Monthly Archives: December 2013

Dr. Hansen’s Dream World – Part 3

This post is the third of 3 dealing with an article published on December 3rd by Dr. Hansen and 17 other scientists.  The article’s basic argument is that carbon dioxide is creating an energy imbalance.   They attempt to measure the energy imbalance, and make predictions about the future.

The article is refreshing in that it finally addresses many of my objections about the IPCC.  It actually discusses other possible drivers for climate change and tries to provide a compelling argument for why these other drivers of climate are not important.   I am less confident than I was before reading the article, but I still have doubts, many doubts.

Dr. Hansen made up his mind about the importance of carbon dioxide before most of the research used was performed.   He has been an advocate for a really long time.   And many of his arguments use data with very short histories.   The data displayed about the sun only goes back 40 years.

https://i1.wp.com/www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action

I want to see what happened during the last cooling cycle from 1940 to 1976.   Information that went back to the beginning of the Little Ice Age would be even better.

The Energy Imbalance discussion uses data from buoys.  The changing amount of energy stored by the oceans is used as an indicator that the world is accumulating energy.  That it is out of balance.  Virtually all of the data used in the calculation is less than 10 years old.   It is more a snapshot in time rather than a trend established over a long period of time.

And I worry about the data set.   There are about 4,000 buoys spread out around the globe.  They drift with the currents and too many are near land.  Many of the buoys have only been available since 2005.   The data is so new and so important to his conclusions that I suspect lots of wild guessing.

The article also dismisses all the short term temperature predictions in past IPCC reports.  It uses the oceans and the large ice masses near the poles as reasons why the horrible changes predicted have been late.   This effectively eliminates one of my main complaints about the IPCC….stupid short term predictions.

And they bravely encourage widespread use of Nuclear Power.   I think Nuclear power is a necessary part of any green answer.  Unfortunately with the exception of China, the world is walking away from nukes.

The article paints a bleak picture of the world unless we make the following changes to the way we generate energy.

  1. The article advocated carbon trading on a worldwide scale.
  2. They advocated widespread use of wind and solar.
  3. They advocated widespread use of Nuclear to replace both coal and natural gas generation.

Carbon trading requires all the countries of the world to agree.   That is unlikely to happen.  Without a worldwide agreement, carbon trading only works for the countries that don’t join.   Today, China and the USA have a huge trading advantage when trading with the EU because they don’t have to worry about carbon taxes.

Wind and solar will continue to be developed, but they have limitations due to Mother Nature.  If and when a better battery is developed,  their use can expand.  Until then, their use will be limited.

Germany has so much solar that their power grid is developing reliability issues when solar is not available.    Germany’s ability to manufacture goods may be impacted.   Germany’s 21st century solution, a brand new coal fired power plant!

The world has changed a lot since 2006 when Al Gore won a Nobel Prize for his political commercial masquerading as a documentary film.   Dr. Hansen and his cohorts barely got any press for their latest bit of gloom and doom.  The world has passed them by.  Why?

They have been gloomy for a long time. Doom failed to arrive on schedule.   Throw in climate-gate and the Mann Hockey Stick debate; the group has lost some credibility.  How did they get into this position?

I think it starts with their mind set.  Dr. James Hansen and his comrades live in a political dream world.  Why do I say they live in a dream world?  Let me count the ways:

  1. They think the science is so compelling that there is no other plausible view.  When Dr. Hansen and 17 other scientists wrote the article I am critiquing, they declared there were no competing interests.  The world does not have unlimited funds.  Every dollar spent on global warming is not spent on something else.  Things like world overpopulation, starvation in Africa,  AIDS, Cancer, over fishing the oceans, and safe drinking water all have the potential to be competing interests.
  2. This group lives on government funds.  Every other need of the government is a competing interest.
  3. Competing interests go beyond government money.  Jobs are at stake in the coal industry.   Wind turbines kill birds, including some endangered species.  People dislike the appearance of wind mills in pristine areas.   Solar panels take up lots of space and must be imported, impacting trade.   Nuclear, well it’s Nuclear, need we say more.
  4. The carbon dioxide is evil climate group has made many mistakes.  These mistakes have given the skeptical community reason to doubt their results.  They have been caught cooking data (Climate-gate), adopting questionable scientific theories (The Mann Hockey Stick Graph) and their short term predictions have been wrong.  Horribly wrong.
  5. They have been too secretive and too vague.  They have argued against sharing data with skeptics.  If the data is good, they should be doing exactly the opposite.  In 2005, the Scientific American  wrote an article defending this use of secrecy shortly after the Mann Hockey Stick data began to be attacked by skeptics.   The Scientific American defended Dr. Mann aggressively.  Interestingly, Dr. Hansen in his new article, appears to argue that the specific temperature conclusions in the Mann Hockey Stick Graph were wrong.
  6. The politics has turned against them.  A worldwide recession, cheaper and more plentiful fossil fuels, and the Fukashima Nuclear Disaster have changed the political landscape.   Global warming advocates are failing because people fear Nuclear Power.  Germany and Japan are abandoning their Nukes, only China seems willing to build new Nuclear plants.
  7. Long ago they made one very large mistake, they let a politician become point man for the cause, Al Gore.   Mr. Gore is driven by political realities.  He will never advocate Nuclear Power.   Green energy without Nuclear energy does not work.  It will not work until a cheap way to store electrical energy is developed.    The green community has been advocating a solution that does not work.  This is now becoming obvious.
  8. They expect the United Nations to be an effective force.   This expectation never made sense.   Much is made of the original Kyoto Treaty.   A treaty that did not work.  Carbon emissions soared during it’s implementation period. Kyoto created too many winners and losers.   Russia got special treatment.  India and China got a free ride.   It was politically unacceptable in the USA.
  9. China has become significant politically.   Any solution must involve China.  In a few years  China will produce a third of the world’s anthropogenic carbon dioxide. The 2009 Copenhagen attempt at a new treaty failed in large part because there was no way for the world community to get China to do what they felt needed to be done.  Absent political concessions in China, the USA will never come on board.   The two largest economies in the world must be a part of any real agreement.
  10. Stop living in the past.   Dr. Hansen has been an advocate of counting all the pollution a country has produced since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when dictating what each country is obligated to do to stop warming.   I personally don’t buy the argument scientifically, but that’s beside the point.  This approach has effectively given China a pass.  It provides them with an excuse not to cooperate.
  11. Global warming hawks need to learn how to compromise.   Natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel than coal.  While it is not as good as Nuclear as a base load fuel, from a carbon dioxide perspective, it is much better than coal.   No new plants are currently under construction.   Decades will pas before any new Nuclear plants come on line in the USA. And old plants are being retired as we speak. Dr. Hansen and his cohorts should be adopting natural gas as a lesser of two evils while they wait for technology to provide a better choice in the short run.

I would be more convinced by the arguments in Dr. Hansen’s article if Dr. Hansen hadn’t made his mind up about global climate change in the 1980’s.   15 years ago doom was coming and coming soon.   His article still says it’s coming, but it could be delayed by centuries.   It is a better argument than the immediate gloom arguments of 15 years ago. Unfortunately for him, politicians usually don’t respond to problems in the indefinite future.

And still  I wonder.   Is Dr. Hansen right now….or is he just selectively looking at data to defend a position he has held for 30 years?   Only time will tell….lots of time.

Dr. Hansen’s Dream World — part 2

It’s time to beat up on Dr. Hansen some more.  My last post only dealt with the introduction of  a new article published by Dr. Hansen and 17 other authors“Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature is the less than catchy title. This post deals with the first section of the body of the article, the section that deals with temperature.

Oh! First a sidebar…NASA (Dr. Hansen’s employer) Climate Research Funding  and Columbia University funding helped pay for the project.   I don’t mind NASA funding research, but I’d rather have them not use their own employees….it feels like we (the people of the United States) are paying them twice.

In part 1 of this discussion I mentioned that Dr. Hansen had been somewhat cavalier with his data selection.   I accused him of using regional data, and of cherry picking data.  But Dr. Hansen does so much more.  He uses old data, he misrepresents data and uses his own work as a resource.

He does all that within the first major section of the article, which is called Global Temperature and Earth’s Energy Balance.   In a subsection titled Temperature, he begins by showing temperature graphs.  The following graphs are displayed:

https://i1.wp.com/www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action

I find those charts difficult to read and I think they misrepresent the recent past.  Here are three other charts that better tell the story.   First is the East Anglia University chart that was prepared in 2010:

https://i2.wp.com/www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeImages/cru_gtc.gif

The total amount of temperature variation shown is less on the East Anglia chart than on the charts provided in the article.  A lot less.  Dr. Hansen has a rationale for using only average data, but I don’t like the choice.  The 13 year average data masks all recent data and makes details much more difficult to interpret.   It in effect spreads the El Nino data out for a long period of time.

