We have measured sea level at the Battery in New York for over 150 years, from 1856 to the present, albeit with a 14-year gap from 1879 to 1893. The monthly-average sea level data are available online from NOAA (as are the data from hundreds of tide gauge stations around the world). They even provide a convenient graph:
After posting about three different reconstructions of global sea level since 1900, I happened upon another one, this time from Frederikse et al. It’s the latest, and the team of collaborators includes top researchers on this subject, some of whom were involved in previous reconstructions. What flatters me is that it agrees so well with my own reconstruction, better than it agrees other previous efforts. If the new one is the best there is (and it seems to be), then mine is impressively close.
Here’s how mine (in red) compares to that from Frederikse et al. in black:
I’m not asking how fast it was rising. I looked at that in the last post, using three different reconstructions of sea level since 1900 based on tide gauge data. And my goal wasn’t really to estimate the rate of sea level rise, as much as it was to show that the rate has not been steady, it has changed over time; in fact it has gotten faster (acceleration).
It’s easy to see that sea level rise has not been steady. It has accelerated.
In fact it has accelerated a lot, especially recently. For most of the 20th century, it rose sometimes faster, sometimes slower, but for the last few decades its rise has picked up speed. The clearest demonstration is the change in global mean sea level. There are several different estimates of that based on historical data from tide gauges around the world, which differ on how much and how fast sea level has risen, but they all show — without a doubt — that the rise has not been steady.
Readers were kind enough to point to the newest revision of global temperature data from the Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K., the HadCRUT5 data (a revision of the HadCRUT4) data.
The HadCRUT4 data were in disagreement with the other surface temperature data sets, namely those from NASA, Berkeley Earth, and NOAA. But the new HadCRUT5 data set agrees with them excellently:
The “Heartland Institute” is hosting their 14th annual “ICCC” convention this weekend in Las Vegas, Nevada, to carry on their mission as one of the world’s leading organizations of climate deniers. One of the sessions listed on their schedule for this very morning is about the latest global temperature trends, hosted by none other than Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, and Ross McKitrick. I’m familiar with their work.
I thought it would be a good idea to present an honest appraisal of the subject at hand.
Paul Homewood objects to the U.K. Met Office telling people that “Arctic sea ice decline continues.” Of course his opinion is echoed at WUWT.
It’s Paul Homewood whose claims are false.
The vaccine against COVID-19 reduces its spread, even for the highly contagious delta variant. Perhaps more important, the vaccinated who contract the disease are likely to have a mild case, less likely to require hospitalization, and much less likely to be killed by it.
Maybe that’s why states with low vaccination rates have higher infection rates:
and states with low vaccination rates have higher death rates:
Lower infection rates, and especially fewer hospitalizations, is what our country’s health care providers are begging for. Maybe that’s why they’re begging us to get vaccinated against COVID-19.
The life you save may be your own.
This blog is made possible by readers like you; join others by donating at My Wee Dragon.
Over a year ago I began making graphs related to the COVID-19 epidemic. It’s not controversial to identify the most basic number to tell the story: how many new cases each day, per capita? Medical personell tend to express this as cases per day per hundred thousand population, but I prefer to use cases per day per million population. Call me quirky.
I (like many before and since) decided to color-code some of my graphs, with “red” reserved for the most severe outbreaks — so many new cases each day that it will strain the health care system in a week or less, and before too long will crush it, while filling up the morgue to overflowing. I did a little research (translation: looked around on the internet, not peer-reviewed research, but at least I used “reliable” sources like Johns Hopkins Univ. School of Public Health) and concluded that since the so-called “experts” seemed to think that was 25 cases/day/100,000 people, that’s what I’d use — but I’d call it 250 cases/day/million population. Call me quirky.
Here’s today’s map for the states of the USA:
Warm sea water is what powers hurricanes. Usually, sea surface temperature (SST) in the Gulf of Mexico needs to exceed 29°C to intensify a hurricane, and every fraction of a degree above 29°C increases the chance — dramatically — of not just intensifying, but super-charging it, creating a “monster storm.”
Which makes one wonder … if a storm passes by, what are the odds the sea surface temperature (SST) will exceed 29°C? Or more? Have the odds changed over time? Of course SST isn’t the only factor at play, only fools say so, but only bigger fools deny its impact on tropical storms.