Monday, July 14, 2014

Global sea level rise from tide gauges is half of that claimed from satellites. Which is right?

Translation from the German EIKE site by Google [with apologies]

Which is right?: Sea level rise from tide gauges of 1.6 mm / year or satellite altimeters of 3.2 mm / year

by Klaus-Eckart pulse  07/08/14
Numerous evaluations of coastal-level measurements over 200 years, and more recently by gravity measurements of the GRACE satellites demonstrate again and again a sea rise of about 1.6 mm / yr.  In contrast, the published since 1992 altimeter measurements with the satellite systems TOPEX / POSEIDON / JASON are twice as high values ​​of 3.2 mm / yr. The significant discrepancy is still unclear. However, it agree after all the trends match: The sea-rise is linear for at least 100 years, there is no acceleration of the increase. A signal due to anthropogenic CO2 (AGW) is nowhere visible. All this is in stark contradiction to the pronouncements and in particular to the alarmist predictions of the IPCC and some climate institutions.

(1) sea-rise at the German North Sea coast for 10,000 years
It is the great merit of Wilhelmshaven coast scientist, Karl-Ernst BEHRE from the Lower Saxony Institute for Historical Coastal Research (NIHK ) that we have been the end of the last ice age have good knowledge of the trans-and regressions on the German North Sea coast [1], cf . Fig.1 :
                                      Figure 1 [1c, p.21]
         Marine growth for the southern North Sea for 10,000 years   
                                         Figure 2   [1a (2003), p.35]
               Marine growth for the southern North Sea over the past 3000 years
From the Figures 1 and 2 yields: The sea level has risen by more than 50 meters in the past 10,000 years. The increase has increasingly slowed when one considers the overarching trend via the trans-and regressions of the last 3000 years. In the "youngest" 400 years (1600-2000) there have been (without the GIA correction) an increase of 1.35 m, in the past 100 years, only one such 25 cm, thus slowing it down further.
As for the secular decline of the sea surges in the last centuries are other extensive studies [2] for similar results as BEHRE:
"The last detailed regional study which by Shennan and Woodworth (1992). They used tide gauge and geological data from sites around the North Sea to infer 20 th century and late Holocene secular trends in MSL. They Concluded did a systematic offset of 1.0 ± 0:15 mm / yr in the tide gauge trends Compared To Those derived from the geological data Could be interpreted as the regional geocentric rate of MSL change in the 20 th century . They also constructed-a sea level index to represent the coherent part of sea level variability in the region and found no evidence for a Statistically significant acceleration in the rates of SLR over the 20 th century . thesis results were in agreement with Those of Woodworth (1990), who found a significant acceleration in the order of 0.4 mm / yr by When focusing on century time scales longer than a century (up to 300 years), but not for the 20 th century . "
All this applies in particular to the German North Sea coast, such as the Lower Saxony State Association for Water, Coastal and Conservation NLWKN in 2013 again confirmed [3]:
, "So far, Heyken emphasized (note: spokeswoman NLWKN) , but there were no signs that flooding any worse, 'We measure the flood stands. since 100 years, during which time the average flood is over. 25cm rose That in sea in the. recent decades rising faster, we can not confirm. ' Also there is no evidence of more frequent floods. "
F o sum
The marine growth has slowed, over thousands of years and in the last century. A "CO2 air-signal" can not be found!

(2) level as a balance diameter: coastal subsidence and / or sea-rise?

