Below: North Carolina’s Albemarle Sound.
Note marker at 36N -76W.
First the Press Release from the University of Pennsylvania:
North Carolina Sea Levels Rising Three Times Faster Than in Previous 500 Years, Penn Study Says
October 28, 2009
PHILADELPHIA –- An international team of environmental scientists led by the University of Pennsylvania has shown that sea-level rise, at least in North Carolina, is accelerating. Researchers found 20th-century sea-level rise to be three times higher than the rate of sea-level rise during the last 500 years. In addition, this jump appears to occur between 1879 and 1915, a time of industrial change that may provide a direct link to human-induced climate change.
The results appear in the current issue of the journal Geology.
The rate of relative sea-level rise, or RSLR, during the 20th century was 3 to 3.3 millimeters per year, higher than the usual rate of one per year. Furthermore, the acceleration appears consistent with other studies from the Atlantic coast, though the magnitude of the acceleration in North Carolina is larger than at sites farther north along the U.S. and Canadian Atlantic coast and may be indicative of a latitudinal trend related to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.
Understanding the timing and magnitude of this possible acceleration in the rate of RSLR is critical for testing models of global climate change and for providing a context for 21st-century predictions.
“Tide gauge records are largely inadequate for accurately recognizing the onset of any acceleration of relative sea-level rise occurring before the 18th century, mainly because too few records exist as a comparison,” Andrew Kemp, the paper’s lead author, said. “Accurate estimates of sea-level rise in the pre-satellite era are needed to provide an appropriate context for 21st-century projections and to validate geophysical and climate models.”
The research team studied two North Carolina salt marshes that form continuous accumulations of organic sediment, a natural archive that provides scientists with an accurate way to reconstruct relative sea levels using radiometric isotopes and stratigraphic age markers. The research provided a record of relative sea-level change since the year 1500 at the Sand Point and Tump Point salt marshes in the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system of North Carolina. The two marshes provided an ideal setting for producing high-resolution records because thick sequences of high marsh sediment are present and the estuarine system is microtidal, which reduces the vertical uncertainty of
paleosea-level estimates. The study provides for the first time replicated sea-level reconstructions from two nearby sites.
In addition, comparison with 20th-century tide-gauge records validates the use of this approach and suggests that salt-marsh records with decadal and decimeter resolution can supplement tide-gauge records by extending record length and compensating for the strong spatial bias in the global distribution of longer instrumental records.
The study was funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Ocean Program, North Carolina Coastal Geology Cooperative Program, U.S. Geological Survey and National Science Foundation.
The study was conducted by Kemp and Benjamin P. Horton of the Sea-Level Research Laboratory at Penn, Stephen J. Culver and D. Reide Corbett of the Department of Geological Sciences at East Carolina University, Orson van de Plassche of Vrije Universiteit, W. Roland Gehrels of the University of Plymouth, Bruce C. Douglas of Florida International University and Andrew C. Parnell of University College Dublin.
I was curious, because this seemed a bit “off” to me based on other data that I’ve seen. So I went to the University of Colorado Sea Level data server and entered the coordinates for Albemarle Sound (36N -76W or in their usage 36N 284W).
The graph they serve up looks like this:
It’s low resolution, but does look rather flat. Fortunately they provide the data with the plot. You can read all about the Topex/Poseidon data preparation here.
I took that raw data and plotted it here in an expanded size and did a trend line, shown below:
The result was surprising. A slight negative trend.
I chose a different location to get closer to Pamlico Sound, also cited in the study. Unfortunately the interactive tool at UC is coarse on lat/lon and the closest I could get was 35N -76W, just off the outer banks.
The data from that point is plotted below. The source data for 35N -76W is available here.
Apologies for the slight cosmetic differences in line size between the two graphs. I had a computer reset between sessions and lost some settings.
So, if there is 3mm rise per year recently, since 1992, we certainly can’t see it. I can’t say anything for the other years in the study.
