Climate change made sea levels fall in 2010 and 2011 Global warming and climate change are usually thought to mean that world sea levels will rise, perhaps disastrously. But according to US government boffins, in recent times (2010 and 2011, to be precise) phenomena driven by human carbon emissions have actually caused world sea levels to fall. The seas have, of course, been …
One problem your land area calculation is the land area of all of Australia. That means not all 7mm stayed there, they do have run off(rivers and what not). Also since the oceans have been rising that means more than 7mm had to have gone somewhere else. So where did it go cause it aint in the land of OZ.
Only a little bit around the outside runs off towards the sea. Most Aussie rivers run (when they are not dry) toward the middle because Australia is basically bowl-shaped. The lowest point of the bowl, Lake Eyre, is actually below sea level!
" ,,, while stressing that unusual things do happen - indicated at the time that the devastating Aussie floods were at least in part down to humanity's carbon emissions,"
Yea , well show me your logic and your computations . Otherwise I'll take it as slave talk just placating the mastah state to keep the grants flowing .
Most "climate scientists" so far as I can tell from the blogsphere don't even know how to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball .
Over the past 1.3 million years we've had 13 ice ages, so it's likely we will, sooner or later have another. As that next ice age begins, the sea level will drop (at least it's done that consistently in the past). We also know that there's been a global cooling over the past 10 years, and the Arctic ice extent has grown significantly during 2012, making up for all the ice loss since 2007.
So, why is a dropping sea level now due to human activity rather than merely Mother Nature (aka Climate Change) at work?
Interesting article - however it lost credibility when it said "Australia's dry Outback interior, being ringed to a large extent by coastal mountains...".
Have a look at a topological map of Oz. It has a mountain chain down the east cost, a lumpy area in the north west and a few hills in the south west and that's about it!
Ringed by a coastal mountain chain - NOT!
Lake Eyre is a little below sea level and much of the tropical water winds up in that big salt pan. unfortunately it is drying up again. No flow in 2011. Then there will be the 30 year cycle story of the dying pelicans, and how it is all our fault etc it was distressing in 1976 watching them trying to cross north Oz desert to find fish off north coast, if they could make it. Anyway, storing water in rural areas is now a crime. Greenies think it is important rain is run to sea or inland to the rice and cotton growers in the desert country.
First of all, let me state that yes, I believe we need to take care of the earth. Idiots who dump pollutents into the water and earth should be shot, or given an injection of the junk they are polluting with. We need to plant more trees to help air quality, etc.
However, I also believe that most of the climate change talk has been completely overblown. If someone says the science is done, especially with dealing with such complex and chaotic systems, sorry, but humans are just not that smart. We know a little of how these systems work, but not enough to be able to say one way or the other. It's just not what we do, but also all the other forces of nature and the cosmos acting on the planet. You dont' know how things will react.
I am all for new energy sources that reduce pollution, however, promote them when they are ready for prime time, ie. low cost and high output.
Just my opinion.
During the Cretaceous (many millions of years before the industrial revolution) Australia had a large inland sea (the Eromanga Sea) so it strikes me as odd that the climate scientists would now say that the rain we got in 2010 / 2011 (which only managed to temporarily fill Lake Eyre - something they know has been happening on and off since the Eromanga Sea disappeared) is a direct result of human activity.
Before you label me a climate change denier, please know that I do believe the climate is changing (as it always has), but I also believe that instead of focusing on CO2 (which is a necessary for all life on earth), we should be focusing on all the crap that is actually toxic which we continue to pollute the planet with.
Why didn't the "climate change scientists" just do the same thing that they have always done - throw out the ACTUAL dataset, then comprise their own set using selective filtering and/or flat out lies, reverse their original statements, blame everything on man, and then proclaim that they were right all along?
Since the last ice age that ended 10,000 years ago the oceans have risen over 500 feet. The small island in the pacific was just evacuated. Diving in the ocean by the island they found a cave 80 feet down with soot on the ceiling showing people lived in the cave. Thus the oceans have risen 80-90 ft over the past 2,000 years. This happened before factories
people .. you really need to read the newer studies .. and understand a computer model is not a study of fact based on observation .. yes .. the world warmed between 1910 and 1940 .. 30 years in a more steady manner .. and to a greater degree than from 1980 to present .. then it cooled from 1940 to 1976 or so .. not steadily .. but from 1934 to 1939 there was no arguably warmer years until 1998 and 2010.. you get a quick 0.2C rise from about 1976 to 1980 .. and we have James Hansen in 1981 publish his paper theorizing man generated CO2 would cause dangerous global warming with the projections based on certain assumptions used in his and everyone else's computer models .. in 1979 we start to get accurate world temperature reading from NASA satellites ..
