Saturday, September 21, 2013

New paper finds sea levels rising at less than 4 inches per century, with no acceleration

A new paper finds global mean sea levels rose at only 1 mm/year, equivalent to less than 4 inches per century, over the 203 year period from 1807-2010. The finding is remarkably similar to the sea level rise of 1.1-1.3 mm/yr found by the NOAA 2005-2012 Sea Level Budget, the only sea level budget which reconciles both satellite [altimeters & GRACE] & ARGO float data. The authors also find no evidence of acceleration of sea level rise, which indicates that there is no evidence of a human influence upon sea levels. In addition, the authors find that sea level rise is a localized rather than global phenomenon, with 61% of tide gauge records demonstrating no change in sea levels, 4% showing a decrease, and a minority of 35% showing a rise. This implies relative sea level change is primarily related to subsidence or post-glacial rebound [land height changes] rather than melting ice or steric sea level changes [thermal expansion from warming]. 

Excerpts:
If SLR is accelerating, sea levels should be nonstationary in first differences, but stationary in second differences. In none of the tide gauges and segments do the Dickey-Fuller and KPSS statistics support the accelerationist hypothesis. [i.e. there was no acceleration] 
The substantive contribution of the paper is concerned with recent SLR in different parts of the world. Consensus estimates of recent GMSL rise are about 2mm/year. Our estimate is 1 mm/year. We suggest that the difference between the two estimates is induced by the widespread use of data reconstructions which inform the consensus estimates. There are two types of reconstruction. The first refers to reconstructed data for tide gauges in PSMSL prior to their year of installation. The second refers to locations where there are no tide gauges at all. Since the tide gauges currently in PSMSL are a quasi-random sample, our estimate of current GMSL rise is unbiased. If this is true, reconstruction bias is approximately 1mm/year.  
Sea level rise is regional rather than global and is concentrated in the southern Baltic, the Ring of Fire, and the Atlantic coast of the US. By contrast the north-west Pacific coast and north-east coast of India are characterized by sea level fall. In the minority of locations where sea levels are rising the mean increase is about 4 mm/year and in some locations it is as large as 9 mm/year. The fact that sea level rise is not global should not detract from its importance in those parts of the world where it is a serious problem.
Sea level rise is regional rather than global and is concentrated in the southern Baltic, the Ring of Fire, and the Atlantic coast of the US. By contrast the north-west Pacific coast and north-east coast of India are characterized by sea level fall.

TIDE GAUGE LOCATION AND THE MEASUREMENT OF GLOBAL SEA LEVEL RISE

Michael Beenstock 1 Daniel Felsenstein 2, Eyal Frank1, Yaniv Reingewertz 1

1 Department of Economics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, 
Israel
2 Department of Geography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, 
Israel

Abstract

The location of tide gauges is not random. If their locations are positively (negatively) correlated with SLR, estimates of global SLR will be biased upwards (downwards). We show that the location of tide gauges in 2000 is independent of SLR as measured by satellite altimetry. Therefore PSMSL tide gauges constitute a quasi-random sample and inferences of SLR based on them are unbiased, and there is no need for data reconstructions. By contrast, tide gauges dating back to the 19th century were located where sea levels happened to be rising. Data reconstructions based on these tide gauges are therefore likely to over-estimate sea level rise. 

We therefore study individual tide gauge data on sea levels from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) during 1807 – 2010 without recourse to data reconstruction. Although mean sea levels are rising by 1mm/year, sea level rise is local rather than global, and is concentrated in the Baltic and Adriatic seas, South East Asia and the Atlantic coast of the United States. In these locations, covering 35 percent of tide gauges, sea levels rose on average by 3.8mm/year. Sea levels were stable in locations covered by 61 percent of tide gauges, and sea levels fell in locations covered by 4 percent of tide gauges. In these locations sea levels fell on average by almost 6mm/year.

Related post on a paper by the same first author:

New paper finds the data do not support the theory of man-made global warming [AGW]

Seven examples of how satellite data has been 'adjusted' to exaggerate sea level rise:


48 comments:

  1. I'm as happy as a duck on an ice floe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.cato.org/blog/more-ipcc-misdirection-its-dodgy-sea-level-rise-assessment

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/24/alarmists-are-in-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/national-geographic-rising-sea-level-prophecycause-for-concern-or-absurd-fairytale/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Warmist publication on physicist John Droz, who has successfully fought sea level mania in North Carolina

    http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/10/stopping-sea-level-rise

    ReplyDelete
  6. paper claiming global warming is responsible for less than half, possibly as little as 10% of sea level rise

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/07/bangladesh-sea-level-rise/

    ReplyDelete

  7. Zero acceleration in sea level rise.

    "The worldwide average tide gauge result obtained considering all the data included in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level data base show a modest sea level rise and about zero acceleration.”

