Any paper which includes the words “Since the beginning of satellite measurements” is a red flag that someone is about to start lying to you.
A new view on sea level rise Stefan Rahmstorf
Over the course of the twentieth century, the rate of sea level rise has roughly tripled in response to 0.8 °C global warming. Since the beginning of satellite measurements, sea level has risen about 80 per cent faster, at 3.4 millimetres per year, than the average IPCC model projection of 1.9 millimetres per year.
A new view on sea level rise : article : Nature Reports Climate Change
Utter tripe. Tide gauges show a steady 1.8 mm/year over the last 100 years. There has been no acceleration.
From 1991
GLOBAL SEA-LEVEL RISE Author(s): DOUGLAS, BC (DOUGLAS, BC) Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-OCEANS Volume: 96 Issue: C4 Pages: 6981-6992 DOI: 10.1029/91JC00064 Published: APR 15 1991
The value for mean sea level rise obtained from a global set of 21 such stations in nine oceanic regions with an average record length of 76 years during the period 1880-1980 is 1.8 mm/yr +/- 0.1. This result provides confidence that carefully selected long tide gauge records measure the same underlying trend of sea level and that many old tide gauge records are of very high quality.
From 2012
Source found for missing water in sea-level rise Human use of water contributes markedly to rising tides. Amanda Mascarelli 20 May 2012
During the latter half of the twentieth century, global sea level rose by about 1.8 millimetres per year, according to data from tide gauges. The combined contribution from heating of the oceans, which makes the water expand, along with melting of ice caps and glaciers, is estimated to be 1.1 millimetres per year, which leaves some 0.7 millimetres per year unaccounted for.
Source found for missing water in sea-level rise : Nature News & Comment
What changed is that Rahmstorf was disappointed that tide gauges blew away his theory, so he switched to an uncalibrated measurement system – i.e. satellites. Call it Stefan’s Nature trick.
But it sucks to be Stefan, because even the satellites have turned against his nonsense. Since 2005, satellites are also reporting 1.8 mm/year.
Here is where Rahmstorf goes full stupid
Whether the response of continental ice to warming is well represented by empirical models is harder to judge, though the linear dependence on temperature is similar to that also used in glacier modelling studies and by the IPCC. The semi-empirical approach, however, was recently criticized in the popular media9 on the grounds that it is, to a large extent, calibrated to the past glacier contribution, and that glaciers would be “largely gone by 2050”. Apart from this being just not so, the melting of all glaciers would add 60 centimetres to global sea level10, a lot more than in the worst-case scenario projected by semi-empirical models for 2050. And that contribution would be in addition to seawater expansion and melting of continental ice sheets.
If two-thirds of glacier ice were lost, this would add 40 centimetres to the global sea level, which is close to the lower bound of 37 centimetres recently estimated by glacier experts12. In that case, the percentage contribution of glacier melting to sea level rise would remain the same as in past decades13. The big ice sheets would then need to contribute only about 50 centimetres — corresponding to less than one per cent of their mass — to bring sea level rise up to 114 centimetres. None of this appears any less plausible than the IPCC’s assumptions.
Glaciers gone by 2050? 600 mm of sea level rise by 2050? 1140 mm of sea level rise? Rahmstorf has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
“Since the beginning of satellite measurements” is a red flag that someone is about to start lying to you”
Once again though. Those Satellite measurements that show different too the CO2 AGW/CC Alarmist meme ARE conveniently cherrypickingly ignored!
More vegetative Bio-diversity since Satellite measements begun.
Satellite measurements showing Global CO2 emissions. The Third World including parts of Africa having higher CO2 emissions. While Western Nations have overall lower CO2 emissions and in fact are the carbon sinks.
Satellite measements showing less Antarctic & Greenland Ice sheet melt
And so on and so on.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/climate-change-taking-hold-summit-hears/story-e6frf7kf-1226409286393
NCCARF blaming Australian weather phenomenon, a cyclone, a dry spell, and a flood on climate change. Like we never experienced those in Australia before.
700 hundred people on a 3 day conference – what a junket!! Total bill will be over $2 Million!!
Andy
from sunny down under
Nice Work if You Can Get It!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A58ecFDFPvQ
“largely gone” is very scientificky, but then alarmists are adept at being vague.
This might apply?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/
SInce this has started happening since satelite measurement, can we just not bring the satelites down, they just seem to be scaring the crap out of Rahmstrof.
It is also worth noting that satellite sea level measurements began in 1993. As Church & White point out
“However, the reconstruction indicates there was little net change in sea level from 1990 to 1993, most likely as a result of the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. “
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/
So the extrapolation is from an unusually low point. You can see this well from Steve’s first graph, where there is a large dip around this time.
Rahmmy certainly has been a busy little beaver. He’s put out more tripe in the last couple of years than anyone else!
Steve you moron, Rahmsdorf quoted the glacier line specifically as an example of inaccurate reporting in the popular media. Read the line after the one you bolded. What does it say?
“Apart from this being just not so”
And read just after that, you Moron!
Peter, you moron. Rahmstorf then goes on and predicts 114cm of sea level rise – twice the increase from all glaciers melting.
😆 he is saying it’s worse than it’s worse than we thought! Bwaaaaahahahaha!
That was an example of Peter’s Rahmstorf Trick.
The meaning changes depending on where you stop reading!
I posted a comment on YouTube, where I responded to this alarmist:
“With all the problems in the world going on, this actually goes on number 2? on my list, number 1 being a scientifically illiterate public, how there are still people that doubt things as scientifically sound as evolution or global warming, although the sexism is more severe than the scientific illiteracy, for some reason it doesn’t bother me quite as much, and a scientifically literate public might help solve this problem too.”
anticorncob6 2 days ago
A “scientifically illiterate” public? Clearly he doesn’t know that the skeptics actually know more science than the alarmists.