"Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of sea water as it warms. The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites."

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/seal-level-sat-oct2017.png

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

The graph is from Watts, the original is at the NASA site in the URL.

The sea level appears to be stable or maybe even falling.

So what would be the cause? Lower global sea temperatures, increasing ice sheets?

that's the way Lee, ignore the 15 yr+ trend of increases in sea levels on your graph and concentrate on the low point. That's bound to help you

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 2:25pm:

that's the way Lee, ignore the 15 yr+ trend of increases in sea levels on your graph and concentrate on the low point.

So being the technically minded person you are; explain how these record global temperatures have resulted in a static sea level.

NASA believes implicitly in the satellite data. Of course Jason 2, 3 have resolution of about 3cm. Although NASA says 4-5cm.

"Sea surface height accuracy is currently 3.4 centimetres, with 2.5 expected in the future."

https://www.eumetsat.int/jason/print.htm

"From its vantage point 1336 kilometers (830 miles) above the Earth, the US/European Jason-1 and OSTM/Jason-2 ocean altimeter satellites measure the height of the ocean surface directly underneath the satellite with an accuracy of 4-5 centimeters (better than 2 inches). "

https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/

So the SLR, from looking at the graph, is about 85mm (8.5cm) +/-4-5cm.

Then the graph claims the rise as 3.4mm/year. 22years at 3.4mm is 74.8mm.

22 years at 4cm, the lower edge of the NASA band is 88cm.

The readings are entirely in the error band.

I look forward to your explanation.

John Smith wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 2:25pm:

that's the way Lee, ignore the 15 yr+ trend of increases in sea levels on your graph and concentrate on the low point. That's bound to help you :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

It's called cherry picking.
It's one of the most obviously dishonest tactics used by deniers

Global warming is all about trends over the long term. There is always going to be short term aberrations (called noise) due to the size and complexity of the climate system.

That's why climate is considered to be over at least 30 years. That is a long enough time to smooth out any short term fluctuations. Of course the deniers ignore all  the data showing sea levels rising and cherry pick a couple of years where it is stable.

Even more dishonestly, lee then tries to draw a false dichotomy between air temperature and ocean temperature (ie sea level rise). Of course lee is smart enough to know he is being fraudulent.

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 10:28am:

Even more dishonestly, lee then tries to draw a false dichotomy between air temperature and ocean temperature (ie sea level rise). Of course lee is smart enough to know he is being fraudulent.

So show us this accelerated sea level rise.
Try Fort Denison (Sydney)

http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLI.png

The text file is here -
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.txt

lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 12:02pm:

So show us this accelerated sea level rise. Try Fort Denison (Sydney)

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You do realise that the scale in your graph is METRES. That's almost as funny as your "No big spike at Agincourt Reef" claim in the Reef thread. If you are going to try and deceive me you are going to have to do better than use graphs with meaningless scales.

But despite the scale of your graph you can definitely see a rising of sea level, especially since 2000. The green line starts below 1 metre but by the present day has climbed over 1 metre. It's even more apparent in the blue line.

Another own goal by lee and further proof that Tony Abbott was talking bollocks

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 9:34am:

You do realise that the scale in your graph is METRES.

Yes. Did you look at the data?


The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 9:34am:

But despite the scale of your graph you can definitely see a rising of sea level, especially since 2000

Well. take out the El Nino/la Nina effect, take out storm surges, take out King tides
The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 9:34am:

The green line starts below 1 metre but by the present day has climbed over 1 metre.

Very good. And yet about 2008 appears higher than 2017. Is sea level  going down?


The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 9:34am:

It's even more apparent in the blue line.

And of course Mean Sea Level is taken at low tide. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Did you see the spike in 2000?

That is why Mean Sea Level is so hard to determine. Actually for the globe it is impossible.

But I will leave you with your fantasies.

Edit: BTW- Did you actually read what I wrote in the Fort Denison post? I'll remind you.


lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 12:02pm:

So show us this accelerated sea level rise.

lee wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 3:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 2:25pm: that's the way Lee, ignore the 15 yr+ trend of increases in sea levels on your graph and concentrate on the low point. So being the technically minded person you are; explain how these record global temperatures have resulted in a static sea level.

lee you do realise that ocean temperatures and air temperatures are different don't you? And that oceans are significantly slower to warm than air is.
Of course you knew that.   ;D ;D ;D


lee wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 11:55am:

Very good. And yet about 2008 appears higher than 2017. Is sea level  going down?

