Scientist say the pace of sea level rise has nearly tripled since 1990's

[longview]

What do you think about the credibility of the study in the OP? The one the WaPo is basing their reporting on?

EDIT: Link

Our reconstructed GMSL trend of 1.1 ± 0.3 mm⋅y−1 (1σ) before 1990 falls below previous estimates, whereas our estimate of 3.1 ± 1.4 mm⋅y−1 from 1993 to 2012 is consistent with independent estimates from satellite altimetry, leading to overall acceleration larger than previously suggested.

I think much of the change was from the change in measurements from very accurate gauges to much less accurate
satellites in 1992.
The gauges are accurate to about 1 mm, the satellites are only accurate to 30 mm.
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/jason3/

The primary instrument on Jason-3 is a radar altimeter. The altimeter will measure sea-level variations over the global ocean with very high accuracy
(as 1.3 inches or 3.3 centimeters, with a goal of achieving 1 inch or 2.5 centimeters)

In reality the only place sea level matters, is where it meets the shore.
If the tide gauges are showing a consistent rate of rise, that is what it is.
The satellites measure something different, and at a much lower accuracy.
For a fixed location, we cannot accurately tell within about 6 inches what the height of the tide will be in 12 hours.
For a satellite on a 10.x day cycle, it could actually be decades before the location, tide, wind, weather, pressure, all
lined back up again. The errors quickly become astronomical.

 

[Tim the plumber]

3.1 mm/yr.

A foot per century.

 

[Winston]

3.1 mm/yr.

A foot per century.

You assume the rate stops accelerating. What if it doesn't?

 

[longview]

You assume the rate stops accelerating. What if it doesn't?

Well in New York City, sea levels have been dropping for seven years, so lately it has been going the other direction.

 

[Tim the plumber]

You assume the rate stops accelerating. What if it doesn't?

How would the rate at which solar heat energy can be absorbed by ice change?

 

[Winston]

How would the rate at which solar heat energy can be absorbed by ice change?

I mean what if the rate that sea levels rise, changes. Right now it's 3.1/mm year what if AGW causes that to rise? Then your figure of a foot per century is off.

 

[longview]

I mean what if the rate that sea levels rise, changes. Right now it's 3.1/mm year what if AGW causes that to rise? Then your figure of a foot per century is off.

You mean what if the rate of sea level rise increases, changes could be ether increases or decreases.
As it stands the rate of the sea level rise at locations with long records seem to be fairly consistent,
with little change in the rate.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8443970
If the rate did indeed triple in 1990 as the paper suggests, it should plainly visible.

 

[Threegoofs]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ly-tripled-since-1990/?utm_term=.e1b0345eec50



Source of study

Better get building those water walls in New York and coastal cities, so the Koch's stock portfolio can go up a couple points. We MUST PROTECT KOCH PROFITS!

Hmmm. Haven't read the thread, but I'm guessing its a bunch of deniers who are telling you that the half hour they invested on the internet 'researching' sea level shows that the original paper, published in PNAS by researchers who undoubtedly spent hundreds of hours on preparing the paper and years if not decades specifically training to study the problem, is totally wrong based upon their calculations.

Amirite?

Edit: Looks like I'm half right. The other half is a guy whining about how you insulted the Koch family. Poor, delicate snowflake.

 

[Winston]

Hmmm. Haven't read the thread, but I'm guessing its a bunch of deniers who are telling you that the half hour they invested on the internet 'researching' sea level shows that the original paper, published in PNAS by researchers who undoubtedly spent hundreds of hours on preparing the paper and years if not decades specifically training to study the problem, is totally wrong based upon their calculations.

Amirite?

Yes, as well as a significant detour into the Koch bros.

 

[Jack Hays]

Hmmm. Haven't read the thread, but I'm guessing its a bunch of deniers who are telling you that the half hour they invested on the internet 'researching' sea level shows that the original paper, published in PNAS by researchers who undoubtedly spent hundreds of hours on preparing the paper and years if not decades specifically training to study the problem, is totally wrong based upon their calculations.

