back to article 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 …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Volker Hett


    so this must be Australia here at the north sea where the recently rebuilt dykes barely helped against last years floods.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's kind of funny, because a changing climate has been, and is, the norm. We arrogant humans think we can keep the weather static to fit our cities, which is clearly crazy.

    Well, at least now, maybe the climate alarmists might acknowledge how little we know about what happens and the underlying causes.

    1. Seanie Ryan
      Black Helicopters

      plus 10000

      couldnt agree more.

      The planet is being.... shock ..... A PLANET

      evolving, adapting.

      unfortunately, the alarmists will not acknowledge anything as they are so blinkered and arrogant that they would not even CONSIDER that there might be more to it,

      plus if they give up their cause, who will give them the Grants to perform another study on a select 5 years of the few billion the planet has been here, and think they have an accurate result.

      its all nonsense.

      1. lost

        Re: plus 10000

        You do know that the Sahara was caused by global warming right?

      2. NomNomNom

        Re: plus 10000

        Yeah sure, nothing to see here

    2. Leslie Graham

      There is absolutely nothing 'normal' about the global climate changing 100 times faster than at any time in Earth's history outside of a meteor hit.

      And just so as you know - the icredible floodsin Australia (I was there) that led to the appearance of an 'inland sea' have now drained back into the oceans and the rise is now back above trend at 3.17mm per year while the level itself is at an all time high - and rising.

      This is old news anyway - this story broke well over a year ago.

  3. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. SoaG

      Re: I'm sure that there'l be a variety of amusing commentary here ...

      "66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW...0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."

      The most surprising part of that survey of papers was that, (despite all the vitriol, fraud and grandstanding on both sides) a majority of 66.7% are still possibly interested in science rather than one political agenda or another.

      1. Leslie Graham

        Re: I'm sure that there'l be a variety of amusing commentary here ...

        Yes - 66% of people writing about gravity wouldn't say they believe gravity exists either.

        What's your point?

        Almost every paper that did express a view concurred with the consensus though.

        The denial industry might have one or two memes that sound convincing but on this issue they just sound desperate - insane almost.

        There is a near unanimous consensus of evidence ( not opinions you'll notice) that the Earth is warming and that the 40% increase in the atmospheric concentrations of a known greenhouse gas is the primary cause.

        That is a simple proven fact.

        Get used to it.

        1. Matthew 3

          Re: I'm sure that there'l be a variety of amusing commentary here ...

          "near unanimous" sounds a bit unequivocal if you're going to use that as your justification for the words "simple proven fact".

          1. BoldMan

            Re: I'm sure that there'l be a variety of amusing commentary here ...

            Do I need to say this again? Science isn't a democracy or a popularity contest! Science is about understanding reality and if reality doesn't match your theories, it doesn't matter HOW many say black is white, black will still be black!

        2. Pat 4

          Re: I'm sure that there'l be a variety of amusing commentary here ...

          "That is a simple proven fact."

          No, it's not.

          And not one single scientist on the planet will call it "a fact".

          It is a theory, supported by a very large body of circumstantial evidence.

          You can scream, cry and cll people names until you are blue in the face. But calling it "fact" makes you either ignorant or a liar.

        3. Tom 13

          @Leslie Graham

          The appeal to authority has never been the method of science. As I recall it was the method of a major world religion that put a few well known scientists on the rack.

    2. Leslie Graham

      Re: I'm sure that there'l be a variety of amusing commentary here ...

      There have been FIVE major studies and surveys of the literature in the last decade and every sinlg eone of them shows the same figure of around 97% to 99%.

      No sane person pretends there is no consensus. In fact no-one ever did until the carbon corporations were advised to "always attack the consensus" by Frank Luntz - the top spin doctor in the world at the time.

      Incidentily, Frank Luntz now says he deeply regrets helping the denial industry and accepts what the science is showing us.

  4. nsld


    This man made climate change which is making our oceans rise and means we will all be underwater shortly is also responsible for making the ocean levels fall meaning we wont be under water as rapidly as the doom mongers suggest?