More cherry picking of data you just can't help yourself.  ;D ;D
The individual spikes are meaningless, you would have to be an idiot to rely on those. The important thing is the rolling average, and your graphs clearly show (despite the ridiculous scale) that sea levels are rising.

Seriously lee. Do you actually believe the crap that you post? Or do you deliberately post it to try and deceive those who arn't scientifically minded?

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 12:06pm:

lee you do realise that ocean temperatures and air temperatures are different don't you? And that oceans are significantly slower to warm than air is. Of course you knew that.

And Air temperatures will have no effect on sea ice, and ocean temperatures, which are above freezing point, will also have no effect? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

All that melting sea ice and how much sea level rise?


The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 12:06pm:

The important thing is the rolling average, and your graphs clearly show (despite the ridiculous scale) that sea levels are rising.

And yet I didn't say they weren't. I clearly said accelerating sea level rise.


The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 12:06pm:

Or do you deliberately post it to try and deceive those who arn't scientifically minded?

You mean people like you who can't even seem to understand primary school English?

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 21^st, 2017 at 10:28am:

John Smith wrote on Oct 18th, 2017 at 2:25pm: that's the way Lee, ignore the 15 yr+ trend of increases in sea levels on your graph and concentrate on the low point. That's bound to help you :D :D :D :D :D :D :D It's called cherry picking. It's one of the most obviously dishonest tactics used by deniers Global warming is all about trends over the long term. There is always going to be short term aberrations (called noise) due to the size and complexity of the climate system. That's why climate is considered to be over at least 30 years. That is a long enough time to smooth out any short term fluctuations. Of course the deniers ignore all  the data showing sea levels rising and cherry pick a couple of years where it is stable. Even more dishonestly, lee then tries to draw a false dichotomy between air temperature and ocean temperature (ie sea level rise). Of course lee is smart enough to know he is being fraudulent.

Sea levels will rise and fall in accordance with the Earth's NATURAL cycles.

And NOT because of man's CO2 emissions which are so small they are negligible.


Quote:

The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. Christopher Booker 6:25PM GMT 28 Mar 2009 If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe. Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish. But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story. Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Quote:

Compelling reading here. Interview with Dr.Nils-Axel Morner - this guy wrote the laws about tides. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

lee wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 1:12pm:

And Air temperatures will have no effect on sea ice, and ocean temperatures, which are above freezing point, will also have no effect? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D All that melting sea ice and how much sea level rise?

More diversionary tactics. You do know that sea ice has no effect on sea level rise don't you. Of course you do. But you are scrambling here. Your OP has been shown to be flawed


lee wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 1:12pm:

And yet I didn't say they weren't. I clearly said accelerating sea level rise.

Which has zero relevance to the point you were trying to make in your OP

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 2:01pm:

You do know that sea ice has no effect on sea level rise don't you

yes. It is good to see you awake.




The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 2:01pm:

Which has zero relevance to the point you were trying to make in your OP

Oh. You were talking about Fort Denison and now you are going back further. Just make the two different posts one and the same. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Do you now want to talk about he satellite accuracy? ;)

lee wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 3:08pm:

So being the technically minded person you are; explain how these record global temperatures have resulted in a static sea level.

air temperatures and ocean temperatures

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Priceless

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 2:17pm:

air temperatures and ocean temperatures Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Priceless

lee wrote on Oct 18^th, 2017 at 1:31pm:

"Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of sea water as it warms. The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites."

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Yep. They both have an effect. Surely you realised that? ;)

lee wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 2:12pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 22nd, 2017 at 2:01pm: You do know that sea ice has no effect on sea level rise don't you yes. It is good to see you awake.

Your childish pathetic little "trap" is noted.


lee wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 2:25pm:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ Yep. They both have an effect. Surely you realised that? ;)

And you know that ocean warming isn't immediate. Which was the whole flaw in your OP. Surely you realise that?

Your last few posts are just confirmation that you are trolling and wasting my time. Grow up lee.

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 3:22pm:

And you know that ocean warming isn't immediate. Which was the whole flaw in your OP. Surely you realise that?

So we have had about 40 years of AGW and it hasn't become apparent yet?  O-o-o -kay.

