Sea level rise was less than thought (skeptics were right)

Skeptics, and particularly Nils-Axel Mörner have been saying that sea level rise, as recorded by tide gauges has been much slower than widely advertised. They’ve also pointed out how the rates of sea-level rise have either stayed the same or slowed down. There’s been no sign of the acceleration needed for the wildly speculative  hypothesis that your SUV, and China’s coal plants are warming the ocean.

This week a new Nature paper (Hay et al) shows the skeptics were right  — but did that view make it to any news broadcast?

Watch the sea-level scare mutate

Even in The Australian the spin from the propaganda machine gets a running, and the previous slow rise is used to pump the scare that the modern “acceleration” is even scarier. What the Australian (and selected sea level “experts”) don’t mention is that the tide-gauges don’t show any acceleration, and nor did the raw recordings from satellites. The 3mm rising sea claims apparently come from satellites that were calibrated to one subsiding tide gauge in Hong Kong.

It’s cherry picking par excellence. We might finally accept tide gauges up to 1990, but after that the tide gauges don’t count — bring in the “adjusted” satellites.

[The Australian] SEA levels increased at a slower rate last century than previously thought, according to new ­research.

A fresh analysis of tide-gauge records, published in the journal Nature, found that the sea level rose by 1.2mm a year from 1901 to 1990, compared with earlier estimates of between 1.6mm and 1.9mm a year.

Researchers said this meant the acceleration in sea-level rise to 3mm a year over the past two decades was greater than previously thought.


Michael Beenstock, Daniel Felsenstein,*Eyal Frank & Yaniv Reingewertz, (2014)  Tide gauge location and the measurement of global sea level rise,  Environmental and Ecological Statistics, May 2014 [Abstract]

Cazenave, A.,  Dieng, H., Meyssignac, B., von Schuckmann, K., Decharme. B., & Etienne Berthier (2014)  The rate of sea-level rise, Nature Climate Change | Letter   [Abstract] doi:10.1038/nclimate2159

and many more… see these posts, especially the first three here.

9 out of 10 based on 77 ratings

103 comments to Sea level rise was less than thought (skeptics were right)

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    Now someone will have to labor to prove the 3 mm/y over the last 2 decades is also bogus data and has been made to look as if there is an acceleration when in fact is was most likely a deceleration. Makes a body weary. But, we must hold on and continue to search for and publish the truth. The effort is worth it a thousand times over.

    Jo, so glad we have people such as you, Anthony, and others working hard, at your own expense in time and money (including money forgone from paid work not pursued and with tips and small contributions only). Thank you.


  • #

    Didn’t Jevrejeva and others determine that the biggest decadal rises occurred between the late 1700s and the 1860s? So the President did slow the rise of the oceans – President Lincoln, that is.


    • #
      spangled drongo


      I think he put it in reverse. I check the Moreton Bay King tides every summer against a still existing 1946 benchmark and there is a MB “9 footer” due on Jan 21 and 22. For the last few years this HAT has been not only lower than 69 years ago but in some years up to 30cm lower.

      SLR is a bit like justice; if it really is happening, it would be seen to be happening.

      And if it’s a foot lower in MB it ain’t too much of a problem anywhere else.


  • #

    Hey! The climate worriers can’t always be right. 😉


  • #

    Sea level rise was less than thought (skeptics were right)

    Classic headline.

    “Sceptics” that are merely contrarians are of course going to be right (in the sense that someone can be right, when all they are really saying is: “No, it won’t” or “No it isn’t”.) once or twice and if you take a very, very loose definition of “right”. But, of course they never admit being wrong.

    Except when they do. But you are in denial right? – Jo
    PS: Though we have to update that post. Very interesting news coming. :- )

    [SNIP OT]


    • #

      While there’s been no acceleration of natural sea level rise there’s been a definite acceleration of warmist/alarmist hype over natural variability, I predict this acceleration to intensify in 2015 with a tipping point around December.

      BTW Chester how’s your hubby’s inventions going?, I bet those Gerbil’s must be difficult to train but I know he’ll succeed using the scientific method, good luck.


    • #
      James Bradley


      As opposed to Alarmists who contribute any phenomena to climate change:

      Full dams/empty dams, no crops/more crops, no snow/snow, heat wave/polar vortex, droughts/floods, rain/no rain, species extinction/discovery new species, less polar ice/more polar ice, ebola, terrorism, road rage, anxiety, deep ocean heat, shark attack, beach sand, grasping at straws…

      Climate scientisits constructed 3,000 models that all failed.

      We all remember Flannery’s claim that “… even the rain the falls isn’t going to fill our dams and rivers” – wrong.



      • #

        3,000 climate models failed – it’s NOT the ”science of CC” such a gross failure proves it’s all fiction and they are prostituting the word ”science”


    • #

      Hi Chester,

      Einstein himself had shown in 1915 how his theory explained the anomalous perihelion advance of the planet Mercury without any arbitrary parameters (“fudge factors”).[7] Similarly, a 1919 expedition led by Eddington confirmed general relativity’s prediction for the deflection of starlight by the Sun during the total solar eclipse of May 29, 1919

      Here is how science works.

      [1] A hypothesis is proposed that makes a specific measurable prediction about physical phenomena.

      [2] Experimental measurements are performed to capture the predicted physical phenomena.

      [3.a – Confirmation] The physical phenomena conform with the hypothesis, within the expected error bounds of the instrumentation, or

      [3.b – Refutation] the physical phenomena do not conform with the hypothesis, within the expected error bounds of the instrumentation.

      For a scientific hypothesis to be considered sound, it must be both testable and able to survive the tests without being refuted, as soon as it is refuted, it must be replaced.

      The Man Made Global Warming Hypothesis requires the following.

      [1] That water vapour operate as a +ve feedback to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, producing a “Tropospheric Hotspot” – Not found – Hypothesis Refuted. REF:

      The final conclusion is that climate sensitivity and future warming projections depend totally on the behaviors of water in the atmosphere. If the water content is kept constant, ECS is in the range 0.46 to 0.58 °C. If positive water feedback is applied, ECS is about 1.1 °C, and negative water feedback can force warming to 0 °C.

      [2] That Infra Red radiation leaving the top of the Atmosphere will be reduced – instead it has been measured by the ERBE and CERES satellites to increase – Hypothesis Refuted.

      There is of course an even simpler way of looking at the NOAA data. The AGW theory claims the earth is warming because rising CO2 is like a blanket, reducing Earth’s energy loss to space but the NOAA data shows that at least for the last 30 years Earth’s energy loss to space has been rising. The last 30 years of NOAA data is not compatible with the theory of AGW. It would appear that either 30 years of NOAA data is wrong or the theory of AGW is very severely flawed.

      [3] That the timeframe from 2000 to 2010 would experience a 0.2 degrees Celsius average rise for global temperatures. – Instead temperatures over that timeframe have been flat – Hypothesis Refuted. latest-global-temperatures

      BTW: Would the moniker “Zombie Science” be an appropriate label for an activity where a (presumed to be) scientific hypothesis continues to exist, continues to receive and consume funding in the face of repeated successful refutational events?

      Cheers ExWarmist


      • #
        the Griss

        “Here is how science works.”

        And at that point Chester ‘blanks out’ !! 🙂


      • #

        A small footnote: the more complex an hypothesis, the more opportunity it provides for falsification. To wit, the simplistic model reliant cult of (C)AGW relies centrally on the emission of CO2, generalising for a complex, non-linear, stochastic chaotic system that is weather and will eventually become climate.

        Falsification quite literally abounds. It is both plentiful and obvious.


      • #

        Note that [3.a – Confirmation] gives us greater confidence in the hypothesis but does not prove it is correct.

        [3.b – Refutation] does prove the hypothesis is wrong.


    • #

      They will not leave their sheltered workshop to risk the real world.


      • #
        Peter Miller

        “sheltered workshop?”

