by Ian Plimmer & John Ruddick, Apr 29, 2021 in SpectatorAustralia
Next month is the thirtieth anniversary of the most entertaining and damning chapter in Al Gore’s career.
By the mid-nineteenth century, our knowledge of atmospheric chemistry was sufficiently advanced for a few sharp minds to ponder whether an increase in carbon dioxide might increase global temperature. The speculation remained entirely theoretical until 1957 when an international collaboration of top geophysicists — including the Soviets — used buoys, weather balloons and so forth to collect data. The undertaking was led by Dr Roger Revelle then based at California’s Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Today’s global warming debate is hyper-partisan but all agree Revelle’s standing is impeccable.
Before this research, many assumed the ocean was absorbing most of the increase in carbon dioxide caused by industrialisation. Revelle’s data, however, indicated only half was. So what was happening to the other half? Would the planet soon overheat?
by W. Eschenbach, May 1, 2021 in WUWT
After my last post about the surface warming of the ocean, entitled “How Global Warming Isn’t“, I got to thinking about the warming of the upper part of the ocean. So I got the data for the ocean heat content (OHC) of the top 700 metres of the ocean from the marvelous site, KNMI. If you look under “Monthly Observations” you’ll find a host of most fascinating datasets. Under “Heat Content” on that page, you’ll find the National Oceanic Data Center (NODC) 0-700 metre depth OHC data. And down at the very bottom of that page is a link that will download a 196 megabyte gridded NetCDF file containing the data that I used. (Big file, click at your own risk.)
And what did I find? Well, I’m a visual kind of guy. I mean, I can do the math, but it only makes sense when it comes up as a picture on the silver screen. So here are my graphics. I’m interested in the changes in the oceanic heat content, so these are two views of those trends.
This is the bottom line. If the world’s creatures, both on land and at sea, were as temperature-sensitive as the alarmists would have us believe, those beings (and we humanoids as well) all would have gone extinct long ago. And near as I can tell, that hasn’t occurred … at least yet.
by W. Eschenbach, Apr 2020 in WUWT
Gavin Schmidt is a computer programmer with the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences (GISS) and a noted climate alarmist. He has a Ph.D. in applied mathematics. He’s put together a twitter threadcontaining what he sees as some important points of the “testable, falsifiable science that supports a human cause of recent trends in global mean temperature”. He says that the slight ongoing rise in temperature is due to the increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called “greenhouse gases”. For simplicity, I’ll call this the “CO2 Roolz Temperature” theory of climate. We’ve discussed Dr. Schmidt’s ideas before here on WUWT.
Now, Gavin and I have a bit of history. We first started corresponding by way of a climate mailing list moderated by Timo Hameraanta back around the turn of the century, before Facebook and Twitter.
The interesting part of our interaction was what convinced me that he was a lousy programmer. I asked him about his program, the GISS Global Climate Model. I was interested in how his model made sure that energy was conserved. I asked what happened at the end of each model timestep to verify that energy was neither created nor destroyed.
He said what I knew from my own experience in writing iterative models, that there is always some slight imbalance in energy from the beginning to the end of the timestep. If nothing else, the discrete digital nature of each calculation assures that there with be slight roundoff errors. If these are left uncorrected they can easily accumulate and bring the model down.
He said the way that the GISS model handled that imbalance was to take the excess or the shortage of energy and sprinkle it evenly over the entire planet.
Now, that seemed reasonable for trivial amounts of imbalance coming from digitization. But what if it were larger, and it arose from some problem with their calculations? What then?
So I asked him how large that energy imbalance typically was … and to my astonishment, he said he didn’t know.
Amazed, I asked if he had some computer version of a “Murphy Gauge” on the excess energy. A “Murphy Gauge” (below) is a gauge that allows for Murphy’s Law by letting you set an alarm if the variable goes outside of the expected range … which of course it will, Murphy says so. On the computer, the equivalent would be something in his model that would warn him if the excess or shortage of energy exceeded some set amount.
by Dr S. Koonin, Apr 24, in NewYorkPost
‘The Science,” we’re told, is settled. How many times have you heard it?