But in the press release they say:
The rate of relative sea-level rise, or RSLR, during the 20th century was 3 to 3.3 millimeters per year, higher than the usual rate of one per year.
If that is true, then the rate appears to have slowed significantly in the late 20th century to present. For 35N, -76W, the 1.12mm/yr rate certainly looks like the “…usual rate of one per year”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sea level on the East coast is related to two things: Wind direction, and gulf stream. See this for example.
A media not awash in dishonesty would have dug out this information instead of simply publishing what they were told to.
Weren’t we recently told that the media are the guardians of truth?
There are more and more such junk studies appearing recently, contradicting itself and not agreeing with actual measurements (like Kaufman Arctic hockey stick).
This jump appears to occur between 1879 and 1915, a time of industrial change that may provide a direct link to human-induced climate change.
Pardon me, but “human induced climate change” newspeak usually means rising temperatures – which is absolutely no case in that period, since temperatures were falling then:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1879/to:1917
Did they clarify, which physical mechanism exactly caused mentioned step-increase in sea level, if melting glaciers, icecaps or thermal expansion were obviously not the case?
Let me speculate that if the coastal area in question has undergone some degree of development in these decades, the cause of “sea level rise” is probably “land sink” due to weight increase.
In Japan, the coast of Osaka City has exhibited a 2.6-m rise due mostly to development, which was slowed during wartime/post-wartime (ca. 10 years) and after the near-completion of development (1980s-present):
http://cais.gsi.go.jp/cmdc/center/graph/oosakag.gif
Erratum:
“coast of Osaka” should read “sea level at the coast of Osaka”. Sorry…….
Here are the four North Carolina tidal gage readings from NOAA. The Penn State researchers call them inadequate. Samples at three of the sites are sporadic, but Wilmington is almost continuous back to 1935:
Oregon Inlet Marina trend = 2.82mm/year
Beaufort trend = 2.57mm/yr
Wilmington trend = 2.07mm/yr
Southport trend = 2.08mm/yr
Source:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.shtml?region=nc
And do we know what is happening with local subsidence?
In Australia, the sites showing greatest sea level rise are those where it is known that subsidence has occurred. eg Newcastle, Adelaide and Fremantle.
Of course, one could ask whether CSIRO (the providers of the data) and the MSM report this. You can guess the answer.
Another sensationalist AGW onslaught from Australia has been reported by the BBC.
“Australians may have to leave coastal areas as rising sea levels threaten homes, according to a new report.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8327224.stm
Hmmm. The claimed acceleration of sea level is also not reflected in the paleoclimatological reconstruction of North Atlantic SST:
http://i36.tinypic.com/wld5kl.jpg
SOURCE:
NORTH ATLANTIC SST ANOMALY RECONSTRUCTION (1567 to 1990)
SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Gray, S.T., et al.. 2004.Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) Index Reconstruction.IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2004-062. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
Data and Description
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/amo-gray2004.txt
This was illustrated with others in my “SST Reconstructions” post here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/07/sst-reconstructions.html
It’s 5 weeks before Copenhagen meeting, so they say 3mm/year SSH increase, “3x faster than normal.” When it’s 2 weeks before Copenhagen, more studies will crop up, “4x faster than normal.” It’s good that you compared their study with UCB data, Anthony.
Obviously those massive CO2 emissions from 1879 to 1915 are the cause. It’s common sense, really.
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/Historical-Emissions.preview.JPG
The ever alarmist BBC has just issued a warning that the coastline of Wales in the UK will have to be evacuated and abandoned due to rising sea levels due to climate change, interestingly just like the Australian scare story there is no time scale mentioned, perhaps because the time taken to actually flood the areas in question would take centuries on current rises, maybe the scaremongers are banking that by the time the lies are found out then many will be either dead or pensioned off long before.
