http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/06/hbo-vice-climate-deniers-sea-level-rise/#comment-1892357108
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
- Protecting Endangered Species
- Record Climate Cynicism
- Record Cynicism
- The Latest In Climate Science Rhetoric
- Climate Desperation
- Artificial Stupidity
- Climate Obsession
- The Climate Empire Strikes Back
- Climate Scam Parrots
- “I’ve dealt with him before ”
- “I’ve dealt with him before.”
- “BE HONEST”
- Turn Out The Lights – The Party’s Over
- Net Zero In The UK
- Turn Out The Lights, The Party Is Over
- Michael Mann Again
- Over The Target
- Michael Mann’s Latest Research
- “an amazing documentary dismantling the climate change theory”
Recent Comments
- feathers on Ivy Echo Chamber
- Bert on Ivy Echo Chamber
- Conrad Ziefle on Climate Homicide
- Conrad Ziefle on Climate Homicide
- Russell Cook on Climate Homicide
- czechlist on Ivy Echo Chamber
- Russell Cook on Climate Homicide
- Dan A Sinema on Climate Homicide
- MLH on Homophobic Gas
- Billyjack on Climate Homicide
Computer climate models predicting 6’ sea level increases for NYC are most likely based on major melting of the ice sheets. Let’s check in with the global experts on GCMs, IPCC AR5 TS.6.
“In some aspects of the climate system, including changes in drought, changes in tropical cyclone activity, Antarctic warming, Antarctic sea ice extent, and Antarctic mass balance, confidence in attribution to human influence remains low due to modelling uncertainties and low agreement between scientific studies. {10.3.1, 10.5.2, 10.6.1}”
“In Antarctica, available data are inadequate to assess the status of change of many characteristics of sea ice (e.g., thickness and volume). {4.2.3}”
“There is low confidence in semi-empirical model projections of global mean sea level rise, and no consensus in the scientific community about their reliability. {13.5.2, 13.5.3}”
By their own admission, IPCC GCMs cannot predict and IPCC experts cannot agree on the future behavior of ice sheets, sea ice and sea levels.
IPCC AR5 Chapter 13 – Sea Levels
Table 13.8 – medium scenario, median of range: year 2100: 425 mm (16.7”), year 2200: 675 mm (26.6”), year 2300: 890 mm (35.0”), year 2400: 1055 mm (41.5”), year 2500: 1250 mm (49.2”)
The projected worst, worst, worst case cause for the current sea level hysteria spreads out over the next 485 years.
TS.SM.3.4.2 Plotting Techniques
The published Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) datasets use arbitrary and different reference periods where they start from zero. Furthermore, the altimetry data begins only in 1993. Therefore, the datasets have been aligned in Figure SPM.3d to a common reference period of time using the following steps:
1. The longest running record (Church and White, 2011) is taken as the reference to which all other datasets are aligned.
2. GMSL from Church and White (2011) is calculated relative to the average for the period 1900–1905, and the resulting value for the year 1993 (127 mm) is identified.
3. All other records are then adjusted to give the same value of 127 mm in 1993 (i.e., for each dataset the offset required to give 127 mm in 1993 is applied to all annual values in that dataset).
Couldn’t get any good, consistent, actual data, so IPCC “adjusted” and “aligned” to confirm their bias.
“…Couldn’t get any good, consistent, actual data, so IPCC “adjusted” and “aligned” to confirm their bias.”
Yet there are other studies that show long term the sea levels are falling not rising.
STUDY #1
A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier
So MINIMUM glacier extent was ~900 cal yr BP and earlier while the highest glacier activity (glaciers increasing in size) is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP.
STUDY #2
Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue
Again land ice is building not melting.
STUDY #3
Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits
Translation the sea level was up to 1.5 meters higher than today in a tectonically stable area ~5000 years ago to 2000 years ago.
STUDY #4
Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii
This study shows a sea level highstand ~1.6 meter above the present level from ~5500 years ago to 2000 years ago.
STUDY #5
Sea Level Changes Past Records and Future Expectations
Three very different sets of observations and ALL point to a falling not rising sea level.
