Record Slow Arctic Melt Continues

Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper.

  • George Orwell

Arctic sea ice volume is the highest for the date in 13 years, and melt is the slowest on record.

Spreadsheet    Data

FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180611.png (1337×1113)

Greenland surface mass gain is above normal and continues to increase.

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Sea surface temperatures around Greenland are record cold.

anomnight.6.11.2018.gif (1174×640)

Greenland is still locked in winter, days before the summer solstice.  Vikings farmed Greenland during the recently erased Medieval Warm Period, but farming would be pretty difficult in the modern cold climate.

Fullscreen — Tasiilaq

Eighty years ago, the glaciers in Greenland were “nearing catastrophic collapse”

17 Dec 1939, Page 15 – Harrisburg Sunday Courier at Newspapers.com

Arctic temperatures increased ten degrees during the first half of the 20th century.

31 May 1947 – TEMPERATURES RISING IN ARCTIC REGION – Trove

This warmth of the 1930’s and 1940’s wrecked global warming theory, so scientists who depend on global warming research funding simply erased it.

May 2018 Measured Vs. Adjusted

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

Meanwhile, scientists and the press continue their spectacular lies – saying the exact opposite of what is actually occurring.

There is not a lot of melting going on at -18C

summit:status:webcam

Prior to the information age, people had an excuse for believing deep state propaganda. But there are no excuses any more.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

199 Responses to Record Slow Arctic Melt Continues

  1. Andy DC says:

    The coffee, orange and pineapple crops are doing exceptionally well this summer with ideal growing conditions.

  2. Caleb says:

    A good sized storm plowed north from the Kara Sea right over the Pole and is now stalled and filling over the Beaufort Sea north of the Canadian Archipelago. A storm like that usually puts a good dent in sea-ice totals, but the only real change I can see is that roaring south winds, over the Laptev Sea, pushed the sea-ice north, and expanded the polynya around the mouth of the flooding Lena River.

    The west side of the storm brought north winds and record cold temperatures to western Russia, while the east side of the storm brought south winds and record high temperatures to the coast of the Laptev sea. I paid attention to this warm air as it moved out over the Arctic Sea. I fully expected an upward spike in the DMI temperature graph. Much to my surprise there was a tiny downward spike.

    How is this possible? Did the storm have a cooling effect, in some ways like a thunderstorm on a hot summer day? Was the warm air hoisted high, and cold rain and snow dropped to the surface to replace it?

    In any case the sea-ice has withstood its first challenge, and continues to surprise my socks off. I don’t think anyone really expected the uptick in “volume” we have seen.

    Invest in popcorn stocks. This could be a very interesting summer,

    • Steven Fraser says:

      Caleb,

      The effect of the storm can be seen in the 1-day DMI volume decline, bit it is still #4 for ice volume for the date (as seen in Tony’s chart), and gained 50 cu km on the next highest year, 2005. BTW 1 cu km is equivalent to 1 Gigatonne of ice.

      Stay tuned. Day-by-day, interesting!

    • Griff says:

      The storm has pushed broken ice outward, towards the south… clearly apparent in Barents, Beaufort and Chuckchi.

      so the extent holds steady with the spread of ice from the storm, yet conditions are ready for a considerable drop shortly.

      the storm removed snow from the ice, by the way, which is conducive to future melting.

      • Griff says:

        see here:
        https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/Arctic_AMSR2_nic.png

        notice also the state of Kara and Laptev seas…

      • Gator says:

        Ms Griff, you are the truly broken. You troll this site blathering on about a nonexistent problem, helping to starve millions in the process, by keeping this resource-sucking scam going. You are a broken record, bloviating on about a broken hypothesis, and enabling a broken world.

        Why are you not concerned about the recovery of starving human beings? Is it because it is all part of your grand scheme? It sure looks that way.

        Why do you hate poor brown people so much?

      • Caleb says:

        Griff,

        The snow is not “removed” from the ice, but rather turns to slush. I assume this is what you are referring to. In the colored satellite shots it is the ice that turns from white to light blue. It does absorb sunlight a bit better than the pure white snow, and therefore hasten melting a little, but the fact it is light blue is no measure of its thickness. It can be ten feet thick.

        As the recent storm moved up towards the Pole it brought a surge of warm air north on its east side, melting a lot of Siberian snow in a hurry and increasing the yearly flood in rivers aiming north. Rivers like the Lena can rise sixty feet, and when this wall of water reaches the Arctic Sea it may not be sixty feet tall any more, but it is quite capable of going over sea-ice even while it lifts it. That is one reason the fast-ice along the shores turns light blue so swiftly.

        There was an area of rain that aimed north from central Siberia, turning some sea-ice light blue, but most of the precipitation involved with the storm was fresh snow, which reflects more sunshine than anything except maybe a mirror. So perhaps it is best to reserve judgement on the long-term results of the storm.

        By the way, that Bremen map you seem to like is a favorite of Alarmists, but has a few problems. It has no distinction between thin ice and thick ice, so 70% ice that is one inch thick looks the same as 70% ice when the bergs are twelve feet thick. Also it seems have trouble with scattered ice, especially once you get down near 10%, and it can show areas of scattered ice as deep blue, as if it is open water.

        Lastly, just because the sea-ice is broken up is no sure proof it will be swift to melt. In 2012 a huge area of broken up sea-ice melted away in a hurry, while in 2013 the ice was broken up in roughly the same area and merely jostled about without melting at all. It all seems to depend on the temperature of the water under the ice, and the jury is still out on that. So probably a wait-and-see attitude is wisest. Don’t bet your entire farm on a speedy melt.

        • Griff says:

          And yet the ice in the Kara and Barents is clearly melting…

          and I can also look at the thickness maps alongside the concentration and extent…

          with your obvious knowledge I wonder why you are (apparently) trying to prop up the obviously nonsense proposition that this year is somehow ‘slower melting’ or ‘not a problem for the ice’ or ‘the volume shows it is OK’ or ‘lets just look at the DMI charts which give the most optimistic assessment’ that is the apparent object of posts here???

          • AndyG55 says:

            chuckle…

            griff’s PANIC is getting palpable.

