Skip to content

Jevrejeva Projections

July 4, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

image_thumb25

 

As requested, I have spliced Svetlana Jevrejeva’s projections of a 1.8m sea level rise up to 2100 onto her own actual figures to 2010:

 

image

http://www.psmsl.org/products/reconstructions/jevrejevaetal2014.php

 

No comment!!!!!!

Advertisements
27 Comments
  1. July 4, 2018 5:24 pm

    Er – that’s not a hockey stick, is it … ?

    • Joe Public permalink
      July 4, 2018 5:54 pm

      +1

    • July 4, 2018 6:33 pm

      All hockey sticks are well correlated, provided you displace the time at which the blade joins the handle.

      We’re all doomed, doomed I tell you. However, by the time I’m 150, I will be 12 ft under, rather than 6 ft under.

      • Broadlands permalink
        July 4, 2018 7:09 pm

        12 feet under? Will there be THAT much BS added? Have you calculated that on a global basis? Might keep the sea level from drowning everyone if placed along the coast lines… in dunes of BS.

      • Harry Passfield permalink
        July 4, 2018 7:10 pm

        You could be a floating voter…..

    • July 5, 2018 2:56 pm

      Directly from the Michael Mann school of environmental curve-making.

      • July 5, 2018 3:02 pm

        A rather odd fellow called Mick
        Sketched out a hockey stick
        Not, sad to say
        The one that you play
        But the one that made him look a right charlie

      • July 6, 2018 11:42 am

        My father introduced me to Limericks as a child. For many years, any poem I wrote came out as a limerick.

        When it comes to environmental ploys.
        Michael Mann is one of the boys,
        Whose curve is a joke to the serious folk,
        His personality is one which annoys

  2. July 4, 2018 5:57 pm

    missed the earlier post which I know I should read, but i am guessing there was no explanation for the inflection.

  3. July 4, 2018 7:29 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  4. John F. Hultquist permalink
    July 4, 2018 8:49 pm

    NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter in Sept. 1999 because an engineering team used English units of measurement while another team used the metric system.

    This sort of problem may explain sea level controversies. If the readings are in inches, then converted to mm, and graphed with meters, the visual result is stunning.

    Don’t laugh! Years ago a textbook of meteorology, published in England, was repurposed for the American market. The ‘degrees’ conversion from Celsius to F. was automated. They forgot that Latitude and Longitude are also printed with the degree symbol ( ° ).
    So, the newly printed book had maps with the converted Lat/Long on them and, also, in the text. This produced a map with the Tropic of Cancer (23 ½ °) labeled as 74.5° N.

    Okay. Now you can laugh.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      July 5, 2018 8:32 am

      A few weeks ago the Daily Telegraph had a story claiming that the temperature was going to be “double” the norm for that time of year – 15 degrees C norm, 30 degrees C forecast.

      Yet oddly in Fahrenheit it wasn’t double – 60 versus 86!

  5. Bruce of Newcastle permalink
    July 4, 2018 8:56 pm

    Being below sea level doesn’t seem to slow down the Dutch.
    A bunch of guys with front end loaders could easily build a 2 m high dike to protect the necessary bits of the UK in that amount of time.
    I don’t think it would cost trillions of pounds either.

  6. July 4, 2018 9:20 pm

    Also no evidence in her data that the rate of sea level rise is responsive to emissions
    https://ssrn.com/abstract=3023248

  7. auralay permalink
    July 4, 2018 9:28 pm

    Hmmm. What would a 1.8m rise have done to the Swansea Barrage?

  8. July 4, 2018 9:35 pm

    Something could well cost the world $14 trillion by 2100, but it won’t be the level of the seas. Step forward futile attempts to alter the climate.

  9. Philip of Taos permalink
    July 5, 2018 4:02 am

    Garbage in Garbage out. enough said!

  10. gallopingcamel permalink
    July 5, 2018 5:52 am

    The global “Ice Inventory” is 30 million Giga-tonnes. It is melting at a rate of ~300 Giga-tonnes per year so if that continues it will take 10,000 years to melt all the continental ice.

    Melting all the continental ice will raise the sea level by 60 feet or 0.6 feet per century.

