Antarctica & Greenland Combined Added
0.59 Of An Inch To Sea Levels Since 1958
Graph Source: Grinsted et al., 2009
In a newly published paper, oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of ~1.42 mm per year−1 (1.32 to 1.52 mm/yr−1) between 1958 and 2014, a 56-year span that directly coincides with an unprecedented rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Frederiske et al.,2018
“For the first time, it is shown that for most basins the reconstructed sea level trend and acceleration can be explained by the sum of contributors, as well as a large part of the decadal variability. The global-mean sea level reconstruction shows a trend of 1.5 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 over 1958–2014 (1σ), compared to 1.3 ± 0.1 mm yr−1 for the sum of contributors.”
This rate (which scores between the estimated sum of sea level rise contributors and a reconstruction from tide gauge and satellite measurements) is similar to the reconstructed rate for 1954-2003 (1.45 mm/yr−1) estimated by Dr. Simon Holgate (2007).
Holgate, 2007
“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).”
Extrapolating the annual rate of rise over the 56-year period (1958-2014), global sea levels rose 7.95 centimeters (cm) in total, or 3.13 inches during the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) era.
Negligible Polar Ice Sheet Melt Contribution To Sea Level Rise Since 1958
Of those 7.95 cm, just 1.17 cm (0.46 of an inch) of meltwater was contributed by Greenland Ice Sheet in 56 years, and the Antarctic ice sheet contributed just 0.37 of a cm (0.13 of an inch).
1958-2014 Sea Level Rise Neither Unusual Or Unprecedented
If 3.1 inches of sea level rise over a 56-year span does not appear to be either alarming or unprecedented, perhaps it’s because they are indeed neither — especially when one considers longer-term contexts.
As Holgate (2007) summarizes above, the ~50-year global rate of sea level rise was substantially higher (2.03 mm/yr−1) during the first half of the 20th century (1904-1953) compared to the post-1950s period (1.45 mm/yr−1 1954-2003).
In other words, since the 1950s, global sea level rise has decelerated.
The 1920 to 1950 period had rates of rise that were either higher or rivaled the rates of the more recent decades (using satellite altimetry modeling [3.4 mm/yr−1 ]). In fact, when the anomalous decadal variability is removed, the fastest rates of sea level rise occurred during the 1920 to 1950 period.
Jevrejeva et al., 2008
“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.”
“The fastest sea level rise during the 20th century was between 1920 – 50 and appears to be a combination of peaking of the 60– 65 years cycle with a period of low volcanic activity (Jevrejeva et al., 2006; Church and White, 2006).”
Glacier Melt Contribution To Sea Level Rise Much Greater Before 1950
A graphical reconstruction featured in a new paper (Treat and Jones, 2018) affirms that the glacier melt percentage (and contribution to sea level rise) in the Canadian Arctic was significantly greater during most of the last several thousand years compared to the modern era.
Treat and Jones, 2018
“Rates of permafrost aggradation in peatlands generally increased after 3000 BP and were greatest between 750 and 0 BP, corresponding with neoglacial cooling and the Little Ice Age (LIA), respectively.”
The ice sheet record for the 20th century also reveals that the glacier melt contribution to sea level rise was significantly greater during the 1920 to 1950 period than it has been since the ice melt contribution began decelerating (after the 1950s).
Gregory et al., 2013
Fernández-Fernández et al., 2017
“The abrupt climatic transition of the early 20th century and the 25-year warm period 1925–1950 triggered the main retreat and volume loss of these glaciers since the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’. Meanwhile, cooling during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s altered the trend, with advances of the glacier snouts.”
“By 1946, this glacier had retreated almost 90% of the total recorded between the LIA maximum (1868) and 2005. … Just as in the glaciers described above, the retreat of the Eastern Tungnahryggsjökull from its LIA position was more intense during the first half of the 20th century, and in 1946 its snout was only 200 m from its current position.”