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/new-paper-is-there-any-support-in-the-long-term-tide-gauge-data-to-the-claims-that-parts-of-sydney-will-be-swamped-by-boretti-2012/

    ReplyDelete
  8. new paper shows sea levels rose 5 mm/yr or 4-5 time faster than the present ~7,000 years ago

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.2662/abstract

    ReplyDelete
  9. Josh Willis is the same fellow who threw out the original ARGO data that showed the oceans were cooling and presto the oceans were warming again.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2009/12/from-npr-2008-mystery-of-global.html

    http://andrewgelman.com/2010/03/29/no_problem_well/

    ReplyDelete
  10. sea level reconstruction over past 700,000 years shows exact same pattern as temperature from ice cores

    http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0277379113003478-gr11.jpg

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113003478

    ReplyDelete
  11. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/shock-news-satellite-sea-level-error-is-100-of-the-trend/

    ReplyDelete
  12. from comment at the Guardian:

    Sea level has decelerated over past 20 years.

    Between - 0.04 and - 0.08 mm/year
    Dean & Houston 2013
    Scafetta 2013
    Thats' logical with the clear multidecadal 60 years oscillation in sea level rise
    (Jevrejevra 2008)
    IPCC 2007:
    "no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th-century data alone."

    IPCC 2013:
    "It is likely that GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rose between 1920 and 1950 at a rate comparable to that observed between 1993 and 2010"

    ReplyDelete
  13. Comment on Dana's post at the Guardian, which is "being moderated"

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/18/global-warming-pause-meaning?commentpage=1

    1. The fact is a body that is only 0.09C warmer can only warm a second, colder body by an additional 0.09C.

    i.e. the 0.09C ocean warming over the past 55 years [Levitus 2012] can only warm the atmosphere by an additional 0.09C

    2. "How it actually works is that during some periods there's more heat transferred to the oceans, during others there's less."

    Ah, and why would ocean heat absorption be different today compared to 20 years ago?

    3. Sea level rise has not accelerated

    JM Gregory et al Journal of Climate 2012
    M Beenstock et al 2013
    NOAA 2005-2012 Sea Level Budget
    Dean & Houston 2013
    Scafetta 2013
    Jevrejevra 2008
    etc etc

    3) "It's called convection."

    I see, the deep oceans are heating from above by convection.

    Actually, heat rises from convection, so try again.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/the-sea-level-error-fraud/

    ReplyDelete
  15. observations reveal no acceleration of sea level rise over the
    past century. In fact, just the opposite appears to be occurring in nature.
    Holgate (2007), for example, derived a mean global sea level history over the period 1904-2003.
    According to their calculations, the mean rate of global sea level rise was “larger in the early
    part of the last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/year 1904-1953), in comparison with the latter part
    (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/year 1954-2003).” In other words, contrary to model projections, the mean
    rate of global sea level rise (SLR) has not accelerated over the recent past. If anything, it’s done
    just the opposite. Such observations are striking, especially considering they have occurred
    over a period of time when many have claimed that (1) the Earth warmed to a degree that is
    unprecedented over many millennia, (2) the warming resulted in a net accelerated melting of
    the vast majority of the world’s mountain glaciers and polar ice caps, and (3) global sea level rose at an ever increasing rate.”

    ReplyDelete
  16. In another paper, Boretti (2012) applied simple statistics to the two decades of information
    contained in the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeter data to “better understand
    if the SLR is accelerating, stable or decelerating.” In doing so, the Australian scientist reports
    that the rate of SLR is reducing over the measurement period at a rate of -0.11637 mm/year2,
    and that this deceleration is also “reducing” at a rate of -0.078792 mm/year3 (see Figure 7).
    And in light of such observations, Boretti writes that the huge deceleration of SLR over the last
    10 years “is clearly the opposite of what is being predicted by the models,” and that “the SLR’s
    reduction is even more pronounced during the last 5 years.” To further illustrate the
    importance of his findings, he notes that “in order for the prediction of a 100-cm increase in sea
    level by 2100 to be correct, the SLR must be almost 11 mm/year every year for the next 89
    years,” but he notes that “since the SLR is dropping, the predictions become increasingly
    unlikely,” especially in view of the facts that (1) “not once in the past 20 years has the SLR of 11
    mm/year ever been achieved,” and that (2) “the average SLR of 3.1640 mm/year is only 20% of
    the SLR needed for the prediction of a one meter rise to be correct.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The real-world data-based results of Holgate and Boretti, as well as those of other researchers
    (Morner, 2004; Jevrejeva et al., 2006; Wöppelmann et al., 2009; Houston and Dean, 2011), all
    suggest that rising atmospheric CO2 emissions are exerting no discernible influence on the rate
    of sea level rise. Clearly, SCC damages that are based on model projections of a CO2-induced
    acceleration of SLR must be considered inflated and unlikely to occur.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/monetary_co2.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  18. Comment submitted to

    http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_far_will_sea_levels_rise/2702/

    Sea levels have been rising naturally for the past 20,000 years and at much, much faster rates in the past [up to 40 times faster than today]

    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_png

    Sea levels are currently rising 4-8 inches per century, and there is no acceleration, which means there is no evidence of a human influence on sea levels:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-paper-finds-sea-levels-rising-at.html

    References finding no acceleration:

    JM Gregory et al Journal of Climate 2012
    M Beenstock et al 2013
    NOAA 2005-2012 Sea Level Budget
    Dean & Houston 2011 & 2013
    Scafetta 2013
    Holgate 2007
    Boretti 2012
    Morner 2004
    Jevrejeva et al., 2006 & 2008
    Wöppelmann et al., 2009

    IPCC 2007:
    "no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th-century data alone."

