Sea Level Prediction
By David Dilley – Global Weather Oscillations
As many are familiar, the warm peak of the interglacial cycle occurred about 7 thousand years ago, with progressively cooler 1,500 year warming cycles since then as the earth trends toward the next long-term glacial period.
Figure 1: Temperature of the Holocene Period.
Because the density and depth of the oceans around the world, changes in ocean temperatures lag behind a long-term inter-glacial cooling or warming trend by up to a few thousand years. This is partly due to the smaller 230-year cooling and warming cycles embedded within the long-term cycles.
Thus, until earth trends further toward the next glacial period, a continued trend in slow sea level rise could continue for another thousand years – although rises will become less and less as time progresses, or it may even stabilize and halt entirely within the next few years as the next 230-year global cooling cycle takes hold and earth continues to progress toward the next ice age.
The short-term 230-year Natural Climate Pulse 230 global warming and cooling cycles will be the most important aspect during the next 150 to 200 years. These cycles are controlled by the earth-moon-sun gravitational cycles and the solar cycles, which in-turn in combination with the warming and cooling – control fluctuations in sea level.
As seen in Figure 2, there have been 6 warming cycles during the past 1,200 years and the beginning and ending of each cycle occur like clockwork about every 220 to 230 years. The last warm cycle ended around 1780 and the year 2019 is approximately 230 years from this date.
Figure 2: Global temperature forecast by meteorologist David Dilley. The typical 72-year twin temperature peaks associated with a 230 year Natural Global Warming Cycles.
Just as important as the 230-year Natural Climate Pulse is the Solar Activity Cycles. As seen in Figure 3, solar activity has entered a new Maunder-type Minimum that should continue for the next 50 to 90 years.
Figure 3: The solar cycles since 1749 and the prediction is for a solar minimum to cause a cooling period about 200 years.
Like the Climate Pulse Cycles, these cycles also correlate with the approximate 230-year warming and cooling cycles.
Prediction and projection
Earth is now entering a Climate Pulse Global Cooling Cycle which will last between 100 to 200 years, and this will greatly stabilize or even reduce sea level rise. The coldest years of the upcoming Natural Climate Pulse cooling cycle will be from the year 2020 through 2220, and especially from 2025 through 2060 – a period that will likely see epic cold temperatures not seen since the early 1800s. The Arctic and Antarctic entered the cooling cycle around the year 2013 and the full effects will become noticeable on or after the year 2019.
The Arctic and Antarctic will realize dramatic ice restoration during this period, and ocean water will contract during this period due to the much colder temperatures and cooling of the oceans. GWO predicts a complete stabilizing of the sea level rise early in this period and likely very little or no sea level rise during the period from 2020 through 2200.
Conclusion: misleading science
Most sea level predictions that are widely distributed by government agencies and universities paint an alarming picture for coastal areas during the next 80 years and beyond. If sea levels actually rise as predicted by the United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), coastal areas of the United States and especially low lying areas and Ports would be very susceptible to the projected rises.
Politicized science
But extreme caution and doubt should be exercised with these predictions. The government grant system offers research grants to universities for the purpose of researching theories that may or may not be true. Unfortunately this process has not been used wisely during the past 20 years, and sometimes abused by the university research programs.
Much of this begins with the lobbyists and bureaucrats in Washington D.C. and the United Nations. The lobbyists are infusing money into the university grant systems worldwide in order to promote money making agendas. If the universities and governments can be convinced that Climate Change has catastrophic consequences – special interest agendas can easily be put in place. But to do so, scare tactics are used by agencies to further these agendas. Unfortunately the university grant system has become the puppet to bolster the agendas on Climate Change issues. By using scare tactics fanned from poor science, ideas and facts can easily be misconstrued.
Fanning the fire is unfortunately done in several ways. After the lobbyists and special interest groups set the ground work to promote their special interest climate agendas, it then spills over to the grant system. Once the grants are put forth, catastrophic yet often scientifically unfounded results spew from the universities to scientific journals. Worse, young scientists must toe the line and continue to publish substandard research and findings – or they may not reach tenure.