Then there are the sea ports that are now inland. For example Ephesus in western Turkey was a port during Roman times. It is now about 6 miles inland from the coast.
A nice analysis of various ports with photos: The Rising Sealevel Myth
Turkey of course was not siting under a mile high glacier so there is no rebound.
Tectonics: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/year/2003/2003_05_01_maps.php
Gail, I am a bit confused on the last point regarding earths rotation rate. If the mass moves closer to the center, the rotation accelerates. Land Ice is higher then sea ice, and so, at first thought, I would think that land ice melting would be moving the mean mass closer to the center = faster rotation.
Thinking further though, perhaps this is balanced by a larger area (the oceans) rising?
So the only mean change would be the density change of ice going to liquid?
Y’oughtta ask ’em why Water Street in Manhattan is so named. They might also do well to puzzle out why it isn’t like it once was.
You’re expecting them to, a) research and understand the science behind natural, physical processes, b) read and understand unaltered historical information and, hardest of the three c) use logic or reason or science or, God forbid, common sense to get a valid answer. Not guessin’ they’ll be figuring that one out any time soon…
And that, neilszoo, is exactly the problem. We have a populace who are scientifically, economically, historically, and politically illiterate. They are all trying to get positive affirmation from the ‘cool’ crowd, which at this point is the alarmists (they are media masters w/o scruples). While on a 1:1 basis we can usually ‘win over’ one person, the challenge is how we open the minds and eyes of the masses. I’m open to suggestions…
The alarmists get the traction because they are selling a comfortable lie. It’s easy to sell something people belive in. They’ve been taught the alarmist lie as school children.
Canal street too.
This quote is a real goody Nick.
“In Antarctica, available data are inadequate to assess the status of change of many characteristics of sea ice (e.g., thickness and volume). {4.2.3}”
“There is low confidence in semi-empirical model projections of global mean sea level rise, and no consensus in the scientific community about their reliability. {13.5.2, 13.5.3}”
What an understatement.
Holocene sea-level change and ice-sheet history in the Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica
The above is a RELATIVE sea level. The area is not tectonically stable because the area has isostatic uplift in response to deglaciation from the Wisconsin Ice Age. The same applies to the following study.
A new Holocene relative sea level curve for the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica
nora(DOT)nerc.ac.uk/15786/
Don’t want the public to see those studies now do we? … OH LOOK a 0.01mm Squirrel!
Stupid is as stupid does and there is rien plus bête q’un socialiste
Don’t talk to CB. He’s widely known to be as dumb as a giant box of really dumb rocks.
Talking to CB is like talking to the space between the rocks.
Correct. Having any back and forth with CB is like shining a light into a black hole. Where logic goes to die.
The turnips are feeling a sense of relief at not being invoked here 🙂
I may be only handing ammunition to climate scientists such as Hank Johnson ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjG958lZ1KI ) and the “global warming” boys that cry WOLF WOLF WOLF” and the Chicken Littles in the mainstream news media–but LAND also rises and sinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_uplift
So, is it sea level rising or land sinking? Or land rising and sea level falling?
See http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
Welcome to the discussion. Yes, correct, and there are different reasons for the rising and falling. You will hear many of us mention ‘isostatic rebound’, which is the land rising after being compressed by thousands of feet of ice during the last ice age (look at the arrows in Canada). You will hear us discuss plate tectonics, which can have a rising or falling effect. You will hear us discuss subsidence, as in New Orleans. And therein is both a problem and an opportunity for understanding.
As I’ve said previously, “they” can’t even get a 1 mm-accurate read on the elevation of Mt. Everest–and it’s standing still (of course, that’s a ‘relative to sea level’ measure–and sea level itself is arguably the problem). Now think about the surface of the oceans, influenced by storms, wind, currents, tectonics, etc. What the h_ll is mean sea level? We have a rough sense of it, but anyone claiming a 1 mm accuracy is building that account on a string of mathematical assumptions and, frankly, constructs. Add to the mix the varying impact of dams, irrigation, groundwater pumping, and so on, and it gets a bit boggled, doesn’t it?