            So funny !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “And yet the ice in the Kara… ”

            Lying heap of BS, yet again

            According to MASIE, Kara sea ice level is currently (11 Jun) above every other year back to 2006

            Barents Sea, which fluctuates like crazy from one year to the next… is above 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2016

            And yes griff, its melt season up there…
            Try not to get too exited…
            you might bed-wet yourself still.

  3. Pathway says:

    Looks like it time to move the club house again.

  4. Griff says:

    Same old stuff…

    and still no comment about what this supposedly means. It isn’t a recovery or change in arctic temps, is it?

    • tonyheller says:

      For a number of years, winter winds were pushing a lot of ice out into the North Atlantic. That pattern has reversed.

    • Gator says:

      The Arctic is doing fine, and is not in need of a “recovery”. You are a deluded genocidal nutcase.

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Prior to the information age, people had an excuse for believing deep state propaganda. But there are no excuses any more.
      Griff has an excuse …. stupid as a post!!

      • terak says:

        Is evolution deep-state propaganda too? :D adjust your pryer-beads please…

        • Gator says:

          Another pointless post from Ms Know-Nothing.

          Care to try again?

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • terak says:

            Present your evidence, if you have any Gator. No blog-publications but serious research only.

          • Gator says:

            Sorry Ms Terak, but that is not how it works. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself. So…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          • terak says:

            Make your claim and present your evidence as it’s done in sciences. Got anything to support this for example?

            “There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate,”

          • Gator says:

            Ms Terak, anyone familiar with our climate history knows that it has been both warmer and cooler in recent history.

            Now it is up to you to prove otherwise. Your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

            My ordinary claim does not require anything.

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          • Stewart Pid says:

            terak … here you go … the Cenozoic climate record with some of the events that caused the changes. Somehow I doubt you will even look at the diagram! https://www.google.com/search?q=pleistocene+glaciation&rlz=1C1ASUT_enCA665CA665&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKxJLW987bAhXEIDQIHepUAqgQsAQIpQE&biw=1366&bih=635#imgrc=2Z8XXy00CUDrtM:

          • AndyG55 says:

            “There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate,””

            pooor dumb brain-hosed terak.

            List all things unusual and unprecedented that have happened with our climate because of raised atmospheric CO2

            Backed with REAL science , of course.

            You STILL haven’t provide one iota of empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes anything but enhanced plant growth

            A few idiotic comments about CO2 absorption spectrum, but without showing you have clue what it means

            You sound like a Al Gore climate 101 reject.

          • Griff says:

            There is no reason why human CO2 cannot be an additional climate forcing influence, in additional to other forcings which are known historically to influence climate (orbital, volcanic, change in ocean currents, solar output, etc).

            given the contining increase in CO2 it would be surprising if it were not now the dominant climate forcer (given there are no orbital effects and solar output is low)

          • AndyG55 says:

            “There is no reason why human CO2 cannot be an additional climate forcing influence”

            There is no reason why it CAN be

            ZERO empirical science to support that particular brain-fart. !!

            Just take another fantasy pill and go back to Arctic sea ice bed-wetting , griff.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “given the contining increase in CO2”

            Its not surprising to see the world’s biosphere expanding

            There is ZERO empirical evidence of CO2 causing anything but enhanced plant growth.

  5. terak says:

    What is causing the present ultra-fast warming that coincides with the change of Earth’s emission spectra caused by human-induced increase of CO2? AGW explains the warming, while denialists can offer nothing concrete but just handwaving (for example “cycles”, without identifying them or their causes). Where is the beef?

    • Griff says:

      and surely the low solar output over the last decade ought actually to have had some cooling effect? where is it?

      • terak says:

        Yes Griff that was the last straw for denialists now that the cosmic rays & clouds excuse does not appear to work for them. Inconvenient to say the least if and when temperatures creep up again later this year.

      • AndyG55 says:

        griff and terak , sharing their ignorance.. Hilarious

        Do you REALLY think the huge energy stored in the oceans form the grand solar maximum of last century will dissipate that quickly

        Dumber and dumbest.. and its hard to separate which is which.

    • AndyG55 says:

      What warming

      Zero warming between 1980 and 1997.

      Zero warming between 2001 and 2015

      Only warming has come from ocean effects

      .. and not even the most brain-washed anti-science AGW cultist can rally believe that CO2 warms the oceans.

      Or maybe you are REALLY THAT DUMB. !!

      • terak says:

        Warming of the atmosphere has been around 0.15C per decade for many decades. No hiatus. Where did the warmth come from since the oceans are still warming up despite the weakened Sun…?

        • AndyG55 says:

          Sorry , data says you are WRONG

          No warming from 1980-1997

        • AndyG55 says:

          Only a moronic fool would think the sun isn’t still providing energy.

          No warming from 2001-2015

          • terak says:

            Strong warming..and this does not even cover the water column in the ocean that is both warming AND expanding. In other news: The melting of land-ice has been accelerating.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Terek, you just showed your ignorance of the UAH chart, since you claimed it is warming strongly when in reality is it warming about the same rate as the other periodic warming trends back to the 1800’s.

            The sea ice melt rate has DECLINED since the low of 2007, stop with the lies!

          • AndyG55 says:

            As I said. El Nino warming only.

            Well done for at least accepting that fact.

            Oceans warming, so its NOT CO2

            You don’t seriously “believe” that human CO2 is the cause of ocean warming.

            Not even you could be THAT DUMB.

            Or could you. ?????

          • AndyG55 says:

            glacier melt is cyclic.

          • AndyG55 says:

            even in the US

    • AndyG55 says:

      List all things unusual and unprecedented that have happened with our climate because of raised atmospheric CO2

      Backed with REAL science , of course.

      You STILL haven’t provide one iota of empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes anything but enhanced plant growth

      A few idiotic comments about CO2 absorption spectrum, but without showing you have clue what it means

      Zero clue of thermalisation.

      Zero clue of re-emittance time.

      basically…….. just zero clue. !!

      You sound like a Al Gore climate 101 reject.

      At least griff has an excuse, he is genuinely DUMB.

      • terak says:

        Andy are you one of the people that thinks CO2 is not a GHG and that the Greenhouse-effect does not even exist?

