Posted on 01/17/2011 11:27:12 AM PST by Signalman
Based on the most current data it appears that 2010 is going to show the largest drop in global sea level ever recorded in the modern era. Since many followers of global warming believe that the rate of sea level rise is increasing, a significant drop in the global sea level highlights serious flaws in the IPCC projections. The oceans are truly the best indicator of climate. The oceans drive the world’s weather patterns. A drop in the ocean levels in a year that is being cited as proof that the global warming has arrived shows that there is still much to learned. If the ocean levels dropped in 2010, then there is something very wrong with the IPCC projections.
The best source of sea level data is The University of Colorado. Only government bureaucracy could put the sea level data in one of the places farthest from the ocean, but that is where it is. I use both data sets that includes the seasonal signal. So with and without the inverted barometer applied. This is the source of the data that is used to show that the oceans are rising. Of course the rate of rise is greatly exaggerated and if the rate from 1993-2010 is used there will be a 1m rise in the year 2361.
Of course the rate is not constant. The rate of rise over the past 5 years has been half the overall rate. At the rate of the past 5 years it will be the year 2774 before the oceans rise a single meter. Of course a decrease in the rate is technically an negative acceleration in the rate of rise, so technically the rate of rise is accelerating, but in a negative direction. That statement is misleading though as most people consider acceleration to be a positive effect.
Even more interesting is the fact that from 1992-2005 there was an increase each year. 2006 was the first year to show a drop in the global sea level. 2010 will be the 2nd year to show a decrease in sea level. That is correct, 2 of the past 5 years are going to show a decrease in sea level. 2010 could likely show a significant drop global sea level. By significant I mean it is possible that it will likely drop between 2-3 mm from 2009. Since the data has not been updated since August it is difficult to guess more precisely, but the data ends at the time of year that the seasonal drop begins to show up. If the drop does show up as expected it is possible that 2010 will show the largest drop in sea level ever recorded.show a significant drop in sea level from 2009.
Of course what will happen won’t be known until the data for the past 5 months is made available. I have been patiently waiting for the data to be updated for several months now, but I got tired of waiting and decided to put the information I have out there.
One fact is certain. A drop in sea level for 2 of the past 5 years is a strong indicator that a changing sea level is not a great concern. In order for the IPCC prediction to be correct of a 1m increase in sea level by 2100, the rate must be almost 11 mm/yr every year for the next 89 years. Since the rate is dropping, it makes the prediction increasingly unlikely. Not even once in the past 20 years has that rate ever been achieved. The average rate of 2.7 mm/yr is only 25% of the rate needed for the IPCC prediction to be correct.
This is yet another serious blow the accuracy of the official IPCC predictions for the coming century. The fact that CO2 levels have been higher in the last 5 years that have the lowest rate of rise than the years with lower CO2 levels is a strong indicator that the claims of CO2 are grossly exaggerated.
The data never alters the conclusion -- this is how science is done these days.
I thought 2010 was over
So Obama was right! He lowered the sea levels! Hallelujah!
These are the revised numbers.
You know. Kind of like the unemployment numbers.
Thank God...There for a moment I thought I had hallucinated the new year party I went to
They haven’t released the data for the last 5 months.
Hey I did my part ... the last time I was at the beach I added water.
“...the claims of CO2 are grossly exaggerated.”
Nothing worse can happen with a lie than for it to become science. After that, truth has to be overwhelming to make the slightest dent. The rising sea level scare turns out to be urban legend, but that doesn’t matter. Tens of thousands of scientist have been indoctrinated with warming gobbledygook, and their credibility depends on their ability to keep up the scam.
Let me help and support, while correcting, the author:
“If the ocean levels dropped in 2010, then there is something very wrong with the IPCC projections.”
Editors correction:
“The fact that the data indicate that the ocean levels dropped in 2010 (and in 2006), and that the rate of ocean level rise over the last decade is far below projections of how much it should be rising in concert with increases in atmospheric CO2, adds another plank in the coffin of the IPCC projections and the climate model they are based on.”
Maybe that is why NASA can’t get us BACK to the moon in less than 15 years. New research methods ya know, new math, new physics. Gollllleeeee, how did they do it the last time??
LLS
Pshaw. This is easy to explain. The vast amount of CO2 entering the oceans is bringing the temperature down and thermal contraction is causing the sea level to contract.
It’s like pouring a teaspoon of water into a boiling pan of water, it stops boiling for a moment.
Global warming causes Sea levels to rise, then shrink, then rise again later, then shrink, a bit more shrinking, some rising, and ultimately even more rising, and a shrink followed by a rising. It should be very clear if you’re a muddle brained liberal moonbat.
What did algore know and when did he know it...
It is simply physically impossible to go from a tie for the warmest year ever, to cooling trends in just about every metric, just 2 weeks after one of the hottest year ever.
Maybe that is why NASA can’t get us BACK to the moon in less than 15 years. New research methods ya know, new math, new physics. Gollllleeeee, how did they do it the last time??
1) higher budgets than are currently the case (in fact, Nixon cancelled the remainder of the moon landings because he wanted to reduce the size of NASA’s budget)
2) lower safety standards — the astronauts were test pilots, not teachers
3) less regulation — wetlands at Cocoa beach were filled in where necessary without a 10 year environmental impact study
4) less bureaucracy - design reviews were performed by a small team, not casts of thousands with power point slides
5) Congressional/Presidential committment to the task — the current President cancelled Constellation without having a replacement agreed to, and this past Congress couldn’t even pass an appropriations bill for NASA, leaving its direction in limbo
Shall I go on?
Sure, if you want to. But the fact remains when Bush told em to go back to the moon they still couldn’t do it in less than 10 or 15 years. I just don’t have any sympathy for a bureaucracy that can’t do what they have already done using more time than they needed originally.
A bloated bureaucracy that has morons running around the world warning of global warming. “Hey that idiot, we pay him to go to space projects”. An agency that can do such miraculous things as the Mars rovers, make exploration satellites to go to the edge of our universe in decades and still work. An agency that has in the past done such wonderous things and just look at them now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
