The claim that sea level rise has increased since the 2007 IPCC meeting, is complete garbage. The post 2007 trend (light blue) is less than the 1993-2007 (red) trend.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- The World’s Worst Scientists
- “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- A Real Hockey Stick
- A Real Hockey Stick
- Doubling Energy Costs
- Doubling Energy Costs
- “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Australia Permanent Drought Update
- Let Them Burn Wood
- “New computer modeling”
- Climate Destroying Shrimp
- What’s At Stake?
- Too Hot To Live
- What’s At Stake?
- “The world began to end on 12th May 2024”
- “Climate change is a myth”
- Racist Gas
- RFK Jr. Discusses The Green New Deal And Climate
- “world is on edge of climate abyss, UN warns”
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
Recent Comments
- Bruce of Newcastle on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Conrad Ziefle on The World’s Worst Scientists
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Francis Barnett on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- arn on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- Steve Cooksey on “Trees are feasting on decades of carbon dioxide emissions”
- spren on “You Can’t Hide Your Lying Eyes”
- Jack the Insider on Doubling Energy Costs
- Conrad Ziefle on Doubling Energy Costs
- Disillusioned on Doubling Energy Costs
Yes, but you are not using enough years. The IPCC AR4 was released in 2007. It required all peer reviewed papers to be published in 2006. Those papers were based on processed data, which was only available through 2004 or 2005.
Fortunately, the U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), Center for Satellite Applications & Research (STAR), Satellite Oceanography and Climatology Division (SOCD) and Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry (LSA) have thoughtfully already completed this work, and as pointed out by a previous commenter here, found a sea level trend from Jan 2005 thru Dec 2011 of about 1.4 mm/year.
It is worse than you thought.
The NOAA 2012 report is here. The numbers given in the text (1.3 mm/year) don’t agree with those in their Table 1. Fortunately, they present a time series of the satellite data, 2005 – 2012, which agrees with the 1.6 mm/year given in the Table 1. This is nitpicking, of course, since the uncertainty is +/- 50% (i.e., 1.6 +/- 0.8), and, as with all the climate science data, the large uncertainty stands out as a major problem.
Gore save us! 140mm by 2112? That’s nearly 6 inches! The earth will be submerged, drowning Billions! If they lay their head down at the current high tide line and wait 100 years that is…if the Human race can’t cope with the sea rising by 6 inches, then we really are a mess.
Yep, the sea level rate of rise has steadily decreased for several years now. One can see the same change in the rate regardless of what year one starts at. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/delusional-climate-nutters-publish-paper-by-ignoring-facts-and-self-confirming-sea-level-rise-worse-than-we-thought/
I remember finding a serious glitch on NASA’s web site that cut tide gauge data off, and included it in one of my post card graphics:
http://s15.postimage.org/cqazn8ncb/Sea_Level_Two.jpg
The NASA page: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
Nice graphic, I like the Hansen picture on it.
Good news today!
Hansen will no longer need to invent bogus polar temperatures using a climate model. He can simply ask North Korea for the actual temperature data they gather with their new polar-orbiting scientific satellite. It could be part of NASA’s new outreach program.
“In the announcement attributed to a spokesman for the Korean Committee for Space Technology, North Korea said the rocket would carry a ‘polar-orbiting earth observation satellite’ for ‘peaceful scientific and technological’ purposes,” reports the Los Angeles Times.