Michael hart

Regrettably "12 inches in the 21st century" is unlikely.

Most such changes follow a sigmoid curve or similar and we are still in the lag phase.

Consider the last time there was significant sea level rise due to increasing temperature at the start of the Holocene .

The lag phase began 22000 years ago, the log phase around 14000 years ago and the level stabilised around 8000 years ago. Raised beaches at Magilligan suggest that sea peaked 2-4 metres above the present level, then dropped back closer to the present when the Holocene optimum cooled.

"During the post-glacial transgression sometime around 8000 to 9000 years B.P. the sea flooded into the lower Foyle Valley, rising to a peak of about 2-4m above present water level c. 7000- 6500 B.P. "

"Ridge development continued from the onset of sea level fall to the return to near present sea level around 2000-1500 years B.P."

The maximum Holocene temperature were similar to today (marcott et al 2013) followed by an ~0.8C cooling from the classical period to the 19th century.

Based on this, one would expect sea level to be 2-4metres above current levels in the UK as the 0.8C temperature riae since 1880 works through, with the current 3.2mm/year representing the lag phase, and a much faster log phase to follow.

EM, wake me up when the rate of sea level change is unequivocally established as increasing. I'm not interested in model predictions from the usual suspects who couldn't honestly model their way out of a brown paper bag.

@entropic

Too late, chum

We had the debate you proposed. But in your absence. You bottled out. Get over it.

Entropic man
I suggested that teachers are in the group which you state use positives rather than uncertainties when talking about anything, but in this case climate, you have extended this to lies; no where in my post do I state teachers lie to their pupils. That is something you may have more experience of than I. By implication you have branded all in your list as liers. Anyway here is what I said

Entropic man
Sub headline may see
First sentence are likely
fourth paragraph regardless of sea level rise likely to occur and but also accounting for local factors such as the settlement of land, known as subsidence.

Fifth paragraph Louisiana where subsidence, which is not a result of by climate change,

At this point I gave up reading as
a. They have no confidence in their predictions
b subsidence unrelated to Climate Change© seems to be the main concern.

and later

Entropic man

SandyS

Will? Definitely?

These are the currency of priests, politicians and salesmen.

You missed Teachers from that list.

The very group pushing us to bankrupt ourselves to return to the stone-age. Why do you think that cli-scientists don't use more positive language? Perhaps because they know there is a high probability that they are woefully wrong?

One can accuse people of knowing that they may be woefully wrong* without claiming they are lying in their teeth, there are many examples of experiment being used to confirm one theory/hypothesis over other equally plausible ones.

From my limited experience of modern science/geography as taught in schools currently it seems to me that CO2 as the cause of Climate Change and that we're to blame is taught as undisputed fact. Pretty much in the same way as you post here. Looking back on my education at secondary level, perhaps with rose tinted glasses of time, I seem to recall many examples of the Sir Patrick Moore's well known "We just don't know". Possibly education in Ulster these days is similar Scotland in the 1950s and 60s rather than 21st century England?

*I know that I may be woefully wrong about CO2 which doesn't mean I think you're right.

Entropic man
Re your Magilligan Complex

As the sea fell from the peak level (either due to isostatic rise or eustatic fall) it triggered a major phase of coastal sediment deposition. Falling wave base resulted in the onshore transfer of shelf sand and this, together with a gradual reduction in the tidal prism of the Lough, caused the formation of a series of Atlantic shore-parallel beach-ridges extending to the northeast from the gravel ridge nucleus formed by the Giant's Walk.

This implies that both are involved.

isostatic rise
Post-glacial rebound (sometimes called continental rebound, glacial isostasy, glacial isostatic adjustment) is the rise of land masses that were depressed by the huge weight of ice sheets during the last glacial period, through a process known as isostasy. It affects northern Europe (especially Scotland, Estonia, Fennoscandia, and northern Denmark), Siberia, Canada, the Great Lakes of Canada and the United States, the coastal region of the US state of Maine, parts of Patagonia, and Antarctica.
eustatic fall
global fall of sea levels

The isostatic component seems to have been ignored. Not far (100km) from Magilligan are Jura and Islay which also have raised beaches; however most of this is put down to the Isostatic component.

The altitude of these beaches noticeably increases northwards, indicating the increased isostatic rebound in this direction, towards the area of thickest ice cover. The lower ‘staircases’ of shingle ridges record the relative fall of sea level as the land rebounded. Suites of postglacial shingle ridges cover the surface of the Main Rock Platform. - See more at: http://www.scottishgeology.com/geo/regional-geology/grampian/west-coast-of-jura/#sthash.4ZQgL61h.dpuf

What makes Magilligan different?

Martin A,

I know where some of those climate refugees are,Spain and Florida or if I take up my daughters suggestion to go and stay with her for the next couple of months, Thailand.

Latimer Alder

I gave up debating when the barracking from the audience got too loud. Now I'm just chatting.

Michael hart

Wake up.

The average rate of rise over the 20th century was 1.7mm/year. The average from 1993 to 2014 is 3.2mm/year.

That is an acceleration of 88%.

SandyS

I think you missed the point when reading my scientists/ teachers post, but it is a side issue.

There is indeed an isostatic uplift component to the Magilligan data. However the same peak in sea level was also observed elsewhere.

Entropic man

However the same peak in sea level was also observed elsewhere.

Where, Who by, When and how much?

That is an acceleration of 88%.

Are you comparing CU Sea Level Research Group University of Colorado data with a previous data set? Has anyone done any correlating the new with the old before hitting the panic button? I all the companies where I have worked when replacing one set of test equipment with a new one there was a period of correlation where differences were compared until everyone was happy that the new system correlated well with the old and any differences could be explained.

