By Kenneth Richard on 26. July 2018
Despite a rapid local sea level rise rate nearly 3 times the global mean (1.8 mm/yr), 15 of 28 studied atoll islands in the southwest Pacific increased in shoreline area during 2005 to 2015 according to a new study (Hisabayashi et al., 2018). For the 3 islands that experienced extreme shoreline erosion – with one atoll island even “disappearing” – a Category 5 cyclone was identified as the most likely causal factor.
Consequently, the authors conclude that “the dramatic impacts of climate change felt on coastlines and people across the Pacific are still anecdotal”.
Quantifying shoreline change in Funafuti Atoll, Tuvalu using
a time series of Quickbird, Worldview and Landsat data
Summary: “Atoll islands are low-lying accumulations of reef-derived sediment that provide the only habitable land in Tuvalu, and are considered vulnerable to the myriad possible impacts of climate change, especially sea-level rise. This study examines the shoreline change of twenty-eight islands in Funafuti Atoll between 2005 and 2015 … Results indicate a 0.13% (0.35 ha) decrease in net island area over the study time period, with 13 islands decreasing in area and 15 islands increasing in area. Substantial decreases in island area occurred on the islands of Fuagea, Tefala and Vasafua, which coincides with the timing of Cyclone Pam in March, 2015.”
“Funafuti Atoll is located in the southwest Pacific Ocean, which has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (~5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr) from 1950 to 2009 due to regional variability and vertical ground motion. The rate is nearly three times the global mean [~1.8 mm/yr], and corresponds with a total increase in sea level of ~0.30 ± 0.04 m (Ballu et al. 2011; Becker et al. 2012).”
“Most of the islands remained stable, experiencing slight accretion or erosion or a combination of both over time. The total net land area of the islands increased by 1.55 ha (0.55%) between 2005 and 2010, and it has decreased by 1.90 ha (0.68%) between 2010 and 2015, resulting in a net decrease by 0.35 ha (0.13%). Over this 10-year period, 13 of 28 studied islands had a net decrease in area, ranging from −0.04% on Fongafale (−0.06 ha) to −100% on Vasafua (−0.07 ha). The decrease in area adds up to −2.56 ha and the mean reduction in island area for these 13 islands was −0.20 ha (−20.5%). The largest absolute decreases in island area occurred on Fuagea (−0.90 ha, −78.33%), Fualefeke (−0.54 ha, −7.94%), and Tefala (−0.34 ha, −43.86%), and Vasafua experienced the largest percentage decrease (−0.07 ha, −100%). Vasafua’s “disappearance” is discussed below. The remaining 15 of 28 studied islands had a net increase in area, totaling 2.21 ha, with a range from negligible values (Motugie, 0.01%, 0.00002 ha) to a 5.05% growth on Falefatu (0.18 ha). The mean increase in island area for these 15 islands was 0.15 ha (2.41%). The largest absolute increase in island area occurred on Funafala (0.83 ha, 3.56%), Avalau-Teafuafou (0.33 ha, 2.74%), and TeleleMotusanapa (0.33 ha, 3.59%).”
“The imagery captured in 2015 reveals a significant change in shape and size of the vegetated area for all three islands, and Vasafua’s vegetation is completely missing in the 2015 image. These drastic differences between the 2014 and 2015 imagery are most likely the impacts of Cyclone Pam, which was a Category-5 tropical cyclone that struck the Pacific region on March 9–16 in 2015. Substantial decreases in island area were detected in three small, uninhabited islands all located in the southwestern rim of Funafuti Atoll (Fuagea, Tefota, and Vasafua). … The most drastic changes in these islands occurred between December 2014 and June 2015, which we deduce to be the impact wrought by the Category 5 Cyclone Pam that passed through the southwest Pacific Ocean in March 2015…. [T]he level of details observed in this study on Vasafua islet that lost all vegetation due to Cyclone Pam would not have been detected if not for the availability of fine spatial resolution data and the short revisit times.”
