Skip to content

You Could Not Make It Up!! (But They Can)

May 25, 2015
tags:

By Paul Homewood  

 

forbes

 

From the “Science is Settled Department”. 

 

 

In 2008, they found that sea level rise between 2003 and 2008 had slowed down, compared to 1993-2003. Furthermore, the authors were confident that thermal expansion had stopped and that glacial melting accounted for all of the rise. 

 

image

http://media.eurekalert.org/aaasnewsroom/2009/FIL_000000000353/Sea%20Level_%20review_Cras2a%202766.pdf

 

 

Fast forward to this year, and we find that the rate of rise previously assumed for 1993-2003 had been overstated, and that when corrected the new figures fit the models for glacial melt and thermal expansion!

 

image

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2635.html

 

 

Talk about making it up as you go along!!

15 Comments
  1. May 25, 2015 1:44 pm

    I will not refer necessarily to the sea levels, I think that it’s important that oceans should be discussed. Any theory is first generated by experiments, by facts tested or observed. There are so many events related to the oceans that are also related to climate changes that cannot be ignored.

    • May 25, 2015 2:15 pm

      The most serious problem I see in various models of the ocean and measuring sea level rise is the uncertainty in measurement. No one really knows to any reasonable degree of accuracy the volume of the ocean, the temperature of vast parts of the ocean and even the measurments of sea level rise vary. We certainly need to study the ocean, and its effect on climate, but we also need to keep in mind the uncertainty in our calculations and conclusions.

  2. May 25, 2015 4:31 pm

    GLOBAL SEA LEVELS RISING ~1 TO ~1.8 mm/yr, WITH NO ACCELERATION
    —–
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JC010180/abstract
    The global mean trend of ocean mass addition is 1.5 (±0.4) mm yr−1 for 1996–2006 from the residual method and the same for 2003–2013 from the GRACE method.
    —–
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818114000381
    In this study we estimate sea level rise and regional sea level variability in Indian Ocean (20°E-140°E, 30°N − 35°S) over a period of 60 years from 1950 until 2009. … The trend in this region over 60 years amounts to 1.5 mm/yr., a value lesser (although not statistically different) than the global mean sea level rise over the same period.
    —–

    http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/jaeger/Moerner_Parker_ESAIJ2013.pdf


    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. … [A] database of 86 stations covering a much longer time period … 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.
    —–
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL059039/abstract
    Tide gauge records are the primary source of sea level information over multi-decadal to century timescales. A critical issue in using this type of data to determine global climate-related contributions to sea level change concerns the vertical motion of the land upon which the gauges are grounded. Here we use observations from the Global Positioning System for the correction of this vertical land motion. As a result, the spatial coherence in the rates of sea level change during the 20th century is highlighted at the local and the regional scales, ultimately revealing a clearly distinct behavior between the northern and the southern hemispheres with values of 2.0 mm/year and 1.1 mm/year, respectively [1.55 mm/year globally, or 6.1 inches per century]. Our findings challenge the widely accepted value of global sea level rise for the 20th century.
    —–
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10651-014-0293-4

    http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide%20gauge%20location.pdf


    We therefore study individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) during 1807 – 2010 without recourse to data reconstruction. Although mean sea levels are rising by 1 mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6 mm/year.
    —–
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002397
    It is found that the GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.
    —–

    http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf


    In this analysis, the global sea level rise budget for 2005–2012 is closed when the Paulson GIA correction is applied (Table 1). The sum of steric sea level rise and the ocean mass component has a trend of 1.1 ± 0.8 mm/a over the period when the Paulson GIA mass correction is applied, well overlapping total sea level rise observed by Jason-1 and Jason-2 (1.3 ± 0.9 mm/a) within a 95% confidence interval.
    —–
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028492/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).
    —–

