No acceleration in Sea level rises

[BlasterBates]

A bit of new science research:

Bombshell conclusion – new peer reviewed analysis: “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years” | Watts Up With That?

[DimPrawn]

Hang on, I'm just going to log in to my sasguru account and call you a cretin.

Stand by.

[BlasterBates]

It was uncertain actually.

Since 1992, a number of satellites have been recording the change in sea level;[17][18] they display an acceleration in the rate of sea level change, but they have not been operating for long enough to work out whether this is a real signal, or just an artefact of short-term variation[citation needed].

But now it is.

Another nail in the AGW coffin

[BlasterBates]

Indeed there is like one of the thousands of scientists that has been beavering away on climate change research budgets and contributing to the consensus. But what does he really think about AGW.

This is so obviously a scam now.

Dr David Evans

David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam « JoNova

I can guarantee you as the climate cools, scientists previously on the gravy train will be queueing up to denounce AGW.

[DimPrawn]

David Evans

Evans is married to Joanne Nova, btw.

“To those of us who have been unknowingly made to turn a blind eye to the terrifying and true facts about global warming, there’s no time left for ignorance. Please read this shocking and incredible book, learn how we’ve been manipulated, get angry and take action.”


THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

BACK TO THE CAVES, QUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICK!!!




meanwhile the Indians and Chinese enjoy space travel, and nuclear weapons.

[BlasterBates]

David Evans

Evans is married to Joanne Nova, btw.

Phil Jones is also married.

Just to get handle on this should we only be listening to scientists that are unmarried.

[BlasterBates]

I always find it interesting how all these "cranks" get PhD's at prestigious Universities, or have distinguished careers behind them.

He spent 10 years in the dept for climate change modelling the carbon cycle, and used to be a warmist. I think with a PhD in Electrical Engineering he's perfectly capable of understanding it.

I noticed the rebuttal was written by a Computer Scientist.

:

[BlasterBates]

Satellite measurements over thirty years show no hot spot.

That's just complete BS.

Have you noticed the caveat. The tropospheric hot-spot isn't a sign of AGW anyway



Why do you think they say that?

I'll tell you...because it doesn't show up on the Satellite.

If it showed up on the Troposhere Satellite temps they'd be bleating it from the rooftops.

Real-world temperatures in the upper atmosphere have been measured with balloons since at least the 1960's and with microwave satellite sensors since 1979. However, the Hadley Centre’s plot of real-world radiosonde observations does not demonstrate the “global warming hot-spot” at all. The predicted phenomenon is startlingly and entirely absent from the observational record –

http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

[EternalOptimist]

Hang on a moment.
If sea levels rise is constant(to all intents and purposes), and even the cagw crowd(as in pj clarke) agree, then it follows that we can make a pretty good prediction.

because an accelerating rise brought in a lot of uncertainty. If both sides agree there is no uncertainty, thats brilliant. that is truly good news.

the last time i checked, sea levels were rising at 1.7mm per year, so by the year 2100, the sea level will have risen by
1.7 * 90 = 153 mm or six inches.

if this is truly beyond dispute, I want to know 4 things

1. why is the IPCC saying sea levels may rise up to 23 inches by 2100

2. why did Hansen(the hockey stick man) speculate that the rise would be 16 feet

3. why did Al Gore say it would be 20 feet

4. if sea level rises are caused by C02, why is the sea level rise linear, when CO2 in the atmosphere is exponential. why is there no correlation ?

[pjclarke]

BB Your quote is 14 years old. Things have moved on.

EO - no acceleration is unequivocally present in the SLR trend since 1900, however the estimates range widely:-

Interannual or longer variability is a major reason why no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th-century data alone (Woodworth, 1990; Douglas, 1992). Another possibility is that the sparse tide gauge network may have been inadequate to detect it if present (Gregory et al., 2001). The longest records available from Europe and North America contain accelerations of the order of 0.4 mm yr–1 per century between the 19th and 20th century (Ekman, 1988; Woodworth et al., 1999). For the reconstruction shown in Figure 5.13, Church and White (2006) found an acceleration of 1.3 ± 0.5 mm yr–1 per century over the period 1870 to 2000. These data support an inference that the onset of acceleration occurred during the 19th century

(from the IPCC section linked earlier)

During the satellite era, the SLR has been of the order 3mm/yr



so a linear extrapolation gives a further rise of c27cm by 2100, but the increase is unlikely to remain linear, as ice sheets melt and ocean heat content increases.



Hansen's full argument is here It is based on a nonlinear response from the ice sheets, plus his own paleoclimatic research. Hansen has no connection to the Hockey Stick studies, btw.

Gore, I believe, was talking about the consequent SLR if one of the major ice sheets (Greenland or West Antarctica) melted entirely, which is not likely in under a millennium.

BTW there is a poster at WUWT also named EternalOptimist who can usually be relied upon uncritically to suck up Watts' balony. Small world!