“Some studies (Leatherman, Zhang, and Douglas 2000; Romine et al. 2013; Albert et al. 2016) have systematically/rigorously shown the relationship between sea-level rise and shoreline changes, but the dramatic impacts of climate change felt on coastlines and people across the Pacific are still anecdotal and highlights the urgent need for further research.”
Posted in Sea Levels |
From that paper:
Are we cherry picking again or will you finally accept what accelerating sea level rise means?
So we have an entire paper devoted to the subject of studying the shoreline changes for 28 small islands in the SW Pacific, of which 15 had their shorelines grow and 13 had their shorelines decrease (with the most pronounced losses due predominantly to a Cat 5 hurricane).
You find a quote that says that there is “little doubt” that sea level will continue to rise regardless of what happens with CO2 emissions.
So apparently you think that summarizing what the article says by directly quoting from the abstract and conclusion and the main results is “cherry picking”, but the selected quote you’ve highlighted here that refers to CO2 emissions (the only time CO2 is referenced in the entire paper) in the middle of a paragraph on page 3 (I had to search hard for it) is what the paper is really about? And we are cherry picking?
Picking only what you like from a paper and presenting it like shorelines had actually expanded (title of this post) is cherry picking.
Nope, you misunderstood that on purpose I guess. I commented to highlight that this paper contains things you don’t agree with, yet you chose to present those things that sound like supporting your “skepticism”. I asked you if you are cherry picking again or are you ok with the rest of what the paper says. What is it?
Where in the paper is there any scientific EVIDENCE that sea level rise will accelerate, seb ?
So funny that you are SOOOO brain-hosed with the AGW meme , that you didn’t see it as an non-science throw-away line.
Huh? I quoted the section that mentions multiple papers about that topic. Are you blind?
And why would it not be accelerating as it has in the past 60 or so years?
Sea level has NOT been accelerating at tide gauges, its been decelerating, even in the satellite data. (before adjustments™)
https://s19.postimg.cc/4wrz7pcmb/Sea_leve_slowsPuls_2.jpg
And only a mathematical imbecile takes any notice of s graph splicing satellite data onto tide date, and discontinuing the tide data.
But that is you, isn’t it seb.
There is absolute ZERO sign of sea level rise acceleration except in the “adjusted” satellite data.
As you pointed out the other day, seb, tide gauges not showing any acceleration, just a cyclic trend on a steady linear base.
Anything else about future acceleration is purely and simply wacked-out model-based crystal ball gazing.
What the hell are you talking about?
I think he’s talking about what’s been found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0019-5
“The loud divergence between sea-level reality and climate change theory—the climate models predict an accelerated sea-level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission—has been also evidenced in other works such as Boretti (2012a, b), Boretti and Watson (2012), Douglas (1992), Douglas and Peltier (2002), Fasullo et al. (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2006), Holgate (2007), Houston and Dean (2011), Mörner 2010a, b, 2016), Mörner and Parker (2013), Scafetta (2014), Wenzel and Schröter (2010) and Wunsch et al. (2007) reporting on the recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise. The minimum length requirement of 50–60 years to produce a realistic sea-level rate of rise is also discussed in other works such as Baart et al. (2012), Douglas (1995, 1997), Gervais (2016), Jevrejeva et al. (2008), Knudsen et al. (2011), Scafetta (2013a, b), Wenzel and Schröter (2014) and Woodworth (2011).”
“Aim of this paper is to show that the information from the tide gauges of the USA and the rest of the world when considered globally and over time windows of not less than 80 years (but 120 years, or twice the quasi-60 years’ periodicity, work even better) does not support the notion of rapidly changing mass of ice in Greenland and Antarctica as claimed by Davis and Vinogradova (2017). The sea levels have been oscillating about a nearly perfectly linear trend since the start of the twentieth century with no sign of acceleration. There are only different phases of some oscillations moving from one location to another that do not represent any global acceleration.”
And I did point that out? Ha, good one.
From the paper you posted a few days back (https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0502.1):
https://imgur.com/a/yySyvp2 (not long enough?! 56 years!)
