What Do We Think About Climate Change

Annual change of global sea level and Mean sea level since late 1992 according to the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at University of Colorado at Boulder. The data have been prepared by Dr. R. Steven Nerem (nerem@colorado.edu) and Dr. Eric W. Leuliette (leuliett@colorado.edu), and are described by Leuliette et al. (2004). The annual global sea level change is calculated as the difference between the average global sea level the last 12 months and the previous 12 months. The thick line represents the simple running 3 year average. The data shown above include the seasonal signal, and have been prepared using the inverted barometer technique (Inverted Barometer = -9.948 * (1013.3 - global average pressure). The inverted barometer does not have much apparent effect on the global mean sea level because the ocean as a whole is not compressible. Data from the TOPEX/Poseidon mission have been used before 2002, and data from the Jason-1 mission (satellite launched December 2001) after 2002. Time is shown along the x-axis as fractions of calendar years. Last diagram update: 11 May 2010.

 

so rather than just ignore the last attempt to dupe the readers into believing false information can we at least admit that maybe the readers deserve to be informed if your source is a paid industry hack like Fred Singer who has a long history of taking industry money to produce pro industry articles ?

he was paid by the tobacco industry to deny the ill effects of cigarette smoking
he was paid by the chemical corporations to deny the ill effects of chemical exposure
and now he is being paid by the oil and gas industry to deny the effects of Rapid Global Climate Change

but somehow the people presenting him as some kind of shining example of logic just forgot to mention that
what a surprise

 

Ocean CO2 Storage Revised

The ocean is Earth's largest single sink for CO2 outside of the planet's crust itself. Simple sea creatures depend on carbon dissolved in the ocean's water for their existence, and their actions create a biological carbon “pump” that removes vast quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere. Large amounts are suspended in the water column as dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and each year the ocean's biological pump deposits some 300 million tons of carbon in the deep ocean sink. New findings have revealed that massive amounts of carbon are converted into “inedible” forms of organic carbon that remain out of circulation for thousands of years, effectively sequestering the carbon by removing it from the ocean food chain. According to Jiao Nianzhi, a microbial ecologist at Xiamen University, the amount stored is tremendous: “It's really huge. It's comparable to all the carbon dioxide in the air.”

On average, the world's oceans absorb 2% more carbon than they emit each year, forming an important sink in the overall carbon cycle. CO2 is absorbed by the ocean in a number of ways. Some dissolves into the water column, forming carbonic acid (H2CO3) while more enters the seas through the food chain. Green, photosynthesizing plankton converts as much as 60 gigatons of carbon per year into organic carbon—roughly the same amount fixed by land plants and almost 10 times the amount emitted by human activity. But this form of carbon is only stored for a short period of time.

According to a news focus article in Science by Richard Stone: “Even more massive amounts of carbon are suspended in the water column as DOC. The oceans hold an estimated 700 billion tons of carbon as DOC—more than all land biomass put together (600 billion tons of carbon) and nearly as much as all the CO2 in the air (750 billion tons of carbon).”

What is more important is the conversion of immense amounts of bioavailable organic carbon into difficult-to-digest forms known as refractory DOC. The microbe driven conversion has been named the microbial carbon pump (MCP) by Jiao. Once transformed into a form less palatable to hungry marine microorganisms, the sequestered carbon can build up in the ocean's waters forming a huge reservoir of stored carbon. The process is described here:

Nature Reviews Microbiology, advance online publication, Published online 5 July 2010 | doi:10.1038/nrmicro2386
Microbial production of recalcitrant dissolved organic matter: long-term carbon storage in the global ocean

Nianzhi Jiao, Gerhard J. Herndl, Dennis A. Hansell, Ronald Benner, Gerhard Kattner, Steven W. Wilhelm, David L. Kirchman, Markus G. Weinbauer, Tingwei Luo, Feng Chen & Farooq Azam

http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nrmicro2386.html

"The biological pump is a process whereby CO2 in the upper ocean is fixed by primary producers and transported to the deep ocean as sinking biogenic particles or as dissolved organic matter. The fate of most of this exported material is remineralization to CO2, which accumulates in deep waters until it is eventually ventilated again at the sea surface. However, a proportion of the fixed carbon is not mineralized but is instead stored for millennia as recalcitrant dissolved organic matter. The processes and mechanisms involved in the generation of this large carbon reservoir are poorly understood. Here, we propose the microbial carbon pump as a conceptual framework to address this important, multifaceted biogeochemical problem."

