Sea level rise is accelerating

Even satellites cannot really measure any actual level but have to average. The only way you could do it accurately is if there were not tides or waves or rotation of the earth.

 

They average actual measurements, that are really measured.

 

Really? Tell me how they measure 40 foot seas?

 

ditto Hoosier, how is it your measuring 40 foot waters?

 

With radar.

 

So Jason 1 was 100 mm different than TOPEX and Jason 2 was 100 mm different from Jason 1 but then of course, they are adjusted. Yet the mean global sea level is 'estimated' using models. On top of that, the trend line is too short to determine anything with the satellites. It isn't long enough to show any of the alleged 'acceleration' based on models.

 

False. The mean global sea level is measured using radar.

False again. The trend line is clear, obvious, and statistically significant to very high sigma levels.

False a third time. Here's the sea level velocity from satellite data:



You get this graph by downloading the satellite data from http://sealevel.colorado.edu, running a LOESS smooth (α=0.33) and finding the velocity between adjacent points of the smooth. Result:

Velocity is increasing. Sea level is accelerating.

 

Are you really that unobservant? What do you think TOPEX, Jason 1, and Jason 2 are?

 

I think they're satellites with radar altimeters. You, apparently, think they're models.

Denier FAIL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPEX/Poseidon#Instruments

 

LOL, you still have no clue how this is all put together.

 

LOL, and you still are incapable of making a logical or coherent argument.

Denier FAIL.

 

You can get sued, by , but Trump will get elected.

He is no way stupid enough, to think he gets to build KXL, and we'll see how well Rand's gobble, about climate denial goes over.

NOT. Trump will just find out how to lose, to Doctor Carson, from climate denial.

 

Sorry you have trouble following along but that is to be expected.

 

The OP is quite correct. Sea level rise is accelerating and more of it is inevitable at this point. If the world limits CO2 emissions soon, there might be a chance of limiting the eventual damages, but our world is already going to lose many cultural and historical treasures and cities that are now located near th shoreline. There will be enormous numbers of climate refugees fleeing inland to higher ground, which will generate much conflict and suffering.

Sea level rise accelerating faster than thought
Science
By Julia Rosen
11 May 2015
If you’re still thinking about buying that beach house, think again. A new study suggests that sea levels aren’t just rising; they’re gaining ground faster than ever. That’s contrary to earlier work that suggested rising seas had slowed in recent years.

The result won’t come as a shock to most climate scientists. Long-term records from coastal tide gauges have shown that sea level rise accelerated throughout the 20th century. Models predict the trend will continue. However, previous studies based on satellite measurements - which began in 1993 and provide the most robust estimates of sea level - revealed that the rate of rise had slowed in the past decade compared with the one before.

That recent slowdown puzzled researchers, because sea level contributions from melting ice in Antarctica and Greenland are actually increasing, says Christopher Watson, a geodesist at the University of Tasmania in Australia. So he and colleagues took a closer look at the available satellite and tide gauge data, and tried to correct for other factors that might skew sea level measurements, like small changes in coastal elevation.

The results, published today in Nature Climate Change, show that global mean sea level rose slightly slower than previously thought between 1993 and 2014, but that sea level rise is indeed accelerating. The new findings agree more closely with other records of changing sea levels, like those produced by tide gauges and bottom-up accounting of the contributions from ocean warming and melting ice.

In the past, researchers have used tide gauges to keep tabs on the performance of satellite altimeters, which use radar to measure the height of the sea surface. The comparison allowed them to sniff out and cope with any issues that cropped up with the satellite sensors. Tide gauges themselves are not immune to problems, however; the land on which they rest can shift during earthquakes, or subside because of groundwater withdrawal or sediment settling. These processes can produce apparent changes in sea level that have nothing to do with the oceans.

So Watson’s team tried to correct for the rise and fall of tide gauge sites by using nearby GPS stations, which measure land motions. If no GPS stations were present, they used computer models to estimate known changes, such as how some regions continue to rebound from the last glaciation, when heavy ice sheets caused land to sink.

The newly recalibrated numbers show that the earliest part of the satellite record, collected between 1993 and 1999 by the first altimetry mission, known as TOPEX/Poseidon, appears to have overstated sea level rise. That’s probably because a sensor deteriorated, ultimately forcing engineers to turn on a backup instrument. When combined with data from subsequent satellite missions, those inflated TOPEX/Poseidon numbers gave the appearance that sea level rise was decelerating, even as the global climate warmed.

Also contributing to the apparent slowdown was a hiccup caused by natural climate variation, says John Church, a climate scientist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Hobart, Australia, and a co-author of the new study. Around 2011, “there was a major dip in sea level associated with major flooding events in Australia and elsewhere,” he says. Intense rainfall transferred water from the oceans to the continents, temporarily overriding the long-term sea level trend.

The corrected record now shows that sea level rose 2.6 millimeters to 2.9 millimeters per year since 1993, compared with prior estimates of 3.2 millimeters per year. Despite the slower rates, the study found that sea level rise accelerated by an additional 0.04 millimeters per year, although the acceleration is not statistically significant. Watson says he expects that trend to grow stronger as researchers collect more data.

The acceleration falls in line with predictions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Watson notes. “We’re tracking at that upper bound” of the IPCC’s business-as-usual scenario for greenhouse gas emissions, he says, which could bring up to one meter of sea level rise by 2100.