        ”Climate science’ is now mostly conducted in deep troughs (the snouts in variety) where the light of real facts and observations is rarely allowed to intrude.

        Models are everything in ‘climate science’, as facts and observations just refuse to support CAGW theory. Scary models generate funding for comfortable lifestyles, the supposed validity of these models is constantly being demonstrated by their use in ever more powerful computers, while their obvious GIGO is ignored.

        I have a real problem in relying on satellites to measure daily movements in global sea levels in millimetres to two decimal places. These satellites are travelling at many thousands of kilometres per hour in elliptical and decaying orbits hundreds of kilometres above the surface of the Earth. Then you have to take into account the effects of tides, waves, currents, the magnitude and direction of wind, the seasonality of the ice sheets and ocean temperatures. I am sorry, but I just do not see how you can compensate for all these factors.

        Finally, the satellite raw data is then interpreted by those in the ‘climate science’ Establishment.

        None of the above give me much confidence in the validity of satellite measurements as peddled to us today.

        Give me old fashioned gauges, measuring real sea level changes in real time, any day. Granted there have to be some adjustments made in some cases for the rebound affect from the retreat of the glaciers and local tectonic movements, but on the whole these gauges provide solid reliable data on sea level changes. In modern day Climatespeak, this sort of thinking (the reliance on real observations) has come to be heretical.


        • #

          Then you have to take into account the effects of tides, waves, currents, the magnitude and direction of wind, the seasonality of the ice sheets and ocean temperatures

          That is modelled from the differences in the signal reflected back.


        • #

          This “sheltered workshop” is open to all, as evidenced by the fact that you are here. Unless you want to dispute that you are/were here too.

          Why don’t you go over to your little “special school” at Sceptical Science and ask the Cookster for the data behind his ridiculous “97%” pseudo study and see who is sheltering what.

          Good luck with that.


        • #

          During the last Brisbane it appears no weather ‘expert’ looked out of a window to see the intense rain, they were relying on failed rain guages


      • #
        James Bradley


        Absolutely agree, Frank, the real world is the one where we all adapt to continuing change – not the one where you try to stop the world turning by rocking back and forth swaddled in urine soaked blankys chanting ‘warm dark place, warm dark place… ‘

        At least your doing your bit to maintain Jonova’s KPI’s.


        • #
          the Griss

          The real world is NOT held together solely with un-validated climate models. !!

          The real world deals with real, un-adulterated data.

          The real world is NOT homogenised.

          Climate Science™, is NOT the real world. !!


    • #
      Radical Rodent

      Chester, much as you so desperately cleave to the glowbull warbling charade, you must have noticed that there are very few things your heroes claim that are right (temperatures rising? – no evidence; seas acidifying? – no evidence; weather more extreme? – no evidence; sea levels rising any faster? – no evidence). Sceptics like Jo do not tend to claim much at all; most merely question the claims made by those you hold most dear. Of course, in your precious world, there are questions that should be asked and questions that should not, and the questions the “evil” sceptics asked are those that should not be.

      You are happy to be associated with those who shout “Denier!” at any who do question; you use the smarmy word “contrarian” in your warped way to avoid the use of the contentious “D”-word (my, aren’t you so clever!); you ignore the simple point that, while your idols (or should that be “idles”) will NEVER admit to being wrong – they are right, but not quite in this way – while “contrarians” (i.e. those who like to look at evidence and check their data and continuously test the conclusions) have no shame in being wrong – it is a result. However, you are being very economical with the truth (is anyone surprised?); 2014 might be claimed to be the warmest evah, it is a highly questionable claim, as many are wondering quite where the heat was, with many remembering a rather cool summer. Should you accept it as so (which you obviously do), it is a record by just 0.04°C – an utterly laughable number.


    • #
      Roy Hogue

      I start up the computer again to look at the newest threads and what do I find? If your first 3 guesses are Chester, Chester and Chester you’d be batting 1,000.

      Chester, can’t you at least provide some data, some links or some argument to support your position? You don’t win arguments with noting but a putdown.

      Act like an adult and you’ll be treated as an adult. Act like a child and you’ll be treated as a child.

      So far I give you credit for about 10 – 15 years old. Can you do better?


      • #
        the Griss

        “Chester, can’t you at least provide some data, some links or some argument to support your position? “

        NO! He/she can’t !!

        None of them can. They are all empty.


    • #

      The skeptics were right? Time to insult them!


    • #
      Leo Morgan

      Are you talking about Richard Muller’s claim that UHI (Urban Heat Island) warms the Globe by about a thousandth of a degree?
      If not, which ‘disproof’ of Watt’s claim are you referring to?
      As I understand it, Anthony Watts claims that the UHI effect has increased the temperature measured by thermometers located in the cities by more than that which is allowed for by UHI adjustments in the standard temperature data sets. Watts justifies this claim by pointing to the data showing the greater the urban population is, the greater the temperature anomalies are.
      Muller’s calculations don’t rebut Watt’s claim, he’s not even talking about the same thing, although Muller seems to think it is. Specifically, Muller is talking about the increased actual temperature of the globe as a result of UHI, while Watts is talking about the increased thermometer readings inside cities as a result of UHI.
      Of course it’s always possible I’ve misunderstood Muller’s claims, in which case I’m open to being corrected.
      As a separate issue, I haven’t heard that Muller’s papers actually made it through peer review as yet. Can you clarify that for me?
      Despite the way my comments above might sound, I’m actually a fan of Muller’s. He’s the only practising scientist I know of with the intellectual integrity to have denounced CRU’s abuses of scientific process. Even Judith Curry took the disingenuous stance that ‘it’s not her place’ to criticise them. Nor did Muller stick with merely denouncing, he took action to scientifically establish the truth. Sadly, my understanding is that his approach did not live up to his aims, according to the criticisms of his colleagues and the reviewers of his papers.
      I hope you can and will actually comment meaningfully on the issues, and are not merely parroting ‘wrong’ as an expression of your faith in the propaganda of the environmentalist echo chamber.


    • #
      William Astley

      Chester, ye of little faith, global cooling is imminent, the trend is your friend and the past is a guide to future, for forecasters.
      Something is up with the sun. Each and every time high solar activity correlates with global warming in the paleo record and each and every time cyclic global warming in the paleo record was followed by global cooling (Heinrich event occurs roughly every 6000 to 8000 years, that last Heinrich event was the 8200 BP cooling event, orbital position modulates the Heinrich forcing function, we are currently in the orbital position for the maximum amplification of the mechanism) when the sun entered a Maunder like minimum.
      The peculiar solar cycle 24 – where do we stand?
      Antarctic sea ice is the highest in ‘recorded’ history.
      Ocean surface temperature anomalies have started to increase.

      You can rejoice, sea level will fall like a stone, the majority of the sea level rise was caused by the weird phenomena that is caused by high solar activity.


  • #
    Lord Jim

    Result: 2014 warmest ever year on record.




    • #
      the Griss

      Quite so. ! 🙂


    • #
      the Griss

      As far as I know, neither GISS or HadCrut have their December values out yet.

      RSS has 2014 in 7th place

      1998 0.550
      2010 0.469
      2005 0.330
      2003 0.320
      2002 0.315
      2014 0.255

      UAH has 2014 in 3rd place, a long way behind 2010

      1998 0.420
      2010 0.400
      2014 0.275
      2005 0.262

      All the hype is just that, nothing but propaganda ranting !!

      If Chester had any brains, he could check all this himself.

      But he won’t, because he doesn’t.


      • #

        I visit this blog rarely now, but it is good to see that m0rons like Chester still hover around like a bad smell.


      • #

        Griss, while I’m not going to argue the “if he had any brains part” of it I really suspect that it is just laziness. Why should he go actually check and have to perhaps do something that involves math when he can just come here and parrot the party line? The former would require some effort and work on his part.


      • #
        the Griss

        “RSS has 2014 in 7th place”

        Comes from posting after a hard day working with climate stuff. 😉

        6th place !