 

PS
that would be your interpretation of there data
to present a graph showing a drop along a graph showing a rise implying there is some confusion
there isn't

for a more informed view of the actual data you might want to look at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CB0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Foceans.pmel.noaa.gov%2FPapers%2FWills_2004.pdf&rct=j&q=Leuliette%20et%20al.%20(2004)%20&ei=1vE7TLK1FIH88Aafu4WPBw&usg=AFQjCNGI9HHqZUEYt_RpwC8N5qx9pfoJng&sig2=dW1V76G9kG9UawAiKtpFmA

which clearly states that the same data shows a thermosteric sea level rise of ~1.6mm/yr for the period of 1993 through 2003

maybe you would like to run us through a comparison of what you are thinking this data shows and why and what they are thinking this data shows and why

cause otherwise I am left with believeing a one paragraph interpretation/insinuation by a novice in climate research or a 17 page peer reviewed paper concerning the same exact data you are referencing that clearly states the opposite of what you are implying.

the data is unequivocal
the oceans are rising

 

you might also want to check
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2-2.html

which clearly states the exact opposite results of your interpretation of the data presented within the paper you have cited

kinda seems obvious you have misinterpreted the data there G

maybe you can provide a detailed explanation of how that might have happened

or would you like to skip to another subject

oh wow look at that you already did
now we are on to co2 again

ok give me a minute to look into that last
and

so whats your point

or are you denying that atmospheric co2 levels have been rising at unprecedented levels or that the mas isotopic measurements clearly place the source of this rise as from the burning of fossil fuels
or are you maybe winding up to deny that co2 is a greenhouse gas
or maybe that as a greenhouse gas it produces warming
or that maybe that warming alters the climate on our planet
or maybe that the altered climate will not somehow effect us
cause guess what
it will
and it is

wanna talk pine Beatles
they are wiping out the coniferous forests of Colorado even as we speak
and they are a direct result of a warming climate
without those forests we have far more erosion than normal
that erosion clogs the reservoirs and streams adversely effecting power production and fish stocks as well as basic water quality ( drinking water )

 

Just so we are all on the same page, the left figure shows that the average sea level is increasing by about 3mm per year. The average slope of the right hand figure is also about 3mm per year. Is that how you read these graphs?

 

I gotta wonder if it was not all just a diversion to the Singer quote that must have been embarrassing once the readers were informed as to old Freddy's background in disinformation

If you look at what MR G posted its nothing but excerpts that we expect him to misinterpret by implication, and so we jump to misinterpretations for him.

probably just trying to distance the readers from his latest blunder with the singer quote and trying to get away from answering the question of if he believes the readers have a right to know the background of a guy like Singer

oh well
at least he posted information that supports the general theory

 

So, thank you the OWNER of the magazine is a lunatic, or so you say.
If the lift in a brothel plays Mozart, does it mean Mozart music is immoral?
You said I quoted this larouche guy.
I did not, I quoted one of the most knowledgable authorities on sea level.
Please address his points and do not divert the attention to the owner of the magazine or what car his cousin is driving.
Give me a brake you and Boston and please address the article and his author's credentials if you wish but not the luancy or otherwise of the owner of the magazine. Do you want to know the moral credentials of the supplier of the ink that is used to print the magazine?

How come no one has anything to say about sea levels NOT rising?

 

maybe because sea levels ARE rising

please see Guillermo's previous posts of data supporting sea level rise

you might also want to check http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5s5-5-2-2.html to see that in fact this is exactly what Guillermo's posted source is saying or http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CB0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Foceans.pmel.noaa.gov%2FPapers%2FWills_2004.pdf&rct=j&q=Leuliette%20et%20al.%20(2004)%20&ei=1vE7TLK1FIH88Aafu4WPBw&usg=AFQjCNGI9HHqZUEYt_RpwC8N5qx9pfoJng&sig2=dW1V76G9kG9UawAiKtpFmA which also supports the incidence of sea level rise in these last few years since the advent of the industrial age.

 

You say ocean are rising, one of the best sea experts sais they are not. Who do we believe?
Do you really think this guy reputation is anything different because in this case the interview was printed by a marginal magazine?
Your attempts ar at best ridiculous. The one dissapointment is Troy that keeps on hammering "La Rouche" quote.

