The IPCC is not peer reviewed. Sources from science journals or other publications that shows each one that is shrinking, how long it has been shrinking (before the 1900's?).
If the world is warming ice can be expected to melt and the water run into the sea and also if the oceans warm they expand - so, if the world warms the sea level will rise.
Is the sea level rising? A simple question, what is the answer?
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007
On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century
S. J. Holgate
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK
Abstract
Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.
Received 17 October 2006; accepted 21 November 2006; published 4 January 2007.
The IPPC forth report says there has been no, repeat NO, accelaration in the rate of sea level change. Yet they predict more than the current rate. Why has there not been any change in the rate yet? How much must that change be? Well, 3 to 4 TIMES the current rate to match the IPCC predictions, 30-40 TIMES to make Gore's 20ft prediction. Thus the graph would have to look like this:
So all the hype about radical sea level changes has not occured yet, read below on the islands in the Pacific too.
So, you agree - overall the world is warming - the sea level proves it - change IS happening. If the temperatures are changing that means climate is too. Clearly from your charts this is normal even without man's actions.
What is not normal is burning of fossil fuels (that have taken millions of years to accumulate) in a few tens of years - this causes a massive discontinuity in C02 levels and it is MAN MADE, so it is avoidable - any climate changes resulting from this will likely be discontinuous also and, by implication, avoidable.
Because of inertia you would never expect to see simmultaneous cause and effect - there WILL always be a time lag.
The sea level is a proxy for AVERAGE temperature change and because of the huge bulk of the Oceans there is massive inertia - near the North pole where we see the normal (self limiting, due to the curvature of the Earth) positive feedback from melting sea ice the temperature changes (and climate changes) are way more than average - this implies that elsewhere the changes will be less than average (where glaciers are not retreating? ... the South Pole?)
However, few places have zero change in temperature and hence zero change in climate.
History tells us to expect climate change, it is not change that is the potential problem but RATE of change.
So this then begs the question, when will the rate of sea level start to accelarate? If all these glaciers are melting, and have been because of AGW of some 20-30 years now, why has that water flow into the seas not increased the rate of rise? It also begs the question, if this lack of rise, if it continues flat, kill AGW theory?
So realize what you are saying. You are saying that there is no sea level rise at the moment that is caused by AGW. Thus all the media reports, all the hype about the CURRENT sea level rise is flat wrong right? You can't have it both ways. If the current trend is flat and, as you claim, the change in the rate is yet to come, then the current rate CANNOT be from AGW. Thus all the hype that it is from AGW must be wrong. By your own admission.
Sea level doesn't change on a dime. It is probably the slowest acting effect of global warming.
If you do look more closely at the recent data (the last 100 years or so), the sea level rise is accelerating, though quite modestly. At this point it's nothing terrible, but it does have the potential to become much worse.
"Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). "
And you have a reference to back up your claim it won't turn on a dime, and you have a reference that it will become much worse. And you fully agree then that the current rise, in spite of Gore and others, is NOT currently from AGW. Right?
I don't know what the future will be and neither do the IPCC researchers - or you! Not least because nobody knows what all the variables and feedbacks are.
The climate research gives probabilities not certainties - if you are looking for certainty you won't get it. The data the IPCC and others use is statistical and has error bars, it is not 100% accurate and you need to take lenghty periods of time (decades) to get a feel for what is happening. The statistics are not as accurate as you think they are (nor are the IEA and EIA oil statistics, on a month by month basis!)
Is there climate change? ... yes! North Polar ice melting more and more for one good example! Will the climate of some parts of the world change adversely in the future ... Yes!
Is man responsible for part of the change? ... yes! How big a part? ... nobody knows! The historical temperature data does not go up in straight lines during warming periods and it won't do now - just because the temperature is not doing what you think it should for AGW does not mean there is no AGW due to fossil fuel burning.
Is man's use of fossil fuel, horizantle drilling, non-organic farming, overfishing etc etc sustainable ... NO!
Peak oil, peak food, peak population and peak pensions are just a few of the unsustainable challenges besides anthopogenic climate change facing man.
Richard is just trying to bamboozle you by changing the plot scales. The sea level rise is accelerating and he has already been corrected on this point on this list.
Then you better tell the IPCC as their 2001 report says: “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” The 2007 report says: "Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear."
Include in your letter to the IPCC a copy to Holgate from the above reference I cited.
Global sea level has been rising for the 10,000 years since the last ice age, and no significant change to the rate of sea level rise has been observed recently. Real studies and model studies of sea level change deny the untrue assertions in the article. And there are far, far too many such studies for me to cite them all. So, I provide the following as examples.
Church, J.A., White, N.J., Coleman, R., Lambeck, K. and Mitrovica, J.X. 2004. Estimates of the regional distribution of sea level rise over the 1950-2000 period. Journal of Climate 17: 2609-2625.
Cazenave, A. and Nerem, R.S. 2004. Present-day sea level change: observations and causes. Reviews of Geophysics 42: 10.1029/2003RG000139.
Lombard, A., Cazenave, A., Le Traon, P.-Y. and Ishii, M. 2005. Contribution of thermal expansion to present-day sea-level change revisited. Global and Planetary Change 47: 1-16.
Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J.C. and Holgate, S. 2006. Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JC003229.
In the above references, Church et al. say their "best estimate" of the rate of globally-averaged sea level rise over the last half of the 20th century was 1.8 ± 0.3 mm/year. In addition, they noted that "decadal variability in sea level is observed, but to date there is no detectable secular increase in the rate of sea level rise over the period 1950-2000." What is more, they reported that no increase in the rate of sea level rise has been detected for the entire 20th century, citing the work of Woodworth (1990) and Douglas (1992).
Wöppelmann et al. note that “two important problems arise when using tide gauges to estimate the rate of global sea-level rise. The first is the fact that tide gauges measure sea level relative to a point attached to the land which can move vertically at rates comparable to the long-term sea-level signal. The second problem is the spatial distribution of the tide gauges, in particular those with long records, which are restricted to the coastlines”. The records that we do have contain any number of inhomogeneities related to observer and instrument changes – the IPCC estimates of sea-level rise may be even less accurate that we are led to believe.
...
OK – here’s the bottom line. When Wöppelmann et al. factored their measurements of land motion into the estimate of sea-level rise, they determined a global value of 1.31 ±0.30 mm per year compared to the 1.8±0.5 mm per year value given by the IPCC for the recent half century. We understand that the IPCC acknowledges a low-end value of 1.3 mm per year in their estimate, but another way to look at this article is that Wöppelmann et al. just reduced observed sea-level rise by 27%! Perhaps the IPCC should reconsider whether they still have high confidence that the rate of sea level rise has in fact increased from the 19th to the 20th century.
Of course, these results gained absolutely no press coverage whatsoever – imagine the coverage they would have received had their results increased sea-level rise by 27% and suggested that sea level rise was occurring faster then previous research indicated!
Wöppelmann, G., B. Martin Miguez, M.-N. Bouin, and Z. Altamimi. 2007. Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide. Global and Planetary Change, 57, 396–406.
it is not possible to debate with you because you do not do so in good faith on this issue. As a simple exampe, you ask for references and links from me now when you know that I have already demonstrated your contention to be false here on TOD.
I post references, even if i have to do it several times. If it is false that sea level has not changed its rate then SHOW US!! How difficult can it be to get a ref and post it? None! So do it, back up your claim with one reference.
I have already shown by the references above that the rate of sea level rise has NOT changed. How on earth is that NOT on good faith?!
If there is any lack of good faith it's your claim that this is MY contention when all I have done is post the references, hence it is the conclusion of these researchers that there has not been any change in the rate. So go take your disagreement to them.
Did you actually read this chart or was this just another quick and dirty cut and paste job?
Just looking at the graph, sea level increased by 5 inches from 1850 to 1950. It increased by more than 6 inches from 1950 to just past 2000. The total increase appears to be greater in the latter 50 years than in the previous 100 years. The graph is misleading, as an absolute change in 50 years which is greater than an absolute change in 100 years can't have the same slope. The annotation "trend continues at same slope" appears to be wrong and could just be b.s. on your part.
So, no, this graph seems to show that you are wrong and supports others on this site arguing that you are wrong.
Perhaps you could draw the line from 1800 to compare 100 years with 100 years. But that would not support your conclusions.
Not to mention that last decade or so seems to be trending upwards.
Your 7 inches per century doesn't even make sense. Which century? Certainly not from 1800 to 1900. And from 1900 to 2000, it increased by 8 inches.
So, what is it about this graph that makes any sense and even remotely supports your conclusions?
Please stop blaming the messenger. If you have a problem with this graph, or anything I post with a reference, then take it up with them. This is not MY graph, this is the graph from that website. The point is the rate is not changing. To match the IPCC, to get that trend you would need, it would have to be 3 TIMES the current rate. As noted in the references I've posted before, the rate is not changing, it is fluctuating within normal ranges. If you have a reference that supports the notion that the rate has changed, please post it. If not, then the current hype that the changes in sea level is because of global warming must be wrong. Certainly the 19,000 scientists who added their names to this petition think AGW is wrong. Go contact them and show them they are misguided. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
So,now the new cop out is that we should go to your original source if you post stuff on this site that is mislabled and fails to support your position. No. If you are going to post here, you should defend your own data, not expect others to explain your data by going to your source.
You have chosen to be the messenger for those who think that global warming is a hoax. Then you post a graph that says the opposite of what you say about sea level rise and then ask me to not blame the messenger. If you don't want to be blamed, then quit posting info that says the opposite of what you purport to believe. As long as you keep posting stuff on this website that you use to support your position, then you should actually analyze your information to ensure that it says what you think it says.
In fact, you have posted a reference that actually indicates that the rate is changing. I assume you stand by your reference. So, thanks for providing a reference that shows that the rate of change is increasing.
But you are mixing two concepts. First, has the rate of sea level rise changed. It certainly appears that it has just from what you've posted here; never mind what other references are out there. Once we have determined that the rate has changed, the question becomes one of causation. According to your reference, the IPCC is not ready to state that they have enough data to confirm that the sea level rise is caused by global warming. As scientists, they are taking a conservative position and as, is typical of scientists, they are calling for further study, including more years of data. This is to be expected.