Commentators are correct about the huge rise in trash science scare stories and pseudo science mumbo jumbo, the avalanche of rubbish doesnt have to be true because none of the stories will ever be corrected, in fact the alarmists can invent the most outrageous lies without fear of being called to account for the lies, it is heaven on earth for a political propagandist to be able to spread complete lies with no constriction.
tokyoboy (01:10:13) :
And seismic activity would greatly contribute to subsidence for non-consolidated materials.
Thank Gaia that we don’t have many poley bears here in Australia, because we are all about to get swamped by Global-Warming induced sea-level rise.
It has become such a crisis (in the last two weeks) that the Federal Government is seriously considering taking over (compulsorily, of course) the devlopment approval process of local councils, to ensure that people are not allowed to build residential structures in any coastal area that may be prone to sea-level rise.
The simple answer is KaboomCover. We will insure the market-value of your sea-front property, assessed as at the date of your first premium payment, against loss resulting from sea-level rise*.
For an average premium of $500 AUD per annum (individual residence), we will provide you with the peace-of-mind to be able to enjoy your waterfront property unconcerned about inevitable climate induced waterlogging, and consequent loss of resale value.
Please check the Product Disclosure Statement on our website, in order to make certain that this policy is right for you.
* the term “sea-level rise” means a scientifically proven increase in average sea-levels. It does not include high tides, King tides, Spring tides, lunar tides, Tsunamis, or normal beach erosion.
International franchises for KaboomCover are now available!
There must be a gravy train that we can get on………..
The research team studied two North Carolina salt marshes that form continuous accumulations of organic sediment, a natural archive that provides scientists with an accurate way to reconstruct relative sea levels using radiometric isotopes and stratigraphic age markers.
Wonder what Mr McIntyre would make of the analysis :o) (I think he’s probably got bigger fish to fry at the moment.)
In addition, comparison with 20th-century tide-gauge records validates the use of this approach and suggests that salt-marsh records with decadal and decimeter resolution can supplement tide-gauge records by extending record length and compensating for the strong spatial bias in the global distribution of longer instrumental records.
(Leaving aside the self-contradiction that previously said tide-gauges were unreliable…)
Am I getting déjà vu here? To my, admittedly untrained, eye this smacks almost exactly of the same debate that’s been raging about Briffa / Yamal etc. To whit: using a period of “correlation” to “validate” your proxy method, regardless of the fact that there are many, many other variables that can cause your proxy to change its behaviour over time and that you actively chose the samples that “fit”.
Mmm we need a new word – sludgemometer?
Cheers
Mark
There are many factors governing sea level. Some not mentioned here include rate of subsidence and coastal erosion or redeposition. From a quick look at the geography of the Carolinas it is clear that there is a lot of coastal erosion/ redeposition going on and as such it is hardly the best place to figure out what global sea level is doing.
Perry 1:29.
Dont worry I am in the swamp, actually i’m about 5 foot above it.
I havent been down the swamp in four weeks but I’m not seeing my neighbors packing up and moving.
If we were having some kind of flood problem, I’d see it.
But I was going to offer Prime Minister Rudd, some money to take his new found holiday home off him, him being scared of floods and cyclones and droughts and whatever he needs to panic me nation. I thought a hundred doublooms would fix it. Would the tosser be interested in a say 500 dollars?
I live in a swamp or near it. I been at sealevel more than a decade.
It is bs and the funny thing all these tossers, throwing cyclones, floods and rising seas all have beach front holiday homes.
They are big fat liars.
Let me see if I have this correct. The tide gauges can’t be trusted to give reliable data on sea level, but these clucks can stare at some mud flats, the latest bowl of entrails du jour, and ascertain sea level readings accurate to the millimeter. Yeah, I could see how that would work.