Worldwide, the change of the sea-level is measured on coasts with about 1,000 levels, some (few) even date back over 200 years, the majority less than 100 years. The direct absolute readings and trends are at first only a balance measurement:
Increase or decrease of the sea towards increasing or decreasing the coasts. There are several causes, especially plate tectonics, volcanism and glacial processes ( isostasy and Eustasie ).
For the German North Sea coast BEHRE [1a] has also been busy: "The North Sea basin is already a very long time an area of subsidence, tectonic subsidence and this holds even today on" .... uwaaO: "The German coast lies on the upper part of this reduction area. For a more precise estimate of the vertical movement here is the top marine sediments of the Eemian sea .... Thus one comes to the German Bight to a tectonically induced mean decrease from 0.64 cm / century. in the West and 0.54 cm / century. in the east , and consequently to a small amount. "
Moreover, discussed BEHRE (ibid.):
"At the formerly heavily debated question of possible tectonic subsidence of the German Nordseelüste three very accurate North Sea leveling were carried out in the years 1928-31, 1949-55 and 1980-85 ....".
Taking into account all these facts BEHRE folding back to 2003, concludes:
"After that appears for the present a tectonically induced decrease of < 1.0 cm / century. probably .... ".
These figures are estimated to be low according to recent studies.
In 2011, a work was published on the trends of 15 coastal levels in the German Bight [4]. It also estimates the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) can be specified:
"This, INITIALLY, gives estimates of rates of vertical agricultural movement for the three tide gauges providing the longest records ( -0.7 ± 0.2 mm / yr for Cuxhaven , -0.5 ± 0.1 mm / yr for Lt. Alte Weser and   -0.9 ± 0.2 mm / yr for Norderney ; negative values ​​denote country subsidence ) ".
For these three long-term level therefore is a coastal setback of 0.7 mm / yr in the central terms that are secular drawdown trend of 7 cm / century. means.
In the same year 2011 appeared an extensive work [5], which deals with the ongoing Holocene vertical land movements of the last millennium in southern Scandinavia and Jutland. The zero line ("pivot") then runs from the North Frisian Islands in a ausgreifendem south arch over Denmark in the middle Baltic Sea (Fig. 3).
For the area of the German North Sea coast, this results in a tectonic decrease of about 10 cm / century .
                      Figure 3 [5, there Fig.9] (blue notes added)
       Present-time isostatic uplift rates (mm / yr) of Denmark and surroundings.
In a recently published work by MORNER three levels are analyzed in the Kattegat, so close to the tectonic zero point ("pivot"):
"In the Kattegat Sea, the glacial isostatic component factor is well established and the axis of tilting Has Remained stable for the load 8000 years. At the point of zero regional crustal movements, there are three tide gauges Indicating a present rise in sea level of 0.8 to 0.9 mm / yr for the load 125 years. " This results in a secular absolute sea-rise (ASLR) of only about 7 cm.
The level in Cuxhaven and Norderney show a relative secular increase of 25 cm, for which the state government of Lower Saxony recently noted [6]:
"Climate change is not noticeable:  For a rising sea-levels of Lower Saxony North Sea coast . due to climate change, the state government sees no signs also a trend towards higher storm surge frequency was not apparent, said Environment Minister Hans-Heinrich Sander with in Parliament Thereafter, the trend is. the increase in unchanged 25 cm per century.  A faster increase was not observed. "
It would be mentioned by BEHRE 1 cm / century. negligible, whereas those mentioned by HANSEN 10 cm / century.leads to an important conclusion: The recognized "Absolute Sea Level Rise" (ASLR) then amounts to only about 15 cm / century .
F o sum
The measured levels with sea-rise at the German North Sea Coast is in the last 100 years, 25 cm. An acceleration can not be detected. Taking into account natural tectonic coastal subsidence (GIA), the ASLR is only around 15 cm. A CO2-AGW climate signal is one way or not recognizable.

