I got a couple of emails today saying that I should take a look at the most recently posted sea level graph from the University of Colorado shown below:
The reason for the interest is that it dropped the rate of change from 3.3 mm/yr to 3.2 mm/yr. as shown in the next graph. That’s hardly news, since it is well within the error band of +/- 0.4 mm/yr.
But I thought it might be interesting to go back and see what I could find in the UC sea level archive of graphs. I’ve presented all of the ones I’ve found below. I should note that in some years, UC may only release 2 graphs (as indicated by the release #) or up to 5 in one year like they did in 2005. For the sake of presentation simplicity, I’m only presenting the last graph to be released in any year.
I realize there has been a great deal of interest in the flattening of the 60 day smoothing line that started in 2007 and continues to the present. But the trend line will take awhile to reflect any appreciable change in the rate if it continues to flatten. The yearly rate of rise has been between 3.0 and 3.5 mm per year since 2004.
Many projections by various models predict the rise of sea level:
Note the trend of the observations line from 1950 to 2000, if you follow the linear trend, it will end up somewhere between 20 and 30 cm by the year 2100. The graph above is from Wikipedia’s “global warming art” which for some reason doesn’t show the observations back that far.
Here is a better graph, from New Zealand’s Ministry of the Environment, which shows more of the historical record, all the way back to 1870:
It seems sea level has been rising for awhile, and that the observation line in black, if you follow the linear trend, will also end up somewhere between 20 and 30 cm by the year 2100.
To put it all in perspective, some example images are useful.
Here is what 3 millmeters of sea level rise in 1 year looks like. This is a tiny fuel cell chip, just 3mm x 3mm in size:
I know that many people are concerned about sea level rise over the next century. In the rate of 3 mm per year continues, we’d be at 300 mm (30 centimeters) of rise in 100 years. Here is what 30.48 cm (12 inches) looks like:
And finally, here is what the tide gauge at Anchorage Alaska looks like:
Anchorage Alaska boasts the world’s second highest tides: varying over 40 feet (1219 cm), low to high tide. Ok, that is an extreme example, how about this one in France:
Mt. St. Michel on the north coast of France at low tide (left) and high tide (right).
The water surrounding this island is the Gulf of Sant-Malo.
Low tide
The point I’m making is that in 100 years, for some places that extra foot won’t make much of a difference. Some low lying areas will be affected certainly, but even some of the lowest lying areas of the earth won’t see all that much impact from a third of a meter of sea level rise in 100 years. Probably the worst place to live is in a river delta which is almost at sea level anyway. Even so, 30 cm falls short of the lowest notch on this graph of 1 meter.
Bangladesh is another low lying river delta where it is not desirable to live, yet many do. Even so it appears much of it is 1 meter or more above sea level.
Florida is often talked about as being at risk. yes there are a few places there that might be touched by a 30 cm rise in sea level 100 years from now.
Looking at the whole world, at the rate we are going, I’d say it will take awhile.
In Edward Tellers autobiography he talks about the Egyptians, in the late 1950s, thinking about using nuclear weapons to blast a canal from the Meditteranean to the Qattara Depression which is in the Sahara desert close to Libya. The Qattara Depression is 17000 square miles of desert which, on average is 200 foot below sea level. They are now, apparently, intending to do the same thing using more conventional means and, using the effects of gravity, pass the water through turbines to generate electricity.
Filling the Qattara depression would take at a questimate 40 years and, back of envelope calculations suggest, would reduce mean sea level by 6-7mm in that time.
If you believe mean sea level is rising, and that itself is open to debate, maybe we should encourage the Egyptians to fill up the Qattara depression and make an inland sea in the Sahara.
An aside; how much sea level rise is accounted for by the massive cargo ships and supertankers we have built over the last century. They displace sea water don’t they? I’ll leave somebody else to do the maths. Enjoy.
Re Gary Pearse (10:48:31
Isostacy shows that the land elevation changes in two directions from glacial weight. At the height of the glaciers the land covered by the ice sheet is depressed. This glacial weight pushing down under the ice sheet causes the land at the fringe of the ice sheet to be pushed up. (think of what happens when one squeezes a balloon) When the glaciers recede the cycle reverses. The Maritimes are seeing the land rise as the rebound continues from the ice retreat however it is important to appreciate the shore lines of the MidAtlantic region are now sinking from the same process. NJ will see higher “relative” sea levels whether or not the sea is increasing in volume. It is unfortunate that only AGW components are deemed worthy of attention.