4 New Papers: Sea Levels Were Much Higher Than Now In Past Millennia
As the introductory global sea level graph above and several dozen sea level reconstructions published in scientific journals every year (2016 and 2017) demonstrate, global sea levels were about 1 to 3 meters higher than they are now during the Middle Holocene, or when CO2 concentrations were significantly lower (~270 parts per million).
These non-correlations between sea level rise and CO2 concentration would not appear to be consistent with the popular conceptualization that CO2 concentration variations are significant drivers of temperatures, glacier melt, and/or sea level rise.
After all, the 3.1 inches of sea level rise since 1958 does not even fall outside the range of natural variability.
He et al., 2018
Cooper et al., 2018
“With sea level stabilization a few metres above the present around 5.5 ka cal yr BP (Hein et al., 2016), the longshore drift system was reestablished and sediment accumulation in the littoral zone recommenced.”
Miguel et al., 2018
Hallman et al., 2018
You have all this data available and yet you come to this strange conclusion? Since when does sea level correlate with CO2? It correlates with temperature (land ice melt and thermal expansion) and different things can cause temperature changes. One thing being an increase in greenhouse gases. They are decreasing the outgoing energy transfer until a new balance with higher surface temperatures is achieved. And that is basically the explanation why temperature won’t correlate 1:1 with CO2 concentration either. Even if the concentration could be fixed on 400 ppm for the next 100 years, it would still cause increasing temperatures. I have a feeling you still don’t quite understand that mechanism and that’s why you come up with these silly arguments. Right or wrong?
So what’s the explanation/mechanism for the observation that the glacier-melt contribution to sea level rise was more pronounced during the 1920-1950 period, when CO2 emissions were flat and low (~1 Gt/yr), vs. the post-1950s period, when glacier-melt and sea level rise decelerated relative to the early 20th century even though anthropogenic CO2 emissions rose exponentially (to 9 Gt/yr)? Why would sea level rise and glacier melt decelerate with higher and higher CO2 emissions if it’s believed that rising CO2 emissions that cause sea level rise and glacier melt to accelerate?
And to what extent does natural variability play a role in glacier melt and sea level rise…since sea levels can rise and fall at rates 10-20 times faster (2 to 6 meters per century!) than the rate observed for 1958-2014?
Oh, I would truly enjoy your take on mechanisms.
What physical mechanism caused this explosive pre-1950 glacier melt? Be very specific, please.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Glacier-Melt-Contribution-Sea-Level-Gregory-2013.jpg
A 1:1 correlation isn’t an expectation necessarily to identify an anthropogenic signal, but the opposite correlation (sea level rise decelerates as CO2 emissions rise) or a non-correlation (CO2 concentrations are stable as sea levels rise by 2-6 meters per century) would not appear to lend support to the position that CO2 concentration changes are a driver of glacier melt and sea level rise changes.
Are you asking this because you really don’t know or just as a homework assignment again?
An increase in temperature, specific enough? If you really don’t know what causes the sea level to rise and fall and really think that it can’t be global warming induced by increasing CO2 levels because rising and falling happened before, then … wow. Or is it rather that you exactly know that this is what’s happening and are just trolling?
Not really. You have a lot to learn about complex systems that don’t depend on only one or two variables. It’s never as simple as skeptic’s make it look like. Do you also believe that acceleration, speed and distance travelled (of a car) do not correlate? After all the distance still increases even when you have a negative acceleration somewhere on the way.
Well, at least you stopped claiming that the CO2 increase has to be natural, since human emissions were stable for a few years. Or do you still believe in that statement of yours?
I’m asking this question so as to demonstrate for all who might read it that you are unwilling to answer questions that you know undermine your beliefs about anthropogenic CO2 emissions driving sea level rises/accelerations and falls/decelerations. You didn’t disappoint, as you yet again failed to answer this most basic of questions. It’s not like you’re fooling anyone in your evasions.