I like the older (pre 2013) East Anglia charts.  The University changed something in 2013 that made 1998 look cooler relative to the rest of the chart.  I suspect data fudging and prefer the older charts.

Next is a 45 year chart I used in my last post.  It shows East Anglia data, and  2 satellite sets of data:

https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png/800px-Satellite_Temperatures.png

and finally the current UAH chart:

https://i0.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2013_v5.6.png

I like the UAH data best.  It is the most current and the most detailed.   I am fascinated by the changes in data from month to month.  The data Dr.Hansen chose makes it look like there is a steady march upward with a small pause at the end of the chart; the other charts tell a different, less ominous sounding story.

In the text that appears with the graphs, Dr. Hansen tells his story complete with multiple cites, including one to an article by an expert.   Yep, he cites himself.  He does that on 3 different occasions within the first two sub-section of the article.

A little further into the piece we get this statement:

The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets began to shed ice at a rate, now several hundred cubic kilometers per year, which is continuing to accelerate.

An article by Edward. Hanna et al. is cited as the source material for the statement.   The article was published in Nature in June of 2013 and the article has this to say about Antarctica:

It remains unclear whether East Antarctica has been gaining or losing ice mass over the past 20 years, and uncertainties in ice-mass change for West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula remain large.

Parts of Antarctica are losing ice, other parts are not.  And there is lots of uncertainty. Surface ice adjacent to Antarctica is at record high levels according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

https://i2.wp.com/nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/12/Figure4a-350x416.png

I am sure that if the world warms, ice will melt.  If enough melts it could become a serious problem. But Dr. Hansen overreached in this area.

The next sentence of the report (after the Greenland stuff) is as follows:

Mountain glaciers are receding rapidly all around the world  with effects on seasonal freshwater availability of major river.

Dr. Hansen provided two cite references for the Mountain glacier section.  Both were published in 2007.  That’s really old data in this field.  Recent studies blame some of the melting  not on carbon dioxide, but on particulate matter.   Air pollution turns the snow a slightly grey color, which causes it to melt faster.  It’s still a man caused problem, but the solution to the problem is to clean the air, not to eliminate carbon dioxide.

Oh…carbon black impacts melting in Greenland and the Arctic too.

The first of two cites supporting his argument for rapid melting referenced an article about the Andes; a part of the world that has not experienced significant warming.  The second site was the 2007 IPCC  Climate Change Report.   I was surprised to see this cite.  This part of the IPCC report is famous…or should I say infamous.  The Guardian ran a story on it in 2010.   The Guardian reported the following:

The UN’s climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report – that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 – was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature – but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

In a statement, the IPCC said the paragraph “refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.”

So, in 2010, the IPCC admitted the cite referenced by Dr. Hansen was flawed.  And his other cite was both regional and at an odd location.

The IPCC makes several statements  in their 2007 Synopses report.  Two are applicable here.  1) Warming has been regional  with most warming occurring over land in the Northern Hemisphere and 2) climate on a less than continental scale is subject to wild swings which makes it difficult to predict.

In finishing up the temperature section of the paper,  the article discusses the changes seen in the world. We are told the following:

Mega-heatwaves, such as those in Europe in 2003, the Moscow area in 2010, Texas and Oklahoma in 2011, Greenland in 2012, and Australia in 2013 have become more widespread with the increase demonstrably linked to global warming

The world is a big place.  I can make any argument I want to by picking my location.  If I want to sound alarmist about tropical storms, I can discuss the disastrous impacts of the Typhoon that destroyed so much of the Philippines.  If I want to sound calming, I can discuss the record low number of hurricanes  in the Atlantic during the same period.

Both events happened.  Both are regional.  And both happened in a part of the world that has not warmed significantly in the last 30 years.

The article provides two cites for the statement saying these items are demonstrably linked to global warming.  One cite provides a statistical argument for extreme weather whenever there is any warming or cooling.  It is in effect an argument that says extremes will appear whenever the average weather changes.   Climate has not been changing recently, so Dr. Hansen’s conclusion seems to be unsupported by the cite. The second site deals with one event, the 2013 drought in Australia.  No link was provided to that reference.

