2) They are making adjustments to the data to get the acceleration that they need to demonstrate to scare people. Without they are stuck with a few mm per year. Part of the correction is presumably data that shows how much ocean water enters the continental water tables each year. It is claimed that the drop in sea level around 2009 was because of a large increase into reservoirs for drinking water.
3) They need to account for plateaued global temperatures by claiming the heat is going into the deep oceans. Ocean heat content levels are not showing enough of a heat rise, so they have to say the deep oceans. This ocean heat should produce expansion of the oceans and even more sea level rise than predicted. To account for this 'missing water' they have to then say that the water is missing on the continents, as well as the water from an accelerating sea level rise.
4) I haven't seen the study, but from the abstract it looks like they are saying no acceleration. I'll guess that they have put in all sorts of statements like 'global warming is ongoing. Expect sea level to rise in the future. You will be flooded.' to make sure they don't get rejected for publication. With this paper we can estimate sea level rise to 2100 to be 25-32cm. About one foot.
5) They have claimed that eliminating the hockey stick would mean more global warming. So not correcting the hockey stick means less global warming. Also, this is a correction of Rahmstorf, so it would mean less global warming than what he is saying, even if the paper is discounting a slowdown in sea level rise.
"Have you ever read or heard that sea level rise is accelerating?"
I thought the data made it pretty obvious that had happened in the early 1990's when rates went from 1.7mm to 3.1mm per year, deniers have long tried to fob that off as an anomaly of the switch to using satellites but that is rubbish as both satellites and tide gauges show this change.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/index....
It's hard to say looking at Michael and Mike's (is there a 30% increase in deniers called Mike) answers, which is the more delusional.
As for the paper it say pretty much the same thing as the paper kano posted a link to the other day they is a slow down in the rate of rise due to ocean warming but this is being made up by an increase in the contribution of glacial melt, as for what this means to long term estimates of sea level rise (not much) as the implication has always been that thermal expansion was only going to be a small portion as the bulk of future sea level rise will come from accelerating glacial melt. S for the amounts being talked about even for thermal expansion it is not saying this has stopped it is saying there has been a 30% reduction in the rate of rise, so it is still rising. There seems something a little odd that the years 2003-2011 are picked out (given this is a Mar 2014 paper) as the data involved ends at the lowest point in a large dip seen in sea level data, which it should be noted has since picked up again.
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#s...
As is always the case with any peer reviewed paper it needs the test of time and review by the thousands of scientists to read it before it can be said to have much validity, but then deniers are the ones who usually try to leap on individual (just published papers) to try and make points, clearly they don't wan't to wait for that review, i.e. whatever happened to that paper Watts was so pleased he got published, it disappeared without a trace, with perhaps a few citations in Energy & Environment and perhaps some Marvel comics.
As a disclaimer, I want to make it clear that I think two decades is an insufficient record length to determine much of anything.
>>1. Have you ever read or heard that sea level rise is accelerating? <<
Kano had a question about it decelerating. Maybe he knows.
>>2. In the caption for figure 1, it is stated: "b, Same as a. but after correcting the GMSL for the mass and thermosteric interannual variability (nominal case). Corrected means that the interannual variability due to the water cycle and thermal expansion are quantitatively removed from each original GMSL time series using data as described in the text." <<
>>Can anybody guess what that means? <<
They filtered out the La Nina influence on rainfall that dumps more rain over land than sea. .
>>3. How does this study relate to: plateaued global surface temperatures, increased ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level rise? <<
If I understand your question correctly (and if I understand the article based on the abstract correctly) – the study attempts to remove interannual natural variability caused by shifting rainfall patterns associated with La Nina events.
>4. What does this study say about sea levels projected out to 2100?<<
I doubt the study claims to say anything about projections for the rest of the century – and if it does I defer to my Disclaimer above.
>>5. Have you ever read or heard of a correction to data that resulted in less "global warming".<<
I believe that would be an “incorrection” to the data – and, no, I have not.
