giggle……
After reading http://skepticalscience.com/Climate-Cherry-Pickers-Falling-sea-levels-in-2010.html , it appears that you are an intentionally dishonest sack of garbage. Of course, other explanations are possible, though not very likely.
Isn’t this just the ultimate cherry pick Steve?
Of course the fell according to the data for for a few months in 2010 but it has varies up and down all through the data by similar amounts but the overall trend since records began is up.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Why cherry pick a few months and write a blog about it as if it is significant compared to the overall trend?
You missed the point.
If sea level was rising as Hansen predicted, this wouldn’t have happened.
Sea level is rising. You just don’t understand the difference between noise and trend.
When it comes to sea level rise Hansen said there would be no natural variation between months? I think not.
Are you really claiming that your graph, showing variation in sea level rise over a few months, is significant? Similar cherry picked examples could be taken from just about any year on record.
And why pick on Hansen? Even the Royal Society’s latest and more sceptical report says “Because of the thermal expansion of the ocean, it is very likely that for many centuries the rate of global sea-level rise will be at least as large as the rate of 20 cm per century that has been observed over the past century.”
That will be in additional to any “enhanced melting and retreat of the ice sheets on Greenland and West Antarctica”, which it still says there is insufficient understanding to predict.
And you seem to have a whole blog suggesting that all the research that went into determining such a figure can be dismissed by a cherry picking a few months of this year
Pingback: Non piove, diluvia » Ocasapiens - Blog - Repubblica.it
Dan R says:
October 3, 2010 at 6:45 am
From Church et al, 2006
“The long tide-gauge records in the equatorial Pacific indicate that the variance of monthly averaged sea-level after 1970 is about twice that before 1970. We find no evidence for the fall in sea level at the Maldives as postulated by Mörner et al. (2004).”
Since billions of dollars are spent on climate science with the sole purpose of proving global warming (whether or not it is actually happening) this torrent of jowl-flapping “refutation” of Morner is wholly predictable and means rather little.
I thought it amusing that Morner found an old twisted tree growing by the shore line at a Maldives beach, whose presence falsified the idea of sustained sea level rise in the preceding decades. The response of some zealous Australian climate scientists? – to uproot the tree.
Quoting Steve G.
“We can conclude that the oceans are neither heating nor are the polar ice caps melting at a rapid rate. As usual, Hansen’s theory does not match observations on the ground.”
ARGOS project data indicated a cooling trend in the oceans.
Antarctica Sea Ice is currently above average.The Arctic ice cover is no longer decreasing in size.A slow recovery of the last 3 years is evident.
This does not describe any significant warming trends ongoing worldwide.
You get a different picture when you look at all the data from the University of Colorado, rather than just what is shown here.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.txt
This year looks like a normal fluctuation; the long term trend is upward.
I’m losing my faith in you, Mr. Goddard. I hope you can do better next time.
You completely missed the point of the article.
As a matter of fact, it seems that you completely missed the point of your article!
Pingback: TWAWKI » Liars and thieves
Pingback: Government liars and thieves | The Sixty Zone
It is interesting that sea levels have dropped in the last year. There has, I understand, been rather a lot of snow fall in the northern hemisphere last year. And in Pakistan and Australia, an awful lot of rain. Might it just be that a lot of water that is normally in the sea just isn’t there right now?