Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Various pundits and scientists keep talking about a threatened acceleration in the sea level rise. Here’s the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:
Anthropogenic forcing is also expected to produce an accelerating rate of sea level rise (Woodworth et al., 2004).
The usual font of misinformation says:
Church and White (2006) report an acceleration of SLR since 1870. This is a revision since 2001, when the TAR stated that measurements have detected no significant acceleration in the recent rate of sea level rise.
Over at the inversely named “SkepticalScience” blog, which is inadequately skeptical, we find:
The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting of ice in Greenland and other places.
The Guardian gets in their licks:
Sea levels are already on the rise as a result of increasing temperatures, because the oceans expand as they warm up, but until now scientists have had a poor understanding of how quickly ice sheets such as those in Greenland and Antarctica will begin to disappear.
Meanwhile, back in the world of reality we have the latest satellite data up to September of 2010:
Figure 1. Satellite-measured sea level rise. Errors shown are 95% confidence intervals. Data Source.
The smaller trend of the recent half of the record is statistically different from the larger trend of the first half. Will this reduction continue into the future? Who knows? I’m just talking about the past, and pointing out that we sure haven’t seen any sign of the threatened acceleration in the satellite record. Quite the opposite, in fact.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled warnings of global inundation from accelerating sea level rise …
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Am I correct in my understanding that gravitational variations can affect sea level as well? If this is the case, and the variation is relatively rapid, how would a satellite compensate quickly enough and stay accurate? What point do they calibrate from? Is the calibration point stable or changing? So many questions, …….
Most heartening it is to see comments by Ágúst Bjarnason (6:50 am), Stacey (8:17 am) and Ric Werme (11:07 am) referring to the esteemed and intrepid John Daly.
Just wondering if Daly would have taken up the observation by hotrod ( Larry L ) at 3:54 am: ” The gentle rising curve in the chart immediately suggests to me a segment of a sine wave plot just beginning to nose over toward its peak, with a period of perhaps 120 -150 years.”
In 1888, Government meteorologist, Commander Shortt, estimated that mean sea level (MSL) was 34 cm above the famous benchmark in Tasmania. In 2000, mean was 31.5 cm higher, a rise of 2.5 cm.
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm
Assume a trough in 1888 and extrapolate from Figure 1 a peak at, say, 2018. That gives a period of 260 years. Alternatively, a period of 87 years would place troughs at 1888 and 1975 and peaks at 1931 and 2018.
Either way, in fond memory of John Daly, I’ll go with hotrod’s general analysis and happily put money on MSL peaking before 2020!
Ouch. Correction, quick!
“In 1888, Government meteorologist, Commander Shortt, estimated that mean sea level (MSL) was 34 cm below the famous benchmark in Tasmania. In 2000, mean was 31.5 cm lower, a rise in MSL of 2.5 cm.”
Willis scoffs
———–
The usual font of misinformation
———–
so Willis reckons his satellite is right and wikipedia’s satellite data is wrong. How is this possible?
So is the underlying data different or is it just appearance brought on by fitting with a curve instead if a line?
I would make a wild guess and suggest that preferring one relationship (linear) over another (polynomial) without having any idea what the underlying relationship is very very dubious if there happens to be a lot of random variation present.
Especially dubious when the human judgement system tend to make up order in the presence of chaos. E.g. Random star patterns become animal outlines.
Lazy Teenager,
I’ll put my money on Willis over Wikipedia any time.
Willis Eschenbach says (January 8, 2011 at 11:21 am): “I figured if they wanted to get there, even the slowest of the readers could figure out how to get there.
And hey, you proved me right!”
Ouch!
Looks like “onion” got a rise out of Willis! 🙂
@Dave in Delaware
January 8, 2011 at 4:47 am
Thanks for posting the link to the Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner interview – a worthwhile read. Here it is again in case anyone missed it:
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Just so I have this straight, did the IPCC really ‘adjust’ the satellite data presented in their sea level graphs with information from an unreliable tide gauge in Hong Kong? Just when I think nothing else can surprise me.. Anyone have a link to the IPCC graph? I’d really like to see how it was labelled and what claims were made for the source of the data, just to believe it.
@Lazy Teenager:
“So is the underlying data different or is it just appearance brought on by fitting with a curve instead if a line?
I would make a wild guess and suggest that preferring one relationship (linear) over another (polynomial) without having any idea what the underlying relationship is very very dubious if there happens to be a lot of random variation present.
Especially dubious when the human judgement system tend to make up order in the presence of chaos. E.g. Random star patterns become animal outlines.”
