In 1982, NASA showed only 8cm (3 inches) of sea level rise from 1880 to 1980 (0.8 mm/year) and almost all of that occurred prior to 1950.
They have since doubled 1880 to 1980 sea level rise to 1.6 mm/year, and have made the post-1950 pause disappear.
The graph below shows the two at the same scale, normalized to 1880. They have quadrupled post-1950 rise rates. Even so, 1.6 mm/year is hardly anything to be concerned about.
Bu it is much worse than it seems. They now ignore tide gauge data completely, and use completely fake tampered satellite data and claim 3.2 mm/year.
But even that cheating is not enough, and are now claiming 60 mm/year, which is almost 100 times larger than the rate they measured in 1982.
Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. “We’re talking about 6 meters—18 feet—and higher of sea level rise. Sea level rise might rise half a meter per century, or several meters per century.
Sea level is rising no faster than 3 inches per century. Make no mistake about it – NASA climate people are criminals engaged in fraud.
You don’t seem to realize that before the advent of satellite geodesy people simply did not know in what direction their tide gauges were moving. Shame on you.
Your comment is absurd, but even if it were relevant, the only measure which is meaningful is the relative change. If land is rising faster than the sea, then sea level rise doesn’t make any difference to humans.
And now we do know that the stable tide gauges show a steady 1.2 – 1.8mm/year rise…
…… with absolutely NO acceleration.
ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING SIGNATURE what-so-ever.
That’s because the small amount of highly beneficial warming we have had out of the COLDEST period of the whole current interglacial..
…… is based on TOTALLY NATURAL climate cycles.
There is NO anthropogenic warming factor except in the manic manipulations of a certain G Schmidt et al and his hangers-on
“people simply did not know in what direction their tide gauges were moving.”
???
Mad as a box of frogs.
Three quarters of the Yardbirds! Good band…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zywY7xXzenI
The average of all 375 NOAA-analyzed stations is 1.28 mm/yr, and the median is 1.71 mm/yr: – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/09/03/sea-level-analyst-not-possible-to-torture-coastal-tide-gauge-data-into-yielding-a-sea-level-rise-anywhere-near-3-3-mmyr/comment-page-1/#comment-1036983
Here’s some before and after from Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group:
http://oi59.tinypic.com/24e8482.jpg
“Sea level rise might rise half a meter per century, or several meters per century.”
Someone isn’t very good at primary school maths !!!
Sea level MIGHT rise x and it MIGHT rise y. Sure, it MIGHT decline also. So what.
Did they actually say anything?
I don’t think so, but it is not innocent. More like guiding the blind toward a cliff and saying, “careful it MIGHT get steep up ahead!”
Hey Snowleopard! “Did they actually say anything?”
Darn good question! Especially when one considers how they have responded in the past. “Your prediction did not come true!” “That was not a prediction. That was a SCENARIO!”
If the CAGW cultists say something that comes true, it was a prediction. If they say something that does not come true, it was a scenario. Popper must be rolling over in his grave.
The simple fact is, if CAGW cannot consistently predict (and so far is has not), it is NOT science.
Don’t dismiss it out of hand, Jason!
Instead of rejecting it you could adopt the idea and develop a new, post-popperesque theory of science. There must be an NSF grant somewhere in it and if you do it right, tenure, fame and riches will follow.
You only need to write a paper showing that climate science can and does predict everything with certainty while the properties of a chaotic system dictate that all the predictions are true simultaneously. Those that in the future turn out not to have been true were not really false because they could have become true.
Do you think for a moment that journal editors will have problems with finding enthusiastic peer-reviewers?
NASA measures sea level rise with satellites but uses surface station data instead of RSS and UAH satellite data?
NASA will use whatever has the largest error bars — and then not clearly saying what the error bars are!
It is like applying for a credit card and saying, “I make three million dollars a year, (plus or minus ten million).” Technically, you have told the truth, at least as long as you clearly say what the error range is. Sadly, NASA may say what the errors are, but usually it is on page 413, paragraph C, sub-paragraph D, clause 7. And it is in 6 point italics. In Aramaic. In light grey ink.
🙂
It is amazing what billions of dollars in funding does to torture the data, so it shows the predetermined result.
Let me know when Miami is being evacuated because of massive sea-level rise.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/10/25/fort-lauderdale-sea-level-identical-to-55-years-ago/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGkHMk_-pU8
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.