    IPCC 2013:
    "It is likely that GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rose between 1920 and 1950 at a rate comparable to that observed between 1993 and 2010"

    Sea level rise is a local, not global, phenomenon:

    ...the authors find that sea level rise is a localized rather than global phenomenon, with 61% of tide gauge records demonstrating no change in sea levels, 4% showing a decrease, and a minority of 35% showing a rise. This implies relative sea level change is primarily related to subsidence or post-glacial rebound [land height changes] rather than melting ice or steric sea level changes [thermal expansion from warming].

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-paper-finds-sea-levels-rising-at.html

    ReplyDelete
  19. Another comment submitted:

    Please explain why sea levels during the last interglacial were 31 feet higher than the present, and Greenland 8C warmer than the present, without anthropogenic forcing.

    What evidence suggests the current interglacial is any different?

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/new-paper-finds-sea-levels-rose.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. Only Missed By A Factor Of Five

    Posted on October 25, 2013 by stevengoddard

    The 1990 IPCC Report predicted about 120 mm of sea level rise by the year 2014. Tide gauges were their only sea level reference in 1990, and have shown about one fifth of the IPCC’s forecast.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/25/only-missed-by-a-factor-of-five/

    ReplyDelete
  21. http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/the-search-for-acceleration-part-9-the-baltic-sea/

    ReplyDelete
  22. see also

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/sea-level-decrease-1992-2009-along-most.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/05/scientists-find-that-sea-level-rise-is-much-slower-than-expected-no-human-fingerprint/

    ReplyDelete
  24. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/global-sea-level-trend-1-08-mmyear/

    ReplyDelete
  25. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/climate-scientists-recycling-the-same-nonsensical-scare-stories-from-35-years-ago/

    ReplyDelete
  26. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/history-falsifies-climate-alarmist-sea-level-claims/

    ReplyDelete
  27. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/

    ReplyDelete
  28. sea levels dropped during LIA, were ~ same or higher during MWP

    Grinsted et al 2009

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/intelligence-and-the-hockey-stick/

    ReplyDelete
  29. http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climategate-anzeige/wo-bleibt-der-meeres-anstieg-verlangsamung-statt-beschleunigung/

    ReplyDelete
  30. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/oh-say-can-you-see-modern-sea-level-rise-from-a-geological-perspective/

    ReplyDelete
  31. Is there a doi reference for this paper?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Steve Goddard ‏@SteveSGoddard 24 Dec
    @GCarabine The 1990 IPCC report said half that number (1-2 mm) w/ no acceleration.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf … pic.twitter.com/lnoM9YDoMx

    ReplyDelete
  33. Steve Goddard ‏@SteveSGoddard 24 Dec
    1990 IPCC report said there was no acceleration of sea level rise during the 20th century
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf … pic.twitter.com/tBPhiZMbyN

    ReplyDelete
  34. another paper finding no acceleration of sea level rise

    http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=16018

    ReplyDelete
  35. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825213000937?np=y

    no accel, rate 1.5 mm/yr

    ReplyDelete
  36. rate 1.7 mm/yr over 20th century

    http://www.uni-siegen.de/start/news/forschung/536040.html

    ReplyDelete
  37. https://twitter.com/stevesgoddard/status/427208613103300608

    ReplyDelete
  38. http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=15942

    ReplyDelete
  39. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/gee-siteing-problems-and-intrument-error-in-sea-level-gauges/

    ReplyDelete
  40. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000188/pdf

    ReplyDelete
  41. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/02/argo-temperature-and-ohc/#comment-1583022

    Smoking gun on Josh Willis "adjustments"

    ReplyDelete
  42. New paper finds global sea level rise 1962-2003 was 1.80mm/yr, equivalent to 7"/century

    ReplyDelete
  43. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/trenberth-vs-science/

    ReplyDelete
  44. http://notrickszone.com/2014/04/18/long-term-tide-gauge-data-show-21st-century-sea-level-rise-will-be-approximately-as-much-as-the-20th-century/

    ReplyDelete
  45. negligible acceleration Greenland sea levels

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818114000666

    ReplyDelete
  46. http://notrickszone.com/2014/04/18/long-term-tide-gauge-data-show-21st-century-sea-level-rise-will-be-approximately-as-much-as-the-20th-century/

    ReplyDelete
  47. Another paper finding no acceleration

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/sea-level-rise-less-than-1mm-for-last-125-years-nils-axel-morner/

    ReplyDelete
  48. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/latest-noaa-mean-sea-level-trend-data-through-2013-confirms-lack-of-sea-level-rise-acceleration-2/

    ReplyDelete