Humans have broken the earth’s climate. Temperatures are rising, sea level is surging, ice is disappearing, and heat waves, storms, droughts, floods, and wildfires are an ever-worsening scourge on the world. Greenhouse gas emissions are causing all of this. And unless they’re eliminated promptly by radical changes to society and its energy systems, “The Science” says Earth is doomed.
Yes, it’s true that the globe is warming, and that humans are exerting a warming influence upon it. But beyond that — to paraphrase the classic movie “The Princess Bride” — “I do not think ‘The Science’ says what you think it says.”
For example, both research literature and government reports state clearly that heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900, and that the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years. When I tell people this, most are incredulous. Some gasp. And some get downright hostile.
These are almost certainly not the only climate facts you haven’t heard. Here are three more that might surprise you, drawn from recent published research or assessments of climate science published by the US government and the UN:
- Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century.
- Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was 80 years ago.
- The global area burned by wildfires has declined more than 25 percent since 2003 and 2020 was one of the lowest years on record.
Why haven’t you heard these facts before?
See also : New High Resolution Climate Simulation Projects Antarctic Ice To Remain Stable Rest Of The Century
by G. Tomb, Apr 9, 2021 in AmercianThinker
Other than by misspelling “fjord,” how would an American geologist draw the ire of a pair of Norwegian politicians? Answer: Write a book that counters the notion that human activity is causing the globe to warm with catastrophic consequences.
Gregory Wrightstone’s 2017 book, Inconvenient Facts: The Science that Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know, was published in Norway and is being promoted by the Climate Realists, a Norwegian organization, which shares the author’s view that modern warming is neither unusual nor unprecedented.
Backed with 90 illustrations and 15 pages of references, the book presents 60 footnoted facts inconvenient to the Western elite’s absurd narrative about global warming. Among them: Most of the last 10,000 years have been warmer than today, including the Medieval Warm Period, when Vikings raised barley on Greenland, and the Roman Warm Period, when citrus grew in northern England.
by J. Taylor, Apr 13, 2021 in ClimateRealism
According to NASA and NOAA satellite instruments, sea level is rising at a mere 3 millimeters per year, which is a pace of just under one foot per century. (Note, the NASA/NOAA-reported 3.3 mm/year rise in Global Mean Sea Level includes a 0.3 mm “adjustment” that accounts for land rising as glaciers melt. The sea-level rise in relation to coastal shorelines is therefore 3.0 mm/year.) Moreover, the satellite measurements show no significant acceleration during recent decades in the pace of sea-level rise.
Given that seas are rising at a pace of merely one foot per century, which is little if any faster than the pace of sea-level rise throughout the global warming of the 1800s and 1900s, it is almost certain that seas will not rise 20 feet during the next 100 to 200 years. It is also almost certain that seas will not rise two feet during the next 20 years.
by Prof. Lindzen, Apr 7, 2021 in WUWT/Clintel
The Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) in cooperation with CLINTEL hosted a lecture by the world-renowned climate scientist Richard Lindzen. The online lecture was attended by around 200 people from around the world (including a group of climate activists who disturbed the talk. The recorded talk can be viewed here.
Professor Lindzen kindly agreed that his written speech could be posted here at CLINTEL. It follows below.
Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT
For about 33 years, many of us have been battling against climate hysteria. We have correctly noted
The exaggerated sensitivity,
The role of other processes and natural internal variability,
The inconsistency with the paleoclimate record,
The absence of evidence for increased extremes, hurricanes, etc. and so on.
We have also pointed out the very real benefits of CO2 and even of modest warming. And, as concerns government policies, we have been pretty ineffective. Indeed our efforts have done little other than to show (incorrectly) that we take the threat scenario seriously. In this talk, I want to make a tentative analysis of our failure.
by P. Homewood, Mach 26, 2021 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat
Absolute sea levels are rising by about 2mm a year, yet the land is subsiding by 2.2cm a year. A small part of this is due to isostasy, but most is evidently the result of “dewatering”, what we would call water extraction. (see here)
Whatever problems farmers in Bangladesh are having, it has nothing to do with climate change.
by K. Richard, Apr 6, 2021 in ClimateChangeDispatch
In contrast to alarming claims about rare, 100-year flood events now occurring every few years due to global warming, scientists have determined the exact opposite is more likely true.