References:
Nature Volume 531 issue 7596 Robert M. DeConto and Davie Pollard, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA
United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the USGCRP National Climate Assessment
Natural Climate Pulse; David Dilley, CEO Global Weather Oscillations. Peer reviewed and published 2009, updated 2012; www.globalweatheroscillations.com.
IMO 200 years of strong sunspot activity ( if you want to use that) has to have that influence stored somewhere, so it would be in the oceans, which are slow to warm and cool. So the kind of cooling talked about here I think is overdone. Grays epic paper is where I stand
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
It will take longer for the earth to respond due to stored heat in the oceans. 3 low sunspot cycles cant erase 2 hundred years. LIA, if you wish to blame sunspots, occurred during min, true, but there was a much longer min to set it up that lasted 2 centuries. Peace
No doubt such a forecast relies on many assumptions. It is still not even sure whether the next 2 sunspot cycles will be weak. We are assuming that the overall cycle will repeat – and that with the same regularity – even though there are no guarantees it will. Like the IPCC scenarios – plenty of speculation.
Sounds like Joe Bastardi is saying that the oceans act to dampen the effects of both heating and cooling, thereby being a major factor in making the planet habitable?
Water can absorb a lot of heat, with little change in temperature, as Lubos Motl explained, clarifying warmist misinformation by giving us the facts they left out. (see my post below for link )
https://notrickszone.com/2016/05/17/veteran-meteorologist-forecasts-epic-cold-temperatures-over-2025-2060-slowing-sea-level-rise/comment-page-1/#comment-1105509
Unfortunately, a good dose of cooling might be the only thing that will kill off the CAGW mantra.
I’m not sure which would be worse for the planet,
a solid cooling ..
or continuation the AGW agenda.
“I’m not sure which would be worse for the planet,
a solid cooling ..
or continuation the AGW agenda.” – AndyG55
If warmists were correct, and we could lower earth’s temperature by restricting CO2 emissions, that would cause cooling, which is bad. Also, if it cools or warms naturally, the resources squandered on AGW will make us less able to cope with whatever natural variation occurs.
So given what they want to do, regardless of what they can do, and given the harm the purveyors of the AGW scam are causing, the AGW agenda is about as bad as it could be, short of a nuclear war.
…or unless we have another major ice age, and Canada is once again covered with a block of ice a couple of miles thick.
Graph No. 1 is horrible. Basically it is hand painted from a paper from 1969. “Today” on that graph is about as far from today as you can get in modern science.
https://stevencapozzola.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/temp_variations_during_holocene.png
You folks love that graph, because it supports what you believe. Science does not factor into it.
if we look at a different reconstruction, things look different.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
Oh, yes, that last link nails it.
And for those of you who don’t believe, here’s a blowup of the “recent proxies” inset in the upper right of that graphic.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/a-disgrace-to-the-profession.jpg
“And for those of you who don’t believe, here’s a blowup of the “recent proxies” inset in the upper right of that graphic.”
You are wrong. The hockey stick controversy is about splicing temperature measurements to the proxy data.
this is about recent proxies.
anyway, “today” in my graph refers to 2004 and is labelled.
“today” i your graph might actually be 1969 and is not labelled.
i would courteously ask you to remove the huge thing in your eye, before you start discussing the splinter in mine!
And what was the PURPOSE of “splicing temperature measurements to [cherry picked faulty] proxy data,” if not to deceive?
You can’t just brush it aside, when warmists made so much of it (some STILL do), and Climategate revealed that they were calling it “Mike’s ‘nature trick'” ha ha ha, very funny.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/manns-trick-to-hide-the-decline-still-shocking/
Why are ALWAYS an apologist for transparent lies, and stupid “explanations?” Don’t you realize that makes you a partner in those lies, and, in effect, a liar yourself?
trees are a really bad proxy for temperature.. (which is why the AGW brigade use them.. easily fudged, inverted, etc etc)
When you remove the tree rings, you get a much clearer picture
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lanser_holocene_figure11.png
Sod only sees what he wants to see. He is blind to everything else. Look closely at all three graphs and compare. Sod is shining example of confirmation bias.
And sob links to a graph drawn by primary school children. so funny!
AndyG55 says, “Unfortunately, a good dose of cooling might be the only thing that will kill off the CAGW mantra. I’m not sure which would be worse for the planet, a solid cooling .. or continuation the AGW agenda.”
