The Sea Level Isn't Rising as Predicted

[flacaltenn]

This just out, Kopp et al (2016), confirming sea-levels are now rising the fastest they have since the tail end of the last ice age.

Temperature-driven global sea-level variability in the Common Era
---
We present the first, to our knowledge, estimate of global sea-level (GSL) change over the last ∼3,000 years that is based upon statistical synthesis of a global database of regional sea-level reconstructions. GSL varied by ∼±8 cm over the pre-Industrial Common Era, with a notable decline over 1000–1400 CE coinciding with ∼0.2 °C of global cooling. The 20th century rise was extremely likely faster than during any of the 27 previous centuries.
---

Oh Lookie -- ANOTHER hockey stick... Take over filtered, undersampled data from 2000 yrs and tack on the modern instrumentation record at the right side end and VOILA ---- you can spew all the propaganda your sponsor needs and wants..

 

[mamooth]

Disappointing, that you put so little effort into that conspiracy theory.

I was at least expecting your "Can you prove it's not magic?" bad argument, which you tend state as "Can you prove there weren't sudden gargantuan spikes in the past that were too short for the resolution to show?".

 

[flacaltenn]

Disappointing, that you put so little effort into that conspiracy theory.

I was at least expecting your "Can you prove it's not magic?" bad argument, which you tend state as "Can you prove there weren't sudden gargantuan spikes in the past that were too short for the resolution to show?".

Well hold on there a bit Squidward.. Maybe I wasn't done yet.. What Proxies were used to determine that 3000 yr old data? And did they adequately represent both the spatial and temporal extents of the globe and the period covered. We might YET be able to say that AGAIN the proxy data lacked the resolution to show anything like a 100 yr spike in sea level.. There's always hope ya know.. Proxies are NOT measurement instruments.

Think I should go check???

 

[elektra]

This just out, Kopp et al (2016), confirming sea-levels are now rising the fastest they have since the tail end of the last ice age.

Temperature-driven global sea-level variability in the Common Era
---
We present the first, to our knowledge, estimate of global sea-level (GSL) change over the last ∼3,000 years that is based upon statistical synthesis of a global database of regional sea-level reconstructions. GSL varied by ∼±8 cm over the pre-Industrial Common Era, with a notable decline over 1000–1400 CE coinciding with ∼0.2 °C of global cooling. The 20th century rise was extremely likely faster than during any of the 27 previous centuries.
---

Your link is just to a press release and a brief abstract, certainly you, mamoot of all people will not be presenting a press release as SCIENCE. Are You?

Seriously, post the paper, mamoot. This is science, not just bullshit, right. So link or present the paper, not just a bit of cherry picking!

 

[Crick]

The second law of thermo states that heat always moves to cold and never vice versa.on the macro scale but the third law of thermo contradicts the second law of thermo on the micro scale. What we need is a grand unified thermo law to tie it all together.

You've obviously never taken an actual course in thermodynamics. Your statement is ignorant horseshit.

 

[jc456]

The second law of thermo states that heat always moves to cold and never vice versa.on the macro scale but the third law of thermo contradicts the second law of thermo on the micro scale. What we need is a grand unified thermo law to tie it all together.

You've obviously never taken an actual course in thermodynamics. Your statement is ignorant horseshit.

heat rises why?

 

[IanC]

Disappointing, that you put so little effort into that conspiracy theory.

I was at least expecting your "Can you prove it's not magic?" bad argument, which you tend state as "Can you prove there weren't sudden gargantuan spikes in the past that were too short for the resolution to show?".

Well hold on there a bit Squidward.. Maybe I wasn't done yet.. What Proxies were used to determine that 3000 yr old data? And did they adequately represent both the spatial and temporal extents of the globe and the period covered. We might YET be able to say that AGAIN the proxy data lacked the resolution to show anything like a 100 yr spike in sea level.. There's always hope ya know.. Proxies are NOT measurement instruments.

Think I should go check???

The paper is paywalled but the SI shows that it is heavily influenced by Mann08 and the sea level paper about N Carolina that uses an even worse version of Mann and his upsidedown Tiljander proxies.