But one cannot conclude that AGW is not causing sea level rise just because scientists have not conclusively stated the opposite.
Don't ask us to contact your so called scientists. Either defend your positions with valid data or quit posting. Next time someone else posts here in support of AGW, should you be expected to contact the IPCC?
Or maybe you should. We here in Boulder have probably the greatest concentration of climate scientists in the world. Start with NCAR. Take the tour and talk to the scientists who actually were part of the IPCC. Argue with them. They can take everything you throw at them. I have seen them in action. But don't tell them to go contact one of your references if you are having problems arguing with them.
"In fact, you have posted a reference that actually indicates that the rate is changing. I assume you stand by your reference."
Yes I do stand with the data. It's saw toothed, did you not see the other 2 that has a higher rate for a while, then drops? This is just another of those saw tooth changes. In fact, again I refer you to the IPCC 2007 report about this very point: "Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. "
But you are missing the whole point. To get to the IPCC's 20 inches in 100 years would require a rate THREE TIMES the observed rate. You claim the IPCC is conservative, so too do people like Gore who wants 20 feet of rise, that's THIRTY TIMES the current rate! Others have thrown out even higher rates over shorter distances of time.
"But one cannot conclude that AGW is not causing sea level rise just because scientists have not conclusively stated the opposite." Nor can you claim the opposite then.
Bottom line: Is the current rate BECAUSE of AGW? Yes or no. If Yes, why has the rate not changed to the value it should under the predictions? If not then all the current hype on the MSM about the rise because of AGW is flat wrong. Which is it?
Richard - is it possible that the change in trend around 1860 marks the onset of melt following The Little Ice Age?
I'm surprised this thread is still going - its been very interesting. If you reply can you send me an email flagging the reply - since I may forget to come back here.
I'm just back from X country skiing in Norway where on quiet evenings in the mountain cabins I read about the advance of Norwegian mountain glaciers during The Little Ice Age and about the sea ice apron that surrounded South Greenland - which no doubt was reflected by extended ice cap and glaciers on shore. I've also read about perma-frost inside excavated Greenland Norse settlements - pretty damned sure that permafrost wasn't there when the settlement was inhabited during the MWP.
Are you refering to me or the Warm Mongers? Because those are the VERY arguments I use to support the skeptical position!! There is nothing in what you said I would disagree with at all. Thank you for supporting my position.
The IPCC work is absolutely peer reviewed, much of from scientists at the worlds great universities. The idea that they would falsify their work and that others would collude is risible.
Nasa's GRACE program has measured ice sheet loss from Greenland over a period of at least 10 years; and the loss is accelerating.
There is also plenty of evidence of glacier loss, all over the world. There is also plenty of other evidence of warming so I am afraid climate change sceptics are beginning to look just a little bit silly, irrational even.
Another reader asks for evidence of rising sea levels. Check out the Carteret islands (Papua New Guinea) and Tuvalu (S. Pacific).
At the same time I understand and support Heading Outs comment on there being insufficient FF to raise CO2 levels by the amount the IPCC a warning us about. Unfortunately I am not sure that that matters. I think we have committed ourselves to sufficient global warming already (temperature inertia in the sea is holding back atmospheric warming) so temperatures will continue to rise causing massive dislocation and damage that is now inescapable.
That does not mean there is no point in working hard to reduce FF use, of course we must. We might just get lucky and only have PO to worry about!
And the papers in the IPCC report are not peer reviewed at all. They are written for the report and not subjected to other scrutiny before publication. In fact, the summaries are written first by non-scientists and then the scientists are told what to put in their reports to coincide with the summaries. This is not my wild accusation; this is a charge from the very scientists themselves who wrote for the IPCC.
"Another reader asks for evidence of rising sea levels. Check out the Carteret islands (Papua New Guinea) and Tuvalu (S. Pacific)."
Yes, you had better get up to date on this. Tuvalu has NOTHING to do with sea level rise and everything to do with over population and bad land practices. There's lots about this on the Net, simple google will find it.
"I think we have committed ourselves to sufficient global warming already (temperature inertia in the sea is holding back atmospheric warming) so temperatures will continue to rise causing massive dislocation and damage that is now inescapable."
What peer reviewed papers do you have to back up this "thought"?
"AGW is just such bad science at this time that I want nothing to do with it."
"In the AGW school of warming, the litany of one poor package of junk science after another - attempts at distortion, editing, hiding data, changing data (Hansen), inventing trends (Mann), changing conclusions (IPCC), ad hominem attacks (Hansen and most of them), censorship by a hysterical media, outrageously incapable computer modeling, and even outright lies (fill in the names here…) - should send enough alarm bells ringing to warn even the most obtuse about what is happening; though not loud enough to alarm the faithful it seems. It really is a new religion."
Dr. Sutherland is a retired Health Physicist who worked with radiation for almost 20 years in the non-nuclear industry, and then spent 20 years in various aspects of radiation protection at a CANDU nuclear power plant, while managing the environmental radiation monitoring program and providing a dosimetry monitoring program for about 600 employees.[...]
