A refutation has been published to: http://www.politicalforum.com/environment-conservation/178889-another-agw-scare-tactic-debunked.html http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Journals/rahmstorf_vermeer_2011.pdf In other words, it was a classic cherry-pick. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/is-sea-level-rise-accelerating/ The same data, but corrected for water storage in artificial reservoirs. Many other studies confirm... Church, J. A., N. J. White, 2006: A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602. Douglas, B. C., 1992: Global sea level acceleration. journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans, 97, 12699-12706. Merrifield, M. A., S. T. Merrifield, and G. T. Mitchum, 2009: An Anomalous Recent Acceleration of Global Sea Level Rise. Journal of Climate, 22, 5772-5781. Rahmstorf, S. and M. Vermeer, 2011: Discussion of: Houston, J.R. and Dean, R.G., 2011. Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses. Journal of Coastal Research 27, 784787. Vermeer, M., S. Rahmstorf, 2009: Global Sea Level Linked to Global Temperature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 106, 21527-21532.
That's humorous coming from a defender of the AGW cherry-picking industry. They don't explain why they predict (and observe) steeply decelerating sea level rise during the 1910-1940 period of steep INCREASE in global temperatures, especially sea surface temperatures.
False on several counts. Each point in the graph indicates calculated acceleration/deceleration from that point through the recent period. You only get deceleration if you cherry-pick your start point and ignore the artificial water storage factor, and it is only slight to begin with. Storage of water in artificial reservoirs explains the early-century discrepancy quite well, as the graphs above show. Class dismissed.
Lie. Lie. Both graphs show the deceleration 1910-1940, and one is corrected for artificial storage while the other is not. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. They show no such thing. In fact, they show the exact opposite. You are flat-out lying. <yawn> Sorry, sonny, get back in your seat. I'm still schooling you. Can't you read what YOUR OWN GRAPH plainly says? The second graph is CORRECTED for artificial water storage, and it STILL SHOWS the sharp deceleration of sea level increase while temperatures were rising rapidly. And your "artificial storage" argument is pretty ironic coming from the guy who screams puerile imprecations at me for suggesting that large-scale hydrological projects could moderate sea level increase resulting from natural global warming.
Helpful advice: Reading the caption might prevent you from looking so silly. "Acceleration of sea-level rise (i.e., twice the quadratic coefficient) from different starting years up to 2001 in the global tide gauge data" So starting in 1910, it's acceleration. Only cherry-picking the starting point around 1930 does one get deceleration, and that disappears when accounting for artificial water storage. Hint: If you start in 1910, it's acceleration. Familiarize yourself with what the graph represents. As of now, you just look silly.
Kiribati `bout to disappear under the ocean... Kiribati ponders floating island to fight rising sea Thu, Sep 08, 2011 - The president of the Pacific island nation of Kiribati is so worried about climate change wiping out his country that hes considering ideas as strange as building a floating island. See also: Global warming threatens Antarctica with crabs Thu, Sep 08, 2011 - The sea floor around the West Antarctica Peninsula could become invaded by a voracious king crab, which is on the march thanks to global warming, biologists reported yesterday.
Boston `bout to disappear under the waves... Sea rise faster on East Coast than rest of globe 24 June`12 WASHINGTON (AP) From Cape Hatteras, N.C., to just north of Boston, sea levels are rising much faster than they are around the globe, putting one of the world's most costly coasts in danger of flooding, government researchers report.
Going to a zero CO2 emission "economy" (global collapse and massive starvation as we reset to a pre-industrial revolution population levels), leaves us where we are for 50+ years, as the evironment slowly consumes excess CO2.
First build a really really really BIG strawman Set fire to strawman Blame liberals, environmentalists and everyone else And people who do this want to be taken seriously - shakes head in disbelief
Just like with the "Ozone Hole" fiasco, where do we go to get our civilization back where they figure out the AGW crowd was wrong all along?
Once again you should understand the subject before regurgitating a right wing blog. Some science to help you learn: First signs of ozone-hole recovery spotted
It was not a "fiasco" there is an ozone hole over Antartica...a big one! How do we get our lives back when they figure out AGW people were right...after it is too late? What in the world is wrong with planting more trees, conserving energy, lowering pollution, decreasing dependancy on oil, reclaiming deserts, improving farmland, and finding better ways to preserve this world we live on? Do you not tell your children to share, take care of their things, respect others property, and not to bully other kids? At the same time you are stealing their future for profit today. Yes...I said it...you are stealing from your children and your childrens children.
Try not to be obtuse. EVERY graph anyone uses is cherry picked for the range. You say this graph is not cherry picked because it is of "the recent period". Who defined that??? Secondly.....I would love to know how the researchers got data resolved to the mm range on sea levels from 140 years ago?? Also how they got similar data on artificial reservoirs from 110 years ago???.................Do you ever question what "scientists" feed you??? Finally, so sea level is rising?? Does that every time we have an interglacial period...what is your point? That buying and electric car will stop it????..........ROFLMAO !!!!!
that ozone hole is normal and increases and decreases due to certain climate conditions. PLANT TREES. Who has a problem with that. but to tax all of us and do stuupid expensive things for no good reason in not only stupid but playing into the hands of those who wish to destroy OUR country.
Oh Puh-leeze! I heard the same paranoid rhetoric 40 years ago when the any effort to clean up our enivronment was labeled a "communist plot to destroy OUR country". The US, after 40 years, is still here and going strong. Be original; come up with something new! And if it is anyone that is going to destroy our country, it is the mindless sheep that want to hand over control to the irresponsible corporations who do not give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what happens as long as they make a buck. And before you label be anti-capitalist/anti-corporation, I am neither. There are many corporation, such as Google, that are socially and environmentally responsible and doing quite well. It is the corporations that whine about excessive regulations and need help from government to survive that I have a problem with. And a 6% drop of CO2 cost me all of $.46 amonth. BFD source
So anything before 1900 is severely suspect, thank you. Care now to explain the point of noting that melting ice during an interglacial period causes sea levels to rise? Most kids learn that is Jr. High.
The US, after 40 years, is still here and going strong. This NOT the US of 40 years ago (thanks to comrade Obama and company) . and it is NOT "going strong".....watch the news
Google, that are socially and environmentally responsible and doing quite well "google" is basically amusement. The nation can do fine without google, just like we would be fine without hollywood. We CANNOT LIVE without the basic industries of mining, farming, and manufacturing. Only they create and add wealth to the economy. Take econ 101 at your community college.................
Back in the real world, we started measuring ozone in the 1950s. No hole then. We see the smoking gun, a high concentration of CFC breakdown products (of which there are no natural sources) in exactly the same spots where the ozone is depleted. Only the worst political hacks are still willing to push the conspiracy theory that CFCs don't destroy ozone. When you hear that, you can safely assume the speaker is just babbling politically-motivated nonsense.