        • richard says:

          Terak , are you basing that comment on the failed test tube experiment using 500,000, 1,000,000 ppm of extra co2 compared to a test tube with around 350ppm co2.

          Moreover this site has covered the nonsense of the test tube illustrated by the fact that LW does not penetrate glass as seen in Green houses.

          You get the same effect with Argon in the same experiment which has no absorption properties.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Your squirming around the question shows that you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the way of empirical proof of CO2 warming.

          The CO2 base GHE has NEVER been observed on this planet or on any other planet

          There is NO PROOF of this failed hypothesis.

          There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but no real evidence that that additional CO2 caused warming.

          Most of the computer models that have been generated have CO2 based warming hard coded in and they thus beg the question and hence are of no real value.

          Based on the paleoclimate record and the modeling work that has been done one can say that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control.

          The AGW conjecture has some gaping holes in it, the biggest of which is that the radiant greenhouse effect has yet to be observed anywhere in the solar system.

          The radiant greenhouse effect is fiction as is the AGW conjecture.

          There is plenty of scientific rational behind the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

          If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measurable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened.

          In the troposphere conduction and convection dominate over energy transport via LWIR absorption band radiation.

          A good absorber is also a good radiator so whatever LWIR energy a CO2 molecule absorbs and does not share with all the molecules it encounters, the CO2 molecule radiates away and hence does not trap heat.

          After more than two decades of effort the IPCC has failed to measure the climate sensitivity of CO2.

          They have been unable to narrow their range of initial guesses, one iota.

          Apparently, there is no climate sensitivity of CO2 to measure.

          You have NOTHING except brain-hosed mindless rhetoric, terak

          and I suspect you KNOW that.

          • terak says:

            GHE has not been observed anywhere? Is that what you are saying?

          • AndyG55 says:

            Show us where CO2 GHE warming effect has been measured and quantified with empirical measurements.

            Or just remain EMPTY, terak.

          • terak says:

            You should study something, this is just one of several:

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003GL018765

          • sunsettommy says:

            Terek,

            That link you posted doesn’t even answer his and Gators question.

            They don’t dispute that CO2 absorbs some of the IR, but rightfully say it is a very small effect on the energy budget.

            You show once again how little you really know with your weak replies.

          • Gator says:

            Ms Terak’s link concludes…

            We have shown that longwave downward radiation flux increases at Earth’s surface can be accurately measured, subdivided and explicitly explained and backed with model calculations as cloud‐, temperature‐, water vapour‐ and enhanced greenhouse gas radiative forcing effect.

            That might be correct, if they actually could list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all. But they cannot, so their claims are empty, like Ms Terak’s head.

          • AndyG55 says:

            terak , you basically have ZERO idea what you are talking about

            You have been told some nonsense and given some nonsense links, but you are SO DUMB that you don’t even realise that they DO NOT provide proof of warming.

            And did you notice “cloud cover”

            Ceres shows DECREASING GLOBAL DWLWR.

          • AndyG55 says:

            so increasing cloud cover, in one tiny part of the world,

            and then “Model calculations show….. ”

            roflmao !!!

            and you really fall for this stuff? Seriously !!

            GULLIBLE !!!

          • AndyG55 says:

            temperature Alps.

      • Griff says:

        Aw. thanks for those kind words. You are genuinely dumb too!

  6. Gator says:

    Still waiting for the settled science and basic physics peanut gallery to respond to my oh so simple questions…

    1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    This is how science works ladies, get to it!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Hey gator,

      They are like a pair of eels in a pond full of putrid green slime, as they ooze and slither their way around avoiding answering the questions.

      Hilarious to watch them :-)

    • terak says:

      Sea-level is rising faster due to increased land ice losses. It’s curious that sea-level was stable for millennia until the 19th century. A very odd and inconvenient coincidence…

      • Tim A says:

        Yes…they had such accurate measurements millennia ago. They have one buoy for every 2 thousand square miles of ocean…..what could possibly go wrong?

      • Gator says:

        It’s curious that sea-level was stable for millennia until the 19th century

        LOL

      • Gator says:

        Still waiting ladies…

        1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

        2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourselves.

        Need a shot of Ritalin to focus?

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Sea-level is rising faster”

        WRONG !!

      • AndyG55 says:

        “curious that sea-level was stable for millennia until the 19th century.”

        ROFLMAO

        Oh dearie me.. It must REALLY HURT to be so darn IGNORANT !!

      • AndyG55 says:

        Historic sea levels

        • terak says:

          That is unlikely to be a global chart plus you did not provide the reference. That’s a fail.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Terek, once again show ignorance since 95% of all sea level increase already occurred 2,000 years ago:

          • sunsettommy says:

            I notice Terek is going to ignore this chart that showed around an increase in Sea Levels of over 330 feet in just a few thousand years, yet Man, Polar Bears, Eskimos, and unfortunately leftists are still around.

          • RAH says:

            Well I’m exiting stage left to mow my acre so now maybe she’ll have time to address it.

          • terak says:

            6000 years or more of stable sea level rise….and today the news is contribution from Antarctica has tripled since 2012.

            https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44470208

          • sunsettommy says:

            Your misleading paper doesn’t address my POST-GLACIAL sea level chart at all.

            Snicker………………………………

          • Gator says:

            The Beebs is a peer reviewed journal? Who knew? LOL

            So the increased melt is mounding up in the middle of the oceans, but not effecting coastlines. Got it!

            What a fool believes…

          • Gator says:

            A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

            Ahhhh, settled science and basic physics! LOL

          • terak says:

            That old single NASA-study is outdated, sorry folks, Antarctica is changed. Small wonder sea-level rise appears to be accelerating.

          • sunsettommy says:

            Terek, you are now going into troll territory since you keep avoiding valid debate points.

            Gators papers is NOT out of date, that is your desperate deflection because it doesn’t fit your narrative you want to believe.

            You keep ignoring the fact that we survived a much bigger sea level increase rate that lasted for a few thousand years.

            Yet here we are today.

            Your STUPID alarmist bullcrap is so annoying and well boring and yeah still stupid.

          • Gator says:

            Ms Terak is now a confirmed liar as well as a certifiable idiot. She rejects a recent NASA study because it is heresy to her religion, and sticks by the Beeb because it confirms what she believes.