And:
https://i1.wp.com/climateadaptation.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Brief-1-Figure-4.png
No oscillation about a nearly perfectly linear trend visible.
No, not long enough. The 100-year trend shows a deceleration, as the first half of the 20th century had a higher rate (2.03 mm/yr) than the second half (1.45 mm/yr) (including 1958-2014, which was also around 1.4 mm/yr per the Frederiske paper).
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).”
The graph in that paper (Figure 4) looks very different from this one:
https://i1.wp.com/climateadaptation.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Brief-1-Figure-4.png
Or the one at the top of this blog post?
https://takvera.blogspot.com/2011/10/sea-level-rise-and-australia.html
Do you happen to know why?
“The graph in that paper (Figure 4) looks very different from this one:”:
Only a mathematical imbecile takes any notice of a graph that substitutes “adjusted” satellite data for tide data part way through.
The second one a very short period, during which there was a large El Nino
Why use such a short period when data is available for much longer periods and shows just a steady tend?
Seems you have yet again attempted propaganda DECEIT.
You don’t even pay any attention to the graphs YOU post.
So Funny
No wonder you get constantly left behind.
A fools reply?
Enlighten me, what graph did I post? Or was it just a repetition of a graph Kenneth posted and your lacking reading comprehension skills make you think it was I who posted it?
“regardless of a global reduction in CO2 emissions “
That’s news to me.
Do they provide any data to back it up ?
https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Global-CO2-emissions-by-region-since-1751.png
Seems they ruined an otherwise good paper by bleating the scientifically unsupportable AGW mantra.
@Spike
“…regardless of a global reduction in CO2 emissions…”
regardless of = “in spite of; without regard for.”
Sure, they are pushing global warming, but they are decoupling sea level rise from CO2, saying the oceans will continue to rise no matter what it’s concentration is – even if it drops. They don’t want you to think the problem will go away if CO2 levels go down. The safety of those islands will still need further study. And they are just the scientists to it, too.
No, no. Don’t thank them. They are happy to do it.
Thank you for displaying that you have no clue. Please continue to ignore everything climate scientists write that sounds to complicated for you. Speaking donkeys like this kind of behaviour that shows just how ignorant you guys are …
Oh, dear me. You mean he wasn’t talking about CO2, but about “…CO2 EMISSIONS?” (insert scary music here) And what he was really saying was that emissions reductions, AKA Trillion dollar Kyoto style protocols are a useless waste, because they can’t reverse the unstoppable imaginary looming disasters???!!! Ah, but surely they aren’t a waste, because without them climate “scientists” wouldn’t have the funding to keep stoking the hysteria, and would then have to find REAL jobs, poor things.
Yeah, I know what he was saying, and what it really means. Thanks for playing “catch and release.” (I was bored)
Poor seb,
There is NO EVIDENCE given in the paper that supports that throw-away line
You have been caught out, YET AGAIN.
Get over it and stop acting like a petulant child.
You KNOW you have ZERO evidence for CO2 causing warming anywhere, anytime, of anything
The real problem is that these semi-scientists feel the need to add unsupportable AGW junk statements to papers to get through climate non-science peer-review.
No, I replied because you somehow drifted into that conspiracy theme again. “They do this …”, “They don’t want you to think …”, etc.
You don’t seem to understand that a reduction of the CO2 emissions will only stop the CO2 concentration increase if it is pretty drastic. And you don’t seem to understand that even at a constant CO2 concentration of whatever we have when we stopped the increase will cause warming of the oceans for quite some time.
Nobody is saying it is unstoppable. That is entirely your imagination, Yonason.
@Spikey:
Why would the paper contain evidence about Yonason’s conspiracy addiction and lack of understanding?
Twist and slime yet again, seb
Your ONLY tactics.
No evidence of CO2 warming
And you KNOW it.
You can’t even answer two simple questions.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
SebH
John thinks that that grammar is getting in the way of what SebH believes.
