Sea Level - Don't worry!

[marchesarosa]

Here's a nice graphic showing changing sea-levels - PLURAL

But, surprise, surprise, it's not in fractions of millimeters but in tens of centimeters!






For people who think they can detect a rising "anthropogenic" signal of fractions of a millimeter in "global" sea level in this chaotic system, consider all the variables:

barometric, tectonic, solar, lunar, isostatic, subsidence, gravitational, thermal, ENSO/PDO/AMO etc.

Do they really think they can detect a change of a millimeter "globally"?

This is not to say that the global average sea level is NOT rising. It probably is - imperceptibly - it nearly always has been on a rising trend, ever since the end of the last ice-age BUT the people who try to kid you that there is any certainty or exactitude or "known cause" in their changing "measurements" are pulling your leg.

Walk along a beach or a harbour you have known all your life. You'll get a much more reliable idea of what's happening to sea level. And if it visibly SEEMS to be rising be assured it will be because of subsidence and if it has noticeably fallen over a the last few hundred years' records it is probably through isostatic rebound.

Believe the evidence of your eyes. It's not an exact science no matter how much the climate "scientists" pretend it is. Their hubris, and even more so that of their naive "believers", is mind-boggling.

Whatever is happening to Pacific islands (why is it ONLY Pacific islands we hear of?) it's not mainly due to sea-level rise. In fact in parts of the Pacific the level is DOWN on the average levels measured there a decade or so ago. And don't forget the scams of Islanders like those in Tuvalu agitating for emigration rights into New Zealand or the Maldives government trying to extract "Compensation" from the guilt-ridden greenies of the West. The Maldives are rising and keeping up with sea level rise because that is what coral atolls DO - its part of the definition of a coral atoll.

See this excellent discussion between Willis (who has actually lived on a coral atoll) and friends on WUWT here

Floating Islands
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/

Overpopulation and subsequent over-extraction of ground water, where the only source of water is rainfall, are the problems besetting small Pacific Islands. It's obvious isn't it when you think of it? But they have to dream up some excuse to exercise moral pressure on the governments of other states to accept them as immigrants. It's a genuine problem. I'm not decrying it - they have outgrown (in population terms) their tiny allotted living space. Sad.

But it's not Anthropogenic Global warming it's Anthropogenic population growth - same old story that besets the whole of the developing world and which drives on its assault on the biosphere, diversity, habitats, everything. It's just as likely that purely Natural warming is the cause of any sea-level rise. But there's no guilt trip and moral blackmail opportunity involved in that, is there?

[havelock]

Examining trends in things like sea level, where it seems that there are so many variables that we can't possibly measure things accurately can be explained by a very simple analogy.

For example, there are very many variables that effect the height of children. There's their genetics, their diet, their age and some are even suggesting the amount of sleep they get. Within their diet there are again a whole host of variables such as calcium, protein, carbohydrate, etc.

However, within all of this there are still some trends that can be identified. There is a tendancy for the older children to be taller (but not all of the younger children will be smaller than all of the older children). If I were to "believe the evidence of my eyes" I would assume that a child of 3' was younger than a child of 3'6" yet this is not always the case.

To reduce the debate about the rate of sea level change to one of "believe your eyes" is to completely misunderstand the very nature of the science.

The variables you have listed such as 'solar, lunar, gravitational, etc' can all be measured and their effect on sea level quanitified. They tend to either not change over decades or they change in such a way that their effect is known. Once you have calculated the effects of these known variables on sea level, you are left with the question "why is global sea level rising over time when nothing else is changing?"

I suggest that rather than just looking at pretty pictures and biased blogs, those interested look at the science papers such as this one that used both tide guages and satellite data to measure sea level.

academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf

They state

"While sea levels have varied by over 120 m during glacial/interglacial cycles, there has been little net rise over the past several millennia until the 19th century and early 20th century, when geological and tide-gauge data indicate an increase in the rate of sealevel rise. Recent satellite-altimeter data and tide-gauge data have indicated that sea levels are now rising at over 3 mm year-1. The major contributions to 20th and 21st century sealevel rise are thought to be a result of ocean thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers and ice caps. Ice sheets are thought to have been a minor contributor to 20th century sealevel rise, but are potentially the largest contributor in the longer term. Sea levels are currently rising at the upper limit of the projections of the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (TAR IPCC), and there is increasing concern of potentially large ice-sheet contributions during the 21st century and beyond, particularly if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated."

