I am just telling Lionel the facts.

No you are distorting the reality of what is scientifically known.

Whatever, across the globe extreme climate change related events continue to happen:

Climate Change Crushing Infrastructure Across Planet

Oh and there is a story on future Internet damage at that site linked above.

RickA

This attempt to pretend that interannual variability tells us *anything* about the long term trend is straight out of WTFUWT and other dismal idiot playbooks.

It is physically and statistically ignorant to a painful degree. You are insulting the intelligence of most other readers here.

Please. Stop.

So I know the temperature drop was caused by el nino, because I said so.

It still happened and still affects the SLR rate (dropping from 3.4 to 3.1 mm/yr).

Wow. STILL trying to pretend that ENSO has an effect on the long term trend. Straight after an explanation that it doesn’t.

Idiocy or trolling?

Repeat in case of idiocy:

Stop trying to pretend that interannual variability has any bearing on the long term trend. It doesn’t. Even decadal variability doesn’t affect the multi-decadal / centennial trend. Or acceleration thereof.

No need to get mad (but you can if you want).

Now that definitely is trolling.

BBD says:

That’s ENSO. Specifically, big EN events.

Yep – I told Lionel it was el nino (ENSO) that caused the temperature drop, but he didn’t believe me.

Lionel said:

Now where the hell are you getting this, ‘we have cooled after the el nino’ from?

Do you not realise that ENSO is a feature of warming and not a cause.

So I know the temperature drop was caused by el nino, because I said so.

It still happened and still affects the SLR rate (dropping from 3.4 to 3.1 mm/yr).

I am just telling Lionel the facts.

No need to get mad (but you can if you want).

Those are the numbers and the rate of SLR has dropped from 2016 to 2018.

That’s ENSO. Specifically, big EN events. Stop trying to pretend that interannual variability has any bearing on the long term trend. It doesn’t. Even decadal variability doesn’t affect the multi-decadal / centennial trend. Or acceleration thereof.

This is denier bullshit 101 stuff. Up your denier game into something more interesting please.

Both of those came from the colorado.edu link

But not the colorado.edu link that you first used and which referred to the paper which I linked. How would you get on in a court trying an evidence switch like that?

Whatever from the Narem et. al. paper and quoted at https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

(H/T SteveP)

we read:

“This is almost certainly a conservative estimate,” Nerem said. “Our extrapolation assumes that sea level continues to change in the future as it has over the last 25 years. Given the large changes we are seeing in the ice sheets today, that’s not likely.”

It is the future trend stupid (keeping in mind BBD’s immediately previous), stop trying to go down the up elevator.

But we will see.

Eemian MSL was >6m above present MSL and Eemian GAT was ~1 – 2C above present.

Go figure.

Your first link says 65 cm by 2100, projecting their quadratic fit.

That is a bit more than the low scenario of the Underwater paper Lionel A linked to (50 cm), and 1/2 of the medium scenario (1.2 meters) and 1/3 of the high scenario (2.0 meters).

65 cm would be a bit over 2 feet, which is double what we can expect if we just use a linear projection of the current rate of 3.1 mm/year. So if the rate keeps accelerating this is plausible.

We will check back in 2030 and see if the rate of sea level rise has in fact kept accelerating, and we really track the quadratic.

Looking at a graph of sea level acceleration rates, one sees the rate rises and falls – very sinusoidal – and doesn’t track quadratic (constantly rising).

But we will see.

“New study finds sea level rise accelerating”
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

No need for undue concern, of course, but these are indicators that are hard to ignore.

I envision numerous additional incremental indicators of climate change to show up in the years ahead, until something really big breaks, and then the consensus will change and people will get real smart real quick. The really big question now is will the fossil fuelists like Putin managed to stall or slow down energy transition long enough to allow acidifying/ anoxic oceans, sea level rise, and increased inland flooding to destroy enough food production , housing , and general infrastructure to cause a major human population decline, or will it just be annoying and only a little painful. Someday, somebody will find out.

Oh, and one other thing. Climate change and energy transition was an opportunity for the USA to lead the world in something important , but the fat arsed combover baby is killing that. Instead, he is making his Russian oil oligarch buddies richer. Future generations fleeing the US will have a hard time convincing the people in their new lands that the US was once the most powerful nation in the world.

Oh well. That’s life.

There are year to year anomalies. After Obama was elected, the oceans briefly stopped their rise and there was a drop that I think is still unexplained.