From 1925 To 1950, sea level at Key West, Florida rose at 5 mm/year. Since 1950, it has been rising at half that rate, 2.5 mm/year.
Sea level in Florida rose much faster when CO2 was lower, so Barack Obama logically believes that he can reduce sea level rise by choking off the US economy in a token gesture which has almost no impact on global emissions.
NOAA has sea-level data for Key West back to 1913:
The trend has been essentially linear for over a century. There’s no sign of any acceleration in rate of sea-level rise associated with the increase of CO2 from about 300 ppmv to 400 ppmv since the 1940s.
Compare to the real CO2 chart:
Note the 1930s/40s spike that corresponds to the hot weather in the USA (and presumably warmer oceans.)
The sea level does not reflect either.
I wonder about the trustworthiness of those pre-Mauna Loa CO2 measurements, and I wonder about the trustworthiness of all sea-surface temperatures.
Actually Dave, it is the other way round. The pre-Mauna Loa CO2 measurements are done with validated wet chemistry methods many of the reading are from chemists who won Nobel prizes.
The present “generally accepted” chart of CO2 measurements is cherry picked numbers all the way down.
What is really really interesting is Barrow 1947-1948 data at 420 ppm! (average of 330 samples) It is noted that the Keeling samples (1972 to 2004) are transported from Barrow Alaska to California before they are analysed. (wwwDOT)biokurs.de/eike/daten/leiden26607/leiden6e.htm
The Mauna Loa CO2 measurements are cherry picked. NOAA even says so:
anna v says @ WUWT in June 5, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Worse the method used by the Mauna Loa Observatory has never been validated.
Pay attention to the statement: new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrumental method, never validated versus the accurate wet chemical techniques.
This is WHY the IR was not validated against the wet chemical techniques and why Keeling and later his son have kept tight control of the inter-station calibrations.
In 1973 the company I worked for was sold a new infra-red (IR) absorbing instrument based on the Keeling claim it was good for accurate analytical work. I was the one assigned to come up with and validate the new test methods because the IR method was so much faster. While the IR was great for identifying organic compounds it was rotten as an analytical instrument. There was no repeatability. I could never get the same sample to give me the same reading. Repeated readings were all over the place even when I ‘spiked’ the sample with a carefully measured known amount of internal standard for comparison purposes. (I was working with solids and liquids not gases BTW)
The circled data points are Callendar’s carefully selected CO2 data. Note how he ignores the values from around 330 ppm up to 500 ppm.
Fig 1. Average atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured in the 19th and 20th centuries. Encircled are the values used by Callendar. Redrawn after Fonselius et al. 1956. Bottom area enlarged, detail RHS.
Read the rest about how the ice core analytical technique went from using the crushed whole sample, giving high values up to 7400 ppm to analysis of just the CO2 starved ‘air bubbles’ and the data reported to the public was the cherry picked low values.
(A table of the earlier ice core values is shown)
See what the plants had to say about the CO2 levels in the past.
CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata
Although the ClimAstrologists have re-written science to say plants could live in an atmosphere of only 180 ppm to match their revised ice core data, earlier work, now gone from the internet, had a lower limit of 200 – 220 ppm. All the new estimates of the lower limit for C3 plants are based on the cherry picked Ice Core data from the look see I did five years ago.
Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California. The elevation of the La Brea tar pits is 164′ (50 m)) and the study uses ice core CO2 measurements from Taylor Dome and Vostok.
A more realistic lower limit can be deduced from this field study of wheat (C3).
“The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values.” (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002157173900034
The extreme lower limit of 200 ppm can also be found in green house studies:
From an official Ontaria Canada brochure on greenhouses.
Figure 1. The effect of carbon dioxide on net photosynthesis.
Correct Timing is Everything – Also for CO2 in the Air This is a very critical point.
ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE & WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA by Dr. Jeffrey A. Glassman (Well mixed conjecture also invalidated)
Others in the series by Dr. Glassman:
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
GAVIN SCHMIDT’S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2 SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW
THE FINGERPRINT OF THE SUN IS ON EARTH’S 160 YEAR TEMPERATURE RECORD, CONTRADICTING IPCC CONCLUSIONS, FINGERPRINTING, & AGW SOLAR GLOBAL WARMING
With the exception of Dr. Jaworowski, Dr. Segalstad, Dr Jeff Glassman, Ernest Beck and Richard Courtney @ WUWT very very few people bother to even question the validity of the ClimAstrologists CO2 data.
Over at WUWT Ferdinand Engelbeen has diligently guarded the CO2 data fighting off all comers. He says “As a responsible climate skeptic, I have given a lot of comments in different discussion groups like sci.environment and UK weatherworld…” yet in all the years I hung out at WUWT I NEVER saw a comment from Englebeen unless it was to defend the cherry picked CO2 record. Whenever the CO2 record is discussed he immediately shows up to defend the ‘Official Record’ like a genii conjured from a bottle or as a Leif Svalgaard conjured to defend the IPC ‘the sun is constant’ position. Never once have I seen him defend a skeptic position. Indeed we even have this:
Engelbeen on why he thinks the CO2 increase is man made (part 4).
Dr. Glassman says of Englebeen: Another observer of current climatology examined Vostok data in a similar coordinate system. He is Ferdinand Engelbeen, a gadfly and regular commenter to RealClimate.org, a major public outlet for IPCC climatologists.
And finally back to the question of the error in the wet chemistry CO2 measurements. Ernest Beck very carefully included the error in his work on the historical data.
Hey Gail! It always impresses me how you can come up with so much good information. If I am ever being tried in court, I hope you are available as council for the defense.
..and the nasty truth of this is……Key West is moving NW faster than the claimed 10 inchs of SLR
As you go further up the Keys….you have less and less SLR
So what is it?……SLR is faster in Key West??