The satellite measurements show an average of 3mm per year since the satellite era began in 1979, yet NOAA has failed to explain why the satellite measurements are used for their predictions and the more reliable tidal gauge records are not. Could it be that these elevated satellite numbers provide more support for the failed greenhouse gas theory and manmade global warming programs of the past eight years? We think so. 




4.    The NOAA sea level rise report ignores the obvious historical records of the cyclical nature of global sea level rise. It prefers to do simple extrapolations of unjustifiable high rates of sea level rise to the year 2100, while ignoring the proven variability of sea levels over thousands of years. Sea levels have been demonstrated by many researchers to have distinct rise and fall cycles that would affect any projection of future levels. Only one example is needed to prove this assertion has reasonable validity. For example, Dr. Morner has found that in Goa, India:



“sea level in Goa over the last 500 years… is an oscillation record: a low level in the early 16th century, a 50-cm high level in the 17th century, a level below present sea level in the 18th century, a 20-cm high level in the 19th and early 20th centuries, an ~20-cm fall in 1955–1962, and a virtually stable level over the last 50 years."




This natural cycle is reflected in many other tidal gauge sites around the world. Again, it mimics the natural cycles for global temperatures.




5.    The NOAA report like many other US government reports, relies on the output of the CMIP5 atmospheric and oceanic global climate model (AOGCM) and its many variants. This should be a sufficient indictment of the NOAA report by itself to warrant trashing it. A past review of the 73 most used AOGCM by the US government and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN-IPCC) done by Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer showed they were horribly in error when compared to actual global temperature measurements. 



My calculations of their model comparisons showed the average error rate of all 73 models was 200%, and some as were bad as 600%! If the temperature predictions are so worthless, why should we believe the sea level predictions that are driven by these same unreliable models? Still, this NOAA reports cites these same failed climate models as their base line for calculation of future sea level rise.


 

6.    Unbelievably, NOAA has come up with its own, almost identical version of the ‘hockey stick chart’ made infamous by Dr. Michael Mann and Al Gore which they used to give a patently incorrect version of global temperature trends over the past 1,000 years. It’s as if NOAA has learned nothing whatsoever from that debacle. NOAA’s new version of the ‘hockey stick’ deals with sea level rise and is just as incorrect as that of Mann and Gore.