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.
Alarmist bedwetting by scientists over sea level rise proving to have been needless. Photo: PIK climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf. Source: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Rahmstorf FTP folder.
Scary scenarios abound
The latest findings glaringly contradict alarmist claims of accelerating sea level rise. For example the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) here wrote sea levels would “likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century”, due to global warming.
In 2013 The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) wrote here sea-level rise in this century would likely be 70-120 centimeters by 2100″ (i.e. 7 – 12 mm annually) and that 90 experts in a survey “anticipated a median sea-level rise of 200-300 centimeters by the year 2300” (i.e. on average circa 7 to 10 mm every year).
It’s important to note that the above scary figures given above are mostly based on computer simulations, where parameters are simply assumed by the scientists.
Evidence in fact points to deceleration
Using these modelled estimates, the globe should now be seeing a rapid acceleration in sea level rise. Yet no evidence of this can be found so far. In fact the real measured data show the opposite is happening: a deceleration in sea level rise is taking place.
Instead of the 7 – 12 mm annual sea level rise the PIK projected in 2013, a recent study appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters in April 2017 corrected the satellite measured sea level rise downwards from 3.3 mm annually to just 3.0 mm over the past 24 years – or less than half what PIK models projected.
Only 1.5 mm/year
Worse, satellite data measuring sea level have turned out to be far more complex and uncertain than one would wish, and evidence is piling up and showing that satellite data likely have been overstating sea level rise. For example when measuring sea level rise along coastlines (where people actually live)using tide gauges, the rise has even been far slower. Renowned Swedish sea level expert Axel Mörner published a paper in 2017 showing an observed sea level rise rate of only 1.5 – 2.0 mm/year.
Second half of the 20th century slower than in the first half
In another newly published paper by Frederiske et al. 2018 just this year, oceanographers estimate that global sea levels rose at a rate of only 1.42 mm per year between 1958 and 2014. That figure closely coincides with the results of Dr. Simon Holgate from 2007. According to the Holgate study: “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 Holgate result was confirmed by another 2008 paper authored by Jevrejeva et al, which found the fastest sea level rise during the past 300 years was observed between 1920 – 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.
In other words: global sea level rise has decelerated since the 1950s.
At less than 2 mm annually, sea level is rising at only one sixth of the 12 mm per year rate projected by the PIK in 2013.
The computer simulations have it hard coded in that more CO2 causes warming. They beg the question and are hence useless and nothing more than fantasy. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work that has been done with modeling, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. The AGW conjecture is based on a radiant greenhouse effect that has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system, oe anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is sceince fiction.
“The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction.”
Yep, it is a work the Grimm Bros would be proud of.
PURE FANTASY !!!
Anyone with ANY evidence to the contrary should be forthcoming with such evidence…..
….. or not, it they don’t have any.
Of course, what HAS been observed and actually measured, is the gravity thermal effect that holds true on every planet or moon with a viable atmosphere.
AndyG55
OT: None of several posts I made starting yesterday afternoon are showing up at JoNova. Have you had the same problem? If not, could you post a message asking why for me? All were on topic and none contained anything that could be construed to violate terms of service.
Thanks
Rah, over on the right sidebar down the bottom just above “statistics” you will find a “support” email address.
If posts seem to be going into the ǣther, send an email to that address
Weekends especially, it can take time for the mods to prise things out of the clutches of the manic auto-mod ! 🙂
RAH, you even get a h/t in the newest topic 🙂
Something must be getting through. 🙂
Cheers !!
Agreed WHH but convincing those who choose to believe otherwise ( like Seb for eg) is something of an exercise in futility. Some people are incapable of thinking and reasoning for themselves. It is much easier to just grab a story from someone with letters after their name regardless of their intent.
Essentially the models and predictions are based on MSU (Making Stuff Up). Although “Stuff” should be replaced with a four-letter word starting with S and ending with t.
It seems to me that total ocean volume would be useful. i.e. how much water (liquid, ice, and vapor) is not in the oceans.
And I have no idea if it could be accurately measured.
[…] If true the findings cast great down on the apocalyptic predictions and claims of many government-funded scientists. See here. […]
I’m not a scientist but.
If any sane persion was told that man made extra co2 will make turtles transgender they would know that they were listening to a total crackpot.
