Sea Level Rise Is Sneaky

Crack scientists say that Greenland and Antarctica are melting down, and pouring massive amounts of water into the sea and drowning the coasts. It must be that sneaky kind of water which has cleverly avoided California.

ScreenHunter_119 Mar. 11 07.54

Data and Station Information for CRESCENT CITY

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Sea Level Rise Is Sneaky

  1. kirkmyers says:

    If it’s true, as the warmists claim, that global warming causes more snow, then we don’t have to worry about melting ice at the poles and rising sea levels. By the way, as any junior scientist knows, melting sea ice doesn’t increase sea levels (“Archimedes’ principle”). There would have to be a serious meltdown in the Antarctic (home to around 91 percent of the world’s glacial ice) to impact sea levels. But with an average temperature of near minus 40 degrees Celsius in Antarctica, that’s not going to happen.

    • daveburton says:

      I think the National Science Foundation needs to hire a junior scientist. For 6-1/2 years they claimed that, “melting sea ice also raises worldwide sea levels, with potentially significant effects for coastal cities and towns.”

      However, you’re mistaken in your belief that only Antarctica has enough ice to significantly impact sea levels. There’s plenty of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet to dramatically raise sea levels, were it to melt.

      That’s not happening, though: we know that the climate in Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now, and it stayed that way for hundreds of years, but there’s no record of a rise in sea level during the MWP, so it’s clear that not much of the Greenland Ice Sheet melted.

      That’s presumably because, as Steve is fond of pointing out, rising temperatures only melt ice if temperatures go above 0°C / 32°F.

      • NASA says that 97% of Greenland melted last year.

      • kirkmyers says:

        I know I left out the Greenland ice cap. Yes, there is plenty of ice there. And if it were to melt, it would contribute to rising sea levels, but not to the extent of a similar meltdown in Antarctica.

        The fact remains: We’re seeing no catastrophic warming at the poles or, for that matter, anywhere else on the planet. And even if we were to see a global warm-up, there’s still not hard empirical evidence to support the theory of human-CO2-induced global warming. Any warming that occurred could just as easily be attributed to natural variations in solar output, oceanic oscillations, and cloud cover, specifically increased cloudiness (a negative feedback) caused by more GCR-triggered nucleation in the atmosphere.

        Every IPCC projection of CO2-caused warming is the product of manipulated general circulation models (GCMs). The “coming climate change catastrophe” has been conjured
        up digitally.

      • Tanya says:

        What about the towns in Kent, in the South of England, that used to be sea towns and are now miles inland? (They’d probably love to be sea towns again, come to think of it.)

  2. Ed Caryl says:

    Crescent City is rising because it is on the landward side of a subduction zone. This is the case with the California coast north of there, and the coast of Oregon, Washington, and southern British Columbia. There will be a huge subsidence when that fault lets go.

    • daveburton says:

      You might be right; here’s what happened at Seward Alaska:

      However, such land movement has nothing to do with Steve’s point, which I think is that there’s been no detectable acceleration in global rates of sea level rise, which obviously means there’s been no net increase in rate of ice melt, over the period of time during which mankind has been driving up GHG levels significantly.

      I would add that groundwater depletion and decreasing rates of water impoundment behind dams should have been expected to cause a modest acceleration in rate of sea-level rise over the last 50 years, so the fact that no such acceleration has occurred would seem to indicate that the contribution from meltwater must be decreasing.

  3. kirkmyers says:

    I should have clarified that increased cloud cover caused by a reduction in solar winds and the penetration of more galactic cosmic rays (see Henrik Svensmark’s theory) would drop temperatures.

  4. gator69 says:

    The permanent drought is ‘masking’ sea level rise, temporarily. Massive tsunami to follow.

  5. Andy DC says:

    There are people who have lived along the coast for 70 years and not noticed any sea level rise. Of course, those people have simply not taken NOAA adjusted data into account. If they only would, they could see the rise.

  6. Dave N says:

    The water knows that it should go to the South West Pacific and Northern Indian oceans

  7. johnturmel says:

    Jct: Har har har. The twits forget that anyone can measure the sea level anywhere to check their ClimateGate hoax! Har har har. And with all that human-caused global warming, it seems the sea level has dropped from last century! Har har har, har har har. Makes my $100 bet with Greenie Adriana Magnutto (that the man-made global warming rise continues while I show graphs that have the hockey stick blade breaking off in 1998) look better all the time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s