    The hippies are not going to like that, its enough to put them off there organic soya milk decaff latte's.

    Whichever way it goes I am sure the government of the day will find a way of taxing us to help solve the problem.

    1. Shane 4

      Re: So

      But you would have to be an even bigger fool to think that humanity is not having an impact, All you need to do is look at a satellite image(night time shot even better) of our impact on this planet! Not much habitat left for anything else but us.

      Also while some of you laugh and snigger at people who at least raise a concern, You or someone you know will get cancer at some point in life from all that shit we put into atmosphere, All the chemicals we dump into water and all the artificial stuff we put into food, Along with sedentary lifestyles.

      There is absolutely no question we are having an impact, I think most scientists now agree on that part, The only question is how much are we responsible for, Is it substantial or is it insignificant.

      EVERYTHING is linked in some way, Humanity is not separate, Some may like to think we are the all singing and all dancing crap of the world but when the Earth sneezes we all know about it. ;)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So

        3 things: 1 cancer is not new, been around as long as life has been. 2 the climate scientist have no clue what is going on and 3 the planet has been warming since the last ice age and as more time goes by the planet will warm faster.

        1. Philip Lewis

          Re: So

          "3 the planet has been warming since the last ice age and as more time goes by the planet will warm faster."

          Unless of course the suns goes quiet for long enough to kick start the next ice age. We seem to be due one about now.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: So

          Until the circumpolar antarctic current is disrupted and/or the north polar ocean opened we'll keep seeing ice ages.

          We're in an interglacial right now, but there will be ice over europe and north america again. It's just a matter of when.

          In past interglacials, antarctica and greenland have nearly completely thawed out. The unusual thing at the moment is the CO2 spike and that things are progressing faster than "usual". Overall it's not too much of a problem, other than that a substantial rise in ocean levels will inundate the low-laying areas where 90+% of the human population and cities are.. It's happened before and it will happen again.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So

        Most people prefer not to consider that flooding has been going on since forever. Doggerland sank what, 7000 years ago?

        If the objective is to reduce the sea levels to prevent us all from drowning why not sponsor a massive scale building program of desalination plants to drive an irrigation program across africia? It's technologically possible, and more useful than trading carbon credits.

        If the objective is to reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then why not start dumping money into artificial photosynthesis development and use instead of offering taxpayers money up to convert coal plants to burn wood? (yeah, I mean, that's doing a lot to help reduce emissions, but it's renewable!)

        One could easily conclude that climate change is more about politics than actually addressing changes in the environment.

    2. Belardi

      Re: So

      Er... no.

      Most scientist, who knows FAR more than you - all say the same thing based on research. Its science that allows the computer you just used to type your message.

      The only scientist who say "there is no climate change" are in the back pockets of Koch Brothers and other oil companies. So please, for your position, please share us the GOOD things about pollution.

      - What taxes do you think are going to be effected?

      - Do you know your taxes pays for the very things YOU / WE use? Next time you drive your car on a public road, that was paid for by TAXES. Any time you called 911... that is paid for by TAXES. When Soldiers get paid for their service as well as their medical bills from combat... that is from TAXES.

      The yearly cost of Air-Conditioning in Iraq for US Troop's a few years ago was much much more than what NASA gets... which is almost nothing.

      Back in the GOOD OLD DAYS - until the 70s, companies DID WHAT THEY wanted. They dumped their trash, their toxic waste into OUR drinking water. People got sick, some died. It was traced to companies dumping their shit into other people's back yards. So laws were made to STOP THAT. That they had to be responsible for their trash. Especially when WE, the tax payers have to PAY for it.

      By all means, we NEED OIL today.

      But there is a limited supply of OIL and COAL... they WILL run out. In 10 years, the cost of gas in the USA will be $10+ per gallon. And if the majority of autos are still running on gas in 20 years - then it'll be over $30+ per gallon as crude oil is depleted. Airliner fuel will also skyrocket... meaning higher ticket costs.

