“In 2010-2011, climate deniers used this graph to say that sea-level wasn’t going up. What do they say now?”
10 thoughts on “A sea-level challenge from Peter Gleick”
Comments are closed.
“In 2010-2011, climate deniers used this graph to say that sea-level wasn’t going up. What do they say now?”
Comments are closed.
So now he calls scientists “climate deniers”? Why does his little chart start in 1992? Can Peter Gleick say “cherry picker”?
That sounds remarkably like science by consensus Paul. I maintain that a global average rise is impossible to determine unless high lying lands start to flood all over the globe.
Tectonics, sinking lands, rising lands, shifting gravity due to underwater volcanic events etc. etc. coupled with the already messy gravitational distribution cause water to shift around, hollow out and rise up. Just measuring the level at coastal lines means squat at definitions smaller than well, …. uhmm big. In any case for sure not in the millimeter range and doubtful even in the centimeter range.
There may be disagreements about how much the oceans have been rising, and the real error bands, but most people admit that they are rising. Just not at an accelerating or catastrophic rate. Reality certainly is not agreeing with the models. The fact that he circled that last part of the plot as if to prove something just shows what an idiot he is.
I would say “Hmmm….sea level was not going up. Now it’s rising again at the same rate it has been rising for 150 years or better. Your point?”
Hmm… obviously sea level is independent of global temperature. We need to model this to see what’s going on I suppose.
What do we say, Pete? Why don’t you just make something up and tell us what we said?
I say dear mr Gleick look at the a model of Earth’s gravity field made with data from ESA’s GOCE satellite and explain how anyone could possibly get to measure global sealevel at that precision given that the earth looks like a diseased potato?
Most of the so-called increase in the rate of sea level rise is due to post hoc adjustments. The raw data tells a very different story.
If I am reading this correctly, sea is rising 3.5mm per year? Or 68mm since 1993 or 19 years. 2.6 inches? Oh sweet lord, we are skill going to be deluged in Houston…in 161 years.
If I am trading this correctly, sea is rising 3.5mm per year? Or 68mm since 1993 or 19 years. 2.6 inches? Oh sweet lord, we are skill going to be deluged in Houston…in 161 years.