Yet the curve shows an almost the linear rise in sea level from 1920 to 2000? How can that be if the effect is much more significant now than in 1930 or 1940?
The CO2 influence is greater now but the solar influence peaked around 1950. The volcanic influence has been pretty much factored in, not having changed much this last century or so. Different influences wax and wane and the thermal inertia of the oceans tends to smooth out the effect.
I think we can discount that as the reason for the increase in the level at the location I cited. Here's data from 23 gauges.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
Notice the linear increase from 1920 to 2000?
There's a fair bit of noise on that line, don't you think? Plenty of room for the shuffling of un-coordinated influences.
Here's the rise in sea level over the last 20,000 years or so:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png
As you can see, sea levels rose a 100 meters in a relatively linear fashion over a 10,000 year period (that's 10 mm per year) without any input from man. Yet all of a sudden, we are DEFINITELY the culprit for a rise of 0.4mm per year the last 5 years? (sarcasm)
10mm per annum spanning the shift between glaciation and interglaciation - a cataclysmic shift, I'm sure you'll agree - is hardly surprising. It certainly puts 0.4mm pa in the shade, and even the 0.5mm pa contribution from the Antarctic.
I'm glad there are some science-based historical reconstructions that you trust.
Notice that between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago, when man wasn't producing much CO2, sea levels rose about 2.5 meters in a linear fashion ... that's an average of about 0.8mm per year. Notice that from 3,000 years ago to 2,000 years ago, sea level rose a meter ... 1.0mm per year. Yet Henry Ford wasn't to be born for another 2000 years. So why are you sure we are the culprit for a 0.4mm rise per year over a time span of only the last 5 years?
Because I can spot a specious argument when I see one. And because of the science, naturally.
7,000 years ago agriculture was just starting to get into its exponential stride. By 4,000 years ago it was dominant pretty much everywhere. Are you sure
that warming wasn't anthropogenic? And if so, why?
The generally used measure of current sea-level rise is the decadal observation, which takes out incidental variation. That's still at about 3mm per decade, I think. The recently measured increase could be a blip.
When your models don't take the sun into account ...
If you're referring to GCM's, they do take the Sun into account. Of course they do; they're designed to model the climate, which is affected by solar variation.
... and you are ready to jump off an economic cliff ...
Standard contrarian alarmism.
... based on 5 years of data suggesting a 0.4mm per year rise in sea level when for the last 20,000 years, most of the time the sea levels were rising much faster than that, I wonder about your common sense.
I wonder about yours when you conjure up a 0.5mm pa contribution from Antarctica in the last twenty thousand years and stand it up against a 0.4mm pa global increase today. What was meant to be your point in the first place?
Was that your credibility I just saw flying out the window?
I don't think so. More likely a pig.
.