Or it was apparent when the sea level was supposed to have accelerated and it has now stopped waiting for the temperature to catch up?

lee wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 1:12pm:

And yet I didn't say they weren't. I clearly said accelerating sea level rise.

I think I posted yesterday from the raw data you can see that 17 of the last 20 months the mean was over 2.0 mtrs from the first 20 months 4 were over 2.0 mtrs.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 4:21pm:

I think I posted yesterday from the raw data you can see that 17 of the last 20 months the mean was over 2.0 mtrs from the first 20 months 4 were over 2.0 mtrs.

If this is Fort Denison, you are wrong.
Mth  Year        Mean
9      2015      0.969
10      2015      0.91
11      2015      0.948
12      2015      0.958
1      2016      0.961
2      2016      1.005
3      2016      1.005
4      2016      1.03
5      2016      1.146
6      2016      1.121
7      2016      1.094
8      2016      1.015
9      2016      1.039
10      2016      1.07
11      2016      1.06
12      2016      1.012
1      2017      1.057
2      2017      1.071
3      2017      1.011
4      2017      1.047
5      2017      1.089
6      2017      1.031

lee wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 4:48pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 22nd, 2017 at 4:21pm: I think I posted yesterday from the raw data you can see that 17 of the last 20 months the mean was over 2.0 mtrs from the first 20 months 4 were over 2.0 mtrs. If this is Fort Denison, you are wrong. Mth  Year        Mean 9      2015      0.969 10      2015      0.91 11      2015      0.948 12      2015      0.958 1      2016      0.961 2      2016      1.005 3      2016      1.005 4      2016      1.03 5      2016      1.146 6      2016      1.121 7      2016      1.094 8      2016      1.015 9      2016      1.039 10      2016      1.07 11      2016      1.06 12      2016      1.012 1      2017      1.057 2      2017      1.071 3      2017      1.011 4      2017      1.047 5      2017      1.089 6      2017      1.031

You know that your list of 20 readings has 22 records ? Take away the top two and post the first 20 and you will see that what I said was correct.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 4:51pm:

You know that your list of 20 readings has 22 records ?

And NONE over 2.0 metres.

lee wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 4:53pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 22nd, 2017 at 4:51pm: You know that your list of 20 readings has 22 records ? And NONE over 2.0 metres.

OK I remembered wrong - it should have been over 1 mtr. but the result is the same and does not look good for the there is no increase or acceleration arguers.

We have gone from mean monthly tides at Fort Denison seldom being over a metre to mean monthly tides at Fort Denison seldom being under a metre.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 6:49pm:

OK I remembered wrong - it should have been over 1 mtr. but the result is the same and does not look good for the there is no increase or acceleration arguers. We have gone from mean monthly tides at Fort Denison seldom being over a metre to mean monthly tides at Fort Denison seldom being under a metre.

And yet it flies in the face of the global data.

There are so many things affecting mean sea level height. ;)

lee wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 7:28pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 22nd, 2017 at 6:49pm: OK I remembered wrong - it should have been over 1 mtr. but the result is the same and does not look good for the there is no increase or acceleration arguers. We have gone from mean monthly tides at Fort Denison seldom being over a metre to mean monthly tides at Fort Denison seldom being under a metre. And yet it flies in the face of the global data. There are so many things affecting mean sea level height. ;)

It is the example that you chose to look at.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 7:33pm:

It is the example that you chose to look at.

Only the last 20 months? Did I?

lee wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 7:39pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 22nd, 2017 at 7:33pm: It is the example that you chose to look at. Only the last 20 months? Did I?

Sorry I thought by global you meant outside of Fort Dennison. I chose 20 just for convenience, it was that or 50 just to see some comparisons.

The last 50 average 1.02 M.
The Last 100 average 0.961.

The first 50 were 0.93
50 from the 1930's were 0.90
1950's 0.913
1960's 0.942
etc.

No matter how you look at it the trend is upwards and it likely went up at Manly too.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 8:36pm:

Sorry I thought by global you meant outside of Fort Dennison.

Well in that case in seems to have peaked in mid - 2016.


Dnarever wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2017 at 8:36pm:

The last 50 average 1.02 M. The Last 100 average 0.961. The first 50 were 0.93 50 from the 1930's were 0.90 1950's 0.913 1960's 0.942 etc. No matter how you look at it the trend is upwards and it likely went up at Manly too.

And in that 100 odd years have they changed equipment? Greater accuracy?