Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Jul 2, 2009 Full story: New Scientist 3,119

FOR a few minutes David Holland forgets about his work and screams like a kid on a roller coaster.

Full Story
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#23 Sep 28, 2011
Who to vote for wrote:
Sea level rise is no big deal, people can move. The part to pay attention to is the direction desertification will move. Texas will get warmer and dryer and Mexico will get wetter and more tropical. The Sahara will move north, drying some of southern europe. Maybe Mexicans will move back to Mexico from Texas and Texans will migrate to YOUR neighborhoods! Choke on that!
So where will those island nations go? Look at Australia as an example. Australians came about from invasions to the land of what we know now the oldest nonAfrican tribe on the planet. Just after a century these new people do not want war or climate refugees.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#24 Sep 28, 2011
SpaceBlues wrote:
Map of Sea Level Trends
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/map-sea-...
"Please note that these trends have been determined for only an eighteen-year (1992 - 2010) period, and reflect the impact of decadal scale climate variability on the regional distribution of sea level rise. Additionally, local sea surface height trends and variations are a result of many factors, including (but not limited to) local crustal displacement, glacial isostatic adjustment, steric effects, and even local wind patterns. Therefore you should consider these effects in interpreting local sea surface height time series derived from our gridded data sets."
Nice of you to reference Colorado.edu

If you go to their home page:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
You will find this graphic:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel3/...
Note that it shows a linear trend line
Just below that graphic you will find a link to the data:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel3/...
If you plot that data out in Excel and apply a second order polynomial trend line you can generate this graph:
http://i54.tinypic.com/2qtl828.jpg
I would say that over the period that those satellites have been up, there has been no acceleration of sea level rise. But you would never know that if you only listened to the rhetoric.

I see they have come out with release 2011-rel3 and clicking between the graph I generated and the new release isn't as obvious. Guess I'll have to redo it.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#25 Sep 29, 2011
Envisat sea level graph:
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/upload...
The latest sea level numbers are out, and Envisat shows that the two year long decline is continuing, at a rate of 5mm per year.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#26 Sep 29, 2011
Analysis of global linear mean sea level (MSL)
trends, including distance-weighted averaging
-
the IPCC's claimed 1.8 mm/year rate of global MSL rise exaggerates the actual, measured rate of MSL rise by at least 50%:
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/global_msl_t...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#27 Sep 29, 2011
Sea-level theory cuts no ice
CLIMATE science faces a major new controversy after Britain's Met Office denounced research from the Copenhagen summit that suggested global warming could raise sea levels by more than 1.8m by 2100.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/se...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#28 Sep 29, 2011
Steve Case wrote:
Nice of you to reference Colorado.edu
If you go to their home page:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
You will find this graphic:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel3/...
Note that it shows a linear trend line
Just below that graphic you will find a link to the data:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel3/...
If you plot that data out in Excel and apply a second order polynomial trend line you can generate this graph:
http://i54.tinypic.com/2qtl828.jpg
I would say that over the period that those satellites have been up, there has been no acceleration of sea level rise. But you would never know that if you only listened to the rhetoric.
I see they have come out with release 2011-rel3 and clicking between the graph I generated and the new release isn't as obvious. Guess I'll have to redo it.
I don't think SpaceBlues has worked out the meaning of 'acceleration' yet, but be assured that no acceleration of sea level rise has occurred for 100 to 150 years.
Global sea level change: Determination and interpretation
Bruce C. Douglas - NOAA, National Oceanographic Data Center, Washington, D.C.
http://geology.uprm.edu/MorelockSite/morelock...
IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions
-
There is no evidence for any acceleration of sea level rise in data from the 20th century data
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_t...

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#29 Sep 29, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
Analysis of global linear mean sea level (MSL)
trends, including distance-weighted averaging
-
the IPCC's claimed 1.8 mm/year rate of global MSL rise exaggerates the actual, measured rate of MSL rise by at least 50%:
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/global_msl_t...
Your link mentions Church & White. I've done some digging on what those two have published:

I went through the tide gauge data set section of

Estimates of the Regional Distribution of Sea Level Rise over the 19502000 Period
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1...
I gleaned some numbers for a spreadsheet and put them into tabular order as follows:

Record..Status..........Reason

1159....RLR
1950....Met

-256....eliminated......Record s >2 years
-1063...eliminated......Redund ant
-95.....eliminated......beyond TOPEX/Poseidon range
-37.....eliminated......<25 0 km to Alt grid point.

1658....records for further assessment.

??......eliminated......Disagr eement nearby records
??......eliminated......Locati ons
??......eliminated......Fragme nted
??......eliminated......Noise
??......eliminated......Residu al trends <10 mm/year

-713....Eliminated......For above 5 reasons?(1658-945=713)

945.....combined

-491....eliminated......by combination

454.....records for further assessment.

-28.....eliminated......No useful data

426.....records for further assessment.

Comments:

Really, because Topex/Poseidon didn't cover the range they tossed the data? I don't think that makes sense, but I suppose there's a reason for that.