“rcrejects (01:24:51) :
And do we know what is happening with local subsidence? ”
I sailed around Cape Hatteras many years ago, and I know for a fact that the charts were not all that good, when it came to measuring the depth. Sand bars stick straight out from shore for miles at Hattaras and Cape Fear, quite different from the bars that parallel the shore. There were suppose to be summer channels through these bars marked by buoys. In those days you stood at the bow and slung a lead weight on a rope ahead to measure depth, and I was pretty freaked out because the depth was nothing like the charts. Not only that, but one of the buoys had simply vanished, so we suddenly had no idea whether we were in the channel or not, towards the end. We made it through without the keel grounding, but I learned that sand shifts all over the place. Even if a hurricane passes miles out to sea tons and tons of sand get rearranged.
Once you start talking a hundred years, you are likely talking about megatons and megatons of sand being shifted. The maps from 1906 look quite different from modern maps. I doubt anyone knows whether the continental plate beneath gets depressed or uplifted, or both.
In other words, it’s not the most stable environment. I’d chose a more stable environment, to get the best measure of the sea level.
A minor correction – the press release is from the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), not The Pennsylvania State University (Penn State). Bad enough that Penn State has to be saddled with Mann, don’t put the blame on us for this, as well.
REPLY: Fixed thanks. -A
The Science Behind AGW Is Contrived.
I mean that literally.
[Contrive: When referring to a work of art, one that has been created in a labored way, not spontaneously, with dexterity but little inspiration. Brought into being as a trick or in an obvious way, especially in its content, intent, and / or process.]
Supporters for AGW accept their ideology solely because of years of conditioning.
There are those that profess a ‘consensus’ is established and no debate shall impede the global advancement for a cleaner,healthier world. That is the religion of the environmentalist.
We skeptics also want a greener world, just not the one being forced on us.
Others, whether in the media or scientific community, continue to support that contrivance with even more ridiculous claims and ridiculous scientific evidence.
A believer in AGW, when faced with weather anomalies contrary to the ‘consensus’, dismiss it. That same believer of the ‘consensus’ when faced with new weather anomolies that support their view, embrace it.
Let’s face it. The believer of AGW is not fighting the skeptic, they are fighting a tormoil within themselves.
If the consensus was ‘in’, why bother further support for AGW. The evidence for further support for AGW won’t convince a skeptic. The skeptic has reviewed the contrivances of the AGW science and any further proof only irritates and annoys them. I suppose more sensationalism might garner support for some ‘on the fence’, but I doubt it. If people aren’t decided , for or against AGW, I imagine that they don’t care or don’t want to be bothered by it. So sensationalist claims and more contrived evidence has to be targetting the AGW believer for more conditioning.
A skeptic has reviewed the science and has determined that scientific facts are manipulated and impressed upon the weak. A skeptic searches for the truth and is disgusted by the media and the scientists that prey upon the weak.
I hope for more damning evidence to wake up the AGW believer and join us in seeking the truth.
Perry – (01:29:12) : it goes on;
Click here for latest Beeb, on (BBC World) BS;
http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/Programme.aspx?id=323
Having been abroad recently I was priviledged to witness this load of verbose guff. The earnest expressions say it all.
http://www.bbcworldnews.com/Pages/ProgrammeMultiFeature.aspx?id=196
The above piece features such luminaries as; Manual Barroso, Mario Molina and Pachauri, talk about the converted/deluded. What point is there to a discussion with these ‘Yes men’??
Heavens above!
Isn’t Mann a Penn State Alumnus?
“In addition, this jump appears to occur between 1879 and 1915, a time of industrial change that may provide a direct link to human-induced climate change.”
Well… The “jump” in sea level preceded the “jump” in CO2… Therefore, since ad hoc ergo propter hoc” is a logical fallacy, the CO2 “jump” after 1940 caused the sea level “jump” from 1879 to 1915.
Don’t they teach about the Little Ice Age in University Park PA?
I would have thought that extensive saltmarshes would be a terrible indicator of mean sea level. They subside under their own weight. The amount of deposition from the rivers would cause the salt marsh to apparently rise and fall relative to sea level even if MSL were constant.