An Introduction Into Global Mean Sea Level, A Fallacy of Alarmism, and Beyond
How Reliable Is This Graph ? Courtesy of UC@Boulder
Here is the latest image from the Sea Level Research Group at the University of Colorado:
GMSL Courtesy of UC@Boulder
This is how the confusion starts in regards to GMSL.
Both graphs show a rate of 3.1 , but use a different order of corrections.
The first graph is from 2010, has no inverse barometer correction and no GIA application.
The Second graph is from 2011, has the inverse barometer applied and GIA applied.
Meaning, that in order to continue to show the same exact rate of rise, they had to modify the means by adding values to their data.
The sea level group from UC @ Boulder have this to say about the matter:
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.
What the FUCK !?!?!?!
Why include the GIA correction now, if you hadn’t been doing it before.
And then tell us if ya don’t like it, just subtract 0.3 mm/year from the average.
OK FINE ! I WILL !
That means that in one year, the GMSL annual average of satellite altimetry data, has dropped from 3.1 to 2.8 mm/year.
In order for a 20 year average to decrease by an amount of 0.3 mm/year is……… a 6.0 mm drop in a year.
I don’t know about you, but thats a huge dip.
I guess it’s not ok to have a decline in the average, when you have an army of alarmists screaming,
“IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!!!”
I will end my rant for now with this….
What goes up….
Reminds me what Timo Niroma said about the length of solar cycles 15-22, “The short cycles of the 20th century has created a debt that must be paid.”
The value added adjustments in GMSL, allowing alarmists to suggest an accelerated rise, will undoubtedly cause nature to slam the whole process.
I know this is bad form on my part, but I kind of hope that those in a position to claim, “Its worse than we thought”, continue to do so.
So when the bottom falls out of CAGW, they fall right along with it.
Introduction to GMSL
“The IPCC considers two simple indices of climate change, global mean temperature and sea level rise. The change in global mean temperature is the main factor determining the rise in sea level; it is also a useful proxy for overall climate change.”
IPCC Technical Paper III1.2.4
The Global Temperature and Sea Level
Implications of Stabilizing Greenhouse Gases
Having already written several posts on sea levels, I think it has become necessary to investigate the origins of sea level data, how it is interpreted, and what, if any, conclusions can be derived from it.
Read more of this post