PICTORIAL Guide To Sea-Level Rise Alarmism And Observed Reality – Errorless Global Mean Sea Level Rise

DEPICTIONS of catastrophic sea-level rise have become a useful propaganda tool for useful idiots in the Climate Crisis Industry who invent the most absurd future sea-level rise scenarios and recreate them in photoshopped horror stories that aim to shock you into belief…

THE only place where such catastrophic scenarios exist are in the warped minds of alarmist hysterics who occupy the climate controlled offices of NASA, NOAA, BoM, National Geographic and the New York Times et al. Not even worst case scenario UN IPCC RCP8.5 climate models project such doom.

SEA-LEVEL RISE SANITY

Dr Judith Curry …

Sea level has been rising for the last ten thousand years, since the last Ice Age…the question is whether sea level rise is accelerating owing to human caused emissions.  It doesn’t look like there is any great acceleration, so far, of sea level rise associated with human warming.  These predictions of alarming sea level rise depend on massive melting of the big continental glaciers — Greenland and Antarctica.  The Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing.  Greenland shows large multi-decadal variability. ….  There is no evidence so far that humans are increasing sea level rise in any kind of a worrying way.” — Dr. Judith Curry, video interview published 9 August 2017

“Observed sea level rise over the last century has averaged about 8 inches, although local values may be substantially more or less based on local vertical land motion, land use, regional ocean circulations and tidal variations.

(Climatism bolds)

Sea level rise acceleration (or not): Projections for the 21st century | Climate Etc.

THE most basic of real-world observations – comparative photographs – provide a pretty accurate and interesting glimpse of sea-level rise change (or no change) over a century or so. Although not an exact ‘science’, these photos indicate that the horror scenarios depicted by climate alarmists are simply not happening in observed reality. Coastal inundation may happen in hundreds or thousands of years from now, if we choose not to adapt, but considering that there has been no acceleration in SLR over the past 200 years, or since around 1790, then the chance of entire cities being inundated by 2100 is pure fantasy.

Ellis Island 1900

Ellis Island, 1900

Ellis Island 2017

Ellis Island, 2017

Florida

Florida beaches haven’t changed in 58 years.

Fort Denison SYD SLR

Fort Denison, Sydney

Key West

Key West, FL

lajolla18712b

High tide sea level at La Jolla, CA is about the same as it was in 1871.

la-jolla-cove-beach-at-low-tide-2-768x521

At low tide, La Jolla beach looks like this. California beaches haven’t changed in 145 years.

9414750-2

Sea level isn’t rising in the San Francisco Bay.

NYC SLR

NYC time series

Stat Lib 1891

Statue of Liberty, 1891

Stat Lib 2017

Statue of Liberty, 2017

DZspy3hV4AAeBYh

GOOD OBSERVATION : How many years does it take the sea to wear away a cliff like this? 10,000 years? Less? More? Why is the sea level lower now? (tide range 2.7m max at Krabi) Remembering all sea is the same level. So, is the sea lower everywhere?  (Krabi, Thailand)

NB//

Sea-level change (up or down) differs from place to place, depending on; local vertical land motion, land use, regional ocean circulations and tidal variations. ‘Absolute SLR’ and ‘Vertical SLR’ vary from region to region based on the geology of the area. See here for a good explanation of different types of SLR: NOAA — Straight Talk on Sea Level Rise | Watts Up With That?

H/t   @Keith_Mundy    @SteveSGoddard 

*

IN CONCLUSION and A Message to Alarmist ‘Scientists’, Politicians and the Fake News Media:

IT’S easy to use photoshop and tweak a computer model to give you the desired outcome that your political agenda and paymaster requires. However, sea-level rise based on actual data and real-world observations bear no semblance to the alarmist tripe pumped out of activist laptops, whatsoever.

WHAT is bandied around the mainstream media and by activist groups is nothing more than rabid propaganda. And, those guilty of brazen sea-level rise fraud and fear mongering should get a life or read some of that “science” that they always bang-on about.

CLIMATE alarmists and gullible, virtue-signalling politicians should be wary of insulting peoples’ intelligence over and over again. More and more are seeing through the repetition of alarmist lies, coordinated exaggeration of weather events, dud-predictions and homogenisation manipulation of data.