He looking at sentence that is put there to guarantee that the paper is published. He must read correctly because it is referred to future not a fact.
Says “…will accelerate” Not saying “… did accelerate”
SebH need admit that this difference.
I think you need to open your eyes a little bit further or explain to me where my accompaning sentence “or will you finally accept what accelerating sea level rise means?” refers to past acceleration.
Or are you trying to say that sea leve rise did not accelerate and/or is currently not accelerating?
Sea level rise as measured by tide gauges is NOT accelerating.
In fact, its decelerating
https://s19.postimg.cc/4wrz7pcmb/Sea_leve_slowsPuls_2.jpg
Yes there was a brief spike after this graph because of the El Nino, but not enough to change the general trend.
No, it’s not …
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ (the source of your graph)
One is working with actual data without “adjustments.”
Can you guess which one?
Can you guess how many times you have ducked and weaves avoiding answering these two simple questions.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
There still grammar in the way.
If there would have been an acceleration, they would have said: “did accelerate”. Since they used the term “will” it indicates that the study supports the notion that there was no acceleration before that.
While seems John splitting hair this sort of reading (comprehension) is required in the space of climate science papers.
I asked Kenneth “or will you finally accept what accelerating sea level rise means?”. Why do you think it matters if the paper wrote about past acceleration or future acceleration for this question?
That is just crazy. If an author writes that the Sun will be going to rise tomorrow that doesn’t mean it did not rise the days before. What kind of logic is that?
John is talking about REALITY
Seb is making up FANTASIES.
Unproven CO2 warming being his deepest darkest wish, fetish, and fantasy.
He dreams about finding actual evidence..
But it is turning into a nightmare for the poor scientific inebriate.
SebastianH 26. July 2018 at 3:21 PM
We all know what “accelerating sea level rise” means. What you didn’t seem to notice is that the paper did NOT say that sea level rise IS accelerating. It says, quite unscientifically in my opinion, that sea level rise WILL accelerate.
That is a fantasy about the future which has no place in a scientific paper.
w.
I don’t know if we all know this. There is AndyG55/Spike55 who thinks it’s “tiny”, but somehow doesn’t get that a 0.07 mm/yr² acceleration makes a difference of 3.92 mm/yr after 56 years. And of course we have Kenneth, who think sea level rise rates will soon slow down again because it is all periodical or something like that. He somehow doubts that a warmer world means higher sea levels and questions how the IPCC predictions could ever become reality even though a continued acceleration like we observed in more than 6 decades comes pretty close already.
Doesn’t really matter. I asked if he finally accepts what accelerating sea level rise means, not if he accepted that sea level will continue to accelerate.
Then there’s SebastianH, who evidently doesn’t understand that the arbitrary starting point of a sequence is what determines the acceleration value, rendering the value itself statistically meaningless and the future projection of sea level rise speculative. For example, when starting in 1900, the acceleration is a “not significant” 0.0042 mm/yr, not 0.07 mm/yr, which gives us an entirely different projected value for 2100 if we use that value rather than the one that begins in 1958.
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“
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00238.1
“Previous research has shown that sea-level acceleration determined from individual tide gauge records has remarkably large scatter as record lengths decrease due to decadal variations in sea level. We extend previous data sets to the present time and find even greater acceleration scatter. Using analytic solutions, sinusoidal oscillations with amplitudes and periods of typical decadal variations are shown to basically account for the relationship between record length and both acceleration and trend difference. Data show that decadal variations will obscure estimates of underlying accelerations if record lengths of individual gauges are not greater than at least 75 years. Although worldwide data are less affected by decadal variations than individual gauge data, decadal variations still significantly affect estimates of underlying accelerations, in particular for record lengths less than about 60 years. We give two examples of recent studies that use record lengths of about 30 to 60 years to determine acceleration or related trend difference. Previous authors dismissed the importance of decadal variations on their results and, as a result, reached invalid conclusions.”
