New peer-reviewed paper finds no evidence of a human influence on sea levels — Published in Journal of Climate — ‘Examines global average sea-level rise during 20th century’

3) Projections of sea-level rise ‘depend on existence of a relationship between global climate change & rate of sea-level rise, but…such a relationship is weak or absent during 20th century.’

In other words, alarmist projections of sea-level rise are based upon false assumptions of a human influence on sea-levels which is not found by observations. In sum, global sea-level rise during the 20th century was constant, not accelerated, and shows no evidence of “climate change” or human influence. Sea level rose more than 3 times faster than the 20th century from the last ice age 20,000 years ago until about 8,000 years ago. During meltwater Pulse 1A shown above, sea levels rose about 15 times faster than during the 20th century. Sea level rise has been at a relatively constant, low level during the past 8,000 years.

New Study sea level expert Prof. Morner: ‘At most, global average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per century. It is probably not rising at all’

New Paper posted at SPPI — by Professsor Morner, world-class expert on sea level

Main points

· – At most, global average sea level is rising at a rate equivalent to 2-3 inches per century. It is probably not rising at all.

· – Sea level is measured both by tide gauges and, since 1992, by satellite altimetry. One of the keepers of the satellite record told Professor Mörner that the record had been interfered with to show sea level rising, because the raw data from the satellites showed no increase in global sea level at all.

· – The raw data from the TOPEX/POSEIDON sea-level satellites, which operated from 1993-2000, shows a slight uptrend in sea level. However, after exclusion of the distorting effects of the Great El Niño Southern Oscillation of 1997/1998, a naturally-occurring event, the sea-level trend is zero.

· – The GRACE gravitational-anomaly satellites are able to measure ocean mass, from which sea-level change can be directly calculated. The GRACE data show that sea level fell slightly from 2002-2007.

· – These two distinct satellite systems, using very different measurement methods, produced raw data reaching identical conclusions: sea level is barely rising, if at all.

· – Sea level is not rising at all in the Maldives, the Laccadives, Tuvalu, India, Bangladesh, French Guyana, Venice, Cuxhaven, Korsør, Saint Paul Island, Qatar, etc.

· – In the Maldives, a group of Australian environmental scientists uprooted a 50-year-old tree by the shoreline, aiming to conceal the fact that its location indicated that sea level had not been rising. This is a further indication of political tampering with scientific evidence about sea level.

· – Modelling is not a suitable method of determining global sea-level changes, since a proper evaluation depends upon detailed research in multiple locations with widely-differing characteristics. The true facts are to be found in nature itself.

· – Since sea level is not rising, the chief ground of concern at the potential effects of anthropogenic “global warming” – that millions of shore-dwellers the world over may be displaced as the oceans expand – is baseless.

· – We are facing a very grave, unethical “sea-level-gate”.

Are sea-levels rising? Nils Axel-Morner documents a decided lack of rising seas

But that’s only spots from The Atlantic, The Pacific and The Indian… there are other oceans. As we graphed before with Frank Lansner, most of the current “rise” is due to man-made adjustments, not man-made emissions. According to Axel-Morner, it’s not that the sea levels are rising less than expected, it’s more like they aren’t rising much at all, and haven’t been for years.

Claim: ’22-year-old report accurately predicted global warming’: Rebuttal: ‘There has been no warming for sixteen years’

Here are some key points on models:–Climate-fears-based-on-faulty-forecasting-procedures–For-the-first-time-we-are-not-just-armwaving-with-models–Blames-Unknown-Processes–not-CO2-for-ancient-global-warming

New paper finds more evidence of the ‘poor performance’ of climate models — ‘Paper published in the Journal of Climate

As Dr. Roy Spencer points out in his book, “The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.” This new paper is one of many that demonstrate current climate models do not even approach the level of accuracy [within 1 – 2%] or ‘consensus’ required to properly model global cloud cover, and therefore cannot be used as ‘proof’ of anthropogenic global warming, nor relied upon for future projections. Prior posts on clouds and the abject failure of climate models.

Fasullo and Trenberth find spurious success, make headlines, but still the models crash: ‘New paper suggested that a few models got the relative humidity right in some tropical spots’

But in the end, as Richard Courtney says, all the models are different so only one model can possibly be The Right One for the whole atmosphere, and quite likely they are all wrong. In this case, they are still all wrong. The hot spot is still missing, and the region below it with which they scored so me success is not that important. The words hot spot and humidity over the tropics lead many commentators to think this was something to do […]