(3) evaluation of 15 coasts levels in the German Bight

From an international team of authors under the scientific direction of the Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Hydro Mechanics at the University of Siegen in 2011 analyzes of all available levels for the German Bight have been published [7], in individual cases, reaching back up to 166 years BP
It is also discussed about Isotstasie estimates:
"Rates of vertical agricultural movement are estimated from the sea level records using a simple approach and are Compared with geological data and Modelled GIA (note: GIA: Glacial Isostatic Adjustment) estimates. " [7]
The in Figure 4a across averaged smoothed analysis shows that in the period of 166 years, alternating periods of accelerated and decelerated sea-rise occur :
"An accelerated sea level rise is detected for a period at the end of the nineteenth century and for another one covering the load Decades." [7].
The highlight in particular the figure 4b shown to dekadal changing annual increase rates.
                                                   Figure 4 a + b [7a]
                                  Trends of 15 coastal levels German Bight 
Looking at the whole period with a 2nd degree polynomial [8], as is also no secular acceleration of the increase, more of a slowdown:    see Figure 5:
            Figure 5 (data: F.ALBRECHT, Th.WAHL et al [7]; graphics. pulse / EXCEL)
              Polynomial trend of 15 coastal levels in the German Bight
The authors of [7]  found no trend:
"Provided local sea level variations in Cuxhaven are unaffected by local effects and represent the large scale signal in the German Bight we would expect synthesis residuals to be small and oscillating around zero with no long-term trend or discontinuity . " (Ibid.; Fig. 6)
"The estimated long-term trend (1843 - 2008) for the Cuxhaven station is 2.3 mm / yr" [7]
And waaO: "For the period 1951-2008, For Which data are available from all gauges, the trends vary in between 1.0 mm / yr (Bremerhaven) and 2.8 mm / yr (Norderney)." [7]
These data are without GIA correction. For this, the following corrections should be applied (ibid.):
"This, INITIALLY, gives estimates of rates of vertical agricultural movement for the three tide gauges providing the longest records ( -0.7 ± 0.2 mm / yr for Cuxhaven , -0.5 ± 0.1 mm / yr for Lt. Alte Weser and   -0.9 ± 0.2 mm / yr for Norderney ; negative values ​​denote country subsidence ) ".
Then the ASLR is in the German Bight in the middle of the 20th century only about 13 cm!
F o sum
The over all 15 levels - with different registration periods - average Relative sea-rise (RSLR) for the German Bight is from 1843 to 2008 about 32 cm, the secular increase in the 20th century around 20 cm.The GIA-corrected values ​​(see also Chapter 3) obtained for the above mentioned periods ASLR one of about 22 or 13 cm. There is no secular acceleration, the polynomial in Fig.5 other hand, shows even a slight weakening of the secular increase. A CO2-climate signal (AGW) can not be found.

(4) evaluation of 30 coasts levels around the North Sea

An international team of authors has 2013, an evaluation of 30 coasts level (1880-2011) around the North Sea have been published [9], see Figure 6 +7:
                                         Figure 6 [9; there Fig.1]

                Figure 7 [9; there Fig.10] (GIA: Glacial Isostatic Adjustment)
The summarized results (with GIA correction) :
"The long-term geocentric mean sea level trend for the 1900 to 2011 period is estimated to be 1.5 ± 0.1 mm / yr for the Entire North  Sea  region . " 
Thus:  The secular linear trend in the 20th century is 15 cm.
"In summary the long term trends in the North Sea are not Significantly different from global sea level trends ... " uwaaO: "The recent rates of sea level rise (ie over the load two to three Decades) are high Compared to the long -term average, but are Comparable to Those Which have been Observed at other times in the late 19th and 20th century. "
For the alarmist marine scenarios in the context of the climate debate and this result is almost a disaster , because it is - even with a comprehensive review of the literature - found that there is absolutely no trend is to an acceleration of the increase, neither secular nor in the last decades, in stark contrast to the climate models:
"... Found little or no evidence for on-going positive sea level acceleration for the tide gauges located in the North Sea in between 1870 and the late 1980's of the sort suggested for the 20 th century Itself by climate models. "
F o sum
The average over all 30 levels and provided with GIA correction Absolute sea rise (ASLR) for the whole North Sea in the period 1900-2011 is 15 cm. Acceleration was not found, therefore no AGW-CO2 climate signal.

(5) evaluation of 182 levels globally

NIEL-AXEL MORNER put in two 2013 published work [10] global evaluations of levels (NOAA 2012), of which some, some (few) even into the 18th century back:
"Removing outliers of uplift or subsidence Obvious, there are 182 records left, Which
forms a nice Gaussian distribution around a mean value of +1.65 mm / yr . "
The in Figure 7 shown level data are not GIA-corrected, thus provide the RSLR (Relative Sea Level Rise) is:
"Because many tide gauge stations are affected by local subsidence, thisValue shoulderstand rather be Considered to overestimate, however."
                                Figure 8: GAUSS distribution 182 level [10]
(RSLR: Glacial Isostatic Adjustment without GIA;  "key sites: ie sites of special, importance like the Maldives, Bangladesh, Tuvalu, Kiribati and Vanuatu ... Venice" )
Critical to MORNER expressed here to the high satellite values ​​(vgl.Kap.8):
"Satellite altimetry is a new and important tool. The mean rate of rise from 1992 to 2013 is +3.2 ± 0.4 mm (UC, 2013). This value is not a Measured value, HOWEVER, but a value arrived at after much "calibration " of subjective nature (Mörner, 2004, 2011a, 2013A).
The differences in between the three datasets  <  ± 0, +1.65 and +3.2 mm / yr >  are far too large not to indicate indicating the inclusions of errors and mistakes. "
F o sum 
The analysis of 182 global levels yields on average a secular sea rise of 16 cm without the GIA correction. A secular acceleration of the increase was not found, therefore no AGW-CO2 climate signal.