======
Raisin Caine --
>>Sorry, I am not able to get to your link.<<
That's like saying "the dog ate my homework." It's no big deal if you do not understand what they are talking about. You're probably searching the web for someone to tell you want to think about the article, huh?
>>But I can answer #5. They "accounted" for the heat island effect and that led to more warming.<,
You can't answer a question without getting in at least one stupid lie, can you?
I don't subscribe to Nature either. Those who wish for an easier read of Cazenave et al's findings can find that at ScientificAmerican.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...
Sorry, I am not able to get to your link.
But I can answer #5. They "accounted" for the heat island effect and that led to more warming.
Gary F,
I is actually like saying I can't get to the link, let me know if the link is busted or it is my own comp problems, but thanks for being your usual helpful self. Note that since I can't pull it up on this comp, I will wait to I get home and answer the rest.
As for the "lie,
I already provided you the link to the NASA page show the 1998 US temp record. And the official reason for the change was accounting for UHI and that early measurement devices were closer to heater and asphalt, though I KNOW they can't back this assumption up with evidence. You really want to try to convince me that they kept records of the location of the heaters and the temperature measurement devices over the last 100 years? And talking about the effect of asphalt while stating the UHI is very small is pretty hypocritical.
In fact, the "deniers" claimed that too many of those measurement devices were too close to asphalt and heaters and the UHI was unaccounted for, and you warmers use this as an excuse the raise the warming for the heater and asphalt AND claim UHI is extremely small.
Edit @ Gary F,
"I believe that would be an “incorrection” to the data – and, no, I have not. "
So you admit that EVERY correction made that you have heard of creates more warming? If we did this in the pharma industry, the FDA would laugh at us. Guess that is why we made AIDS no longer a death sentence and you "scientists" have 95% of your model overestimating.
Edit:
BTW, Gary F, Thanks for this.
">>5. Have you ever read or heard of a correction to data that resulted in less "global warming".<<
I believe that would be an “incorrection” to the data – and, no, I have not. "
I would suggest you rephrase your answer. I have not seen such an obvious admission of biasing results in my life. Made all the more problematic given you are a cliamte scientist. Perhaps that is not what you meant, so please clarify. If you want to stick by this answer, know that I will be using the HECK out of it.
BTW, you are welcome, because I am certain you would not show me the same courtesy.
Edit:
Read the link, but I would have to purchase article to answer your questions with any but a guess. It looks like the article is saying that long term trends would stay the same and that this is only correcting for short-term variations.
Jeff M,
That is actually a discussion of the new measurement systems and their site location. It was done after the 1999 "correction" to the temp data.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data...
You may not like this site, But I have tracked down the first blink and the second blink to NASA data.
And I will tell you that hearing warmers derail the site, and then finding the data exactly as stated in a NASA report makes me even more skeptical. Now I don't take Goddard's view of data manipulation, but when all correction lead to more warming, I do note trends.
Surprise, surprise.
Sea level rise varies with natural cycles. Stop the presses.
Raisin Caine: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn...
Reason for sea level rise is An Arabian Nomad from Opec Oil is paying up to $10 Billion to other countries to pour hundreds of millions of tons of dry land sand into saltwater yearly, not careing about how Arabia and other coastal countries think about watching their sea level rise over their dry land. I was able to stop Dubois World for 3 years, but now I dont know what countries he's paying now. Mike
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014...
0000.00003 mm a decade
If anybody has the full study for this please link: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2159.html
A couple of questions came to mind as I read that abstract and the figures:
1. Have you ever read or heard that sea level rise is accelerating?
2. In the caption for figure 1, it is stated: "b, Same as a. but after correcting the GMSL for the mass and thermosteric interannual variability (nominal case). Corrected means that the interannual variability due to the water cycle and thermal expansion are quantitatively removed from each original GMSL time series using data as described in the text."
Can anybody guess what that means?
3. How does this study relate to: plateaued global surface temperatures, increased ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level rise?
4. What does this study say about sea levels projected out to 2100?
5. Have you ever read or heard of a correction to data that resulted in less "global warming".