taking either the 1980 temp at baseline .. or the 1981-2010 average .. the same as 1980 .. the current rolling 13 month average is 0.24C warmer over 30 years .. July 2013 was 0.17C warmer .. so on a linear basis .. which I know the warming alarmists prefer ( cause it was cooler from 1980 to 1997 which means there has been no 20 year warming trend at all since 1940 ) .. we've warmed 0.08 degrees per decade .. well within even Hansen's narrow band of natural variability .. and well below ALL the projections of temperature rise .. even those that presumed humans would stop increasing emissions by 2000 or earlier
observation .. the only valid way to test theory .. has shown Hansen's and IPCC projections to be wrong .. so wrong it would be statistically impossible for them to come true by 2050 .. or 2100
that man's land use has contributed to some of the warming is clear .. we modified over 40% of the land below timberline .. we know that our aerosols cool the atmosphere .. that our black soot is more responsible for arctic ice melt than air temperature .. we just had the least days of over -1.8C temp ( sea ice freeze temp ) in the arctic since those records were kept .. 1954 .. the current temp is at least 3 weeks earlier than normal ..
so the point is not that Australia happened to get soaked .. it's that the warmer air world wide holds more moisture ..which has resulted in the last 4 years .. with increased precipitation .. snow and rain .. that so much happened to fall in Australia is interesting .. but it's more likely the large .. sometime record snowfalls in the north US .. Canada .. Russia .. that are locking up that ocean water .. and some portion of the equally heavy rains and cool weather this spring found it's way to depleted aquifers .. it's also possible the oceans will cool because of significantly lower solar activity .. lowest in 50 years for sure .. maybe 200 years .. this will take a while .. or it may be having an effect already .. measuring *average* sea level accurately is extraordinarily difficult considering all the other factors determining sea level in a particular place .. 1m swells .. 3m tides .. wind and ocean current temperature effects on a region make it hard to buy a 5mm accuracy on sea level over the entire world
the ocean levels contract because there is more moisture locked up in snowpack .. despite the concensus media .. the greenland ice sheet has grown by an average of 2" / 5mm a year since 1992 .. and no one is certain which way it went from 1961 to 1991 from the few stations on the island .. so the warming alarmists can wring there hands about a *record* summer melt of 0.5" .. they ignore the fact that the warmer arctic air is increasing snow fall resulting in a 2" net gain each year ..
"taking either the 1980 temp at baseline .. or the 1981-2010 average .. the same as 1980 .. the current rolling 13 month average is 0.24C warmer over 30 years July 2013 was 0.17C warmer .. so on a linear basis .. which I know the warming alarmists prefer ( cause it was cooler from 1980 to 1997 which means there has been no 20 year warming trend at all since 1940 ) .. we've warmed 0.08 degrees per decade"
Uh that makes no sense. If 2013 is 0.24C warmer than the 1981-2010 average that doesn't mean 0.24C warming since 1980. It means 0.24C warmer than the 1981-2010 average.
The data you are using shows 0.14C/decade warming since 1980. Almost twice what you calculated.
NomNomNom ... let me help you here .. the 1980 temperature was the same as the 1981 to 2010 average ..
the smoothed rolling average on January 1980 was zero difference from the 1981 to 2010 average
the smoothed rolling average on January 2013 was 0.24C higher than the 1981 to 2010 average
0.24C divided by 33 years = 0.00728C rise per year average = 0.073 rise per decade ..
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2013_v5.6.png
http://aqua.nasa.gov/about/team_spencer.php
yes .. if one starts from the June 1979 data point .. which was nearly 0.2C below 1980 to 1981 .. that is correct .. and clearly stated that I was starting on that zero point year ..
regardless .. the 73 climate models used by self designated climate scientists don't stand up over the 33 years of observation ..
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
or I bet you think ocean temperatures are rising ..
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/global-microwave-sst-update-for-may-2013-0-01-deg-c/
read the whole site .. at least get the informed opinion of a degreed atmospheric scientist with a PhD in meteorology .. a former Senior Scientist of Climate Studies at NASA .. and with Dr. Christy .. the guy that analyses all of the NASA satellite date related to the atmosphere ..
and stop hanging around Gavin Schmidt's RealClimate blog network .. that guy won't even take questions from Spencer when they are in the same studio ..
