The Sea Level Isn't Rising as Predicted

[Crick]

So what process or event do you believe could have caused the world's oceans to rise 8 cm and then fall 8 cm in a period of less than 200 years?

 

[9aces]

So what process or event do you believe could have caused the world's oceans to rise 8 cm and then fall 8 cm in a period of less than 200 years?

It got warmer...it got colder. You do know the planet does that right?

 

[Billy_Bob]

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..

Without the supposition, jumping the shark, and fabrications, our alarmist friends wouldn't have anything to talk about..

I am really curious how those so called scientists made any logical assumptions from a proxy record that is at best 300 year spatial resolution..

 

[flacaltenn]

So what process or event do you believe could have caused the world's oceans to rise 8 cm and then fall 8 cm in a period of less than 200 years?

When did this happen? And how about thermal expansion as an answer?

Or maybe a faulty abacus 200 years ago. There were a lot of recalls on technical tools back then..

 

[IanC]

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.

the paper models SLR with global temps. here are the first 5 references-

References

1. ↵
   
   1. Mann ME, et al.
   (2009) Global signatures and dynamical origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly. Science 326(5957):1256–1260.
   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. ↵
   
   1. Marcott SA,
   2. Shakun JD,
   3. Clark PU,
   4. Mix AC
   (2013) A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. Science 339(6124):1198–1201.
   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. ↵
   
   1. PAGES 2K Consortium
   (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia. Nat Geosci 6(5):339–346.
   CrossRef
4. ↵
   
   1. Jevrejeva S,
   2. Grinsted A,
   3. Moore J
   (2009) Anthropogenic forcing dominates sea level rise since 1850. Geophys Res Lett 36(20):L20706.
   CrossRef
5. ↵
   
   1. Kemp AC, et al.
   (2011) Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(27):11017–11022.
   Abstract/FREE Full Text

the first three are for global temps, Mann's paper uses upsidedown Tiljander, Marcott incorporates Mann, PAGES2K uses its own upsidedown proxies.

the fifth is a SLR paper that uses Mann's paper for global temps, and is prominent in the Knopp16 modelling as Sand Point, North Carolina. there was also some controversy as to how Kemp 11 spliced modern and reconstruction temperatures together but I cannot remember the details. Kemp is the second author on this paper. Rahmstorf is the last named author, and is well known for making unrealistic predictions of sea level rise.

 

[IanC]

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.

while bripat is certainly correct in saying that it is not necessary to propose a better method when your purpose is to simply criticize the shortcomings of a particular method, it is fairly easy to make recommendations to improve multiproxy reconstructions.

the variation seen in any single proxy should be considered the minimum variation for the whole reconstruction. even that codicil is probably not sufficient to reflect reality but it is a start.

proxies should be sorted by type, eg ice cores, tree rings, mudbugs etc. there should be local combinations to see if they are consistent, then compared to the same proxy type in other localities to see if they are still consistent, and then a 'global' combination. the same sequence should be made for the next type of proxy, and so on.

only once the individual types of proxies are shown to be consistent and coherent with each other at local, regional and global scales can the combination of different types of proxies be attempted. once the different types of proxies have been standardized they can be averaged, but only if they are expressing the same general outcomes. adding one proxy series that shows high MWP and low LIA to a different proxy that shows low MWP and high LIA is counter productive and leads to ridiculous results, although it is commonly done (even if the proxies have to be turned upsidedown).

the error bars must remain all the way through the calculations. there is no central theorum here because different places are being measured at different times by different methods.

showing the intermediate results leading to the final result would avoid the misplaced trust in the accuracy and precision for the final graph that is so common in people like crick.

appending high precision, high variation modern data to the end of low precision, low variation proxy data should never be allowed because it confuses the scientifically illiterate, like crick.

 

[elektra]

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.

My god, Mamoot is about as dumb as they come, he/she believes that just because there is button that gives you full text, that it is the full text of the study, it is the full text of the abstract!

mamMOOT, how can you possibly believe a scientific study begins with the title, "Abstract" or that a study of any significance is only 13-14 paragraphs long? Yes, click the text link to get the full text of the ABSTRACT!

 

[IanC]

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.

My god, Mamoot is about as dumb as they come, he/she believes that just because there is button that gives you full text, that it is the full text of the study, it is the full text of the abstract!

mamMOOT, how can you possibly believe a scientific study begins with the title, "Abstract" or that a study of any significance is only 13-14 paragraphs long? Yes, click the text link to get the full text of the ABSTRACT!

no, it's the full paper. suplimental information and proxy lists are there too.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/02/17/1517056113.full

 

[mamooth]

It got warmer...it got colder. You do know the planet does that right?

Yet no civilization on earth mentions such magical fast and big sea level fluctuations. Romans, Arabs, Chinese, Europeans, nobody anywhere saw it.

But hey, it still must have happened, right? After all, you can't claim the present is totally normal unless you invoke a magical past.

 

[elektra]

It got warmer...it got colder. You do know the planet does that right?