He is especially interested in the history and development of the world-wide nuclear industry; the medical uses of radiation; and in the many health studies related to the uses of radiation over the last 100 years.
His articles on the site include,
"Anthropogenically driven Global Warming (AGW): Some pro and con comments" [if you read the article, it's all con)
"The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks"
the rest are just on how awesome nuclear reactors are.
So he appears to be quite the authority on radiation hazards to humans. But about climate science he can claim no special authority, and has written no peer-reviewed articles on the topic so far as I can see. He seems to spend most of his time advocating in various media for more nuclear reactors.
Well, at least we can't accuse him of being self-interested, since one typical argument of pro-nuclear people is that it'll mitigate climate change... if climate change doesn't exist then no mitigation is needed and we can forget the nukes, right? Sutherland doesn't seem to be aware of peak oil or other resource issues.
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Listed here (on the left) are the approximately 19,000 signers of this petition. Qualification to be a signatory requires that the individual have a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS, or PhD. Those with PhD degrees are so designated. Those with BS and MS degrees are undesignated or sometimes designated as MD if appropriate.
The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.
The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.
The IPCC work is absolutely peer reviewed, much of from scientists at the worlds great universities. The idea that they would falsify their work and that others would collude is risible.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact is, the IPCC reports aren't "reviewed" by anyone. Here's how the system works:
1. The reports are written by a small group, some of which aren't even scientists, and all but one of which has a personal stake in preserving the hoax. These writers are political appointees, not chosen from the best of the scientists actually doing empirical science. All of the global warming panic is being generated by "models", not empirical science. In fact the models are so flawed they are the laughing stock of the broader climate science community.
2. After the draft is finished, then the "committee" is invited to comment. The writing group can reject any comment it wants, and in particular rejects any comment which seriously disagrees with its already established opinion. The literature is full of irate letters from scientists who howlingly object to the censorship, to no avail. The writers word is final... there is absolutely no "peer review" allowed. The Secretary General of the UN himself cannot alter one word of the report.
Yes, I'm an atmospheric physicist, and I realize most of you on this forum are not. I can recognize "cut-and-paste" as well as anyone.
For those of you who are not rocket scientists, you might like to read this excellent summary which was written for the layman at this link
"Modeling" is not science. It is a prediction which unfortunately is fatally flawed because the modelers, in their urgency to promote the hoax for political and economic gain, deliberately omit critical variables from their models which would expose the hoax for what is is.
This is not a "conspiracy". This is a collection of junk scientists, policy wonks, journalists, and radical environmentalists who independently support the panic because it will ( and already has ) divert vast sums of money into a large assortment of environmental projects.
I am in weekly contact ( indeed, almost daily ) with some of the finest climate scientists on the planet, and to date, not one of my colleagues is buying into the anthropogenic global warming hoopla. The notion that "all the world's scientists agree" in in fact part of the hoax mechanism, and nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, "warming" came to a screeching halt several years ago despite continuously increasing CO2 levels, and since then there has been a slight cooling trend, according to the accepted HadCRUt3 data which now shows a decadal cooling trend of 0.4 degrees Centigrade per decade.
You all can argue until you are blue in the face, it will not change the science one iota. Climate change is a natural phenomenon, and to date there is not one scintilla of actual empirical science to indicate the future will be any more than a cyclical repetition of the past.
Fortunately, Solar Cycle 24 is predicted to be a fairly warm one lasting 11 years, so hopefully the cooling trend will self-arrest, but also unfortunately, Solar Cycle 25, which will peak about 2022 is going to be one of the quietest sun cycles in many decades, with significant cooling to affect most of the rest of the 21st century.
"People eat more ice cream in the summer. More people drown in the summer. Therefore eating ice cream causes drowning."
You may now continue with your cut-and-paste BS which evidently even the plagiarists on this forum do not actually understand.
I've got an email yesterday showing that Al Gore has admitted he owns or has direct stakes in environmental companies that are directly benefiting from the alarmism. How ironic, these very people here who hate capitalism and champion AGW are being duped by the very Minister of the dogma (Al Gore) practicing capitalism at its worse by creating a need for his "product" based on the fear of the masses. So where is Gore getting the $300 million from to promote the alarmism of AGW? From the money his companies will make off it, which in turn will come from the people conned by his message.
When I get back to my computer I'll post it.
Thanks again for the support of integrity in science.
I have no doubt that there are many people who support peak oil theory on this site and elsewhere who also invest in oil and other energy companies, who play the commodities market, and who are otherwise invested in companies or commodities which will profit from a shortage of oil. I guess all of us here are being duped.
Your real need here is not to support integrity in science. Your overriding passion is to defeat what you think is a position purely driven by socialism and the desire to destroy capitalism.
So, really, in your view, all the time, effort, and passion that Gore has spent getting the message out on global warming over the years is just driven by pure greed. And, oh my God, he is investing in environmental companies. Well, at least he is clearly a capitalist.
You have gone down that road and yet you bristle when it is pointed out that the source of much of your "information" comes from organizations who are mainly driven by the need to perpetuate the status quo.
Thanks for coming out and showing us where you are really coming from.