In Part 3, I’ll look at Dr. Hansen’s evaluations as to why climate politics has stalled and what needs to be done.  Stay tuned.

Dr. Hansen’s Dream World – Part 1

James Hansen, world famous global warming hawk and perennial doom speaker extraordinaire, has just published a new paper titled Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature.

The article uses lots of short term data, cherry picks that data, draws worldwide conclusions from regional data, and makes ridiculous assumptions.   Opinion wanders willy nilly throughout the article.

I am ever amazed at what gets passed off as scientific research in the environmental community.  The article looks more like a legal brief than a scientific document.   Lawyers are paid to represent a client, science isn’t supposed to work that way.

Where to begin? Let’s start at the beginning.  The first paragraph of the introduction says the following:

Humans are now the main cause of changes of Earth’s atmospheric composition and thus the drive for future climate change

Humans are changing the climate, but are they the main cause and is that change the drive for future climate change?   I don’t think so.  Greenhouse gases, air pollution, carbon black, solar winds, gamma rays, volcanoes, hot spots in the sea floor, aerosols and variations in the Earth’s orbit all play a part.  Dr. Hansen’s preoccupation with man caused carbon dioxide is a gross oversimplification.

This article sites the 2007 IPCC report as their reference for the statement.  The IPCC report says they are 90% certain that man is responsible for more than 50% of the changes seen in worldwide  climate since 1950.  Changes before 1950 are considered normal climate variation.

Many of the predictions made in that 2007 IPCC document  have proven to be wrong.   Their specific short term temperature predictions have, so far at least, been way off the mark.   I have been wondering how the global warming community would try to tiptoe around that fact.  This article offers a glimpse into this new reality of global warming climate predictions with the following statement:

The climate response to this forcing and society’s response to climate change are complicated by the system’s inertia, mainly due to the ocean and the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica together with the long residence time of fossil fuel carbon in the climate system. The inertia causes climate to appear to respond slowly to this human-made forcing, but further long-lasting responses can be locked in.

Okay, I suppose.   Society’s response is an odd addition to the statement.

In 2007 the IPCC said warming was already locked in, now it’s still locked in….but the actual warming might not show up for a while….how convenient.    IPCC reports since 1990 have insisted that warming since 1976 has proven their case.  As soon as that warming wanes a bit, short term data no longer matters.

Lots of controversy in the very first paragraph of the introduction.   Wow.   I’d better move on or I’ll never finish this post.

The introduction continues with a few paragraphs describing  IPCC history, followed by a few paragraphs about energy use.  Near the end of the introduction, the article begins advocating for a serious reduction in total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions  with the following statement:

Our evaluation of a fossil fuel emissions limit is not based on climate models but rather on observational evidence of global climate change as a function of global temperature and on the fact that climate stabilization requires long-term planetary energy balance. We use measured global temperature and Earth’s measured energy imbalance to determine the atmospheric CO2 level required to stabilize climate at today’s global temperature

This paper does not use computer models, it simply looks at lots of regional data (cherry picked regional data) and draws conclusions based on those observations.  Correlations are presumed.  Many many identified events are presumed to be the direct result of a 1 degree C change in climate.   Factoids that do not support the position are simply ignored.

This study starts with three assumptions; 1)man is responsible for the energy imbalance they see, 2) if we severely reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gases,  an energy balance can be restored, and 3) climate stability will be achieved.

I think all three assumptions are likely wrong!  Man probably deserves some credit for recent warming, but not sole credit.   Remove all man caused effects and climate still changes.   The notion that any specific level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can all by itself stabilize climate at any specific temperature is… well…it’s just extra special stupid.   And it’s the base premise of this entire article!

Why would anyone ever assume climate in the world can be stabilized at any specific temperature?  We live in an ice age cycle.   It has been lots warmer than it is today and lots colder as this Antarctic ice core demonstrates:

https://i2.wp.com/blog.world-mysteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ice_age_graph.jpg

Temperature varies by about 11 degrees C in the average ice age cycle.   The warm periods tend to be short, the cold periods tend to be long.   We live in the Holocene, an 11,000 year period of unusually stable warm temperatures.   Ice ages are presumed to be caused by the location of the continents and variations in solar irradiance due in part to variations in the Earth’s orbit.

