- You only need one tide gauge to detect a change in the rate of actual sea level rise
- A change in the rate of actual sea level rise would affect all tide gauges equally
The IPCC claim that sea level rise has accelerated since 1992 meets neither of these criteria, and is pure unadulterated bullshit (as Penn and Teller would say.)
If you adulterate bullshit with horseshit, you get the average pee reviewed Church and White paper.
What is needed is more pier reviews researched.
LOL. Make sure all tide gauges are pier reviewed.
No, seriously. Obama himself said the sea level rise suddenly doubled in 1992. Obama. He said it just suddenly doubled. And he didn’t ask why. All those cabinet members, including head of the EPA, and all his science advisers, such as Al Gore and John Kerry, and none of them were able to give him a verified briefing, how all the oceans of the world suddenly accelerated in 1992 and then went linear again.
You know, I think Obama might be influenced by politics.
He’s obviously under in the influence of something.
😉
Unlike Clinton, he’s been inhaling, but he’s inhaling so much CO2 his asthma and heart attacks are affecting his mind
Cocaine.
Did any “journalist” ever ask him where he got the money to buy the cocaine he admitted to using in his book??
Well if Mauna Loa is used for global CO2 from ground level up, then why not a single tide gauge for global sea level. Picking one in an area of high seismic activity might be problematic, but who’d choose to measure CO2 in an area of volcanic activity? In my opinion the rise should be pretty much the same globally. The same effect that causes the oblate spheroid shape of earth might cause an “equatorial bulge” but the change should be the same there too.
Working from the usual logic either use a Californian coastal location, or somewhere near Sumatra. That way we can ‘adjust’ out the errors to get the
requiredcorrect figures. 🙂Ben, I’ve always said Honolulu is the best tide gauge.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1612340
The Pacific plate is not rising or sinking like a continent, the island of Oahu is old and geologically stable, the gauge is on a giant monolithic mass of lava floating on the mantle, it’s in the middle of an ocean so is not subject to any tidal weirdness from continents, and it’s not on the equator which would subject it to trade winds which change during El Nino and Nina, it’s pretty much the only tide gauge you need. The record is very old and unbroken, and shows no acceleration whatsoever. Honolulu, no ka oi, eh bruh? Da kine Honolulu tide gauge is da kine accurate, eh?
Don’t you mean the gauge is moving past a hot spot and attached to a crumbling, eroding mass of lava in a chain of crumbling eroding rising and sinking lava islands that have both erupted, been islands, eroded, collapsed and sank at one end of the chain and the other end where the sea floor is working it’s way up to the surface at the Loihi Seamount… that geologically stable location? You might want to consider someplace where the geology doesn’t change the real estate quite so often. (I have friends who bought a lot and before they could build it settled a couple of meters and the roads were cut off by lava flows.)
Funny but in the last few decades, apart from locations with obvious geological problems, I know of no port authority, navy, shipping company, boatbuilders’ yard, sailing clubs, etc., that has ever complained of accelerating sea level rise causing them problems.
I would have thought they would notice.
The good thing about the tide gauge record is that the original data seems to be intact. I first downloaded the 1260 PSMSL tide gauges in 2009 and I’ve gone back to see if any adjustments have been made, and it looks like there haven’t been any, unlike the satellite record which has the sticky fingerprints of Political Activist/Scientists all over it.
Speaking of Hawaiian tide gauges, there are six with records back to the ’50s with Honolulu and Hilo back to 1927 and 1906. Overall, they average 1.6 mm/yr and for the last 30 years 1.2 mm/yr.
A tide gauge.
http://youtu.be/ja0jS_toKxk
The late, great John Daly was my first introduction into CAGWing scepticism. He was also an expert at demolishing the exaggerations of warmists, including supposed sea level accelerations:
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm
Morner’s latest paper selects a site where there hasn’t been any uplift or subsidence over past 8000 years, finds 0.81 mm/year sea level rise since 1890, with no acceleration:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/sea-level-rise-less-than-1mm-for-last-125-years-nils-axel-morner/
Other papers confirming no acceleration in this post:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/national-climate-assessment-claims-sea.html
0.81 mm is not much— about 3.2 inches per century.
Which is probably within the margin of error…so, effectively, sea rise is nil.
I understand the logic of this statement, and it would be true if there was no change in areas of land rising and fall. In one location so much below surface water was used that land actually fell by four feet and of course then, since it was by the ocean, sea level appeared to rise by four fet.
You missed the real point here. Read Ben Vorlich’s post above.