Not only have flood frequencies declined globally in the last 50 years, but the probability of a 100-year flood event is now so rare it has only been occurring once every 358 years on average since 1970.
According to the IPCC, there has been no clear evidence of a global-scale increase in flood magnitude or frequency in the last century (Hodgkins et al., 2017).
A new study (Slater et al., 2021) suggests that claims of flood magnitude, frequency, and probability dramatically increasing with global warming can be “misleading” if they use a stationary calculation approach instead of continually updating significant changes over time.
These scientists, using “observed annual maximum daily streamflow” records and a “nonstationary approach,” concluded there has been no obvious global-scale trend in 20-, 50-, and 100-year flood magnitude since 1970, with 100-year flood events defined as “flows of a given exceedance probability in each year.”
by M. Steyn, March 23, 2021 in ClimateDepot
Morano’s probably single-handedly, in a civilian sense, the guy (other than me, of course) doing a better job of ringing the bells alarming people of what’s going on here.” —Rush Limbaugh
“This is a must-read book that shows how the Green New Deal is dangerous, impractical, misguided, and guaranteed to fail with disastrous results for the American people.” —Sean Hannity, host of Hannity on Fox News
“’Green Fraud’ is the ultimate guidebook to exposing and fighting this Marxist plan masquerading as environmental policy.” —Mark R. Levin, author and nationally syndicated TV and radio broadcaster
Also see Daily Signal’s interview w/ Morano: “Green Fraud,” a new book from @ClimateDepot’s Marc Morano, exposes far-reaching implications of the #GreenNewDeal & what freedom-loving #Americans can do.
“If you care about America’s future, read this book.”—Mark Levin
“A must-read book that shows how the Green New Deal is dangerous, impractical, misguided, and guaranteed to fail with disastrous results for the American people.”—Sean Hannity
A New Lockdown to “Save” the Climate
That’s what’s in store for us if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Democrats pass their radical climate plan—the Green New Deal.
It is packed with guarantees so completely irrelevant to the problem it purports to “solve” (like “free college” and incomes for everyone “unable or unwilling to work”) that even its boosters have admitted it’s not really about the climate.
The intrepid Marc Morano, author of the bestselling Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, breaks down the science and the politics to expose the truth about the Green New Deal:
• The science is settled: copious evidence—and prominent defections from the “climate consensus”—make clear we are not facing a man-made climate disaster
• “Climate change” is the perfect Trojan horse for the socialist agenda of the Left
• Fossil fuels lifted the West out of poverty—but our elites now want to deny them to the world’s poor
• The Green New Deal is on a collision course with self-government and our fundamental rights
Climate change has already been “solved” multiple times over the past two decades—with highly touted international agreements—and yet it never goes away as an excuse for leftist policies that will cripple our economy, impoverish the world, and take away our freedoms.
Packed with telling statistics, damning quotations, and real science, Green Fraud is your source for all the facts you need to understand—and resist—the threat.
by A. MacRae, March 2021 in Elecroverse
The below treatise was sent to Canadian and American politicians and the media – but most of them won’t understand it, because they have no scientific competence and have been utterly deceived – programmed for decades by false climate scares and green energy frauds.
We published in 2002 that there was NO catastrophic human-made global warming /climate change crisis, and green energy schemes were NOT green and produced little useful (dispatchable) energy. Dangerous global warming and climate change have NOT HAPPENED and green energy schemes have proved to be COSTLY, UNRELIABLE AND INEFFECTIVE. Global warming is NOT a threat, but global cooling IS dangerous. In 2002 we predicted that global cooling would start circa 2020, based on low solar activity, and that prediction is increasingly supported by the evidence.
Politicians foolishly accepted very-scary global warming falsehoods and brewed the perfect storm, crippling our energy systems with costly and unreliable green energy schemes that utterly fail due to intermittency, at a time when we will need more reliable, dispatchable energy due to increased energy demand and imminent global cooling. The good people of Australia, Britain, Germany, California and Texas have all suffered and died due to green energy failures that were PREDICTABLE AND PREDICTED.
THE GREENS’ PREDICTIVE CLIMATE AND ENERGY RECORD IS THE WORST
by K. Richard, March 15, 2021 in NoTricksZone
The IPCC-endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm finds a warming Antarctica results in more precipitation locked up as ice on the continent. This contributes to reducing sea levels: a -1.2 mm/year−1 mitigation of sea level rise over the next 80 years.