      • #

        Berkeley (BEST) have released their Average Temperature of 2014 Results;

        To their credit, they include a couple of very interesting statements.

        The global surface temperature average (land and sea) for 2014 was nominally the warmest since the global instrumental record began in 1850; however, within the margin of error, it is tied with 2005 and 2010 and so we can’t be certain it set a new record.


        Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty (0.05C). Therefore it is impossible to conclude from our analysis which of
        2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year.

        The margin of uncertainty we achieved was remarkably small (0.05C with 95% confidence). This was achieved, in part, by the inclusion of data from over 30,000 temperature stations, and by the use of optiized statistical methods. Even so, the highest year could not be distinguished. That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little. Note that the ten warmest years all occur since 1998.

        JMA have also released a ‘preliminary’ estimate (which now includes Dec) of +0.31°C (0.03°C above 2006 & 1997)


        • #
          the Griss

          “Note that the ten warmest years all occur since 1998. “

          When you are 1st on the podium, why would you want to leave it !!

          Doesn’t everybody strives to get to that top step? ! 🙂

          The only way from there, is down.


  • #

    This needs to almost be a sticky: and Chester needs to print it and stick it on their fridge (they’ll need a very, very, tall fridge).


    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Not only are the predictions not coming true, they aren’t even consistent. They’re all over the map. You would think they could at least talk to each other and present a consistent prediction.


  • #

    You’re reading the Hay et al. study incorrectly. By scaling back the pre-1990 sea level rise they’ve conjured up an increasing rate post-1990 so it’s the old it’s worse than we thought story. They’ve done this to support the IPCC modelling showing increasing melting in recent decades, which didn’t correlate with the previously widely accepted steady sea level rise. So rather than questioning the IPCC work they messed with the sea level record until they got the result they wanted. It’s highly suspect.


    • #
      All's right...

      I suspect there’s a rush of conclusions from global warming “studies” getting tossed out now so that Pres. Obama has some “meat” for his State of the Union address due soon. The studies will eventually be considered as garbage, but that won’t be official until well after the address and most of the population around the world won’t know any difference. What’s important is that the “studies” are perceived to be factual, current and from scientists, thereby providing the opportunity to quote and reference them for political purposes.


    • #
      Rud Istvan

      Keith, yes. To quote Diego Montoya in The Princess Bride, ” I don’t think that means what you think it means.”
      Was extensively hashed out by myself and many others at WUWT yesterday evening my time.
      Worth a gander.


  • #

    It’s cherry picking par excellence. We might finally accept tide gauges up to 1990, but after that the tide gauges don’t count — bring in the “adjusted” satellites.

    Cherry picking? Yeah, it is. But, I think it is more insidious than that. Sounds like a case of situational ethics… or more precisely, situational scientific ethics.

    If the situation demands you throw the ethics out the window… hey, what’s the prob? It’s the results that count. And the results don’t have to make a lick of sense.


  • #

    big news in the MSM:

    Fairfax takes a break from attacking Catholics, but the Catholic PM still gets a jab:

    15 Jan: SMH: Peter Hannam: Catholics in Australia join global movement to curb climate change
    Australia’s Catholics are preparing to step up campaigns to address climate change ahead of an expected call to action by Pope Francis.
    The Global Catholic Climate Movement, an international coalition of Catholic groups including Catholic Earthcare Australia, was launched on Thursday to bolster support for a global climate treaty at the Paris summit planned for December.
    Jacqui Remond, director of Catholic Earthcare Australia, said Catholics numbered one in four Australians and the time is ripe for them to push for greater action on curbing global warming.
    “Looking at the leadership and the governance we have in Australia right now, there isn’t a lot of hope coming from the policies and the agenda that’s set,” Ms Remond said…
    Catholic Earthcare is the ecological agency of the Australian Bishops Conference.

    New Director appointed for Catholic Earthcare Australia
    Mrs Jacqui Remond has been appointed as the new Director of Catholic Earthcare Australia, Bishop Christopher Toohey announced today.
    Bishop Toohey, the Chairman of Catholic Earthcare, welcomed Mrs Remond’s appointment, saying that she brought a deep personal and faith-based commitment to making God’s Earth a better place to live…
    ***In 2006, Jacqui undertook training with Al Gore to become a ‘Climate Change Leader’…
    Jacqui: “I am confident that Catholic Earthcare can play a critical role in empowering Catholics and others to connect fully with God’s creation, to honour and respect it, and to consciously care for the gift of creation as active stewards,” she said. “I envisage parishes and schools across the nation fully responding to Pope John Paul II’s call for ‘ecological conversion’ through their actions to strive for ecologically sustainable practices and preparing their local environment for future generations.”


    • #

      Politicising religion is a very bad move.

      It took centuries of death and violence to separate church and state in many western nations yet now the Pope wants to reverse the process.


      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Those centuries of death and violence don’t seem to bother him.

        He sees the whole thing as a moral imperative and therefore something he must undertake. Being confronted with the failure of the whole global warming enterprise hasn’t stopped anyone else. Why would it stop the pope?


      • #

        Didn’t Rothschilds take over the banking for the Vatican? ( circa 1800s)

        Perhaps they have a couple of seats, or a bloc, on the “Board”.

        After all, Carbon Trading ( as a global NWO currency) is good for business!


      • #

        ”Jacqui undertook training with Al Gore to become a ‘Climate Change Leader’…”
        Al gore said Arctic ice and polar bears would have perished by 2005 and as they were still there in 2005, he extended the forecast to 2013 and now he remains silent. ”Trained by Al Gore” is not a good recommendation, it’s like being trained by Satan


    • #
      el gordo

      God’s representative on earth is a disgrace, just look at the size of the man.

      ‘By tracing every atom’s pathway out of the body, the authors discovered that when 10 kg of fat are fully oxidised, 8.4 kg departs via the lungs as carbon dioxide (CO2). The remaining 1.6 kg becomes water (H2O).

      ‘Their analysis shows that the inhaled oxygen required for this metabolic process weighs nearly three times more than the fat being ‘lost’. To completely oxidise 10 kg of human fat, 29 kg of oxygen must be inhaled producing a total of 28 kg of carbon dioxide and 11 kg of water.’


      • #

        El gordo,

        Are you saying that ecologically ware people should not lose weight?

        And yes. He does seem to like his food!



    • #
      Bob Malloy

      This is one Catholic that wont be drinking his holiness’s kool aid, just glad my mob are all well past school age. Saves me having to inform the principals that indoctrination into any cult promoted by the pope is not in their job description.


      • #
        Roy Hogue


        Judging by just one complaint I have heard from the Catholic bishops there are probably a whole lot of Catholics who don’t follow the doctrine of their church. The complaint was essentially, they must be using contraception because the birth rate among Catholics is far lower than it’s expected to be if they practice what the Vatican preaches.

        I haven’t the slightest complaint against Catholics. But the Catholic priesthood lives in such magnificent and complete isolation from the reality of daily life that I cant imagine myself ever following their leadership.

        The pope sees the suffering of the masses in Central America where he worked and lived for many years. And to his credit he would like to improve that situation. But he has no idea how to do it. He didn’t actually live the life of those he served as a priest either — never married, never worrying about the welfare of wife or family and he doesn’t know the daily reality from experience. And I know that those of you who’re Catholic know there’s a difference.

        The man who rents his house and the man who owns his house have two different views of that house. Tha landlord has his view of the house too. They are not the same. That’s about the best example of the difference I can think of.

        I may catch a lot of flak for saying what’s above. But sometimes being frank is the better way. The Catholic leadership is simply unable to understand reality. You can’t lead from a position that isolates you from your followers. All you can do is dictate.


    • #

      Words fail me…so glad I’m not RC any more.


