Calibration curve for the radiocarbon dating scale
For longer-term variations, yes, the rate of sea level rise during the period since 1993 probably is a little more than, say, during the period since 1900 (sea level rise was occurring naturally, anyway). And even that acceleration could be mostly natural — we simply don’t know. They clearly had to find something in the study that supported the alarmist view of sea level rise, and they figured few people would read past the headline.
A face-value reading of the two main studies together results in the conclusion that sea level rise since 1993 has been revised downward.
And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on.
This amplification is built into all the climate models. The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO, but rarely admit that two thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.
The most recent study then reads too much into the wiggles in the new data, and even implies the acceleration will continue with the statement, “The suggested acceleration…
highlights the importance and urgency of mitigating climate change and formulating coastal adaptation plans to mitigate the impacts of ongoing sea level rise”.
This results in adding curvature to the upward trend (an acceleration) by flattening out the early part of the curve. Short-term undulations in the sea level rise curve should not be used as a predictive curve for the future.
The earth’s climate is long-lived and stable— it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus — which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO It’s 20 years now, and the average rate of increase in reality is below the lowest trend in the range predicted by the IPCC.The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the “hotspot”.The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory (see Figure 1).When I read that, I (like everyone else) assumed that corrections to the satellite sea level data since 1993 have now led to a revised trend toward faster (not slower) sea level rise. (For those concerned about Miami going underwater, these numbers equate to a little more than one inch every 10 years).