In the 4th IPCC report, Working Group 1 (the physical science) reported that as global temperatures rise, “GCMs [models] indicate increasingly positive SMB for the Antarctic Ice Sheet as a whole because of greater accumulation.” This means that by 2100 Antarctica “would contribute 0.4 to 2.0 mm yr−1 of sea level fall.” Over the next 980 years, Antarctica’s ice accumulation will reduce sea levels by nearly a full meter (-0.8 m by 3000).
by W. Eschenbach, March 15, 2021 in WUWT
Clouds are said to be the largest uncertainty in climate models, and I can believe that. Their representation in the models is highly parameterized, each model uses different parameters as well as different values for the same parameters, and so of course, different models give very different results. Or to quote from the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
In many climate models, details in the representation of clouds can substantially affect the model estimates of cloud feedback and climate sensitivity. Moreover, the spread of climate sensitivity estimates among current models arises primarily from inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks. Therefore, cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.
The question of importance is this—if the earth heats up, will clouds exacerbate the warming or will they act to reduce the warming? The general claim from mainstream climate scientists and the IPCC is that the clouds will increase the warming, viz:
All global models continue to produce a near-zero to moderately strong positive net cloud feedback.
My own theory is that clouds and other emergent climate phenomena generally act to oppose any increases in surface temperature. So me, I’d expect the opposite of what the models show. I figured that there should be a negative cloud feedback that opposes the warming.
So I thought I’d take a look at answering the question using the CERES satellite dataset. As a prologue, here’s a short exposition about measuring the effect of clouds.
by F. Menton, Aug 26, 2021 in ManhattanContrarian
The Michael Mann “Hockey Stick” is suddenly back in the news. It’s been so long since we have heard from it, do you even remember what it is?
The “Hockey Stick” is the graph that took the world of climate science by storm back in 1998. That’s when Mann and co-authors Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes published in Nature their seminal paper “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries.” A subsequent 1999 update by the same authors, also in Nature (“Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations”) extended their reconstructions of “temperature patterns and climate forcing” back another 400 years to about the year 1000. The authors claimed (in the first paragraph of the 1998 article) to “take a new statistical approach to reconstructing global patterns of annual temperature . . . , based on the calibration of multiproxy data networks by the dominant patterns of temperature variability in the instrumental record.” The claimed “new statistical approach,” when applied to a group of temperature “proxies” that included tree ring samples and lake bed sediments, yielded a graph — quickly labeled the “Hockey Stick” — that was the perfect icon to sell global warming fear to the public. The graph showed world temperatures essentially flat or slightly declining for 900+ years (the shaft of the hockey stick), and then shooting up dramatically during the 20th century era of human carbon dioxide emissions (the blade of the stick).
by J. Bastardi, March 7, 2021 in CFACT
By now all of you know my belief ( bias) that it’s the oceans, and more so the tropical oceans, that are the biggest control knob of the weather and climate. If you really wanted to make this a controlled classroom experiment (nature is not a classroom with easy controls) then I venture to say that the real way to know man’s influence is to have SST’s return to where they were in the 1970s, give it a couple of years for the water vapor adjustment, ( and if I am right. co2 will adjust as warmer oceans outsource it, so the outsourcing to the air will decrease) and see the difference there. And there you may be able to make an irrefutable argument for man’s contribution, Unfortunately for those who will not look at anything else, that is likely to be quite small, but on the other hand, unlike the warming we have had which is really in the coldest driest places and more so at their coldest driest time of the year, you would likely find the lions share of what warming would be where life thrives.. As small as that has been, less than .25C of the numbers we see all the time that tell us that at. a bit over 59 degrees the planet is overheating, it is liable to be even less detectable and certainly as or more adaptable than what we seemed to have adapted to nicely here.
But the fear of course is runaway warming which is interesting since it counters Le Chateliers, which I never hear anyone bring up, most likely because it’s a simple explanation. And a simple explanation would impact a lot of things relying on a done deal, complex explanation that the public must accept because they could never understand.
by P. Gosselin, March 10, 2021 in NoTricksZone
The media and activists, among them a number of “Climate scientists”, have been declaring that Greenland ice melt has been accelerating.