YOU are all doing a major disservice to ‘science’ and the ‘scientific method’. We too have access to the internet and can evaluate a graph, see a photo and even read this quote, that is IMO central to the climate mafia’s game-plan of mass climate-crisis indoctrination…

“IF you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” – Joseph Goebbells

Suzuki SLR

Climate catastrophist David Suzuki

•••

SEE These Posts To Dive Deeper Into The Science And Alarmism Of SLR :

Climate Science related :

Ref.: https://climatism.wordpress.com/2018/04/03/pictorial-guide-to-sea-level-rise-alarmism-and-observed-reality/

Errorless Global Mean Sea Level Rise

By Kip Hansen – WUWT

 

errorlessHave you ever noticed that whenever NASA or NOAA presents a graph of satellite-era Global Mean Sea Level rise, there are no error bars?  There are no Confidence Intervals?  There is no Uncertainty Range?   In a previous essay on SLR, I annotated the graph at the left to show that while tide gauge-based SLR data had (way-too-small) error bars, satellite-based global mean sea level was [sarcastically] “errorless” — meaning only that it shows no indication of uncertainty.

Here’s what I mean, this is the most current version of satellite Global Mean SLR from NOAA:

NOAA_GMSL

This version of the graph does not have the seasonal signals removed [meaning it is less processed], shows the satellite mission that produced the data, and rather interestingly shows that, as of yesterday, satellite-derived Global Mean SLR has slowed to 2.8 ± 0.4 mm/year.  NOAA NESDIS STAR has been reporting this as 2.9 ± 0.4 mm/yr since 1994, but earlier this year, in January, they were reporting it as 3.0 ± 0.4 mm/yr.

But the point is, in the graph shown above, captured yesterday; nothing is shown to indicate any measure of uncertainty — none at all.

Readers who have followed my series here on Sea Level Rise, or who have followed Dr. Judith Curry’s series at Climate Etc. (or Rud Istvan’s essays there) are already aware that satellite-derived sea level data is seriously confounded by factors orders of magnitude greater that of the actual rise of sea surface height and, while the magnitudes of those confounders can be estimated, their specific values can only be guessed at.  Never-the-less, these estimated values are then used to “correct” the satellite results.  This fact means that there must be a great deal of uncertainty in the final values graphed as Global Mean Sea Level.

Why do we never, ever see this uncertainty shown on the resultant graphical presentations of satellite-derived GMSL?   Part of the answer is that, in Science today, there is the odd, and wholly incorrect, idea that “if we average enough numbers, average enough measurements, then all uncertainty disappears” [or something like that — I have written about this issue, and battled ‘statisticians’ in comments endlessly, in my series on The Laws of Averages].

Despite this odd belief, there still holds the idea of the “standard deviation of the mean” and its related (but not identical) “standard error of the mean”.  While these can be tricky concepts, it is enough here to say that “The standard deviation, or SD, measures the amount of variability or dispersion for a subject set of data from the mean, while the standard error of the mean, or SEM, measures how far the sample mean of the data is likely to be from the true population mean.” [source].

We find the source of the numerical data that makes up the satellite-derived GMSL  graph in a text file of the data made available on a regular basis by NASA/JPL’s Physical Oceanography Distributed Active Archive Center (PO.DAAC).  In that text file?  There we find, in column 9 “GMSL (Global Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) applied) variation (mm) )  with respect to 20-year mean” and in column 10, “standard deviation of GMSL (GIA applied) variation estimate (mm)”.

Here’s is what we find out in regards to the previously-imagined “errorless satellite-derived GMSL:

GMSL_origtb

This is Column 9.  “GMSL (Global Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) applied) variation (mm) )  with respect to 20-year mean” [source file]

If we adjust the scale and add the one-standard-deviation as error whiskers (light grey shading):

GMSL_SDs

Add a couple annotations:

GMSL_SDs_annot

The standard deviation of the individual Global Means is very consistent and averages around 92 mm.  The change in global mean sea level, over the entire 25-year satellite era, is about 100 mm.    All of the SD whisker bars overlap all the other SDs by about 50% (or more).

Exactly what this might mean is a matter of opinion:

1)  “If two SEM error bars do overlap, and the sample sizes are equal or nearly equal, then you know that the P value is (much) greater than 0.05, so the difference is not statistically significant.” [source]

2)  “When standard deviation errors bars overlap quite a bit, it’s a clue that the difference is not statistically significant.  You must actually perform a statistical test to draw a conclusion. “ [source]

In this case, we are not quite sure if we are dealing with simple standard deviations in the data used to derive the individual means, or if the numerical data from PODACC represents “standard deviation of the [global] mean [sea level]”. [ PODACC uses this language to describe the SD data: “standard deviation of GMSL (GIA applied) variation estimate (mm)”. ]

Given the data presented above, repeated here in an animation:

gmsl_gif

What can we conclude about:

1)  Accuracy and precision of the GMSL derived from satellite data?

2)  The likelihood that the delta (change) in the 25 years of satellite data is actually significant?

 

Ref.: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/02/errorless-global-mean-sea-level-rise/