The 1990 IPCC Report predicted about 120 mm of sea level rise by the year 2014. Tide gauges were their only sea level reference in 1990, and have shown about one fifth of the IPCC’s forecast.
As a result of their spectacular failure, they have increased their confidence levels moving forward.
 | Morgan Wright on Climate Destroying Shrimp |
 | Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
| Nicholas McGinley on “The world began to end… |
 | saveenergy on What’s At Stake? |
 | willys36 on “The world began to end… |
| Morgan Wright on Climate Homicide |
| saveenergy on Climate Homicide |
| saveenergy on Homophobic Gas |
 | Walter on Protecting Endangered Species |
The latest Antarctic research is showing that ice melt there will contribute less than 2 inches by 2100 and The latest research showing that Greenland is less vulnerable to ice melt than thought because most of the ice lies well above sea level in the bowl shaped continent. So IPCC predicted melt can only come from heat expansion. It appears that the next hide the decline attempt is set to take place in the deep oceans. 😉
The whole idea of the possibility that the deep oceans can be warmed from the surface is totally ridiculous. In fact the deep oceans (below ~1000m) have been cooling down for the last ~84 million years. They lost a staggering ~18K since that time.
see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/2011JC007255/asset/supinfo/jgrc12191-sup-0010-fs09.pdf?v=1&s=79e93e124ca1fd8a33753fc667ff17deaa20b3e6
Small wonder we are now in a period of alternating ice ages / inter glacials.
Steve, on this one I get a different factor than you do.
My weary eyes agree with you on 12 cm or 120 mm for the best estimate in the 24 year period.
Measuring sea level rise is much more difficult than most realize because it is very dependent on local factors. The only information I have is that the average rise has been 1.7 mm per year by tide gauges and 3.3 mm per year by satellite, plus or minus in each case.
A factor of five would be a rise of 24 mm over the 24 year period, however, tide gauges show a rise of 40 mm and satellite a rise of just under 80mm.
Care to comment?
A report I read recently said 60% of tide gauges show no Sea Level rise… 2/3rds of the Sea Level rise is calculated as opposed to actual data measurements. Scientists calculated an expansion of ocean water due to heat plus the depression of ocean floors adding more volume… So while most tide gauges show no rising sea levels… These genius’s are still able to claim 1.7mm per year with their broad assumptions and a few calculations…
From a little while back:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/shock-news-satellite-sea-level-error-is-100-of-the-trend/
Sorry, no link, but a recent paper estimated the tide gauges at 1mm, with over 60 percent showing no rise. Perhaps that is what Steve is referring to.
Phil, JR and David; thanks for the reply.
If you have any more sources, I would appreciate using them for what I am writing.
Darn good write-up here –
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/vindication-for-suyts-new-tidal-gauge-sea-level-paper-out-reports-1mmyr-sea-level-rise/
verifying the paper “TIDE GAUGE LOCATION AND THE MEASUREMENT OF GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE” http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide%20gauge%20location.pdf
more references are here –
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/team-romm-proving-again-that-they-are-morons/
And a survey of academic papers tidal rise non-acceleration here –
http://notrickszone.com/2012/07/13/german-survey-of-recent-scientific-literature-shows-no-signs-of-accelerated-sea-level-rise/
Sea level rise is the only factor which leaves me with a few questions, although I think the rise has been happening since the last ice age and has very little human fingerprints.
The rise comes from three factors glacial melt (not sea ice), thermal expansion and land run off.
I saw one (and only one) study of land run off causing 42% of the rise.
What i have a hard time reconciling is continued rise (almost linear) without any warming for at least 15 years.
Those who predict 1 meter or more rise by 2100 don’t understand what acceleration means. To get to 1 meter rise by 2100 would require an acceleration of round 1.6% per year. That means by 2099 the rate of rise would have be be 3-4cm, IN THAT ONE YEAR! Current rate is 0.174cm per year.
This is physically impossible to happen.
http://youtu.be/8EMoU8OOsBs
Excellent! Please everyone view this in its entirety.
For me, an American, it is wonderful to see a European scientist expound objectively on science.
All too often, European scientists appear to me as pagan religious weirdos in support of Fabian Socialist politicians. It is a bit scary.
Morner has long been battling the AGW-sea level rise establishment.
I have not seen this clip before—-Thanks RobertV
“[in 2008] the West Side Highway [and so much of Manhattan] will be under water…” -James Hansen, NASA, 1988
Yesterday I reported how Michael Mann, in a pillsbury dough boy sort of wish to silence the opposition with censorship, had called out a phys.org thread with many effective skeptic comments as “smelling like Koch.” The main skeptic commenter in that Mann-denounced thread was NikFromNYC. One Chicken Little replied to Nik: “Stay in New York Nik. In 100 years some snorkler will swim into your residence and find artifacts from the life of the most educated dunce doomed climate change denialists had to offer. For someone of your academic credentials, your grip on reality is mind boggling.” Nik had an excellent response that deserves replay here:
huh, i can easily guess what sea volume is, but i have no idea what sea level is…or i have to many ideas…
It is always the same song with climate science, such for instance, global temperature ..few able know what we are talking about…
So from about 1860-1940 (where C02 was not a problem) we have roughly the same amount of sea-level increase as during 1940-2010 (where C02 is a catastrophe).
Am I the only one that sees a flaw in the CAGW argument here?