Same thought occurred to me.
Based on H. H. Lamb’s description of the Little Ice Age, I think even modest cooling for only a few decades would bring economic hardship and misery to hundreds of millions worldwide.
In my opinion, the benefits of the present modest warming are widely unappreciated.
The full paper can be read at the link below. It provides more graphics and the 230 year earth-moon-sun gravitation interactions. Also provides more detail on the cycles and why we can expect “No Sea Level Rise” much like what occured during the little ice age.
http://www.globalweatheroscillations.com/#!Sea-Level-Rise-Next-100-Years-No-Rise-Predicted/c1trb/573351a70cf2c719ae27ab0f
David Dilley
I was a bit skeptical of your claims, until I saw the data you presented in your well explained videos, like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4hbKF5-qUE
…or this one, in which you explain to us what that graphic sod doesn’t like actually means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0Y7DYDLIl0
I’d suggest that he watch it, but as brainwashed as he is, I doubt he would get anything out of it.
Like the videos on low carb (and esp., sugar) + high fat diets, without which I would still be skeptical of them and not be currently losing weigh, your videos help a lot. Thanks for putting them up on YouTube.
I had to add tons of sweets to my diet. I’m bicycling to work.
Whatever works, as long as they’re high quality sweets.
Used to go jogging at the behest of my wife, and found that if we stopped at the pastry shop on the way, with one or two danish I could quadruple my distance, and with fewer recovery issues. Problem was that when we stopped jogging, we didn’t stop going to the pastry shop.
Imo Bastardi is correct in saying the (alarming) predictions are excessive. Especially the talk of a new Maunder Minimum. While SC 24 is low, it is more like the low before the low leading to the Dalton. Right now the solar cycle could go either way – because we don’t understand why it does what it does (just like global temperatures).
Imo, fear of sudden global cooling is at the same stage as that of global warming. Concepts both, not even hypotheses.
LOL – sod and friends are so full of $&^*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI
Even Nil-Axel Morner says the oceans expand when they heat, and with all the heat going into the oceans, they’re gonna BOIL over!
…NOT!
https://judithcurry.com/2013/09/26/the-relentless-increase-of-ocean-heat/
(she references Lubos Motl for a bit of sanity on the topic)
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html
Alarmists are such alarmingly one-dimensional dullards.
As explained in my video on youtube, the biggest player in climate change can very likely be the earth-moon-sun interactions of their gravitation cycles. For example; strong cycles act as an oceanic pulse by which warmer North Atlantic Ocean water is pulsed into the Arctic Ocean on a 9-year cycle. These strong cycles come every 72-years and are strongest during the 230 year warming cycle. After the strong 72-year pulse (around 1930 and 1997) – they then become weaker and weaker until no warm water is pulsed into the Arctic. This leads to a global cooling cycle – a very strong cycle beginning around 2019 sending temperatures colder than the 1950s-1960s. Very dangerous cooling coming. More info is available in the blog section of http://www.globalweatheroscillations.com and in the climate section.
Why is Arctic sea ice been so low recently is it because of the natural climate pulse
I can’t help but suspect chicanery, given the extensive data tampering that’s been going on.
Then again, David Dilley’s video dealing with that makes quite a bit of sense, so it could be natural. But if it persists into the cooling we’ll soon be getting with La Nina, then tampering it is.
Besides, it appears to have been even lower in the past, before climate history began in 1978-1979.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/arctic-ice-growth-since-1971/
What do you mean “so low”?
Its far higher than at any time during the first 3/4 of the Holocene.
Its only low if compared to the Little Ice Age (the coldest period in the last 10,000 years) and 1979, which was the trough (coldest) point of the AMO.
Even the “sceptics” in the Australian government accept climate change and use the fact that it is proven as an excuse to cut the jobs of scientists with world renown.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/05/australia-climate-scientists/483084/
roflmao..
Yes, CSIRO now has a real scientist back in charge, rather than a left-wing bureaucrat.
Good, hey. 🙂
Perhaps now they will stop wasting their time and resources on fairy-tales.