Try reading the science papers.

[marchesarosa]

Try reading the science papers that contradict your dearly held beliefs, perhaps, once in a while, havelock?

Here's a nice interactive graphic from NOAA to allay your obvious but clearly unwarranted anxiety re sea level!

Interactive map from NOAA showing sea level rise or fall round the world. What's the anxiety about? Land is subject to isostatic rebound (rising up) and to subsidence (sinking) so the "relative sea level" is different wherever it is measured. It evens out to about + 3mm a year, less than a foot per century.


tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

[marchesarosa]

And, in fact, far from "accelerating" (favourite word of alarmists) the rise is decelerating!





more here

Sea Level Acceleration: Not so Fast

www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/09/10/sea-level-acceleration-not-so-fast/

[Joe K]

Re-posted on the right board...

So what would be INconsistent with AGW, please
« Reply #41 on Sept 22, 2012, 12:40pm »

Quote:
For the externally forced trend, we find a physically plausible strong correlation only with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Our results hence show that the observed evolution of Arctic sea-ice extent is consistent with the claim that virtually certainly the impact of an anthropogenic climate change is observable in Arctic sea ice already today


What a triumph of unadorned speculation. And how percipient of you to highlight this trash in bold for us!

"plausible"! "virtually certain"! "consistent with"!

This is not scientific language, visitor.


The question enquiring minds want an answer to, visitor, is what conditions would you accept as INCONSISTENT with your pet hypothesis? Because a speculation cannot evolve into a hypothesis and thus into a fully fledged theory unless the conditions are specified in advance which would disprove it. So, please, what would be the definitive proof that the anthropogenic CO2 meme is WRONG?

You see, when we keep hearing words like "consistent with" and "Models predict" and "plausible" we know we are dealing with bullish**ers who should be on a journalism course and leave science alone.

In fact, the purported anthropogenic "signal" of warming is so totally indistinguishable from natural causes of warming that we might as well disregard it and get on with tackling all problems that are genuinely manifest on this planet like poverty, sickness and lack of educational opportunity instead of the climate neuroses of the worried well of the West.


So, tell us, just give us a clue, what observations would be "inconsistent with" anthropogenic global warming? Would you be even capable of measuring such falsifiers? Forgive us for suspecting that whatever happens is "consistent" with your hypothesis. How VERY convenient for an alarmist but how very UNscientific.

Stay away from discussions of climate if you don't have answers to these questions, visitor.

[visitor]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19702450

A major reassessment of 18 years of satellite observations has provided a new, more detailed view of sea-level change around the world.

Incorporating the data from a number of spacecraft, the study re-affirms that ocean waters globally are rising by just over 3mm/yr.

But that figure, according to the reassessment, hides some very big regional differences - up and down.

The Philippine Sea, for example, has seen increases in excess of 10mm/yr.

If you live close to sea level, 10mm/yr has your house under water in just a few years. But hey, if you live in the hills of Leeds that you have nothing to worry about.

[marchesarosa]

Tectonic movement, coastal subsidence and isostatic rebound are not something that has anything to do with Co2, so stop nattering about it.

Global oceans vary in height mainly because of thermal expansion (or contraction) upwelling, prevailing winds and barometric pressure - again nothing to do with CO2, so stop nattering about it. Melting ice also plays its part, of course

Coastal infrastructure is renewed often enough not to be affected by the very slow rate of change that is being experienced EVEN on low lying Pacific islands.

Just because we reject CO2 as the main driver of climate variation does not mean we stop all the normal business of coastal protection and adaptation.

Worry about the neglect of drains and flood defences in Hebden Bridge, (400 feet above sea level) if flooding is on your mind. We CAN do something about that! The Pacific's problems will be dealt with by the natives there not by the worried well of the West with their weird preoccupations.

Have a look at the latest NOAA interactive map of sea level change round the world's coasts if you really want to get a handle on the subject.


tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

[marchesarosa]

Since you seem particularly concerned by the fate of the Philippine Islands, how would you account for the variation between Jolo (equivalent to a change of 0.06 feet in 100 years) and Legaspi (equivalent to a change of 1.77 feet in 100 years). Do you really think the difference is down to CO2?

Silly billy. Worry about the stuff you CAN change, not the stuff you CANNOT. And KNOW the difference.