The animation below compares 1871 sea level in La Jolla, California vs. a recent high tide picture.
The animation below compares 1871 sea level in La Jolla, California vs. a recent high tide picture.
Why not use Scripps data instead of an old photograph? This shows rising sea level:
Plot of monthly mean sea level data at LA JOLLA (SCRIPPS PIER).
You are using Scripps tide gauge data. I am not sure how the very active tectonics of that region, sitting right next to a transverse fault, affects that record I believe satellite data for all of Calif shows virtually no rise.
Bob McGenius, the data you link to shows a linear rise with no acceleration. The rise is because it’s a pier, made of logs sunk into the sand on a beach. How is it possible for a pier not to be sinking.
That’s convinced me.Who needs actual data when you have an old photograph from the internet.
You can’t possibly be as dense as you pretend to be.
Yes he can.
So a photograph of Jim Hansen is really of Frank Oz and Katherine Hayhoe doesn’t look anything like her picture. And photographs of Obama are really of Mao Zedong. I will never believe any photographs again. Thanks jeff for clearing that up for me.
Who needs old photographs when you have government tampered data?
Who are you going to believe, your own lying eyes or Barrack Obama? lol
A photograph, old or new, IS data. Data comes in many shapes and sizes.
Decades ago I frequented a beach with big rocky landmarks, and now I go to the same beach, and observing it at the same tide I see that the sea level is just the same now. And this type of personal observation is shared by countless people the world over, and by countless then and now photographs as well.
I’m simply amazed that there are people who say that we should put greater stock in the data then in actual current observations on beaches now. Don’t believe your own lying eyes, believe the data. No, it’s “data.”
Based on the current rate of sea-level rise (3mm/yr), if you are comparing now to 40 years ago, the sea has only risen 4.7 inches. That is hardly noticeable. Can you see that 4.7 inch difference on the two photos from La Jolla.
This is exactly the problem with the arguments the Henny Pennys are making. They are talking about 5 to 10 foot increases by the end of the century, a vast increase from the 10 inches one would expect from the current rate of increase. Ten inches over 86 years is hardly noticeable. Five to ten feet would be huge, but unlikely.
It is known as validation. A method for checking the truth of your data by another, completely independent means. Something Climastrologists are completely opposed to.
I used to go to Scripps Inst. of Oceanography regularly and the scene is familiar. Perhaps a better example is Key West which has been barely above sea level past anyones memory.
Who believes old photos? The fact that they are old makes them unbelievable. /nosarc
Peer-reviewed research shows that all history is old.
All “before” photos are older than “after” photos. Those old photos are so old, we need to tamper with them. Then we can use them for political purposes.
Jeff Veitch: Here’s your data–http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9410230
Sinking tide gauge, like most of them.
This one is reliable. Hawaii is not sinking or rising. The islands erode over millions of years after they pass the hot spot, but they don’t sink.
Sea leve rise for the past 100 years is linear, very slow, and is not accelerating. It does not correlate with CO2 levels.
Sea level data from satellites is very inaccurate, the error bars are greater than the trend. Most of all, grafting the satellite record onto the tide gauge record at 1992 is fraud. Church and White are the biggest clowns in the sea level rise circus.
I am not sure how logical this is. If the force that pushes up hundreds of cubic miles of crust is removed, would that land not both erode and settle when that uplift force was removed?
It doesn’t push up the crust, it shoots liquid lava up which falls back down and builds islands. The islands are made of lava on a basaltic sea floor, not uplifted crust. Erosion happens from the top down, not from sinking or settling, and it happens over millions of years so there would be no form of rising or sinking during a human lifespan.
Sorry but no. Crust both erodes and sinks. Millions of cubic miles of ice on a land mass causes it to sink further into the mantel, forcing, through the mantel, uplift on tectonic plates not so encumbered. When the ice melts, the newly unencumbered plates rise, just as a boat would if it weight was reduced, and the forced upwards through increased mantle plates settle. .
All the interannual variation data looks flatter than the mean sea level trend. Why is this?
No comment but 2 questions: 1.) What is the number one Greenhouse Gas released every day? (percentage ?) 2.) What is the Greenhouse Gas released thru cracks in the Earth’s surface near Santa Barbra, CALIF.?
Empúries was founded on a small island at the mouth of the river Fluvià, in a region inhabited by the Indigetes. This city came to be known as the Palaiapolis, the “old city” when, towards 550 BC, the inhabitants moved to the mainland, creating the Neapolis, the “new city”.