DJ – the Brunn rule is out of date and absolutely crude – a 2-dimensional model established in the 50ties. Check out some later work “testing” the rule here:
Davidson-Arnott R.G.D. 2005. Conceptual model of the effects of sea level rise on sandy coasts. Journal of Coastal Research 21: 1166-1172.
or http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2112/03-0051.1
so overall, coastal erosion/aggradation will always occur as not a single coastline can be described as “stable” – unless you have a rocky shoreline and then it appears relatively stable. Coastline are probably the most dynamic environments on our planet. If you check out reports on sandy coastlines over the last few decades, you will notice that there were periods when the same beach was building up material and a few years later the beach material vanished (natural causes).
Why so much racket? These changes of MSL are natural fluctuations! This tiny 0.003 m per year is contemplated into the phase of regression. The trend will soon change and it will be negative again, so it has been through eons on Earth. Calculating how many years it will take for reaching one meter higher than today, at the current rate or rise and if and only if it is maintained forever, i.e. if it is a lineal trend, it will take 333 years… Three centuries! Isn’t it ridiculous? The latter could happen if the trend wouldn’t change, which is almost impossible given that nature is always evolving.
>Why are humans so arrogant to think that they can just sit their asses down somewhere and expect the universe to move around them? Such idiots.. If the sea is getting too close to you move!
Squidly in one sentence you sum up all that is wrong with the sceptics.
The arrogance is that we can defy the laws of physics which have applied on this planet since the year dot. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which will warm the planet. In the past it has contributed to warming and large sea level rise and it will do so again in the future.
The second point shows a complete disregard to the human and property rights of others. The “science” of the “sceptics” is hoisted on society without any warranty offered to those who will suffer the consequences if it is wrong.
Finally, you resort to insulting others you have never met and whose circumstances you will never understand. The compensation for a lack of “science” is all too common among “sceptics”.
REPLY: Well gosh, two can play at that game. the constant anger, the regular denigration of others skills and comprehension, and the hiding behind anonymity when hurling such attacks is all too common for “alarmists”, such as yourself. It’s fair dinkum when we look at your 95 comments here. – Anthony
An intelligent and thorough post which highlights several factors:
a) If sea levels are rising, they are occurring at a glacial pace (actually, horizontally, most glaciers would nearly double this speed!),
b) The graph back to 1870 shows movement even at this early point in human industrialisation, which would suggest that something other than Human Induced CO2 may be responsible,
c) All graphs shown here reveal a linear relationship which has been extrapolated on recent upward movement, however, there are previous points steeper than this period (1915-30, 1965-69) which smoothed back to a linear progression,
d) The graphs are linear, or at the very least, less exponential than the CO2 graphs which would suggest that the two factors are not statistically related.
Like many, I am a firm advocate for many pressing environmental issues, but global warming has stolen billions of dollars and thousands of hours of attention away from these issues. This is the real tragedy.
Andrew P (10:17:54) :
“And more fish = more displacement
Or do you want to take this all the way down to phytoplankton? Methinks you take my first post too seriously.”
But Andrew, look at how serious this all is!
Because of the highly learned discussion between you and Kaboom, I predict that our esteemed leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will declare the debate over, and no time to lose! “It’s obvious, scientifically, that more fish swimming will cause the water to warm rapidly, due to mechanical effects of their little tails waving back and forth,” I believe they’ll say. “Warmer water will mean even more rapid ocean level rises.” Then, they will propose doubling American tax rates to fund a new ocean going form of traffic police, to force fish to swim slower, thus wasting less energy, and keeping the oceans cooler. This force will require a large bureaucracy, which will be headed by whichever of their relatives aren’t currently under indictment for influence-peddling.
And they haven’t even begun to tax us for your “phytoplankton” observations yet.
Henry 😉
(/sarc off)
Say, now, didn’t genericoracle (13:13:31) : do a fine job of summarizing the salient points of the post?
Thought it was interesting how much alike the charts above and the charts here of the dow futures are looking.
http://www.tradeinwaves.com/minidow.jpg
I agree with chillybean. Each graph seems to give a differing levels for the same year over time. eg The 2004 map shows 2003 as 30 yet shows only 16 in the 2009 graph. Any reason for this (or has it been explained above somewhere?). I read somewhere that since the satellite data wasn’t revealing the modelled predicted increases they (IPCC?) incorporated tidal measurements back into the measurements to reveal a so-called ‘truer picture’. But this doesn’t explain what seems to be anomalies in the data between the graphs above.
Katherine (01:42:19) :
Who does the blink comparator images? I’d really like to see one comparing 2009_rel2 with 2009_rel1, Unfortunately, with the change in the Y axis, the result will be a bit muddy. . .