How is posting peer reviewed papers that shows the sea level has not changed it's rate "comes from organizations who are mainly driven by the need to perpetuate the status quo. " Please explain.
The difference is that Gore is making his own demand. It's snake oil salesmanship pure and simple. He makes up the hype and claims the world will die if we do not act and buy into his "solutions". If any one else did this everyone here would be screaming to have his head. But because Gore is the messiah of the orthodoxy then it's OK. He's no different than the evangelicals on TV fleecing the flock of followers.
Excellent! Tell us, for what university, institution or company do you work for? Have you a webpage detailing your qualifications, experience and publications?
I am in weekly contact ( indeed, almost daily ) with some of the finest climate scientists on the planet, and to date, not one of my colleagues is buying into the anthropogenic global warming hoopla.
Please name these scientists, so that we can learn more.
If you've no reply, we can only conclude you're talking bollocks...
"Mountain glaciers and snow cover on average have
declined in both hemispheres."
--IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
The IPCC is not peer reviewed. Sources from science journals or other publications that shows each one that is shrinking, how long it has been shrinking (before the 1900's?).
If the world is warming ice can be expected to melt and the water run into the sea and also if the oceans warm they expand - so, if the world warms the sea level will rise.
Is the sea level rising? A simple question, what is the answer?
Yes, it is rising, but you are about to find out things are not what you have been led to believe.
Here is the change in sea level for the past 20,000 years:
For the past 8,000 years:
(From http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Sea_Level_Gallery)
Now for the past 110 years:
Notice the flat rate of 0.19 feet/century. (From http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?...)
Recent article:
Recent Satelite data:
(From http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/invest-nerem.html)
The IPPC forth report says there has been no, repeat NO, accelaration in the rate of sea level change. Yet they predict more than the current rate. Why has there not been any change in the rate yet? How much must that change be? Well, 3 to 4 TIMES the current rate to match the IPCC predictions, 30-40 TIMES to make Gore's 20ft prediction. Thus the graph would have to look like this:
So all the hype about radical sea level changes has not occured yet, read below on the islands in the Pacific too.
So, you agree - overall the world is warming - the sea level proves it - change IS happening. If the temperatures are changing that means climate is too. Clearly from your charts this is normal even without man's actions.
What is not normal is burning of fossil fuels (that have taken millions of years to accumulate) in a few tens of years - this causes a massive discontinuity in C02 levels and it is MAN MADE, so it is avoidable - any climate changes resulting from this will likely be discontinuous also and, by implication, avoidable.
Because of inertia you would never expect to see simmultaneous cause and effect - there WILL always be a time lag.
The sea level is a proxy for AVERAGE temperature change and because of the huge bulk of the Oceans there is massive inertia - near the North pole where we see the normal (self limiting, due to the curvature of the Earth) positive feedback from melting sea ice the temperature changes (and climate changes) are way more than average - this implies that elsewhere the changes will be less than average (where glaciers are not retreating? ... the South Pole?)
However, few places have zero change in temperature and hence zero change in climate.
History tells us to expect climate change, it is not change that is the potential problem but RATE of change.
So this then begs the question, when will the rate of sea level start to accelarate? If all these glaciers are melting, and have been because of AGW of some 20-30 years now, why has that water flow into the seas not increased the rate of rise? It also begs the question, if this lack of rise, if it continues flat, kill AGW theory?
So realize what you are saying. You are saying that there is no sea level rise at the moment that is caused by AGW. Thus all the media reports, all the hype about the CURRENT sea level rise is flat wrong right? You can't have it both ways. If the current trend is flat and, as you claim, the change in the rate is yet to come, then the current rate CANNOT be from AGW. Thus all the hype that it is from AGW must be wrong. By your own admission.
Sea level doesn't change on a dime. It is probably the slowest acting effect of global warming.
If you do look more closely at the recent data (the last 100 years or so), the sea level rise is accelerating, though quite modestly. At this point it's nothing terrible, but it does have the potential to become much worse.
Did you not read the abstract?
"Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). "
And you have a reference to back up your claim it won't turn on a dime, and you have a reference that it will become much worse. And you fully agree then that the current rise, in spite of Gore and others, is NOT currently from AGW. Right?
I don't know what the future will be and neither do the IPCC researchers - or you! Not least because nobody knows what all the variables and feedbacks are.
The climate research gives probabilities not certainties - if you are looking for certainty you won't get it. The data the IPCC and others use is statistical and has error bars, it is not 100% accurate and you need to take lenghty periods of time (decades) to get a feel for what is happening. The statistics are not as accurate as you think they are (nor are the IEA and EIA oil statistics, on a month by month basis!)
Is there climate change? ... yes! North Polar ice melting more and more for one good example! Will the climate of some parts of the world change adversely in the future ... Yes!
Is man responsible for part of the change? ... yes! How big a part? ... nobody knows! The historical temperature data does not go up in straight lines during warming periods and it won't do now - just because the temperature is not doing what you think it should for AGW does not mean there is no AGW due to fossil fuel burning.
Is man's use of fossil fuel, horizantle drilling, non-organic farming, overfishing etc etc sustainable ... NO!