            Total troll.

          • AndyG55 says:

            YOU are the FAILURE, terak.

            You post only scientifically unsupportable propaganda NONSENSE.

            .. and you are a down and out LIAR.

            You can’t even answer questions put to you.

            PATHETIC.

            And yes it was global

      • AndyG55 says:

        Anyone see any sea level rise ?

        • AndyG55 says:

          meant to add ” acceleration”

        • terak says:

          Key West is not globally representative. Fail.

          • neal s says:

            From terak who wrote “Highest sea-level rise rates have happened in the open ocean.”

          • RAH says:

            Tide gauges are not reflecting the rate of increase in SLR the globalist Alarmists say is happening and thus the institution of satellite “data” that can be manipulated to support the lie of a catastrophic increase in the rate of SLR. But it won’t work because as a practical matter nobody with two brain working brain cells will believe a word of it until the practical effects are felt and they aren’t anywhere that the coastal land is stable.

          • terak says:

            RAH the altimeter-data is free and openly available. Basically anyone willing to invest in developing Mean Sea Level retrievals is free to do so. Expect this to me a multi-decade relatively expensive overtaking if you are starting from scratch. Again, denialists have failed to contribute to this field of science. BIG SURPRISE!

          • Gator says:

            Yes Ms Terak, natural climate change denialists, AKA science deniers, have failed to contribute to anything but fraud and starvation of millions.

            Once again…

            1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

            2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

            There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

            Still waiting…

          • RAH says:

            And presented as accurate even when it does not agree with the tide gauges. Like I said the deception won’t work because in the end only practical local effects will change the public’s actions and not any propaganda in any form.

          • RAH says:

            “Have you ever noticed that whenever NASA or NOAA presents a graph of satellite-era Global Mean Sea Level rise, there are no error bars? There are no Confidence Intervals? There is no Uncertainty Range? ”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/02/errorless-global-mean-sea-level-rise/

            And yet by their own admission there was a long record of systemic error in satellite derived SL measurements so they adjusted the past records! https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/17/tales-of-the-adjustocene-satellite-sea-level-edition/
            “Tales of the Adjustocene: Satellite Sea Level Edition
            David Middleton / July 17, 2017
            Guest post by David Middleton
            When the observations don’t match the models, adjust the observations…”

            Satellite snafu masked true sea-level rise for decades
            Revised tallies confirm that the rate of sea-level rise is accelerating as the Earth warms and ice sheets thaw.
            Jeff Tollefson
            17 July 2017
            The numbers didn’t add up. Even as Earth grew warmer and glaciers and ice sheets thawed, decades of satellite data seemed to show that the rate of sea-level rise was holding steady — or even declining.
            Now, after puzzling over this discrepancy for years, scientists have identified its source: a problem with the calibration of a sensor on the first of several satellites launched to measure the height of the sea surface using radar. Adjusting the data to remove that error suggests that sea levels are indeed rising at faster rates each year.
            “The rate of sea-level rise is increasing, and that increase is basically what we expected,” says Steven Nerem, a remote-sensing expert at the University of Colorado Boulder who is leading the reanalysis. He presented the as-yet-unpublished analysis on 13 July in New York City at a conference sponsored by the World Climate Research Programme and the International Oceanographic Commission, among others.
            Nerem’s team calculated that the rate of sea-level rise increased from around 1.8 millimetres per year in 1993 to roughly 3.9 millimetres per year today as a result of global warming. In addition to the satellite calibration error, his analysis also takes into account other factors that have influenced sea-level rise in the last several decades, such as the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 and the recent El Niño weather pattern.
            The view from above
            The results align with three recent studies that have raised questions about the earliest observations of sea-surface height, or altimetry, captured by the TOPEX/Poseidon spacecraft, a joint US–French mission that began collecting data in late 1992. Those measurements continued with the launch of three subsequent satellites.
            “Whatever the methodology, we all come up with the same conclusions,” says Anny Cazenave, a geophysicist at the Laboratory for Studies in Space Geophysics and Oceanography (LEGOS) in Toulouse, France.
            […]
            “As records get longer, questions come up,” says Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. But the recent spate of studies suggests that scientists have homed in on an answer, he says. “It’s all coming together.”
            If sea-level rise continues to accelerate at the current rate, Nerem says, the world’s oceans could rise by about 75 centimetres over the next century. That is in line with projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2013.
            “All of this gives us much more confidence that we understand what is happening,” Church says, and the message to policymakers is clear enough. Humanity needs to reduce its output of greenhouse-gas emissions, he says — and quickly. ”The decisions we make now will have impacts for hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of years.”
            Nature

            doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22312
            Nature News

          • sunsettommy says:

            Terek,

            They don’t show any acceleration either.

            Your reply is a fail since you don’t even dispute the steady slow rise evidence Andy posted.

          • terak says:

            RAH do you have a reference saying tide gauges and satellite altimetry do not agree? I remember seeing articles demonstrating that they *do* agree when like is compared with like (as far as is possible – a multi-km wide radar altimeter footprint and a tide gauge on the shore are not easy to compare).

            …and there still are no tide-gauges in the open ocean, so tide-gauges have a biased sampling of the situation.

          • terak says:

            RAH, the drift of Topex-A was know for 20 years but it was only corrected recently:

            “The instrumental drift of the TOPEX-A altimeter has long been known (Hayne and Handcock, 1998), leading to the switch early 1999 to the redundant TOPEX-B altimeter. But until recently, it was considered that the TOPEX-A drift had minimal impact on the GMSL. Based on a comparison between TOPEX A sea level and tide gauge data, Valladeau et al. (2012) challenged this conclusion but did not quantify this effect on the GMSL.”

            https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/10/281/2018/essd-10-281-2018.pdf

          • RAH says:

            terek I mean we’re talking about fractions of a mm here. And satellite measurements are supposedly calibrated by tide gauge measurements. So how can the agree when tide gauges use error bars and satellite data have none?

            https://www.fsbpa.com/2012TechPresentations/DeanandHouston.pdf

          • terak says:

            The error-bar or confidence-envelope for satellite altimetry is about 2-3mm around the trend. Sea-level rise trumps that in a few years..