—
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JC010716/full
“Global sea levels have been rising through the past century and are projected to rise at an accelerated rate throughout the 21st century. This has motivated a number of authors to search for already existing accelerations in observations, which would be, if present, vital for coastal protection planning purposes. No scientific consensus has been reached yet as to how a possible acceleration could be separated from intrinsic climate variability in sea level records. This has led to an intensive debate on its existence and, if absent, also on the general validity of current future projections.”
And then we have this:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029801813004216
“Sea levels are oscillating with important multidecadal periodicities. Sea levels are not presently positively accelerating worldwide.”
—
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-015-4050-2
“If we want to study the changes in the rate of sea levels over the satellite altimeter era, we have to consider only the tide gauges that were already satisfying the minimum 60 years length requirement 20 years ago. There are 100 tide gauges of PSMSL [Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level] having length more than 80 years at the present time, and the average rate of rise for them is 0.24 ± 0.15 mm/year. For these 100 tide gauges, the rate of rise has been moving up and down over the last 20 years without any sign of positive or negative accelerations. If the ice caps are melting at an increased rate and the ocean waters are expanding because they are warming at a faster rate, then the sea level rise should be accelerating, but this is not the case.”
—
http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15A-00004.1
“Together with a general sea-level rise of 1.18 mm/y, the sum of these five sea-level oscillations constitutes a reconstructed or theoretical sea-level curve of the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea (Figure 1, lower panel), which correlates very well with the observed sea-level changes of the 160-year period (1849–2009), from which 26 long tide gauge time series are available from the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea. Such identification of oscillators and general trends over 160 years would be of great importance for distinguishing long-term, natural developments from possible, more recent anthropogenic sea-level changes. However, we found that a possible candidate for such anthropogenic development, i.e. the large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world’s best recorded region.”
—
https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01317607/
“Building up on the relationship between thermocline and sea level in the tropical region, we show that most of the observed sea level spatial trend pattern in the tropical Pacific can be explained by the wind driven vertical thermocline movement. By performing detection and attribution study on sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we further show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal. In addition, we also suggest that satellite altimetry measurement may not still be accurate enough to detect the anthropogenic signal in the 20-year tropical Pacific sea level trends.”
—
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084024
“Sea level rates up to three times the global mean rate are being observed in the western tropical Pacific since 1993 by satellite altimetry. From recently published studies, it is not yet clear whether the sea level spatial trend patterns of the Pacific Ocean observed by satellite altimetry are mostly due to internal climate variability or if some anthropogenic fingerprint is already detectable. … This suggests that the residual positive trend pattern observed in the western tropical Pacific is not externally forced and thereby not anthropogenic in origin.”
And here we have SebastianH, who evidently doesn’t understand what long-term oscillations in sea level rise records means.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1771-3
“Finally, a global reconstruction of sea level (Jevrejeva et al. in Geophys Res Lett 35:L08715, 2008) and a reconstruction of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index (Luterbacher et al. in Geophys Res Lett 26:2745–2748, 1999) are analyzed and compared: both sequences cover about three centuries from 1700 to 2000. The proposed methodology quickly highlights oscillations and teleconnections among the records at the decadal and multidecadal scales. At the secular time scales tide gauge records present relatively small (positive or negative) accelerations, as found in other studies (Houston and Dean in J Coast Res 27:409–417, 2011). On the contrary, from the decadal to the secular scales (up to 110-year intervals) the tide gauge accelerations oscillate significantly from positive to negative values mostly following the PDO, AMO and NAO oscillations. In particular, the influence of a large quasi 60–70 year natural oscillation is clearly demonstrated in these records.”
—
Nope. Haven’t written that. Sea levels rose at a rate of 3 to 5 meters per century as the world rapidly warmed naturally during the Early Holocene.
It’s apparent that SebastianH has some difficulty understanding acceleration computation and the shortcomings of making future projections based on “exponential growth”.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569112003304
“A proper coastal management requires an accurate estimation of sea level trends locally and globally. It is claimed that the sea levels are rising following an exponential growth since the 1990s, and because of that coastal communities are facing huge challenges. Many local governments throughout Australia, including those on the coast, have responded to the various warnings about changes in climate and increases in sea levels by undertaking detailed climate change risk management exercises. … It is shown here that the exponential growth claim is not supported by any measurement of enough length and quality when properly analysed. The tide gauge results do not support the exponential growth theory.”