      • #

        Mind you… Anglican bishops are just as bad…I’m fed up with being preached at by trendy lefty bearded be-sandled clergy…they give me the creeps. No wonder a lot of people can’t take the church seriously. I remain a Christian but disown most of the institution.


  • #
    Peter C

    That is fantastic.

    I wish that Anthony Watts would post this as a resource page.

    I have no doubt the ROM and others can add more items.


  • #

    14 Jan: CatholicPhilly: Dennis Sadowski: Global Catholic climate group debuts as pope visits Philippines
    The Global Catholic Climate Movement went public Jan. 14, coinciding with the visit of Pope Francis to the Philippines.
    Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle of Manila, Philippines, planned to deliver the global Catholic effort’s belief and mission statement to the pope in a private meeting sometime during the Jan. 15-19 visit to the country, said leaders of organizations that are part of the movement…
    “He’s (the pope) deeply interested in the issue. It’s not something new,” Pablo Canziani, senior scientist, at Argentina’s National Scientific and Technical Research Council, told Catholic News Service.
    “He sees it, and I agree with him, that it’s a development issue. As we say in our group, environmental issues and social development issues are two sides of the same coin. You have to work on both together,” said Canziani, who discussed technical climate change issues several times with Pope Francis when he was Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina…
    The movement includes nearly two dozen Catholic leaders and organizations in Africa, Asia, Australia, North America and South America. U.S. organizational partners include the Franciscan Action Network,, Catholic Rural Life, GreenFaith and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious…


  • #

    forget all those attacks on evangelicals for mixing science and religion:

    14 Jan: New Scientist: Andy Coghlan: Pope to make moral case for action on climate change
    COULD one man succeed in spurring decisive action on global warming? Pope Francis, leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, plans to release a ground-breaking appeal to combat climate change, in a major document called an encyclical…
    The encyclical may be published as early as March, and may be couched in terms of the biblical parable of the Good Samaritan, which teaches that we have responsibilities to our fellow humans…
    The most likely thrust of the pope’s appeal will be that failure to combat climate change will condemn the world’s poorest people to disproportionate harm. “The sad part is that the poorest three billion will be the worst affected by the impacts of climate change, such as sea level rise and drought, but have had least to do with causing it,” says Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a climatologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, and a scientific adviser to the Vatican on the encyclical…
    Scientists and religious figures who champion urgent action hope that by focusing on moral rather than scientific or economic grounds, the pope can help persuade climate sceptics by appealing to their consciences. “Science has taken this issue as far as it can, and now it’s in the domain of policy-makers to bring about action which requires changes in behaviour,” says Ramanathan. “As a scientist, I have no authority to demand changes in behaviour, but religious leaders do.”…
    “A papal encyclical may shock millions of evangelicals into reality,” says Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good in Fredericksburg, Virginia. “It could be a real game-changer, because many evangelicals are still consumed by right-wing political ideology and apocalyptic theology.” It could also resonate in the US Congress, nearly a third of which is Catholic – split about equally between Democrats and Republicans.
    But not everyone is convinced the move will have a major impact. “It’s unlikely that any one action, even by someone as influential as the pope, will suddenly alter the global political landscape,” says Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University. “But many of us are hopeful that papal authority will help some people revisit and reconsider the issue.”
    (This article appeared in print under the headline “Can the pope win hearts and minds on climate?”)

    New Scientist links to its April attack on religion in their Leader piece – “Losing our religion: Your guide to a godless future” (full text is available online at other links if u search the headline) – but hey, if religion can now be exploited in the cause of CAGW, so be it:

    14 Jan: New Scientist: Leader: Pope’s impending call for climate action is refreshing
    PHOTO CAPTION: (Image: Galileo before the Roman Inquisition, 1857 (oil on canvas), Cristiano Banti (1824-1904)/private collection/De Agostini Picture Library/U. Marzani/Bridgeman Images)
    It’s gratifying that the Catholic church is backing scientists on the issue of climate change – now if only it would heed the evidence on other issues, too.
    WHEN talk turns to the church’s relationship with science, it’s usually not long before someone invokes Galileo, persecuted as a heretic by the Inquisition despite having evidence to back his view that the Earth moves around the sun. This sorry episode exemplifies the church’s attitude to science, people still argue.
    So it will surprise many to learn that the Catholic church has not only accepted the evidence for climate change but is preparing to act on it as a matter of social justice…
    Not every churchgoer will be swayed. Evangelicals are among the staunchest of climate sceptics; even those who accept the reality often view it as God’s will. It remains to be seen if the pope can appeal to these recalcitrants – or if the jeering of denialists will take on a theological, rather than scientific, tone (to which we can only say: god help us)…
    ***Perhaps we will start to see evidence reshaping the Vatican’s views on other issues where scripture still holds sway: the role of contraception in tackling population growth, say. One can only pray it will.
    (This article appeared in print under the headline “And yet it moves”)


  • #

    Some thoughts

    Satellites and tide gauges are not measuring the same thing as satellites attempt to measure sea levels for whole ocean whilst tide gauges measure at coast. Does anyone care what happens in middle of Pacific so long as it doesn’t happen by coast?

    Satellites happened to go up just after Mount Pinatubo eruption which depressed sea levels around the world. So for a short time rate of sea level rise was negative. Then, surprise surprise, levels bounced backed. Shortly after was an exceptionally strong El Nino which boosted sea levels. So rate of sea level rise, even measure by tide gauges may well have been 3+ mm/year from 1993-98. But then tailed off.

    At least one satellite, Envisat, did not show 3mm/year sea level rise but then it suffered a failure and it’s data was altered to bring it into line with other satellites. But whoever did this messed up as some local agreement between Envisat and other satellites was destroyed.

    For example, on 10 April 2012 for period when both Envisat and Jason2 were operating SLR in North Atlantic was Envisat 1.81, Jason2 1.18. But on 12 April 2012 Envisat 7.57 Jason2 1.18. DUHHHH

    The full gory detail

    I have fitted a linear trend to each of sites held by PSMSL (

    It is clear sites with shortest period of observations have highest, or lowest rates of sea level rise.
    Pulupandan and Virac in Philippines have rates of +120 and -120 mm/year but only around 1 years measurements.

    Around 1/3 of tide gauges show negative SLR, did anyone ever tell you that?

    There can be other things going on besides CO2. Miyake Sima, Japan has a overall rate of 7.7 mm/year. But this consists of 2 periods where sea levels are stable with a sharp discontinuity just after 2000. PSMSL notes there was sinking following a volcanic eruption. Do satellites take account of that?

    As Steve Goddard has pointed out the areas where satellites show greatest SLR they have greatest error which is about equal to SLR!!

    So whether it’s incompetence, dissembling or lying, it doesn’t matter coz it ain’t so.


  • #

    Poor Chester, please send a box of Bex and tell him/her (can’t be sure these days) to lie down, poor diddums has obviously come down with a migrain, probably with the confusion from listening to his ABC today, where they are claiming – paraphrased as – “a recent study has shown sea levels (sic) are rising much faster than previously thought from a statistical analysis conducted by researchers (missed where from) have looked at data from satellites and past records”.

    Ho hum, more of the same “quality” journalism. It reminds one of a once notable shareholder in geothermal energy predicting, “It’s never going to rain again, and if it did, it would all evaporate before hitting the ground? Tell that to all those who had lots of rain last week. Thesis vs antithesis, the latter will eventually be exposed for what it is.

    Whether coincidental or not, it seems like the classic antithesis trying to counter a thesis. And isn’t that the problem; much confusion to be had by many. Unless one is prepared to allocate a certain quantity of energy and time to discern wherein lies the logical, reasoned analysis, it’s difficult for many to discern whether the thesis or antitheis is correct. It would seem there are many like Chester, where they seem have their chronic Bex moments, with no safe place to lie down, least of all here on Jo’s site.


  • #
    Gee Aye

    Someone fixed the peer review system just in time


  • #

    So exactly when is Chester moving to Antarctica?