In the text they go from 1658 records down to 945 records but don't give us any numbers as to how many were eliminated for the five reasons tabulated above. Residual Trends <10 mm/yr is reasonably objective. The other four listed are somewhat subjective without any guidelines as to what constitutes unsuitable locations, too much noise, too much fragmentation, or how much disagreement with other records is allowed or how near by they must be. After combining the 945 records there was another group of records eliminated for having no useful data. What was not useful? As far as Im concerned, there is room for some subjectivity in perhaps several hundred deletions of data.

A simple analysis of the data yields one thing, and the process along with the above editing criteria yields the opposite.
Now even though there's a difference in sign, if the two time lines were close no one would care, but as you can see,
http://i55.tinypic.com/2vt6z9e.jpg
they're not.

It's obvious that what Church and White have done is edit the data base. There isn't anything else that would result in such a large deviation from a straight forward analysis of the PSMSL tide gage record.

Here's link to the tide gage data that Church & White used:
ftp://ftp.marine.csiro.au/pub/ white/church_white_gmsl_2011_t g_list.zip
There's a read me file and a listing.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#30 Sep 29, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>I don't think SpaceBlues has worked out the meaning of 'acceleration' yet, but be assured that no acceleration of sea level rise has occurred for 100 to 150 years.
Global sea level change: Determination and interpretation
Bruce C. Douglas - NOAA, National Oceanographic Data Center, Washington, D.C.
http://geology.uprm.edu/MorelockSite/morelock...
IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001 - Complete online versions
-
There is no evidence for any acceleration of sea level rise in data from the 20th century data
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_t...
Nice link to the Third Assessment Report (TAR) saying there's no evidence for sea level rise acceleration in the the 20th Century.

Since: Mar 09

United States

#31 Sep 29, 2011
Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice link to the Third Assessment Report (TAR) saying there's no evidence for sea level rise acceleration in the the 20th Century.
Tidal guages have an underlying problem of isostatic rebound as the earths crust is slowly rising due to the loss of the weight of ice cover from the last ice age. Also do not neglect the impoundment of water in large fresh water lakes and the irrigation of vast land areas preventing water from reaching the ocean. Perhaps satellite measurements would give a better picture.....

White (2011) reported measurements of near-global sea level made using satellite altimeters.[28] Over the time period January 1993 to April 2011, these data show a steady increase in global mean sea level (GMSL) of around 3.2 mm per year, with a range of plus or minus 0.4 mm per year. This is 50% larger than the average rate observed over the 20th century. White (2011) was, however, unsure of whether or not this represented a long-term increase in the rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_leve...

Indications are that sealevel rise rate is increasing, but the time period for statistical significant measure to be extracted from noise is quite long in years. However, the satellite data does show this increase. We just do not know if it is statistically significant at this point.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#32 Sep 29, 2011
Steve Case wrote:
Nice link to the Third Assessment Report (TAR) saying there's no evidence for sea level rise acceleration in the the 20th Century.
I thought so too, because it leaves alarmists arguing against and belittling a body of scienists whose findings they purportedly respect.
Most amusing, but they won't see the funny side of it.
ֿ

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#33 Sep 29, 2011
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Tidal guages have an underlying problem of isostatic rebound as the earths crust is slowly rising due to the loss of the weight of ice cover from the last ice age.
For any individual location, it is the relative sea level change that is important. Isostatic rebound only figures in if you are trying to figure out the total volume change of the world's ocean. Otherwise, it doesn't matter.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Also do not neglect the impoundment of water in large fresh water lakes and the irrigation of vast land areas preventing water from reaching the ocean. Perhaps satellite measurements would give a better picture.....
I posted this graphic earlier
http://i54.tinypic.com/2qtl828.jpg
but it bears repeating. The satellite record shows that if anything the rate of sea level rise has been trailing off since 1993.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
White (2011) reported measurements of near-global sea level made using satellite altimeters.[28] Over the time period January 1993 to April 2011, these data show a steady increase in global mean sea level (GMSL) of around 3.2 mm per year, with a range of plus or minus 0.4 mm per year.
You know, it's interesting, if search the archives you will wind up at this page
http://web.archive.org/web/20040215105250/htt...
which shows that in 2004 satellite records said the rate was only 2.8 mm/yr and if you go to their current page there's a link just below the chart
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel3/...
that you can plot out and there is absolutely no reason to increase the rate from 2.8 to the current 3.2 mm/yr. But there it is.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
This is 50% larger than the average rate observed over the 20th century. White (2011) was, however, unsure of whether or not this represented a long-term increase in the rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_leve...
The rate is decreasing, not increasing. Unless of course if you edit the data to suit your purpose.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Indications are that sealevel rise rate is increasing, but the time period for statistical significant measure to be extracted from noise is quite long in years. However, the satellite data does show this increase. We just do not know if it is statistically significant at this point.
Bullshit, why don't you download that data from ColoradoSeaLevel.edu
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2011_rel3/...
and you try and make it show that it's increasing. See my chart from above:
http://i54.tinypic.com/2qtl828.jpg