BTW Most engineers I have worked with, admittedly in the electronics support/reliability field when asked the question "is it fixed?" or "does it work?" normally reply "it seems to be" or "it is working at the moment". You must have mixed with a different sort of engineer from me. Assuming that you are talking about a European definition of engineer and not a British one.

Your obsession with Marcott is misplaced, EM.

Here's Steve McIntyre giving him another bash today.

For example:

"The Marcott dataset is dominated by alkenone series, which are also responsive to summer temperatures and should therefore be interpreted as a reconstruction of summer temperatures, rather than annual temperatures – see useful discussion by Richard Telford here here other than his pointless snipe at me about criticizing the fake Marcott uptick ). While it is an article of faith in Mannian paleoclimate that annual and summer temperatures are correlated, this definitely ceases to be the case on a millennial and Holocene scale, as precession and obliquity change."

EM, a delightfully simple, graphic, reminder for you, from "Real Science". The post barely takes 10 seconds to read and take in.

If you plot a linear trend on a cyclical function, you are guaranteed to make a complete jackass out of yourself.

Martin A, SandyS

The rate of sea level rise for the 20th century is based on tide guages , with correction for uplift/subsidence. The post 1993 rate is based on satellite data crosschecked against tide guages. This is what you should be reading if you are interested in how the three sets of satellite data were calibrated.

Michael hart

McIntyre may not appreciate that the driver of Holocene temperatures is an increase in insolation at 65N latitude, which mainly increases the amount of snowmelt in Summer relative to the preceding glacial period.

"The maximum Holocene temperature were similar to today." EM

You don't really believe that do you?

"Based on this, one would expect sea level to be 2-4metres above current levels in the UK as the 0.8C temperature riae since 1880 works through, with the current 3.2mm/year representing the lag phase, and a much faster log phase to follow." Even the IPCC doesn't imagineer anything this great. If we were to take UK values alone, the sea level isn't even rising as fast as 3.2mm

Michael hart

Why do you think that sea level variation over the last 7000 years is a cyclic function?

Tiny CO2

Regarding maximum Holocene temperatures the paleo data and the modern record show that we are now passing the Holocene maximum. If you have better data, then please show it.

IPCC reports tend to be diluted by political pressures. Ask the scientists off the record and they regard the IPCC sea level rise estimate as conservative.

My own calculation above based on the last 7000 years may also be an underestimate. Note that the difference between 22,000 years ago and today is 5C warming and 120 metres of sea level rise. That would make the null hypothesis for effect of temperature on sea level 24 metres/C. The effect of the 0.8C warming since 1880 would therefore be a rise of 20 metres, over a couple of centuries.

Why do I accept such high figures? I see no physical difference in effect on sea level between past Milankovich warming and present warming.

Tiny CO2

Remember that the Greenland ice sheet exerts a positive gravitational influence on sea levels within 1000 miles. The UK is on the fringe of that effect, and would therefore see a reduced rate of sea level rise relative to the global mean.

EM "Regarding maximum Holocene temperatures the paleo data and the modern record show that we are now passing the Holocene maximum. If you have better data, then please show it."

How many times have warmists been told not to bolt thermometers onto proxies?

TinyCO2

A thermometer is a proxy.

Mate, if you haven't read enough to know why you can't splice thermometer records with proxies then you need to shut up and go read the Climate Audit back catalogue. Even Marcott didn't make that mistake. He made other mistakes that gave his original graph an uptick, trying to pretend to be modern temps. It was later removed. Go see how hockey sticks are made. Have you even read the Bish's books?

If one looks at the data showing both the satellite and tide gauges record (like Church & White, 2011) it shows the kick point in the sea level trend is about 1930. They fitted a steeper curve (and called this acceleration) to 1990 - 2009 only because the sea level didn't change in the 80s. Other than the end of the hiatus in the late 80s, one can fit a straight line at about 3mm/ year within the error bars for the period 1930-2009.
So EM, why do we need to be worried?

ChrisM
I wish I'd read your posting before ploughing through Entropic's link looking for what I what to see. Being a simple country boy at heart (show me) I liked how we correlated ATE. We'd run the new and old on the same components and end up with four groups. Passed both, Failoed Both, Failed on New Passed on Old, Failed on Old Passed on New. For us the last group were the critical ones as there was a potential cost in these (Rule of 10?). But further confirmation by sampling the first two andchecking the last group was always carried out; as was a period of checking field failures against both programmes and equipment.

After looking at the Link for similar data I couldn't find any. This is only a minor hobby so I'm not going to work on this and neglect other things. All I really want is a source of data where tidal gauge data and satellite data are run in parallel. Having read Entropic's link it seems there is an awful lot of things which have to be taken into account for the satellite data.

Electronic path delays, oscillator drifts, time tagging errors, antenna phase centre uncertainties, orbit errors, errors in geophysical correction models, improperly calibrated auxiliary sensors and even software conventions may cause systematic errors of the altimeter range (the distance from the satellite to the instantaneous sea level), the most important parameter to monitor the global and regional sea level evolution. On average these errors include a constant range bias, a drift term or even geographically correlated error pattern all of them mapping directly to the sea surface heights. This underpins the importance of a careful calibration of satellite based altimeter systems. A calibration is an indispensable prerequisite to construct a long-term data record to investigate sea level rise and to study regional sea level variability. - See more at: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/6/3/2255/htm#sthash.2ED7RL6J.dpuf

This makes me more keen to see the data side by side. Why is that a difficult thing to find?