          • Gator says:

            The error-bar or confidence-envelope for satellite altimetry is about 2-3mm around the trend. Sea-level rise trumps that in a few years.

            Yet more meaningless yapping from the peanut gallery. Ms Terak offers no references, no facts, and no understanding of basic science.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Find me one tide gauge showing acceleration, bonehead.

            You are a LIAR and a base level troll.

            And a massive FAILURE at presenting ANYTHING to support your AGW BS.

          • Gator says:

            And the reference is here

            A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

            Ahhhh, settled science and basic physics! LOL

      • AndyG55 says:

        And OF COURSE the sea levels were lower during the anomalous cold of the LIA.

        All that ICE binding up the world’s water.

        terak, if you really think the world should still be in that coldest period in 10,000 years.. then move to Alaska or Siberia.

        See what its like to be COLD. I dare you.

        Me, and in fact, most of the world’s population, prefer it far warmer. They live much nearer the equator, take winter holidays to warmer places (unless skiing) Heat their homes in winter.

        I bet you choose to live somewhere warm too.

        I bet you use plenty of fossil fuel heating in winter.

        And I bet your WHOLE LIFE revolves around the availability and reliability of fossil fuels.

        Why do you HATE your life so much that you want to stifle the very things that keep the world alive

        Fossil fuels… CO2 for plants, and energy for civilisation.

        The ideal combination.

      • Steve Keohane says:

        Sea level is down 2 meters in the last 6000 years.

      • neal s says:

        terak wrote “Sea-level is rising faster due to increased land ice losses. ” If it were true that Sea-level is rising faster, then wouldn’t you expect that this would be evident at multiple tide-level gauges? I certainly would expect that.

        I would expect that you could find at least one tide gauge on each continent which would show this acceleration in sea level rise. Actually most if not all the tide gauges should be able to show this acceleration. Please show us some or all of these tide gauges that show acceleration in sea level rise.

    • Griff says:

      Human Co2 is of course the most significant driver in play currently. Solar’s effects are currently lower than in the recent past, there is no particular orbital/Milankovitch effect in play (as there was during the Eemian on the arctic)

      • RAH says:

        The sun is the driver and the oceans the great modulators. CO2 is neither and is a 140 lb. weakling as a “green house” gas compared to water vapor and CH4. There is no evidence CO2 has ever driven the weather or climate of this planet EVER!

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Human Co2 is of course the most significant driver in play currently.

        There is, of course, no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.

      • Gator says:

        Ms Griff, prove it…

        1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

        2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

        Quit denying the science of natural climate change.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Human Co2 is of course the most significant driver in play currently. “

        What a load of scientifically unsupportable FANTASY BS you keep coming out with , griff.

        Latter half of last century, solar effects were HIGHEST they have been since well before the LIA.

        YOU ARE A LIAR griff.

        “(as there was during the Eemian on the arctic)”

        you poor braindead parrot… Eemian was 120,000 years ago, !!!

        Only Milankovich cycle in play during the HOLOCENE Optimum was the axial precession … but the Holocene optimum was world wide. (do you even know what that implies?)

        Get some facts straight, you really are looking like a totally clueless idiot, griff.

  7. Steven Fraser says:

    In case anyone cares about it, the DMI Ice volume file is corrupted at the end. Something truncated the file records between 20171-03 and 20180612. The last 14 records are yesterdays. I am going to write DMI.

    20170930 7.49959642362e+12
    20171001 7.65961285387e+12
    20171002 7.81251622302e+12
    20171003 7.92518529997e+12
    20180612 2.12915004907e+13
    20180612 2.12915004907e+13
    20180612 2.12915004907e+13
    20180612 2.12915004907e+13
    20180612 2.12915004907e+13
    20180612 2.12915004907e+13
    20180612 2.12915004907e+13
    20180612 2.12915004907e+13
    20180612 2.12915004907e+13
    20180612 2.12915004907e+13
    20180612 2.12915004907e+13
    20180612 2.12915004907e+13
    20180612 2.12915004907e+13

    • Cam says:

      I wonder if this is related to the same issue they’re having with the Greenland melting data. It’s been locked with the same image since last week.

  8. sunsettommy says:

    Terek, here are a few published science papers on Sea Level changes:

    Zerbini et al., 2017
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001282521

    Our regional results, however, are in close agreement with the global mean rate, + 1.2 mm/year, published by Hay et al. (2015) which is currently being discussed by the oceanographic community

    and,

    McAneney et al., 2017
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4989/full

    Global averaged sea-level rise is estimated at about 1.7 ± 0.2 mm year−1 (Rhein et al. 2013), however, this global average rise ignores any local land movements. Church et al. (2006) and J. A. Church (2016; personal communication) suggest a long-term average rate of relative (ocean relative to land) sea-level rise of ∼1.3 mm year.

    and,

    Bezdek, 2017
    http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=78612

    [G]lobal average sea levels have been rising at about 1.8 mm/yr. Although rates of absolute sea-level rise (rise due just to increases in ocean volume) can vary substantially from one location to another and change over time, the global average rate of 1.8 mm/yr. from 1961 to 2003 is a widely accepted global benchmark rate.

    • terak says:

      sunsettommy thank you for providing references, however all to local results, some even without corrections for the movement of the tide gauge stations. Solid earth tides and atmospheric pressure changes moves the tide gauge station by tens of centimeters and then there are the local subsidence or tectonic effects that need to be corrected.

      …it would be better to look for the articles on Global Sea Level rise..

      • sunsettommy says:

        Those are published science papers talking about the GLOBAL rate, you blind mitt!

        There are many more published papers on this with similar rates as already shown here.

        • terak says:

          Why don’t you provide links to the studies where the global rate is derived?

          • sunsettommy says:

            I posted THREE of them you moron!

            They are published research on Sea Level measurements.

            You are bad at this.

          • AndyG55 says:

            poor little terak-troll, even given citation, unable and unwilling to face FACTS

            Why are you so WILFULLY DETERMINED to stay DUMB and UNINFORMED.!!

      • neal s says:

        terak claims a global phenomenon “Sea-level is rising faster due to increased land ice losses. ” but somehow seems to think that this would not have any effect locally because he complains about “all to local results”. How can a global phenomenon NOT have local results?