  • #
    Michael Whittemore

    The paper Jo is discussing shows that there has been more rapid sea level rise during the last few decades than over nearly a hundred years of tide gauge records! This increase sea level rise has not decreased either as Jo suggests, Cazenava 2014 showed that (


    • #

      What is being said is that both pre 1990 and post 1990 measurements are exaggerations. There is no rapid, sudden sea level rise of dangerous proportions. In fact the current rate of land rise in Northern Europe after the glaciers is far greater.
      Stockholm may have to be moved, again.

      Even then, who needs learned papers and satellites to contradict the obvious? There are plenty of people around the world who will tell you first hand the sea level is unchanged in their lifetimes. The little mermaid on the rock in Copenhagen is perfectly safe. So is the Palm at Dubai and all the new airports around the world built into the ocean.

      In a thousand years, so what? Which cities are that old? Even then, since when did Time Team dig upwards to find history?


      • #
        The Backslider

        Mr Whitteless probably believes that Florida and The Carteret Atoll (and many other places) are not in fact sinking. These two are the key “evidence” relied upon by SLR alarmists.


    • #
      the Griss

      “shows that there has been more rapid sea level rise during the last few decades than over nearly a hundred years of tide gauge records! ”

      Only because it uses the Topex “revised“, “adjusted“, “fudged” data which has a trend that is about 2.3mm/year MORE than reality due to its reference point actually subsiding.

      The unadjusted Topex data shows a rise of approx. 1mm/year… just like the tide gauges do.


    • #
      James Bradley


      Thanks for your support.

      The East Sussex Council Building Application Office records for the Pevensey Castle DA would tend to indicate sea level falls of up to 4mm per year since that time.


    • #

      Yes, you have to admire the audacity of Nova – the conclusions of the paper are that sea level rise is accelerating faster than previously believed in the last couple of decades but Nova focuses on the bit about the correction to sea level rise over the 20th century and claims this as a win for “her team”.

      Of course, the next tack to take will be that the adjustments are another case of fudging the data to provide the desired outcome. But one contradictory tack at a time….


  • #

    Hay et al 2015 estimates that sea rise has been overestimated in the beginning of the 20th century, finding a “rate of GMSL rise from 1901 to 1990 of 1.2 ± 0.2 millimetres per year (90% confidence interval)”. They also estimate “that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010, consistent with prior estimates from tide gauge records” (emphasis added).

    This is early work for the methods Hay et al are using with sea level data, and it remains to be seen how it holds up under examination, but it is an interesting use of sparse data analysis techniques that have been successfully applied in other fields.

    A lower early rate of sea level rise, and roughly the same recent rate, indicate a _higher acceleration_ in sea level rise rate than previous works.

    This is not cause for celebration.


  • #

    The sea-level readings depend,
    On who measures what,where and when.
    While some are correct,
    The rest will reflect,
    What those who record them intend.


  • #
    Sir Baldrick

    Rate of sea-level rise ‘steeper’

    The rate at which the global oceans have risen in the past two decades is more significant than previously recognised, say US-based scientists.


  • #
    Bite Back

    I’d like to know why I should find something to fear even if sea level is increasing globally (dubious) and even if the rate has accelerated a little (which I also doubt).

    Don’t these people know how tiny a mm is? Don’t they know that the continents are moving around, that shorelines are continually sinking or being uplifted? Don’t they know how silly they look?

    Are satellite measurements really calibrated against just one tide gauge?

    There’s never been even a little spec of credibility in any of this sea level scare. And I’ll avoid saying anything about climate change.

    The world is not a stable unchanging place.



    • #

      Summed it up nicely BB, the only constant is change applies to our entire existence, it’s how ‘everything’ is kept in being in what we consciously know.


  • #

    So..the $CAGW$ bots have nothing to usual other than an ad hom and a misdirection.
    Thats it ??
    And from “our” little sheltered workshop ( oh the wit )..we see Mann dissected ..again..and for the same post…Al Gore.HERE
    The cognitive dissonance required..that forces you to ignore data fraud.over and over.. 🙂“to save the planet” just stupefying.
    And..both $CAGW$ bots are connected to the fossil fuel powered grid and use cars and planes..but hey…ya voted for the CO2 tax so that means your a “keyboard climate warrior”TM.
    Too usual.. 🙂


  • #

    bbc had lengthy interview with jeffrey sachs last nite on the following, but haven’t found it online as yet:

    “climate warriors” bill gates, jimmy wales, richard branson, bono, sachs et al!

    An Open Letter to World Leaders
    Aamir Khan, Actor & campaigner
    Angelique Kidjo, Singer songwriter & activist
    Annie Lennox, OBE, musician & activist
    Ben Affleck, Actor, Filmmaker & Founder of Eastern Congo Initiative
    Bill Gates, Co-Chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
    Bono, Lead singer of U2 & cofounder of ONE and (RED)
    Dbanj, Musician & activist
    Emeritus Archbishop Desmond Tutu
    Gro Harlem Brundtland, Former Prime Minister, Norway
    Hugh Jackman, Actor
    Kid President – Brad Montague & Robby Novak
    Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, Dir., Earth Institute & author of The Age of Sustainable Development
    Jimmy Wales, Founder of Wikipedia
    Jody Williams, 1997 Nobel Peace Laureate & Chair of Nobel Women’s Initiative
    José Padilha, Film Director
    Leymah Gbowee, 2011 Nobel Peace Laureate
    Malala Yousafzai, Co-Founder of the Malala Fund & 2014 Nobel Peace Laureate
    Mary Robinson, President, Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice
    Matt Damon, Actor & Founder of
    Melinda Gates, Co-Chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
    Mia Farrow, Actor & activist
    Mo Ibrahim, Philanthropist & campaigner
    Muhammad Yunus, 2006 Nobel Peace Laureate
    Queen Rania Al Abdullah
    Richard Branson, Founder of the Virgin Group
    Ricken Patel, President and Executive Director of Avaaz
    Shakira, Singer, songwriter, dancer
    Sharan Burrow, General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation
    Sting, Musician, singer, songwriter, and activist
    Ted Turner, Chairman, United Nations Foundation
    Wagner Moura, Actor
    Yvonne Chaka Chaka, President of the Princess of Africa Foundation
    There are millions of voices you can’t afford to ignore — the voices of the people you represent. They are voices of all ages from every corner of the planet – the voice of a young girl currently deprived an education… of a pregnant mother deprived healthcare… of young people deprived decent work… of a family from a minority group fearful of discrimination from corrupt officials… of farmers forced to migrate to cities as climate refugees… and of billions of other people…
    Two critical United Nations summits will take place this year…
    The second is the climate summit in December where we must ensure the wellbeing of people today doesn’t come at the expense of our children’s futures…


  • #

    expect maximum MSM coverage. exploiting the poor in order to exploit them further with CAGW policies:

    15 Jan: HuffPo: Robbie Couch: Global Leaders, Over 1,000 Charities Declare 2015 The Year To Focus On Poverty Eradication
    Launched on Thursday, Action/2015 is garnering participation from more than 1,000 organizations in 125 countries. Groups supporting a variety of causes — spanning from human rights to environmental and faith sectors — have joined the movement, with plans to meet in locations around the world and via online platforms throughout the year to discuss how goals can be met in combating poverty.
    ***The campaign has also focused on pressuring world leaders to address issues at hand and take action at two upcoming United Nations conferences this year: the U.N. Special Summit on Sustainable Development in New York in September, and the U.N. climate talks in Paris in December…
    Activists, celebrities and organizations took to social media using the #Action2015 hashtag to throw support behind the campaign…
    Action/2015 said the estimates were founded by the International Futures model created at the Frederick S. Pardee Center for International Futures at the University of Denver.

    14 Jan: Straits Times: Hugh Jackman, Jeffrey Sachs, Bono join forces, urge action on poverty, climate change
    Thirty-one celebrities including four Nobel Laureates issued a joint open letter today urging global action this year to tackle poverty and climate change.


