The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) cult has another beauty of an explanation as to why their calamitous predictions have not come true.
According to an this NPR story, the constant sea level rise stopped in 2010 and the sea level measurements actually went DOWN for a couple of years before resuming their upward climb.
“Global sea level has been rising as a result of global warming, but in 2010 and 2011, sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch.”
Well that is an inconvenient truth! CO2 levels continue to march upward and onward but just like global temperatures have done for the past 15 years, it appears sea levels ignored the AGW cult predictions in 2010 and 2011.
So what did the kids at Team AGW Cult say caused this sea level drop?
“Some years, rainfall pools up in the middle of the continent (Australia) and creates a temporary freshwater sea called Lake Eyre.”
“He and his colleagues are publishing a paper in Geophysical Research Letters that concludes that the reappearance of that inland sea — and similar features elsewhere — are enough to explain the drop in global sea level.”
“During that time, sea level dropped by a quarter of an inch, though normally it rises by an eighth of an inch per year.”
There you have it! Excessive rains in Australia in 2010 caused the sea level to drop 5/8” – Remember the normal 1/8” yearly increase was negated and the measurements actually dropped ¼” which leads to the 5/8” total delta.
I’m not even going to get into the long term trend of Sea Ice measurements but instead I’m going to take everything in the NPR story as fact and perform a back of the envelope calculation to see if the AGW cult scientist theory holds water – pun intended.
Let’s find out what volume of water is represented in a 5/8” decrease in sea level. The surface area of Earth’s oceans is 335,258,000 square kilometers or 129,443,784 square miles. Converting that number to square inches and then multiplying by 5/8” gives a volume of 1.94869 x 10^17 cubic inches.
So the oceans lost 1.95 x 10^17 cubic inches of water in 2010 and according to the new paper mentioned in the NPR article, all that water fell on Australia and wasn’t allowed to travel back to the ocean.
How many inches extra rain must Australia have received in 2010 to equal 1.95 x 10^17 cubic inches? That’s easy to figure out and for this calculation let’s assume that 100% of the rain that fell in Australia during 2010 was captured inside the continent and never returned to the sea. We know this isn’t true but this assumption will be biased toward the AGW scientists’ position here so we’re erring in their favor.
Australia’s surface area is 7,692,024 square kilometers or 2,969,905 square miles and converting to square inches gives us 1.19227 x 10^16 square inches. Dividing 1.95 x 10^17 cubic inches (the volume of water that disappeared from the oceans in 2010) by 1.19227 x 10^16 (the surface area of Australia) gives us 16.34 inches. So Australia would need over 16 EXTRA inches of water (when compared to their long term average) to account for the sea level drop in 2010.
Australia averages about 19 inches of water a year and they received 27.7 inches in 2010 so that meant the extra rainfall Australia really measured in 2010 was only about 8 inches above normal. Remember from the calculation above they’d need at least 16 inches to account for the sea level drop.
Missed it by a factor of two! And in reality it’s even worse because we know that some of the water that fell on Australia in 2010 ran back to the ocean.
Are the AGW cult scientists really that shut off from reality? Do they not think these crazy theories through or do they assume we’re too stupid to check their work using simple math?