        Other gems are “Highest sea-level rise rates have happened in the open ocean.”

        • terak says:

          Indeed in the open ocean…source aviso.altimetry.fr

          • AndyG55 says:

            Love the red of Sydney, NSW

            roflmao. !!

            Fort Denison has a steady sea level rise of 0.65mm/year.

            Someone has STUFFED UP. !!

            or is blatantly LYING.

          • Gator says:

            Ms Terak isn’t big on fact checking, or in situ measurements.

          • terak says:

            Well, in situ measurements with tide-gauges are remarkably difficult as well. At least in the time of GPS there can be a record on how the tide-gauge has been moving…

            http://www.igs.org/assets/pdf/W2017-PY02-02%20-%20Teferle.pdf

          • Gator says:

            And yet coastal properties globally continue to increase in value. My family settled Florida eight generations ago, and those with beachfront homes have seen no discernible change in their properties.

            What does the worlds leading expert have to say?

            In a new analysis published in Volume 8 Issue 2 of Environmental Science Dr. Nils-Axel Morner suggests global sea levels will rise only about 5 inches by the year 2100.

            Axel Morner concludes that Australian government claims of a 1 meter sea level rise by 2100 are greatly exaggerated, finding instead that sea levels are rising around Australia and globally at a rate of only 1.5 mm/year. This would imply a sea level change of only 0.13 meters or 5 inches by 2100. Dr. Morner also finds no evidence of any acceleration in sea level rise around Australia or globally.

            Morner’s findings are inline with the longest running sea-level measurements recorded at Amsterdam, in the Netherlands (think of it like the England CET record) beginning in 1700. Since 1850, the rise in Amsterdam has averaged 1.5 mm/year.

            Present-to-future sea level changes: The Australian case (PDF)

            Nils-Axel Morner, Albert Parker

            Abstract:

            We revisit available tide gauge data along the coasts of Australia, and we are able to demonstrate that the rate may vary between 0.1 and 1.5 mm/year, and that there is an absence of acceleration over the last decades. With a database of 16 stations covering only the last 17 years, the National Tidal Centre claims that sea level is rising at a rate of 5.4mm/year.We here analyse partly longer-term records from the same 16 sites as those used by the Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project (ABSLMP) and partly 70 other sites; i.e. a database of 86 stations covering a much longer time period. This database gives a mean trend in the order of 1.5 mm/year. Therefore, we challenge both the rate of sea level rise presented by the National Tidal Centre in Australia and the general claim of acceleration over the last decades.

            axel-morner_fig3

            Figure 3 : Comparison among different sea level data sets; (1) the Official Australian claim (AFGCC, 2011; ABSLMP, 2011), (2a) the Australian 39 station record, (2b) the Australian 70 station record, (2c) the Australian 86 station record, (3a) the 2059 station PSMSL (2011) average, (3b) the 159 station NOAA (2011) average, (4) the reconstruction of sea level changes by Church and White (2011), and (5) the Topex/Jason satellite altimetry record (CU, 2011). All the data are shifted for a zero MSL in January 1990. The differences are far too large not to include serious errors in some of the records. The official Australian trend (1) lies far above all the other curves, indicating a strong exaggeration. The Australian (2a-c) as well as global (3a-b) curves vary between 0.1 and 1.5 mm/year. The satellite altimetry records (5) include “calibrations” previously questioned (Morner, 2004, 2011c, 2013). The record (4) of Church and White (2011) lies between the satellite altimetry curve (5) and all the graphs representing global (3a-b) and Australian (2a-c) tide gauge records. The acceleration in curve 4 is strongly contradicted by all the other records. The same absence of acceleration is found in many other records (further discussed in the text) indicating that the concept of acceleration ought to be revised.

            Conclusions:

            In view of the data presented, we believe that we are justified to draw the following conclusions:

            (1) The official Australian claim [2,3] of a present sea level rise in the order of 5.4mm/year is significantly exaggerated (Figure 3).

            (2) The mean sea level rise from Australian tide gauges as well as global tide gauge networks is to be found within the sector of rates ranging from 0.1 to 1.5 mm/year (yellow wedge in Figure 3).

            (3) The claim of a recent acceleration in the rate of sea level rise [2,3,12] cannot be validated by tide gauge records, either in Australia or globally (Figure 3). Rather, it seems strongly contradicted [19,21,24,39-41]

            The practical implication of our conclusions is that there, in fact, is no reason either to fear or to prepare for any disastrous sea level flooding in the near future.

  9. sunsettommy says:

    Terek,

    go read about Doggerland, a prime example of rapid sea level rise in the early part of the interglacial period.

    Doggerland – The Europe That Was

    https://www.nationalgeographic.org/maps/doggerland/

    • terak says:

      sunsettommy I’m well aware sea-level rose by many metres in the early part of the interglasial. But notice also that it did *NOT* rise even at a rate of a meter per millennium until 1800, and the current rate is 3.3 meters per year and rising.

      That is the inconvenient truth, sea level started to rise again after a multi-milllennium hiatus sometime after year 1800….ain’t that curious?

      • AndyG55 says:

        “sea level started to rise again after a multi-milllennium hiatus sometime after year 1800”

        ROFLMAO

        You do realise that was the end of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, don’t you , bonehead

        You do know that sea levels were higher than now only 1000-2000 years ago, don’t you ?

        What a massive faceplant on your behalf. A manic display of base-level IGNORANCE

        If ignorance is bliss… you must be a very happy little troll.

        Did you take big al’s climate propaganda 101 , and FAIL. !?

        • terak says:

          The lowest number mentioned here is 1.8mm per year which is a bit more than half of the real number.

          N0w look at the post-glacial sea-level graph…practically flat for 6000 YEARS. WHERE are the CYCLES??!?!

          If the 1.8mm per year had started 6000 years ago, we would now be ALMOST 11 METERS HIGHER.

          Please explain why the rise started after 1800?

          • sunsettommy says:

            It was TWO meters higher just 2,000 years ago.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Please explain why the rise started after 1800?”

            roflmao,

            seems you haven’t got two brain cells to rub together to make a spark

            NATURAL WARMING out of the COLDEST PERIOD in 10,000 years, bonehead

          • terak says:

            So the rise started around 1800 because the conditions were warmest in the past 6000 years? Really?