What physical mechanism caused this explosive pre-1950 glacier melt? Be very specific, please.
Um, no. Identify the cause, the real-world, physically mechanistic cause of the temperature increase that led to that explosive pre-1950s glacier melt (that exceeded the post-1950s glacier melt). Will you answer this question? Of course you won’t. If you did, you’d need to acknowledge that it’s something other than anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which were both flat and low (~1 Gt/yr) during this same period. Again, it’s not like you’re fooling anyone here what you’re doing when you refuse to answer mechanism questions.
For a brief moment, try to move past these sophomoric “debate” tactics that you so routinely deploy when backed into a corner (i.e., replying to a mechanism question by pretending that I am the one who “really do[es]n’t know what causes sea level to rise” or implying that I am unintelligent if I don’t agree with you or accusing me of “trolling” you by intentionally refusing to acknowledge that CO2 concentrations are determinants of sea level). These tactical devices don’t work. Substance does.
Answer the question: What physical forcing mechanism caused the much more explosive (than now) glacier melt during the 1920-1950 period when CO2 emissions were both flat and low? (I fully expect that you will, once again, run away and refuse to answer this question.)
Says the very same person who literally believes that, every year, 30,000 species go extinct due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Great. So explain the complexities of the physical mechanisms associated with anthropogenic CO2 emissions that are causing 30,000 species per year to die off…since that’s what you believe is happening. What does the anthropogenic CO2 do to cause all those die-offs, SebastianH? Support your answer scientifically. Then, support your belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the oceans to acidify so fast (a -0.000035/yr pH change!) that marine biology cannot adapt…and thus are dying off at rates of 10s of thousands per year. We skeptics are too simple-minded to understand the complexities of these processes. Perhaps you, with your complex and convoluted intellect, can explain how this works. But please use very simple words…you know how easy it is for us to get stuck when you’re teaching us about the vast powers of anthropogenic CO2.
A brilliantly-constructed complex analogy. Thank you, SebastianH.
Kenneth,
a brilliant reply.
I do not think there is a more polite way of putting it.
Will it help? I doubt it.
But brilliant! Keep it up!
Kenneth,
You seem to be letting the class clown off with not having to explain how, and by how much, a tiny variation of atmospheric CO2 warms the oceans.
Poor seb is drowning in his abject inability to produce even the slightest bit of scientific backing for ANYTHING he says.
It really is passed being pathetic. !
Uh great, can I use this quote when you evade a question? You are aware that you do this all the time, are you?
If there are any sane readers they should have noticed that, maybe that’s why so little of them actually comment. You get ignored or yelled at if anything challenges the skeptic’s belief 😉
You are kidding, right? Do you think it physically pains us to say this? Why would it be caused by anthropogenic CO2? Why do you think that this is what climate science is saying and that you need to come up with nonsense to “disprove” it? Isn’t that what a strawman argument is?
Then provide substance. Don’t just provide quotes with highlighted sentences that you think support whatever you believe in. Be skeptical about the stuff you think supports a skeptical viewpoint.
So it’s a homework assignment. Good luck with that strategy …
Your assumption that if CO2 is the cause now, past changes in whatever variable could not have happened since CO2 concentration was more or less stable, is wrong. It’s pointless to discuss with you until you get this. I fully expect that you’ll reply with something along the line of “I never said that”, but that IS the meaning of what you write or there is again a language barrier and I just don’t get what you want to say …
Why do you think I said that? I believe I just said that already 30000 species are going extinct (a figure I took from a paper/article citing someone called Wilson) as a reply to whatever number you said and claimed was pretty large.
Here is a paper comparing extinction rate of the present compared to background levels: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stuart_Pimm/publication/265093702_Estimating_the_Normal_Background_Rate_of_Species_Extinction/links/5a102624aca27287ce2750bb/Estimating-the-Normal-Background-Rate-of-Species-Extinction.pdf
I wonder why you came up with that hilarious interpretation of what I wrote.