Peak oil, peak food, peak population and peak pensions are just a few of the unsustainable challenges besides anthopogenic climate change facing man.
BAU means an uncertain world - get used to it.
Richard is just trying to bamboozle you by changing the plot scales. The sea level rise is accelerating and he has already been corrected on this point on this list.
Chris
Then you better tell the IPCC as their 2001 report says: “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” The 2007 report says: "Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear."
Include in your letter to the IPCC a copy to Holgate from the above reference I cited.
Interesting, Chris, you did not provide a reference. Please do so. How much is the change in the rate? You did not say.But I do have references that shows it has NOT changed From:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/22/unbelievably-d...
More refs:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/04/lowering-sea-leve...
(Kolker, A. S., and S. Hameed. 2007. Meteorologically driven trends in sea level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L23616, doi:10.1029/2007GL031814.)
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/14/sea-level-slowdow...
Richard,
it is not possible to debate with you because you do not do so in good faith on this issue. As a simple exampe, you ask for references and links from me now when you know that I have already demonstrated your contention to be false here on TOD.
Chris
I post references, even if i have to do it several times. If it is false that sea level has not changed its rate then SHOW US!! How difficult can it be to get a ref and post it? None! So do it, back up your claim with one reference.
I have already shown by the references above that the rate of sea level rise has NOT changed. How on earth is that NOT on good faith?!
If there is any lack of good faith it's your claim that this is MY contention when all I have done is post the references, hence it is the conclusion of these researchers that there has not been any change in the rate. So go take your disagreement to them.
Dogmatism at its best again.
While you are at getting that reference, send it to this too, I'm sure they will be receptive to be shown by you that they are wrong.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Did you actually read this chart or was this just another quick and dirty cut and paste job?
Just looking at the graph, sea level increased by 5 inches from 1850 to 1950. It increased by more than 6 inches from 1950 to just past 2000. The total increase appears to be greater in the latter 50 years than in the previous 100 years. The graph is misleading, as an absolute change in 50 years which is greater than an absolute change in 100 years can't have the same slope. The annotation "trend continues at same slope" appears to be wrong and could just be b.s. on your part.
So, no, this graph seems to show that you are wrong and supports others on this site arguing that you are wrong.
Perhaps you could draw the line from 1800 to compare 100 years with 100 years. But that would not support your conclusions.
Not to mention that last decade or so seems to be trending upwards.
Your 7 inches per century doesn't even make sense. Which century? Certainly not from 1800 to 1900. And from 1900 to 2000, it increased by 8 inches.
So, what is it about this graph that makes any sense and even remotely supports your conclusions?
Please stop blaming the messenger. If you have a problem with this graph, or anything I post with a reference, then take it up with them. This is not MY graph, this is the graph from that website. The point is the rate is not changing. To match the IPCC, to get that trend you would need, it would have to be 3 TIMES the current rate. As noted in the references I've posted before, the rate is not changing, it is fluctuating within normal ranges. If you have a reference that supports the notion that the rate has changed, please post it. If not, then the current hype that the changes in sea level is because of global warming must be wrong. Certainly the 19,000 scientists who added their names to this petition think AGW is wrong. Go contact them and show them they are misguided. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
So,now the new cop out is that we should go to your original source if you post stuff on this site that is mislabled and fails to support your position. No. If you are going to post here, you should defend your own data, not expect others to explain your data by going to your source.
You have chosen to be the messenger for those who think that global warming is a hoax. Then you post a graph that says the opposite of what you say about sea level rise and then ask me to not blame the messenger. If you don't want to be blamed, then quit posting info that says the opposite of what you purport to believe. As long as you keep posting stuff on this website that you use to support your position, then you should actually analyze your information to ensure that it says what you think it says.
In fact, you have posted a reference that actually indicates that the rate is changing. I assume you stand by your reference. So, thanks for providing a reference that shows that the rate of change is increasing.
But you are mixing two concepts. First, has the rate of sea level rise changed. It certainly appears that it has just from what you've posted here; never mind what other references are out there. Once we have determined that the rate has changed, the question becomes one of causation. According to your reference, the IPCC is not ready to state that they have enough data to confirm that the sea level rise is caused by global warming. As scientists, they are taking a conservative position and as, is typical of scientists, they are calling for further study, including more years of data. This is to be expected.
But one cannot conclude that AGW is not causing sea level rise just because scientists have not conclusively stated the opposite.
Don't ask us to contact your so called scientists. Either defend your positions with valid data or quit posting. Next time someone else posts here in support of AGW, should you be expected to contact the IPCC?
Or maybe you should. We here in Boulder have probably the greatest concentration of climate scientists in the world. Start with NCAR. Take the tour and talk to the scientists who actually were part of the IPCC. Argue with them. They can take everything you throw at them. I have seen them in action. But don't tell them to go contact one of your references if you are having problems arguing with them.
"In fact, you have posted a reference that actually indicates that the rate is changing. I assume you stand by your reference."