 

I have quoted several peered reviewed sources that disagree with the ultra right wing rag you are quoting. If you are insisting that this persons opinion in this regard is worthy of debate then maybe you can present the group with a paper he has written concerning this issue that has been made available for scrutiny by the scientific community

or is it possible that this opinion of which you quote is not worthy of debate within the scientific community instead only being made available through an op ed piece in some political PR campaign

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm

ere: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Committee Publications > All Select Committee Publications > Lords Select Committees > Economic Affairs > Economic Affairs
Select Committee on Economic Affairs Written Evidence



Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project

FACTS AND FICTION ABOUT SEA LEVEL CHANGE MAY LOW-LYING ISLANDS AND COASTAL AREAS BE FREED FROM THE CONDEMNATION TO BECOME FLOODED IN THE NEAR-FUTURE

Climate is becoming increasingly warmer we hear almost every day. This is what has become known as Global Warming. The driving idea is that there is a linear relationship between CO2 increase in the atmosphere and global temperature. The fact, however, is that temperature has constantly gone up and down. From 1850 to 1970, we see an almost linear relationship with Solar variability; not CO2. For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data.

Most remarkable in the record of climatic changes during the last 600 years are the cold periods around 1450, 1690 and 1815 and their correlation with periods of Solar Minima (the Spörer, Maunder and Dalton Solar Minima). The driving cyclic solar forces can easily be extrapolated into the future. This would call for a new cold period or "Little Ice Age" to occur at around 2040-50. Still, we hear nothing about this. It is as if IPCC and the Kyoto Protocol enthusiasts want to "switch off the Sun itself". Let us take this, at least, as a piece of information to rise our awareness and curiosity.




In the global warming concept, it has been constantly claimed that there will be a causal rise in sea level; a rise that already is in the accelerating mode, in the near future to cause extensive and disastrous flooding of low-lying coastal areas and islands. "It will be the death of our nation", says the President of the Maldives, and the people of Tuvalu in the Pacific claim that the flooding has already commenced.

Is this facts or fiction? It is true that we are flooded by this information. But what lies behind this idea? And, especially, what do the true international specialists think?

The recording and understanding of past changes in sea level, and its relation to other changes (climate, glacial volume, gravity potential variations, rotational changes, ocean current variability, evaporation/precipitation changes, etc) is the key to sound estimates of future changes in sea level.

The international organisations hosting the true specialists on sea level changes are to be found with the INQUA commission on sea level changes and the IGCP special projects on sea level changes. When I was president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, 1999-2003, we paid special attention just to this question; ie proposed rise in sea level and its relation to observational reality. We discussed the issue at five international meetings and by Webb-networking. Our opinion is illustrated in Fig 2. In view of the Fig 1 prediction, I have later revised the estimate for year 2100 to: +5 cm ± 15 cm.



Prior to 5000-6000 BP, all sea level curves are dominated by a general rise in sea level in true glacial eustatic response to the melting of continental ice caps. In the last 5,000 years, global mean sea level has been dominated by the redistribution of water masses over the globe. In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillating close to the present level, with peak rates in the period 1890-1930 (Fig 3).

It is true that sea level rose in the order of 10-11 cm from 1850 to 1940 as a function of Solar variability and related changes in global temperature and glacial volume. From 1940 to 1970, it stopped rising, maybe even fell a little. In the last 10-15 years, we see no true signs of any rise or, especially, accelerating rise (as claimed by IPCC), only a variability around zero. This is illustrated in Fig 3.



With the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite mission in 1992, we now have new means of recording actual sea level changes. The record from 1992 to early 2000 (Fig 4) lacks any sign of a sea level rise; it records variability around zero plus a major ENSO even in year 1997.


When we three years later have the same record extended into year 2003 on the Webb, a tilt has been introduced. This tilt does not originate from the satellite altimetry readings, however, but represents an inferred factor from tide-gauge interpretations. In order to get back to true satellite data, we have to tilt the whole record back to its original data of Fig 4. When this is done, there is no sea level rise to be seen—only a variability around zero plus a number of high-amplitude ENSO oscillations (Fig 5). This is why I in Fig 3 conclude that the sea level remained stationary at around zero for the last 10-15 years (as further discussed in Mörner, 2004a and 2005).

