The graph below plots sea level at New York for the last 160 years. The fastest period of sea level rise was the 1930s. Since 1950, sea level has been rising at about half the 1930s rate.
Why did you lie to Congress yesterday and tell them that sea level rise has tripled over the last ten years?
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.annual.plots/12_high.png
well, though I like to contest IPCC stuff, thise graph does show a rise of 20cm in the last 10 years. I’d rather like to know why its been rising like that when in Sydney its been rising bugger all.?? More like continental plate movements perhaps or a gravity effect??
It shows 20 cm rises and falls every few years. The trend hasn’t changed at all.
C’mon Steve, the prof was being factually correct but obviously misleadng, as Le’s post seems to indicate. A 10 year period is of significance? Presume that the climate is not weather meme does not apply to sea levels.
No. You are looking at a meaningless artifact at one station
Locally, sea level rises are influenced by evaporation rates. South Pacific seas have been cooler, reducing evaporation.
When the facts don’t fit your narrative, you make up data, change data, or lie. That’s what CAGW parttisans do!
You sound distressed, Chucky.
These CAGW activists clearly have taken pages from the playbooks of former Zionists Joseph Goebbels and Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf(Baghdad Bob). After reading the strategy climategate emails it is very difficult for me to believe that any of the core members of the Global Warming movement believe the exaggerations that they spew.
Those Nazis were big supporters of Israel, no doubt.
If leftists can believe Muller was a skeptic I figure they can also believe that Nazis were former Zionists.
The Nazis weren’t supporters of Israel, but the post-war German people have been. The Nazis destroyed 1/3 of the world’s Jews, but also destroyed their own country in the process. Imagine being stupid enough to take on the USA and USSR at the same time.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
A couple of months ago jnova did a post that pretty much said that, without all the dubious “adjustments” (that always adjust upwards to increase the purported sea level rise) sea level rise over the last decades and even over the last century would be negligible. This is consistent with our own eyes, as countless observations and photo-records from all over the world, from sea to shining sea, show no sea level rise. NONE. Are our own eyes lying eyes?? Is the “data” more trustworthy than our own eyes? I like this comment at the jnova article by agwnonsense:
There are plate movements within the continental US, but essentially the plates just oscillate a little by tilting. The effect was measured at least 50 years ago. I would start first by looking at this type of movement to adjust for variations in the data. For example, the oscillation of Lake Ontario in the north of NY state has been documented.
How about isostatic movement. Parts of Canada are still rising from rebound, having been depressed by the continental glacier. The east end of Lake Ontario is still rising. Some distance from the centre of the glacier there is a point of inflection beyond which the land subsides as a result of flow of mantle material towards the centre. Beyond this point there is a forebulge and as this forebulge is reduced by mantle flow, the land will subside.
This has been mapped onland in Europe and must have been mapped in North America.
Alternatively, is the Atlantic Seaboard of the USA subsiding?
The difficulty with this paper is that the methodology relies on reference levels onland that are also moving vertically either up or down. Even so, the best estimate is sea level rise of about 200 mm in 100 years, 8 inches.
The world has many more important concerns for the next 100 years than this small increase in sea level.
Sorry the link to the paper did not get posted:
w_w_w.sas.upenn.edu/earth/bph/Res2009/Engelhart%20et%20al_Geology_2009.pdf
The underscores have to be removed to access the web site.
Steve, did you read the gentleman’s testimony before you leapt to your conclusion?
Ed:
I read the first paragraph and realized it was pure fantasy. This moron is mimicking Chicken Little but the sky is NOT Falling and the oceans are varying in their relationship to land just like they always have.
The only leap I see is your attempt to defend fabrications. It is called lie by omission. This shows he is either lying through his teeth or is as ignorant of geology as he sounds.
That puts you in the same camp. Your leap of faith in the fantasy in telling.
I looked over the report; very misleading. For example, he discusses ARGO and then shows a graph which is largely not related to ARGO data. This is highly misleading. In fact he claims the opposite of what ARGO has shown in recent times. Fairly disgraceful stuff.
Argo is a statistical exercise on a bunch of random measurements. It shows things are changing but has no value beyond that. Argo is not telling anything we do not already know. It may be able to better map the ocean currents, but those are dynamic and a map today will not be valid 20 years from now.
Except, it’s not “just like always.” Polite people not victim to Dunning-Kruger syndrome might note the differences instead of pretending to have read the piece.
Do you support government aid to find a cure for Dunning-Kruger?