  • #

    I dont think
    [snip …. Right Frank. That’s why all your posts are in the trash. Good luck Frank. Unless you have something worth posting it will go in the trash. Get it?] ED


  • #
    Gary in Erko

    So global warming isn’t causing sea level rise, it’s climate change™ that’s causing sea level change, but we haven’t yet decided whether a rise or fall is more scary.


  • #

    It’s rather interesting that a new paper on satellite measuring of sea level rise and the inherent problems with satellite measurements has appeared right on our own doorstep from the RMIT and has been published in the Pattern Recognition in Physics journal.

    The author of this paper has included graphs of the variations in sea level measurements from each of the five different groups plus an average of the group’s output.

    The paper can be found here;

    Problems and reliability of the satellite altimeter based Global Mean Sea Level computation [ 23 / Jul / 2014 ]
    A. Parker

    [quoted variously ]

    1. Introduction
    The sea levels relative to a datum have historically been measured by tide gauges providing consistent, reliable and accurate representation in the best of the cases since the 1800s.
    Over the last 2 decades, the long term tide gauges have continued to supply data consistent with a pattern of sea levels on average weakly rising (less than half a millimeter per year) with no significant component of acceleration.
    Satellite altimetry is an alternative method of measuring changes in sea level, and GPS is a complimentary method of assessing the vertical land motion at tide gauge stations.
    This paper discusses these novel techniques and it will be demonstrated that both techniques are presently still far from providing any improved information on the possible effect of ice melting and thermal expansion on sea levels.

    2. One More correction to the GMSL computation

    The tide gauges, indicate that relative sea levels are oscillating with regular periodicities up to quasi 60 years (many good examples, (e.g. records from Sydney to Fremantle, and from San Francisco to Seattle, as available in [4] & [5]).
    We have experienced a decade of lack of warming measured in the world oceans 0-2000 m 60 N to 60 S [6].
    The sea ice extent of Arctica and Antarctica is globally increasing over the same time window [7].

    Figure 1 presents the temporal evolution of the GMSL rate from 5 different groups and their corrected GMSL rates.
    The rate of rise of the GMSL computed by the 5 groups with everything but clear procedure based on a satellite result that before correction was only noise, having no understandable relationship with what is measured by good quality tide gauges along the coasts, seems to be slowing down (Fig. 1a).

    6. Discussion

    The GMSL is the result of a numerical procedure adopted to correct a nearly flat, noisy satellite altimetry signal. There is the p0sibility that the ‘correction’ is defined to match a few carefully selected short-term tide gauge signals (because of the local land motion and the phases of the oscillations make the GMSL rate of rise very high).
    But there is also the possibility that the GMSL is ‘correction’ product simply to comply with climate models.
    With reference to the paper by Cazenave et al. [1], Eschenbach [8] provides an analysis of the model correction to the model correction of the satellite altimeter result that should represent the measured global mean sea level concluding as follows (in direct citation of [8]):

    1. “Even if the models are accurate and the corrections are real, the size doesn’t rise above the noise.

    2. Despite a claim that they used DE trended data for their calculations for their corrections, their graphic display of that data shows that all three datasets (GMSL, mass component, and mass + steric components) contain trends.

    3. We have no assurance that ‘correction’, which is nothing more than the difference between observations and models, is anything more than model error.

    4. The net effect of their procedure is to transform observational results into modelled results.
    Remember that when you apply their ‘correction’ to the average mean sea level, you get the red line showing the modelled results.
    So applying that same correction to the five individual datasets that make up the average mean sea level is . . . well . . . the word that comes to mind is
    They’ve used a very roundabout way to get there, but at the end they are merely asserting is that the models are right and the data is wrong”.
    There is no scientific reason to focus on the corrected rate of rise of the reconstructed GMSL following a model correction after a model correction.
    If there is any effect of global warming, this should be detected by an increase in the relative rates of rise measured locally by the tide gauges with a consolidated and accurate procedure.
    Because this is not the case, I must conclude that there is no effect of global warming on the rates of rise of sea levels.

    The author wishes to acknowledge the rapid, scrupulous peer review process and professional processing of the paper by the members of the editorial board.


  • #

    Dont forget global sea levels dropped in 2010/2011 the reason why was because f the Australian floods

    I am not an expert on sea level but when i am confronted with this type of explanation i do tend to think the “experts” have no idea what they are talking about. I am not sure exactly how much rain would not only have to fall in Australia but also remain in Australia to drop the global sea level but i expect it would have to be a very large amount.




  • #

    Another sea level rise alarmist pants wetter has been put to rest a few years ago.

    Unfortunately although I have the full paper on my hard drive I cannot locate a non paywalled copy on the net.

    [ Off topic rant
    Well past time methinks that Jo. Anthony, Steve Mc, Andrew Montford, Judith Curry and etc all ran a hard hitting public campaign to force any publicly funded research to be readily available without any further paywalling or limitations on it’s publication.
    I am fed up to the back teeth with bloody PRIVATELY owned journals ripping off the public who originally paid for that reasearch by withholding the results of that research from the public to their exclusive financial benefit.
    Like renewable energy, we the public are being forced to subsidise an unaccountable privately owned group of snotty nosed self promoting journals which are often heavily biased and highly selective of the direction in which they are directing science through choice of what papers they will publish.]

    The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific

    The above 2010 paper’s Abstract;;

    Atoll island sea-level rise erosion island migration ;

    Pacific Ocean

    Low-lying atoll islands are widely perceived to erode in response to measured and future sea-level rise.
    Using historical aerial photography and satellite images this study presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 19 to 61 yr period.
    This period of analysis corresponds with instrumental records that show a rate of sea-level rise of 2.0 mm yr− 1 in the Pacific.

    Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis. Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 ha.
    Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area.
    Despite small net changes in area, islands exhibited larger gross changes. This was expressed as changes in the planform configuration and position of islands on reef platforms.
    Modes of island change included: ocean shoreline displacement toward the lagoon; lagoon shoreline progradation; and, extension of the ends of elongate islands.
    Collectively these adjustments represent net lagoonward migration of islands in 65% of cases.
    Results contradict existing paradigms of island response and have significant implications for the consideration of island stability under ongoing sea-level
    rise in the central Pacific.
    First, islands are geomorphologically persistent features on atoll reef platforms and can increase in island area despite sea-level change.

    Second, islands are dynamic landforms that undergo a range of physical adjustments in responses to changing boundary conditions, of which sea level is just one factor.

    Third, erosion of island shorelines must be reconsidered in the context of physical adjustments of the entire island shoreline as erosion may be balanced by progradation on other sectors of shorelines.

    Results indicate that the style and magnitude of geomorphic change will vary between islands. Therefore, island nations must place a high priority on resolving the precise styles and rates of change that will occur over the next century and reconsider the implications for adaption.


  • #

    I always though that when measuring sea levels we were measuring the very top surface of the ocean waters and how they shift and change.
    I was wrong!

    A truly remarkable bit of what can only be very generously described as deliberately biasing science to fit an agenda and a supposed bit of science that a practical and honest person from the public could only describe as being completely spurious and arguably somewhat insane is the application of a factor called the “Glacial Isostatic Adjustment” of 0.3 mms per year to the claimed but very hard to find annual sea level rise of around 3 mms per year.

    The added 0.3 mms per year of official annual sea level rise from the Colorado University’s Sea Level research group, the official global sea level rise group, is supposedly to compensate for the supposed increasing ocean basin volumes due to the rebound from the glacial era’s land as the glaciers melted and the weight was removed from the land surface allowing it to rebound.
    So as the land surfaces rise in the rebound, the ocean basins are supposedly and are claimed by the CU Sea level group to be getting bigger in volume,

    So in their grossly warped wisdom, the CU sea level researchers have added an extra 0.3 ms per year, a 0.3mms of sea level rise that doesn’t actually exist at all in real sea level measurements except in their over fevered climate alarmist imaginations and unverified, unvalidated computer programs, to bring the hypothetical sea levels up to where they would be IF there had been no surface rebound from the melting glacier weight removal and no [ unproven . just hypothesised ] increase in ocean basin volumes.