The goal of the article is to keep temperatures at or below the temperature experienced in 1990, which is about 1 degree C higher than it was in 1750.   This  is an  unrealistic and unachievable goal.  Temperature is not now and has never been that stable.  Just look at the movement we have witnessed in  the last 45 years:

https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png/800px-Satellite_Temperatures.png

The late 1970’s were more than a degree cooler than it was in 1998.  1998 was a strong El Nino year.  In June of 1991, Mt. Pinatubo erupted, changing the climate for over a year and causing a decline of almost 1 degree C.    Just imagine what would happen if a volcano 5 or 10 times bigger than Mt. Pinatubo erupted.   We’d all be wishing for a warmer world.

If we did exactly as Dr. Hansen recommends, would the world magically become stable climatically? I don’t think so. It might be a bit cooler, but stability is an unachievable goal.

Surprisingly, there has been nearly no net change in climate since 1987.   In 1987 we were .2 degree C above the base line and in late 2013 we are still about .2 degree C above the base line.  Temperatures have the ability to warm and cool rather dramatically all by themselves and yet, these past 25 years have been boringly stable.

And that is a political problem for Dr. Hansen and the IPCC.

Sea Level Confusion — Part 2

I’ve been reading, trying to understand better why sea level varies so much from location to location. I conducted a google search and found a site affiliated with Yale University.

The site is called Environment 360.   An article titled The Secret of Sea Level Rise: It Will Vary Greatly By Region  provided a bit of insight and some climate propaganda.  The climate propaganda makes me a bit nervous. If the author is inclined to misrepresent in one area, perhaps the rest of the article is less than impartial.  The first paragraph included the following tidbit:

Recent projections suggest a global average warming of perhaps 3 to 4 degrees C, or 5.4 to 7 degrees F, by the end of this century.

A little later in the article:

Sea level, according to the best current projections, could rise by about a meter by 2100, in large part due to melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets.

The article was written in 2010.   Best current projections, give me a break.  In 2010 his best projections would have been IPCC AR4 report published in September of 2007.   That report made no predictions about Greenland and said that data on the Antarctic ice sheet was inconclusive.  AR4 predicted the following in a section titled Projections for Future Changes in Climate:

For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios

Almost immediately thereafter  sea level rise by 2100 makes an appearance in the form of a chart.  The sea level rise that matched 4 degrees C was …are you ready…between .26 and .59 meter.   The data in the chart (labeled SPM 1 in AR4) showed a range of best guess temperatures from 1.1 to 4.0 degrees C.   4.0 was the highest best guess on the chart.   The author took the highest number possible, and made it sound like the most likely event!

And so far temperature predictions made in the AR4 report have been wild high.

Since Y2K there has been no net change in the temperature of the Earth’s surface.  Temperatures peaked in 1998 and have been wandering in  a narrow range for some 15 years.   Carbon dioxide has been rising steadily, temperature has not.  I have no idea what kind of projections he was referring to.   IPCC projections will, in AR5, almost certainly be less specific.  Nobody likes to have their mistakes so easily documented.

That said the article offers some interesting tidbits about why sea level changes.  Most are short term lasting anywhere from a few days to up to 30 years.   Wind, atmospheric pressure, and changes in the ocean bottom are discussed.    None seemed to help explain the errant data I was seeing (see my last post).   And then I read about gravity!

Supposedly, changes in gravity at the poles can impact sea level.   When the Arctic ice cap shrinks (as it has been doing since the 1970’s) this changes the gravitational force in the area.  Sea level goes down.   And this article predicted significant changes.   The whole thing sounded a bit S.W.A.G.-ish to me.  And given the exaggeration in the beginning of the article I had suspicions.   Still it is an interesting notion.

Another article said that when ice in Greenland melts it can take up to 30 years for that change in sea level to work it’s way around the world.   Another article talked about how difficult is to measure sea level.   The subject seethes with SWAG potential.

NOAA keeps all sorts of data on sea level.   They monitor hundreds of sites (perhaps thousands).   But the sites are not uniformly distributed.   Most are in the USA and in Europe.  Africa has only one official site.  Antarctica has none.