The tide-gauge introduced into the satellite data on the Webb seems to violate observational facts at sites spread all over the globe; not least our NW European data covering both uplifted areas (Fennoscandia, Scotland) as subsiding areas (the North Sea).


From 2000 to the present, we have run a special international sea level project in the Maldives including six field sessions and numerous radiocarbon dates. Our record for the last 1,200 years is given in Fig 6. There are no signs of any on-going sea level rise. It seems all to be a myth.



Tuvalu in the Pacific is often said already to be in the flooding mode. The tide-gauge record (Fig 7) for the last 25 years does not show any rise, however. The truth seems to be that a Japanese pineapple industry had subtracted too much freshwater by that forcing saltwater to invade the subsurface.


Fig 7. The Tuvalu tide-gauge record 1978-2003 showing stability around a zero level plus three negative ENSO events (from Mörner, 2004c).

Venice is notorious for its flooding problems. It lies on a delta area subjected to subsidence. Therefore, the sea level variations are superposed on a long-term subsidence trend (Fig 8). Any rise in sea level would immediately worsen the situation. The last 30 years lack signs of any rise or accelerated rise, on the contrary sea level fell (partly as a function of engineering work).



Fig 8. Observes sea level changes (purple) superposed on a long-term subsidence trend (blue). At 1970 (green arrow), there is a marked change in tendency, partly due to engineering work, but certainly seriously contradicting a sea level rise and especially an accelerated sea level rise.

In conclusion; observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore, we should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded in the near future.

There are more urgent natural problems to consider on Planet Earth like tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.

30 March 2005

Some recent scientific papers by the author

The INQUA Commission—www.pog.su.se/sea

Authors homepage—www.pog.su.se.

Mörner, N-A, 2005. Sea level changes and crustal movements with special aspects on the eastern Mediterranean. Z Geomorph. NF, Suppl Vol 137, p 91-102.

Mörner, N-A, 2004d. Changing Sea Levels. In: Encyclopedia of Coastal Science (M Schwartz, Ed), p 284-288.

Mörner, N-A, 2004c. Sea level change: Are low-lying islands and coastal areas are under threat? In: "The impacts of climate changes. An appraisal for the future", p 29-35. International Policy Press.

Mörner, N-A, 2004b. The Maldives Project: a future free from sea level flooding. Contemprary South Asia, 13 (2), p 149-155.

Mörner, N-A, 2004a. Estimating future sea level changes. Global Planet. Change, 40, 49-54.

Mörner, N-A, Tooley, M & Possnert, G, 2004. New perspectives for the future of the Maldives. Global Planet. Change, 40, 177-182.

Mörner, N-A, 2002. Livello dei mari e clima (Sea Level Changes and Climate). Nuova Secondaria, 10/2002, p 43-45.

Mörner, N-A, 2001. Global and local sea level changes: the interaction of multipleparametres (hydrosphre, cryosphere, lithosphere, ocean dynamics and climate). Schr. Deutschen Geol. Gesellschaft, 14, 3-4.

Mörner, N-A, 2000b. Sea level changes in western Europe. Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Autumn 2000 Ed, p 31-36, ICG Publ. Ltd.

Mörner, N-A, 2000a. Sea level changes and coastal dynamics in the Indian Ocean. Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Spring 2000 Ed, p 17-20, ICG Publ. Ltd.

Mörner, N-A, 1999. Sea level and climate. Rapid regressions at local warm phases. Quaternary International, 60, 75-82.

Mörner, N-A, 1996b. Rapid changes in coastal sea level. J. Coastal Res, 12, 797-800.

Mörner, N-A, 1996a. Sea Level Variability. Z Geomorphology NS, 102, p 223-232.

Mörner, N-A, 1995. Earth rotation, ocean circulation and paleoclimate. GeoJournal, 37, 419-430.

Mörner, N-A, 1995b. Recorded sea level variability in the Holocene and expected future changes. In: Climatic Change: Impacts on Coastal Habitation (D Eisma, Ed), pp 17-28.

Mörner, N-A, 1995a. Sea Level and Climate—The decadal-to-century signals. J Coastal Res., Sp I 17, 261-268.

Plus numerous sea level papers in the period 1969-95.

See also:

Lars Mortensen, 2004; Doomsday Called Off, TV-documentary, Danish TV, Copenhagen.