Yes I do stand with the data. It's saw toothed, did you not see the other 2 that has a higher rate for a while, then drops? This is just another of those saw tooth changes. In fact, again I refer you to the IPCC 2007 report about this very point: "Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. "
But you are missing the whole point. To get to the IPCC's 20 inches in 100 years would require a rate THREE TIMES the observed rate. You claim the IPCC is conservative, so too do people like Gore who wants 20 feet of rise, that's THIRTY TIMES the current rate! Others have thrown out even higher rates over shorter distances of time.
"But one cannot conclude that AGW is not causing sea level rise just because scientists have not conclusively stated the opposite." Nor can you claim the opposite then.
Bottom line: Is the current rate BECAUSE of AGW? Yes or no. If Yes, why has the rate not changed to the value it should under the predictions? If not then all the current hype on the MSM about the rise because of AGW is flat wrong. Which is it?
Richard - is it possible that the change in trend around 1860 marks the onset of melt following The Little Ice Age?
I'm surprised this thread is still going - its been very interesting. If you reply can you send me an email flagging the reply - since I may forget to come back here.
Euan
It certainly looks that way doesn't it. That was my first thought, but did not want to speculate.
Thanks Richard. Its too simple, isn't it?
I'm just back from X country skiing in Norway where on quiet evenings in the mountain cabins I read about the advance of Norwegian mountain glaciers during The Little Ice Age and about the sea ice apron that surrounded South Greenland - which no doubt was reflected by extended ice cap and glaciers on shore. I've also read about perma-frost inside excavated Greenland Norse settlements - pretty damned sure that permafrost wasn't there when the settlement was inhabited during the MWP.
Are you refering to me or the Warm Mongers? Because those are the VERY arguments I use to support the skeptical position!! There is nothing in what you said I would disagree with at all. Thank you for supporting my position.
The IPCC work is absolutely peer reviewed, much of from scientists at the worlds great universities. The idea that they would falsify their work and that others would collude is risible.
Nasa's GRACE program has measured ice sheet loss from Greenland over a period of at least 10 years; and the loss is accelerating.
There is also plenty of evidence of glacier loss, all over the world. There is also plenty of other evidence of warming so I am afraid climate change sceptics are beginning to look just a little bit silly, irrational even.
Another reader asks for evidence of rising sea levels. Check out the Carteret islands (Papua New Guinea) and Tuvalu (S. Pacific).
At the same time I understand and support Heading Outs comment on there being insufficient FF to raise CO2 levels by the amount the IPCC a warning us about. Unfortunately I am not sure that that matters. I think we have committed ourselves to sufficient global warming already (temperature inertia in the sea is holding back atmospheric warming) so temperatures will continue to rise causing massive dislocation and damage that is now inescapable.
That does not mean there is no point in working hard to reduce FF use, of course we must. We might just get lucky and only have PO to worry about!
"The IPCC work is absolutely peer reviewed, much of from scientists at the worlds great universities."
Here is a list of other scientists from the world’s great universities who do NOT accept the "consensus", this list is growing.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/Skepti...
And the papers in the IPCC report are not peer reviewed at all. They are written for the report and not subjected to other scrutiny before publication. In fact, the summaries are written first by non-scientists and then the scientists are told what to put in their reports to coincide with the summaries. This is not my wild accusation; this is a charge from the very scientists themselves who wrote for the IPCC.
"Another reader asks for evidence of rising sea levels. Check out the Carteret islands (Papua New Guinea) and Tuvalu (S. Pacific)."
Yes, you had better get up to date on this. Tuvalu has NOTHING to do with sea level rise and everything to do with over population and bad land practices. There's lots about this on the Net, simple google will find it.
"I think we have committed ourselves to sufficient global warming already (temperature inertia in the sea is holding back atmospheric warming) so temperatures will continue to rise causing massive dislocation and damage that is now inescapable."
What peer reviewed papers do you have to back up this "thought"?
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
this link shows how Co2 works.
so before you run around like chicken little, lets first look at
the basic facts of CO2.
soon to come is a new report.
from
http://aqua.nasa.gov/
so lets all wait before shouting like loons.
coming soon, and you wont be too pleased.
mr. neutral
Thanks for posting that nice summary of skepticism of AGW.
This is also good:
http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1598
"AGW is just such bad science at this time that I want nothing to do with it."
"In the AGW school of warming, the litany of one poor package of junk science after another - attempts at distortion, editing, hiding data, changing data (Hansen), inventing trends (Mann), changing conclusions (IPCC), ad hominem attacks (Hansen and most of them), censorship by a hysterical media, outrageously incapable computer modeling, and even outright lies (fill in the names here…) - should send enough alarm bells ringing to warn even the most obtuse about what is happening; though not loud enough to alarm the faithful it seems. It really is a new religion."
Hmmm.... his bio says,
His articles on the site include,
"Anthropogenically driven Global Warming (AGW): Some pro and con comments" [if you read the article, it's all con)
"The Inevitable Nuclear Resurgence, and the Inevitable Panic Attacks"
the rest are just on how awesome nuclear reactors are.
GoogleScholar (only in beta, so it might miss a lot) pulls up
- a book, Health Aspects of High-level Radioactive Wastes [pdf]
- Science and Risk
- Origins and Management of Radioactive Waste
and the same in French.