          • AndyG55 says:

            WTF are you talking about.

            You really are a base-level idiot, aren’t you

            Totally ignorant of any climate history whatsoever.

            It has not been flat for 6000 years.

            You are NIL-INFORMED.

          • terak says:

            Explain this Andy.

          • AndyG55 says:

            roflmao

            You have YET AGAIN shown just how ignorant you are.,

            You don’t even recognise the sea level rise out of a major ice age

            Go and wipe the BS off you face. !!

          • terak says:

            Look at the scale – minimal sea level rise during the last 5000 years! Even the much-too-low 1.8mm per year would have generated 9 METERS of rise. But there was no rise! So why did the rise start after the year 1800? Is it NOT EVIDENT to you that we’re heading to similar sea levels as DURING the EEMIAN, namely 5-6 meters ABOVE current levels!!??

            Antarctica has spoken.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Is it NOT EVIDENT to you that we’re heading to similar sea levels as DURING the EEMIAN”

            Whatever hallucinogenic you are taking

            STOP NOW

            It is destroying you feeble mind. !

            1.8mm/year didn’t start 6000 years ago. it started at the end of the LIA, and has remained steady ever since.

            NO acceleration except in twisted data.

            NO co2 signal anywhere.,

            ZERO EVIDENCE that CO2 caused anything but enhanced plant growth

            Much evidence that terak is nothing but a brain-hosed parrot with nothing but sludge left for brain.

          • AndyG55 says:

            omg.. that’s HILARIOUS.. ! :-)

            terak is taking up griff’s Eemian brain-fart !!

            idiocy must be catching in the AGW cult ranks.

            although you would have to be an idiot to even join those ranks.

          • terak says:

            WAIS is unstable, if it retreats over a threshold it will lead to a complete collapse in a couple of centuries. Looks like we’re moving into that direction.

          • AndyG55 says:

            only thing unstable here is you , terak

            get treatment.. soon !!

            Where is there any evidence that human CO2 is causing warming in the Antarctic that would make the WAIS unstable

            Temperatures have been declining in the Antarctic for many years.

          • terak says:

            I don’t think there’s evidence that the changes in deep ocean currents that are melting the ice from below is CO2-related. However the heat-content of the oceans has been increasing for decades now and THAT is CO2-related.

          • Gator says:

            Reference for proof of CO2 related ocean warming. Silly claims are not acceptable.

      • RAH says:

        The inconvenient truth is that there is no place where SLR was supposed to cause real problems for people that it has without other obvious factors being involved. The Maldives aren’t losing ground. Kiribati atolls are actually rising! Where oh where are the practical observable effects of SLR that are not the result of other factors?

      • RAH says:

        LOL. terak never heard of the LIA apparently! Probably believe Mikey Mann’s tree rings showing it never happened to the extent that people who lived at the time recorded.

      • sunsettommy says:

        Terek, now you are making things up since it is well known that there were rates far higher than the sloppy Satellite sea level data of just 3.3 mm per year or the more stable adjusted tide gages of around 1.8mm per year.

        By the way you wrote… ha ha… “3.3 METERS per year” …..

        From NASA

        The Great Ice Meltdown and Rising Seas: Lessons for Tomorrow

        “In the first significant jump (meltwater pulse 1Ao, or MWP 1Ao), 19,600-18,800 years ago, ocean levels climbed at least 10 m within 800 years. However, not all sea level proxies register this event. A faster rise began 14,600 years ago during the comparatively mild Bølling-Allerød interstadial, accelerated about 300 years later and peaked about 13,800 years ago (meltwater pulse 1A, or MWP 1A) (Stanford et al., 2011). Sea level rose ~16 m during this event at rates of 26-53 mm/yr. Computer models that “fingerprint” spatial patterns of sea level rise attribute much of the meltwater to Antarctica. Different sources of ice melt leave geographically distinctive sea level fingerprints, because their ice unloading histories and gravitational pull between shrinking ice masses and ocean vary. On the other hand, geological data indicate significant deglaciation in Antarctica starting only toward the end of MWP 1A, which suggests that most of the meltwater originated from the breakup of Northern Hemisphere ice sheets.”

        https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_10/

        • sunsettommy says:

          I see that Terek, suddenly go quiet on this one after his bogus claim he made that I responded to:

          “terak says:
          June 13, 2018 at 6:35 pm
          sunsettommy I’m well aware sea-level rose by many metres in the early part of the interglasial. But notice also that it did *NOT* rise even at a rate of a meter per millennium until 1800, and the current rate is 3.3 meters per year and rising.
          That is the inconvenient truth, sea level started to rise again after a multi-milllennium hiatus sometime after year 1800….ain’t that curious?”

          • terak says:

            I posted the graph that clearly showed the meltwater-pulse etc. happening thousands of years before the sea level stabilised at very close to current levels for 5000-6000 years. So why is the sea level rising again and quite fast actually (3.3 meters per millennium and accelerating).

          • sunsettommy says:

            Two people have posted statement that it was TWO meters higher a few thousand years ago.

          • terak says:

            If someone posts the references to the “two metres” I promise I will take a look at the study. Shame on them if this is a point-measurement on an area with know tectonic or other effects that frequently screw up tide-gauge time-series….

          • AndyG55 says:

            Oh dear terak really is IGNORANT..

            and destined to stay that way.

            No desire to become less ignorant.

    • Gator says:

      and the current rate is 3.3 meters per year and rising.

      What a moron! LOL

  10. Brian D says:

    I see the Arctic Sea Ice posts are as active as ever. LOL

    The weather pattern change recently will cause ice to spread out some in most regions. MASIE already showing an increase in extent.

    I think Hudson Bay will hold ice longer this year. What is there now is a little thicker, and the weather pattern of late spring/early summer has kept it colder.

    Another breath-taking season of melt on hand. My prediction…….5.0-5.5 at the end of the season with MASIE.

