Tide Gauge Evidence: Sea Levels Rose Faster Before 1950 Than Since
In recent years it has become increasingly apparent that tide gauge measurements of sea level rise often do not align with climate model expectations.
The models are predicated on the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which have risen explosively since about 1950, are the drivers of modern sea level rise.
Evidence from observed sea level trends has not been cooperating with this narrative, however.
Tide gauges indicate there has been a substantial overall reduction in the rate of sea level rise since about 1950 rather than the expected substantial acceleration.
For example, UK oceanographer Simon Holgate reported a 29% deceleration in global sea level rise rates from the first half of the 20th century (1904-1953) to the second half (1954-2003)
Holgate, 2007 “The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”
A small sampling of regional tide gauge results (SW Pacific, Japan) affirm the deceleration of sea level rise since the mid-20th century and indicate the highest rates of sea level rise occurred before human CO2 emissions began accelerating rapidly.
Apparently, for some people, the understanding of climate change is limited to the discovery that CO2 is a ghg. The fact that CO2 is a ghg just scratches the surface.
Delve deeper into the science and discover that thermalization and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy explain why CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate.
Those who think CO2 is a polutant are either stupid a sucker who beleives everything Al Gore or Bill Nye say have watched Gore fake documentry A INCONVENT TRUTH or are just plain ignorant
Can someone please explain to me…..
Where is the logic in declaring a trace gas essential to life of the planet a pollutant? How is C02 any more of a pollutant than oxygen?
Furthermore, it’s fairly well accepted that C02 comprises only about 40 one thousandths of one percent of the atmosphere. But only 3% of that can be attributed to human activity while 97% is naturally occurring. So, naturally, it follows that by “taxing” 3% of 40 one thousandths of one percent of an essential trace gas, and crippling industrialized nations, will change the climate and “save the planet.” Never mind the fact it has not even be proven that C02 is a significant driver of climate and even if it were, what about the 97% that occurs naturally anyway? How to you tax or mitigate that? You can’t.
Where is the emphasis in all the hysteria the almost all of the C02 in the atmosphere occurs naturally? It’s never mentioned because then it would be too obvious that the human contributed portion is insignificant, which would not further the scare mongering agenda.
Where is the logic in all of this? Where is the science? It would seem to me that C02 is only a convenient atmospheric boogyman to further a nefarious UN agenda as well as support a host parasitic agencies and opportunists. If C02 could be eliminated from the conversation, the global warming/climate change agenda would collapse.
Or… am I missing something in all of this? If so, please help me to understand. I find it all to be completely illogical as well as unscientific.
Earth warms first, then releases more CO2. Naturally.
Its getting warmer becuase summer is next month Nuff Said