(6) Evaluation of 1200 levels globally

An international team of authors put the 2013 evaluation of 1277 levels for the period 1807-2010 [11]. The global total budget shows Fig.9.
This GIA corrections were made:
"The large Uncertainties (up to 0.3 - 0.6 mm / yr) in our global sea level reconstruction are due to choice of GIA corrections, with difference up to 8 mm / yr in rate of sea level rise in individual locations,: such as the Arctic , Baltic and Antarctic regions. The GIA correction adds up to 0.3 mm / yr trend in the global sea level reconstruction , with large differences in between GIA datasets. "
                                                          Figure 9
                         Marine trend 1807-2009; 1277 level [ 11; there Fig.3]
In the graph (Fig. 9) is neither a regression straight line inserted by the authors still a polynomial, but even so "by eye" visible:
()  In the first half of the 19th century, the sea level has dropped by about 15 cm;
()   Since ca.1860 sea levels are rising - until today;
()  Since 1860 decadal phases are faster and slower rise seen a trend acceleration over the entire period since 1860 not; for the last 10 years since about 2000 even only a plateau?
These considerations first fit these statements of the publication ( Abstract ):
"The new reconstruction Suggests a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm · yr - 1 falling on the 20th century, with 1.8 ± 0.5 mm · yr - 1 since 1970 . " (Note: 1970-2009).
What follows:
The slew rate for the partial period from 1970 is less than the rate of increase for the entire 20th century! There has thus to date been a slowing of the rise in the 20th century.
This is offset in the publication a few sentences later, also in Abstract :
"We calculate to acceleration of 0.02 ± 0.01 mm · yr - 2 in global sea level (1807-2009) ".
Wow! For 100 years, would require 2 mm, coastal flooding?
For this purpose, but also provides the question:
How can analyzed in the publication secular  "linear trend " (vgl.wo) have an acceleration?
That is a contradiction in terms. A linear trend is described by a regression line, so our opinion may have no acceleration?
This is not the case, as the regression straight line to the satellite altimeter data from AVISO in Fig.10 shows:
                                                          Figure 10
                         Satellite altimeter data [12; AVISO] (POSEIDON / TOPEX / JASON)
However, there are still more contradictions in the statements of Jevrejeva publication.
First and one hand:
"... A linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm · yr - 1 falling on the 20th century " ( Abstract ), and: GSL12 shows a linear trend of 1.9 ± 0.3 mm · yr - 1 falling on the 20th century ... " ( Conclusion ).
This is only a little more than half of the altimeter measurements of 3.3 mm / yr in the AVISO data (Fig. 10 ).
In contrast, it is said - in our opinion in contradiction to - directly in the one before in "Conclusion": " There is an excellent agreement in between the linear trends from satellite altimetry and GSL12 sea level since 1993, with rates of 3.1 ± 0.6 mm · yr - 1 and of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm · yr - 1 , respectively. "
AS for now (?):
3.1 mm / yr or 1.8 mm / yr - because: referred to here were level period 1970-2008 contains but also the altimeter measurement period since 1993! D would have more detail such a "data-jump" from 1993, also in Fig.9 (Fig. 3) can be found, but he is not! Instead, one finds in Fig.9 from about 2000 a kind of plateau - "zero increase"!
Completely puzzling is the thing, if you still look to the 7 shows in the Jevrejeva publication [11]: there run two regression straight line level & Altimeter 1993-2009 almost congruent:
"Dashed red and blue lines represent linear trends for satellite altimetry (3.2 mm · yr - 1 and tide gauge (3.1 mm · yr - 1 ) ... ". which in Fig.3/Abb.9 compared with the SAT data from AVISO (Fig. 10) can not find any trace?
It is incomprehensible how such a comprehensive publication full of contradictions can happen to a "peer review".
F o sum 
The work of   JEWREJEVA et al. creates regarding a clarification of the large discrepancy between the data of the level and the satellite uE no clarity, but rather adds to the confusion. The same applies to the contradictory trend statements for marine increase in work.

