Previously I showed that the “rise in the sea levels” was decelerating. I did this using data from the University of Colorado “No Inverted Barometer Applied” data. I was challenged in my choice of data as the Inverted Barometer data is adjusted for atmospheric disturbances (high and low pressure systems) that affect the satellite data. I prefer to work with the unadjusted data which is why I made the choice I did. I commented with a rough calculation that the inverted barometer gave even more deceleration than the unadjusted data and left it at that.
As I got busy with my move I left it at that. I kept thinking more about it and decided to revisit the issue. So I went back and re-did all the work and set it up so I would easily be able to apply the same methods to the different types of satellite sea level data. My rough estimate that the inverted barometer (IB) is showing greater deceleration than the unadjusted data (No-IB) stands. It is more refined now, but the result is clear. There is no chance that the IPCC is correct that the sea level will rise 1m by 2100 based on anything seen in the actual data.
I started off in the same manner by taking 5 year trends of the IB data.
An acceleration would be present if the slope of the lines were becoming steeper over time. A deceleration would mean that the slopes are becoming flatter over time. Just from this chart it is clear which type of behavior is present in the IB sea level data. Any claim that the sea level rise is “accelerating” is simply disproved by this very simple method.
If the 5 year rates are shown together the result is comparable to the results of the No-IB I did before. It is clear that the rise is less in recent years.
There is a slight difference in the rates for the 5 year periods with the IB. 1997 has the highest rate of rise at 4.3mm/yr. At that rate it would only take 231 years for the sea levels to increase 1m. So at the very fastest rate recorded it would still be 2228 before the sea levels increased 1m.
The real problem for the IPCC predication is that the rate has been lower for every period since 1997.
Much like gravity provides an acceleration for objects that are falling towards the Earth, the Earth is also giving the IPCC a decreasing rate in sea level rise over the past 10 years. Far more significant is the fact that there has not ever been an increase in the rate of rise of the sea level. Even in the period from 1995-2002 when the rate was higher, there was no indication that the rate was accelerating. There was a constant rate of change that has strongly trended negative over the past 10 years. There is no scientific basis for the statement that the sea level rise is accelerating.
The actual acceleration is -0.15 (mm/yr2). That is a deceleration of 0.15 (mm/yr2)
The peak sea level from the IB will happen in about 15 years at about 46mm above the 2000 benchmark. According the deceleration of the IB data the sea level in the year 2100 will be more than 400mm lower than it is now. The more “accurate” inverted barometer data shows that the IPCC is even farther off in their prediction of the sea level in 2100. If the deceleration remains constant (which I freely admit is unlikely) the sea levels up to the year 2100 will look like this.
Both sets of data show that the sea level will drop over the next 100 years. None of the sea level data shows any indication of accelerating in the positive manner. If the sea level is the global fingerprint of global warming, then there is no indication of global warming.
On a final note, if the sea level is dropping, then there is only one place that water of that mass could disappear too. It isn’t the atmosphere and it isn’t aquifers. It is locked up in ice sheets and glaciers.