The big White House push this week is to convince people that rising sea level due to Mann-made CO2 is going to come drown them.
Let’s test that theory out. The graph below plots Manhattan sea level vs atmospheric CO2. When CO2 was below 310 PPM, sea level rose four times faster than it has above 310 PPM.
Sea level data : Data and Station Information for NEW YORK ( THE BATTERY)
Recent CO2 data : ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
Older CO2 data : cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat
This experiment took me ten minutes, and completely obliterates the theory that lowering CO2 would reduce sea level rise rates. Why is it that our top scientists can’t perform the most basic tests of correlation with their $29 billion/year?
Science should be about testing hypothesis with observable, replicable, experiential data and facts. In this vein as you have proven here for eg. Co2 does not correlate with anything be it sea level, climate, heat, cooling, weather…..the cult of Gaia, is a paleolithic cult dedicated to lies, money and power. That is all it is.
Cute, Steve, but the terms “rate” and “faster” refer to a change over time, and your horizontal axis is not time, so that’s not a “rate.” Rather, your horizontal axis is CO2 level, which has been increasing much faster since the 1940s than it did before the 1940s. That “stretches out” the right-hand end of the graph, which accounts for the flattening apparent in the right-hand 2/3 of your graph.
In fact, the sea-level trend at The Battery (NYC) has been rising linearly over time, with modest fluctuations, but no persistent change in rate, for the last >90 years. You can see that in NOAA’s graph, here:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
and also in PSMSL’s graph, here:
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/12.php
Their claim is that increasing CO2 is accelerating sea level rise rates. I am showing that if sea level is controlled by CO2 as they claim, the relationship is the exact opposite.
Actually, sea-level rise rates seem blissfully unaware of their supposed CO2 puppetmasters. The rate of sea-level rise is is about the same now as it was 80 years (and 90 ppm CO2) ago.
Right… CO2 has nothing to do with the sublimation of the East Coast right?
Thus, no matter how many miles driven in your SUV, or hours spent on that coal fired computer… No matter how much Methane the cows we eat fart into the air… Manhattan is DOOMED!! Doomed I say in about 200 years +\- 500…
GEE, if you believe CO2 has something to do with a warming climate you just ‘Proved” the log relationship and saturation. graph
If sea level is rising linearly over time, it must have something to do with time. Best guess is the rebound of the North American plate. The southern half of the plate is sinking while the northern part of the plate is rising. The rate of this rebound depends on geological things such as viscosity of the mantle under the plate.
Frog sits on the north end of a log floating in a pond, weighing it down. Frog jumps off, the north end of the log rebounds and the southern end sinks. There is your sea level rise.
That’s called post-glacial rebound (PGR), and it and local subsidence (because Battery Park is reclaimed ocean, a/k/a fill dirt!) account for roughly half of the sea-level rise at The Battery tide gauge.
There’s also at least 100 cubic miles of grounded ice melting and running into the oceans, from various places in the world, every year. That also contributes (a little bit) to sea-level rise.
You forgot the other 1/2 of the equation. Northern Hemisphere snow has increased and over the last few hundred years the N. H. glaciers have re-established/grown.
The Holocene Highstand (highest seal level) was thousands of years ago.
A more recent paper looking at glaciers in Norway.
The authors of these papers simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial growth has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% (~120 kW/m² ) less solar energy.
Yeah, I know what it’s called, and can even figure out the abbreviation PGR (isn’t it impressive how the global warming mafia abbreviates everything so they can pretend to be some sort of experts, because experts abbreviate everything to impress). I can abbreviate too, it’s called BS.
Isn’t it wonderful that you can describe the grounded glaciers (GG’s) from various parts of the world (VPOTW) and forget to mention how much snow is accumulating and glaciating in inland Antarctica and Greenland, and whether it balances the melting from the GG’s and calving. It does, and then some. Don’t tell me how many cubic miles of ice are melting without also telling us how many cubic miles are building up, because it might make me thing you are using BS as actual science.