 (7) GRACE satellites confirm the level of 1.7 mm / yr!

A recent analysis [13] of the gravity field measurements using the GRACE satellites confirmed the numerous publications of level evaluations:
A recent analysis [13] of the gravity field measurements using the GRACE satellites confirmed the numerous publications of level evaluations:
"New study using GRACE data: sea level rises by less than 17 cm per century " ... " A new study, created with the GRACE data (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment) shows that the sea level with during the past 9 years a rate of only 1.7 mm per year has increased. This results in an equivalent of 6.7 inches (almost 17 ​​cm) per century . This fits well with measurements of levels . " ...
Namely ... (ibid.):
From the IPCC FAR Section 5.5.2 : Holgate and Woodworth (2004) estimated a rate of 1.7 ± 0.4 mm per year , namely averaged along the global coastline during the period 1948-2002 and based on measurements from 177 stations ( Note: levels), divided by 13 regions.
Church et al. (2004) calculated a global increase of 1.8 ± 0.3 mm per year during the period 1950-2000, andChurch and White (2006) calculated a change of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year in the 20th century . "
And ... waaO:
"Significance of this result :
The Geocenter-corrected final result of Baur et al. is highly encouraging to Chambers et al. (2012) show that the sea level has risen by 1.7 mm per year during the last 110 years on average , as it also results from the analyzes of Church and White (2006) and Holgate (2007).
At the same time the concentration of CO2 in the air has increased by almost a third. And still, this increase did not affect the rate of global sea-rise! "
F o sum 
The two extremely different methods for the level and gravity measurements (GRACE satellites) agree with 1.7 mm / yr correspond remarkably well to a tenth of a millimeter!   This raises, however, again in the literature repeatedly critical question to why the satellite measurement method TOPEX / POSEIDON / JASON - the only one of all methods of measurement - almost twice as high values ​​result ( è Cape (8).):

