North Pacific trend -2.7 mm/year
Record amounts of meltwater are pouring off Greenland into the sea and causing sea level to plummet. If Greenland suffers a complete meltdown, Atlantis may again be above water.
Hansen says that multi-metre sea level rise is dead certain, and the latest news is that CO2 is increasing much faster than expected. Hansen must be looking at 25 metres of sea level rise now, which is sure to happen the day after it stops dropping.
dead certain multi-metre sea level rise, worlds leading expert on sea level says it is not raising
I you go to the internet way back machine archives
http://www.archive.org/web/web.php
and so a search on Colorado University’s Sea level page
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
and plot out the rate they publish on their graphs currently 3.2 mm/yr and subtract the GIA adjustment for the last two releases, you can generate a graph that looks like this:
http://oi54.tinypic.com/67mkut.jpg
do a search not so a search
And If you go, not I you go
“Hansen says that multi-metre sea level rise is dead certain”
In light of recent observations, perhaps Hansen should correct this phrase. For example-
Multi-metre sea level rise is a dead certainty.
Multi-metre sea level rise is dead.
Multi-metre sea level rise is dead. Certainly?
Milli-metre sea level rise is dead certain.
Any of these could be claimed to be in the spirit of what Hansen was thinking, and simple reporter errors have caused confusion about his apocalyptic prediction.
Chris y says:
November 6, 2011 at 2:03 pm
“Hansen says that multi-metre sea level rise is dead certain”
…
The sea level rise estimate over at the CU Seal Level Research Group’s web page
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
says 3.2 mm/yr. Well 0.3 mm/yr of that is a GIA adjustment that makes no sense, so it’s actually 2.9 mm/yr which means that should that trend continue, in order to get to multi-meter sea level rise it will take 2000 mm ÷ 2.9 mm/yr = 690 years.
The proponents of AGW also claim sea level rise is accelerating. If you down load the data over at CU Sea Level Research Group
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel3/sl_ns_global.txt
and plot it out on Excel and apply a 2nd order polynomial trend, you will find that since 1992 there has most certainly not been any acceleration. Indeed, if anything the rate is slowing a little bit. Here’s the plot I get:
http://i54.tinypic.com/2qtl828.jpg
Here is what the world’s leading sea level expert, Dr Nils-Axel Morner, has to say…
“Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s]
publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it
changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per
year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so
nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but
they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which
they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction
factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was
not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I
accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow—
I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not
a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite,
but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered,
that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten
any trend!”
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Morner is not really the world’s leading expert on sea levels. He is, however, a leading expert on the science of dowsing.
Thanks for sharing your ignorance.
Re: Dr Nils-Axel Morner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner#Views_on_dowsing
Pathetic ad hom
Thanks for that plot which I trust you won’t mind me linking at http://climate-change-theory.com
It is interesting to note that “Trenberth’s Trend” in sea-surface temperatures actually started to decline after about 2006, so all this ties in well with sea levels also starting to decline after 2007. The laugh is that Trenberth’s trend was published on Skeptical Science of all places.
Having some trouble relating your chart to the aviso data. The data at the link you supply doesn’t show units, and the range of values there is 0.483 to 0.499. Your chart implies a range of about .465 to .55 (m). Looking at the chart on the aviso site (http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust.png), the variation for the same period is about 4.8 to 5.7 cm, one tenth of what your chart shows.
Also, I believe trend lines for sea levels should always be whole numbers of years.
In case you didn’t notice, the link is the Aviso data.
Yes, I understood that. I’m saying that I followed your link to the Aviso data and it doesn’t match the chart at the top of your article. E.g. the highest number at the linked data is about 0.499. I don’t know what units the Aviso data are supposed to be in, so I compared them with the Aviso chart; to match the range of values it seems the units should be roughly tenths of metres, though that seems unlikely. Where did you find the information that it’s metres?
Why doesn’t the plot at the top of this page agree with the dataset cited below it?
Good catch. I accidentally put the North Pacific trend in. I updated the article with both the North Pacific and the global trend.
Most of that drop appears to be between 2010 and now, late 2011, a bit less than two years.
GRACE results over the same period may indicate mass transfer from the oceans to the land. Not a big surprise since the water lost from the oceans had to go somewhere.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/nasa-satellites-detect-pothole-road-higher-seas
So, is this the start of a new trend, or just two-year blip in the same old one? Check back in ten years!