So he appears to be quite the authority on radiation hazards to humans. But about climate science he can claim no special authority, and has written no peer-reviewed articles on the topic so far as I can see. He seems to spend most of his time advocating in various media for more nuclear reactors.
Well, at least we can't accuse him of being self-interested, since one typical argument of pro-nuclear people is that it'll mitigate climate change... if climate change doesn't exist then no mitigation is needed and we can forget the nukes, right? Sutherland doesn't seem to be aware of peak oil or other resource issues.
Global Warming Petition
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the fact is, the IPCC reports aren't "reviewed" by anyone. Here's how the system works:
1. The reports are written by a small group, some of which aren't even scientists, and all but one of which has a personal stake in preserving the hoax. These writers are political appointees, not chosen from the best of the scientists actually doing empirical science. All of the global warming panic is being generated by "models", not empirical science. In fact the models are so flawed they are the laughing stock of the broader climate science community.
2. After the draft is finished, then the "committee" is invited to comment. The writing group can reject any comment it wants, and in particular rejects any comment which seriously disagrees with its already established opinion. The literature is full of irate letters from scientists who howlingly object to the censorship, to no avail. The writers word is final... there is absolutely no "peer review" allowed. The Secretary General of the UN himself cannot alter one word of the report.
Yes, I'm an atmospheric physicist, and I realize most of you on this forum are not. I can recognize "cut-and-paste" as well as anyone.
For those of you who are not rocket scientists, you might like to read this excellent summary which was written for the layman at this link
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
For a more detailed discussion of the Corruption of the UN IPCC reports, try
http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/index.htm
"Modeling" is not science. It is a prediction which unfortunately is fatally flawed because the modelers, in their urgency to promote the hoax for political and economic gain, deliberately omit critical variables from their models which would expose the hoax for what is is.
This is not a "conspiracy". This is a collection of junk scientists, policy wonks, journalists, and radical environmentalists who independently support the panic because it will ( and already has ) divert vast sums of money into a large assortment of environmental projects.
I am in weekly contact ( indeed, almost daily ) with some of the finest climate scientists on the planet, and to date, not one of my colleagues is buying into the anthropogenic global warming hoopla. The notion that "all the world's scientists agree" in in fact part of the hoax mechanism, and nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, "warming" came to a screeching halt several years ago despite continuously increasing CO2 levels, and since then there has been a slight cooling trend, according to the accepted HadCRUt3 data which now shows a decadal cooling trend of 0.4 degrees Centigrade per decade.
You all can argue until you are blue in the face, it will not change the science one iota. Climate change is a natural phenomenon, and to date there is not one scintilla of actual empirical science to indicate the future will be any more than a cyclical repetition of the past.
Fortunately, Solar Cycle 24 is predicted to be a fairly warm one lasting 11 years, so hopefully the cooling trend will self-arrest, but also unfortunately, Solar Cycle 25, which will peak about 2022 is going to be one of the quietest sun cycles in many decades, with significant cooling to affect most of the rest of the 21st century.
You may now continue with your cut-and-paste BS which evidently even the plagiarists on this forum do not actually understand.
Thankyou for posting this.
I've got an email yesterday showing that Al Gore has admitted he owns or has direct stakes in environmental companies that are directly benefiting from the alarmism. How ironic, these very people here who hate capitalism and champion AGW are being duped by the very Minister of the dogma (Al Gore) practicing capitalism at its worse by creating a need for his "product" based on the fear of the masses. So where is Gore getting the $300 million from to promote the alarmism of AGW? From the money his companies will make off it, which in turn will come from the people conned by his message.
When I get back to my computer I'll post it.
Thanks again for the support of integrity in science.
Kindly spare us your Gore fetish.
I have no doubt that there are many people who support peak oil theory on this site and elsewhere who also invest in oil and other energy companies, who play the commodities market, and who are otherwise invested in companies or commodities which will profit from a shortage of oil. I guess all of us here are being duped.
Your real need here is not to support integrity in science. Your overriding passion is to defeat what you think is a position purely driven by socialism and the desire to destroy capitalism.
So, really, in your view, all the time, effort, and passion that Gore has spent getting the message out on global warming over the years is just driven by pure greed. And, oh my God, he is investing in environmental companies. Well, at least he is clearly a capitalist.
You have gone down that road and yet you bristle when it is pointed out that the source of much of your "information" comes from organizations who are mainly driven by the need to perpetuate the status quo.
Thanks for coming out and showing us where you are really coming from.
How is posting peer reviewed papers that shows the sea level has not changed it's rate "comes from organizations who are mainly driven by the need to perpetuate the status quo. " Please explain.
The difference is that Gore is making his own demand. It's snake oil salesmanship pure and simple. He makes up the hype and claims the world will die if we do not act and buy into his "solutions". If any one else did this everyone here would be screaming to have his head. But because Gore is the messiah of the orthodoxy then it's OK. He's no different than the evangelicals on TV fleecing the flock of followers.
Excellent! Tell us, for what university, institution or company do you work for? Have you a webpage detailing your qualifications, experience and publications?
Please name these scientists, so that we can learn more.
If you've no reply, we can only conclude you're talking bollocks...