“Yes, CSIRO now has a real scientist back in charge, rather than a left-wing bureaucrat.”
No. Look, we obviously disagree sometimes about how to interpret data. But please stop making claims that are so blatantly false.
Dr Marshall is described as a ‘venture capitalist, believes in dowsing and is plagued by some irregularities in his former companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_R._Marshall
(wiki, by the way, is just the fastest way to sum him up.you can look at the different sources if you do not accept wiki as a source)
But his personality is not even the biggest problem here.
He is cutting the ties in the basic measurements that we rely on in these discussions. You folks do not believe in the data. you should fight against this move!
But even worse, he is doing so with n argument (“proven”) that you people also do not accept. So again, you should be very unhappy about this.
But you do not care, as anything that damages climate science is to your advantage.
But don’t you say that catastrophic warming by CO2 is an incontrovertible truth?
If so, why do we need more basic measurements?
BTW, I have never seen CSIRO measurements quoted in the debates over global warming. It’s always RSS, HadCrut, UAH, GISS
Regional data is very important:
https://data.csiro.au/dap/landingpage?pid=csiro:5266
The scientists being fired (Church ) is a specialist in sea level, the topic of this discussion.
“Regional data is very important”
The CSIRO isn’t getting rid of weather stations that record the data. What they are getting rid of is a bunch of analysts who “adjust” and interpret the data to come up with their foregone conclusion of CAGW.
Without John Church forcing sea level rise figures on them, the remaining junior researchers in this field may find that they are allowed to publish the real results showing no significant rise where subsidence is not occurring.
“as anything that damages climate science is to your advantage.”
Which is why our host lets you keep posting. 🙂
From your wiki leink
“including a PhD in physics, at Macquarie University.”
“his research work was mainly on the development of parametric oscillators, diode laser-pumped solid-state lasers, fiber lasers, and laser stabilization”
So yes, very much a scientist.. and since lasers often use CO2, he almost certainly knows far more about CO2 than basically any so-called “climate scientist”
Thanks for confirming that my statement…
“Yes, CSIRO now has a real scientist back in charge, rather than a left-wing bureaucrat.”
was ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY TRUE !!!
Waiting for your apology…….
“Yes, CSIRO now has a real scientist back in charge, rather than a left-wing bureaucrat.”
Andy, we have got some numbers on your claim. You were totally wrong.
“A search through Web of Science shows Marshall has in the order of 12 significant peer-reviewed publications, with a total of around 200 citations. By way of comparison, Tony Haymet, who has served as former chief of the CSIRO’s Marine and Atmospheric Research unit and a former director of the US-based Scripps Institution of Oceanography, has around 180 significant Web of Science listed peer-reviewed publications, with more than 7000 citations.”
http://www.smh.com.au/business/innovation/larry-marshall-the-csiro-leader-who-divides-opinions-20160527-gp5tzn.html
His scientist credentials are “laughable”.
“Even the ‘sceptics’ in the Australian government accept climate change and use the fact that it is proven as an excuse to cut the jobs of scientists with world renown.”
Heh.
Corrupt politicians and their collectivist supporters turned what was once science into a global political campaign. Now they are stunned that their opponents use political arguments against them. They reap what they sow.
I feel your pain, my child.
CW, What has actually happened is that the new CSIRO head has decided to do what CSIRO was created for.
That is to do real science on things that may be of productive commercial value.
Sure they didn’t always get things like the cane toad, correct, but they were still actually “doing” something that could have been useful to society.
The last thing that CSIRO needs is yet another load of trough dwelling climate modelling free-loaders producing useless nothingless.
Yes, I’ve been following Marshall’s market oriented CSIRO reforms, Andy. I just love the political genius of administering the “settled science” medicine to these rent seekers.
I hear that suddenly they are finding their scientific discipline very “unsettled” and wish to study it further …
There were about 5000 Polar Bears in 1950. A few more but not many in 1970. There are now over 23,000! Our own Congress voted to make them an Endangered Species ‘betting’ on what as supposed to happen. How’s that for a fact.
Here’s another>:
78.084% = Nitrogen
20.9476 = Oxygen
0.934 = Argon
0.0314 = CO2
You can win many bets with this info as the “HYPE” gives a very different impression.