(8) level versus satellite altimeter

Published worldwide level measurements (see Figure 4-9, and other publications [14] ) as well as equal gravity measurements of the GRACE satellites show a global mean annual sea-increase of 1,5 - 1,7 mm / yr so secular 15-17 cm , whereas the available only from 1992 Altimeter measurements from other satellites (Fig. 10 + 11) will be published twice as high rise rates [15]: 3.2 mm / yr .
At the beginning of the satellite altimeter era (1992), the first published measurements were even well below 1 mm / yr, that is also still well below the level measured values. Over the following years, the SAT data were then corrected several times to higher values ​​. The reasons remain unclear as to a very detailed history of RUDOLF KIPP documented [16]:
"Only through numerous corrections that are based are not elaborated on assumptions, the resulting" official "value of currently 3.1 mm per year."
It is instructive to quote a few more passages from this document here:
"The" Environmental Satellite " (Envisat: 2002-2012) is something like the centerpiece of the European Space Agency (ESA) .... One of the tasks of this satellite is one among others ... the measurement of sea level However, the evaluation. latter data so far led to results that neither the statements (Note: IPCC) were in line of accelerated sea level rise, nor with the measurements of American Jason satellites ....
The measured Envisat sea level rise rate for the period from late 2003 to late 2011, only 0.48 mm / year, which would correspond to 4.8 cm in 100 years. The measurements of the Jason-1 satellite have found for the same period, an increase of 2.05 mm per year. To deal with this fact ... were at ESA last year discussed methods on how one can match the Envisat data calculated on the results of measurements of Jason satellites. This adjustment has now been made ​​apparent when switching to the latest version of Envisat data (version 2.1). thereby an increase of 2.32 mm / year was from the previous minimal increase of 0.48 mm / year, almost overnight . If you are looking for a justification for this measure, which is on the Aviso website under " Processing and corrections find it. " It says: 'sign of instrumental correction (PTR) corrected via external CLS input (impact of +2 mm / year drift) 'Man thus has a balance has been adjusted to external data. There is certainly no word on what data the are or what circumstance would this radical intervention made ​​it necessary . "
And ... waaO:
And also the corrections currently performed at the data of the European Envisat project not only follow the well-known scheme that these measures have invariably in one direction, namely towards higher values. " ...
The grounds which offer the scientists, contributes more to concealment at, as to elucidate why such a fundamental interference with the data had to be made ​​. What remains is the impression that data systematically "extrapolated". Finally, is the next state report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the year 2014. And this can only be fully effective if everything is still much worse than it was already secured in the final 2007 report. A for years slowly expectant rise in sea level would this certainly not helpful. "
And this almost prophetic words of RUDOLF KIPP in 2012 have already 2013 "fulfilled", because - just as it is come: the IPCC has increased its marine forecast in AR 2014 for the first time in 2100 after the IPCC in the three preliminary reports (ARs 1995, 2001, 2007) gradually a "down-grading" of the forecasts toward measuring reality had made: seeFigure 12!
D azu some remarks by renowned marine researchers [17]:
"I think it unlikely that the sea level rise should have accelerated even in the very year, were provided as satellites in service" , adds SIMON HOLGATE, sea-level researcher at the National Oceanography Centre in Liverpool. "...
"Whether we have an acceleration since 1993, is not clear , "says JOHN CHURCH from Australian climate research institute CSIRO . "
NILS-AXEL MORNER [18] (University of Stockholm, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics) to:
"Satellite altimetry is a new and important tool. The mean rate of rise from 1992 to 2013 is +3.2 ± 0.4 mm (UC, 2013). This value is not a Measured value, HOWEVER, but a value arrived at after much "calibration " of subjective nature (Mörner, 2004, 2011a, 2013A). The differences in between the three datasets   < ± 0, +1.65 and +3.2 mm / yr >  are far too large not to indicate indicating the inclusions of errors and mistakes. "
In a graph that everything has been taken together (Fig. 11 a + b) :
                Figure 11 a + b: Comparison of the level and satellite data
                                         [19] (Fig. 11a in text boxes added)
In the recently published, already under paragraphs (3) + (4) cited extensive work on the North Sea-levels [CHOICE, ALBRECHT et al. 2011, 2013] is indeed made unanimously agreed that the secular increase in the North Sea is around 13-18 cm - (!) Without acceleration, but about the glaring discrepancy of such data to the altimeter measurements hardly a word is said there, leaving aside such a terse remark:
"For the period 1993 to 2009, the estimated global MSL trend from altimetry records is 3.2 ± 0.4 mm / yr , almost double did Observed from 1900 to 2009 (Church and White, 2011). "
A scientifically critical discussion or even vote to completely lack - strange.
F o sum 
The significant discrepancy between satellite altimeter data and levels is still not clarified uE [20] :
"Despite the new satellite measurements, the level measurements were, of course, continued. And refused to be swayed and remained stubborn in their old price of well below 2 mm / year. Rather than adjust the satellite data to the data actually measured on the ground and to correct downwards, there is a discrepancy between the level and satellite measurements but unfortunately until today. And it seems somehow to bother anyone. A mysterious case. "

(9) SPIEGEL: "haggling as in the bazaar"