 

[mamooth]

Your link is just to a press release and a brief abstract, certainly you, mamoot of all people will not be presenting a press release as SCIENCE. Are You?

My link was to the actual paper.

What's your excuse for making such a colossal screwup there?

The paper is paywalled

No, it's not.

Was the concept of clicking "Full text" more than you could handle?

Not that it would matter. I'm not sure how Ian managed to link Tiljander proxies to sea level, nor due I care. He just reflexively chants "Tiljander proxies!" as a defense against reality.

 

[flacaltenn]

Disappointing, that you put so little effort into that conspiracy theory.

I was at least expecting your "Can you prove it's not magic?" bad argument, which you tend state as "Can you prove there weren't sudden gargantuan spikes in the past that were too short for the resolution to show?".

Well hold on there a bit Squidward.. Maybe I wasn't done yet.. What Proxies were used to determine that 3000 yr old data? And did they adequately represent both the spatial and temporal extents of the globe and the period covered. We might YET be able to say that AGAIN the proxy data lacked the resolution to show anything like a 100 yr spike in sea level.. There's always hope ya know.. Proxies are NOT measurement instruments.

Think I should go check???

The paper is paywalled but the SI shows that it is heavily influenced by Mann08 and the sea level paper about N Carolina that uses an even worse version of Mann and his upsidedown Tiljander proxies.

Your link is just to a press release and a brief abstract, certainly you, mamoot of all people will not be presenting a press release as SCIENCE. Are You?

My link was to the actual paper.

What's your excuse for making such a colossal screwup there?

The paper is paywalled

No, it's not.

Was the concept of clicking "Full text" more than you could handle?

Not that it would matter. I'm not sure how Ian managed to link Tiljander proxies to sea level, nor due I care. He just reflexively chants "Tiljander proxies!" as a defense against reality.

Well here ya go...

The increasing availability and geographical coverage of continuous, high-resolution Common Era RSL reconstructions provides a new opportunity to formally estimate GSL change over the last ∼3,000 years. To do so, we compiled a global database of RSL reconstructions from 24 localities (Dataset S1, a and Fig. S1A), many with decimeter-scale vertical resolution and subcentennial temporal resolution. We augment these geological records with 66 tide-gauge records, the oldest of which (11) begins in 1700 CE (Dataset S1, b and Fig. S1B), as well as a recent tidegauge–based estimate of global mean sea-level change since 1880 CE (12).


24 samples to cover the globe. Proxies at 0 BCE differing by FUCKING METERS of sea level with all types of shapes. And "many" with subcentennial resolution.. (which means MANY had no resolution under 100 years. )

That's all good for for 200 yr or more Central estimate of mean value.. NOT good enough to leap to conclusions that it compares with the modern instrumented observations. MOST of the proxies they showed don't really fit the modeled result very well..

And they brag about "decimeter-scale" vertical resolution?? MANY with 4" resolutions??

Give me a break and spare me the hand-wringing....

 

[mamooth]

Flac, there's a reason your "You can't prove magic didn't occur in the past, therefore you don't know the present is different!" method of science is not held in high esteem by actual scientists.

Read up on the scientific method and figure out why.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Is sea level rising?

The above link disagrees with all of your sources, but what would they know? They are only the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is really just a front for Al Gore and the Illumina.

 

[Crick]

Oh Lookie -- ANOTHER hockey stick... Take over filtered, undersampled data from 2000 yrs and tack on the modern instrumentation record at the right side end and VOILA ---- you can spew all the propaganda your sponsor needs and wants..

This sort of criticism is a common theme of yours. I assume, then, that you know a better way to conduct this sort of study. Tell us about it.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh Lookie -- ANOTHER hockey stick... Take over filtered, undersampled data from 2000 yrs and tack on the modern instrumentation record at the right side end and VOILA ---- you can spew all the propaganda your sponsor needs and wants..

This sort of criticism is a common theme of yours. I assume, then, that you know a better way to conduct this sort of study. Tell us about it.

No one needs to conceive of a better method to prove that method 'A' is bad.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh Lookie -- ANOTHER hockey stick... Take over filtered, undersampled data from 2000 yrs and tack on the modern instrumentation record at the right side end and VOILA ---- you can spew all the propaganda your sponsor needs and wants..