Why not begin much much earlier then? Maybe when the sea level was higher than today? No acceleration at all, right? Kenneth, when we are talking about man made client change, then there is usually a starting point where our influence began to make a difference. That starting point is not 1900.
https://i1.wp.com/climateadaptation.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Brief-1-Figure-4.png
See how little sea level rise there were back then? Of course the acceleration from a point so far back is smaller.
They are:
– https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180212150739.htm
– https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0502.1
– https://i1.wp.com/climateadaptation.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Brief-1-Figure-4.png
Do you see any long-term oscillation in this graph?
https://i1.wp.com/climateadaptation.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Brief-1-Figure-4.png
OHC is increasing, glaciers are melting … the rise won’t slow down significantly until the imbalance caused by CO2 doesn’t exist anymore.
Excuse me? You claimed that all glacier melt and thermal expansion is compensated by land water changes. You’ve written in this very thread that everything oscillates which kind of implies that somehow the sea level rise wont further accelerate in a warming world … since well, the world is warming.
The future projections aren’t based on just extrapolating the rise from the past 60+ years. I thought you have looked into what “the other side” predicts and on what it is based. I just made the observation that it is not too far off of extrapolating the past acceleration into the future.
Besides … read the next sentence of the part you quoted from that paper: “The projections by the relevant state bodies should therefore be revised by considering the measurements and not the models to compute the future sea level rises for the next 30 years following the same trend experienced over the last 30 years.”
The author wants the projections to be based on past trends? Isn’t that what you just argued against? Extrapolating the future from the past?
Correct. According to the IPCC, it’s 1750. That’s where all the radiative forcing values for CO2 start from.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html
“The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence[7] that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2″
Sea levels are not presently positively accelerating worldwide (according to many peer-reviewed scientific papers).
By a whopping 0.02 C since 1994. Whoop-de-doo. The oceans are cooling below 3600 m. What’s causing that?
Yes, Greenland and Antarctica have contributed a whopping 1.5 cm to sea levels in 56 years, or between 1958-2014. And Greenland and East Antarctica have both been cooling in recent decades. Antarctica as a whole shows no trends since 1979.
12 New Papers Affirm A 21st Century Cessation Of Arctic Warming And A Rapid Cooling Across Antarctica
So why is it that scientists don’t agree with you that an anthropogenic signal is even detectable?
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-015-4050-2
“If we want to study the changes in the rate of sea levels over the satellite altimeter era, we have to consider only the tide gauges that were already satisfying the minimum 60 years length requirement 20 years ago. There are 100 tide gauges of PSMSL [Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level] having length more than 80 years at the present time, and the average rate of rise for them is 0.24 ± 0.15 mm/year. For these 100 tide gauges, the rate of rise has been moving up and down over the last 20 years without any sign of positive or negative accelerations. If the ice caps are melting at an increased rate and the ocean waters are expanding because they are warming at a faster rate, then the sea level rise should be accelerating, but this is not the case.”
—
http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15A-00004.1
“Together with a general sea-level rise of 1.18 mm/y, the sum of these five sea-level oscillations constitutes a reconstructed or theoretical sea-level curve of the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea (Figure 1, lower panel), which correlates very well with the observed sea-level changes of the 160-year period (1849–2009), from which 26 long tide gauge time series are available from the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea. Such identification of oscillators and general trends over 160 years would be of great importance for distinguishing long-term, natural developments from possible, more recent anthropogenic sea-level changes. However, we found that a possible candidate for such anthropogenic development, i.e. the large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world’s best recorded region.”