Noteworthy is our opinion nor what Der Spiegel [21] under the title " IPCC haggles includes data on sea level rise " over the way the "emergence" of sea-level projections in the IPCC on a related meeting of the sea-level researchers ( July 2011) reports:
"Many billions of euros are at stake: A UN panel to rule on the predictions for the rise of the oceans - it determines how much tax money the states have to pump in the coastal protection hundreds of studies to be negotiated. , it goes like a bazaar . "
And further ibid:
"The haggling over the results similar to trading on a bazaar :
On the one hand, researchers have alarming sea level forecasts published that exceed the specifications of the latest UN climate report far.
In contrast are actual measurements of sea level: let not yet showing any extreme rise. " ... "4000 experts discussed at the IUGG meeting of ocean researchers in Melbourne, Australia their results. Sometimes it is themaxim: "Who offers more?" ... "The climate scientist James Hansen of NASA, for example, warned  in a recent paper  in front of a rise in sea levels around five meters over the next 90 years - it nine times so that the estimate of the maximum scenario from the last UN climate report. Nasa researchers risked with the extreme forecast its credibility, some say climatologists . "
In this type of "BAZAAR" there are also sober factual votes (a, a, O.):
"The higher growth rates since 1993 are nothing out of the ordinary , says Guy Wöppelmann of the Université de La Rochelle in France in the 20th century, the sea level rise has been accelerating ever similar,. yet . then he slowed again "
"The same happening again , says Eduardo Zorita of the GKSS Institute for Coastal Research: In the past eight years, the rise of the oceans have weakened; like it goes further, is uncertain. "
And more ... ibid.:
"The geoscientists Jim Houston from the Engineer Research Center in Vicksburg and Bob Dean of the University of Florida in Gainsville in the U.S.  put in the journal "Journal of Coastal Research" surprisingly shows that the sea level had risen fairly consistently over the past century - an acceleration is impossible to determine. "
This all has the IPCC not dissuaded from now on to predict against all former and current measurement data in the IPCC report 2013/14, an acceleration of sea-rise for the next 100 years after the reports before (ARs 1995, 2001, 2007) had carried out step by step, a substantial downgrade in the direction of measuring reality (Fig. 12) :
                                         Figure 12 [IPCC / AR 's 1990-2013]
                                       IPCC projections for sea-rise 
F o sum 
The creation of the IPCC predictions for sea-rise with factual science almost nothing in common [MIRROR-ol. 14.07.2011 "The haggling over the results similar to trading on a bazaar."