So let’s revert to tide gauges as at least relatively constant vehicles for measurement. And what do you see? No ‘escalating’ threat of mean sea level rise. None. And this point alone *should* disarm the alarmists–but they can’t think on their own. They can’t digest raw data. They need to be spoon-fed information that caters to their guilty-for-existing sentiments. It’s all rather sad, not the least because it falls on the pessimistic view of things, but arguably more so because it shows us that a huge portion of people live in la-la land–and won’t be budged from it. But despite that, we need to keep trying…and selfless efforts like Tony’s (and the major contributions from Gail–you’re a rock star) are foundational to that campaign.
I’m going to claim that a silly little millimeter is not statistically significant. What about instrumentation error? Erosion? Build-up from precipitation or air pollution or the ground swelling due to temperature variations? See a single millimeter difference annually and it is meaningless. An entire meter difference in a single month might be significant–in context. Six meters of snow cap on Mount Everest (in a “hotter” world) is still isolated. ‘
Both land and sea are moving. Pick any three spots in the ocean and odds are that they are not the same altitude from Earth’s center–if you can designate a point that is “center.”
Why don’t we panic over the Earth’s air ocean? Depending upon latitude, this ocean may be ten miles deep or close to thirty–and it isn’t a distinct boundary as is the water world and air world. Matter of fact, the boundary between ocean and shore is porous. The sea bottom isn’t “dry” either, but water-saturated! Pick a specific air temperature or “boundary layer” for the air ocean and latitude will cause the depth of the air ocean (hence its ceiling) to vary by miles. Now add in the difference in altitude between day side and night side. Wait! Hurricanes have a low pressure center–a “hole” in the atmosphere. I’m missing out on an opportunity for fame and riches and glory–
–oh wait, the “hole in the ozone layer” kids got there first. Damn! http://www.theozonehole.com/ Just for the record, the Ozone “Hole” is at a place where the atmosphere is thinner anyway.
Sounds almost like “denial,” doesn’t it? Someone has developed a single metric (my tea leaves made this pattern!) and I claim that in the grand scheme of things their ‘news’ isn’t even a blip on the global radar screen.
The biggest problem is you tell them the rate they are referring to results from a change in methodologies and they don’t even care. Shows the utter lack of scientific integrity.
There are 71 tide gauges on the East Coast, and 43 have reasonably long records that can be analysed. Totaled up the last 30 years of data for those 43 gauges averages out to a rate of 2.5 mm/yr. The highest rate was 5.1 mm/yr for the 30 year period ending in 1953, and the 30 year period ending in 1929 was a minus -0.2 mm/yr.
Does your tide gauge analysis correct for glacial isostatic rebound, ie, the US east coast is sinking since the disappearance of the Laurentide Ice Sheet?
You don’t need to correct for it. You measure it. The difference between scientists and science frauds is scientists measure things and explain them, science frauds correct the data and then lie about it.
Glacial isostatic rebound is linear, not accelerating. Sea level rise is linear. Not accelerating. The conclusion is perfectly clear.
Tony, you may find this to be an interesting comment
Nick Stokes
March 6, 2015 at 3:16 pm
I did a similar analysis of Boulder data here.
“Never the less i wonder if it gives any meaning to prefer one type of measurement for the other.”
No one is saying that any TOB is better. The point of the TOBS adjustment is to fix what happens when the time (TOB) is changed.
==================================================
And here I thought it had to do with times recorded once per day in the afternoon, and the following days high was lower then the beginning of that days 24 hour period, which was actually the day before right after the previous days reading was taken.
Every 20 years or so you have to move your beach chair inland about an inch. Terrifying
The fight against sea level rise is a fight for the rich and powerful. It is they, for the most part, which own the sea side property and assets that the government has not reserved. And the poor, such as those in New Orleans, enjoy disproportional Federal benefits and protections also.
I personally object to the fact that we who do not reside on the sea shore and coastal areas are expected through our tax dollars, to bear the greatest portion of the financial burden for insuring those that do. Those that live in tornado alley nor those that live in river basins that sometimes flood, enjoy such a level of nationalized disaster benefits, nor Federal investment in preventative measures, as those that live in the coastal regions.
Unfortunately, basic calculus is beyond some people.