 

Sea Level

On post 7794 I asked why we should cherrypick sea level data precisely from 1993-2003 and no from any other possible period. See: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/op...about-climate-change-21390-30.html#post372767. That's not a long enough period of time. We could take 2003-2010 instead, showing a deceleration bringing trend back to about what it has been the "normal" one for the last 100 years, per example. Sea level rising trend accelerates and decelerates in a complex pattern and needs to be studied in a long enough perspective if we want to project tendencies with a minimum of trustness. It is tiring to repeat again and again things some people do not want to read calmly and think a little bit (just a little bit, please ) and without prejudices about them.

Let's have a wider look at the problem (and I will not even mention Mörner).

A BRIEF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
It is now generally accepted that the global sea level increased by about 120 m as a resul tof deglaciation that followed the last glacial maximum (LGM) about 21,000 years ago. By about 5000–6000 BP (Before Present), the melting of high-latitude ice mass was essentially completed (Douglas & Peltier 2002). Thereafter global sea level rise was small and appears to have ceased by 3000–4000 yr BP. Rates of global-averaged SLR over the last 1000 yr and prior to the twentieth century are estimated to be less than 0.2 mm/yr (Fleming et al 1998; Lambeck 2002). The late 20th century SLR is most intriguing and has sparked several studies in the last fifteen years. A study by Holgate & Woodworth (2004) using 177 tide gauges divided into 13 regions with near global coverage obtains a value of 1.7 +/− 0.2 mm/yr over a 55-year period (1948–2002). Another study (Church et al 2004) estimates regional distribution of SLR for the period 1950–2000 by combining satellite altimeter data with historic tide gauge data. The study obtains a value of 1.8 +/− 0.3 mm/yr for the 51-year period (1950–2000) with a maximum value of over 2 mm/yr over the North Atlantic Ocean along a band running east-northeast from the US east coast. Among major sources of uncertainty identified by Church et al are inadequate distribution of tide gauges particularly in the southern hemisphere, inadequate information on various geophysical signatures in the tide gauge data (e.g. glacial isostatic adjustment and tectonic activity) and relatively short duration of satellite altimetric data. In a series of comprehensive studies Peltier and coworkers (Peltier 1996, 1998, 2001; Douglas & Peltier 2002) have articulated the issue of GIA (Glacial Isostatic Adjustment) which refers to the gradual springing back of the earth’s crust in response to the removal of the ice loads of the LGM which were at their maximum extents around 21000 yr BP. Peltier and his students (University of Toronto Canada) have developed a geophysical computer model which accounts for gravitational interaction between a spherical viscoelastic model of the solid earth and the surface mass load associated with the process of glaciation and deglaciation. This numerical model documents how the GIA is a slow process that decays exponentially at a rate determined by the (earth’s) mantle viscosity. The GIA is still significant in the region around the Gulf of Bothnia (often referred to as Fennoscandia) which was covered with ice to a depth of several kilometers during the LGM and where the relative sea level is currently falling at a rate of 5–10 mm/yr as the land in that region continues to rebound. In another comprehensive study Munk (2002) examines the twentieth century sea-level rise enigma and assesses various geophysical forcing (like earth’s rotation, polar wandering etc) as well as climate forcing (melting of glaciers, thermal expansion of water, El Nino events) on the SLR for the 20th century. Munk concludes that despite large error bars in SLR estimates, the traditional value of 1.5–2 mm/yr seems a reasonable estimate for the 20th century SLR.


RECENT STUDIES
Since the publication of IPCC (2007) climate change documents, several studies have appeared on sea level rise and related issues. A few of the important recent studies are summarized below:

1. Holgate (2007): This study examines nine long and almost continuous sea-level records to obtain SLR estimates for the period 1904–2003. The rate of SLR was found to be larger in the first half of the 20th century (2.03 +/− 0.34 mm/yr 1904–1953) than in the second half of the century (1.45 +/− 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). According to Holgate, the highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centered on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) while the lowest rate of rise occurred in the decade centered on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr).