Others say it’s too early to tell. “The IPCC is looking way out in time,” says geodesist Steve Nerem of the University of Colorado, Boulder, who was not involved in the study. “This is only 20 years of data.”

In the meantime, Nerem says, the altimetry community needs to focus on continuing to improve the satellite data. He thinks Watson’s team “addressed it in the best way we can right now,” but it would be even better “to have a GPS receiver at every tide gauge, and right now that’s not the case.”

Regardless, the underlying message is clear, Church says: Sea levels are rising at ever increasing rates, and society needs to take notice.

 

Slower than thought and acceleration not statistically significant, which means equivalent to zero but hey.

 

Well....that's your crackpot misinterpretation...

 

My, my, the article is full of hope for disaster but I swear people don't actually read what it says. Another thing these alarmist articles don't tell you is what the uncertainty range is, by reading it you get a hint that it is greater than 0.04mm per year.

 

In the real world...where the inhabitants of Denierstan never travel...

Say Goodbye to Coastlines: New Study Warns of Disastrous Sea Level Rise Within Decades

 

It is undeniable and beyond contestation, that when air and sea temperatures rise, both of which cause ice to melt, that sea levels will rise.

There are natural and human caused reasons for the rising of Earth's temperature.

We can do little to combat the natural processes of Earth except to make smarter decisions about where we populate and develop.

Whatever it is that mankind contributes to global temperature changes, if that contribution will exacerbate the Earth's natural processes, and potentially create scenarios for mankind that involve destruction, death, famine, etc., particularly on a global scale involving tens of millions of people, it should be obvious to anyone with more than a squid-brain that we better pay attention.....and make calculated changes to reduce mankind's role of exacerbating the issue...

 

The first assumption is that we know what affect we are having which is far from true and that is why the models are all over the place and the observed temperature is not cooperating. The second assumption is that warming is bad when in fact mankind has always flourished and civilization expanded in warmer temperatures.

Completely disrupting society hurting the poor the most with very expensive solutions based on unverified assumptions may not be the smartest use of resources.

 

It is further undeniable and beyond contestation that mankind absolutely contributes those attributes which can effect global climate. We do not need to clearly and concisely quantify mankind's contributions...we only need to know that mankind not only contributes today but is accelerating our contribution over time as we further populate and develop and pollute Earth. If we know that mankind's contributions are not positive, why would we continue down the same old path? It's tantamount to a person who is told their health is failing due to tobacco use and they continue to smoke cigarettes. Yes this person can do this but it comes at a much greater risk than if they stopped smoking and lived a healthier life. No doctor can quantify this person's risk and tell them what day they are going to die. But most doctors will be correct when they explain to this person about the degradation of their health, the pain and costs of disease, the poor quality of life, etc. It seems in your opinion, you prefer this person continue smoking and just deal with their downward spiral ever how it plays out. From my perspective I will quit smoking, exercise more, eat healthy, and do 'whatever' I can afford to do to enjoy life.

No one I know is seriously proposing Draconian policy which will 'completely disrupt society', 'hurt the poor'?? Nearly all State governments and certainly the Federal government, as well as a majority of working Americans, as well as most retired Americans, don't have any money to carelessly spend. And no president or Congress is going to force policy on Americans which will negatively and greatly impact the US economy...

 

You continue to make unqualified assumptions. First, cheap energy helps third world nations and the poor. If you think making it more expensive helps the poor then I don't know what to say. Obama is already forcing policy through the EPA that will negatively affect Americans and impact the US economy, shut down energy producing plants, and put our electrical energy grid in jeopardy. The Associated Press reports more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants will close and another 36 plants could also be forced to shut down as a result of new EPA rules regulating air pollution.

'As we populate the Earth' it is only the first world nations that can afford to implement environmental policies that clean up the air like the US has and China is trying to do. Poorer nations are more worried about heating and cooking than some environmentalists wet dream.

As far as your strawman of smoking is concerned, logical fallacies are not worth addressing.

Now, this is still based on models and not observations. Did you know we are already at about 1 degree of the 2 degree limit that the agenda is targeting? So far, no problems, fewer hurricanes, fewer tornadoes, no cities under water, polar bears are fine, Arctic ice is growing, Antarctica was just found to have gained ice mass, in fact the US is cooling.

There will be claims of the warmest year but since the globe has been warming for over 400 years after the Little Ice Age, that can be expected and did you know that some US scientists and most Russian scientists are predicting cooling due to the lull in solar output? Unfortunately for the West, AGW has become the cause celeb and there is no evidence that the over confidence in CAGW projections or the alarmism are founded on fact. In fact none of the past projections have come to pass which should give you some pause to think deeper about what you are being told.

Again, if you cannot even tell what natural variability is caused by, you cannot determine how much man has contributed. In fact, most skeptical scientists believe we contribute but do not agree on how much or if it is even bad for mankind. You will find that the only scientists that buck the agenda are well established, older, and no longer rely on the system for advancement or a job, like Freeman Dyson whose mind is just find even though the opposition is trying to portray him as old and infirm.

 

The usual ignorant and fraudulent denier cult drivel, with no connection to reality.

 

Thanks for showing your complete knowledge of climate change. About what can be expected.

 

You're welcome. Glad to help try to clear up some of your abject ignorance and total confusion....but I can't make any promises....you are very dense...and not very bright...I'm afraid you may never grasp even the basics, let alone the complexities of climate science.