“This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year,” says Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Boening and colleagues presented these results recently at the annual Grace Science Team Meeting in Austin, Texas."
Who would have thought that extra rain on land could make such a difference. Doing a bit of maths, if all rivers ran 5% faster it would take them more than 6 months to drain the excess.
The longer WUWT exists the longer the back catalog of failures will stack up making it easier to show the problem I have with their newer rehased versions of the old arguments.
In response to their recent focus on short term sea level trends I present their last focus on short term sea level trends in late 2008:
A few years later the rise continues, the previous "flat" period of 2006-late 2008 is now down the memory hole, and focus switches to the latest promised flat period:
I wonder how many iterations of this it will take until WUWT realizes that the mere existence of a multi-year flat period isn't an argument against a longterm rising trend.
What's this thing you have against WUWT socold? You also seem to fail to see that you haven't an argument for a long-term rising trend either.
I really don't see your point, as multi-trend periods are not sole barometers of what the climate will actually turn out to be.
The only way to apply trends for climate is astronomically. By the time you begin using what real world measurements have shown to be self-evident in the climate, it is already long past coming climate regime changes.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Sigurdur, the warmists answer to historic sea level markers is to point to uplift, or to subsidence. Depending on which side of an issue they are trying to argue.
At least two measurements of mean sea level in sewage tunnels subject to tides but not to waves give a reduction of 7 and 6 mm in a decade. We shall see what we shall see - but I would not bet more than a penny on any rise in sea level.
You also seem to fail to see that you haven't an argument for a long-term rising trend either.
Apparently you missed the huge graphs he posted. They show a substantial long-term rising trend.
Ya know, when the trend flatens out, we are in DEEP do do. As Stranger has indicated, the level of rise presently is almost too slow. And if it stops rising, that indicates that a shift in climate is occuring. I do NOT want to live through a very cold snap. Had enough cold the past few years to last me for my lifetime.
sig I must agree that a change in climate from warm to cold is not good. If the SSTs decreasing and the Sea level decreasing are just short term events that would be OK with me. But there is a good chance that they are really a climate change and not driven by CO2 but by the sun.
This thread started on the basis of some poor research claiming unprecedented sea level rise. The harbinger of AGW manifest. The reality of cold should be noted. Further it is but a short term view where history tells us that cold has had devastating effects on human populations in the past. So far AGW appears to be a political movement with trumped up stories about how bad its going to be if ......
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Aug 29, 2011 22:18:19 GMT
The authority on measuring sea level that everyone seems to agree on is based... In Colorado. I think we can rest assured that one cannot look out the window and check that the numbers on the screen appear to match reality, from Colorado. The creators of the graph admit that they are fudging the numbers, but for now, unless someone has some better numbers, we'll use those.
Those numbers show us two things.
1. The rise in sea level is NOT accelerating. The IPCC, and James Hansen have bet the rent that it will. Oops. This is another example of how corrupt the AGW position is, we are still hearing stories that sea level rise is going to kill us all. The useful idiots will argue that the hiccup in sea level rise does not mean that sea levels will fall or that the rise will not resume when the current ENSO phase ends. They are of course missing the point. The point is that RATE the sea is rising has not responded according to AGW predictions. Recently, it has done exactly the opposite of what was predicted. If the science is settled how come all of the predictions these people make are wrong? Are they going to argue that at some unspecified point in the future the seas will continue to rise. That appears to be the plan. I don't think the public is going to buy it. The stupid ones are still clinging to the sea level rise will accelerate mantra. How do you argue that and not look like Harold Camping?
2. I think we can all hope that the numbers resume the slow and steady march upward soon. I have had enough excitement in my life and I don't need a little ice age to add to that.
"Using the period of best fit from 1948 to 1987, the relationship between solar activity and sea level is found to be 0.045 mm per unit of sunspot number. The threshold between rising and falling seal level is a sunspot amplitude of 40. Below 40, sea level falls. Above that, it rises. We can now combine that with Livingston and Penn’s estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude of 7 to derive this graph of seal level rise from 1870 with a projection to 2040: "
"Sea level has a few more mm of rise to the maximum of Solar Cycle 24 in 2013 and then will fall 40 mm to 2040 taking us back to levels of the early 1990s. "
"The rise over the 20th Century has been slight, so slight that it can be compared to human hair which on average is 0.1 mm thick. The rise has been an average of 5 human hair widths per annum, with most of that over 60 years ago. Let’s compare that with what the NSW Govt and Lake Macquarie Council are projecting for the 21st Century"