The paper is currently in press at the Journal of Coastal Research and is provided with open access to the full publication. The results are stunning for their contradiction to AGW theories which suggest global warming would accelerate sea level rise during the last century.
“Our first analysis determined the acceleration, a2, for each of the 57 records with results tabulated in Table 1 and shown in Figure 4. There is almost a balance with 30 gauge records showing deceleration and 27 showing acceleration, clustering around 0.0 mm/y2.”
…
The near balance of accelerations and decelerations is mirrored in worldwidegauge records as shown in Miller and Douglas (2006)
Abstract:
Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses
J. R. Houston† and R. G. Dean‡ †Director Emeritus, Engineer Research and Development Center, Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, U.S.A. james.r.houston@usace.army.mil
‡Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Coastal Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A. dean@coastal.ufl.edu
Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.
Received: October 5, 2010; Accepted: November 26, 2010; Published Online: February 23, 2011
Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses, J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean
Discussion: (excerpt)
We analyzed the complete records of 57 U.S. tide gauges that had average record lengths of 82 years and records from1930 to 2010 for 25 gauges, and we obtained small decelerations of 20.0014 and20.0123 mm/y2, respectively. We obtained similar decelerations using worldwide-gauge records in the original data set of Church andWhite (2006) and a 2009 revision (for the periods of 1930–2001 and 1930–2007) and by extending Douglas’s (1992) analyses of worldwide gauges by 25 years.
The extension of the Douglas (1992) data from 1905 to 1985 for 25 years to 2010 included the period from 1993 to 2010 when satellite altimeters recorded a sea-level trend greater than that of the 20th century, yet the addition of the 25 years resulted in a slightly greater deceleration.
Conclusion:
Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.
It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.
Full paper available online here
WUWT download (faster) here: jcoastres-d-10-00157.1
h/t to John Droz and to Dr. Willem de Lange
Wow, a paper that uses maths that I can follow! It is clear and concise! (only 9 pages) but seemingly very well referenced.
There are a couple of statements that stood out to me as I gave it the first quick read. These may be points of contention for some.
“We did not modify the data by glacial-isostatic adjustment because glacial rebound is approximately linear over the lengths of the records and thus does not affect acceleration (Douglas, 1992).”
and
“……measurements were in good agreement up until 1999 and then began to diverge with the altimeters recording a significantly higher sea-level trend than worldwide-tide gauge records.”
====================================================
I haven’t looked at glacial rebound enough to make any statements, but it was my impression that it effected inland more than coastal, but that’s only the impression I have.
As to the sat data and gauge data…….. sigh, another divergence problem. I’m wondering about the calibration methods used for the satellites. Did they use methods similar to the dendro methods?—- (Making them match for a few years and calling it good?)
Excellent paper! I can’t wait to hear the howls!
But as we stated all along the seas will recede before they overflow. This is known as the tsunami effect. It works along the same lines as the blizzard effect. You know, the one that says heat generates cold and snow. You deniers just don’t get it do you?
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of rising sea levels at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
/sarc off
Jimbo says:
March 28, 2011 at 4:20 am
What rubbish. You’re not supposed to use all those inaccurate tide gauges, the IPCC switched to the more easily fudged – I’m sorry I mean more accurate, satellites a while ago.
How soon we forget the true reason for the deceleration in sea level rise. It was foretold by Barack Obama in a campaign speech on June 3, 2008. A portion follows:
… I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation…
/sarc
Mike says:
March 28, 2011 at 4:31 am
” However concerns of future sea level rise aren’t based on the current rate or acceleration but the possible melting of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. There is little doubt major melting on these glaciers would rise sea levels. ”
Mike, I believe the warmers have already said that there is massive ice melt on greenland and antartica and that the glaciers are disappearing at some extraordinary rate because of CO² global warming. All of which means that we should have seen an accelerating sea level rise as mentioned by the IPCC reports.
Anthony,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but if damming, etc. holds back the equivalent of 0.54 mm/year of sea level rise, but groundwater withdrawal and irrigation contribute ~0.8 mm/year of sea level rise, doesn’t this kind of wash out to near zero on the sea level rise issue due to human actions on land-based fresh water management? If so, then the recent 2005-2008 (-2010?) sea level rise deceleration still needs to be explained somehow outside of human water use. It couldn’t be due to natural variability/oscillations, could it?
As for damming/reservoirs/etc., this is kind of a one-off deal isn’t it? Holding back water for human use leads to drawoffs of water (which is why these structures were built to begin with) which leads to discharges of water back into nature in the near term. Humans have been doing this for over a century and a half, the Yangtse Dam nothwithstanding. So dams and reservoirs shouldn’t really have a long term effect on sea level. Which means the non-acceleration or deceleration of sea level rise can’t really be written off due to dams and reservoirs. So what’s it due to? Natural variability or oscillations? Sounds right.