Amirite?

Edit: Looks like I'm half right. The other half is a guy whining about how you insulted the Koch family. Poor, delicate snowflake.

NOAA tide gauges disagree.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, as well as a significant detour into the Koch bros.

That was your fault.

 

[Winston]

That was your fault.

Well, I wasn't wrong.

 

[Jack Hays]

Well, I wasn't wrong.

Yes, you were. The claim that climate skepticism is a product of fossil fuel industry influence is mere propaganda.

 

[Winston]

Yes, you were. The claim that climate skepticism is a product of fossil fuel industry influence is mere propaganda.

Hardly.

 

[Jack Hays]

Hardly.

Yes. Propaganda, to fool the weak-minded.

 

[humbolt]

Hmmm. Haven't read the thread, but I'm guessing its a bunch of deniers who are telling you that the half hour they invested on the internet 'researching' sea level shows that the original paper, published in PNAS by researchers who undoubtedly spent hundreds of hours on preparing the paper and years if not decades specifically training to study the problem, is totally wrong based upon their calculations.

Amirite?

Edit: Looks like I'm half right. The other half is a guy whining about how you insulted the Koch family. Poor, delicate snowflake.

The number of hours anybody devotes to studying anything has little to do with the veracity of their conclusions. See Alchemy if in doubt, and if that doesn't flip your dripper, see posts by Threegoofs.

 

[Winston]

Yes. Propaganda, to fool the weak-minded.

JackHays, you certainly give preferential treatment to sources and blogs. I'd go out on a limb and say that some of the links you provide were financed by Koch money..

So, since you give preferential treatment to Whasupwiththat and such, I could argue that you buy into climate skeptic propaganda, that is funded by oil and gas, for the purpose of perverting the minds of those susceptible to right leaning propaganda.

 

[Jack Hays]

JackHays, you certainly give preferential treatment to sources and blogs. I'd go out on a limb and say that some of the links you provide were financed by Koch money..

Then you would fall off your limb.

 

[Winston]

Then you would fall off your limb.

You want to stand by that claim? Nothing you post contains studies that were conducted by PACs or think tanks, funded by Kochs?

 

[Jack Hays]

You want to stand by that claim? Nothing you post contains studies that were conducted by PACs or think tanks, funded by Kochs?

I think I'll take your questions one at a time. WUWT, for example, takes no corporate funding, period.

 

[Jack Hays]

You want to stand by that claim? Nothing you post contains studies that were conducted by PACs or think tanks, funded by Kochs?

The studies I post are all peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals.

 

[Winston]

The studies I post are all peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals.

Do you recognize a conflict of interest when, the Koch's fund think tanks to produce conclusions that protect their industry?

And then they can say, "Look, we're not saying it, this foundation (that we funded) came to a scientific conclusion(that we paid for)"

 

[Jack Hays]

Do you recognize a conflict of interest when, the Koch's fund think tanks to produce conclusions that protect their industry?

And then they can say, "Look, we're not saying it, this foundation (that we funded) came to a scientific conclusion(that we paid for)"

Never saw one like that.

 

[Winston]

Never saw one like that.

The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave the Smithsonian Institution two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010 to support research of climate skeptic Dr. Willie Soon. Soon has stated that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research".[108] The foundation helped finance a 2007 analysis suggesting that climate change was not a threat to the survival of polar bears,[109] which was questioned by other researchers.[110]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon

Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show

 

[Threegoofs]

The number of hours anybody devotes to studying anything has little to do with the veracity of their conclusions. See Alchemy if in doubt, and if that doesn't flip your dripper, see posts by Threegoofs.

You're right.

But it seems like a paper written by a half dozen highly trained professionals that has been accepted into one of the most selective journals in the world might have an edge over a random anonymous denier on DP.