Yet no civilization on earth mentions such magical fast and big sea level fluctuations. Romans, Arabs, Chinese, Europeans, nobody anywhere saw it.

But hey, it still must have happened, right? After all, you can't claim the present is totally normal unless you invoke a magical past.

Just ours? We have seen something now that has never occurred in history? Another pathetic response from maMOOT, no science, no theory, not even logic or reason.

 

[9aces]

It got warmer...it got colder. You do know the planet does that right?

Yet no civilization on earth mentions such magical fast and big sea level fluctuations. Romans, Arabs, Chinese, Europeans, nobody anywhere saw it.

But hey, it still must have happened, right? After all, you can't claim the present is totally normal unless you invoke a magical past.

Or maybe just a past that goes past man's recorded history. The written language is a very recent development.

 

[IanC]

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.

the paper models SLR with global temps. here are the first 5 references-

References

1. ↵
   1. Mann ME, et al.
   (2009) Global signatures and dynamical origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly. Science 326(5957):1256–1260.
   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. ↵
   1. Marcott SA,
   2. Shakun JD,
   3. Clark PU,
   4. Mix AC
   (2013) A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. Science 339(6124):1198–1201.
   Abstract/FREE Full Text
3. ↵
   1. PAGES 2K Consortium
   (2013) Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia. Nat Geosci 6(5):339–346.
   CrossRef
4. ↵
   1. Jevrejeva S,
   2. Grinsted A,
   3. Moore J
   (2009) Anthropogenic forcing dominates sea level rise since 1850. Geophys Res Lett 36(20):L20706.
   CrossRef
5. ↵
   1. Kemp AC, et al.
   (2011) Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(27):11017–11022.
   Abstract/FREE Full Text

the first three are for global temps, Mann's paper uses upsidedown Tiljander, Marcott incorporates Mann, PAGES2K uses its own upsidedown proxies.

the fifth is a SLR paper that uses Mann's paper for global temps, and is prominent in the Knopp16 modelling as Sand Point, North Carolina. there was also some controversy as to how Kemp 11 spliced modern and reconstruction temperatures together but I cannot remember the details. Kemp is the second author on this paper. Rahmstorf is the last named author, and is well known for making unrealistic predictions of sea level rise.

• ↵
  1. Jevrejeva S,
  2. Grinsted A,
  3. Moore J
  (2009) Anthropogenic forcing dominates sea level rise since 1850. Geophys Res Lett 36(20):L20706.
  CrossRef

the fourth of the first five references is interesting. it shows much more variation and a distinct MWP and LIA.

forget about the obligatory prediction of doom pasted on to the end, at least for now.

it seems to be based on Moeberg's temperature reconstruction, which also contains more variation and the MWP and LIA.

like I said, interesting. sea level follows temp with about a 200 year lag. close to a 0.5 meter swing in SLR overall with the modern era only slightly higher than the overall average. I dont know how much of the last century on this graph is made up of instrumental records but the whole thing seems more believable than Mann's flat proxy handle with the instrumental spike of a blade tacked on. I guess it depends on whether you believe written history on the existence of the MWP and LIA, or not.

Greenland ice cores also support the MWP and LIA,

the graph ends about 1850, so add another degree or so. (edit- Greenland has been pretty warm in the past and the clathrates didnt 'let go', instead, trees grew that are only just starting to be uncovered)

hahahahaha. I wonder if Old Rocks looks at that polynomial curve and thinks that we are on a crash dive back to a real Ice Age? what a dolt.

 

[mamooth]

Or maybe just a past that goes past man's recorded history. The written language is a very recent development.

So sea level used to fluctuate back and forth by large amounts very quickly ... but then it took a break from doing that during the past 2000 years ... and now it's starting to do it again.

I await the scientific papers from y'all explaining the mechanisms behind that. Be warned, however, that the real scientists will want a bit more than "You can't prove it wasn't magically doing that, therefore it was" logic.

 

[9aces]

Or maybe just a past that goes past man's recorded history. The written language is a very recent development.

So sea level used to fluctuate back and forth by large amounts very quickly ... but then it took a break from doing that during the past 2000 years ... and now it's starting to do it again.

I await the scientific papers from y'all explaining the mechanisms behind that. Be warned, however, that the real scientists will want a bit more than "You can't prove it wasn't magically doing that, therefore it was" logic.

There's no magic to it. Sea water ice gets warmer than about 29 degrees it melts. A couple degrees colder depending on salinity, etc than that, it freezes. This ain't rocket surgery.

We can show from shifts in global temperature history, that the globe has both warmed, and cooled to far more significant extremes and done so quite rapidly. Your little 2000 year blip in time doesn't even register on the graph it's such a small sample.

The globe managed quite well without man, it's very likely to manage quite well after he's gone, at least till Sol calls it a day.

 

[Old Rocks]

Silly ass. The discussion is not about whether the earth can do with us or without us. It is about how much damage will it do to our present civilization if we continue to add GHGs to the atmosphere. Twaddle like you just posted is evidence of a very stunted intellect.