—
https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01317607/
“Building up on the relationship between thermocline and sea level in the tropical region, we show that most of the observed sea level spatial trend pattern in the tropical Pacific can be explained by the wind driven vertical thermocline movement. By performing detection and attribution study on sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we further show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal. In addition, we also suggest that satellite altimetry measurement may not still be accurate enough to detect the anthropogenic signal in the 20-year tropical Pacific sea level trends.”
—
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084024
“Sea level rates up to three times the global mean rate are being observed in the western tropical Pacific since 1993 by satellite altimetry. From recently published studies, it is not yet clear whether the sea level spatial trend patterns of the Pacific Ocean observed by satellite altimetry are mostly due to internal climate variability or if some anthropogenic fingerprint is already detectable. … This suggests that the residual positive trend pattern observed in the western tropical Pacific is not externally forced and thereby not anthropogenic in origin.”
Nope, that’s not what I wrote. I wrote that the portion of sea level change attributed to terrestrial water storage, -0.71 mm/yr, can be said to effectively cancel out the sea level change attributed to thermal expansion, +0.64 mm/yr, using the data found in peer-reviewed scientific papers. The sum contributors to sea level change don’t add up to 3.5 mm/yr, more like 1 to 1.5 mm/yr, which is considered the global average.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/699
“We found that between 2002 and 2014, climate variability resulted in an additional 3200 ± 900 gigatons of water being stored on land. This gain partially offset water losses from ice sheets, glaciers, and groundwater pumping, slowing the rate of sea level rise by -0.71 ± 0.20 millimeters per year. These findings highlight the importance of climate-driven changes in hydrology when assigning attribution to decadal changes in sea level.”
—
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2387.html
“Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77 ± 0.28 mm yr−1 in sea-level rise … the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes −0.13 ± 0.72 mm yr−1 to global sea-level rise [0.64 mm/yr total].”
No, I’ve written that the rates of sea level rise oscillate on long-term time scales as shown here and thus picking a short-term starting point and claiming acceleration from that is likely to be invalid. Another starting point will yield different results.
“OHC is increasing, glaciers are melting … the rise won’t slow down significantly until the imbalance caused by CO2 doesn’t exist anymore”
There is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that the OHC rise is caused by CO2 in any way.
Your statement is UNSUPPPORTABLE by any known science.
It is a FANTASY.
And MANY of those glaciers didn’t even exist before the LIA, seb
You know, when CO2 levels where much lower.
Again.
NOTHING to do with humans or human emissions.
You STILL haven’t answered those two questions.
Waiting waiting… !
run away, headless chook.
What? That’s the 1958-2014 graph, isn’t it?
https://imgur.com/a/yySyvp2
How does it conflict with this one?
https://i1.wp.com/climateadaptation.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Brief-1-Figure-4.png
And why do you keep repeating that the rate was 2.05 mm/yr between 1900 and 1950 when the overall rise in this period was just about 50 mm?
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-W1kKrWyhS5Y/ToiJNDZPiMI/AAAAAAAAAuA/44ZIAQvSbQw/s1600/20111003_Global_mean_sea_level_1880-2010.png
It’s funny how you try to belittle the OHC increase, but somehow find a mW/m² geothermal flux that changed a little as the root cause for all the melting 😉
Question: do you know what W/m² number the OHC increase corresponds to? E.g. what amount of forcing is needed to change the OHC by the amounts we observe? Or are you going to throw in some “Hiroshima bombs per second” quote again to distract from your lack of understanding?
Why do you ignore what a lot of other scientists are saying? Why are these scientists you keep quoting special? Because they confirm your bias?
Again, you trust this one paper over all the others that have very different values for lang water storage. Why? Because it is “peer reviewed”? So are all the others …
Another claim that is objectively not true. Or is this again not a claim of yours and you are “just repeating” what scientists say?
Like this one?
https://i1.wp.com/climateadaptation.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Brief-1-Figure-4.png
or this one?
https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-level/
or this one?
https://datahub.io/core/sea-level-rise
Need more? How much further back to you need to go to accept that the rise is accelerating and will continue to accelerate because of global warming?
roflmao
Seb again uses “adjusted propaganda sea level fabrication
NO ACCELERATION at tide gauges, seb
No real acceleration in satellite data before those “adjustments”
And the crystal ball gazing of yours really has to stop
” will continue to accelerate because of global warming?”