    A LACK OF ACCELERATION
    —–
    http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
    Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.
    —–
    http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1
    The Australasian region has four very long, continuous tide gauge records, at Fremantle (1897), Auckland (1903), Fort Denison (1914), and Newcastle (1925), which are invaluable for considering whether there is evidence that the rise in mean sea level is accelerating over the longer term at these locations in line with various global average sea level time-series reconstructions. The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000.
    —–
    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/575k5821r2w23t73
    Morphological and stratigraphical observational facts in the Sundarban delta provide data for a novel sea level reconstruction of the area. This sea level documentation lacks traces of a global sea level rise. This implies totally new perspectives for the future of Bangladesh. No longer are there any reasons to fear an extensive sea level inundation in the near future.
    —–
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378383912000154
    The government of Australia is supporting the statement that sea levels are rising faster than ever before as a result of increased carbon dioxide emissions. Consequent to this, low-lying coastal areas, where the majority of Australians are concentrated, have been declared at risk of sea level inundations. Maps with 0.5, 0.8 and 1.1 m sea level rise have been proposed for Sydney, the major Australian city. However, long term tide gauges, recording sea levels worldwide, as well as along the coastline of Australia, and within the bay of Sydney, do not show any sign of accelerating sea level rises at present time.
    —–
    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/k3xg21881l4k0161/
    There is a claim that, by the end of this century, Australian coastal communities will experience rising sea levels of up to more than 1 metre because of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming. The paper shows that locally and globally measured data, collected over short and long time scales, prove that the claim of sea level sharply accelerating is false.
    —–
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JC009900/abstract
    Global mean sea level change since 1900 is found to be 1.77 ± 0.38 mm year on average. [T]he acceleration found for the global mean, +0.0042 ± 0.0092 mm year, is not significant, local values range from -0.1 mm year in the central Indian Ocean to +0.1 mm year in the western tropical Pacific and east of Japan.
    —–
    http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/q7j3kk0128292225/
    Well established records indicate a post-LIA (1850-1950) sea level rise of 11 cm. Sea level changes during the last 40-50 years are subjected to major controversies. The methodology applied and the views claimed by the IPCC are challenged. For the last 40-50 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions. The Earth’s rate of rotation records a mean acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea levels. Best estimates for future sea level changes up to the year 2100 are in the range of +5 cm ±15 cm.
    —–

    http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/2008GL033611.pdf


    The fastest sea level rise, estimated from the time variable trend with decadal variability removed, during the past 300 years was observed between 1920– 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr. … [E]stimates of the melting glacier contribution to sea level is 4.5 cm for the period 1900 – 2000 with the largest input of 2.5 cm during 1910 – 1950 [Oerlemans et al., 2007]
    —–
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1
    [T]here was a warm period in the Arctic and Greenland in the 1920s and 1930s (Box 2002; Johannessen et al. 2004; Kobashi et al. 2011) at a time when anthropogenic global warming was relatively small (see, e.g., Fig. 9.5 of Hegerl et al. 2007). This promoted glacier mass loss at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., Oerlemans et al. 2011) at a greater rate than the global mean. Although in L the difference is not striking in general (not shown; L includes 79 glaciers north of 60°N and 24 north of 70°N), it is pronounced in Greenland. Length records included in L indicate a greater rate of glacier retreat in the first than in the second half of the twentieth century in Greenland (Leclercq et al. 2012)

    [Graph from the paper (Figure A) showing much larger glacier melt rate contributions to sea level rise in the 1920s and 1930s compared to the present:]

  3. KEITH GUGAN permalink
    May 25, 2015 4:40 pm

    Not a response to this Post but a pointer to something you may have missed, not that you miss much!

    Saturday’s Telegraph had a report from the Hay Festival – not something I take much account of normally but the report in the paper on page 13 had a headline that caught my eye and made me realise how low these alarmists are prepared to punch: “Climate activists: ‘We must infect children’s minds'” – quoted verbatim.

    Of course, we recognise that many who teach in schools already embrace ‘climate change’ but putting this mendacious stuff in book form whether the context is overt or subliminal attempts to put the level of ‘authority’ in the message at another plane.

