CO2 and Sea Level – 1807 to 2010

OPS-74 This slide totally contradicts the alarmist narrative. CO₂ is obviously not driving sea level (a very important climate indicator).

The ≈140 ppm CO₂ increase since the pre-industrial era is supposedly responsible for virtually all the 1.07 °C warming (according to the IPCC). That is the alarmist mantra. That is what has been programmed into the IPCC computer models (that they self-acknowledge run too hot and use implausibly high emission scenarios). If that were true, then CO₂ would correlate closely with the climate on all time scales, not just the Modern Temperature Record (MTR, 1850 to the present). It does not! Over the MTR, there is some correlation between CO₂ and global temperature, but there is a better correlation between solar activity and temperature. When viewed on longer time scales, the solar activity is obviously more influential than CO₂. Links are provided at the end of the post supporting the previous comments.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

This post looks at the link between CO₂ and Sea Level and shows very definitively that Sea Level Rise (SLR) over the MTR does not correlate with CO₂ concentrations (i.e.: CO₂ is not a primary climate driver). Sea level is tied closely with temperature. When temperatures increase, sea level rise can accelerate through melting increases and thermal expansion. However, the opposite is also true. Beginning in 1856, there are accelerations and decelerations on many time scales throughout the sea level data set, but the long term SLR trend has remained linear. And despite the currently accelerating SLR, the ocean cycles (primarily AMO) and solar activity will return the SLR back to the linear trend and very likely back to the declines that existed pre-1856.

Post 1950, you can correlate the CO₂ with SLR and given that 86%+ of our emissions occurred post-1950 that would be the logical period to link with human activity. But our climate does not care if the atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are driven by humanity or natural forcings. If CO₂ is driving a climate indicator (like sea level), that correlation must apply over the full period (not just post-1950). It does not! Sea levels were rising pre-1960 with a similar profile to the post-1960 SLR) with no significant CO₂ influence and were declining pre-1856 with virtually no CO₂ influence (i.e.: CO₂ concentrations were virtually flat pre-1856). You can and the alarmists do argue that the post-1960 acceleration is due to rising CO₂ concentrations. That ignores the data pre-1960 and ignores the influence the ocean cycles (AMO, ENSO, PDO and others) have had post-1960.

That also ignores the CO₂ narrative killing sea level DECLINES pre-1856. Those declines have nothing to do with CO₂ (which is virtually flat pre-1856). They are the result of natural forcings (primarily solar and solar related activity). You may also note that there is a very abrupt change from declining to rising sea levels in 1856 (again not CO₂). Those natural forcings, ignored in the past, will still be active in the future and yes, they are still being ignored. Solar activity (based on the 20 Year Moving Average) peaked around 1950 and has been relatively flat since then. The solar activity has started declining slightly but the decline will accelerate significantly as we progress further into the NOAA (and others) forecasted Grand Solar Minimum (GSM). The combined effects of lower solar activity and cooler ocean cycles will very likely lead to declining sea levels over the next few decades (consistent with historical examples). These very real climatic changes (past and present) are not programmed into the IPCC computer models. That is a dangerous and I suspect an intentional, idiotological mistake.

As a quick aside, those declining sea levels also strongly suggest that the cold of the Little Ice Age (LIA) was global not localized as the alarmists like to suggest! The Global Temperature and Global Sea level declines during the LIA were real and they happened while LIA CO₂ levels remained virtually flat. The IPCC models cannot match the historical data and they will not forecast the future correctly with their current programming.

Here are some additional articles/papers/posts that provide further context to this discussion.

Empirical assessment of the role of the Sun in climate change using balanced multi-proxy solar records – Nicola Scafetta 2023

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987123001172?via%3Dihub

Open Letter Addendum

Addendum

Climate Short Story (CSS)

CSS-29 –Climate Model – TSI-AMO-CO₂

Climate Model – TSI-AMO-CO2

CSS-30 – CMIP6 Climate Models

CMIP6 Climate Models

CSS-42 – The Role of the Sun – Scafetta 2023

The Role of the Sun – Scafetta 2023

CSS-43 – Modeling Over the Holocene

Modeling Over the Holocene

One Page Summary (OPS)

OPS-8 – Basic Climate Model

Basic Climate Model

OPS-55 – The State of Climate Science

The State of Climate Science

OPS-73 – Can the IPCC Computers Model the Holocene?

Can the IPCC Computers Model the Holocene?