      The fuel we save today, we'll have tomorrow. The billionaires will continue to make their money and take govt. handouts.

      Oil, gas and coal is NOT free. Its not cheap and its NOT limitless.

      But do you know what is free? Power from the SUN. Wind that blows. The tides from the ocean.

      And solar tech is getting better every year. Enough light falls on the Earth in one hour to power everyone for a year... we are not there... yet.

      1. Denarius Silver badge

        Re: So

        >>But do you know what is free? Power from the SUN. Wind that blows. The tides from the ocean.

        >> And solar tech is getting better every year. Enough light falls on the Earth in one hour to power everyone for a year... we are not there... yet.


        uh, no. It costs a LOT of money to capture some of that energy as it is very diffuse. That's why it is subsidised so much by cost effective energy. Just ask the krauts Solar cell efficiencies hit economic limits of efficiencies a decade ago. Work arounds are very prototypical. Only production costs have fallen. Already warnings of climate change caused by catching too much wind and questions of what large scale solar trapping may do to energy balances. And we wont even start on reliability of supply.

        Annoyingly, a source of CO2 free energy is being avoided, just as several technologies make it nearly waste free. Lastly, only in some hell holes is the environment being trashed. In the remnants of the West, the environment is cleaner than it has been for 150 years around population centers. See PJ O'Rouke in Give War a Chance comparing "natural" Bangladesh and artificial Silicon Valley. Only wealthy countries can afford nature reserves. The greenie obsession with reversion of society to peasant subsistence farming is bad news for everything, especially the environment.

        Anyway, I liked the rain 2 years ago, but it was not historically unusual. Events like 2010 happen around every 32 years. At least one in 19th century created flood levels 5 meters above 2010 in my corner of rural Oz. Even so, the local old timers reckoned the winter rain was as they remembered it in their youth. The amount of surface water was a problem during the cross country soaring season.. Found swamps where there used to be good thermal sources :-)

      2. Antipodes

        Re: So

        Keep in mind that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Except for solar energy, using wind or tidal energy actually slows the Earth. Minutely of course! Indirectly, wind is "solar" (no heat from the sun, no pressure difference, no wind).

        The whole inter-reaction of heating/cooling is fascinating. Anthropogenic warming is a legacy our grandchildren will fall heir to. All we can do is mitigate it - the effects are now in place and are inevitable. Mud and ice cores indicate that in 1400 (i.e., prior to industrialisation), the CO2 content of the atmosphere was 280ppm; the latest readings (2012) show 400ppm. Not all of that is created by the burning of fossil fuels (Krakatoa et al contributed), but this "legacy" CO2 is predominantly human generated. It is not that the Earth has not had higher levels, or lesser but that by burning fossil fuels we have released the stored energy created in those fuels.

        Consider the physical law of the conservation of energy (energy is neither created nor destroyed). To make "x" units of electricity eight tonnes of air has to be consumed to burn one tonne of coal. The residue in ash, nitrogen (not burnt but returned to the atmosphere) is therefore nine tonnes, the oxygen, hydrogen and other combustible gasses are converted to CO2 CH4 etc and released. The carbon came from the coal, stored there millions of years before.

        ALL living things transpire or respire CO2 and CH4. Everything living is part of the "carbon cycle", from the largest creature to the least microbe. But, and this is the central issue - living things do not ADD to the carbon load regardless of how many there are. They (we) are part of a loop, every unit of energy that makes us is cyclical. So if living things in and of themselves do not add to the increase in atmospheric CO2, and there have been few cataclysmic volcanic eruptions (e.g., Taupo, Yellowstone Toba), it is logical to see the energy release from fossil fuels as the driving force.

        The Earth has been here before - it will survive - but there is no guarantee that the human organism will not become extinct.

    3. Leslie Graham

      Re: So

      Are you really taht confused or are you just being deliberately obtuse.

      The sea level fell temporarily because the flooding on Australia (and South America) was so enormous that it actualy lowered ocean content.

      That was one of the many extreme weather events of that year.