Today the German Klimaschau climate news video reports, however, that this has not been the case over the recent years. All the recent talk about accelerating Greenland ice loss over the past years is false.
SMB on the rise
First a plot of Greenland’s surface mass balance SMB (blue curve below) shows that snow accumulation has occurred faster than snow and ice have melted over the past 35 years:
Chart: cropped from Klimaschau here.
Though the annual SMB values declined from 1985 to 2012, the trend has rebounded since.
Loss through coastal discharge steady over the past 15 years
by Jeanne Marcq, March 5, 2021 in ScienceClimatEnergie
Carbon neutrality aiming to limit the rise in global temperature is a lure from the economic points of view and humanity. It is also the weakness of environmentalists, vegans and the “green” provided people of the northern hemisphere advocating worldly decay.
However, the food and energy resources exist in sufficiency on earth but are poorly dispatched (see FAO data). Developing countries cannot be selfishly prevented from using fossil fuels to build their own economies instead of being plundered by new colonizers. No political regime has ever managed to erase socio-economic inequalities in society. With a world population currently growing until 2050 (FAO), any limitation of food production and economic development would be damaging to humanity.
Continuer la lecture de From the non-sense of carbon neutrality
by A. Watts, Feb 24, 2018 in WUWT
Mapping Medieval Climate Change in Africa:
Continental warming, coastal cooling and shifting rainbelts 1000 years ago
Global climate is currently undergoing major change. Experts agree that this change is driven by a combination of man-made and natural factors. However, full quantification of the anthropogenic and natural components is still a matter of debate. In order to better understand the contribution of natural climate variability and distinguish this from man-made influence, researchers worldwide have gone out to the field to study Earth’s pre-industrial climate history. Of particular interest are the past thousand years, which in Europe and North America have seen the transition from a rather warm medieval period to major cooling of the Little Ice Age, followed by the temperature rebound of the Current Warm Period which was further intensified by human greenhouse gas emissions. Our understanding of medieval climate outside this well-studied North Atlantic region is unfortunately still poor.
An international team led by geoscientist Sebastian Lüning wants to change this. Lüning is a professional resources geologist who in his sparetime works on paleoclimatological studies with the Switzerland-based Institute for Hydrography, Geoecology and Climate Sciences. Together with colleagues from Poland, Nigeria, Turkey and Germany they embarked on a journey through the scientific literature to shed light on the so-called ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’, a period comprising of the years 1000-1200 AD. The initial focus region of their study was Africa. Lüning and his team crawled through hundreds of publications and mosaiced together a fascinating picture of African medieval climate change that tracks ancient heat waves, local cooling, drought and phases of amplified rainfall. Using modern database and visualization technology, the team managed to synthesize astonishing trends from the large amount of filtered data. Lüning explains the challenge:
by S. J. Crocfkord, Report 2020 in GWPF
Report 40, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
Preface v Executive summary vi
© Copyright 2020, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
- Introduction 1
- Conservation status 1
- Population size 2
- Population trends 10
- Habitat status 11
- Prey base 15
- Health and survival 17
- Evidence of flexibility 22
- Human/bear interactions 23
- Discussion 28
Bibliography 30 About the Global Warming Policy Foundation
by COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, Feb 24, 2021 in EurekaAlert!/AAAS
For decades, climate change researchers and activists have used dramatic forecasts to attempt to influence public perception of the problem and as a call to action on climate change. These forecasts have frequently been for events that might be called “apocalyptic,” because they predict cataclysmic events resulting from climate change.
In a new paper published in the International Journal of Global Warming, Carnegie Mellon University’s David Rode and Paul Fischbeck argue that making such forecasts can be counterproductive. “Truly apocalyptic forecasts can only ever be observed in their failure–that is the world did not end as predicted,” says Rode, adjunct research faculty with the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, “and observing a string of repeated apocalyptic forecast failures can undermine the public’s trust in the underlying science.”
Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.
Fischbeck noted, “from a forecasting perspective, the ‘problem’ is not only that all of the expired forecasts were wrong, but also that so many of them never admitted to any uncertainty about the date. About 43% of the forecasts in our dataset made no mention of uncertainty.”
by C. Rotter Feb 27, 2021 in WUWT
The ‘State of the Polar Bear Report 2020’ is now available. Forget hand-wringing about what might happen fifty years from now – celebrate the fabulous news that polar bears had yet another good year.
