Data on sea level rise does not support past dire predictions, so the official data is being corrected up. That’s right the official data is going to be adjusted up to ‘correct’ for expanding ocean basins and La Nina.
“One important change in these releases is that we are now adding a correction of 0.3 mm/year due to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), so you may notice that the rate of sea level rise is now 0.3 mm/year higher than earlier releases. This is a correction to account for the fact that the global ocean basins are getting slightly larger over time as mantle material moves from under the oceans into previously glaciated regions on land. Simply subtract 0.3 mm/year if you prefer to not include the GIA correction.
You may also note that rate of sea level rise over recent years has been less than the long-term average. This is believed to be due to the recent La Nina’s we have been experiencing, though research on this is continuing. We will soon add a plot to the web site illustrating this effect.”
From http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/new-web-site-new-sea-level-release
Via John O’Sullivan
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
What no subtraction for all of the soil and sediment washed into the oceans by rivers all over the world?
As I’ve said before at 2.8 or 3.1 mm a year this just adds 280 or 300mm by 2111, or about one foot in one hundred years and all entirely natural.
At that rate of SLR it would take until 2511 to equal the SL around Australia 4,000 years ago.
See Catalyst ABC. This has to be the silliest part of the CAGW fraud.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2278381.htm
More of this fraudulent con exposed, sooner or later the taxpayer must be made aware of the depth of this chicanery and corruption of science before it’s too late.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/pat-frank-the-new-science-of-climate-change/#more-39809
The University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group found that if you put two human hairs together it represented sea level rise over the past decade.
At first they delayed bringing the data out, said they were getting their website up to scratch, but little did we know they were racking their brains and scratching their heads to find a solution. Finally deciding to add 10% artificial “growth” to their data.
Don’t quite know what to make of it.
I think Nils-Axel and Bob Carter have the right idea about satellite measured SLR. It’s very doubtful, at the limit of human knowledge and probably contains doubtful assumptions.
Imagine getting signals over a large area of ocean, some with no shipping, others with some ships and others with many ships. Those variations would have to vary the signal considerably and it would be interesting to know how they iron that out.
Also the pear-shaped geoid with flat spots is pretty hard to maintain a constant altitude with [like impossible] and relying on sat-nav for altitude adjustments would always have problems because of that systems imperfections.
To talk in terms of 3mm per year really stretches belief.
It does stretch belief and yet the warmist I’ve spoken to on this have developed what Bob Carter referred to as ‘deaf ears’. This should be of concern, yet I’m unconcerned.
The problem is they don’t have any idea of the arguments about climate change and no interest, unlike kdkd and Luke who have a basic understanding and are prepared to debate.
I know it’s slightly off topic, but you have to check this one out.
kdkd, Luke, Gavin et al… often complain that sceptics use illogical arguments or as kdkd puts it, they are rhetorical and it results in ‘reduto ad absurdism’.
HMMMM? Even though I agree that those tactics are used, they are certainly not limited to scpetics or denialists.
In fact my biggest complaint about this whole fiasco is that the AGW climate change modeling has been hijacked by people who have every intent of using rhetoric to prove something else entirely.
They are now trying to prove that human induced climate change is responsible for alarming health figures.
(Conveniently forgot to mention that the figs have more to do with cold snaps and catastrophic natural events which mankind had no control over whatsoever via CO2 reductions)
It is a woefully rhetorical piece that tries to prove something way beyond anything that AGW climate change could possibly be responsible for.
Underlying it is the vague threat that these health statistics will get far worse if we don’t allow our governments to tax CO2 and help to reduce the emissions of this dangerous pollutant emanating from the activities of 7Billion people.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/climate-action-has-clear-public-health-dividend/story-e6frgd0x-1226055577475
If they are correcting for changes to the global ocean basins, will they correct for the millions of tonnes of sea water displaced by all the ships that weren’t around before the Industrial Revolution?
Could somebody also clarify for a non-scientist whether the sea level change is measured in relation to land level, and if so, to the level of which land mass, or is it related to some theoretical centre of the earth? As the tectonic plates are forever moving and the shape of the earth is changing as well, how can they determine a realistic datum, relate that to a constantly moving body of liquid affected by continually changing atmospheric pressure and temperature, and, finally, make a definitive statement that is practically irrelevant in itself?
Nobody really needs to know what the average change is, or is predicted to be. Only maritime engineers want to know likely changes and then only in a specific location. Sounds like the whole exercise is irrelevant to everyday life and only manages to support more applications for grants!
‘Climate change is already responsible for the deaths of more than 300,000 people each year,’ said Armstrong.
Now if she said global warming is responsible for those deaths she would be wrong, but climate change is natural variability so she gets away with hype.
Debbie – Joanne Nova is aware of the article you posted and has approached The Australian and has been granted a right of reply. Should be out in a few days.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/news-thread-may-15/
el gordo – the 300,000 figure came from a report back in may 2009 by The Global Humanity Forum – presided over by Kofi Annan.
http://www.ghf-ge.org/human-impact-report.pdf
In march 2011 the Global Humanity Forum was shut down for lack of funds 🙂
Anthony Watts covered it back in 2009
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/30/u-n-s-global-warming300000-deaths-a-year-report-kofi-implies-close-enough-for-government-work/
BruceJ,
Luke can push up those SLs by adding the water stored in all the dams etc while ignoring the huge extra runoff of urban areas that starve aquifers.
But I wonder if the models allow for that flexible bladder of water to force up the land height as the bag fills?
‘You may also note that rate of sea level rise over recent years has been less than the long-term average. This is believed to be due to the recent La Nina’s we have been experiencing, though research on this is continuing. We will soon add a plot to the web site illustrating this effect.’
To paraphrase: Sea level rise has slowed because natural variability dominates, we can’t easily accept this outcome so we are asking for more money to see if this is true.
The plot has already been revealed.
I first thought a tongue-in-cheek “waiting for the ‘hydrothermal vents contribute to ocean rise’ paper,” but a quick search for one shows the idea is not so funny, there are good reasons to question plain recirculation.
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/siem.html
Wiggle watchers.
I’ll give due consideration to your informative reply Luke.
.
Done.
For the rest, a search for ‘source of submarine thermal vents water’ gives several published papers, the majority agreeing that up to a third of investigated vents sources of water are not recycled seawater. As there are now thought to be ~ 3million undersea volcanoes this may not be a negligible proportion of any sea level rise.
“Wiggle watchers.”
yes, it’s The Wiggles that make the difference.