So how does Mörner explain the global sea level rise record, in which both satellite altimeters and tide gauges
show average global sea level rise on the order of 3 mm per year (Figure 1)?
Not exact matches
The team found that results from the two methods roughly matched and
showed that Greenland is losing enough ice to contribute on
average 0.46 millimetres per year to
global sea -
level rise.
Regarding the «
global ice at 1980
levels», here is the canned response we wrote in rebuttal to the astonishingly twisted piece in Daily Tech: What the graph
shows is that the
global sea ice area for early January 2009 is on the long term
average (zero anomaly).
For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with
global average temperature change, the upper ranges of
sea level rise for SRES scenarios
shown in Table SPM - 3 would increase by 0.1 m to 0.2 m. Larger values can not be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for
sea level rise.
Current
sea level rise underestimated: Satellites
show recent
global average sea level rise (3.4 millimeters per year over the past 15 years) to be around 80 percent above past I.P.C.C. predictions.
Boutrous pointed out that while
global sea levels are rising on
average, some evidence
shows that
sea levels have fallen in specific regions, and coastal flooding in places like the San Francisco Bay Area is also a function of local conditions like land subsidence.
«The results
show that the extreme
sea levels observed during Hurricane Katrina will become ten times more likely if
average global temperatures increase by 2 °C», said Dr Jevrejeva.
Tamino doesn't want to admit that there's been no detectable acceleration in the
global average rate of
sea -
level rise in response to ~ 2/3 century of steadily increasing CO2 emissions and
levels, but that's what the data unambiguously
shows.
Obviously this conspiracy theory is utterly absurd, and is easily disproven by simply examining the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) published in 2001, two years before Mörner's accusation of falsified
sea level data, which
shows an approximately 10 to 15 mm rise in
average global sea level from 1993 to 1998 (Figure 3).
Accounting for the TOPEX - A instrumental correction for the first 6 years of the altimetry data set, these studies provided a revised
global mean
sea level time series that slightly reduces the
average GMSL rise over the altimetry era (from 3.3 mm / yr to 3.0 mm / yr) but
shows clear acceleration over 1993 - present.
For example, additional evidence of a warming trend can be found in the dramatic decrease in the extent of Arctic
sea ice at its summer minimum (which occurs in September), decrease in spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, increases in the
global average upper ocean (upper 700 m or 2300 feet) heat content (
shown relative to the 1955 — 2006
average), and in
sea -
level rise.
The exact speed with which these are going to contribute to
sea level rise is highly uncertain, the synthesis report says, but the best scientific estimate — based on observed correlation between
global average temperatures and
sea level rise over the past 120 years —
shows that by 2100 we will experience
sea level rise of one meter or more.
For sixty years, tide gauges have
shown that
sea level in the Chesapeake is rising at twice the
global average rate and faster than elsewhere on the East Coast.
For instance: I was looking at what the AMSU instruments (http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps) at
sea -
level are
showing and their equivalent temperature has always hovered about 294.75 K ± 0.25 K for
global average, not 288 as Trenberth assumes as the mean
global average temperature of the surface, so, just change it and see the effect.
Some regions
show a
sea level rise substantially more than the
global average (in many cases of more than twice the
average), and others a
sea level fall (Table 11.15)(note that these figures do not include
sea level rise due to land ice changes).