Wow, sounds like you’re becoming a skeptic 😉
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=thick_ice_slows_down_rescue__070111?ref=ccbox_weather_category2
hotrod ( Larry L ) says:
January 8, 2011 at 3:54 am
I agree with you about the sine wave but my analysis of the data shows three statistically significant waves, an annual, 6 year, and 33.5 year. A plot of this best fit suggests sea level peaked out in November and will be declining(with annual and 6 year fluctuations of + and – 4.6 and 1.9 respectively). It suggests a minimum of around -19mm will be reached in March of 2025. The R square for the regression is .92 and the standard error of the estimate is plus or minus 4.5. Of course, this all falls apart if the data are biased or badly calculated.
This is perhaps a little off topic, but I believe that it fits in here (and incidentally fits in everywhere else too, so here goes).
I have finally cracked the core of the AGW arguement.
(mis)QUOTE
If STUFF happens, then AGW is to blame.
UNQUOTE
That’s all folks.
(What more proof did you want?)
Willis said
Quote
Grey Lensman of SF fame, you really should get out more. The ocean is in giant basins in which it “sloshes” back and forth, driven by wind, barometric pressure, currents, and tides.
Unquote
Sorry Willis, thats just what I said. A foot??????????? These are known local effects and have determined values. If you push the sea up into the Bay of Bengal, It rises say one foot. So it you add an inch in the South Atlantic, The foot in The Bay of Bengal will be raised an inch as well.
I do Get Out, I am A master mariner as well as other things. Spent my life on the Sea And Nearly got killed by a giant wave that did not exist according to the scientists.
DWH said this and got it wrong
Quote
the ocean surface “height” varies by several centimetres as a result of the Earth’s gravitational field variation
Unquote
Its several hundred metres, a low point being the Maldives which is about 140 metres below the “level’ datum. Papua being a high point.
Large ocean currents are also another major factor.
In my personal experience on the frontline, Sea level has been one of my own cornerstones of knowing manmade global warming is complete and utter rubbish.
My style might be simple………….
Nils work in this field is simply the best, the very best and he is Awesome
The suggestion promoted by watermelons that “climate Change” is something new and caused by man is a crime against humanity and an insult to sentient humans around the world.
Sorry Willis I forgot to add.
The posts, work and thoughts of Willis are awesome as well, classic thin[king] outside the box, call a spade a spade and nail the point. Well done
Grey Lensman says:
January 8, 2011 at 10:14 am
Tonyb
Simply, the sea is gravitationally flat. Add one inch in one place results in a one inch rise everywhere. Slight variations due to wind, land shape and pressure of course.
Thus in truth a single well sited tide gauge subject to neither uplift or sinking is all you really need.
In that sense, its not really rocket science but the devil is in the details.
#################
please tell me you have nothing to do with building rockets or planes.
Here in Portland a professor at Reed College Dr Arthur Glasfeld who contributed to the IPCC 2009 report with Dr Fry has appologized today (below) in letters to the editor of the Oregonian, the local Portland newspaper, for over estimating the amount of sea level rise caused by the melting of Greenlands glaciers. http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2011/01/letters_costco_in_portland_gov_1.html “I apologize for the errors, which are mine alone, and for any confusion they may have caused.” ARTHUR GLASFELD Reed College, Southeast Portland
Steve, why would I be interested in ancient Chinese technology (rockets and gunpowder) or Andean/Vedic technology (planes) So antiquated, effective but antiquated, there are much better ways to do it.
Nils-Axel Mörner says that there was a 1mm/year rise in global mean sea level in the first third of the 20th century. Then, it fell a bit. Now, it is (his words)…essentially stable.
Here is a quote from his paper dated 2003 in Elsevier entitled:
“Estimating Future Sea Level Changes From Past Records”
Abstract:
“In the last 5000 years, global mean sea level has been dominated by the redistribution of water masses over the globe. In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890–1930. Between 1930 and 1950, sea fell. The late 20th century lack any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of + 10F10 cm (or +5F15 cm), by this discarding model outputs by IPCC as well as global loading models. This implies that there is no fear of any massive future flooding as claimed in most global warming scenarios.”
======================
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
And with over 270 peer-reviewed papers under his belt, the retired Nils-Axel Mörner (still working on research though) is just about the premier planetary authority on the complicated physics of “sea level.”
He also has this fascination with the earth’s rate of rotation changes as how they might affect climate.
Suggest downloading his research or if you can’t find the latest one that explores changes in earth’s rotation reflecting changes in the solar wind, email me at sharkhearted@gmail.com and I will forward.