Need help? Go to Mr. Excel dot com
http://www.mrexcel.com/forum/forumdisplay.php...
and ask. You get answers in minutes.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#34 Sep 29, 2011
I see Topix thought I was putting up a link, I should have written:

ColoradoSeaLevel dot edu

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#35 Sep 29, 2011
A real Bozo wrote:
Tidal guages [sic] have an underlying problem of isostatic rebound as the earths crust is slowly rising due to the loss of the weight of ice cover from the last ice age.
I'm surprised you posted that, professor, because you, of all people, should know that not all land areas were affected by isostasy.
The UK, for example, Scotland is experiencing isostatic rebound, while southern England is subsiding.
Both phenomena are measurable and can therefore be added or subtracted from measuerments taken by tide, "guages."

Since: Mar 09

United States

#36 Sep 29, 2011
Steve Case wrote:
I see Topix thought I was putting up a link, I should have written:
ColoradoSeaLevel dot edu
The chart shows a rising sea level for most of the period with a dip the last few months. Perhaps this is due to higher rainfall and consequent lag of water returning to the sea. Also there have been major earthquakes with consequent subsidence of the ocean floor. It is possible that short termed falling sea levels occur but the long term trend is ever upwards.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#37 Sep 29, 2011
Just another Bozo wrote:
The chart shows a rising sea level for most of the period with a dip the last few months.
Seallevel rises and falls with regularity.
Just another Bozo wrote:
Perhaps this is due to higher rainfall and consequent lag of water returning to the sea.
Perhaps?
Just another Bozo wrote:
Also there have been major earthquakes with consequent subsidence of the ocean floor.
Are you suggesting that oceans are sinking into Earth's crust?
Just another Bozo wrote:
It is possible that short termed falling sea levels occur but the long term trend is ever upwards.
Isn't that the norm during an interglacial, professor?

Since: Mar 09

United States

#38 Sep 29, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
<quoted text>Seallevel rises and falls with regularity.<quoted text>Perhaps?<quoted text>Are you suggesting that oceans are sinking into Earth's crust?<quoted text>Isn't that the norm during an interglacial, professor?
Do you suppose the polar bears are responsible?

If the ocean gains water from melting land ice, it gains mass. Since the ocean and continents are "floating" on the magma it is reasonable that when the ice melts the supporting crust will rise. Likewise as the ocean gains water, it will cause the ocean floor to subside.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#39 Sep 29, 2011
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The chart shows a rising sea level for most of the period with a dip the last few months. Perhaps this is due to higher rainfall and consequent lag of water returning to the sea. Also there have been major earthquakes with consequent subsidence of the ocean floor. It is possible that short termed falling sea levels occur but the long term trend is ever upwards.
Your side of the coin when they talk about increasing rates aren't talking about short term variations such we are seeing right now, they are talking about a long term acceleration. The Church and White paper says 0.13 mm/yr so if it's going up 3.20 mm/yr now, in ten years they're saying it should increase to 4.5 mm/yr. I'm telling you that there is utterly no empirical evidence to support that claim. Zero zip nada. Not a Goddamn shred.

I have invited you to download the satellite record and see for your self. Don't believe me, and don't believe Church, White, Rahmstorf or anyone else. Go to the source and check it out. It's not that difficult to do and the folks at Mr. Excel dot com will provide all the help you need.



Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#40 Sep 29, 2011
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you suppose the polar bears are responsible?
If the ocean gains water from melting land ice, it gains mass. Since the ocean and continents are "floating" on the magma it is reasonable that when the ice melts the supporting crust will rise. Likewise as the ocean gains water, it will cause the ocean floor to subside.
So if 0.3mm of water flows from the land into the ocean over the course of a year and the ocean floor in turn drops 0.3 mm and the land rises 0.3 mm the net change in actual and relative sea level will be what?

Now consider that Colorado University says it needs to add 0.3 mm/yr to the actual seal level (from the center of the Earth) to compensate for that. I just need to understand why that is.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#41 Sep 29, 2011
Relative sea level is what the tide gage tells you with out any adjustments for vertical movements of the Earth's crust.
Making Lemonade

Reynoldsburg, OH

#42 Sep 29, 2011
BFD, the beach just got that much closer!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oceanography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How Scientists Unraveled the El Nino Mystery Dec 7 SpaceBlues 1
'Project Recover' Searches for Long-Lost World ... Nov '14 Kid_Tomorrow 1
CO2 curve ticks upward as key climate talks loom (Nov '09) Oct '14 Brian_G 259
Study: Warming Temperatures In Pacific Not Asso... Sep '14 litesong 2
Pakistan earthquake island belching poisonous gas (Sep '13) Sep '14 Snark Snark 13
Swinging CO2 Levels Show The Earth Is 'Breathin... (Aug '13) Sep '14 Earthling-1 80
Does Antarctic sea ice growth negate climate ch... Aug '14 Jim the Hoax Denier 3
More from around the web