  11. RAH says:

    Why the Sun Controls the Climate and CO2 is Meaningless
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/

    “Climate alarmists point to the warming of the oceans as evidence that CO2 is the cause. The problem with that theory is that they can’t explain how LWIR between 13 and 18µ warms the oceans (Click Here). LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate the oceans and actually causes cooling through surface evaporation. Additionally, LWIR between 13 and 18µ is very very low energy EM Radiation when compared to EM wavelengths that do actually penetrate and warm the oceans, wavelengths mostly at the blue end of the spectrum. CO2, in reality, is a very weak Greenhouse Gas (Click Here) in terms of warming the atmosphere and the oceans.”

    • terak says:

      Any published references for those claims?

      • AndyG55 says:

        YAWN !!

        Empty little troll, aren’t you, terak.

        • terak says:

          No “blog-science” but published results please. Have you seen & read a published peer-reviewed article lately/ever?

          • AndyG55 says:

            YOu have NOTHING, little troll

            EMPTY

            You can’t answer gator’s Q

            You can’t provide empirical evidence for CO2 warming anything

            You can’t show a single tide gauge that is accelerating

            A MASSIVE ALL-ROUND FAILURE
            ]
            We are waiting for those “published results”

            But you just keep squirming and worming to avoid producing what you KNOW does not exist.

            Your actions prove that you KNOW that AGW is a FARCE.. but are just play-acting as the mindless troll.

          • terak says:

            It is not my duty to search evidence for or agains your claims. If you want to claim that no tide-gauges show acceleration, please provide evidence for your claim. Nothing changes the fact that the Earth is an ocean-planet and trying to measure sea-level rise only at the coasts is BIASED & SPARSE SAMPLING. Better to get used to inconvenient results from altimetry, folks.

          • RAH says:

            The post titled “Why the Sun Controls the Climate and CO2 is Meaningless” your supposedly responding to was not about SLR bonehead. Thus your responses are Bull Shit! Meant to deflect from the point being made because apparently you cannot dispute it.

          • terak says:

            What are the references to published papers claiming CO2 is “meaningless”. Please give the ones with highest impact as measured by number of citations in the scientific literature.

          • RAH says:

            More Bull Shit! The references are linked to in the post. It is up to you to dispute the claim which you are quite obviously avoiding.

          • terak says:

            No references = not worth reading. Do not get your science education on blogs or inside churches…

      • RAH says:

        Dispute the claims with your own references. The references supporting the post are provided at the link.

        • terak says:

          You provided secondary references, i.e. articles that referred to the sources that derived the global trend.

          Here’s a recent one:

          http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/06/1717312115.full.pdf

          • RAH says:

            Bull Shit!

          • terak says:

            Typical denialist attitude towards satellite altimetry which, BY THE WAY, was developed for monitoring sea level. Now that there’s almost 30 years of experience in the subject in many countries around the globe, the processing is pretty well understood.

          • RAH says:

            More Bull Shit that has nothing to do with the post you were supposedly responding to.

          • terak says:

            You want a better reference for the measured global sea level rise including the open oceans? The paper above gave these references for the ~3+-0.4mm/year:

            1. Nerem RS, Chambers DP, Choe C, Mitchum GT (2010) Estimating mean sea level
            change from the TOPEX and Jason altimeter missions. Mar Geod 33(Suppl 1):435–446.
            2. Ablain M, et al. (2017) Satellite altimetry-based sea level at global and regional scales.
            Surv Geophys 38:7–31.

            ..if they are behind a paywall use sci-hub for retrieval, works 98% of the time…

  12. AndyG55 says:

    For those that care, in NSIDC, Arctic sea ice extent has just crossed above 2010, and if present trajectory continues will shortly cross above several other years

    • Steven Fraser says:

      From DMI sea ice volume for the 13th: this yesr is still #4, and has (since yesterday) closed the gap with the next highest (2005) by 102 cu km. Its not so much that 2018 is not declining, its that 2005 is declining more rapidly.

      2018 is continuing to rise above the 16-year average of sea ice volume, and also when compard to the plotted 2004-2013 years.

  13. RAH says:

    OT but I thought I would mention for you flag fliers and anyone else interested.
    Today is Flag Day. Commemorates the anniversary of the adoption of the flag we know as the National Standard. Law passed June 14th, 1777 by the 2nd Continental Congress. It is also the 243rd Birthday of the US Army which came into being June 14, 1775 and is older than the Nation that would have never been founded without it.

    Also today (Thursday) for the first time since 1990 George Washington’s personal standard is being displayed to the public at The Museum of the American Revolution in Philly. It will be on display until Sunday. The flag was created in 1777 and spends the rest of the time in a drawer in a secure light and climate controlled room to try and preserve it for as long as possible. The small 2′ x 3′ flag with 13 stars on a faded blue field is said to have marked the position of Washington’s HQ during several battles including Yorktown during the Revolution though some historians dispute this despite it’s appearance in several works of art from the time and the testimony of witnesses.

  14. Gator says:

    Alarmists are really odd ducks. If they were cancer patients, they would covet the worst opinions from the most dubious sources, shunning any oncologists who told them they were not dying, while seeking out the most expensive funeral directors.

  15. RAH says:

    Concerning the Antarctica ice sheet which terak is so worried about.
    “Good News! 99.989% of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Didn’t Melt!”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/14/good-news-99-989-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-didnt-melt/

  16. Gator says:

    Stop being a science denier Ms Terak…

    A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

    Ahhhh, settled science and basic physics! LOL

    • terak says:

      There are literally dozens of different reconstructions for Antarctic ice-loss and denialists want to keep believing in the single outlier. Keep the dream alive!!

    • Gator says:

      Please give your “dozens” reference.

      Why do you deny science Ms Terak?

      • terak says:

        Thank you for asking Gator!

        “Since 1989, there have been more than 150 assessments of ice
        loss from Antarctica based on these approaches17.”

        in:

        Shepherd, A., et al. “Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet from 1992 to 2017.” Nature. (2018).

        ..where reference 17 is:

        Briggs, K. et al. Charting ice-sheet contributions to global sea-level rise. Eos 97, https://doi.org/10.1029/2016EO055719 (2016).

  17. sunsettommy says:

    The amazing warming comments in various places I visit is breathtaking, the ignorance and the stupidity are out in full force.

    It has been calculated that the loss over TWENTY FIVE years is 0.011% reduction of the Ice mass.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/author/debunkhouse/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *