Four Studies Find ‘No Observable Sea-Level Effect’ From Man-Made Global Warming

[rangerrebew]

Four Studies Find ‘No Observable Sea-Level Effect’ From Man-Made Global Warming

 

(CNSNews.com) – Ten years after former Vice President Al Gore warned in his 2006 Oscar-winning film [1], An Inconvenient Truth [2], that if nothing was done to stop man-made global warming, melting Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets could raise sea levels by up to 20 feet, four peer-reviewed scientific studies found “no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming.”

“It is widely assumed that sea levels have been rising in recent decades largely in response to anthropogenic global warming,” Kenneth Richard writes at NoTricksZone [3]. “However, due to the inherently large contribution of natural oscillatory influences on sea level fluctuations, this assumption lacks substantiation….

“Scientists who have recently attempted to detect an anthropogenic signal in regional sea level rise trends have had to admit that there is ‘no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming’,” Richard points out, listing four peer-reviewed studies published this year that have all come to the same conclusion.
 
Source URL: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/4-peer-reviewed-studies-find-no-observable-sea-level-effect-man

[rangerrebew]

WH Climate Report: Sea Level Could Rise 8 Inches, 11 Inches, 4 Feet, or 6.6 Feet

(CNSNews.com) - The National Climate Assessment [1] released today by the White House says that as a result of climate change the sea level could rise 8 inches, 11 inches, 4 feet or 6.6 feet by the year 2100, but that a rise of less than 8 inches or more than 6.6 feet is "considered implausible."

“Scientists are working to narrow the range of sea level rise pro­jections for this century,” said the report.

“Recent projections show that for even the lowest emissions scenarios, thermal expansion of ocean waters and the melting of small mountain glaciers will re­sult in 11 inches of sea level rise by 2100, even without any contribution from the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica,” it said.

 
Attachment:
NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT-WHITE HOUSE-2014.pdf [3]
Source URL: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/wh-climate-report-sea-level-could-rise-8-inches-11-inches-4-feet-or

[driftdiver]

WH Climate Report: Sea Level Could Rise 8 Inches, 11 Inches, 4 Feet, or 6.6 Feet

(CNSNews.com) - The National Climate Assessment [1] released today by the White House says that as a result of climate change the sea level could rise 8 inches, 11 inches, 4 feet or 6.6 feet by the year 2100, but that a rise of less than 8 inches or more than 6.6 feet is "considered implausible."

“Scientists are working to narrow the range of sea level rise pro­jections for this century,” said the report.

“Recent projections show that for even the lowest emissions scenarios, thermal expansion of ocean waters and the melting of small mountain glaciers will re­sult in 11 inches of sea level rise by 2100, even without any contribution from the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica,” it said.

 
Attachment:
NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT-WHITE HOUSE-2014.pdf [3]
Source URL: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/wh-climate-report-sea-level-could-rise-8-inches-11-inches-4-feet-or

I predict the water level will rise about 2 feet by the end of today.   Its called high tide.

[Cripplecreek]

A hydrogeologist explained to me that the earth could hold a lot more water with no appreciable rise in sea levels.

Basically, more water in the oceans means more water forced into the rocks under the pressure of gravity. He says that some 80% of the water on earth is locked up in the crust.

[uglybiker]

See? SEE?!! Obama stopped the seas from rising! </sarcasm>

[Suppressed]

A hydrogeologist explained to me that the earth could hold a lot more water with no appreciable rise in sea levels.

Basically, more water in the oceans means more water forced into the rocks under the pressure of gravity. He says that some 80% of the water on earth is locked up in the crust.

@Cripplecreek

Actually, groundwater represents only about 0.75% of the earth's water....a tiny bit, compared to oceans.  Oceans are about 97% of the water.

Now, if you are talking about deep water in the crust, or water bound up in mineral structures, etc., that's a different story, but those aren't part of the water cycle connected to the oceans.

Yes, we could sure use a lot of groundwater recharge, as we've used up a lot of our available fresh water, but that doesn't mean it can take up as much as you might think.  The oceans are HUGE reservoirs, and thermal expansion alone would be considerable.  And as meltwater from ice caps dumps into the oceans, we will get increased saltwater intrusion into coastal aquifers, ruining them for consumption (note that this would be small compared to the pumping we do in coastal regions, but it's addressing your hydro's point).

The way to offset some of that rise would be if the rise in temperature leads to increased precipitation inland, recharging those aquifers that have been depleted.

[Free Vulcan]

Don't they know that absence of rising sea levels is a sure sign of global warming, just like cold in winter is (unless it's a warm winter, then that's global warming also)?

[LateForLunch]

Don't they know that absence of rising sea levels is a sure sign of global warming, just like cold in winter is (unless it's a warm winter, then that's global warming also)?

hah hah this has become one of those "faith-based" issues for leftists. They are absolutely committed to belief in AGW as much or more than any fundamentalist religionist is to their own sectarian brand of theological faith.

The anti-conservative fanatics hold this up as one of their central Pillars of Virtue. They got hammered by their affiliation with brutal inhuman abortion and wholesale infant murder industry by the "pro-life" movement. So they need to portray conservatives and Republicans as "evil Earth destroying ruthless greedy monsters" to win elections. Hence the insane dedication to the idea that conservatives and Republicans are "destroying the planet" as one of the immutable talking points of every leftist.

So they will defend that position even if they have to discard every single bit of information that has ever existed which even slightly undermines it. No doubt, the scientists who wrote this study will be pressured into backtracking and "reevaluating their findings" and somehow arrive at a conclusion which supports attributing risk of catastrophic danger to Donald Trump and the Republican party. 

[rangerrebew]

Phew!  I was worried the house St. Algore built on the Pacific Ocean shore would be swallowed by the water.

[MajorClay]

Wow, most of of Geoscience folks Knew this was a farce.