Well, since you ignored the last paper I linked to on this topic and claimed that it was about temperature not acicidity, why should I? You’ll come up with a non-sensical excuse anyway.
So, do you think acceleration, speed and distance driven correlate? How do they correlate? Or will you ignore the question because “the answer would challenge what you think/belief”? 😉
So you’re the victim here. You’ve been ignored and/or yelled at. And those who don’t agree with your version of the truth are not “sane” readers. So sad this is what you’ve been reduced to.
These tactical devices don’t work. Substance does.
No words.
(I fully expect that you will, once again, run away and refuse to answer this question.)
No “homework” is required. Or at least it shouldn’t be. You should probably be able to identify the forcing mechanism(s) for the pre-1950 explosive glacier melt…but you are apparently refusing to do so. I understand why, of course.
Please stop evading by trying to (wrongly) identify my assumptions. Just answer the question yourself. What was the physical forcing mechanism(s) that caused the pre-1950s explosive glacier melt and sea level rise identified in the Gregory et al. (2013) graph (and many others like it)?
When backed into a corner, you once again employ the I-won’t-answer-until-YOU-understand-how-anthropogenic-CO2-forcing-works tactic. It’s not effective, but that obviously doesn’t stop you.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#comment-1232607
SebastianH: “Regarding extinction of species, why do you think 30,000 species lost per year is a big number? We are already at or over that rate.”
And this is because you believe in modeled extrapolations (rather than actual, real-world observations) and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).
To enlighten you, the IUCN indicates only 801 species have definitively gone extinct since 1500 AD, with nearly all of those extinctions occurring prior to 1900 (i.e., during the Little Ice Age), and just 1 species going extinct since 2000. It was a mollusc. 1 species since 2000. And yet you claim it’s 30,000 per year, which would mean we’ve had about 500,000 extinctions this century already. Can you name them? Of course not. It’s made-up propaganda…and you fell for it.
A 2004 paper (Thomas et al.) published in Nature claimed that 1 million species would go extinct by the year 2050 due to “global warming”. I pointed out that, to reach that extinction level, 30,000 species would need to go extinct every year. You replied by saying (without citing your source) that we’re already at that level (30,000 extinctions per year), and the number is actually higher than that. Once again, your reliance on made-up statistics, climate modeling, and catastrophic projections has been exposed for what it is: propaganda.
The authors don’t rely on actual observations of present species extinctions. They use extrapolations of modeled assumptions. It says so right in the abstract:
“We then created simulations to explore effects of violating model assumptions.”
Please cite actual observational evidence that 30,000 species per year are going extinct. Climate models, simulations, and extrapolated assumptions are not observations.
The reader is welcome to read the entire exchange and your direct quotation:
https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#comment-1232607
SebastianH: “Regarding extinction of species, why do you think 30,000 species lost per year is a big number? We are already at or over that rate.”
support your belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing the oceans to acidify so fast (a -0.000035/yr pH change!) that marine biology cannot adapt
https://notrickszone.com/2018/01/04/485-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#comment-1246210
SebastianH: “They [marine species] might be able to adapt, but not at the speed acidification is happening.”
SebastianH, the paper you linked to indicated clearly in the abstract that the reason why there was a coral die-off during the most recent El Nino warming event was because temperatures rose by 2-3 degrees C. It did not state that the 200-year “trend” in pH lowering (-0.07) is what caused this die-off. That is your claim. Did you not bother to even read the abstract to a paper you cited?
This Why-should-I-answer-you-when-you-ignore-what-I-write-anyway tactic is tactically sophomoric. Please identify a paper that supports your belief that the 200-year “trend” in alleged pH-lowering due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is too fast for marine species to adapt to (even though natural pH variability/fluctuation is 10-100 times faster than the 200-year “trend”).
Correlate with what?
“We are already at or over that rate.””