Battery Park is NOT reclaimed ocean, you moron, and it’s not a dirt fill. It’s the exact location where the Dutch settled Manhattan in 1624, on bedrock, and it’s been there for thousands of years. What you are talking about is Battery Park City, which is a new part of Manhattan Island west of the World Trade Center, and was built from landfill from the dirt excavated from the construction of the first WTC in the 1970’s. Nice try. You threw out your manufactured lie about Battery Park, hoping it would convince your opponents, but you didn’t realize you were talking to a Native New Yorker (NNY) and I call BS on you. Battery Park City is 5 blocks west and 10 blocks north of Battery Park, and was built in the 1970’s. Battery park itself, where they measure sea level and have been measuring it for hundreds of years, is at the southern tip of Manhattan, on bedrock, where South Ferry is, south of Bowling Green, near Fraunce’s Tavern, where George Washington came to New York City to address the new and amazing country called the USA, which you obviously hate……..come to NYC and let me show you around, you pathetic excuse for a real moron (PEFARM). I’ll show you a good time. And next time you feel like making up a lie about NYC, just shut the …. (STFU).
What really disgusts me is that you would throw out lies like that, making stuff up as you go along. You global warming commies are a disgrace to the human race. Really, you are the enemies of the human race.
I worry about the rate of increase of friendly fire.
Welllll okay, then. “Friendly fire,” indeed.
Thanks for the info, Gail. 600 years ago would be LIA, which makes sense. I think more glaciers have been retreating than advancing over the last couple hundred years, though. At Glacier Bay, AK, the glaciers were practically galloping in retreat in the 18th and 19th centuries, though the rate of retreat is now much slower.
Morgan, that “at least 100 cubic miles of grounded ice melting and running into the oceans, from various places in the world, every year” is the net ice loss, i.e., ice melt less snow & ice accumulation. It sounds like a lot, but in the global scheme of things it is tiny, and means that annual ice loss & accumulation are close to being equal. 100 cubic miles of melting ice adds only 1.05 mm of depth to the world’s oceans.
Of course both snow & ice accumulation and melt, individually, are much larger. The magnitude of ice accretion from snowfall was illustrated by the team which salvaged Glacier Girl from under 268 feet of accumulated ice, 50 years after she landed on the Greenland ice sheet:
I’m not from NYC, so I had to rely on other sources for my information about your city. Perhaps this is wrong:
At The Battery sea-level rise averages 2.82 mm/yr, but at nearby Kings Point it averages only 2.48 mm/yr. My assumption was that the difference is due to local land subsidence at The Battery, due to its history of enlargement by landfills.
Peltier’s VM2 model estimates 1.7 mm/yr of that (at both locations) to be due to GIA/PGR, but his numbers are best considered a very rough estimate. My guess is that his VM2 number is on the high side, and that global (“eustatic”) sea-level rise is about half of The Battery’s 2.82 mm/yr, with PGR+subsidence accounting for the rest.
Sorry, I misunderstood your post. I had too much wine with my dinner last night.
Too much wine! This calls for a beer summit.
Rates can be per any unit, which is why the term “exchange rate”, referring to one money for another, is valid. SG is giving us the rate of sea-level rise per unit CO2, rather than per unit time.
Okay, you’re right, there are uses of “rate” that don’t involve time. I stand corrected. But not in this context, which is in conjunction with the word “faster.”
So the lapse rate is a change over time. Thanks. I learn a lot here.
Conceded. I was wrong about the word “rate.”
But “rising faster” refers to rate per unit of time.
Hum?, as the rate of CO2 increase has been fairly linear over time, it is, in effect, both.
Actually, the rate of CO2 increase has not been fairly linear. It has accelerated dramatically since the early 20th century. CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa are increasing by a an average of more than 2 ppm per year, now. But from 1958 to 1968 they increased only about 7.5 ppm (i.e., at about 1/3 the current rate).
Guesstimating from the graph, it appears that over the last 15 years or so the acceleration has declined, and the rate of CO2 increase might be becoming almost linear. But Steve’s graph goes back much longer than 15 years.
Here are some more graphs for you Steve:
Total number of Political Action Committees (US) correlates with People who died by falling out of their wheelchair [ROTFLTAO]
and
US spending on science, space, and technology correlates with Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation
Notice how the correlations are much better than Obummers correlation.
More great correlation graphs HERE.
LOL, thanks Gail.
———————-
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” – Mark Twain
a bend in the curve like that usually indicates a change in measuring protocol/location/etc. Are we doing apples to apples here…??
CO2 is rising much faster since 1960
As I showed in the graph above it follows the log curve of the CO2 effect.