But when I tell my friends who believe in the mmgw racket about the expert that put forward this theory their reaction is that 97% of scientists could not be wrong.
I ask them do you feel guilt about that.
The answer is of course.
I don’t even ask why.
I know they are owned by a hoax.
As Trump would say,”so sad”
For most scientists in the racket, their paycheck depends on their political position…and climate issues are 95% political.
steve mcdonald,
Exactly
Historically CO2 level have been so much more than now on many occasions and then all life would thrive. When CO2 levels were high and it was warmer than now all indications are that life thrive very much better than currently.
Note that when CO2 level were very much below current level life all but disappears. When temperatures are much below current level life reduces. So why try and reduce CO2, why want for global temperatures to reduce?
I also feel that the shear volume of the anti-CO2 rhetoric, and the publication of so many scientific papers that purport some many dire consequences from either atmospheric warming, or CO2 levels or both just immediately (to me) flags-up that people are trying darn hard to demonize CO2.
There are so many ‘me too’ papers and reports, so many papers showing little more than ‘confirmation bias’ to a politically motivated agenda with a politically enforced ‘consensus’.
I wonder has anyone seen a paper that highlights the good effects of the world’s temperature rising or having more CO2 in the atmosphere.
No thought not — strange that, eh?
Given Leftists love of transgendered, it’s most amusing when they use it as a scare tactic.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/10/alarmist-scientists-announce-the-latest-climate-change-threat-mutant-transgender-turtles/amp/
Consistency is not one of their strong points.
Several physicists have pointed out that the standard model for greenhouse warming is incorrect and physics doesn’t work like that. The basic mistake is to equate the latent energy in photons with heat. It isn’t heat and requires some mechanism to convert it into heat energy before it can warm anything. When a re-radiated IR photon from a cool CO2 molecule in the atmosphere strikes a warmer surface, no such mechanism exists(2nd. law of thermodynamics)
Heat is ANY kind of energy, including photons and mechanical energy. That does not mean that all photons are heat, just as a mechanical energy of a moving train is not heat.
It is easy to fool someone.
But it is almost impossible to convince them that they have been fooled.
That is the fraudsters staple psychological tool.
Gore and many others have made millions from the poor by using this dispicible technique.
Remember that the left have only contempt for society’s poor.
Don’t worry NOAA will “correct” the data to fit alarmist theory.
When you massage and adjust climate data, feed it to a computer model known to have short comings, and the model projects what will happen and then it doesn’t happen; it’s hard to point to which mistake caused the discrepancy.
Given your example, one can say that both mistakes contribute to the short comings of the prediction model. It is like the blind leading the blind.
[…] Ref.: https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/02/bewildered-scientists-a-global-warming-crisis-fails-to-appear-sea… […]
I hope President Trump mentions this in a speech. It will force people to look it up.
More glow bull warming weather
Queensland towns have coldest Feb day ever (remember, its summer down here)
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/queensland-weather-towns-record-coldest-february-day/527453
Many, including me several years ago, have pointed out that the “Easy Ice” melted many years ago. Think about low latitude and or low elevation glaciers. In western North America (think Vancouver BC & Seattle Wash) lobes of ice were below what is now sea level. Once the “Easy Ice” was gone sea level rise slowed to a crawl, and remains slow. Nothing bewildering about it.
Places where infrastructure (homes, roads, …) is low and next to coasts will continue to have flooding.
My advice — move.
[…] Gosselin, of “No Tricks Zone” has this excellent summary of what’s been going on since then. Excerpts […]
[…] P. Gosselin, February 2, 2018 in […]
And the deniers are proven correct yet again.
This is the tip of the iceberg pun intended. When the man made warming is mostly found in the homogenization process, then the globe will react as the temperatures really are and now how they appear in the homogenized data.
So it is quite possible that the acceleration of SLR was exaggerated as were the temperatures. Of course they will use an enhanced homogenization process to show SLR as well.
Note to Whom it may Concern-
I left a message that included false information about the PSMSL site.
Today I went to see it and it has been updated and the new site includes sea level papers by people other than Church and White.
I note my comment is not on the page.
Good work to the fact checker and sorry about my embarrassing mistake.
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]