Sea Level Rise Shows No Correlation With Atmospheric CO2

Manhattan sea level rise rates peaked at 310 PPM, and show no correlation with increasing atmospheric CO2.

2015-11-11-11-38-11

Sea Level Trends – Variation of 50-year Mean Sea Level Trends

An entire field of science based on worthless and easily disprovable assumptions.

About stevengoddard

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

28 Responses to Sea Level Rise Shows No Correlation With Atmospheric CO2

  1. hskiprob says:

    From what I have read, the entire Atlantic seaboard appears to be sinking. There are many places (land) in the world that are both rising and falling all the time, because of such thinks as continental drift causing one shelf to go under or over another. With all the historical ruins found at the bottoms of our oceans, how would we know if the world is in fact trending one way or the other as far as sea levels? Here in Florida there is irrefutable evidence that Orlando was once the southern coast of Florida. Steven, which way do you think its going and is there really a way to measure the entire worlds mean see level?

  2. Steve Case says:

    Here’s an interesting presentation by Dr. R. Steve Nerem who runs Colorado University’s Sea Level Research Group:
    “Why has an acceleration of sea level rise not been observed during the altimeter era?”
    Here’s the link:
    http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/documents/OSTST/2011/oral/02_Thursday/Splinter%203%20SCI/04%20Nerem%20ostst_2011_nerem.pdf

    That pdf presentation is a few years old now, but the negative acceleration of sea level rise remains. One has to wonder what all the excitement is about if for the last twenty-two years there has been no acceleration of the rate. Couple that with the fact that it’s rather easy to determine that there’s been a good deal of inflating the rate of sea level rise by those same CU Sea Level Research Group scientists.

    Simply put the URL of their home page (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/) into the Internet WayBack Machine (https://archive.org/) and see for yourself.

    This archived time line:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20040719102733/http://sealevel.colorado.edu/2004_rel1.2/sl_ib_ns_cu2004_rel1.2_global.txt
    differs from the current one:
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel4/sl_ns_global.txt
    in a rather interesting fashion. Changes have been made to the data resulting in an increase in the rate of reported sea level rise by nearly a millimeter per year.

    Here’s what that looks like:

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2015_rel4/sl_ns_global.txt

    • Steve Case says:

      Uhm, Here’s what that looks like:

      • Latitude says:

        Steve, wasn’t that about the time they said the ocean floor was rebounding, or sinking, or something like that….and they made “adjustments” for it

        • Steve Case says:

          The GIA correction of an additional 0.3 mm/yr was added in 2011 to make their Sea Level graphic be representative of ocean volume.

          The 0.9 mm/yr extra that I point out at the 2004 mark includes the 0.3 mm/yr GIA correction.

          If you want to know why CU didn’t make a separate Ocean Volume chart, you will have to ask them that.

          Thanks for the reply.

  3. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, you can’t claim there is no correlation between CO2 rise and sea level rise by examining one location. You have to compare global mean sea level with CO2 ppm for the period, say, from 1880 to the present. Compute a trend for each and show them on the same graph.

    • No, he doesn’t have to do that. If sea levels were accelerating, they would be accelerating everywhere. Even Denmark. And stop calling him Steven,

      • Martin Smith says:

        That’s false, Morgan.

        • AndyG55 says:

          There is absolutely no acceleration in the sea level trend in ANY of the stable tide gauges around the world.

          That means that there is absolutely NO CO2 signature in the tide gauge data.

          NONE WHATSOEVER.

          You are avoiding REAL DATA again, slimy little Gore bot.

          And making a fool of all Gore bots with your continued monumental ignorance.

          You are an IGNORANT BASE-LEVEL LIAR, and a WASTE OF TIME AND SPACE

    • Gail Combs says:

      HEY MARTIN the sea level DROPPED FIVE FEET!!!! or about 0.3 millimeters a year.

      ….backshore deposits along the tectonically stable south-eastern Vietnamese coast document Holocene sea level changes…..reconstructed for the last 8000 years….The rates of sea-level rise decreased sharply after the rapid early Holocene rise and stabilized at a rate of 4.5 mm/year between 8.0 and 6.9 ka. Southeast Vietnam beachrocks reveal that the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand slightly above + 1.4 m was reached between 6.7 and 5.0 ka, with a peak value close to + 1.5 m around 6.0 ka….
      Mid to late Holocene sea-level reconstruction of Southeast Vietnam using beachrock and beach-ridge deposits

      Translation the sea level was up to 1.5 meters higher than today in a tectonically stable area ~5000 years ago to 2000 years ago.

    • AndyG55 says:

      There is absolutely no acceleration in the sea level trend in ANY of the stable tide gauges around the world.