2. Wunsch et al (2007): This comprehensive study obtains regional estimates of sea level trends using over 100 million data points generated by a 23-layer
general circulation model with a 1° horizontal resolution. The general circulation model uses many different types of data including salinity, sea surface temperature, satellite altimetry and Argo float profiles over a period 1993–2004. The study finds large regional variability, governed by thermal, salinity and mass redistribution contribution. Based on a careful analysis of such a large data base, the authors obtain a global mean value of SLR as 1.6 mm/yr which is about 60% of the pure altimetric estimate of 2.8 mm/yr, as mentioned earlier. The authors also identify several uncertainties and regional variations in the altimetric data and conclude that “it remains possible that the database is insufficient to compute sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of global warming—as disappointing as this conclusion may be”

3. Jevrejeva et al (2008): In this study the authors examine the global sea level acceleration in the context of recent satellite data (TOPEX/Poseidon) and conclude that present sea level acceleration (~0.01mm/yr2) began over 200 years ago. The authors suggest that if this sea level acceleration continues, then a value of 34 cm for the total SLR by the end the 21st century would be expected. The authors further suggest faster sea level rise than IPCC estimates due to thermal inertia of oceans and higher melt rates from Greenland Ice Sheets.


DISCUSSION
Based on various numbers provided in the studies mentioned above, a value for SLR in the range of 1.6–1.8 mm/yr is obtained for the recent fifteen years or so. This value tacitly incorporates the climate-change components, namely the steric rise due to thermal expansion and the eustatic rise due to ice sheet melting. To project future SLR, it is necessary to closely analyze how the earth’s climate may warm in future and how this warming may impact future melting of ice sheets and glaciers. Examination of several recent papers leads to the following discussion:

a. Future steric rise: Three recent papers discuss the issue of climate sensitivity (mean temperature increase for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration) and obtain future temperature increase as just about 1C to 1.5C (Chylek & Lohmann 2008; Lindzen 2007; Schwartz 2007). Chylek & Lohmann consider aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity from LGM to Holocene transition and obtain a range of 1.2C to 2.3C for climate sensitivity. Lindzen analyzes recent mid-tropospheric temperature changes and obtains a value of just 1C for climate sensitivity, while Schwartz analyzes ocean heat capacity and storage and obtains a value of 1.1C for climate sensitivity. These and other related studies (e.g.,Lindzen & Giannistis 2002) suggest the best guess value for climate sensitivity to be about 1.2C (with a 95% confidence range of 0.9C to 2.0C). The mean temperature of upper ocean and the global SST (Sea Surface temperature) distribution is another important parameter in determining the steric component of future SLR. Several recent studies (Lyman et al 2005; Gureteski & Koltermann 2007; Willis et al 2009; Lohle 2009) now suggest no significant warming of the upper ocean in the last few years. The recent study by Lohle (2009) obtains a cooling of upper ocean from 2003 to 2006 by about 0.35 × 1022 J, thus suggesting a decline in ocean heat storage at present. Also the SST profile over global ocean shows a steady decline for the past few years. There is a peak value of SSTs around 1997/98, this peak value being associated with the intense El Nino of 1997 (see Arun Kumar et al 2001). Since about 2005, the SSTs are on a declining path.

According to IPCC projections (Meehl 2007), the thermal expansion will be the largest component of SLR contributing to 230 +/− 100 mm by 2100. Taking into account the declining SSTs and a low value of climate sensitivity as discussed above, the thermal (or the steric) component of future SLR can be estimated to be just about 45% of IPCC projections OR about 100 mm (with a 95% confidence range of 75 to 125 mm). The 95% confidence range is arrived at using Holgate’s (2007) estimate.

b. Future eustatic rise: The issue of melting of mountain glaciers as well as melting of the Greenland Ice Cap and the Antarctic Ice Sheets is once again being debated in news media and also in scientific literature. There have been a number of recent news items about melting of Greenland as well as Antarctic Ice Sheets. These news items together with publication of more recent studies have sparked renewed concern about escalating SLR due to melting of world-wide glaciers and ice sheets. Among several papers published in the last few years, two papers are of interest here. A paper by Raper & Braithwaite (2006) makes a careful assessment of melting of mountain glaciers (outside of Greenland Ice cap & Antarctic Ice Sheets) and obtains a revised estimate of about 50 mm (5 cm) over next 100 years. The most recent paper on glacier melting and SLR is by Bahr et al (2009) and obtains a lower bound of 184 mm (18.4 cm) for SLR due to melting of world’s glaciers and mountain caps, even if the climate does not continue to warm along current trends. Bahr et al use satellite remote sensing technology to obtain AAR (Accumulated Area Ratio) values for a number of glaciers. These AAR values, together with mass balance data for about 86 glaciers allow Bahr et al to obtain a value of 184 mm as the minimum (eustatic) contribution to future SLR. This value (184 mm) appears to be high in light of the reality of climate change over the 20th century as will be demonstrated by the following analyses.

It is now well-established that the Arctic Basin temperature rose sharply in the 1920s and 1930s and the Arctic was at its warmest in 1935/36 during the first half of the twentieth century. A paper by Chylek et al (2005) compares the warming of the Arctic between 1920–1930 and 1995–2005 and demonstrates that the Arctic warmed at a faster rate in the 1920s than in the 1990s and in the first few years of the new millennium. In a related paper Vinther et al (2006) extend Greenland temperature records to 1874 using long-term temperature records from the Danish Meteorological Institute. The paper further documents that the decades 1930s and 1940s were the warmest decades in Greenland and 1941 was the warmest year in the 135-year temperature record of Greenland. In view of these observational studies, it is surmised here that the Arctic glaciers as well as the Greenland Ice Cap may have experienced rapid melting from 1920s through 1940s, but no estimate of any melt rates or of AAR were available due to lack of satellite remote sensing technology in the 1920s and 1930s. The observed worldwide SLR from about 1940 till 2008 is now known to be about 12 cm of which only about 6 to 8 cm rise can be attributed to the possible melting of Greenland Ice Cap together with other Arctic mountain ice caps (see Munk 2002). As for the melting of the Antarctic Ice Sheets, a paper by Zwally et al (2005) provides some guidance. This paper makes a comprehensive assessment of changes in ice mass in Greenland and also in the Antarctic for the period 1992–2002 and obtains a maximum SLR as just about 0.1 mm/yr. In view of more recent studies and news items on ‘rapid melting’ of the Antarctic, an upper bound of 0.5 mm/yr OR a value of 50 mm for the next 100 years can be used as the possible maximum contribution to future SLR due to melting of the Antarctic. When all the above numbers are added, we get a total contribution to the SLR over next 100 years as:

1. steric component: 10 cm +/− 2.5 cm
2. eustatic component: 8 cm (Arctic)+ 5 cm (Antarctic) = 13cm +/− 2.5 cm
Total SLR for next 100 years: 23 cm +/− 5 cm


CONCLUDING REMARKS
The best guess value for SLR for the next 100 years appears to be about 230 mm (23 cm) with a 95% confidence interval of +/−50 mm. In view of cooling of the upper oceans observed in recent years and a possible continued cooling of the earth’s mean temperature over the next decade (e.g., Keenlyside et al 2008), the best guess value of SLR from now until 2025 is estimated to be just about 30 mm with a 95% confidence interval of +/−10 mm. This estimate is significantly lower than the range projected by the IPCC fourth assessment report in 2007. In terms of climate policy, such a value of future sea level rise poses no major threat to the coastal regions or low-lying countries (e.g., Bangladesh, The Maldives, Tuwalu) of the world at present or in the foreseeable future.


