Visualizing Donald Trump’s Impact On Sea Level

File:Post-Glacial Sea Level.png – Wikimedia Commons

Sea level at New York is rising at the same rate as when Abraham Lincoln was president.

Sea level at Northern California is falling at the same rate as when Franklin Roosevelt was president.

Sea level at Florida is rising at the same rate as when Teddy Roosevelt was president.

Sea Level Trends – NOAA Tides & Currents

Scientists agree that sea level is surging due to emissions from your SUV, and that we will have 10 to 35 feet of sea level rise.

According to NOAA, this will happen sometime in the next 2,000 to 8,000 years.  You better start packing your bags now. And blame President Trump.

the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year.

Sea Level Trends – NOAA Tides & Currents

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Visualizing Donald Trump’s Impact On Sea Level

  1. arn says:

    Obama indeed stopped sea level rise-9000 years before he became president.
    That’s hell of a messiah.
    And a sea level rise, the size of a booger per year is some serious threat.

  2. Ron Stabb says:

    For smokers only; The annual sea level rise is the space between two lines on a cigarette.

  3. Jimmy Haigh says:

    If you want to know anything about sea level? Ask a Geologist.

  4. Mr GrimNasty says:

    You should do t-shirts of your sea level, california climate, and glacier melt diagrams with the (supposed) man-made portion indicated. Definitely the most powerful CAGW rubbishing weapon on the planet.

    • Anon says:

      Yeah, I have found when the facts are presented like that, and I have done that myself, taking people on a tour of the website, Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level,

      https://www.psmsl.org/

      It leaves people dumbfounded and shocked. Then point out this is always presented to the IPCC (in reviewer comments) but is always “rejected”:

      Example: (pg 3)

      There are no full-length graphs of representative high-quality tide gauges. Fig. 13-17 has graphs going back only to 1970, despite the fact that the best tide gauges go back over 150 years, and despite the fact that the literature indicates that at least 60 years of tide gauge data are needed to determine a robust SLR trend (see h**p://tinyurl.com/slr60yrs for literature references). FAQ13.1 Figure 1a (p.89) has a few such graphs, but shrunk to the size of postage stamps, and only back to 1950. Good quality graphs of full-length tide gauge records from high-quality tide stations are absolutely essential for “grounding” the reader’s understanding of sea level, in particular the (lack of) response (thus far) in rate of SLR to GHG forcings, and the amounts and timescales of typical fluctuation in relative sea level, and the variation in relative sea level trends between locations. The omission of such graphs appears calculated to hide the fact that, thus far, sea level rise has not increased in response to GHG forcings, and will surely be powerful ammunition for critics of the IPCC and its Reports. Here’s a good example of such a graph, from one of the longest, best-quality tide stations in the world:
      h**p://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=120-012

      http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/Ch13_WG1AR5SOD_RevCommResponses_Final.pdf

      • Denny says:

        Outstanding link. I had not seen this before. It’s 120 pages and I guess only covers SLR. How do I get to expert comments for all chapters? Thanks

        • Anon says:

          Hi Denny,

          That is a good question and has always been hit or miss with me, but when you can find them, they are gold.

          There are a few more on that website. Google IPCC reveiwer comments to find.

          Obviously, they are not publicized as the general public would not understand them (lol).

      • steve case says:

        Thanks – I followed your link and did a search on “PSMSL”
        I got a 1/1 and this from Dave Burton:

        …There is no “observed increase in rate” (of sea level rise). Rather, the best and most comprehensive studies
        have found either a linear rate or slight deceleration. If AR5 is to be taken seriously by serious people, it can’t
        make assertions that can be seen to be obviously untrue by anyone who takes even a few minutes to look at
        PSMSL or NOAA tide gauge graphs.

        [David Burton, United States of America]

        Rejected.

  5. richard says:

    Since 2001, the Thames barrier, to stop flooding, has been in a decline in the amount of times it has closed. At the same time London is slowly sinking. Some sea level rise.

  6. Disillusioned says:

    “…the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year.”

    For the mathematically challenged, try this visual aid: Reach into your pocket and pull out a modern penny. Look at it sideways (the edge). The thickness of your penny is less than the number above.

    Show me somebody who claims that the sea level rise rate is dangerous, or is accelerating, and I will show you a liar.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Slightly less – a U.S. Lincoln Head Cent is 1.52 mm

    • Denny says:

      An American dime is precisely 1.35 mm Thick. The IPCC AR5 Says Antarctica’s contribution to GMSLR is .27mm/yr. So the SLR per year from Antarctica is only 1/5 the thickness of a dime. A new dime, of course. For those dimes that have been kicking around in the pockets for some time the number will be a little more.
      I assume the next report will have mm/yr which doesn’t allow skeptics like me to come up with such comparisons.

    • David of Aussie says:

      What i would like to know is how much of the 1.7-1.8 mm rise per year over the last century can be attributed, not to melting ice and snow, but to erosion of the continental land masses. Think about all the solid materials that start above sea level but get washed out to sea by all the worlds rivers and streams. I suggest possibly all of it.

      • DCA says:

        David,
        You raise an interesting question.
        The Mississippi River loses about 90 million tons of sediment per year to the ocean bottom.
        http://mississippiriverdelta.org/our-coastal-crisis/wasted-sediment/
        After a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, I get something around 0.4 trillion tons required to raise the oceans 1 mm. (That’s US short tons = 2000 lbs, not to be confused with long tons or metric tons).
        That means the Mississippi River contributes about 0.0002 mm year.
        Since the Mississippi drains about 0.894% of the world’s land, you get a very rough worst-case scenario where all of the world’s rivers contribute ~ 0.025 mm/yr, which is around 2% of the 1.3 mm/year observed rise (if that’s the right figure to use).
        Greater than zero, but not a lot.
        My guess is that coastal erosion holds the potential to be much more significant.
        Probably worth investigating.

        • DCA says:

          Woops. Need to convert that from a weight displacement to a volume displacement. Using a rough specific gravity of 2.5 (close, and convenient for the sake of the numbers), that’s roughly 0.010 mm/yr, not 0.025. (That’s the difference between silt that sinks and silt that is put in a boat; the former displaces its actual volume, the latter its volume in weight of seawater).
          Sorry for the error.

          • David of Aussie says:

            Interesting calcs, thanks for the effort! Of course big assumption that the Mississippi is an average representative and curious to know how they measure the sediment loss as 90 million tons per year? Is this the amount that gets dredged? Anyway you’re probably right, maybe not a big an influence as i once thought.

  7. Ken says:

    Donald Trump for President 2020.

    Get rid of the politicians who refuse to read or cannot understand the information in these graphs.

  8. Steven Fraser says:

    An american nickel is 1.95mm in thickness, somthe yearly sea level rise is less than that.

  9. Scott M says:

    Longer term the level has dropped on the west coast and risen on the east coast per the charts… Either this is a land rise or drop or its something I dont understand.

    I look at the ocean as a giant bath tub, and yes wind, moon etc affect the present level, BUT over time it should all be the same level everywhere if the land level is constant…

  10. Eric Simpson says:

    The sea level rise during Lincoln’s time was due to the Civil War and all the excesses of energy use during that conflict.

    The sea level rise during FDR’s time was due to the New Deal and the frenetic human activity that that caused.

    Today, the sea level rise is due to CO2. That should be obvious to anybody that’s not a denier and a retard. /s

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.