Still waiting for seb to come up with the name of one species that has gone extinct because of human CO2. Scientific proof required, not just mindless rhetoric or evasion.
One out of 30,000.. surely the little child-troll can provide that.
“So it’s a homework assignment. “
After months of slouching in the back seats, yapping mindlessly and disrupting the room like a demented Chihuahua ….
….. seb now wants someone else, ANYONE else, to do his actual work for him and find some actual science to support his anti-science fantasy ravings.
Apparently, its now OUR homework to support his fairy-tales!!
Quite bizarre.
He has given up ANY PRETENCE of actually being able to support any of his fantasy junk-science.
“Do you also believe that acceleration, speed and distance travelled (of a car) do not correlate?”
Yet another totally irrelevant and mindless analogy.
This is what seb puts forward as “evidence”
WHAT A JOKE !!
If seb actually understood anything about basic physics, he would comprehend the gravity thermal effect.
“global warming induced by increasing CO2 levels”
Poor little sad sack STILL HAS NO EVIDENCE that CO2 causes warming of oceans or our gravity controlled convective atmosphere.
His headless chook style EVASION tactics are hilarious to watch. 🙂
Not an analogy, AndyG55. Just three variables that are connected to each other by equations/formulas. I want to know from Kenneth (or you) if he thinks the values noted on a graph would correlate to each other.
You don’t have to reply to something like that with the nonsense you just wrote and call people names 😉
Stick with the ZERO evidence meme, seb
When you do attempt anything related to physics, YOU FAIL COMPLETELY.
No acceleration in sea level rise.
The car analogy is a totally IRRELEVANT attempt at distraction. A child’s ploy !!
You cannot splice a corrupted, adjusted, fabrication onto the end of actual data.
It is nothing but a mindless propaganda ploy.
If you don’t know that, you further highlight you continued ineptitude at basically every facet of science, and maths.
Kenneth.
This car thing is yet another childish way of avoiding any actual issue.
Seb may have done some junior high physics at some stage (and failed).. but its all he can remember.
“Even if the concentration could be fixed on 400 ppm for the next 100 years, it would still cause increasing temperatures. I have a feeling you still don’t quite understand that mechanism and that’s why you come up with these silly arguments.”
What a total load of imaginary twaddle and mindless balderdash
Poor seb, STILL doesn’t understand that his so-called mechanism is a load of anti-science tosh.
… and he STILL can’t produce any actual empirical science to prove CO2 causes warming of our atmosphere or of our oceans what-so-ever.
Poor little child-mind lives in a la-la-land of non-science, brain-washed fairy-tales.
Aren’t you getting tired of this rants/tantrums of yours? But I give you a thumbs up for your creative language, it’s always a joy to read your replies 😉
Yawn.!!
Empty As always.. Poor seb.
Where’s some of this actual SCIENCE you always rant about having?
So far…. missing in non-action. !!
You STILL haven’t produced any actual empirical science to prove CO2 causes warming of our atmosphere or of our oceans.
Off you go, back to la-la-fantasy land.
I am not the one ranting here, AndyG55 😉
It’s not my job to produce anything for you, I am just a commentator on a strange blog. It’s your job to not blend out the evidence that is out there and come out of your bubble (or la-la-fantasy land if you prefer that term) …
SebastianH: “It’s not my job to produce anything for you, I am just a commentator on a strange blog.”
SebastianH: “It would be nice if you at least could provide sources when you are ranting in the comment section.”
So why is it that AndyG55 has to “provide sources” to support what he writes, but you don’t have to support what you claim when you write?
Still NOTHING from seb.
No science, no facts, ZERO content
You have presented ZERO EVIDENCE.
It is beyond your capability.
Just the usual EMPTY fantasy non-science we have all come to expect.
Yes, SebH, we are getting VERY tired of your telling us there is evidence, but refusing to show it; and of your telling us there is a mechanism, but never telling us what you think it is.Your preaching is getting tiresome, which is probably your primary intent.