This sort of criticism is a common theme of yours. I assume, then, that you know a better way to conduct this sort of study. Tell us about it.

There is no legitimate way to get DETAILED historical climate records that compare in Resolution or accuracy to the modern era instrumentation. I have nothing against this work until it is predictably MISREPRESENTED as a conclusion comparing the 2 things.

It's a case of their mouths uttering verdicts that neither their data nor their work can cash..
Why do you think they do that??

 

[Crick]

It seems as if your complaint here is, once again, that you believe the resolution of the data doesn't support the certainty with which their conclusions are expressed. But, just as with temperature, for sea level to have risen as high as today's levels, and then dropped back to where it had started in less time than that which the geological record could show, would require a process completely outside our knowledge.

Is that your position?

 

[Crick]

Oh Lookie -- ANOTHER hockey stick... Take over filtered, undersampled data from 2000 yrs and tack on the modern instrumentation record at the right side end and VOILA ---- you can spew all the propaganda your sponsor needs and wants..

This sort of criticism is a common theme of yours. I assume, then, that you know a better way to conduct this sort of study. Tell us about it.

No one needs to conceive of a better method to prove that method 'A' is bad.

Fortunately, that's not what he said.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh Lookie -- ANOTHER hockey stick... Take over filtered, undersampled data from 2000 yrs and tack on the modern instrumentation record at the right side end and VOILA ---- you can spew all the propaganda your sponsor needs and wants..

This sort of criticism is a common theme of yours. I assume, then, that you know a better way to conduct this sort of study. Tell us about it.

No one needs to conceive of a better method to prove that method 'A' is bad.

Fortunately, that's not what he said.

That's your theory.

 

[flacaltenn]

It seems as if your complaint here is, once again, that you believe the resolution of the data doesn't support the certainty with which their conclusions are expressed. But, just as with temperature, for sea level to have risen as high as today's levels, and then dropped back to where it had started in less time than that which the geological record could show, would require a process completely outside our knowledge.

Is that your position?

It's not that I BELIEVE data lacks time resolution to see 100 year events -- THEY TOLD YOU it lacks the resolution to see 100 year events. And it characteristic of this time sampling restriction that even 200 year events would not display the FULL variations that were seen at the time..

So they have no BASIS for making sweeping generalities about "RATES of rise" over periods of that time because their data is incapable of recording that.

Go get a data set for Dow.. Run a 10 year filter over the first 40 years and make some harebrained statements about the INCREASED volatility in the market over the last (unfiltered) 40 years. You'd be laughed out of existence..

That doesn't even address trying to make a GLOBAL statement out of just 24 points on the globe. Or the 4" HEIGHT resolution of a lot of their proxies. Studies like this are good for ONE THING. And that is to give an estimate of long term MEANS of the variable. And it should be left at that.

 

[Crick]

So, you believe that the possibility exists that in some period of 200 years or so, for unknown reasons, the world's oceans could have risen and fallen more than they have in the last 3,000 years without leaving a trace. And due to that possibility, you believe the authors of this study have spoken deceitfully when they stated that the current global sea level is higher than any point indicated by the geological record in the last 3,000 years. Is that correct?

 

[flacaltenn]

So, you believe that the possibility exists that in some period of 200 years or so, for unknown reasons, the world's oceans could have risen and fallen more than they have in the last 3,000 years without leaving a trace. And due to that possibility, you believe the authors of this study have spoken deceitfully when they stated that the current global sea level is higher than any point indicated by the geological record in the last 3,000 years. Is that correct?

You are about 43cm short of the logic you need to make a case. And you're not thinking clearly for starters.

You use the PREMISE that recent sea levels have risen/fallen farther/faster than they have in 3000 years -- but you have NO EVIDENCE of what happened over the past 3000 years with enough accuracy to SHOW 100 or 200 year events. YOU DON'T KNOW what rates were seen 2000 years ago. NOBODY does..

Just because it appears in a graph and the AUTHORS say it's "highly likely" --- does NOT MAKE IT SO..