Here’s the abstract:
The past Solar Minima were linked to a general speeding up of the Earth’s rate of rotation. This affected the surface currents and southward penetration of Arctic water in the North Atlantic causing “Little Ice Ages” over northwestern Europe. At around 2040–2050 we will be in a new major Solar Minimum. It is to be expected that we will then have a new “Little Ice Age” over the Arctic and NW Europe. The mechanism proposed for the linkage of Solar activity with Earth’s rotation is the interaction of Solar Wind with the Earth’s magnetosphere; the decrease in Solar Wind at sunspot minima weakens the interaction with the magnetosphere that allows the Earth to speed up, and the increase in Solar Wind at sunspot maxima strengthens the interaction with the magnetosphere that slows down the spinning of the Earth.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.”
LightRain says:
January 8, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Sure thing. There’s a graph from Jevrejeva here.
w.
onion says:
January 8, 2011 at 11:32 am
Apples and Oranges? Nope. Sea Level and Sea Level. If I measure my height one year with a tape measure and then measure it next year with a ruler I do believe it is acceptable to plot both points on the same graph.
========================================================
Nope, try again sparky. Tape measures and rulers use the same form of measurements. The same cannot be said for sat. data and tidal gauges, of course, you could actually look at the graph you’ve referenced and see that they don’t match. More, you show me were this is acceptable in any HS algebra class and I’ll re-evaluate my position. You can clearly see acceleration? lol, good for you. Even with the spliced graph, I had to magnify my screen and use reference points. Weird how you ignored the other graph that clearly shows deceleration. Not that either are correct. If I were to splice graphs together in the manner I choose, I could show what ever I desired, too. Thanks for playing. Accurate to 1mm! Its a good thing that water holds still for those measurements.
LazyTeenager says:
January 8, 2011 at 5:32 pm
“My satellite”? Didn’t know I had one.
I know I didn’t say Wikipedia’s satellite data is wrong, because I didn’t even know they had satellite data. Where is it accessible?
LT, I figure from your username that you’re a lazy teenager, but you really should spend some time honing your reading skills. Then you can work on your discussion skills. Next time you think something I said is wrong, QUOTE IT!!!!
Then we can be sure we are discussing something real, rather than (as in this case) merely your misunderstanding about what I wrote. I said nothing about Wikipedia’s satellite data.
w.
Grey Lensman says:
January 8, 2011 at 7:03 pm
No, that’s not what you said at all. You said:
And that is simply not true. My apologies for saying you don’t get out enough, obviously you do … but have you looked at the Topex data? I’m not talking about the Bay of Bengal. I’m talking mid-ocean, it goes up and down too.
Right now, for example, the ocean is about half a foot low in the mid-Pacific, and half a foot high near Japan. This is absolutely not “gravitationally flat”.
Nor are these short term swings. For example, since 1993 the sea level has risen on average about half a foot (150 mm) in the Western Pacific equatorial area. But during the same time it has dropped by 75 mm off the tip of South Africa.
When some parts of the ocean rise 15 cm in 15 years, and other parts of the ocean drop 7.5 cm., I think we can say that the ocean is not “gravitationally flat”, at least as I understand the term …
Congratulations on being a master mariner, by the way. And after years, I see that scientists have finally admitted what you and I and everyone who has spent years at sea knows … rogue waves do exist, duh.
Stay safe on the ocean,
w.
Willis!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pulling the watermelon trick!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please quote me in full.
Quote
Simply, the sea is gravitationally flat. Add one inch in one place results in a one inch rise everywhere. Slight variations due to wind, land shape and pressure of course.
Unquote
Notice the last sentence, brief, understated but acknowledging the brilliant work of Nils.
I also forgot sea bed changes effect sea level as well, and they can be quite dramatic
Storm surges and swells, seen a guy swept off the deck in a flat calm sea.
You talk of six inches variation, in global terms, in climate terms, thats nothing. But what you see, folks living on or by the Sea, see is “nothing”. Look at the references (well sort of) that I gave above.
Consider the context, Hansen predicting New York under water in 20 years.
As an aside, Seems that I saved a lot of lives in the Tsunami. I was on the beach the previous October and thought “what would happen if a tsunami occurred here”. So I told my friend the beach Master and what to look for. Well when the water went out and the bay emptied, he walked out, then remembered what I told him and started running for his life and warning his friends and those on the beach. He ended up on the roof of the Hotel and immediately started to rescue people. Out of 50 friends on the beach that day, we only lost dear “bob Marley’
Now thats a true old sea dog tale for you, no references, no peer review but every word true. And over 12 years the waterline has not moved. (andaman sea)