Now for the umpteenth time, please have the courtesy to tell us what you think it is. If you can’t, then you have no grounds to complain about being treated with the same contempt you show to us.
I should provide a source for this?
“Aren’t you getting tired of this rants/tantrums of yours? But I give you a thumbs up for your creative language, it’s always a joy to read your replies”
O-k … weird, but I guess since I said this, I am the source.
Is it possible you didn’t realize that you are asked to provide a source for claims like the following…?
The Alarmism of SebastianH
https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#comment-1232607
SebastianH: “Regarding extinction of species, why do you think 30,000 species lost per year is a big number? We are already at or over that rate.”
https://notrickszone.com/2018/01/04/485-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#comment-1246210
SebastianH: “They [marine species] might be able to adapt, but not at the speed acidification is happening.”
Desertification. roflmao…. satellites show the opposite happening [greening].
SebastianH: “[C]an you please point to the satellite data that shows what you claim is true? I can only find data for increasing desertification.”
“the evidence that is out there “
WHAT EVIDENCE.?????
You are avoiding posting any. !!
You have NONE. !
Glad to help the chatbot by providing the link I posted in response to his desertification claim.
https://notrickszone.com/2018/01/04/485-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#comment-1246253
It took longer to post the response than it did to find it online, which shows that SebH (AS USUAL) didn’t even try.
Pleased to see you back, Seb.
Your contributions always give me a good laugh.
PS what did you think of President Trump’s SOTU speech?
I particularly liked his emphasis on the dangers of climate change 😉
I’d hate if my comments made you cry, so I guess that’s a good thing.
As I am not a U.S. citizen I haven’t watched this or any other state of the union speech. I’ve read about it and the fact checking sites got something to do again … and I’ve seen that Trump claims that it was the biggest (TV) audience in history ever or something like that, also not true at all.
So what did he say about climate change? Nothing or perhaps something like this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-climate-change-america-scientists-offer-explanation-global-warming-us-president-a8189201.html
This guy is clueless and he shows it every time he opens his mouth and not reads from a teleprompter or writes something on Twitter 😉
Poor Seb
SOUR, BITTER and LOSING. !!
And yes, you ARE clueless.
And you are proud of it, displaying your cluelessness with every post.
Trump has actual real scientists to guide him around the leftist climate-change propaganda.
There is about as much evidence for AGW, as you have produced.
ie… NOTHING, NADA… EMPTY
I had real trouble keeping the coffee in my mouth reading that comment of yours … hilarious reply! You are getting better with every comment.
Keep up the effort to make skeptics look bad 😉
Empty seb.
ZERO EVIDENCE.!!
You make 3 toed sloth look good. !
Note, Andy, how the chatbot just, ahem, “borrows” our conclusions about him, and uses them against us without any accompanying proof. It’s a leftist technique to try to make their critics look bad: mere evidence-free assertions. Typical leftist distracting from his own deficiencies by accusing others of those same deficiencies. Tiresome, boorish, overgrown petulant children.
His only “proof” that we are wrong is that we don’t agree with him or his activist heroes. He keeps blathering about “the science,” with narry an example, and of “mechanism,” when referring to a concept that would make Rube Goldberg blush. “Science” my foot! I can’t help be reminded of that oft-used meme…
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&source=hp&ei=tNh0Wo_5O8SQ5gLK36W4Dg&q=you+keep+using+that+word+meme&oq=you+keep+using+that+word+gif+&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.2.0j0i22i30k1l4.41392.46849.0.51978.19.15.0.8.8.0.327.2203.0j4j5j1.11.46853….0…1c.1j5.64.mobile-gws-hp..5.14.1419.3..5j41j0i131k1.133.k5BzM0uOHSY#imgrc=UzetqmKpE1yOaM:
Oh dear the cAGW alarmist argument fall apart again when the evidence is properly looked at instead of just believing some sort of computer modeled planet.