    All good wishes, Keith Gugan

    On 25 May 2015 at 12:54, NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT wrote:

    > Paul Homewood posted: “By Paul Homewood From the “Science is > Settled Department”. In 2008, they found that sea level rise between > 2003 and 2008 had slowed down, compared to 1993-2003. Furthermore, the > authors were confid”

  4. May 25, 2015 4:41 pm

    More data adjustment to fit the false narrative. The problem with this new paper is that well sited (no tectonics, no isostasy, no subsidence, differential GPS confirmed) tide gauges do not agree with the new papers adjustments. Nor does NASA and NOAA, whose satellite data they ‘adjusted’.
    Another fine ‘product’ of Australian and UK universities.

  5. cheshirered permalink
    May 25, 2015 9:38 pm

    The absolute proof of their deceptions comes when guys like Paul and ‘Steve Goddard’ make comments that ordinarily could easily be considered libellous, yet from the climate con-merchants comes there not a peep. To impugn someone’s professional integrity to such an extent yet allow it to go unchallenged speaks louder than any subsequent ‘rebuttal’ puff piece ever could.
    They know full well if they challenged a blog post it would need to be defended in an open court, which is kryptonite to climate science. Keep it up, Paul!

  6. Ardy permalink
    May 25, 2015 10:16 pm

    They can’t all be deceptive or ingenuous can they? There must be some of them who think hold on a minute this doesn’t seem right.

  7. Derek Colman permalink
    May 26, 2015 2:56 am

    Sea level is barely rising at all. The figure of 3.2 mm per year is a construction of computer models fed with adjusted data. The real expert, Nils Axel Mörner, who has been measuring sea levels in the field for many years, states that current sea level rise is between zero and 1mm per year.

  8. Richard111 permalink
    May 26, 2015 6:29 am

    I live on the old quarry that provided a lot of the material for the harbour less than 100 yards from my house. Simply looking out the window I can see old stone work and I can see the change in tide level. Can’t see much difference in high tide levels in photographs of a hundred years ago and today. Rising sea levels? Baloney!

    • AndyG55 permalink
      May 26, 2015 6:49 am

      The rock shelves all along the NSW (Australia) coast show that the sea level was 1-1.5m higher in the not too distant past.

  9. johnmarshall permalink
    May 26, 2015 10:42 am

    I agree with Derek Coleman. Sea levels are notoriously difficult to measure. You need a fixed datum. Since land moves up and down with constant tectonic adjustment what do you use? If satellites could be guaranteed to stay in a known orbit then OK but they drift by feet on every orbit due to gravimetric changes of the surface over which they travel. I know a coral island in the Indian ocean, part of a chain claimed to be sinking, which has the same coastal features as 55 years ago when I first visited.

  10. May 27, 2015 4:31 pm

    The only sea level that matters is how high the tide rises when it is a Spring Tide combined with a strong offshore wind. I live and have nearly always have done since being born near the famous railway line near Dawlish (in 1930 since you ask). I hear no reports that the highest is any different from then. Just for fun I had a correspondence with the Ordance Survey some five years ago. The datum point for their maps of Britain is Newlyn Harbour in far West Cornwall. They explained that mean tide levels from 1912 had risen 7.5 inches and that the present map contours and spot heights are based on the 1921 figure. Anomalies occur in areas such as the North Sea when a very high spring tide combines with a very strong Northerly wind such as happened in 1953.
    The standard of knowledge of physics and the ordinary things that happen in the natural world is abysmal compared with my younger day….especially amongst the ‘green’ groups….

    • johnmarshall permalink
      May 28, 2015 10:33 am

      Dawlish used to have groynes along the beach which helped to build large sandy beaches, a protection from storm surge trouble. (some groyne remnents are visible). Today, no groynes so no beach to protect from storms. I have contacted DEFRA but they claimed that the groynes were the responsibility of Network Rail. Network Rail say that they are the responsibility of DEFRA.in the mean time the storm damaged line, costing £10m+ to repair, is still unprotected and likely to fail at the next spring storm.

      • johnmarshall permalink
        May 29, 2015 11:11 am

        Yes I am aware of the first problem. Brunell wanted to build the line inland because of the coastal problems. He was overruled by the accountants as being too costly so the coastal line went ahead. Groynes were installed after this event, probably at Brunells instigation.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: