I think we cannot deny that the ttermal effect of the modest temperature rise over the last 200 years or so will (of itself) lead to a modest SLR. This was a good summary of the many factors (including measurement accuracy) that raw SLR number locally. We live in an area on Vancouver Island that has no effective SLR due to an equal or even greater land "uprising" (or, as we joke locally, keep up the earquake insurance!) but are still told to plan for the reverse. There is evidence from tide guages that land is on average winning by about 0.25 metres (horizontal of course) around the world. I think that kind of chart would have been a good addition.

According to the calculator included with Windows 10, 3.7mm equals a whopping .145669 inches. If NASA truly is measuring sea level to within an inch, 3.7mm is well inside that inch and so that number is MEANINGLESS!

Disappointed to see John here propagating that old trope about the mismatch between the measurement error of a single point and the plus/minus of a derived quantity like a trend. Not my job to teach elementary statistics but he can read up simple accounts of sampling theory and how to calculate the error of estimating some statistic based on a number of sample points from the error properties of the measurement of the individual points making up that sample. As an example, think about the ability to compare , say, the average height of two large cohorts of children to a precision much smaller than the measuring tape used to measure the height of any individual child. What goes for average, applies to a trend estimate - its plus/minus figure is NOT bounded by the plus/minus figure on the individual measurement. Not saying there aren't problems but singling out this one feeds into the alarmists belief in our inability to understand their science.

Out friggin’ standing. John Robson’s insouciance is so spot on. It’s mainly subsidence along with a trickle of melting residual to the last glacial period brought to an end over 20,000 years ago. The fandango of measuring at such fractional scales over such small time periods in the wake of massive influences (tidal, wave action, gravitation, rotation, precipitation, geological tectonics, etc) makes a mockery of meaningful accuracy. It is The Duncead at work in modern times. The margin of error alone is so much greater than any claimed decadal aquatic volume rise.

Now apply this to claims made by the Global Warming crowd—or rather to its mountainous assertions of bogus predictions. The small increases claimed, in fractions of C, are rendered meaningless when set against the complex forces influencing global temperature “averages.” They are dwarfed by the expected margin of error that must be built into the computation of those averages. Here it is The Duncead on ‘roids.

Max Beran trots out that old elementary statistician's fallacy about averaging washing out errors. It only washes out *independent* *random* errors. Errors due to uncertainty in the position of a satellite are neither independent nor random.

Assuming the various sea level measurements to be accurate to the stated precision, the plain fact of the matter is that we have no reason to care what the global mean sea level is. We only care about local relative sea level. I live in a coastal city and there are some infuriating flaws in the way local sea level is reported, but taking the data at face value the local sea level has been rising at about 2mm a year for the last century with no discernible change. The daily tidal range is 2m.

We are kidding ourselves about sea level rise. We adjust for the weight of glaciers that existed 20,000 years ago because we think we know those numbers (and maybe we do)….. That adjustment is applied to a relatively small area of the planet in the amount of mm per decade.
Yet we have no idea at mm. accuracy level of how much the bottom of the ocean has risen or fallen over 80% of the planet, under sea and under ice. Satellite radar does not penetrate the oceans, and sonar soundings of ocean bottoms just aren’t accurate to the mm. level. We have made measurements of the rate of continental drift. and think we can calculate it to mm per decade, but it is “stuck” in some places and jerks ahead in others…..hmmmm….
So we are parties to high order scientific hubris and false belief in the calculability of our observed data when we assume that sea level rise is all explainable by melting glaciers, ocean thermal expansion, and a dab of glacial isostatic rebound. We are, however, very capable of fudging explanations until the calculations sort of match the suppositions and the self-consistency can be declared “scientific proof” despite 80% of the data being missing.

The voice of reason!

I think we cannot deny that the ttermal effect of the modest temperature rise over the last 200 years or so will (of itself) lead to a modest SLR. This was a good summary of the many factors (including measurement accuracy) that raw SLR number locally. We live in an area on Vancouver Island that has no effective SLR due to an equal or even greater land "uprising" (or, as we joke locally, keep up the earquake insurance!) but are still told to plan for the reverse. There is evidence from tide guages that land is on average winning by about 0.25 metres (horizontal of course) around the world. I think that kind of chart would have been a good addition.

According to the calculator included with Windows 10, 3.7mm equals a whopping .145669 inches. If NASA truly is measuring sea level to within an inch, 3.7mm is well inside that inch and so that number is MEANINGLESS!

Disappointed to see John here propagating that old trope about the mismatch between the measurement error of a single point and the plus/minus of a derived quantity like a trend. Not my job to teach elementary statistics but he can read up simple accounts of sampling theory and how to calculate the error of estimating some statistic based on a number of sample points from the error properties of the measurement of the individual points making up that sample. As an example, think about the ability to compare , say, the average height of two large cohorts of children to a precision much smaller than the measuring tape used to measure the height of any individual child. What goes for average, applies to a trend estimate - its plus/minus figure is NOT bounded by the plus/minus figure on the individual measurement. Not saying there aren't problems but singling out this one feeds into the alarmists belief in our inability to understand their science.

Out friggin’ standing. John Robson’s insouciance is so spot on. It’s mainly subsidence along with a trickle of melting residual to the last glacial period brought to an end over 20,000 years ago. The fandango of measuring at such fractional scales over such small time periods in the wake of massive influences (tidal, wave action, gravitation, rotation, precipitation, geological tectonics, etc) makes a mockery of meaningful accuracy. It is The Duncead at work in modern times. The margin of error alone is so much greater than any claimed decadal aquatic volume rise.

Now apply this to claims made by the Global Warming crowd—or rather to its mountainous assertions of bogus predictions. The small increases claimed, in fractions of C, are rendered meaningless when set against the complex forces influencing global temperature “averages.” They are dwarfed by the expected margin of error that must be built into the computation of those averages. Here it is The Duncead on ‘roids.

Max Beran trots out that old elementary statistician's fallacy about averaging washing out errors. It only washes out *independent* *random* errors. Errors due to uncertainty in the position of a satellite are neither independent nor random.

Assuming the various sea level measurements to be accurate to the stated precision, the plain fact of the matter is that we have no reason to care what the global mean sea level is. We only care about local relative sea level. I live in a coastal city and there are some infuriating flaws in the way local sea level is reported, but taking the data at face value the local sea level has been rising at about 2mm a year for the last century with no discernible change. The daily tidal range is 2m.

Thanks R. O’Keefe for setting that straight.

Excellent video CDN. Happy to contribute monthly for quality work like this.

well said !

We are kidding ourselves about sea level rise. We adjust for the weight of glaciers that existed 20,000 years ago because we think we know those numbers (and maybe we do)….. That adjustment is applied to a relatively small area of the planet in the amount of mm per decade.

Yet we have no idea at mm. accuracy level of how much the bottom of the ocean has risen or fallen over 80% of the planet, under sea and under ice. Satellite radar does not penetrate the oceans, and sonar soundings of ocean bottoms just aren’t accurate to the mm. level. We have made measurements of the rate of continental drift. and think we can calculate it to mm per decade, but it is “stuck” in some places and jerks ahead in others…..hmmmm….

So we are parties to high order scientific hubris and false belief in the calculability of our observed data when we assume that sea level rise is all explainable by melting glaciers, ocean thermal expansion, and a dab of glacial isostatic rebound. We are, however, very capable of fudging explanations until the calculations sort of match the suppositions and the self-consistency can be declared “scientific proof” despite 80% of the data being missing.