From NOAA News: NOAA Report Explains Sea Level Anomaly this Summer along the U.S. Atlantic Coast
August 31, 2009
Persistent winds and a weakened current in the Mid-Atlantic contributed to higher than normal sea levels along the Eastern Seaboard in June and July, according to a new NOAA technical report.
After observing water levels six inches to two feet higher than originally predicted, NOAA scientists began analyzing data from select tide stations and buoys from Maine to Florida and found that a weakening of the Florida Current Transport—an oceanic current that feeds into the Gulf Stream—in addition to steady and persistent Northeast winds, contributed to this anomaly.
“The ocean is dynamic and it’s not uncommon to have anomalies,” said Mike Szabados, director of NOAA’s Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services. “What made this event unique was its breadth, intensity and duration.”
The highest atypical sea levels occurred closer to where the anomaly formed in the Mid-Atlantic, where cities like Baltimore, Md., at times experienced extreme high tides as much as two feet higher than normal. Data from NOAA’s National Water Level Observation Network tide stations, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, and National Data Buoy Center, are published in the report.
Impacts of the event were amplified by the occurrence of a perigean-spring tide, the natural timing of the season and month when the moon is closest to the Earth and its gravitational pull heightens the elevation of the water. The combined effects of this tide with the sea level anomaly produced minor flooding on the coast.
“The report is a good first assessment,” said NOAA Oceanographer William Sweet, Ph.D. “However, NOAA, with our academic partners, should continue to investigate the broader causes behind the event. Further analysis is needed to fully understand what is driving the patterns we observed.”
The full report, Elevated East Coast Sea Level Anomaly: June-July 2009, is available online.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
I don’t get it. Is there a seal on the bouy? Why does the title mention the word seal? — John M Reynolds
REPLY: errant “l” removed thanks – A
I wondered if they considered the Impacts of ENSO on Sea Level. All You have to do is divide the oceans into logical segments and the influence of ENSO stands out.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/08/enso-is-major-component-of-sea-level.html
I realise its not scientific and I know its cherry picking but I tend to accept reports at face value that do not attribute changes to “climate change”.
The question is who is at fault? Is it me for having a blinkered view on events or is it the climate scientists for screaming “wolf” so often?
The tide is turning.
I liked “seal evel” rise better.
Evan. Seal is still in the url, so don’t miss it too much. 🙂 — John M Reynolds
This sea level rise would be a tricky business, just factoring in the inverse barometer must be a bit o head ach. Obviously low atmospheric pressure during a king tide would mean a higher tide… but id imagine if a large high pressure is following it would push it up more etc… gives me a head ach just thinking about the implications of one factor!
“NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun”
Interesting claim.
Translation:
We’ve not quite figured out how to link this to climate change yet, we’ll tell you next week!
DaveE.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40046&src=eorss-iotd
“Paul Vaughan (17:51:16) :
“NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun”
Interesting claim.”
They just punch in an arbitrary Co2 concentration figure into their robust, super accurate, computer models which pit out facts; Co2 causes everything that warms and wear spacial BS filters which blinds us to the fact we haven’t a clue.
“Further analysis is needed to fully understand what is driving the patterns we observed.”
Give it time… They’ll find a global warming angle.
So sea levels can change naturally quite a bit.
And temperatures can change naturally quite a bit:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/01/reporter-down-under-dont-blame-climate-change-for-hottest-august-on-record/
Golly, who knew?
Oh, and the tides and currents site is very interesting.
The “persistent northeast winds”….due in part to a persistent negative NAO for June and July…
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.sprd2.gif
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
evanmjones (17:41:04) :
I liked “seal evel” rise better.
————————
Evel seals?! Run for the hills!!!! We’re all land lubbers now!!! ;P
“NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.”
If you say so…
DaveE (18:02:10) :
‘Further analysis is needed to fully understand what is driving the patterns we observed.’
“Translation:
We’ve not quite figured out how to link this to climate change yet, we’ll tell you next week!”
Another translation: can we have some more grant money please?
Patrick Davis (18:06:27) “They just punch in an arbitrary Co2 concentration figure into their robust, super accurate, computer models which pit out facts; Co2 causes everything that warms […]”
Lol – & don’t forget that it also causes cooling, cooling-warming, warming-cooling, &/or any other thing that happens, has happened, &/or will happen.
–
What I want is a reliable ENSO forecast that extends years into the future. Let’s call this step 1 towards earning my trust.
It was abnormally cool and wet in New England in June & July this year. The Bermuda high didn’t set up until August. Not so surprising that the tides should respond.
DaveE (18:02:10) “We’ve not quite figured out how to link this to climate change yet, we’ll tell you next week!”
Jimmy Haigh (18:43:00) “Another translation: can we have some more grant money please?”
Another one: We await instructions from our political masters.
“persistant North East Winds” hope they aren’t that persistan this winter.
Got Coal?
“Further analysis is needed to fully understand what is driving the patterns we observed.”
I am inclined to take this at face value and praise them to the skies for saying something that is obvious common sense.
Indeed, I would go further. That single sentence explains my skepticism about the catastrophic AGW hypothesis/theory. I’m sure I’m not the only one who doesn’t have the technical knowledge to be able to refute the quasi-scientific justifications put forward for that theory, but I am able to say “you cannot possibly know enough to be so certain”. Perhaps I am being circular and unfair in calling it “quasi-scientific” because “quasi” is only supportable if my qualification to their level of knowledge is correct. But there lies the core of so much in this debate. I am yet to read anything from either side of the debate to support the conclusion that anyone knows enough to be able to be certain.
Be it the effect of clouds, the effect of the sun, the effects of the churning oceans, the effect of aircraft (to touch on a recent post here), the effect of deficiencies in land temperature measurements (the whole foundation of this site) or anything else, the possible influences of these imponderables are so vast that certainty seems to me to be irrational.
I am inclined against the catastrophic AGW theory in part because I cannot see how it can be supported with certainty in the light of the matters I have mentioned, in part because the evidence supporting some of its central planks seems more than a little rickety and in part because I don’t like its political consequences.
But I cannot and do not pretend to speak with authority. I speak purely as a moderately intelligent and reasonably well-educated person who tries to approach all issues with as open a mind as my experiences in life will allow. Is that not the key to so much of this? We all approach every issue we face on the basis of our personal experiences and the (often deeply-embedded) opinions that result from those experiences.
One deeply-embedded opinion I have and cannot divorce is that certainty in anything requires a factual basis that stands up to questioning from all angles.
“Further analysis is needed to fully understand what is driving the patterns we observed” is, to my mind, applicable to every aspect of the catastrophic AGW theory. That, of itself, means it cannot (yet) be accepted and should not be acted upon.
NOAA understands: Look at http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/ocean/sst/anomaly.html and go through June, July and August: a persistent blue spot builds up in the Atlantic,
between 40N and 60 N.
This is the region where the Gulf stream is flowing into. The Gulf stream just takes a little break. Because of that, NOAA says, the tides are higher.
If that blue spot persists through fall, the winter may be colder in Europe. The last one was not too warm either.
If the other big gyres also take little breaks, this may be climate change.
“NOAA [] predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun”
HOTSPUR
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But do they change when you predict them?
[Henry IV pt 1 (ish)]
I recently looked up the correction made to sea levels for barometric pressure. It’s amazingly large.
JF