Whenever Sea-Level is mentioned, I like to present the interview with Mørners;
He is saying it straight out: FRAUD;
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Latitude asks: If you have 5 gallons a minute going in, after you build the dam and it’s full, don’t you still have 5 gallons a minute going out…………..
No, as lots of the water diverted by people is for drinking, irrigation, and other stuff that does not get back to the sea, but returns to the air directly.
Probably insignificant in raw volume compared to expansion due to a 1C rise in sea temps, tho. There’s a lot of sea out there…
The people of the Maldives have got other things to worry about other than sea level rise. Human activity in and around their islands is what will cause them problems. Otherwise their islands will rise with sea level rise and fall with sea level falls. [Islands rise!]
An open letter to the president of the Maldives from Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
Human induced factors that can lead to sea water inundation, intrusion and erosion:
Sand mining and gravel extraction for the construction industry
Blasting boat passages
Impacts of recreational divers
Unsustainable over-extraction of fresh water from the lens
Over fishing of beaked fish which create sand which is vital for island formation
James Sexton “……measurements were in good agreement up until 1999 and then began to diverge with the altimeters recording a significantly higher sea-level trend than worldwide-tide gauge records.” Was there not an entry in WUWT about them adding the 1.6mm per annum although recordings indicated no increase because it was expected or something like that? I am sure there was something about adding annual increases in sea level even although the satellite data did not support it. Perhaps there is an answer here.
There is a paper by P. J. Watson in Vol. 27, Issue 2 (March, 2011) of the same journal which gives a similar result for Australia:
“Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia?”
Furthermore, as each year goes by without acceleration, they keep harping on about IF Greenland melts and IF Antarctica melts. But we keep our eyes on what the IPCC has said and realise that as the years go by their forecast looks more and more unlikely.
Building of dams etc. would slow the rise of the oceans. On the other hand, pumping so much water out of various acquifers worldwide should cause an acceleration. (Not to mention the fact that if the acquifer is near the coast, pumping could cause the land to subside at the same time. (see Naples)
Here: http://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/DATA_CATALOG/OSTMjason2info.html
And this chart seems slightly more recent:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
There’s raw data available at this site.
Just a thought:
Since 1900 the length of day (LOD) fell by ~ 4ms, i.e. the Earth is rotating fractionally faster now than in 1900. Consequently the centrifugal force would also fractionally increase, pulling the ocean surface outwards, mainly in the equatorial regions. Not much, but few mm is not much either.
Anyone done calculations?
Slideshow by Bob Dean and Jim Houston, February 9, 2011:
http://www.fsbpa.com/2011TechPresentations/Dean%20Robert.pdf
It disproves the claim that the oceans are warming and that the ice sheets are currently melting much:
Jerry, the difference is that worldwide, people are still building dams. China just completed it’s 3 Rivers Gorge project. I recently read of another big project nearing completion in Chile. On the other hand, many smaller dams are being removed here in the US of A.
If the so called climate scientists would simply come to Florida and look at the water levels and gauges, instead of concocting imaginary measurements with their computers, this would not be a bombshell. Grown men and women who base their lives, reputations, and beliefs on computer models rather than on reality are traditionally called geeks, nerds, and dorks. But, then, they probably think they’re in the Matrix, so it doesn’t matter….
No, as lots of the water diverted by people is for drinking, irrigation, and other stuff that does not get back to the sea, but returns to the air directly.
—-
Water that goes into the air, doesn’t stay there very long. It quickly rains back out.
The news just keeps getting better and thanks to NOAA for providing the following data and conclusions…
“Precipitation has generally increased over land north of 30°N from 1900-2005, but has mostly declined over the tropics since the 1970s. Globally there has been no statistically significant overall trend in precipitation over the past century, although trends have varied widely by region and over time”
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentpsc.html
“The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall. Nor did the CSI team find any indication of an upward trend in winter precipitation along the eastern seaboard.”
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2010/articles/forensic-meteorology-solves-the-mystery-of-record-snows
It’s a wonder why we can’t declare AGW theory officially bunk junk science.
You know what I predict.
Alarmists will find a way to account for this analysis.
They created spin for the wintry conditions of the last three years.
Whats to stop them with this bombshell.
I would offer my ideas on how that may look, but I don’t
want to make the job any easier.
Gosh, what a wonderful time we live in.
No, as water used for drinking is urinated into toilets, goes to sewage plants and eventually ends up mostly at sea. Irrigated water does evaporate but some gets washed into rivers which end up at sea. Some of it goes into the water table which may be extracted for drinking and irrigation.
John Peter says:
March 28, 2011 at 8:55 am
Was there not an entry in WUWT about them adding the 1.6mm per annum although recordings indicated no increase because it was expected or something like that?
====================================================
I’m embarrassed to admit this, but it seems to have escaped me. While I don’t read every posting here, I usually pick up on things such as arbitrarily adding imaginary numbers. But then my memory isn’t what it used to be either.