Press release from the Global Warming Policy Forum
Crockford, S.J. 2021. The State of the Polar Bear Report 2020. Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 48, London.
London, 27 February: A prominent Canadian zoologist says that Facebook’s information is gravely out of date and 2020 was another good year for polar bears.
In the State of the Polar Bear Report 2020, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) on International Polar Bear Day, zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford explains that while the climate change narrative insists that polar bear populations are declining due to reduced sea ice, the scientific literature doesn’t support such a conclusion.
Crockford clarifies that the IUCN’s 2015 Red List assessment for polar bears, which Facebook uses as an authority for ‘fact checking’, is seriously out of date. New and compelling evidence shows bears that in regions with profound summer ice loss are doing well.
Included in that evidence are survey results for 8 of the 19 polar bear subpopulations, only two of which showed insignificant declines after very modest ice loss. The rest were either stable or increasing, and some despite major reductions in sea ice. As a result, the global population size is now almost 30,000 – up from about 26,000 in 2015.
Dr. Crockford points out that in 2020, even though summer sea ice declined to the second lowest levels since 1979, there were no reports of widespread starvation of bears, acts of cannibalism, or drowning deaths that might suggest bears were having trouble surviving the ice-free season.
by K. Mathiesen, Feb 23 2021 in Politico
When it comes to climate change, bombs don’t work, so the United Nations Security Council prefers words to action.
Tuesday saw the highest profile discussion of climate change in the U.N.’s central body for promoting global peace. But Russia, which holds a veto as a permanent member of the Council, warned against any move to recognize warming as a threat to global security.
Moscow’s stance left the Security Council’s U.K. presidency stabbing at a broken panic button.
by A. Fawthrop, Feb 23, 2021 in NSEnergy
Divesting from major oil and gas producers on grounds of climate change makes “little sense”, says Total chief executive Patrick Pouyanné, because other companies will simply pick up the excess production.
The boss of the French energy firm urged investors and shareholders to support “big players with large balance sheets and financial capacity” because without them the low-carbon energy transition will not “become a reality”.
Stakeholder pressure on the world’s top oil companies is increasing amid heightened concerns over their contribution to climate change and demands for decisive action to reduce emissions across the energy industry.
Many oil and gas firms, including Total, have outlined recent ambitions to gradually pivot away from fossil energy in favour of electrification and alternative fuels.
But public scrutiny remains strong, with warnings of divesting if shareholders do not feel these plans are going far or fast enough, or the business risks associated with climate change are not being adequately addressed.
Oil and gas demand won’t disappear soon, and divesting would leave production for others to take up
Speaking at the IP Week conference today (23 February), Pouyanné called for patience from investors while making a pitch for the role companies like Total have to play in the low-carbon energy transition.
by W. Eschenbach, Feb 21, 2021 in WUWT
For more than a decade now, I’ve been wondering about a couple of questions.
First, why does the satellite-based sea-level data show that the sea level is rising so much faster than the rise measured at tidal stations on the coastlines around the world? Records from tidal stations show a rise on the order of a couple of mm per year, a rate which is little changed over the century or so for which we have adequate records. But the satellite record (Figure 1) shows a rise of 3.3 mm/year. Why the large difference?
Second, why does the satellite-based sea-level show such significant acceleration? As mentioned above, the sea-level records from tidal stations, which are much longer, show little or no acceleration. But the satellite record claims that the rate of sea-level rise is increasing by about a tenth of an mm per year. That amount of acceleration would double the rate of sea-level rise in about thirty years. Again, why the large difference?
To start with, here’s what the satellite data says, according to the University of Colorado Sea Level Research Group.
by C. Rotter, Feb 20, 2021 in WUWT
When a hurricane hits a populated stretch of coast, which is almost invariably, it is inevitable losses will be big. But while last year was a busy year for hurricanes, we do know that the frequency of US hurricanes has not been unusual in the last decade, and if anything the long term trend is down. (Though it is worth noting that the 1980s and 90s were below average, making the choice of 1980 as a start date statistically inappropriate):