      It is yet more evidence that the extreme weather events are increasing as the Earth warms.

      It's simply common sense apart from anything else that as the Earth warms the atmoshere will hold more water (it is already up 4% on 30 years ago) and that water will have to fall somewhere.

      Now that climate change is simply obvious the denial has become desperate - just silly even.

  5. Anomalous Cowshed

    Australians, cheeky buggers

    They began by nicking a loaf of bread here and there - and the lucky buggers got a free trip to Australia.

    Now they're nicking rain - lots of it apparently. Where are they going to take them next? The moon? Concerned taxpayers want to know.

    1. Charles Manning

      Re: Australians, cheeky buggers

      Great to see the spirit of Ned Kelly lives on!

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is Dr. Fasullo one of the scientists with the right opinion or one of the scientists with the wrong opinion?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Climate models...

    Garbage in garbage out.

    They can't even model clouds yet :)

    Given that weather is chaotic the climate will also be and chaotic systems are extremely hard to model with any precision. Even with a monitor in every cubic metre of the earths atmosphere or weather models still couldn't model more than a couple of days.

    So we get the mantra that global warming raises sea-level oops doesn't work let's call it climate change so we are right what ever the answer :o

    1. itzman

      Re: Climate models...

      .....let's call it climate change so we are right what ever the answer.. er no.

      It might stay EXACTLY the same. That would confound them.

  8. GaryDMN

    Climate Change = climate speculation

    So called Climate Scientists and actually social activists. Climate science is a social science designed to new create taxes, fund social activists and re-distribute wealth.

    1. Shane 4

      Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

      Say that to some of the pacific islanders who have had to leave their homelands behind because their islands are going underwater! lol

      1. Katie Saucey

        Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

        pacific islanders who have had to leave their homelands behind because their islands are going underwater! lol

        As has been happening since the end of the last ice age, you would think some of the islanders would have picked up on this by now.

      2. lost

        Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

        Pacific islands going under water has nothing to do with climate change. That has been happening since there was liquid water on this planet.

      3. Diogenes

        Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

        Which ones ?

        Warming actually makes the atolls grow.

        If you are referring to the Maldives they are sinking because they are on the Indian Plate (Stop Man Made Continental Drift !)

        If you are referring to to Kiribati, there are social rather than climate forces at work

        And of course Bikini Atoll (see icon)

        1. Christo

          Re: Climate Change = climate speculation @Diogenes

          I'm going to start printing my posters for the protest right now. Stop Man Made Continental Drift!! ROFL

          You, sir, deserve this beer.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

          Warming makes atolls grow by depositing coral on top faster than the seamount sinks, but it never grows above the waterline. Living on an atoll comes with its own unique sets of risks (such as being washed out to see when a 30 foot storm surge washes through (this happened to the entire population of one of the Cook Island group in the 1990s. Thankfully most were rescued)

          All volcanic islands start sinking when the volcano goes extinct. The only question is how fast it happens. Many inhabited islands are so critically low that a minor change in sea level is an issue - in the past a population would simply change islands, but in most cases that option is no longer open to them.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

        Name one.

      5. Death Boffin

        Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

        Even if there were not change in sea level, most pacific islanders would be underwater eventually. The technical term for it is isostasy; the tendency of geological formations to find their own level. The Hawaiian islands are currently sinking at a rate of 2mm per year. About the same sea level rise as attributed to global climate change. For the final result, look up the term guyot.

      6. Denarius Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: Climate Change = climate speculation

        swamped Pacific islanders :B*S* Which ones, names please. Only one atoll has had population moved. Because, as Charlie hypothesised 150 years ago , the underlying mountain is sinking. Sea level change in last 100 years is estimated at a few cm, not meters. I am surprised no-one has quoted Torres, who in 1600s recorded lots of islands in the straits now bearing his name north of Oz, south of PNG. When I was there a few years ago there were some islands and lots of reefs. Melt water from post maunder minimum ? who knows. Just think of the extra FUD being missed.