      That means that there is absolutely NO CO2 signature in the tide gauge data.

      NONE WHATSOEVER.

      You are avoiding REAL DATA again, slimy little Gore bot.

      And making a fool of all Gore bots with your continued monumental ignorance.

    • AndyG55 says:

      There is absolutely no acceleration in the sea level trend in ANY of the stable tide gauges around the world.

      That means that there is absolutely NO CO2 signature in the tide gauge data.

      NONE WHATSOEVER.

      You are avoiding REAL DATA again, slimy little Gore bot.

      And making a fool of all Gore bots with your continued monumental ignorance.

      You are an IGNORANT BASE-LEVEL LIAR, and a WASTE OF TIME AND SPACE

    • Ted says:

      You mean like this?

      Unfortunately, I can’t send you to the original, since NOAA no longer shows that data in the same location:
      http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/MSL_global_trendtable.html

      If anyone knows of a working link to the latest chart, please post it.
      Thanks.

      Here’s the closest I can come up with:
      http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

      By eye, I don’t see anywhere near enough red to cancel out all the blues, purples, black, and brown. I zoomed in, and couldn’t find ANY dark green or gray. The average looks pretty obviously to be in the 0-3mm/year range, with considerably more readings below that level than above.

      When I click on “Global Trend Table” in the “Data Table” dropdown menu, I get a blank page. Maybe it’s just my weak internet connection, and a big file.

    • Martin believes that water mounds at one end of his bathtub.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Probably because of the bubbles when he talks.

      • Ted says:

        I think it was the 2000 Olympics. Bob Costas was announcing the triathlon. After one turn, I distinctly remember him saying that it’s down hill for the rest of the swim. It was in the Sydney harbor, not a river. It became a running joke among some of my friends, for several years.

  4. Disillusioned says:

    Sea level rise is two Lincoln Head Cent pennies pancaked per year.

    The sky is falling.

    • gregole says:

      Thanks Disillusioned, for keeping the perspective. Sea level rise, and all the other shibboleths of man-made global warming are allegedly measured over the entire planet and are tiny. Practically impossible to measure kind of tiny. Were it not for a continuous stream of propaganda and promotion; no one would even notice.

  5. darrylb says:

    It seems everybody chooses the info which suits them best.
    First regarding Satellite altimetry.
    1) It does not measure sea level along coastal lines, which really is what is important.
    2) Tide gauges are far more reliable
    3) Altimetry has only been in use for a short duration, so it is much more difficult to determine trends.

    Dave Burton who presents a total picture of happening at Sea Level Info
    states that tide gauges indicate a range of sea level rise of 9.39 mm/year at Kuchiro, Japan
    to a negative 17.5 mm/yr at Skagway Alaska.
    The average of 225 stations is 0.90 mm/yr and the median (middle) value is1.41 mm/yr
    NASA reports 1.7 to 1.8 mm/year but that is after several model derived adjustments.

    Repeating something I stated earlier, calculations for glacial melt, and oceanic thermal expansion predict the oceans should be rising at about 1.1 mm / yr. The BAD part of ocean rise, has been the 42% from Sub surface water run off. In other words, the worlds water supply, in reality may be getting short.
    Also, all indications are that there has been no increase in sea level rise since the heart of the Little Ice Age. and good Lord, have there been Collegiate warnings to the contrary, all based on cherry picked extrapolations. BS

    • Gail Combs says:

      Long term, if you consider these two studies among others, the amount of land ice was less during the earlier parts of the Holocene and has only returned thanks to the Little Ice Age. This means any ‘sea level rise’ is ‘short term’ due to a return to slightly warmer temperatures as the earth climbed out of the Little Ice Age or as you say due to the extraction of ground water.

      I say short term because the Freemont Glacier show it went from Little Ice Age cold to Modern Warming warm in the ten years around 1850 link

      Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

      …. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded

      PLUS

      A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier January 2012

      …. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity [growth] is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….
      (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589411001256

      The highest glacier growth started 600 years ago prior to that most glaciers had melted away.

  6. tomwys1 says:

    The “no acceleration signal” statements are absolutely correct. CO2, linear for thousands of years at 280ppm, rises 38% in 135 years and sea-level stays LINEAR!!! Here’s a 4 pager on topic:
    http://www.colderside.com/Colderside/Sea_Level_%26_CO2.html

  7. Gail Combs says:

    Are you sure about the CO2?

    Info from Prof Z Jaworowski, Prof T V Segalstad and N Ono as well as Ernest Beck
    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm

    Dr Jeff Glassman:
    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html

    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html#more

    CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata
    https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

    I do not think there is ANY data related to Global Warming that has not been ‘Adjusted’ to fit the political purpose.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s