The island is on the right.
The island on which the Palaiopolis was situated is now part of the mainland and is the site of the mediaeval village of Sant Martí d’Empúries.
I should have put a /sarc tag on my comment. The sea level data at NOAA is anything but scary (though I suspect they will eventually ‘adjust’ it) . If only reporters were smart enough to look we could avoid a lot of pure BS hype (and if only I won the lotto…).
What isn’t clear from the two pics is whether they were taken at the same stage of the tides. But I agree, the future extent of sea level rise has been grossly overstated. See this research by Houston and Dean in which they find the average annual rise to be only 1.7mm/year and decelerating: http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
Ah, but look at all the extra greenery, courtesy of your old friend CO2.
If anything, it looks like the level of the ocean has fallen, not risen.
The sea level has actually fallen since the Holocene Highstand (highest sea levels) was 5,000 to 6,000 years ago. It only makes sense. Aside from rebound of the glaciated areas you have growing glaciers long term.
The authors of the following papers simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, and the highest period of glacial growth has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% less (~120 kW/m² less) solar energy.
Note: 0.63 ka = beginning of the Little Ice Age.
Ice free Arctic Ocean, an Early Holocene analogue
A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier
Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic
Classic… Over at Huff Po today they are scaring and preparing their readers for a 10′ Sea Level rise … Thanks to pure speculation about Antarctic Ice Shelves collapsing while in reality we know the South Pole is taking on more ice…
Progressives … Go buy your hip waders now before that 200 year out Sea Level Rise drowns you!!
The two papers doesn’t even make any specific sea level rise claims.
Steve, you should have digitally inserted some cute looking polar bears. That’s what the other side does.
Ignored are the catastrophic effects of global warming on the color of the ocean and vegetation. We have less than 500 days to stop them from turning into blinding, phosphorescent blue and green.
I’m still trying to figure out why the Wisconsin Glacier melted. Must have been in preparation for the coming industrial age.
Crack scientists say Pier 21 and Pleasure Pier in Galveston diverge by 200-300 millimeters. They are a mile and a half apart.
So, the large amount of ICE MELT in North Pole area has no effect?
So, the discovery that the LAND MASS beneath the huge chunks of ice up north that has become missing, and thus sceduling the ice above to become broken up and to float out to sea in such high amounts in the future is nothing to be worried about?
Okay, I guess one should just let someone ELSE worry about it… right?
Yeah… I kind of feel tired, anyway.
An equal amount of water from one ice melt could be used to form ice somewhere else ???
It is a neat demonstration that there has been virtually no change in High Tide level in La Jolla for at least 143 years. 143 years is a blip, less than a blink of an eye, geographically speaking.
That this planet undergoes varying climates over the course of it’s 4 billion year history, is confirmed for me by the fact that the present coast line of Guam, an island in the South Pacific, sits at least 100′ lower than the ancient coastline on the cliffs above it. Someday, the entire tourist district of Tumon will be underwater. “Someday” might be the year 10,014 A.D. Or it could happen tomorrow.
Tthe Earth will eventually swing back into (if not there already) a warming phase, naturally, and we may very well be in that phase now…as there are many underwater ancient cities…which were built and occupied when the planet was in a cooling phase and locking up water into ice, BEFORE this warming phase reversed the trend, and they became submerged. So these cooling/warming phases take thousands of years to complete. With brief periods of contrary phases.
Myself…I am struck by the fact this solar system hurtles through the vast universe on a 26,000 year journey before returning to the “starting line” again. Who knows what events we have in the past and will in the future encounter on this journey with our star, the Sun. Over and over and over again. We (our Solar System) are literally a tiny “Spinning Top” in a galactic minefield, that must, by all odds, take many direct hits during this journey.
That is a fact. Look at the surface of the Moon for confirmation. All is not “settled down” in this Solar System: WE are not stationary balloons floating in a sealed environment. Conditions can change *snap* LIKE THAT! Worrying about carbon usage heating up the planet…well, those fuels are finite, and I doubt we can heat up this planet enough to measure before those fuels are totally consumed.
Say wot? It takes about 250,000,000 years for the Sun to orbit the galaxy once. But about 26,000 years for the Earth to complete one cycle of of axial rotation, and to point at Polaris again.