    You have to be brain dead to imagine that sea level will rise by six feet by 2100. That implies an average rate of 7.5 feet per century. Dream on!

    Much more likely the next glaciation will kick in and the sea level will fall by 400 feet over the next 10,000 years. When that happens the human population will diminish by at least a factor of ten and the survivors will be beg for more “Global Warming”.

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      July 5, 2018 3:50 pm

      Solutions proposed by Climate Scientists to the Ice Age will include, Carbon Capture, Spraying seawater into the atmosphere, giant mirrors in orbit and more renewable energy.

  11. July 5, 2018 7:10 am

    Jevrejeva’s projections

    As usual the ‘projections’ from models bear no resemblance to reality. But such obvious discrepancies seem to have no effect on unthinking policymakers, if they are even aware of them.

  12. paul weldon permalink
    July 5, 2018 7:47 am

    A polynomial trend was probably used as in Fig. 16 of the paper you referred to. The graph therefore looks different to what Paul has drawn. Of course, there is no reason to use a polynomial trend, if anything, if you note the falling of sea level before 1850, a cyclic trend would be more appropriate. We hear a lot about proxies such as tree rings being used to estimate previous temperatures, I would regard sea-level as such a proxy. It is therefore interesting to note Paul’s comment that sea-level rise was lower in the 1950s – 1980s period. With a rise in global temperatures in the late 80s and 90s it is therefore no surprise that those with a mission have used the rise in the 90s to back their beliefs of a rising trend. Personally, I like the last bit of the sea-level graph where levels appear to be falling. Of course this gets NO mention!

  13. July 5, 2018 7:52 am

    Thank you Paul; though I did suggest, ‘at the same scale.’ Was sorta looking for that ancient ‘scroll’ effect.

    Cheers !!

  14. Phoenix44 permalink
    July 5, 2018 8:35 am

    I am honestly at a loss to understand what this person believes they have achieved?

  15. Colin permalink
    July 5, 2018 10:27 am

    Even supposing sea level did rise by 1.8m… I live in a coastal city ( Aberdeen), however my street is 70m above sea level, so I reckon my property valuation is unlikely to be affected for a few thousand years. Not untypically Aberdeen has fairly hilly topography, nonetheless it is a port. People joke that the boats nearly come into Union Street, the main drag but you still need a 15m sea level rise to inundate this street. Warmistas all seem to assume every coastal city is like Lower Manhattan.

    • Gamecock permalink
      July 6, 2018 3:37 pm

      “Warmistas all seem to assume every coastal city is like Lower Manhattan.”

      And all assume communal responsibility.

      If you own waterfront property, and it is consumed by rising sea level, it is your problem, not the community’s.

  16. July 5, 2018 4:46 pm

    She is very much a climate modeller and has published with one of the leading ocean scaremongers, Anders Levermann of Potsdam.
    http://noc.ac.uk/people/sveta

    Lead Author of Chapter 13 (Sea level changes), Working group 1, Fifth Assessment report of Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC)
    Member of NERC Peer Review College
    Editor of “American Journal of Climate Change”
    http://www.scirp.org/journal/ajcc
    http://www.scirp.org/AboutUs/Index.aspx

    “Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is one of the largest Open Access journal publishers. It is currently publishing more than 200 open access, online, peer-reviewed journals covering a wide range of academic disciplines.”

    HQ in China. She is a Visiting Senior Scientist at Beijing Normal University, China

    Member of Group of Experts of Global Observing Sea Level System (GLOSS),
    (Very much a UN body)
    https://www.jcomm.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=150&Itemid=97

    Member of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC)
    Another UN “Intergovernmental” body
    http://www.ioc-unesco.org/

    Another repeat of the story at Eurekalert:
    https://eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-07/ip-rsl062918.php

    “Rising sea levels could cost the world $14 trillion a year by 2100”

    Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions…..

    Science by press release as usual and no chance of a contrary view being published by them.

  17. Sheri permalink
    July 5, 2018 8:33 pm

    I would have been flunked and probably thrown out of any science class I presented something so obviously bogus in. That this passes for science is horrifying. It does explain why bridges collapse, roads don’t hold together, etc. These “scientists” are so far from science…..

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: