Forecasts
of a coming climate change crisis, and predictions of a sea level rise
acceleration crisis, are both wild guess computer game speculations,
ignoring the scientific method.
Sea level rise is potentially
the most important effect of global warming.. The global mean sea level
has been rising since the great land ice-age glaciers began to melt
about 20,000 years ago. A network of tide gauges has been in place since
about 1900, and the accepted sea level global average rise since then
is about six to eight inches.
I say "about" because tide gauges
are often sited on coasts that may be geologically moving up or down,
which has nothing to do with recent climate change. The main cause of
these movements is the geologically recent release of the burden of
holding miles-thick ice glaciers, that covered much of our hemisphere
20,000 years ago:
These
glaciers were up to two miles thick in places as far south as what is
now Chicago. Their weight depressed the surface while the margins around
the ice rose. It’s like what a couch looks like after you’ve been
sitting on it—it takes time for the foam in the cushions to resume the
original shape after you get up.
Much of the part of North
America that was under the glacier's ice mass is still rising, while the
land on the edges of those glaciers, which bulged upward, is still
falling. The fall is especially large along the U.S. east coast, where
the land's downward movement movement roughly doubles the apparent sea
level rise.
The main causes of the sea level rise in the past
20,000 years rise are net ice loss from non-polar glaciers, and, to a
lesser extent, from Greenland, along with a tiny contribution from
Antarctica. There’s also a thermal expansion of the ocean caused by
gradually rising surface temperatures. But previous estimates for these
figures never seemed to add up to the generally accepted seven inches.
A
study published in Nature last month by CalTech’s Thomas Frederikse,
and an international team of 10 co-authors, was titled: “The causes of
sea-level rise since 1900". It says the non-polar glacial melting
contribution has been about + 2 inches from Greenland’s ice loss,
plus about +0.5 inches from Antarctica ice loss. Plus thermal expansion
of the seas from global warming, which adds about +2.5 inches. These add
up to about +5 inches, and explains most of the +7 inches of sea level
rise since 1900.
They estimate that thermal expansion in the last
quarter-century (1993-2018) has approximately doubled, compared to the
entire 1900-2018 period, and the contribution from Greenland has gone up
by nearly 50 percent. Greenland glacier melting added only about +0.6
inches of sea level rise since 1993, while Antarctica ice melting,
mainly local glacier edge warming near underwater volcanoes, contributed
a quarter-inch since then.
Meanwhile, the latest pronouncement
from the United Nations forecasts a median 21st century rise of nearly
+22 inches! But there’s only been a +2.5-inch rise in the first 20
years of the century, since 2000. ... + 22 inches -- looks like yet another
wrong scary climate forecast !
The current generation of climate
models, with one exception, dramatically overestimates the amount of
tropical warming at altitude, measured since global satellite data
became available in 1979. The one model that seems accurate is the
Russian INM-CM. The older INM-CM4 version had the least warming
predicted of all 102 computer game (climate model) simulations. Its
successor, INM-CM6, recently estimated +1.8⁰ C. of global warming per
CO2 doubling -- near the lower range of the wild guessed +1.5 to +4.5
degrees C. range per CO2 level doubling, first publicized in the 1979
Charney Report, and used by the United Nations' IPCC since it was formed
in 1988.
If we attribute ALL of the global warming since 1975 to
greenhouse-gas emissions, with no proof CO2 caused any of that, we
should see about +1 C. to +1.5 degrees C. more global warming for the
remainder of this century... if the newest version of the Russian model
is right. That’s similar to the observed warming from 1900 to 2000. So
the Russian forecast is simply 'more of the same'. That would not
scare anyone, so the Russian model is ignored, except to bury it within a
group of over 40 other models, with all the others making grossly
inaccurate climate predictions. Predicting too much warming, and
becoming even LESS accurate over the decades!
The news about past
sea level rise supports my confidence that future sea level rise will
remain slow, and harmless. Tide gauges at geologically stable Newlyn,
England, for example, show a century long increase in sea levels of only
1.8 mm per year (7 inches per century).
Satellites
are better for measuring the greenhouse effect on the global average
temperature, because that effect happens in the troposphere where the
satellites are located. The troposphere is a very consistent environment
where the satellites have near global coverage, unlike surface
temperature measurements, in an ever changing environment, with lots of
areas having no thermometers at all ... so those "numbers" are wild
guessed by government bureaucrats (aka "infilled"). Bureaucrats who want
to see lots of global warming ... which is what they had predicted for
decades. Surface temperature "data" do show more global warming than
satellite data, so satellite data are completely ignored ... just like
the Joe Biden scandals!
I have very strong doubts that satellites
can accurately measure a constantly moving sea surface, to the nearest
millimeter, from up in the troposphere. Those questionable satellite
data show a global short-term sea level rise of +3.8 mm per year (15
inches per century) -- a lot faster sea level rise than tide gauges. The
explanation is unknown, and climate alarmists don't care why -- they
love having sea level rise "accelerate", from the new satellite
measurement methodology, so the higher satellites numbers just have to
be right !
A June 1, 2020 paper in the Journal of Ocean
Engineering and Science was titled “Absolute and relative sea-level rise
in the New York City area by measurements from tide gauges and
satellite global positioning system” (GPS). It's a short term record
using GPS to measure the geological stability of the land that tide
gauges are mounted on.
There is one long term (since 1856) tide
gauge on the southern tip of Manhattan. It shows no acceleration of sea
level rise that could be attributed to global warming (from melting land
based glaciers on our planet). In fact, the Battery of Manhattan,
where that gauge is located, is sinking, most likely from groundwater
withdrawal and the huge weight of the Manhattan buildings. That alone
makes the sea level appear to be rising (relative to the land). Even
including the ground sinking,which the tide gauge is mounted on, the
measured sea level rise does not correlate with atmospheric carbon
dioxide. NOAA (U.S. Commerce Department) and other organizations
claiming a strong acceleration in sea-level rise are deceiving the
public.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=8518750
The
June 2020 study authors looked at tide gauge records and geological
stability of 33 locations from Trois-Rivieres (Quebec) Canada in the
North, to Key West Florida in the South. Their conclusions:
“Thus, in the New York City area, the likely absolute SLR (Sea Level
Rise) is about 0.7 to 1.0 mm/yr., the likely relative sea-level
acceleration is about +0.008 mm/yr2, ... "
"As the relative SLR,
that is the result of the land and sea components, has negligible
acceleration in the long-term-trend tide gauge at Battery Park, this is
an indication that both land subsidence, and absolute sea-level rise,
have been stable over the period of observation. ... This result is
confirmed by the 32 other long-term trend stations along the East Coast
of North America in addition to Battery Park. The average relative rate
of rise is 2.22 mm/yr. subjected to a small, positive acceleration of
+0.0027 mm/yr2."
“Differentiating in between Canadian and US
stations, the average relative rate of rise of the 11 stations in Canada
is 0.61 mm/yr. subjected to a negative acceleration of -0.0133 mm/yr2
while the average relative rate of rise of the 22 stations of the US is
3.02 mm/yr. subjected to a positive acceleration of 0.0108 mm/yr2. ...
Excessive groundwater withdrawal-induced subsidence (land sinking) that
is much stronger for the East coast of the US than Canada, is likely
responsible for most of the difference, with different circulations
patterns and other phenomena accounting for the rest. ... Ocean and
coastal management should be based on proven sea level data and not on
speculations by un-validated models."