    And that then is the official annual sea level rise sold to the politicians and public.

    I think when we look at this example plus many other similar distortions and spurious examples so apparently common in climate alarmist science, we are getting close to saying to the public, Don’t ever trust an alarmist climate scientist to ever tell the whole truth.

    With this type of warped psychology so prevalent in climate alarmist science as seen below from the Sea level group and it’s totally non existent spurious addition of 0.3 mm per year to official sea level increases [ making a non existent and spurious additional sea level rise after a century of 30 mms ] it seems the only true sea levels to be trusted are those measured of the tide gauges. Plus the information that scientists such as Niels Axel Morner who has studied global sea levels and their changes for 40 or more years are publicising..

    I’m not at all sure what all the crap below has to do with the real actual levels of the sea surface, the real, actual, measured sea surface level and it’s changes if any, that is the only real and actual practical sea level item that is of significance to the public at large and is of importance for all those industries and organisations who use the ocean or plan for items close to the ocean.

    The complete dismissal of any public interest in accurate sea level change information by the CU group can be see in the very bottom lines of the comment below where everything has been deliberately corrupted to fit the climate models requirements and the hell with the public’s needs ie; those who are forced to pay for this crap.

    In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes.
    This is what is needed for comparisons to global climate models, for example, and other oceanographic datasets.

    What is glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), and why do you correct for it?

    [ quoted variously ]
    There are many different scientific questions that are being asked where GMSL measurements can contribute. We are focused on just a few of these:

    How is the volume of the ocean changing?
    How much of this is due to thermal expansion?
    How much of this is due to addition of water that was previously stored as ice on land?

    In order to answer these questions, we have to account for the fact that the ocean is actually getting bigger due to GIA at the same time as the water volume is expanding.
    This means that if we measure a change in GMSL of 3 mm/yr, the volume change is actually closer to 3.3 mm/yr because of GIA.
    Removing known components of sea level change, such as GIA or the solid earth and ocean tides, reveals the remaining signals contained in the altimetry measurement.
    These can include water volume changes, steric effects, and the interannual variability caused by events such as the ENSO. We apply a correction for GIA because we want our sea level time series to reflect purely oceanographic phenomena. In essence, we would like our GMSL time series to be a proxy for ocean water volume changes. This is what is needed for comparisons to global climate models, for example, and other oceanographic datasets.


  • #
    James Bradley


    You sure don’t…


  • #
    William Astley

    In reply to:

    Lord Jim
    January 15, 2015 at 4:40 pm • Reply
    Result: 2014 warmest ever year on record.

    ‘Lord Jim’ when you drive your car, do you look ahead of the car rather than in the rear view mirror, to ‘forecast’ what will happen next. Lord Jim or any of the other warmists, what is your ‘logic’ to predict what will happen next to planetary temperature. Please do explain. The following are a couple logical pillars to support the assertion that the planet will cool.

    What are your ‘thoughts’ as to why Antarctic sea ice, starting suddenly in 2012 is the highest ever recorded?
    Why the heck was there no tropical tropospheric hot spot, which is the signature of AGW warming? What makes you so darn sure the past warming was 100% caused by AGW? Why the heck has there been no warming for 18 years? Where is the off switch for AGW forcing?

    Note there are cycles of warming in the paleo record and every warming period was followed by cooling when the sun went into a Maunder minimum. The same regions of the planet that warmed in the last 150 years (high latitude regions), warmed in the past. The past Maunder minimums have lasted for 100 to 150 years.

    If you would like a primary on the mechanism by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary cloud cover, this is a good start.

    Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links between Solar Activity and Climate, By Brian Tinsley and Fangqun Yu

    “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
    …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature, 2012,doi:10.1038/nature11391), reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

    If Shaviv’s analysis is correct we could see planetary cooling of roughly 0.5C due to the solar cycle 24 abrupt magnetic cycle slowdown.

    On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget”by Nir J. Shaviv

    Subject to the above caveats and those described in the text, the CRF/climate link therefore implies that the increased solar luminosity and reduced CRF over the previous century should have contributed a warming of 0.47 ± 0.19C, while the rest should be mainly attributed to anthropogenic causes. Without any effect of cosmic rays, the increase in solar luminosity would correspond to an increased temperature of 0.16 ± 0.04C.

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this paper shows the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.


  • #
    William Astley

    There are two fundamental problems with ocean sea level.
    1. Sea level rise is a fundamental pillar to push AGW madness in the climate wars. When the Envisat satellite data showed the sea level is falling, the solution is to just change the data without explanation. (i.e. Standard science would be investigate unexplained changes/paradoxes as that leads to breakthroughs.)

    2. This is a real paradox concerning sea level rise and fall. The sea level rise prior to the recent fall in sea level cannot be explained based on mass balance and/or thermal expansion. Something else caused the oceans to expand. The something else is now reversing, which explains why the sea level is falling based on the Envisat data which was unexplainably suddenly revised.

    The warmists do not include a breakdown of the estimated physical reasons for the 3.2 mm/year sea level ‘rise’ as that would force them to acknowledge a sea level rise of 3.2 mm/year is physically impossible, if sea level rise forcing is limited to more water in the ocean (mass balance, there is insufficient melting to increase the amount of water in the oceans and an increase in more water in the ocean is physically impossible as it is not supported by a reduction in the rotational time of the earth, i.e. the problem is constraint by physics). Thermal expansion is also not physically possible based on how much warming has occurred. As we are all aware there has been no significant warming for 18 years. Thermal expansion will reach equilibrium, it is physically not possible to have unending 3.2 mm/year of sea level based if thermal expansion and water melting are the drivers.
    Man-made sea-level rises are due to global adjustments

    Mass and volume contributions to twentieth-century
    global sea level rise
    The rate of twentieth-century global sea level rise and its causes are the subjects of intense controversy1–7. Most direct estimates from tide gauges give 1.5–2.0 mm/yr, whereas indirect estimates based on the two processes responsible for global sea level rise, namely mass and volume change, fall far below this range. Estimates of the volume increase due to ocean warming give a rate of about 0.5mmyr21 (ref. 8) and the rate due to mass increase, primarily from the melting of continental ice, is thought to be even smaller. Therefore, either the tide gauge estimates are too high, as has been suggested recently6, or one (or both) of the mass and volume estimates is too low.

    Envisat’s satellite failure


  • #

    Global Sea Levels to Drop?

    Australian floods of 2010 and 2011 caused global sea level to drop (guardian, August 2013)

    Lake Eyre filling up fast, thanks to Queensland floods (adelaideadvertiser, 2011)
    ~ ~ ~

    >Fast forward >>>

    The Australian, January 2015:

    Flood of life transforms Lake Eyre’s desert sands into rainbow sea
    . . .
    Respective BoM failed forecasts:

    The Age, Feb 2009: Drought and fire here to stay with El Nino’s return

    “David Jones, the head of the bureau’s National Climate Centre, said there was some risk of a worsening El Nino event this year, but it was more likely to arrive in 2010 or 2011.
    – in terms of the drought, this may be as good as things get,” Dr Jones said.”
    ~ ~ ~
    June 2014, theguardian: With a 90% chance of the global weather phenomenon El Niño striking this year, impacts …

    India is expected to be the first to suffer, with weaker monsoon rains undermining the nation’s fragile food supply, followed by further scorching droughts in Australia …

    The hot, dry skies will then track to heat-wracked Australia, where 2013 was already its hottest year on record and El Niño is threatening to turn the temperature up even further.
    Andrew Watkins, manager of climate prediction services at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, said: “El Niño is one of the largest influences on Australia’s climate.
    . . .
    Queenslandtimes, Nov 2014: Early-release strategy for Wivenhoe Dam to prevent flooding


  • #

    Skeptics were right ! Hundreds of thousands of boat wharves, jetties have not been raised nor have millions of beaches been restored with millions of cubic miles of sand. The only water damaged properties were from those built on known flood ways


  • #


    STUDY #1
    Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

    ….backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes…..reconstructed for the last 8000 years….The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka….