So again it is change that proves MMCC? Not the change predicted but just change. Not forgetting that change is normal and is always happening.
Yet again we have a wonderful demonstration that we cannot disprove MMCC (nor can we disprove god) but everything no matter how wrong to the prediction is proof.
@nom
"Uh they didn't claim it proves MMCC (manmade climate change). You are the one who seems to have come up with that idea."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted from the article- 'phenomena driven by human carbon emissions have actually caused world sea levels to fall.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Funny, plenty of commentators regularly claim it has been disproved!"
Hence the mocking believers get for moving the goal posts every time they are wrong. Being proven wrong is not a bad thing in science. Being proven wrong yet claiming that right or wrong you are still right is religion.
@nom
"No-one is wrong here except you. You imagine sea level falling disproves MMCC but you don't even understand what's happened. Sea level continues to rise, just as expected from a warming world."
You are the one who is wrong. You dont even know what I believe (no matter how many times you read it). I never said sea level falling disproves MMCC. It does however show that the scientists dont actually know yet and that the people claiming to know and have the answers a lying or really that stupid.
The existence of CC is accepted and proven. The existence of MMCC is somewhat demonstrated as a general 'we can in some cases modify the climate in various ways'. The religion MMCC co2 theory (which you regularly push) and sometimes mistaken as MMCC by the unknowing is an unproven theory due to the large complexity of variables and interaction and generally leads to followers ignoring pollution in favour of CO2.
This article just goes to prove that the more "scientists" know about the weather, the more it proves they know NOTHING.
Global weather and sea levels have been changing for BEELINONS of years, long before man walked the earth. (Or was Noah's smoking the cause of the great flood?)
NOBODY can PROVE CONCLUSIVELY that mankind affects the weather and the more scientific instruments "scientists" have, the more wild (and incorrect) their predictions get.
"It's getting hotter"
"It's getting colder"
"Sea levels will rise"
"Sea levels are going down".
It's all B****CKS!
Bullocks...there is NO such thing as Carbon climate forcing, NO such thing as 'sustainable' energy and NO such thing as 'peak' oil. This trifecta of TAXPAYER FUNDED, elitist selected FRAUDS are described in "Becoming A TOTAL Earth Science Skeptic" and the bigger set of LIES including faux history are described in "Fractional Reserve Banking Begat Faux Reality".
We have been lied to about everything, and Clima-clownology is over-funded, under educated Alchemy. Demand a Modern Magna Carta. Find and share Truth...it is your duty as an Earthling.
According to S J Holgate, a recognised world authority in geophysical research at the UK-based Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory in Liverpool, in his paper published in 2007, the following results represent the most comprehensive measurements of decadal sea-level change rates during the 20th century.
“Between 1904 and 1953 global sea levels rose by 2.03 mm per year, whereas from 1954 to 2003 they rose by only 1.45 mm per year, giving an annual mean rate of 1.74 mm per year over the 100 years to 2003, or seven inches per century. Importantly, there was no increase in the rate of change over the whole century.
The point of the journal article was to show that global changes in sea level do not proceed smoothly and that there are periods of higher rates of increase along with periods of lower, or even occasional negative change. The paper also shows that the global average sea level has been rising for more than a century, and continues to rise. Sea levels that coastal dwellers experience is affected by local land movements. These movements include the recovery of the Earth’s surface from the deforming weight of ice sheets during the last Ice Age, subsidence due to water extraction, earthquakes and regional plate tectonics. These effects are carefully taken into account when we calculate the global and regional sea-level changes, but these effects may add or subtract from the relative sea level experienced at the coast.”
Even if you are not a scientist you can draw your own conclusions from the above; I certainly have, and they confirm to me that there is no sign of man-made global warming in the observed sea level rise data to date.
So, Holgate used consistent measurement throughout the whole 100 year observation period, thereby providing a trend analysis not available from recent satellite - you can't just tack a new measurement onto an old! Methodology is all important with empirical data - comparing like with like - if you are to draw meaningful conclusions, and in Holgate's peer reviewed paper there is absolutely no indication of temperature acceleration, so no indication of global warming QED.
"so no indication of global warming"
Uhh. We have global temperature records that show the world has warmed.
We don't need to use sea level records to show that, although they do too.
Sea level rise is faster in the recent decades.
See
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/dont-estimate-acceleration-by-fitting-a-quadratic/
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