 

[9aces]

Silly ass. The discussion is not about whether the earth can do with us or without us. It is about how much damage will it do to our present civilization if we continue to add GHGs to the atmosphere. Twaddle like you just posted is evidence of a very stunted intellect.

I'm guessing you missed out on the atmospheric composition portion of global climate history?

I know why you overlook it. Terribly inconvenient isn't it that CO2 levels, and other various GHG were at far higher levels at various points in history. Kind of shoots holes in your "this never happened before" mantra.

 

[Crick]

You're not helping your case. What happened hundreds of millions or even billions of years before homo sapiens arose has no bearing on the current problem. Human GHG emissions and deforestation are driving greenhouse warming which is driving climatic conditions beyond anything seen within the history of our species and certainly within the span of human civilization. THAT is what is relevant.

 

[9aces]

You're not helping your case. What happened hundreds of millions or even billions of years before homo sapiens arose has no bearing on the current problem. Human GHG emissions and deforestation are driving greenhouse warming which is driving climatic conditions beyond anything seen within the history of our species and certainly within the span of human civilization. THAT is what is relevant.

And because said climatic conditions have existed before the history of our species, that you can't demonstrate any correlation between the human activity which you say is driving it, and a demonstrable, repeatable result is why it's relevant. You can't even show reliable, consistent correlations between GHG levels and rises...or falls in global temperature with all the data you have now. The system is simply too complex for man to understand yet, and will remain so for many years to come.

Just admit your climate change cult is making nothing but WAG. You'll feel better, and just maybe you'll start looking at it objectively, and actually try to follow the scientific method to actually see if you're right or not.

 

[Crick]

You're not helping your case. What happened hundreds of millions or even billions of years before homo sapiens arose has no bearing on the current problem. Human GHG emissions and deforestation are driving greenhouse warming which is driving climatic conditions beyond anything seen within the history of our species and certainly within the span of human civilization. THAT is what is relevant.

And because said climatic conditions have existed before the history of our species, that you can't demonstrate any correlation between the human activity which you say is driving it

Of course we can. Would you argue that humans cannot be shown to start forest fires? They've taken place long before we ever appeared. If you want to see evidence that humans are responsible for the warming we've experience try

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013

And actually READ the damn thing.

You can't even show reliable, consistent correlations between GHG levels and rises...or falls in global temperature with all the data you have now.

See the link above

The system is simply too complex for man to understand yet, and will remain so for many years to come.

That would be a cop out of the first order.

Just admit your climate change cult is making nothing but WAG. You'll feel better, and just maybe you'll start looking at it objectively, and actually try to follow the scientific method to actually see if you're right or not.

See the link above.

 

[9aces]

You're not helping your case. What happened hundreds of millions or even billions of years before homo sapiens arose has no bearing on the current problem. Human GHG emissions and deforestation are driving greenhouse warming which is driving climatic conditions beyond anything seen within the history of our species and certainly within the span of human civilization. THAT is what is relevant.

And because said climatic conditions have existed before the history of our species, that you can't demonstrate any correlation between the human activity which you say is driving it

Of course we can. Would you argue that humans cannot be shown to start forest fires? They've taken place long before we ever appeared. If you want to see evidence that humans are responsible for the warming we've experience try

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013

And actually READ the damn thing.

You can't even show reliable, consistent correlations between GHG levels and rises...or falls in global temperature with all the data you have now.

See the link above

The system is simply too complex for man to understand yet, and will remain so for many years to come.

That would be a cop out of the first order.

Just admit your climate change cult is making nothing but WAG. You'll feel better, and just maybe you'll start looking at it objectively, and actually try to follow the scientific method to actually see if you're right or not.

See the link above.

Which of the WAG from that are you referring to?

This one?
It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed since the mid-20th century

Or maybe this one?
Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950 (see Table SPM.1 for details). It is very likely that the number of cold days and nights has decreased and the number of warm days and nights has increased on the global scale6

This?
It is likely that the frequency of heat waves has increased in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia.

This?
There are likely more land regions where the number of heavy precipitation events has increased than where it has decreased.

This?
The frequency or intensity of heavy precipitation events has likely increased in North America and Europe. In other continents, confidence in changes in heavy precipitation events is at most medium.

Maybe this?
It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see Figure SPM.3), and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {3.2, Box 3.1}

I'm sure it has to be this one
It is about as likely as not that ocean heat content from 0–700 m increased more slowly during 2003 to 2010 than during 1993 to 2002 (see Figure SPM.3). Ocean heat uptake from 700–2000 m, where interannual variability is smaller, likely continued unabated from 1993 to 2009. {

I got lots more if you want. You see....I did read it. I even did a word search on the Report to Policy Makers....you know the people this was written for, and the word "likely" is used 165 times. "Virtually certain" is used 14 times, which I included samples of both above, just to show you how little faith they have in their own data.

Hell they're "low or medium confident" twice as often as they're "highly confident" about their conclusions. Hence the "they don't understand the climate system" comment. The report you linked is definitive proof of it.