Not muddy at all. Here’s your blink:
http://i40.tinypic.com/25u5w02.gif
.
Ron de Haan (03:40:05) :
Anthony,
Thank you for the article but the illustrations you have added to illustrate the flooding potential caused by sea level rise gives the article a somewhat alarmist impression.
A better reason for no alarm is the alarmist color scale. Red is around 5 meters, 16 feet, which ain’t happening in this millennium. Most likely would be about a third of the way into the black area.
Squidly (03:58:03) :
To my previous posts, I am wondering, is it cheaper and more plausible to stop sea level rise, or to move your ass somewhere else?
The Dutch, among others, have come up with a third option.
A mention was made of finger nail growth rate (13 angstroms/sec) for sea level rise,funny I remember finger nail growth rate is rate that Australia is moving towards Indonesia,quite fast for continental drift.
The comment was made to compare the rate of rise to a 1 mm dime. Maybe a better comparison is two pennies (USA) because two pennies = 3 mm. Then the statement can be made, “This is the rate of rise every year, though it appears to be leveling off. Just my two cents worth regarding global warming” Give the two cents to the gorebulist.
DJ warns:
The “science” of the “sceptics” is hoisted on society without any warranty offered to those who will suffer the consequences if it is wrong.
DJ, where is the science and warranty which shows that the consequences to “those who will suffer” as a result of instituting the alleged “cure” to the alleged “disease” of GW will not be worse than the alleged disease?
Conveniently and intentionally, the ipcc did not do this particular science, which would involve a thorough analysis both of the “costs” of the cure and the benefits of GW, regardless of the cause.
DJ, can’t even such a concerned individual as yourself at least wonder somewhat sceptically “why not” ?
Satellite altimetry Topex/Poseidon/Jason data is adjusted by the University of Colorado for NASA to match the rate of sea level rise measured by a set of 64 tide gauges. Any difference between the raw satellite measurement and the tide gauge measurement is assumed to be the sum of satellite measurement drift error and the vertical land movement at the tide gauge location. A separate estimate of vertical land movement is made to determine the altimetric drift. This measurement drift as determined by the set of tide gauges is applied to the raw satellite data to create the adjusted satellite data.
The tide guage calibration procedure is shown at the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Calibration page here http://sealevel.colorado.edu/calibration.php
@ur momisugly Alan the Brit (00:08:42) and John F. Hultquist (00:35:54) sedimentation rates and deltas.
First, the channel of the delta will migrate over time. As the river empties into the ocean (or lake, or another body of water depending on the river), sediments are deposited. Over time, these sediments build up and the channel changes course (water flows down hill). So some parts of a delta are active, while others are not. Here is an image I found in a quick google search.
http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/graphic0/geomorph/missdlt.gif
Not the best image, but illustrates the point. Now there are a couple of things that happen when you are no longer adding sediments. First, river sediment tends to have a LOT of organic matter. That organic matter is quick to break down and this leads to subsidence. Moreover, sediment sitting on more sediment leads to compaction and dewatering and this leads to more subsidence, so parts of the river delta are slowly sinking.
Additionally, because of the sediment load on the crust, isostatic adjustment occurs which causes the crust in that area to subside.
So Alan, while there is the addition of land mass, its not as substantial as one would first think.
And John, the addition of sediment will not “raise sea level” because subsidence and sedimentation are happening at almost equal rates.
Gary Pearse (04:53:32) :
“I think there are not enough geologists on this site (although its not WUWT’s fault). ”
Hi there.
Ben
Craig Allen (01:02:02) wrote: “Just eight points I’d like to make.
1) Whether or not it is a problem depends very much on where you have built your bungalow…”
I have holidayed and lived in Airey’s Inlet, just down the road from the quoted “Apollo Bay development”, since 1942. For 15 years I lived on the banks of the Inlet, maybe three foot above sea (ocean, actually. Bass Strait) level, and times the waters of the Strait lipped up on the bank after coming in across the bar. There were also times when the highway, the Great Ocean Road (which continues on to Apollo Bay) was only inches above water backing up in the Painkalac Creek – but still runs in the same general alignment today.
Based on that, Craig, I suggest your 8 points are only valid if we believe we have to take control and engineer the future from a perspective of what we believe to be the future today. This is man at his most presumptious; and stupid. (And is not in any way to be taken as an opinion of yourself as your comments are both interesting and useful in the context of this thread.)
