Sea level rise in 20th century was fastest in 3,000 years, study finds
February 22, 2016
“The 20th century rise was extraordinary in the context of the last three millennia – and the rise over the last two decades has been even faster,” said Robert Kopp, the lead author and an associate professor in Rutgers’ Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences.
Sea level rise in 20th century was fastest in 3,000 years, study finds
Amazing because in 1990, the IPCC said the exact opposite.
Climate experts are not scientists. They make up fake studies in exchange for government grants.
Sea level alarm is not supported by facts.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/sea-level-rise-just-the-facts/
we left Factland a long time ago
maybe they will teach the science of SLR at free college
along with how climate change caused the Crusades
Thanks Ron, saved me posting the Sydney tide chart 🙂
I defy any person to find and tide gauge in the NOAA data that actually has any acceleration.
There is absolutely ZERO anthropogenic signal in the world’s sea level tide gauges.
Nor in the satellite altimetry era. And they cannot solve the closure problem in both tide guages and sat alt: Observed SLR does not equal sum of estimated ice sheet melt plus estimated thermosteric rise. Oops.
This study is garbage, judging from the Phys.org article and the abstract.
1. Brand new statistical methods. Last time we saw those in climate science they produced Mann’s bogus hockey stick.
2. 24 new sites around world: archeological, saltnwater marsh, coral reefs. Carefully selected so neither geological subsidence nor uplift over 3000 years? Did not yet check th SI since not yet available.
3. The clincher. Found surprising SLR sensitivity to temperature! ‘Sea levels declined markedly (according to the new statistics) from 1000 to 1400, a period when global mean temperature dropped 0.2C.’ A) There is no temperature paleoproxy that accurate. B) Temperatures rose rather than dropped during the aforesaid medieval warm period. Viking ruins on Greenland are proof, as are any number of non-Mannian paleoclimate reconstructions, most which have the MWP as warm or warmer than now. For sure in Greenland, where Viking burials are now encased in permafrost. Sea levels found statistically to fall during the MWP means either the statistics are bad or the 24 sites were geologically rising, or both. Should never have gotten through peer on basic general knowledge grounds.
Ok then. Antarctic ice has been actually increasing. The Greenland ice sheet is thicker now than it was 1,000 years ago. SO WHERE DID THE WATER COME FROM?
SUVs.
The first widespread introduction of catalytic converters was in the United States automobile market. To comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s stricter regulation of exhaust emissions, gasoline-powered vehicles starting with the 1975 model year must be equipped with catalytic converters.[1][2][3][4] These “two-way” converters combined oxygen with carbon monoxide (CO) and unburned hydrocarbons (HC) to produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter
Unicorn wee.
Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era?
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2011/oral/02_Thursday/Splinter%203%20SCI/04%20Nerem%20ostst_2011_nerem.pdf
Remains true today.
Besides that the satellite data had been corrected/adjusted over the years:
http://oi58.tinypic.com/331k5ya.jpg
TY for that. Had not known this. The earlier estimate is closer to geostationary tide gauges, and moves the closure problem to within simple estimation error.
It’s because,, the University Of Colorado runs a parallel diploma – corrupting data.
Scuttled science.
😀
I am finding that my daily dose of scientific malfeasance is increasingly depressing me.
So, for a little enlightenment. check out RISTVAN’S contribution a few days ago at Climate ETC 🙂
?? Provide contra details there or here, please. Or did you mean /sarc? Am willing to engage on facts. Not troll BS.
Didn’t Marty explain this to us a few months ago? The sea level is rising out in the middle of the oceans, not at the coasts. That’s why the tide gauges aren’t showing it, but the altimeters do.
Yes, he actually said that. No, I’m too lazy to go looking for the quote.
And one day in the very near future, the intra ocean sea-level bubble will overcome the offshore breezes keeping it at bay and come racing in as a massive tidal wave swamping 50% of the global population and only people named Noah will survive.
🙂
Utnapishtim will also make it.
Until then, you should be able to water ski to shore without a boat.
Scientific American has an article on Sea Level today:
Sea Level Could Rise at Least 6 Meters
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-could-rise-at-least-6-meters/
I’ve posted there in the past, much like I post here, I don’t call them morons or climate criminals etc. All I mostly do is point out facts that are inconsistent with what their articles say and usually include links to actual data.
Today I noticed there were no comments at odds with the 6 meter claim. So I logged in to post and this little notice popped up:
Commenting has been disabled for this account, please contact [email protected] for assistance
Not very Scientific and not very American, and a very very sad state of affairs.
Yes, the MSM in most formats is engaging in ever more censorship.
After stewing over it off and on all day, I did a short search:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/powerful-global-warming-pollution-cut-by-new-u-s-rules/?responsive=false
Steve Case January 14, 2015, 11:01 PM
There are some reasons to assign CH4 with warming potential:
1. Scientific American didn’t say by mass, but the usual claim does, and CH4 has a formula weight of 16 compared to 44 for CO2, so less mass give you more parts per million.
2. At 1 or 2 ppm it doesn’t take much to double the concentration of CH4.
3. CH4 oxidizes in to yield CO2 and 4 H2O and this is probably the source of H2O^ in the stratosphere.
But 86 times? Not 85 and not 87 but 86 times? The last time I checked out the methane vs CO2 numbers, it was said to be as much as 29 times more powerful than CO2.
I’m guessing that was the post that got me tossed out.
I remember when I posted it, I had originally said “… only 29 times …,” and I changed it to “… as much as 29 times…” I thought “only” was too much of a pejorative.
They’re just following the science. The world’s leading scientist just forbid any debate on AGW:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/potus-nations-governors-no-more-202420677.html
Notice how the debate isn’t merely “over” now. You simply CAN’T debate anymore.
This is exactly, to the letter, what Ike warned us would happen if we didn’t get the government out of science. The military-industrial complex is almost universally hated, so the media always focuses on that part of his warning. But in the very same speech, he called out scientists and universities for their growing deference to the desires of the government:
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present, and is gravely to be regarded.”