When you build a whole anti-scientific religion on the quicksand foundation of CO2 warming, no amount of slush-funding, data-bending and brain-wash propaganda can stop it collapsing eventually.
Hi AndyG55,
I think you would enjoy seeing this graphic from R Clutz bogpost…
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/giss-anntemps2017.png
Puts the whole idea of the planet overheating into perspective wouldn’t you say?
more at —
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/01/28/what-is-global-temperature-is-it-warming-or-cooling/
Yep, the oceans are cooling as the transient of the El Nino and N. Atlantic blob subsides.
You can see the La Nina tongue quite clearly.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/anomnight.1.29.2018-1024×573.gif
UAH has a NEGATIVE anomaly for the Tropics for January 2018. (-0.12ºC)
Only place with any of the El Nino warm anomaly left is the Arctic, in mid winter. !
If only you guys would be able to properly look at anything instead of only re-enforcing what you already are convinced to be the truth.
If only you could support ANYTHING you said with even the slightest bit of real science. !!
But you CAN’T.
You remain an EMPTY sad sack.
“properly look at anything” = agree with me that humans are catastrophically (30,000 species die-offs per year!) heating up and acidifying the oceans and melting glaciers and raising sea levels by emitting too much CO2 (except when we use wind and solar power — then it’s OK)
And here I thought only AndyG55 would play this mirror-game. Come up with an answer to how acceleration, speed and distance driven correlate? Looking at a graph of all three, would you recognize the connection between all three variables?
More evasionary irrelevant garbage from seb.
You seriously need to get further than your junior high physics, seb.
We’ll be happy to consider anything that the data support.
So the ball is in your court. SHOW US THE DATA!
I.e., PUT UP, OR SHUT UP! The
OT, The El Nino/ NA Blob transient continues to dissipate.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/01/the-planet-continues-to-cool-after-an-el-nino-induced-string-of-warm-years/
This makes Jan 2018 the 10th warmest January in the UAH data.
For the tropics, January 2018 is the =20th warmest January (out of 40)
SH: Jan 2018 is in 17th place
NH: the Arctic warm from the El Nino is still yet to fully subside. January 2018 is in 5th place.
It was the sixth warmest Januar in Germany since 1881. Maybe this month P Gosselin won’t post something from Mr. Kowatsch as his “it’s getting colder” theme doesn’t work anymore 😉
Go live in Siberia if you don’t like the warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.
You really are getting DESPERATE, aren’t you, seb.
zero steps forward.. 10 steps back.. the story of your time here.
A TOTAL, EMPTY WASTE.
Classy reply …
That Ok AndyG55, in the next couple of weeks people in Europe will be hoping for some evidence of global warming.
I’ve got the chatbot’s “science” right here…
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/soviet-style-abuse-of-psychiatry-is-now-practiced-in-the-us-t19299.html
“Classy reply …”
Fits the person aimed at.
seb, the big empty.
I note at the PSMSL site they have just one paper about sea level- the Church and White that ‘found’ the acceleration and more importantly confirmed the climate model.
I know there are many papers that say different— no acceleration.
But there is the one cherry that got picked and it’s the only one paper that’s mentioned at the government site.
If one wanted to make the case the ‘science’ is being run by propagandists instead of scientists at the moment, I would suggest that would one of a number of ‘smoking guns’.
I don’t care if sea levels go up or down by 29 meters either way.
[…] Over the past months a spate of scientific papers published show sea level rise has not accelerated like many climate warming scientists warned earlier. The reality is that the rise is far slower than expected, read here and here. […]
What amuses me about all of these stories is that when you point out something counter to the GW Myth they yell “Correlation does not mean causation”
Yet they never say it to themselves and hate it when you do to their blathering.
[…] The current average rate of sea level rise is thought to be about six inches per century, with negligible rate change in recent times as man-made CO2 emissions have risen, and with this renowned expert saying the […]