    Translation the sea level was up to 1.5 meters higher than today in a tectonically stable area ~5000 years ago to 2000 years ago.

    STUDY #2
    Sea-level highstand recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii

    Unconsolidated carbonate sands and cobbles on Kapapa Island, windward Oahu, are 1.4-2.8 (+ or – 0.25) m above present mean sea level (msl)…we interpret the deposit to be a fossil beach or shoreline representing a highstand of relative sea level during middle to late Holocene time. Calibrated radiocarbon dates of coral and mollusc samples, and a consideration of the effect of wave energy setup, indicate that paleo-msl was at least 1.6 (+ or – 0.45) m above present msl prior to 3889-3665 cal. yr B.P, possibly as early as 5532-5294 cal. yr B.P., and lasted until at least 2239-1940 cal. yr B.P

    This study shows a sea level highstand ~1.6 meter above the present level from ~5500 years ago to 2000 years ago.

    STUDY #3
    Late Quaternary highstand deposits of the southern Arabian Gulf: a record of sea-level and climate change

    …..It has therefore been necessary to infer the ages of these sediments by a comparison of their stratigraphy and elevation with deposits known from other parts of the world. We regard this approach as valid because the southern Gulf coastline lacks evidence for significant widespread neotectonic uplift,…….
    …..Widespread evidence exists for a Holocene sea level higher than at present in the southern Arabian Gulf, indicating that it peaked at 1–2 m above present level, c. 5.5 ka bp…….

    This study shows a sea level highstand ~1 to 2 meters above the present level about ~5500 years ago.

    STUDY #4
    The Quaternary Geological History of the Santa Catarina Southeastern Region (Brazil) 1999

    The first part discusses drilling in several locations and analyzing samples. They mention dating prior to that was guesses. “…. A drilling campaign done in the domain permitted the sampling of material for 14C datings, and the obtained data confirmed some previously assumed ages. The sequence of events, that originated the Holocene deposits, has been also reconstructed through drilling and 14C dating of the collected peat and shell samples…”

    In the body of the text is this:

    Partially abutted against the Pleistocene barrier island/lagoonal system III, there is the Holocene depositional system. This unit is attributable to the Santos Transgression of Suguio & Martin (1978), along the State of São Paulo coastline, or to the Last Transgression of Bittencourt et al. (1979) along the State of Bahia coastline, being similar to the barrier island/lagoonal system IV of Villwock et al. (1986), along the State of Rio Grande do Sul coastline.

    This system is related to the post-glacial transgressive episode whose culmination stage was attained about 5.1 ky BP, when a barrier island alignment was formed parallel to the shoreline, while drainage net was drowned. The subsequent regressive episode promoted the barrier island progradation following the lagoonal basin silting.

    The paleoshorelines limited by ancient cliffs carved within Pleistocene terraces, presently representing the inner limit of the Holocene terrace, shows that this sea-level reached about 4m above the present one. Several terraces situated in different altitudes, and truncation of past morphological features nowadays observed on Holocene deposits, as well as along present lagoonal margins suggest that small scale sea-level oscillations occurred during the last 5 ky….

    This study shows a sea level highstand ~ 4 meters above the present level about ~5000 years ago. With sea level oscillating since then. Not only has the sea levels have dropped since the Holocene Optimum the evidence shows that “warmer paleotemperatures were favourable for great proliferation of mollusks in the area”
    Santa Catarina brazil is at latitude 27.2500°S.

    STUDY #5

    Holocene sea-level change and ice-sheet history in the Vestfold Hills, East Antarctica

    A new Holocene sea-level record from the Vestfold Hills, Antarctica, has been obtained by dating the lacustrine–marine and marine–lacustrine transitions that occur in sediment cores from lakes which were formerly connected to the sea. From an elevation of ∼7.5 m 8000 yr ago, relative sea-level rose to a maximum ∼9 m above present sea-level 6200 yr ago. Since then, sea-level has fallen monotonically until the present….

    The above is a RELATIVE sea level. The area is not tectonically stable because the area has isostatic uplift in response to deglaciation from the Wisconsin Ice Age. The same applies to the following study.

    STUDY #6
    A new Holocene relative sea level curve for the South Shetland Islands, Antarctica

    The curve shows a mid-Holocene RSL highstand on Fildes Peninsula at 15.5 m above mean sea level between 8000 and 7000 cal a BP. Subsequently RSL gradually fell as a consequence of isostatic uplift in response to regional deglaciation….

    STUDY #7
    Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue

    Extensive systems of wave generated beach ridges along the North Greenland coasts show that these areas once saw seasonally open water. In addition to beach ridges, large amounts of striated boulders in and on the marine sediments from the same period also indicate that the ocean was open enough for ice bergs to drift along the shore and drop their loads. Presently the North Greenland coastline is permanently beleaguered by pack ice, and ice bergs are very rare and locked up in the sea ice. Predictions of the rapidly decreasing sea ice in the Arctic Ocean generally point to this area as the last to become ice free in summer. We therefore suggest that the occurrence of wave generated shores and abundant ice berg dropped boulders indicate that the Arctic Ocean was nearly free of sea ice in the summer at the time when they were formed. The beach ridges occur as isostatically raised “staircases”, and C14-dated curves for relative sea level change show that they were formed in the Early Holocene. A large set of samples of molluscs from beach ridges and marine sediments were collected in the summer of 2007, and are presently being dated to give a precise dating of the ice free interval. Preliminary results indicate that it fell within the interval from c. 8.5 to c. 6 ka – being progressively shorter from south to north. We therefore conclude that for a period in the Early Holocene, probably for a millenium or more, the Arctic Ocean was free of sea ice at least for shorter periods in the summer….

    STUDY #8
    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

    …. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded…

    STUDY #9
    A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier January 2012

    …. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity [growth] is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….

    STUDY #10
    Sea Level Changes Past Records and Future Expectations

    For the last 40-50 years strong observational facts indicate virtually stable sea level conditions. The Earth’s rate of rotation records an [average] acceleration from 1972 to 2012, contradicting all claims of a rapid global sea level rise, and instead suggests stable, to slightly falling, sea levels.


    • #

      I should add this sea level graph from WIKI
      “This figure shows changes in sea level during the Holocene, the time following the end of the most recent glacial period, based on data from Fleming et al. 1998, Fleming 2000, & Milne et al. 2005. These papers collected data from various reports and adjusted them for subsequent vertical geologic motions, primarily those associated with post-glacial continental and hydroisostatic rebound….”

      Note the Santa Catarina outlier at 1000 years that keeps the curve from showing a decrease in sea level since the Holocene Optimum. In Study #4 from 1999 they suggest the dating on previous studies was estimated.

      “…. A drilling campaign done in the domain permitted the sampling of material for 14C datings, and the obtained data confirmed some previously assumed ages. The sequence of events, that originated the Holocene deposits, has been also reconstructed through drilling and 14C dating of the collected peat and shell samples…”

      Amazing how sea levels were around 1 to 2 meters or more higher 5,000 years ago in tectonically stable areas yet the sea level has continued to rise even though ice in Greenland and Norway and the Arctic area have increased.

      I wonder where all that extra water is coming from? Asteroids?

      Hans Tausen Iskappe is an ice cap in northern Greenland. It is about 75 km from north to south and 50 km from east to west and sits on a 1000 m high plateau. Ice cores show it is around 3500-4000 years old. It formed since the Holocene climatic optimum of 6000-8000 BP