REFERENCES
- Arun Kumar, W Wang, M P Hoerling A Leetmaa & M Ji 2001:The sustained North American warming of 1997 and 1998. J of Climate 14 p. 345–353
- Church J A, N J White,R Coleman, K Lambeck & J X Mitrovica: 2004: Estimates of the regional distribution of sea level rise over the 1950–2000 period, J of Climate 17 p. 2609–2625
- Chylek P, M K Dubey & G Lesins: 2006: Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005.Geophysical Research Letters 33 L11707 doi:10.1029/2006GL026510
- Chylek P, M K Dubey and U Lohmann 2008: Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition. Geophysical Research Letters 35 L04804 doi:10.1029/2007GL032759
- Douglas BC and WR Peltier 2002: The puzzle of global sea-level rise. Physics Today March 2002 p. 35–40 American Institute of Physics
- Fleming K, P Johnston, D Zwartz, Y Yokoyama, K Lambeck & J Chappell: 1998: Refining the eustatic sea level curve since the Last Glacial Maxixmum using far- and intermediate-field sites. Earth Planetary Science Letters 163 p. 327–342
- Gouretski V and K P Kolterman 2007: How much is the ocean really warming?, Geophysical Research Letters 34 doi:10.1.029/2006GL027834
- Holgate S J 2007: On the decadal rates of sea level changes during the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters 34 L01602 doi:10.1029/2006GL028492
- Jevrejeva S, J C Moore, A Grinsted & P L Woodworth: 2008: Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago? Geophysical Research Letters 35 L08715 doi:10.1029/2008GL033611
- Keenlyside N S, M Lateef, J Jungclaus, L Kornblueh & E Roechner: 2008: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature 453 p. 84–88 doi:10.1038/nature06921
- Lambeck K 2002: Sea-level change from mid-Holocene to recent time: An Australian example with global implications, Ice Sheets, Sea Level and the Dynamic Earth. Mitrovica & Vermeersen (Eds) Geodynamic Series Vol 29 p. 33–50
- Leuliette E W, R S Nerem & G T Mitchum: 2004: Results of the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 calibration to construct a continuous record of mean sea level, Marine Geodesy 27 p. 79–94
- Lindzen R S 2007: Taking greenhouse warming seriously, Energy & Environment 18 p. 937–950
- Lindzen R S and C Giannitsis 2002: Reconciling observations of global temperature change. Geophysical Research Letters 29 doi:10.1029/2001GL014074
- Lohle C 2009: Cooling of the global ocean since 2003. Energy & Environment 20 p. 99–102
- Lyman J, J Willis & G Johnson: 2005: Recent cooling of the upper ocean, Geophysical Research Letters 33 L18604 doi:10.1029/2006GL027033
- Meehl G A & T F Stocker, Co-ordinating lead authors (plus 80 other authors): 2007: Global Climate Projections. Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science Basis-Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), S Solomon et al(eds) p. 748–845 Cambridge University Press
- Munk W 2002: Twentieth century sea level: An enigma, Proc of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) V 99, p. 6550–6565
- Peltier W R 1996: Global sea level rise and glacial isostatic adjustment: an analysis of data from the eats coast of North America, Geophysical Research Letters 23 p. 717–720.
- Peltier W R 1998: Postglacial variations in the level of sea: implications for climate dynamics and solid earth geophysics, Reviews of Geophysics 36 p. 603–689
- Peltier W R 2001: Global glacial isostatic adjustment and modern instrumental records of relative sea level history, Sea Level Rise: History and Consequences. B C Douglas, M K
- Kearney & S P Leatherman (eds) Academic Press, International Geophysical Series Volume 75, p. 65–95
- Raper S C B and R J Braithwaite 2006: Low sea level rise projections from mountain glaciers and icecaps under global warming, Nature 439 p. 311–313
- Schwartz S E 2007: Heat capacity, time constant and sensitivity of earth’s climate system, J of Geophysical Research 112 D24S05 doi:10.1029/2007JD008746
- Vinther B M, K K Anderson, P D Jones, K R Briffa & J Cappelen: 2006: Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century, J of Geophysical Research 111 D11105 doi:10.1029/2005JD006810
- Willis J K, J M Lyman, G C Johnson & J Gilson 2009: In situ data biases and recent ocean heat content variability. J of Atmospheric & Oceanic Technology 26 p. 846–852
- Wopplemann G, N Pouvreau, A Coulomb, B Simon & P L Woodworth 2008: Tide gauge datum continuity at Brest since 1711: France’s longest sea-level record. Geophysical Research Letters 35 doi:10.1029/2008GL035783
- Wunsch C, R M Ponte & P Heimbach 2007: Decadal trends in sea level patterns: 1993–2004, J of Climate, 20, p. 5889–5911
- Zwally H Jay et al 2005: Mass changes of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and shelves and contribution to sea-level rise: 1992–2002. J. Of Glaciology 51 p. 509–527

 

That is one of the most ridiculous responses I've ever read. LaRouche isn't some hands-off stockholder; he runs the friggen magazine and tells it what to print. What he tells it to print is paranoid conspiracy theories.

Anything you cut and paste from a magazine created for the express purpose of disseminating LaRouche's paranoid conspiracy theories is almost certainly paranoid nonsense, and not worth my time. How you could possibly compare that to a cathouse piano knocking out a little Mozart is beyond me....

And it's funny how awed you are by the scientific credentials of this one yo yo, just because he's saying something you want to hear--especially when you have nothing but contempt for the credentials of all the many scientists who disagree with him.

So I skimmed through it anyway. He says the rest of the scientific world is wrong about the rise in sea level. OK, fine--I choose to believe them, not him. Now what?

 

does this look deceptive to anyone else




cause most graphs are presented in there original form and without being skewed 8° to hide the purpose of the graph, which is to be a visual representation of the data. In this case that data shows a pretty clear rise precisely like what the references I provided show