(10) confidence crisis, the IPCC Institute and the sea-level alarm

The "Climate-gate" scandal began in 2009 for the IPCC a severe confidence crisis [22], which continues today.
This loss of confidence in the IPCC forecasts shows again and again even with the spread of some institutions fantasies to gigantic sea-level rises [23]:
"4000 experts discussed at the IUGG meeting of ocean researchers in Melbourne, Australia their results. Sometimes it is the maxim: "Who has more" (see Chapter 9).
So it is not surprising that give planners the coastal protection such prophecies no faith. Thus, for example, are also Stefan Rahmstorf and the PIK with such extreme predictions for sea level hardly taken seriously internationally [24]:
"After careful consideration of all available information decided by the Senate from North Carolina in June 2012 with 35 votes to 12 that in coastal protection plans must be calculated in the future with the historically well-documented sea-level rise rate . Acceleration as of the Rahmstorf group for the future is postulated, should not be included. (See Reports on junkscience , Climate Wire , WUWT , John Droz Jr. ).
The law was the beginning of July 2012, approved by the House of Representatives from North Carolina . The Republican politician ... Pat McElraft had campaigned for the rules adopted and explained that she looks at a future strong acceleration of sea-rise as unrealistic and this is just speculation . "
The crisis of confidence in the IPCC has now reached even in the otherwise predominantly climate katastrophilen German media [25]:
"When will soon be thinking about the loser of the year, the climate scientists are on many lists sure far above .... Stocker [26] was a few weeks ago went practically bathe in the presentation of his IPCC report, because he was the public and policy to convey in vain tried that years of quasi-stagnation in the world's temperature, the "hiatus", should be excluded from the climate policy .... The logic of politics, however, is different: If the climate research already so serious fluctuations in the presence not on their has invoice, how should we then remove their predictions for the next hundred years? "
Der Spiegel [27] already makes a "swan song" on the IPCC:
"The great day of the United Nations (IPCC) Climate Council on Friday was a sparsely attended press conference in the Georgian town of Batumi (Note: 10/18/2013) committed ... For the 25th anniversary were hardly any guests, it was only water enough. .. It looked like a swan song for the organization that was founded in 2007 after all honored with the Nobel Peace Prize. Another major climate report it will not possibly give. "
================================================== ==================
The constant alarm messages of supposedly dramatic sea level rises in the present and future can not be confirmed, but are even refuted by the measurement data by measurements. Globally, neither the level data (200 years) nor the satellite data (20 years) show an acceleration of sea level rise. This is in stark contradiction to all previous and current statements from the IPCC, by some climate institutions, and the climate models. Moreover, there are indications that satellite data was adjusted to ensure that it points to higher rates of sea level rise [28] "Rather than adjust the satellite data to the data actually measured on the ground and to correct downwards, there is a discrepancy between gauge and satellite measurements unfortunately even today. And it seems somehow to bother anyone. A mysterious case. "
       Klaus-Eckart pulse
================================================== =================
[1] BEHRE, ​​K.-E.: (a) A new sea-level curve for the southern North Sea, Problems of Coastal Research in the Southern North Sea area, Volume 28, (2003), Isensee-V. (B) A new Holocene sea-level curve for the southern North Sea;Boreas, Vol 36, pp. 82 - 102 Oslo. ISSN 0300-9483, 2007 (January), (c) history of the landscape of northern Germany, Wachholz Neumünster-Verlag, (2008), 308 pp.
[2] Shennan, I., Woodworth, PL, 1992. A comparison of late Holocene and twentieth century sea-level trends from the UK and North Sea region. Geophys. J. Int. 109, 96-105; . nachzitiert by: T. CHOICE et al: "Observed mean sea level changes around the North Sea coastline from 1800 to present" ; Earth Science Review; Vol 124, Sept. 2013 , 51-67  
[3] NLWKN; . NZ, 16:11 2013 , p.25, in: "Super dike protects the coast"
[4] choice, T., Jensen, J., Frank, T. and Haigh, ID; 2011 ) Improved escmates of mean sea level changes in the German Bight over the load 166 years, Ocean Dynamics, May 2011, Vol 61, Issue 5, 701-715
[5] JM HANSEN et al: Absolute sea levels and isostatic changes of the eastern North Sea to central Baltic region falling on the load 900 years,. BOREAS, DOI 10.1111/j.1502-3885.2011.00229.x (2011)
[6] NZ, 04/02/2010, p.4; climate change is not noticeable
[7]  (a) choice, T., Jensen, J., Frank, T. and Haigh, ID; 2011 ) Improved escmates of mean sea level changes in the German Bight over the load 166 years, Ocean Dynamics, May 2011, Vol 61, Issue 5, 701-715, (b) Albrecht, F., T. choice J . R.Weisse and Jensen ( 2011 ); Determinig sea level change in the German Bight, Ocean Dynamics, doi: 2010.1007/s10236-011-0462-z
[8] We thank the authors F.ALBRECHT, Th.WAHL et al. [7] for the release of the original data for the Fig.5
[9]. T. CHOICE et al: "Observed mean sea level changes around the North Sea coastline from 1800 to present" ; Earth Science Review; Vol 124, Sept. 2013 , 51-67
[10] NILS-AXEL MORNER: (a) Sea Level Changes Past Records And Future Expectations, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOL.24 No. 3 & 4 (2013) (b) Sea Level Changes, A short comment; (2013); Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, The Global Climate Status Report (GCSR) © is a product of the Space and Science Research Corporation, (SSRC), PO Box 607 841, Orlando, Florida
[11] Jevrejeva, S., et al: Global Sea Level Behavior of the Past Two Centuries,. Global and Planetary Change 113 : 11-22; (2014);
[18] Nils-Axel Mörner: Sea Level Changes ; A short comment; (2013); Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm, The Global Climate Status Report (GCSR) © is a product of the Space and Science Research Corporation, (SSRC), PO Box 607 841, Orlando, Florida
[20] ; July 14, 2012
[21] Spiegel: "IPCC haggles includes data on sea level rise"; 14.07.2011;, 1518,774312,00 html.
[22] ; No.24 (2010), pp. 8-13; and  
[24] ; July 12, 2012
[25] FAZ, 11/27/2013, "By holding Models"
[26] THOMAS STOCKER, session leader to the IPCC at the meeting in Stockholm, Sept. 2013
[27] SPIEGEL: UN investigators want to abolish large climate reports ; 10.18.2013;

[ 28   Subsequent corrections of satellite sea level data: What does not fit is made ​​to fit? ; ; July 14, 2012

[29] Nils - Axel Mörner: Deriving the eustatic Sea Level Component in the Kattaegatt Sea; Global Perspectives on Geography (GPG) Volume 2, (2014) , p.16-21
 ================================================== =
Note EIKE editors:  The above publication can be downloaded as a PDF, with better quality pictures than here; sw below.
================================================== ==

1 comment:

  1. See my post on this board October 30, 2013 at 4:22 PM

    Satellite sea Level has been "upjusted" several times since 2004 to the tune of nearly a millimeter per year.