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.
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:
I'm as happy as a duck on an ice floe.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cato.org/blog/more-ipcc-misdirection-its-dodgy-sea-level-rise-assessment
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/24/alarmists-are-in-way-over-their-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/25/national-geographic-rising-sea-level-prophecycause-for-concern-or-absurd-fairytale/
ReplyDeleteWarmist publication on physicist John Droz, who has successfully fought sea level mania in North Carolina
ReplyDeletehttp://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/10/stopping-sea-level-rise
paper claiming global warming is responsible for less than half, possibly as little as 10% of sea level rise
ReplyDeletehttp://judithcurry.com/2013/10/07/bangladesh-sea-level-rise/
ReplyDeleteZero 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/
new paper shows sea levels rose 5 mm/yr or 4-5 time faster than the present ~7,000 years ago
ReplyDeletehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.2662/abstract
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.
ReplyDeletehttp://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2009/12/from-npr-2008-mystery-of-global.html
http://andrewgelman.com/2010/03/29/no_problem_well/
sea level reconstruction over past 700,000 years shows exact same pattern as temperature from ice cores
ReplyDeletehttp://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0277379113003478-gr11.jpg
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113003478
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/shock-news-satellite-sea-level-error-is-100-of-the-trend/
ReplyDeletefrom comment at the Guardian:
ReplyDeleteSea 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"
Comment on Dana's post at the Guardian, which is "being moderated"
ReplyDeletehttp://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.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/20/the-sea-level-error-fraud/
ReplyDeleteobservations reveal no acceleration of sea level rise over the
ReplyDeletepast 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.”
In another paper, Boretti (2012) applied simple statistics to the two decades of information
ReplyDeletecontained 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.
The real-world data-based results of Holgate and Boretti, as well as those of other researchers
ReplyDelete(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
Comment submitted to
ReplyDeletehttp://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
Another comment submitted:
ReplyDeletePlease 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
Only Missed By A Factor Of Five
ReplyDeletePosted 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/
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/the-search-for-acceleration-part-9-the-baltic-sea/
ReplyDeletesee also
ReplyDeletehttp://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/sea-level-decrease-1992-2009-along-most.html
http://notrickszone.com/2013/11/05/scientists-find-that-sea-level-rise-is-much-slower-than-expected-no-human-fingerprint/
ReplyDeletehttp://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/global-sea-level-trend-1-08-mmyear/
ReplyDeletehttp://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/climate-scientists-recycling-the-same-nonsensical-scare-stories-from-35-years-ago/
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/02/history-falsifies-climate-alarmist-sea-level-claims/
ReplyDeletehttp://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
ReplyDeletesea levels dropped during LIA, were ~ same or higher during MWP
ReplyDeleteGrinsted et al 2009
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/08/intelligence-and-the-hockey-stick/
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climategate-anzeige/wo-bleibt-der-meeres-anstieg-verlangsamung-statt-beschleunigung/
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/oh-say-can-you-see-modern-sea-level-rise-from-a-geological-perspective/
ReplyDeleteIs there a doi reference for this paper?
ReplyDeleteSteve Goddard @SteveSGoddard 24 Dec
ReplyDelete@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
Steve Goddard @SteveSGoddard 24 Dec
ReplyDelete1990 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
another paper finding no acceleration of sea level rise
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=16018
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825213000937?np=y
ReplyDeleteno accel, rate 1.5 mm/yr
rate 1.7 mm/yr over 20th century
ReplyDeletehttp://www.uni-siegen.de/start/news/forschung/536040.html
https://twitter.com/stevesgoddard/status/427208613103300608
ReplyDeletehttp://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=15942
ReplyDeletehttp://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/gee-siteing-problems-and-intrument-error-in-sea-level-gauges/
ReplyDeletehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000188/pdf
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/02/argo-temperature-and-ohc/#comment-1583022
ReplyDeleteSmoking gun on Josh Willis "adjustments"
New paper finds global sea level rise 1962-2003 was 1.80mm/yr, equivalent to 7"/century
ReplyDeletehttp://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/trenberth-vs-science/
ReplyDeletenegligible acceleration Greenland sea levels
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818114000666
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/
ReplyDeleteAnother paper finding no acceleration
ReplyDeletehttp://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/sea-level-rise-less-than-1mm-for-last-125-years-nils-axel-morner/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/16/latest-noaa-mean-sea-level-trend-data-through-2013-confirms-lack-of-sea-level-rise-acceleration-2/
ReplyDeletehttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/30/new-paper-on-sea-level-rise-purkey-et-al-2014-examines-the-sea-level-rise-by-basin/
ReplyDeleteResidual rise only 1.5mm/yr, just as this paper shows