Maybe Antarctica could help explain some of the strangeness of the data.  The ice sheet in Antarctica has been growing in recent years.  2013 has set one record after another.  The ice sheet is the largest it has been (surface area) since satellite data began in 1979,or so says the National Snow and Ice Data Center.  And they have pictures:

It looks like gravitational forces in Antarctica have been increasing in recent years.  Sea level should be higher near the coast of Antarctica and lower in the middle of the Pacific.  It would help explain why Hawaii’s sea level is increasing less than ….say San Francisco.   Perhaps the amount of ice over land in Antarctica might offset the melting in Greenland .

Antarctica and the Arctic might be offsetting each other.

It doesn’t explain why folks in Australia show a rise in sea level that does not persist in California.  Maybe it will even out some time in the next 30 years or so, one way or the other?

Antarctica’s mass is growing.  That’s my best guess for why some sea level data makes no sense.  That and time.   Much of the data in the NOAA data base is less than 30 years old.   There you have it,  my current best wild ass guess.   Absent field measurements of actual sea level activity near Antarctica…who’s to say I’m wrong.

At least I admit I’m guessing!

Sea Level Confusion

Mean sea level confuses me.   Intuitively I want sea level to be the same all over the world.  But it isn’t.   One reason the Panama Canal has locks, sea level on the Pacific side averages 8 inches higher than on the Atlantic side….and the tides are higher on the Pacific side too.   Without the locks, water would constantly be flowing from the Pacific side to the Atlantic side.

And sea level is not changing at the same rate all around the world.  Some places have a rising sea level, others falling.   Supposedly worldwide sea level is rising steadily as demonstrated by this chart courtesy of the Australian government:

Plot of global sea level from 1993 to 2012

NOAA keeps data for all the 50 states of the USA and that data generally shows a much slower rise….and in some cases no rise since 1990.  Something doesn’t make sense…and that confuses me.  Let’s begin looking at NOAA data for San Francisco.   The data for San Francisco is some of the oldest available.  It goes back over 150 years.  Here is the sea level data chart for San Francisco:

chart: Mean Sea Level Trend, 9414290 - San Francisco, California

San Francisco peaked in 1998 (a strong El Nino year).  NOAA also provides charts that show the change year to year.   They call these charts interannual charts.  Here is the interannual chart for San Francisco.residual1980.png

Since 1998 sea level is San Francisco has been going down.   How about Miami Beach Florida:

residual.png

Miami appears to have peaked in the 1940’s?   But the data shows no real net change in the 50 years the data has been kept.  NOAA must have changed where they keep data for this area as the data stops in the 1980’s.  But the data is interesting as it shows variations that should have predated man caused climate change.  The data does not match the San Francisco data.   It has less overall movement and it peaks at a different time. Now lets see how the Pacific Ocean has been doing by taking a peak at Honolulu, Hawaii:

chart: Mean Sea Level Trend, 1612340 - Honolulu, Hawaii

Honolulu has been rising, but slowly.  It looks a lot like San Francisco.  Let’s zoom in on the data since 1990 by looking at interannual variation chart .

residual1980.png

The change since 1990 has been minimal.  The area above the zero line on the chart roughly equals the area below the line.

Are you confused yet?  Now let’s look at data for Seward, Alaska:

chart: Mean Sea Level Trend, 9455090 - Seward, Alaska

An earthquake in 1964 is probably the reason for the shift in data.  The Seward waterfront was devastated by a tidal wave following the Good Friday Earthquake on March 28th 1964.  The trend of the data is …down.  Sea level has been going down in Seward since at least 1964.    How can that be?  If the worldwide sea level has been rising steadily since 1990, how can it be going down in Seward?  The NOAA data appears to contradict the Australia data?

Now let’s look at Juneau, Alaska.  Are you ready…this one’s really weird:

chart: Mean Sea Level Trend, 9452210 - Juneau, Alaska

Juneau makes no sense to me at all.   The world has been warming, glaciers have been melting.  Sea level should be going up world wide.   I have no reason not to believe the data provided by NOAA.  After all they are pretty good at this stuff.

Climate activists have been talking global disaster for years and years.  One really big disaster has been a rapidly rising sea level.   Al Gore featured it in his 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth.   The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been making claims in advance of the 2014 release of their AR5 climate assessment.   Sea level rise has made the news as this link to an article in the Yale forum on Climate Change and the Media demonstrates.  Here is a chart prepared by the IPCC from that article:

I suspect guessing.  Wild Ass Guessing!  AND I am confused.