  9. mememine69

    It’s not big oil that feeds deniers, it’s the scientists themselves who refuse to say a crisis will happen, only might happen so science can end this costly debate today and save their own children as well just by saying their 28 year old deadly crisis is inevitable not just “likely” and “possible” and………………………

    1. Belardi

      Either way, there is ONLY one planet for us and our children to live on.... this one.

      The actions we do today, DOES effect their lives and their children's lives... or death.

      Okay, lets go over the GOOD things about pollution? About increase health problems?

      A small animal or bug bite can KILL YOU.... so yes, something small DOES effect the planet.

  10. Bizlaw


    In other words, we really don't know why sea levels dropped, but other things in the world happened, so that must be why, and of course man is responsible, but we really can't say how.

    Wow, that was helpful!

  11. frank ly Silver badge

    Will that water stay in Australia?

    I assume much of that rain soaked into the ground or topped up lakes and reservoirs, if it is still resulting in a reduction in sea-level. Will it stay in the ground and maybe benefit farming or will it evaporate eventually?

    1. itzman

      Re: Will that water stay in Australia?

      Will it stay in the ground and maybe benefit farming or will it evaporate eventually?

      Yes, definitely.

    2. Marketing Hack Silver badge

      Re: Will that water stay in Australia?

      Or get made into Fosters?

      1. Alan Newbury

        Re: Will that water stay in Australia?

        "Or get made into Fosters"

        Nope - we're not going to export it (no-one in Australia drinks Fosters - unless they're European backpackers).

        1. g dot assasin

          Re: Will that water stay in Australia?

          Its true, Aussies hate Fosters!

          To be fair Tooheys New is pretty much the best beer I've ever tasted so I don't blame them!

  12. Jim O'Reilly

    And the polar ice caps growing didn't help?

    The two polar ice caps have shown strong growth, reversing recent trends, especially in the Arctic.

    We may indeed be tipping over into a Little Ice Age, and this could account for the reversal of sea-level rise.

    Blame it on the Sun, which is running cool!

  13. Frankee Llonnygog

    Lewis Page reports on man-made effects on climate ...

    ... without rubbishing the scientists' conclusions.

    I'm in shock

  14. Dogbyte

    Is this the start of...

    Global Drying?

  15. JDX Gold badge

    "It's a beautiful illustration of how complicated our climate system is,"

    Or a beautiful example how you can twist a theory to fit any observed data?

    Less cynically, 7mm over the oceans' surface comes to 2.386×10^12 m^3 (cubic meters)... is that a reasonable amount of water to be flooding Oz?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "It's a beautiful illustration of how complicated our climate system is,"

      Australia is about 7.7 million km^2 or 7.7 x10^12m^2, the amount of water you calculated gives 300mm spread equally over the country, which is the extra rain they have received during the period.

      1. lost

        Re: "It's a beautiful illustration of how complicated our climate system is,"

        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.

        1. Martin Budden

          Re: "It's a beautiful illustration of how complicated our climate system is," @lost

          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!

  16. ian 22

    Yes, but....

    You forgot to mention the oceans rose by ~ 25mm the following year.

    1. FredBloggsY

      Re: Yes, but....

      "Yes, but....

      You forgot to mention the oceans rose by ~ 25mm the following year."



  17. Bob Armstrong

    Show me the causal chain

    " ,,, 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 .

  18. GoFigure

    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?

    1. NomNomNom

      First things first, there hasn't been global cooling over the past 10 years.

      Second, sea level did drop, but it has subsequently continued rising.

  19. Shane 4

    Come on we all know it's the US playing around with HAARP!

    I'll get my coat.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They can't tell what it is yet.

  21. jebdra

    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!

    1. Denarius Silver badge

      @Jebdra true

      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.

  22. Erudite Luddite

    Occam's razor...

    ... There is no global warming?

    (Personally I still adhere to the phlogiston theory)

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    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.

  25. M.

    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?

  26. Charliex

    So the surface of the world's oceans is approximately 361 million square kilometers times 7mm. I have little faith in my abilities to calculate in metric so the decimal's likely in the wrong place, but does 2,527,000 cubic kilometers sound right? Where is this new sea of Australia?