Gail, pardon my ignorance here but are you saying the forcings are driving CO2 change?
No, I am being sarcastic.
Actually it is temperature changes of the ocean that drives CO2 as well as the amount of CO2 sequestered as rock by the oceans. CO2 has been gradually reduced to plant starvation levels by the chemical/biological processes in the oceans/swamps/lakes that gave us limestone, dolomite, marble and chalk not to mention peat and coal.
Mankind is puny in comparison.
Gail, didn’t even see it. (Sarc). Thanks
“Why is it that our top scientists can’t perform the most basic tests of correlation with their $29 billion/year?”
The $29 billion/year .
These “scientists” are using ‘commie core’ math.
These “scientists” are closely correlated to the $29 billion/year.
Indeed….the debate is over. Top models make the big bucks.
Most routines that make the calculations and graphs, such as you use, allow you to set the number of digits to the right of the decimal place. You should be able to have the top function look like this: f(x) = 2.19x + 6281.47
The issue is called “false precision” or sometimes other names. In any case, the “.47” in the statement above seems to relate to mm. and thus to less than ½ mm. Adding on 8 more digits to a level of precision not even pronounceable is distracting and useless.
“…Adding on 8 more digits to a level of precision not even pronounceable is distracting and useless.”
…
But it is SOOOooooo Climate Science.
The false precision makes me want to scream. All they are doing is measuring noise and error.
Steven, thought you would get a kick out of this one – Alarmist Paul Ehrlich Predicts Need to ‘Eat the Bodies of Your Dead’
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/05/22/alarmist-paul-ehrlich-predicts-need-eat-bodies-your-dead#ixzz32TYkTbTy
Oh, good grief. The man’s looney tunes.
It is called recycling and composting. The earth has been doing it since the first bacteria evolved and well before we did. Otherwise we would be miles deep in un-decomposed bodies.
“Oh, good grief. The man’s looney tunes.”
An already well-established fact.
Again, people aren’t interested in whether or not someone is correct; it’s about how scary their scenarios are, and how closely related to “saving the planet” or “humans are evil” it is.
Sadly, those that give these ideas merit are either too stupid to realise why, or just greedy because they can sell this tripe to the stupid, or both.
“it’s about how scary their scenarios are, and how closely related to “saving the planet” or “humans are evil” it is. ”
Yes!
People eat air. And water. And food. But people “eat” memes as well. Just like some people are addicted to junk food, some people are addicted to junk memes. Instead of a sugar rush, they get a self-stroking ego rush. Swallowing the CAGW scam lets you experience “I will save the world with my understanding of Deep Science!”
Healthy thinkers look for the truth. Sick thinkers look for an ego boost.
Mark,
Do you have a brother called Stefan?
http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/author/stefanthedenier/
Ehrlich’s Global Warming Zombie Apocalypse
Despite the fact that the sea has not risen in any noticeable way in decades, and that temperatures have flatlined for 17+ years, and that there is zero (zilch) actual evidence that CO2 causes climate warming, despite all this, our friend Paul Ehrlich (Stanford biologist) has just come out and said that climate change will soon cause us to “eat bodies of the dead.” http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/05/22/alarmist-paul-ehrlich-predicts-need-eat-bodies-your-dead
“I’m 37, and I’d like to live to be 67 in a reasonably pleasant world, not die in some kind of holocaust in the next decade.” -Paul Ehrlich, 1971
“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” -Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.” -Paul Ehrlich
It’s snowing in Big Bear Lake, CA right now. May 22nd.
Yeah, it’s a wet snow. Snow nevertheless.
Don’t believe me about the snow in Big Bear? Well here’s a tweet from Tara Wells:
Another article just out 2 minutes ago from KTLA Channel 5: http://ktla.com/2014/05/22/snow-falls-in-big-bear-amid-socal-cold-low-pressure-system/#axzz32UBE3pwr
If the sea level keeps rising, won’t the Manhattan polar bears drown?
No they will just migrate to DC and move into U.S. Capitol Building. It’s on a plateau 88 feet above the level of the Potomac.
Alternatively, they could cruise down to SoCal and take up residence at LAX.
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/how-the-earths-temperature-looks-on-an-alcoholthermometer/
It’s always about “The SCALE of the matter” isn’t it??