J. Peden (20:46:40) :
DJ warns:
The “science” of the “sceptics” is hoisted on society without any warranty offered to those who will suffer the consequences if it is wrong.
DJ, where is the science and warranty which shows that the consequences to “those who will suffer” as a result of instituting the alleged “cure” to the alleged “disease” of GW will not be worse than the alleged disease?
Conveniently and intentionally, the ipcc did not do this particular science, which would involve a thorough analysis both of the “costs” of the cure and the benefits of GW, regardless of the cause.
DJ, can’t even such a concerned individual as yourself at least wonder somewhat sceptically “why not” ?
The basis of my professional work is cost benefit analysis. I have little doubt that there is “no room, nor desire” at the IPCC for a competant and objective analysis of the cost benefit of the current proposed “Cures” for “AGW”.
Such an analysis would quickly show that the CURE (CAP & TRADE, De-Industrialisation) is the nothing short of Disasterous.
Give yourself a chance to know, chat and date with wonderful girls or guys. Yes, there is a good place let you to do that—-T allfinder.com—-.Do not forget to tell us, if you get dreamful lovers.
Smokey (11:23:49) : Craig Allen (01:02:02):”Because sea levels have been relatively constant for a few thousand years…”
Wrong as usual, Craig. And since that particular statement is the crux of your argument, your argument fails: click… click… the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is falsified: click [chart by Bill Illis].
I love seeing Smokey’s ripostes, again and again pretty spot-on to the particular warmist argument – and though warmists often say our arguments are the same, tired, old, long-ago-refuted arguments, IMO the reverse is a lot truer. There are a number of well-identified warmist tactics and arguments.
I’d love to see a collection of context-sensitive ripostes, perhaps done as an FAQ, perhaps a wiki format for skeptics to collaborate in? Or perhaps Smokey can do a post here, and Smokey, or myself, or someone, can gather up all the responses into an FAQ-type resource.
This is another variant of my visions for a skeptics’ wiki. This could be a way to start the ball rolling for a wiki – or not – it doesn’t matter because an “FAQ” would work in its own right. Just my thoughts.
This is ridiculous. The analysis provided may align somewhat with the statistical science of dealing with datum in charts and graphs (or not), however it completely ignores other real world and science related data that predicts a rise in sea level greater than 30 cms.
For instance, if you consider the fact that most of the polar ice that has melted thus far is from the Arctic, which rests on no land mass but rather the ocean itself, you can easily conclude why the sea level has risen so little in recent years is not due to no future threat of oceanic floods, but because the ice that melted was RESTING IN WATER ALREADY, and as any sixth grade scientist knows, ice is 9/10ths the density of liquid water. Thus, minor fluctuations of water level based on what mass of ice was already in/under water (think icebergs) and how little was actually above it.
When the Antarctic ice melts however (land-based ice mass), the ocean levels are going to increase at a must higher rate than a few millimeters a year.
Time to reframe your calculations and give back the “Best Science Blog of 2008” award
Mt St Michel dates from the 13th century, yet rising sea levels do not seem to have disturbed its serenity in that 700 years. Local talk has it that one has always been able to wlak to it at lowest tides, though with danger from soft sand and a fast rising tide. Can’t imaginr it’s evidence for any sea level rise. Likewise the battlements at nearby St Malo, giving no impression of being inundated.
So either sea level is unchanging there or there has been recent unprecedented change leading to unprecedented projections leading to unprecedented consequences.
Sometimes I think people don’t realise how hard it is to measure sea level. Even some of the satellite top guns are still working to find a datum point like the centre of the earth, but the earth’s shape is in continuous change and so is the datum. Might be good to a few cm. on a good day. Who knows where this datum might be in a century? Nobody does.
O. Weinzierl (03:25:57) :
One thing that is’nt mentioned here is that local sea levels are largely dependend on Earth’s gravitational field. “Sea level” to us all means a flat surface over thousends of kilometers, but that’s far from true.
As shown in http://www-app2.gfz-potsdam.de/sec13/animated-potato-e-cms.html sea level differences are up to 200 m in “relatively close” areas as east of South Africa and south of India. 30 cm is nothing in comparison to that entirely natural factor.
Now that IS sobering! If gravity is a function of mass (as I think Mr Einstein proposed) then presumably the variation is mainly due to the composition of the mantle, which I believe is capable of some movement. This looks like a more significant factor than a bit of surface warming…
because the ice that melted was RESTING IN WATER ALREADY..
Time to reframe your calculations and give back the “Best Science Blog of 2008″ award
None of us thought of that, Anthony, did we? Better pack up that award now.. 🙂