    1. Katie Saucey

      2,527,000 cubic kilometers sound right?

      Out by a factor of 1000

      361x10^6(km^2) * 7(mm) * 1000000x10^-6(km/mm) = 2527km^3

      Still a lot of water though, about the same volume as Great Slave Lake (Canada), the 10th largest lake on the planet (by volume).

  27. e8hffff

    More Fraternity-Science bunkum. 'Register' why are you reporting Global-Warming crap as it's clear it's a fraud from go to woe. Bull after bull scare stories.

  28. Mr F&*king Grumpy

    huh ? Have I woken up in a parallel universe ? Did Lewis Page post an article touching on climate change without twisting the facts to suit the denialist agenda ? A thoughtful, intelligent commentary ? Am I dead ? Is this heaven ?

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ocean Levels

    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

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Ocean Levels

      "Thus the oceans have risen 80-90 ft over the past 2,000 years."

      Sanity check?

      Sea level rise in the past 2000 years has been virtually flat.

      You've assumed sea level rose linearly. It didn't. Most of that 500 foot sea level rise was over by 7,000 years ago.

  30. Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face

    Sea levels are rising, food shortages coming...

    Doesn't bother me. I live on a hill near a Tesco.

  31. Smarty Pants

    And those who used to walk from France to the UK.

    Bloody neanderthals burning wood and causing climate change

  32. 0_Flybert_0

    stop the partisan bs

    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 ..

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: stop the partisan bs

      "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.

      1. 0_Flybert_0

        Re: stop the partisan bs

        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 ..

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: stop the partisan bs

          The trend over the course of the satellite record is 0.14C/decade, as reported by Roy Spencer himself. Not 0.073C

          1. 0_Flybert_0

            Re: stop the partisan bs

            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 ..


            or I bet you think ocean temperatures are rising ..


            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 ..

            1. NomNomNom

              Re: stop the partisan bs

              "regardless .."

              yes quickly change the subject

              But I wonder if you will still go around the internet falsely claiming the trend in the satellite records is only 0.07C/decade

  33. tony2heads


    The first recorded flooding in the Atacama Desert happened in 2012. Previous to 2010 there had been no recorded rain in most parts for 400 years

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Also..

      I couldn't verify that. I found references to other floods in previous years. Do you have a source?

  34. codejunky Silver badge

    It is proof

    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.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: It is proof

      Uh they didn't claim it proves MMCC (manmade climate change). You are the one who seems to have come up with that idea.

      "Yet again we have a wonderful demonstration that we cannot disprove MMCC"

      Funny, plenty of commentators regularly claim it has been disproved!

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: It is proof


        "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.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: It is proof

          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.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: It is proof


            "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.

  35. PeterM42

    What a load of B****cks

    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!

    1. FredBloggsY

      Re: What a load of B****cks

      "This article just goes to prove that the more "scientists" know about the weather, the more it proves they know NOTHING."

      Or, it might substantiate the notion that the article selects (a minority of ) "scientists" rather than (the majority of) scientists to cite?

  36. Faux Science Slayer

    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 is your duty as an Earthling.

  37. Pat 4


    The amount of disinformation, misinformation, misunderstanding and overall complete lack of actual scientific knowledge in the comments section of this article (and pretty much all online climate discussions) from both sides of the "argument" is absolutely stunning.

    Ah well...

  38. Global Warming Comment

    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.

    1. NomNomNom

      "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"

      Recent satellite observations show sea level is now rising at over 3mm/year. So...

      1. Global Warming Comment

        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.

        1. NomNomNom

          "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.


  39. Asher Pat

    War is peace

    Slavery is freedom

    Warming is cooling and rise is fall

    The great scam of AGW!

  40. novice

    Call it a Draw guys - best lol "stop man made continental drift now" hopefully quoted correctly! So many "facts" and "evidence" = subjective/objective understanding = more/less emotion. Appreciated those comments striving for a balanced view

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019