No evidence warming will continue..
.. just erroneous models based on CO2 warming
No evidence of CO2 warming.
Poor seb, living in a little fantasy world of gullibility.
“but somehow doesn’t get that a 0.07 mm/yr² acceleration…. blah blah..
By accepting that value, you also accept that the current SLR is less than 1.7mm/year
Seems you got something correct.. by accident
But then you ruin it by a mathematically ignorant extrapolation.
DUMB.
So a few comments back and forth on this topic in the last few days and you haven’t learned a thing?
No, the current rate is not 1.7 mm/year. That’s the average in the period that saw an acceleration of 0.07 mm/yr².
Quick question to see if you are really mathematically challenged:
– you are sitting inside a vehicle which is at rest
– you accelerate with 1 m/s² for 60 seconds
What is your average speed in these 60 seconds and what is your speed after 60 seconds?
Now apply this newly gained knowledge to a sea level rise acceleration of 0.07 mm/yr² over 56 years. What is the average and what is the rate at the end of those 56 years?
Bravo if you can admit that you just wrote what you wrote in your reply to clown away. Otherwise, feel free to continue demonstrating that you don’t have a clue 😉
Yes seb ,
the current rate is around 1.7 – 1.8 mm/year
There has been NO ACCELERATION at tide gauges.
And none in pre-adjusted satellite data.
“What is the average and what is the rate at the end of those 56 years?”
And yet again with the idiotic extrapolation.
So funny that you are so mathematically DUMB that you actually keep doing it.
Hilarious.
You don’t seem to understand that it is not me who says there was acceleration. It’s in the papers that get posted here. 0.07 mm/yr² acceleration and an average of 1.5 mm/yr rise between 1958 and 2014. Do you challenge that claim somehow? Will you post your “it’s actually decelerating” graph again? 😉
It’s hopeless to argue with you. Conversing with you is truely like playing chess with a pigeon :/
There is ZERO acceleration in tidal station data, seb
Get over it.
There is a deceleration in unadjusted satellite data seb
GET OVER IT. !!
And as you are well aware, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the steady sea level rise is anything to do with anything humans are doing
Certainly NOT CO2, because CO2 cannot cause warming of the oceans or melting of land ice.
It is not scientifically possible, and has NEVER been measured anywhere at any time.
Stick to your brain-hosed fantasies, seb, its all you have.
Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?
Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?
Poor seb,
Yet again FAILS with his INADEQUATE understanding of maths.
His IDIOTIC extrapolation of cyclic type data as though it is constant, tells us EVERYTHING we need to know about his lack of basic mathematical and scientific comprehension.
P.S.: Ask these skeptics here if they understand your “Steel Greenhouse” in case you think they have a clue 😉
Really? This is the only comment that made it through?
Seb’s mind lives in a steel greenhouse.
Explains everything.
A basic ignorance of everything to do with atmospheric physics
Hint seb
the atmosphere is NOT ANALOGOUS to a steel greenhouse.
It is an irrelevant distraction.. like everything else.
A distraction from your abject INABILITY to produce any science to back up the fallacy that is CO2 warming.
About science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE
The interesting part is the change in the gravitational constant note!
John talks about grammar.
John then post link to video
Video is interesting with some new aspects
MrZ says thank you John. 😄
MrZ,
now you talking!
I posted this over at WUWT in response to another “disappearing Pacific islands” piece:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/26/swallowed-islands-getting-slr-out-of-variability/
[…] Kenneth Richard, July 26, 2018 in […]
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
Do not engage Sebastian.
To all the people with coastline property, due to the accelerating sea levels surely you must know that your property will be under water. I understand that insurance rates do not reflect this conclusion, but they are too dumb to see it. I am offering $1 US dollar per meter of shoreline. That is a very generous offer!