Only Missed By A Factor Of Five

The 1990 IPCC Report predicted about 120 mm of sea level rise by the year 2014. Tide gauges were their only sea level reference in 1990, and have shown about one fifth of the IPCC’s forecast.

ScreenHunter_1848 Oct. 25 08.54

As a result of their spectacular failure, they have increased their confidence levels moving forward.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Only Missed By A Factor Of Five

  1. Sundance says:

    The latest Antarctic research is showing that ice melt there will contribute less than 2 inches by 2100 and The latest research showing that Greenland is less vulnerable to ice melt than thought because most of the ice lies well above sea level in the bowl shaped continent. So IPCC predicted melt can only come from heat expansion. It appears that the next hide the decline attempt is set to take place in the deep oceans. 😉

  2. Ben Wouters says:

    The whole idea of the possibility that the deep oceans can be warmed from the surface is totally ridiculous. In fact the deep oceans (below ~1000m) have been cooling down for the last ~84 million years. They lost a staggering ~18K since that time.
    Small wonder we are now in a period of alternating ice ages / inter glacials.

  3. darrylb says:

    Steve, on this one I get a different factor than you do.
    My weary eyes agree with you on 12 cm or 120 mm for the best estimate in the 24 year period.
    Measuring sea level rise is much more difficult than most realize because it is very dependent on local factors. The only information I have is that the average rise has been 1.7 mm per year by tide gauges and 3.3 mm per year by satellite, plus or minus in each case.
    A factor of five would be a rise of 24 mm over the 24 year period, however, tide gauges show a rise of 40 mm and satellite a rise of just under 80mm.
    Care to comment?

  4. darrylb says:

    Sea level rise is the only factor which leaves me with a few questions, although I think the rise has been happening since the last ice age and has very little human fingerprints.
    The rise comes from three factors glacial melt (not sea ice), thermal expansion and land run off.
    I saw one (and only one) study of land run off causing 42% of the rise.
    What i have a hard time reconciling is continued rise (almost linear) without any warming for at least 15 years.

  5. jrwakefield says:

    Those who predict 1 meter or more rise by 2100 don’t understand what acceleration means. To get to 1 meter rise by 2100 would require an acceleration of round 1.6% per year. That means by 2099 the rate of rise would have be be 3-4cm, IN THAT ONE YEAR! Current rate is 0.174cm per year.

    This is physically impossible to happen.

      • gregole says:

        Excellent! Please everyone view this in its entirety.
        For me, an American, it is wonderful to see a European scientist expound objectively on science.

        All too often, European scientists appear to me as pagan religious weirdos in support of Fabian Socialist politicians. It is a bit scary.

        • darrylb says:

          Morner has long been battling the AGW-sea level rise establishment.
          I have not seen this clip before—-Thanks RobertV

  6. Eric Simpson says:

    “[in 2008] the West Side Highway [and so much of Manhattan] will be under water…” -James Hansen, NASA, 1988
    Yesterday I reported how Michael Mann, in a pillsbury dough boy sort of wish to silence the opposition with censorship, had called out a thread with many effective skeptic comments as “smelling like Koch.” The main skeptic commenter in that Mann-denounced thread was NikFromNYC. One Chicken Little replied to Nik: “Stay in New York Nik. In 100 years some snorkler will swim into your residence and find artifacts from the life of the most educated dunce doomed climate change denialists had to offer. For someone of your academic credentials, your grip on reality is mind boggling.” Nik had an excellent response that deserves replay here:

    Oh dear, the Manhattan tide gauge station in Battery Park realllllllllllllllly duzzzzz looooooook BAHD!!!

    In all seriousness this is the exact same case for nearly every long running tide gauge on planet Earth. I can’t imagine anything more empirical than this direct on-the-ground test of alarmist claims. The simple fact is that tide gauges that cover both hemispheres for a century and a half, unlike thermometers, scream back at you:


    But we we continuously hear highly duplicitous claims that the systematic mismatch between tide gauges (relative to land) and satellite altimeters of about 1 mm a year actually represents a sudden jump in real world trend! These types if claims are even made by mainstream climatologists to policy makers.

    If you take the tide gauge data and plot a trend line to apply the null hypothesis test that no big ‘G’ global warming signal asserts itself, the null hypothesis holds tight since tide gauge station data worldwide generally show a *much* better fit to a straight line than to any version of a Nike swoosh.

  7. huh, i can easily guess what sea volume is, but i have no idea what sea level is…or i have to many ideas…

    It is always the same song with climate science, such for instance, global temperature ..few able know what we are talking about…

  8. Walt Allensworth says:

    So from about 1860-1940 (where C02 was not a problem) we have roughly the same amount of sea-level increase as during 1940-2010 (where C02 is a catastrophe).

    Am I the only one that sees a flaw in the CAGW argument here?

Leave a Reply